mimbu said:

It's cute (but more than a little sad) how you want to blindly defend Canon about this. It's a garbage tier camera. Why deny it?

Click to expand...

It's an entry-level camera. Characterizing it as garbage is just you being arrogant. Grow up.

DocInfoSci said:

My family has a broad economic range of situational earning power. For me? Yeah, the R100 isn't something I even linger by when passing it on a shelf, but for some of my siblings or their kids? That R100 can get them into the field.

And, at the end of the day, getting into the field and f'ing about is what builds smiles and skills.

And, people with smiles buy better cameras when the cash comes around.

So I think junk is a little disingenuous. It's a gateway drug. Think of it as, "hey kid, your first camera is low price... and here's a cheap pancake to go with it. Remember us."

You're a tech guy, right? Then you should know that the early purchases into hardware of any stack tends to set the direction of future purchases due to accumulating expenditure and "the devil you know". It's a smart, smart move by Canon (and all other camera vendors who do the same).

Click to expand...

I don't deny the effectiveness of the way Canon is doing this, though I'm not entirely sure it will lead to a lot of FF purchases in the future since the lenses generally don't transfer. People can pick their FF system when they move, if they wish.

Canon is the best at building these very underspec'd very low-tier (yes, IMO junk) cameras and shoveling them out the door in large quantities. We saw it in the EOS days, and the result today is a huge number of junk bottom end EOS bodies in thrift shops that no one will ever want to use again. Most of them are likely broken anyway. It was this way in the film era, then the DSLR era as that progressed, and now in the RF era.

neuroanatomist said:

Finally. Thanks...for this, at least.

Click to expand...

Canon harms their users by not allowing 3rd party glass onto RF.

2026 will be the year of zoom lenses from China. How good the early ones will be is anyone's guess but the Chinese will iterate extremely quickly and the prices will be very low.

It took Viltrox a couple of rounds of primes to get that "right". Now they have things like the FF AF 14/4 Air which I paid $150 for and while not a fast aperture lens, the image quality is shockingly good. Their APS-C AF 9/2.8 Air is also excellent. The new EVO series is amazing and very affordable, 35/1.8 and 55/1.8 APO EVO lenses coming next month for under $300 each. They join the 85/2 EVO which is currently $220 on B&H and is sharp wide open with beautiful rendering. The value proposition is incredible. Get them on sale and you'll get all three of these EVO primes for the same price as the Canon RF 85/2.

That's the power of 3rd party glass. What we see with primes now we will see with zooms soon, maybe as soon as next year.

It won't be long before we see the first Chinese camera. Probably L mount. That will shake things up even more.

My family has a broad economic range of situational earning power. For me? Yeah, the R100 isn't something I even linger by when passing it on a shelf, but for some of my siblings or their kids? That R100 can get them into the field.

And, at the end of the day, getting into the field and f'ing about is what builds smiles and skills.

And, people with smiles buy better cameras when the cash comes around.

So I think junk is a little disingenuous. It's a gateway drug. Think of it as, "hey kid, your first camera is low price... and here's a cheap pancake to go with it. Remember us."

You're a tech guy, right? Then you should know that the early purchases into hardware of any stack tends to set the direction of future purchases due to accumulating expenditure and "the devil you know". It's a smart, smart move by Canon (and all other camera vendors who do the same).

neuroanatomist said:

You cannot tell the difference between opinion and fact, nor apparently between your fantasy world and reality. Sad.


The only facts I've seen you post here are the lens prices listed on B&H. What you think are facts (e.g., R100 is garbage, Sony sells the most MILCs) are not.

Click to expand...

It's cute (but more than a little sad) how you want to blindly defend Canon about this. It's a garbage tier camera. Why deny it?

mimbu said:

It's not opinion, it's fact. It's a garbage tier camera.

Click to expand...

You cannot tell the difference between opinion and fact, nor apparently between your fantasy world and reality. Sad.

mimbu said:

Your opinion doesn't change the facts that I stated.

Click to expand...

The only facts I've seen you post here are the lens prices listed on B&H. What you think are facts (e.g., R100 is garbage, Sony sells the most MILCs) are not.

Dragon said:

I agree with your position if you are simply showing a clinical evaluation of a lens, but there is also the option of showing what is possible with that same lens and that is where our approaches differ. This is particularly true with mirrors, since the central obstruction inherently reduces contrast pretty dramatically, so any kind of natural-looking image requires a contrast boost in post at the very least.

Click to expand...

We are agreed all around then!

In this case I was curious as to whether the apparently really good ones, within the limits of a modern-ish Canon camera and its tricks only, gave a better foundation than what the cheap Samyang crowd was providing. If marginal, then I'd stay thrilled with my stupidly low prices and enjoy the toys for what they are. If substantially better then I might look at various markets.

I find in perfect conditions both the Opteka (Samyang) 500 and 900 can produce solid work with post-processing. The big trick was coming to terms with the ideal temperatures, and once I figured that part out the keepers became very consistent when situationally permitted. Regardless, the starting point is low contrast and softness. That bird photo, for example, should have a DoF of ~ .42 meters at 15 meters distant, and since the bird is less than 4 centimeters thick then unless my focus is crazy off (it wasn't, there was peaking) that's pretty much well what I get for the 500. Can I make that picture better? Yes! But that's my copy of the lens on a bright day in a slight breeze and hand-held by me. A person can look at that photo and go, ah — with an R6 and a 500mm Samyang that's a realistic expectation regardless of post skills.

But the act is inconvenient and the ideal situations are rare enough that I have far more useful lenses from Canon and other brands to cover the same range for "real" work. Still, I'm an engineering nerd and enjoy the side exercise all the same.

So yeah, enhanced or not I do enjoy seeing photos such as yours. But I find the in-camera edit restrictions more informative.

(Also, the 500 is a good astro lens for tracking stuff like the Andromeda galaxy when picture stacking is used.)

mimbu said:

On E mount you can get:
Tamron 17-50mm f/4 Di III VXD at $599
Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD at $1199
$1798 (current prices on B&H)

Click to expand...

Finally. Thanks...for this, at least.

Del Paso said:

Your "facts" are arrogant garbage.

Click to expand...

Your opinion doesn't change the facts that I stated.

scyrene said:

One thing I'll never quite get my head around is the status anxiety of Sony users specifically - I don't recall other brands' users spamming these boards with their cult-like devotion. I also find it strange how, if the competition is so inferior, why they feel so anxious to attack everyone else, as if deep down they're not convinced after all.

Click to expand...

Sony users aren't anxious. Personally I hate that Canon has stopped pushing things forward with large scale R&D spending & innovation and instead is coasting with things like yet another revision of the ancient FSI sensor in the R6 III and selling rebadged EF super teles as RF glass. The 800 and 1200 in particular are abominations that would have been absolutely unthinkable for Canon to do in days gone by.

I want the Canon of 20 or 30 years ago to return.

mimbu said:

It's not opinion, it's fact. It's a garbage tier camera. Yugos were garbage tier cars but people still bought them.

Canon is the king of shoveling junk out the door in large volumes.

Click to expand...

Your "facts" are arrogant garbage.

LSXPhotog said:

They already do. The lens is currently sold in RF mount on B&H for $919. How well it has sold is a different matter. I personally plan to buy one after the R7II.

Click to expand...

I have this one for 6 six months. Since I bought it, it is my go anywhere lens except when I need long ones for wildlife. I am extremely pleased with it. Now contemplating to buy 12mm prime or 11-20 from Tamron.

scyrene said:

One thing I'll never quite get my head around is the status anxiety of Sony users specifically - I don't recall other brands' users spamming these boards with their cult-like devotion. I also find it strange how, if the competition is so inferior, why they feel so anxious to attack everyone else, as if deep down they're not convinced after all.

Click to expand...

Well said!

neuroanatomist said:

You’re confusing the guy running this site with one of the writers for the site.

Regardless, the R100 is a far more capable camera than the entry-level DSLR that was my first. For many people, it will be the best camera they can afford. It’s a capable camera that can deliver great results in the right hands, if not in yours.

Your opinion of it is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

It's not opinion, it's fact. It's a garbage tier camera. Yugos were garbage tier cars but people still bought them.

Canon is the king of shoveling junk out the door in large volumes.

neuroanatomist said:

Sigma’s ‘modern’ 14/1.4 is twice the weight and far larger than Canon’s RF 14/1.4*.

Click to expand...

Yes, and for astro (which is what the Sigma is specifically designed for) the Sigma is by far the superior lens, while being 30% less expensive. If you want a lens for video on a gimbal, the Canon is the right lens and the Sigma would be ridiculous if not impossible.

neuroanatomist said:

Question I’ve asked several times that no one has ever answered: Canon RF has a set of three full frame zooms that cover 15mm to 400mm for under $1700, what 3rd party or other OEM kit can cover that range for that cost or less?

Click to expand...

So, from Canon we have:
RF 15-30 f4.5-6.3 IS STM at $539
RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM at $459
RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM at $699
$1697 (current prices on B&H)

On E mount you can get:
Tamron 17-50mm f/4 Di III VXD at $599
Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD at $1199
$1798 (current prices on B&H)

So, the Tamron pair is a hundred bucks (6%) more expensive and 2mm narrower on the wide end. However, they are actual legit premium lenses, both of which have extremely fast magnetic linear drive motors. And there's only two of them which means less lens swapping and less to carry.

The Canon lenses meanwhile are decidedly entry level, have much MUCH smaller apertures, and two of them use slow STM for AF. On the plus side, while the f7.1 is IMO atrocious, 24-105 is a convenient daily carry range.

I would take the Tamron pair every time as the Canon glass is just too slow (both in aperture and STM...) I suspect if the Tamron glass was available on RF, many RF users would make exactly the same choice. Of course, they are not permitted to have that option.

neuroanatomist said:

One could also argue that lenses designed to be smaller, lighter and cheaper by incorporating digital correction into their design are more modern than lenses that are larger, heavier and more expensive than they need to be in this current era where the lens output cannot be seen optically, only digitally.

Click to expand...

I'm not personally against corrected lenses. Sony does it too, and it makes sense. It's really the Nikon fanboys who freak out about it the most, but the trade-off is that their lenses (especially the f1.2 primes) are HUGE and very expensive. IMO it's not a good trade.

Maximilian said:

I can understand these arguments, but from the customer POVW (my turn ) this is just
If - at least - it would have been much smaller, but it isn't.

Click to expand...

Agree, but at least there's a reasonable reason. I have never used the EF-S 55-250, but I quite like the EF-M 55-200 (posted this shot taken with that lens earlier today).

Nicely done, danfaz.

AJ said:

Back in the olden days we had lenses with mechanical focus rings and a mechanical aperture rings.

Click to expand...

When I started taking pictures more seriously (not counting 'playing' with an Argus TLR as a child), mechanical focus rings had only me for the motor, and the camera's frame rate was determined by how fast my thumb could move the film advance lever. Getting my first auto-aperture lenses was a treat.

AJ said:

You'd think that zoom would go fly-by-wire to allow videographers to do programmable zoom pulls.

Click to expand...

There is one such ILC lens from Canon, the RF-S 14-30mm F4-6.3 IS STM PZ (PZ = power zoom). The two L-series Z zooms get power zoom functionality with an attachment.

neuroanatomist said:

Some serious conflation going on here. Maybe you don’t want smaller, lighter, and cheaper lenses…but I think that many photographers do. Lenses like the RF 16/2.8, RF 24/1.8, RF 24-240, and many others require digital correction of distortion and are not ‘hybrid’ lenses.

The hybrid lenses (VCM primes and Z zooms) are just that – hybrid, intended for both photo and video use. What makes you think photography use cases are being sacrificed?

The RF 10-20/4 is not a hybrid lens, has STM for AF, and compared to the EF 11-24/4 is much smaller, less than half the weight, and significantly cheaper. All of those are significant benefits to photographers (and videographers).

The 24-105/2.8 Z is a hybrid lens, and would probably have been prohibitively large and expensive without needing correction at the wide end (Canon never made one for EF). The 70-200/2.8 Z is a hybrid lens and is among the sharpest zoom lenses available from any manufacturer. Sacrifices for video there? Nope.

As I suggested above, the requirement for a lens to ‘fill the image circle’ was imposed by the optical viewfinder and by film as a recording medium. In this modern era, those requirements are passé.

Click to expand...

Yup. Just to add:

Back in the olden days we had lenses with mechanical focus rings and a mechanical aperture rings. As lenses became more "modern", we first lost mechanical aperture control. Then came focus-by-wire. Then came mandatory distortion corrections.

None of these developments were to appease videographers. If anything, aperture rings have made a comeback to appease videographers, to the joy of old-school stills shooters.

Personally speaking I'm amazed that we still have mechanical zoom rings. You'd think that zoom would go fly-by-wire to allow videographers to do programmable zoom pulls. So IMO it is stills photographers who are being appeased.

DocInfoSci said:

Fair!

I meant photoshop in the sense that some people will take great liberty with the image out of the camera and then present it as what the lens does. Even though in-camera is using an HEIC or JPEG conversion algorithm I’m assuming the end result from one Canon to the next is sufficiently consistent that opinions that are definitely about the lens and not one’s software skill can be made. I’m also using Affinity but if someone wants to know about the lens itself I’ll restrict the image to Canon internal algorithms. Beyond that, I might have used the lens but really I’m showing off interpretive art bespoke to me and not Canon + a lens.

Click to expand...

I agree with your position if you are simply showing a clinical evaluation of a lens, but there is also the option of showing what is possible with that same lens and that is where our approaches differ. This is particularly true with mirrors, since the central obstruction inherently reduces contrast pretty dramatically, so any kind of natural-looking image requires a contrast boost in post at the very least.

Here's an interesting shot I took recently of a GHO battling some strong winds. There's something about the expression on its face...

As much as I like aspects of EF lenses, I think that the RF catalog is growing at a sufficient clip. It is also very innovative in terms of speed (both aperture and focus), weight, size, motors, and material.

Any concerns that anyone has expressed about RF lenses vs EF will probably be addressed anyhow. For example, I do see improved MF options and AF is constantly improving. Old lenses are getting firmware updates for FTMF. More balanced options are appearing (more on that in a moment).

Canon is letting third parties with AF on-board, just right now for crop. Crop is not the crown jewel, so it’s low risk for everyone: any issues such as contract disputes, build quality issues, competition to Canon’s own work, etc. can be dealt with more pragmatically by Canon. This is just good business sense and all good businesses address risk.

In terms of full frame options and broader appeal, the fact of the matter is Canon does have a huge inventory of EF options (depending on the model also third party) so there’s just no pressure for a full catalog. Instead, Canon can use this Goldilocks decade caused by the RF reset to rapidly prototype and recoup R&D costs from more eager or new adopters. As that innovative rush calms down and EF stocks dwindle Canon can increasingly turn its attention to any remaining gripes and gaps.

And we are seeing evidence of this:

• First only esoteric and ultra-remarkable lenses appeared, like the 28-70 f/2
• Next coverage essentials appeared, but with informed experiments: like the tiny but zooming 70-200 range; cheap by long-reaching 800 f/11 prime
• Next a broad set of entry or casual but convenient lenses like pancakes but with experimental lens material like plastics
• Next a suite of like primes that meet photography needs and include essentials for the (larger) video curious market. New motor technology that brings the best of all worlds is further refined.
• Next we see a lot of lessons learned, and gripes like the loss of internal zoom, return for popular ranges.

And so on, and so forth.

A quick examination of the EF catalog shows a similar evolution, subject to the industrial capabilities of the times:


I don’t see anything in Canon’s playbook beyond brand premiums (and R&D reclamation) that suggests they aren’t informed in their strategy.

I have no doubt the 300-600 in whatever form will continue the above.

The RF-S 10mm F2.8 would be a great equivalent to the FF RF 16mm F2.8 which afaik sells pretty well.
At this point, I´d just be glad if Canon releases RF-S primes.

Maximilian said:

I still don't get, why Canon did decide to design the RF-S 55-210mm F5-7.1 IS STM, instead of converting the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM.
I don't see the size/weight advantage over losing the extra 40 mm and the brighter aperture.

Click to expand...

The RF-S 55-120210 (thanks, @Maximilian) has fewer elements than the EF-S 55-250, and far fewer than the EF-M 55-200. Thus, the 'advantage' of the RF-S 55-210mm is not to the benefit of consumers but rather to Canon – it's cheaper to produce and Canon still charges more for it meaning an even higher profit margin.

LSXPhotog said:

They already do. The lens is currently sold in RF mount on B&H for $919. How well it has sold is a different matter. I personally plan to buy one after the R7II.

Click to expand...

I own the lens and recommend it. I waited for him for half a year. According to my dealer, the manufacturer is having problems with supplies in sufficient quantities.