The Best and Worst of 2025

[P-visie]

MILFs?

Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens French, i.e. French people wearing non reflecting glasses

 

[Del Paso]

Thailand and Malaysia were similar as far as cameras.
I am choosing to decline to comment on MILFs as I'm a newly wed and shouldn't even think about it.

OOOPSY...
Edited (what have I been thinking of?)

 

[Del Paso]

Thailand and Malaysia were similar as far as cameras.
I am choosing to decline to comment on MILFs as I'm a newly wed and shouldn't even think about it.

I look at you in admiration, you are a saint!

 

[EricN]

I look at you in admiration, you are a saint!

I'm the patron saint of F-stop equivalence debating.

 

[Del Paso]

MILFs?

Didn't even know what MILF meant before googling...

 

[rombe3jr]

Barparildar figured out how to remove the Canon corner wobble from the R6 III using Gyroflo. Game changer for hand held video. It requires turning off IBIS but the C50 also records the gyro data and I suppose the same issue can be resolved in that as well. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uRclDI4fmE

 

[fox40phil]

Lets hope Canon brings also a 50-150 f2.0.... and update their 28-70 f2.0 with less weight.

Really good overview! @CR! <3

 

[Del Paso]

Lets hope Canon brings also a 50-150 f2.0.... and update their 28-70 f2.0 with less weight.

Really good overview! @CR! <3

I could also imagine (wish!) an RF 50-200 f/2,8 or even f/4, as compact as the collapsible 70-200.
It would perfectly well complement my 15-35.

 

[exquisitefacade]

Agreed. I am dubious of price points being used in this fashion…price is a completely subjective metric and does not in any way speak to technical achievement or generational improvement

If the Nikon Z5iii gets the nod over the Canon R6iii because of ones favors "value for money" over "overall specs with all the whistles and bells" that premise should be applied to lenses as well. In that case, the 45mm F1.2 should be favored over the Sony 50-150mm f/2 GM. Don't get me wrong, the Sony lens is absolutely great, but I just don't get why in one case "value for money instead of overall specs" makes the decision and in the other category it is the opposite.

The 45mm F1.2 brought together two things that I´ve never seen put together: F1.2 and cheap (or at least affordable). That imo is an absolute game-changer and easily the best "value for money" this year concerning lenses.

 

[roby17269]

Oohhhh, that sounds great!!! Enjoy it and have some fun. And maybe, just maybe, post a nice wintery pic here

Here they are

Thread 'Italy Vacation - Winter 2025'

Jan 4, 2026

Here are some shots from Italy around Xmas 2025, from the Central Italian Alps. Some are drone shots and some from the plane on the (sad) way back. Quite a few are panos, as usual.
Weather was so-so and there was't much snow till some fell on the 24th... so the vistas were "dirtier" than usual. The girl is my growing daughter (12yo).
All taken with my R5 and either the 100-500 or the 85 1.2

• roby17269
• Replies: 4
• Forum: Landscape

• 

 

[Traveler]

Being fair isn’t being a hater. Canon Rumors actually has decent writers, not merely blind fanboys.
I often find that Canon Rumors (CR) writes better than Sony Alpha Rumors (SAR) even for Sony gear, which is commendable for CR and laughable for SAR. Heck, a friend of mine, who is a Sony user, enjoys more reading this website than theirs, because the writing is clearly more responsible and mature here.

For this article, specifically, I think Sigma deserved a few recognitions, but that’s all I have to say.

Yes and so is the community here.

 

[justaCanonuser]

TL;DR: the Z5 II is a great camera unless you use it for a use case it was not made for.
WOW. Somehow I think I could say the same for most cameras….

Yes, but there are guys who recommend this camera exactly for wildlife, here is an example

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

I was running into that trap because I hadn't much time to make decision, and I already ask my wife to trade it in for a real camera such as Nikon's highly praised Z9. She can afford it.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I own it and many other L series RF lenses, and I think it's useless

I would take a 1.4x compatibility any day over it

Interesting. I still use my old EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM (not yet upgradet) and I never missed that it can't a 1.4x TC, but I use it quite frequently with extension rings to get closer for more magnification...

 

[roby17269]

Yes, but there are guys who recommend this camera exactly for wildlife, here is an example

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

I was running into that trap because I hadn't much time to make decision, and I already ask my wife to trade it in for a real camera such as Nikon's highly praised Z9. She can afford it.

Can't watch YT videos at work
If that's what they recommended then I would discount them as a trustable source of advice...
But generally speaking, I'd consider wildlife the realm of any camera system's top offerings a priori, if budget allows.

 

[David_B]

That's the thing, yes. Even if being done optically, it's still stretching. Some defend adding, for instance, an extra lens element to straighten the image.
Will that extra element lead to a softer image? Perhaps.

Lets get it right: optical correction is not stretching. The goal with optical correction is to try and ensure that as many individual photons are distinguishable as possible when hitting the thing capturing the image. You can't stretch a photo to make it hit two pixels instead of one, but what you can do is try and ensure that two photons on very similar trajectories hit individual pixels on the sensor.

With firmware/software stretching photon strikes that didn't happen have to be invented.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Lets get it right: optical correction is not stretching. The goal with optical correction is to try and ensure that as many individual photons are distinguishable as possible when hitting the thing capturing the image. You can't stretch a photo to make it hit two pixels instead of one, but what you can do is try and ensure that two photons on very similar trajectories hit individual pixels on the sensor.

With firmware/software stretching photon strikes that didn't happen have to be invented.

I've suggested before that you refrain from engaging in technical arguments, and you repeatedly fail to heed that advice. Optical correction is bending light, and that is not without consequence. While you are correct that a single photon cannot hit two pixels instead of one, a picture is not generated from one photon. Light from a point in space can certainly be bent in a way that more than one pixel is hit, in fact that's the basis of chromatic aberration, as illustrated for lateral CA here:



Like geometric distortion, CA is something that is easily and routinely digitally corrected.

What about photon strikes that are in the wrong place? I mean, many ultrawide zoom lenses that fill the corners still have 3-5% barrel distortion. Do you turn off all distortion correction in your images (along with CA correction), so that they remain 'optically pure'? I doubt it.

 

[David_B]

I've suggested before that you refrain from engaging in technical arguments, and you repeatedly fail to heed that advice. Optical correction is bending light, and that is not without consequence. While you are correct that a single photon cannot hit two pixels instead of one, a picture is not generated from one photon. Light from a point in space can certainly be bent in a way that more than one pixel is hit, in fact that's the basis of chromatic aberration, as illustrated for lateral CA here:

While optical correction is bending light, you don't disagree with the statement that optical correction doesn't stretch light. Arguing about bending light is a bit pointless because that's the whole point of a lens - to bend light such that it lands on the sensor.

Some lenses deal with this better than others. Some subjects are impacted by this more than others. Measuring CA is what a lot of lens test websites do when they shoot specific subjects to measure lpmm, etc. Your generalizations here are no better than mine.

Like geometric distortion, CA is something that is easily and routinely digitally corrected.

What about photon strikes that are in the wrong place? I mean, many ultrawide zoom lenses that fill the corners still have 3-5% barrel distortion. Do you turn off all distortion correction in your images (along with CA correction), so that they remain 'optically pure'? I doubt it.

Let me make your day: I don't use distortion correction when processing images, I can't even remember when I last used CA correction.

 

[AlanF]

Let me make your day: I don't use distortion correction when processing images, I can't even remember when I last used CA correction.

How do you process images? Do you use jpegs straight out of camera or do use RAW? If you use RAW, how do you convert to jpegs or TIFF or whatsoever to view them?

 

[David_B]

How do you process images? Do you use jpegs straight out of camera or do use RAW? If you use RAW, how do you convert to jpegs or TIFF or whatsoever to view them?

I can see where you're going. What's the point of your question? To try and turn me into a liar because CA/LensCorrection is being done implicitly without me being aware of it? That's a disappointing angle to take.

 

[AlanF]

I can see where you're going. What's the point of your question? To try and turn me into a liar because CA/LensCorrection is being done implicitly without me being aware of it? That's a disappointing angle to take.

The point of the question is to lead to a discussion of what happens when we process RAW data and the choice of RAW converters. If you are unaware of your software doing correction, then how on earth could that make you a liar? (Lying is deliberately telling an untruth.)