The v1 is a fun camera. The wide lens is great for filming yourself for content. 16-50 is great. Even a 20-70 would be great for the use of selfies or filming yourself.

My biggest gripe was the flash situation. If it was to appease the demand of the g7x there was a clear miscommunication.

The influencer world was using it for photos. The fill flash was their favorite feature.

The v1 lacked a flash and the only real option was the el flashes that are bigger than the camera. And the adapter to use older hot shoe model flashes again make it impractical and cumbersome.

The godox it30 wouldve solved this issue but was released almost a year after the v1 was.

The g7x hype is a small form factor with a decent sensor and fast aperture. People want a fun camera to carry around that isn't bulky for their everyday lives

A 14/1.4 would be nice but looks to be heavy and expensive with all those elements. I wouldn’t need close minimum focus distance or IS for Astro.

Having a similar lens in price to the Sony 14/1.8 would suit everything I would need and some of the physical features of the sigma 14/1.4 (dew heater placement, focus lock etc) would round out the perfect lens

I am yet again see any discounts on the RF20/1.4 so I haven’t pulled the trigger for it although it would have better coma than the sigma EF20/1.4 that I currently use

HMC11 said:

I once had a colleague who, when confronted with scientific evidence from a wide range of disciplines about human's impact on global warming, simply stated that he wouldn't believe any of these results until he had personally conducted the experiments. All around the table simply disengaged from the debate.

Click to expand...

I hear you. The evidence of one person that's demonstratably biased towards Canon is not good scientific evidence. It might be good evidence for him, but nobody else, it would be good if we had scientific evidence, but we don't. Even the description of the test does not fill me with joy over its rigour. I'd wager that Canon does have that evidence. (and possibly Adobe, et al.) Consider Canon witholding that evidence akin to oil companies witholding evidence from decades ago about their predictions of global warming.

neuroanatomist said:

I suppose the only reasonable cutoff point is, are you happy with the resulting images. Since you don't use distortion correction and most lenses have at least some, I suspect you have a low bar for image quality by my standards. I know that straight lines are just that, and I want them to appear that way in my images.

Click to expand...

Find a scraggly old tree and take a photo of it. How many straight lines are in that? Put it in your raw image editor of choice, apply a lens profile and compare the before and after. Sure they're different but does one or the other make or break the image?

neuroanatomist said:

Eschewing distortion correction means straight lines in your images are curved, to me that is highly undesirable (and I only tolerate when it's necessary for correction of volume anamorphosis, because I prioritize the appearance of faces at the edge of the frame over lines being straight).

Click to expand...

You're assuming I shoot straight lines. Sounds like a boring photo to me. I also don't put faces at the edge of the frame if I can help it.

neuroanatomist said:

Only 19.96 mm 'high', as opposed to 21.64 mm. 8% shorter on the half-diagonal. With the 24-105/2.8 at 24mm, the black corners are less than 0.05% of the image that need to be 'filled in' by 'stretching'. On my R1, that's 11,400 pixels out of the 24,000,000. If you want to lose sleep over that, be my guest.

Click to expand...

Back in this post:
I presented some calculations from gemini about image coverage of the smaller circle on the sensor and its answer was 98.5%. On a 45MP that's ~675,000 pixels (1.5%) that aren't usable. For the R1, 1.5% is 360,000. How'd you come up with 11,400 out of 24,000,000? Did Gemini get it wrong? It's not a trivial calculation to work out the area lit by the smaller image circle

EOS 4 Life said:

Most reviewers tested the lens on the R6 III.
New cameras do not have a focus shift.

Click to expand...

Assuming the photographer actually knows the lens has focus shift in the first place and is aware of the setting you have to change. And still it's not ideal that the camera won't be allowed to AF at the widest aperture in low light.

R5 and R6 not getting a firmware update for ExpSim + DoF Preview is also questionable. There are probably lots and lots of hobbyists with an R6 who this new lens is actually meant for.

gbasilemc said:

"There will be at least one “crazy” lens. I have no idea what that could be, but Canon does need to release some things that fit under the “halo product” banner."

Like what ? any exemple of any "halo" product that already exists ?

Click to expand...

Nikon's 58mm f0.95

Michael Clark said:

Yeah, that jump from 21.0 for the 5D Mark II to 22.3 for the 5D Mark III was so huge.

It wasn't at all about the Mark III getting a pro grade 61 point AF system that used the same part number for the PDAF array as the 1D X instead of the 9 point consumer grade system of the 5D Mark II, the better weather and dust resistance, or a sturdier body compared to the Mark II.

I used the 5D Mark II as my primary body for over three years, then used the 5D Mark III body for over four years. Other than the sensors, which were pretty close in performance, the Mark III was an entirely different class of camera than the Mark II.

Roger Cicala said the same thing regarding both it's construction and AF performance.



Roger also said here:

Click to expand...

FYI, I own both R5 and R5mk2. There's really not much difference between the two. Yes, the AF is somewhat better in mk2, but s not by a huge margin. Unless you're a sports / wildlife shooter, I really doubt most would profit from the improvement, considering the AF was pretty good in R5. It's certainly nowhere near the difference with 5Dmk2 which had abysmal AF compared to 5Dmk3 which had a decent AF system.

And, ironically, if you're a sports / wildlife shooter, you're probably better off with R3 or R1, even further confirming my earlier assessment that Canon is mainly catering to the speed-focused market while ignoring those that need high resolution.

This has led me down the path to purchasing a GFX100II, along with a full set of 8 lenses. For the first time in my career I'm running 2 systems, simply because I got tired of waiting for Canon. I do all of my architecture / product / landscape / cityscape work with the Fuji and use Canon almost exclusively for occasional sport gig, a low light handheld shoots or taking photos of my dog.

And I have to say, being fully aware of the Fujifilm user tropes, I'm really enjoying what that camera produces, both in terms of resolution as well as the colors. And at 8 fps, it's no slouch either. I'll be getting some fast primes soon and I have a feeling Fuji will take over that part of my work from Canon as well.

I just feel like Canon has been stagnant for a long time. The releases come and go and it all feels so predictable and incremental. There's nothing to bash, of course. Canon is reliable and proven and performs well. Kinda like a Toyota sedan. But I'm missing something that makes the heart beat faster.

And I feel like this is desperately needed, because with the onslaught of AI, I have zero doubt that all camera makers will start feeling the pain.

Gogo7 said:

Everyone that was criticizing the Sony A9iii for its lack of dynamic range will now say: ohhh you see the Canon R1 is not that bad , it competes with A9iii , so it’s all good . That’s called hypocrisy
But anyways , I love my R1 but it seems every camera company moving forward , makes a step backwards when it comes to image quality and It’s all about speed now .

Click to expand...

The criticism was for the loss of dynamic range from the A9II to the A9III but with a substantial increase in price for the camera. For still photographers paying $$$$ for IQ. the slight increase in global shutter readout is a wash for the price one is paying hardware wise. Processing is still limited by the write to disk speed. The speed didn't create a substantial more hit rates or income in stills. Reason the global shutter hasn't garnered much traction in still photography since it was invented by Kodak back in the 1970s. Ok for motion picture and video, but has relatively little use in still photography and not worth the $$$$. Once stacked sensors reach 2 - 3ms the advantage of the GS for still photography is a wash hence the criticism for a $6800 + tax camera that doesn't capture any more stills faster than the R1 or R3

Is it that hard or expensive to make an APS-C zoom? Because it takes Canon 20 years and 50 patents to finally make one. All this while selling millions of APS-C cameras every year. In the same time Sigma somehow manages to design a whole series of high quality APS-C lenses. And even the much smaller Nikon.

There's definitely a place for lenses like the RF 100-400 for insects, but there is a particular look that you get from true macro at long focal lengths (partly due to sharpness at MFD?), which is why I keep my Sigma 180 f/2.8 as well

I wanted to buy 3 Cfexpress cards. I decided to wait for Black Friday and no reduction. Then I decided to wait for the January sales
…… a bad idea !
These are screen saves from Amazon in France

Click said:

Excellent sequence. Beautiful shots.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Click!

Etnaphele said:

Ordered a 45mm 1.2 in Europe at the beginning of December, out of stock everywhere and the shop where i ordered said two weeks ago, that Canon delayed shipments and they have no idea when the lenses will arrive. Does anyone know what's the matter? No ETA in sight, I had hoped to receive it for Christmas (perfect family gathering lens), but now I'm worrying I have to wait further months for a this plastic fantastic (outside AND inside )

Click to expand...

Perhaps they misjudged, but demand is outpacing supply. Because Canon has a locked mount, we are beholden to the mother ship for supplying fast, affordable lenses. They finally make one and turns out people want it. Should have been predicable considering how successful 3rd party lenses are on E, Z, X & L mount but some lessons take a while to learn apparently.

jabird56 said:

Canon EOS 90D with a Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L II USM Lense
Processed with DXO Photolab Elite 9View attachment 227470

Click to expand...

I really like this one, looks kind of abstract and kind of like from another world.
The others are very interesting too,

The Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark III has seen a massive resurgence in sales and interest over the last year. Canon restarted production a few months ago and has yet to reach consumer demand. The camera is consistently out of stock at major retailers in the US and abroad. The G7X III is still a […]

See full article...

I kept digging regarding the lack of 28mms and found this review. Such a shame that Canon doesn't offer a similarly sized 28mm but with at least the image quality of the EF IS and fast autofocus. Sadly their pancake has great image so it will never happen, there are just not enough people looking for a great autofocus on this focal length.

- It may seem a bit strange but these days full-format 28mm prime lenses are almost exotics. The unpopularity probably relates to the perception that such lenses aren’t wide enough for landscapes or architecture and too wide for everything else.
[...]
As already hinted in the introduction, direct competitors to the Sony FE 28mm f/2 (shown to the left below) don’t exist.

R7 II CFB card slot, R8II R10II CFB/SD express please, no more UHS-II

Click said:

I really like this shot. Well done, danfaz.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Click!

More flowers from today: I didn't see any bird deserving to be on photo.

Too soon for a global shutter imho.

Sporgon said:

I checked it out; some terribly nervous bokeh at f/1.2, the boy on the green slide for instance, looks like the RF 50/1.8 !
The planar optical formula does tend to do this; adding an aspherical element makes it even worse. Even the EF 50/1.2 could get nasty. Kind of makes me confirm that if you want shallow dof and tasty bokeh with a ‘normal’ lens use an 85 or 100.

Click to expand...

As I said, it's not at RF-L level. Only EF 50mm 1.2 L level. If you know the EF 50 L and like the look you will like the the RF 45. If not then RF 50 1.4 L VCM or RF 50 1.2 L will satisfy your needs.

I really like the abstract aspect of the last one. Well done, Nemorino.

"This is one of the most interesting things I’ve seen on a speedlight, and I hope other manufacturers adopt it; it’s a fantastic idea."

Elinchrom added it on the ELC models years ago - and it's available on the ONE, THREE and FIVE models too - the group color is shown by the color of the logo and a bar on the rear display, matching the colors in the Elinchrom Studio software.

Planterz said:

Hey, lookie here! It's almost exactly the lens so many were adamant that Canon would never make! (hey, I'm surprised too).

Interestingly, it's not an RF-S lens, which makes sense I suppose - if it doesn't benefit from being smaller for APS-C, they might as well make it full frame.

Click to expand...

I can’t speak for all of those people, but I thought it extremely unlikely that Canon would make an f/2.8 RF-S lens providing an FoV similar to 70-200 on FF…and this patent doesn’t suggest I’m wrong.

Your claim/request was explicitly for an APS-C lens.

Planterz said:

Sony users have long lamented the lack of a ~45-135mm f2.8 APS-C lens to match the common 70-200m f2.8 telephoto zoom. I think once upon a time Sigma was rumored to be working on one, but clearly that never came to be. Fuji has a 50-140mm f2.8, but they're the only APS-C maker to do so. Now that there's potentially 4 mounts (X, E, Z, RF-S), maybe it'll finally make sense for Sigma or whomever to make one.

Click to expand...

This design could become the third lens completing the non-L f/2.8 STM zoom trinity along with the RF 16-28/2.8 and RF 28-70/2.8. All of those lenses give something up compared to their f/2.8 L counterparts, and they also give something up (in addition to the stop of light) compared to their f/4L counterparts though they’re closer in price to the latter.

Richard CR said:

it's L quality performance though. the MTF's are very good. limited zoom range helps with that.

Click to expand...

I was a fan of the Sigma 24-35 f/2. Maybe this would be up my alley to complement a 24-105L