Got a link?The mockup for the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS looks like a munchkin compared to the EF-mount lenses.
Upvote
0
Got a link?The mockup for the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS looks like a munchkin compared to the EF-mount lenses.
The difference between excellent lens performance and slightly more excellent lens performance pales in comparison to the difference between manual focus and autofocus. I don’t imagine owners of the 16-35/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 MkII lenses were rushing out to buy the MkIII versions. And that’s assuming the lenses are better, the 24-105 is essentially identical between EF and RF.Fair enough but Nikon was also wiped out by Canon EF. Pros wanted the better autofocus and would switch systems to get it. My guess is that once there's an RF system to switch to (trinity zooms, a few other key lenses, and a pro body), Pros will want the better lenses that the SLR film-flange makes impossible, and will switch systems to get them.
There was a prototype on display at an expo recently (photoplus in the UK?). Based on the patent, the RF 70-200/2.8 is an extending zoom, unlike the fixed EF versions. Thus, the RF version certainly is smaller when retracted (but it’s actually longer when extended, such that the sensor to front element distance should be about the same for both EF and RF systems).Got a link?
I didn't mean "cater to" - I meant compete for. You don't gain market share by seeking to be moderately good; you gain it by being excellent. There have been a lot of people that have switched brands these last few years. Ideally, for Canon, you'd want them to switch to your brand and not away from it...
There was a prototype on display at an expo recently (photoplus in the UK?). Based on the patent, the RF 70-200/2.8 is an extending zoom, unlike the fixed EF versions. Thus, the RF version certainly is smaller when retracted (but it’s actually longer when extended, such that the sensor to front element distance should be about the same for both EF and RF systems).
As for the link...
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=RF+70-200
...but the need for IS in that focal range is debatable.
Same here.Actually, I had a realization around 2000 that SLRs were probably going to be replaced by what we call mirrorless, so I'm sure Canon was thinking about it since sometime in the 20th century...
In 5 years, the odds are quite high that I will be using the DSLR cameras I have now. I may add a FF Mirrorless by then, but what I have now meets the functionality that I need.Yes, I read what he wrote thanks.
Will most people be using MILCs in 5-10 years? We’ll see, it’s certainly a reasonable hypothesis. But, “The DSLR wil be dead in 5 years,” was the prediction by pundits...about 7 years ago. We’re still waiting, and the majority of buyers are still buying DSLRs, not MILCs.
I would certainly like IS in all my lenses. But ‘typical’ uses of a 24-70mm lens involve people, and that generally means 1/60 s or preferably higher (I use a 1/125 s minimum) to eliminate the effect of subject motion, which obviates the need for IS. I’d still like it (not all uses are ‘typical’, and I certainly appreciated being able to handhold 1/3 s waterfall shots with the RF 24-105/4L IS), but I doubt IS in a 24-70 will be a major driver of purchase decisions for most people in terms of switching from a DSLR to a MILC.Dustin Abbott <http://www.dustinabbott.com> has some interesting things to say when he performed a 3-way comparison between the Canon 24-70mm f2.8, Tamron G2 24-70mm f2.8 VC and the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art. When tripod shooting the Canon yields slightly better results on the edges/corners (sharper for example - this is wide-open) but when hand-holding, the VC in the Tamron yielded better results. Now, individual results I'm sure would vary based on many variables, mainly how steady can you hold your camera. Still, I found it an interesting test/review...
Yes we should all roll over and just take what's given to us and have no expectations from companies but still gleefully give them thousands of our dollars. We should talk about how blessed and amazing our lives are like people do on Facebook.
No, but nor should we expect companies to give us everything we want for free.Yes we should all roll over and just take what's given to us and have no expectations from companies but still gleefully give them thousands of our dollars. We should talk about how blessed and amazing our lives are like people do on Facebook.
Canon will never compete with Sony...
Dustin Abbott <http://www.dustinabbott.com> has some interesting things to say when he performed a 3-way comparison between the Canon 24-70mm f2.8, Tamron G2 24-70mm f2.8 VC and the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art. When tripod shooting the Canon yields slightly better results on the edges/corners (sharper for example - this is wide-open) but when hand-holding, the VC in the Tamron yielded better results. Now, individual results I'm sure would vary based on many variables, mainly how steady can you hold your camera. Still, I found it an interesting test/review...
Same here.
What many need to consider is that this is an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary change.
When we went from film to digital, it was a revolutionary change. We changed from analog to digital, we went from dark rooms to computer screens.
Mirrorless is evolutionary. Our workflow remains the same, the sensors are basically the same. A Mirrorless camera is a DSLR being used in liveview mode with an extra display (EVF) and no mirror.
I don't use projection tactics in my responses to posts. My post was directed towards people who are on these forums who want to act like the Canon engineers are manipulative in their actions towards the market. My point is to the posters who don't feel like they need to pay any heed to the engineers that spend their hard earned time and engineering expertise to deliver products that we, as consumers, are sometimes taking for granted. I'm just making an observation. That should be clear to posters who actually understand my previous post, and the message I was attempting to deliver in that post. Only those who want to take what I said personally would respond in a fashion that is acting as though I was targeting a specific poster. Nowhere did I insinuate that I am doing that, as I am just making a generic statement that is prevalent in many posts on camera forums in general. The Canon engineers (and other manufacturers engineers) are doing their best to deliver products that put a smile on our faces, and to insinuate that they are deviantly manipulating their products to structure the market in a way that hampers their ability is just not where I believe they are, in their heart of hearts. I believe that we are enjoying the best that they have to offer, without a vested interest in hampering their products to structure their product lines. Of course some people will disagree, and that's their right to do so. Of course there is concern as to these product line placements, but they are giving us some really great products that should be celebrated, across the board.Yes because you exhibit the same superiority complex that you're criticizing in your post.
Nikon took the complete opposite approach to AF and tried, remarkably unsuccessfully and with staggering incompetence, to maintain compatibility with the F mount. A decision that ended up being a nightmare of incompatibility across lenses and bodies, throw in their early digital attitude that there would never be a need for ff sensors and the corresponding pro F mount lenses without the image circle to cover either the film frame or the ff digital sensors that eventually arrived and it is a shock that Nikon didn't disenfranchise every single Nikon shooter over that 2000's period.Fair enough but Nikon was also wiped out by Canon EF. Pros wanted the better autofocus and would switch systems to get it. My guess is that once there's an RF system to switch to (trinity zooms, a few other key lenses, and a pro body), Pros will want the better lenses that the SLR film-flange makes impossible, and will switch systems to get them.