Announcement Soon: Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 and Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM

[justaCanonuser]

There may not be any, as none of us knows where exactly the supply chain issues are and what the causes are. But, here are some POTENTIAL harms:

...

Your impressive list following this intro I cited above leads me to an intriguing idea: you should found a sort of Club of Rome for the camera market. First publication released: "The Limits to Global Growth in Canon's RF Lens Line". 548 pp., 145 colored figures, 22 charts, softcover, US-$ 19.99 @ Amazon

 

[justaCanonuser]

I don't understand Canon. They made the EOS RP in 2019 as a full frame mirrorless camera people could afford, then priced their lenses sky-high.

They support the wise cheap camera - good lens philosophy . Back in the film age, you bought a camera for a decent period of your life, a Leica for your own whole life and the following generations. Nowadays, digital cameras are short-lived near future electronic waste, since they are technically outdated within a few years.

 

[AlanF]

They support the wise cheap camera - good lens philosophy . Back in the film age, you bought a camera for a decent period of your life, a Leica for your own whole life and the following generations. Nowadays, digital cameras are short-lived near future electronic waste, since they are technically outdated within a few years.

Unfortunately, you are right. Occasionally, some lines are such an improvement they last somewhat longer, and I hope the R5 is one.

 

[justaCanonuser]

f/7.1...the last refuge for the Sony trolls!

But higher numbers are better - aren't they? That's why we want 1000 MP sensors instead of 24 MP sensors. Don't tell me anything about the limitations of small pixels ruled by physics, crazy shutter speeds and enormous amounts of light you need to freeze the movement of a slug into a sharp image on the pixel level. We want high numbers, because higher numbers are always better!

 

[justaCanonuser]

Unfortunately, you are right. Occasionally, some lines are such an improvement they last somewhat longer, and I hope the R5 is one.

Well, things are settling since digital photography started to be mature. I used e.g. my 5D3 for 8 years, because it delivered most what I wanted for good images: good colors out of the camera, nicely sharp images, fast and reliable AF with many lenses I have. When I traded it in for a 5D4 I realized that the new camera did not bring me that leap in image quality I experienced in the decade before (there are of course some nice improvements such as no color banding and better DR). This observation applies to stills photography, of course. In contrast, video is an area where the dust of fast progress isn't yet settled, if that's more in your focus...

 

[SteveC]

I don't understand why people find it hard to accept that a sensor at the same iso/sensitivity but half the size collects half the light.

Because they are implicitly thinking about exposure, i.e., the light per unit area on the sensor.

A picture doesn't become a stop darker simply because it's being taken on a sensor half the size. That is what they are saying. Yes, half as much light was used in the making of the picture but the light per unit area remains the same.

Yes, they ideally would be clear that they mean "light per unit area" but that's essentially what "exposure" means. Sometimes I do see them use "exposure" in their statements and then have the other side interpret it as "total amount of light" and THAT error is on the people talking about "light" in the aggregate when the other side is explicitly talking about "exposure."

Again, I see people talking past each other about two different things, just as I do when I see PBD getting into an argument about noise with someone who is a pixel peeper; the two never identify that one person is talking about the entire image printed at a constant size, while the other is talking about pixels at a constant viewed size.

 

[SteveC]

Unfortunately, you are right. Occasionally, some lines are such an improvement they last somewhat longer, and I hope the R5 is one.

Well, as long as the R5 doesn't break, it will last with me. It's far better as a piece of gear than its owner is as a photographer, and I'm actually glad of that; the gear won't get in my way as I improve.

 

[privatebydesign]

Because they are implicitly thinking about exposure, i.e., the light per unit area on the sensor.

A picture doesn't become a stop darker simply because it's being taken on a sensor half the size. That is what they are saying. Yes, half as much light was used in the making of the picture but the light per unit area remains the same.

Yes, they ideally would be clear that they mean "light per unit area" but that's essentially what "exposure" means. Sometimes I do see them use "exposure" in their statements and then have the other side interpret it as "total amount of light" and THAT error is on the people talking about "light" in the aggregate when the other side is explicitly talking about "exposure."

Again, I see people talking past each other about two different things, just as I do when I see PBD getting into an argument about noise with someone who is a pixel peeper; the two never identify that one person is talking about the entire image printed at a constant size, while the other is talking about pixels at a constant viewed size.

When you use the word equivalence then two images having identical image characteristics is intrinsic to that word. You can’t have twice the noise in one than the other and say the images are equivalent.

If you are trying to talk about something else then saying something like ‘yes it has twice the noise but the iso performance is plenty good enough for me’ then that is fine, but not if you use the word equivalence, that has a definition that cannot ignore the noise.

Equivalence is not an esoteric, fuzzy, or convoluted concept, it has a definition and follows basic rules of physics.

I talk about total images, because that’s what I take and that’s what I sell. How and why did photography ever get to the point where an individual grain of chemical on film or pixel in a digital capture become more important than the actual image it makes an infinitesimally small part of?

 

[SteveC]

I talk about total images, because that’s what I take and that’s what I sell. How or why did photography ever get to the point where an individual grain of chemical on film or pixel in a digital capture become more important than the actual image it makes and infinitesimally small part of?

I couldn't tell you when that happened, and I certainly can understand why you talk about the whole picture.

But when engaging in endless wrangling with a pixel peeper, perhaps it could be cut short if you would just SAY, right up front, that you are talking about the whole picture, printed at a particular size. (If you get at least a "yeah, but I don't care about that" you've had a meeting of the minds; their understanding is the same as yours even if their priority is a bit different. You can talk about how wrong their priority is, OR choose to let it lie, but if you do keep talking at least you're discussing your actual differences.) That's clearly not how they are thinking about it, so why do you berate them as if it were? You only succeed in coming across as absurd to them because they don't realize you're talking "whole picture" and you are making statements that really ARE silly when taken to be referring to the pixel level.

 

[privatebydesign]

I couldn't tell you when that happened, and I certainly can understand why you talk about the whole picture.

But when engaging in endless wrangling with a pixel peeper, perhaps it could be cut short if you would just SAY, right up front, that you are talking about the whole picture, printed at a particular size. (If you get at least a "yeah, but I don't care about that" you've had a meeting of the minds; their understanding is the same as yours even if their priority is a bit different. You can talk about how wrong their priority is, OR choose to let it lie, but if you do keep talking at least you're discussing your actual differences.) That's clearly not how they are thinking about it, so why do you berate them as if it were? You only succeed in coming across as absurd to them because they don't realize you're talking "whole picture" and you are making statements that really ARE silly when taken to be referring to the pixel level.

but when you do that they say ‘but I don’t print’. So you say well on your screen at ‘full screen‘ they then go off in a huff because there are probably only 20 people out there with 8K screens that still only equate to 33mp, most of us are using 4K or 5.5k screens with even lower resolution. But that doesn’t stop people saying “I need more mp than the R5, I need that to crop” at which point I usually shut up because anybody that needs two or three times their sensor area to crop (other than focal length limited users) clearly needs to spend their money on a photography course not a higher mp camera.

 

[JustUs7]

But that doesn’t stop people saying “I need more mp than the R5, I need that to crop” at which point I usually shut up because anybody that needs two or three times their sensor area to crop (other than focal length limited users) clearly needs to spend their money on a photography course not a higher mp camera.

Or longer lenses.

Never mind. I see you allowed for focal length limited.

 

[SteveC]

but when you do that they say ‘but I don’t print’. So you say well on your screen at ‘full screen‘ they then go off in a huff because there are probably only 20 people out there with 8K screens that still only equate to 33mp, most of us are using 4K or 5.5k screens with even lower resolution. But that doesn’t stop people saying “I need more mp than the R5, I need that to crop” at which point I usually shut up because anybody that needs two or three times their sensor area to crop (other than focal length limited users) clearly needs to spend their money on a photography course not a higher mp camera.

That last one at least is somewhat legitimate.

Basically what I am suggesting is, as soon as you get into some wrangle about noise being worse on higher res sensors, say something like this: "It is on a per pixel basis, but if you're just looking at the whole picture at a certain size..." rather than just saying "no it isn't" without explaining your context. At least you've made it clear that you understand why they are saying what they are saying and under what circumstances someone might disagree with them. This might save page after page of pointless discussion. I hate seeing people who are actually both right arguing with each other because they don't realize the other's frame of reference is different.

Now if you run into someone who really is wrong even within his own frame of reference, that's a different story...

 

[privatebydesign]

That last one at least is somewhat legitimate.

Basically what I am suggesting is, as soon as you get into some wrangle about noise being worse on higher res sensors, say something like this: "It is on a per pixel basis, but if you're just looking at the whole picture at a certain size..." rather than just saying "no it isn't" without explaining your context. At least you've made it clear that you understand why they are saying what they are saying and under what circumstances someone might disagree with them. This might save page after page of pointless discussion. I hate seeing people who are actually both right arguing with each other because they don't realize the other's frame of reference is different.

Now if you run into someone who really is wrong even within his own frame of reference, that's a different story...

But then how could the devil inside me come out to play?

 

[Peter Bergh]

...

Equivalence is not an esoteric, fuzzy, or convoluted concept, it has a definition and follows basic rules of physics.

...

Wrong. Equivalence means that two things are the same in the *relevant characteristics*. What is relevant varies from situation to situation.

 

[privatebydesign]

Wrong. Equivalence means that two things are the same in the *relevant characteristics*. What is relevant varies from situation to situation.

Really?

Definition of EQUIVALENCE

the state or property of being equivalent; the relation holding between two statements if they are either both true or both false so that to affirm one and to deny the other would result in a contradiction; a presentation of terms as equivalent… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

equivalence

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of equivalence by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

I see equal used in those definitions I don’t see ‘relevant characteristics‘ used.

 

[Peter Bergh]

Really?

Definition of EQUIVALENCE

the state or property of being equivalent; the relation holding between two statements if they are either both true or both false so that to affirm one and to deny the other would result in a contradiction; a presentation of terms as equivalent… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

equivalence

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of equivalence by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

I see equal used in those definitions I don’t see ‘relevant characteristics‘ used.

If you think about it, no two things are ever the same. It appears to me that you interpret "same" as identical. In the human-scale real world (i.e., not in, e.g., math and not on the atomic scale), two things may be approximately the same, but they are never exactly the same, i.e., never identical. Think of two current coins from the same country and of the same denomination: they are equivalent in terms of buying power but they normally have different amounts of wear or different years of issue or even different designs. These coins are not equivalent to a coin collector, for whom design, year of issue and condition are very relevant. I can construct many similar examples.

The dictionary definitions you quote are, as in so many other cases, incomplete. To make all dictionary definitions complete would expand the sizes of dictionaries beyond all reasonable bounds. E.g., the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, when printed in a normal font, is more than 25 thick volumes (26, if memory serves).

 

[jd7]

So, the question is how good those cheap Chinese lenses are, really. I know they’re acceptable.

‘’I do expect Chinese lenses to both get better, and more expensive as time goes on. At an earlier time, Sigma was known for just producing junk lenses too.

I don't think it changes your fundamental point, but Samyang is a South Korean company, I believe, not a Chinese company.

 

[privatebydesign]

If you think about it, no two things are ever the same. It appears to me that you interpret "same" as identical. In the human-scale real world (i.e., not in, e.g., math and not on the atomic scale), two things may be approximately the same, but they are never exactly the same, i.e., never identical. Think of two current coins from the same country and of the same denomination: they are equivalent in terms of buying power but they normally have different amounts of wear or different years of issue or even different designs. These coins are not equivalent to a coin collector, for whom design, year of issue and condition are very relevant. I can construct many similar examples.

The dictionary definitions you quote are, as in so many other cases, incomplete. To make all dictionary definitions complete would expand the sizes of dictionaries beyond all reasonable bounds. E.g., the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, when printed in a normal font, is more than 25 thick volumes (26, if memory serves).

And that's the best you can come up with? And still no mention of "*relevant characteristics*".

Why did you even bother to write such utter dross?

Definition of DROSS

the scum or unwanted material that forms on the surface of molten metal; waste or foreign matter : impurity; something that is base, trivial, or inferior… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Loswr]

If you think about it, no two things are ever the same. It appears to me that you interpret "same" as identical. In the human-scale real world (i.e., not in, e.g., math and not on the atomic scale), two things may be approximately the same, but they are never exactly the same, i.e., never identical. Think of two current coins from the same country and of the same denomination: they are equivalent in terms of buying power but they normally have different amounts of wear or different years of issue or even different designs. These coins are not equivalent to a coin collector, for whom design, year of issue and condition are very relevant. I can construct many similar examples.

The dictionary definitions you quote are, as in so many other cases, incomplete. To make all dictionary definitions complete would expand the sizes of dictionaries beyond all reasonable bounds. E.g., the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, when printed in a normal font, is more than 25 thick volumes (26, if memory serves).

In the context of photography, the term equivalence has a specific meaning. If you don’t already know that meaning (which certainly appears to be the case, unless you’re just being disingenuous), perhaps you can learn it.

 

[melgross]

Unfortunately, you are right. Occasionally, some lines are such an improvement they last somewhat longer, and I hope the R5 is one.

It gets to the point where further improvements make little, if any difference to the majority of users. But also, it depends on where the image is going to be used. If it’s magazine, catalog or book, in four color, then pretty much all cameras already exceed the dynamic range and color gamut these forms of reproduction are capable of. When we sold our lab way back in 2004, that was already true for the better cameras.