Me too. Do you think it will be back after covid? Or is the ILC market just too small any more?I hope Photokina will come back.
Upvote
0
Me too. Do you think it will be back after covid? Or is the ILC market just too small any more?I hope Photokina will come back.
I think that's true. Long ago, film SLRs shipped with a 50mm prime as the kit lens. Zooms were convenient, but you took a big hit on image quality for that convenience. Modern zooms can be as good as primes, even contemporary ones. You still pay a price for the convenience, but now that's more about size/weight/cost than IQ.Primes are a different story though. You've been in the photography scene much longer, were primes generally more popular and now less in demand now that the quality of zooms has improved?
True. Lots of car forums discuss Ferraris and Lamborghinis, and they're fun to discuss even though very few people will ever own one.Without the discussions and speculation about the 'desserts' though, there wouldn't be much happening on the photography forums! People tend to get excited a lot about the additional, unusual and exotic that probably sells in the lowest numbers!
Asinine comments make those who post them look like asses. Ridiculous suggestions invite ridicule. Puerile comments, like this one, are simply pathetic.Why don't you stop being such a dick to other forum members.
I have little hope for Photokina, because CeBIT, the world's largest computer fair and also once the world's largest fair overall, also was cancelled for good a few years ago and I think that was even before Covid. That decision really shocked me. CeBIT was such a huge place. The size of more than 90 football fields of indoor exhibition space. There were years when even Bill Gates visited CeBIT every year. Then it became smaller and smaller and no it is gone.Me too. Do you think it will be back after covid? Or is the ILC market just too small any more?
With plummeting global shipping numbers... I'd imagine they'd scale back a bit.I have little hope for Photokina, because CeBIT, the world's largest computer fair and also once the world's largest fair overall, also was cancelled for good a few years ago and I think that was even before Covid. That decision really shocked me. CeBIT was such a huge place. The size of more than 90 football fields of indoor exhibition space. There were years when even Bill Gates visited CeBIT every year. Then it became smaller and smaller and no it is gone.
I still hope Photokina can come back in some form in 2024 or so. Maybe not in Cologne, bit somewhere else. It could become a part of "IFA" in Berlin for example, which is the world's largest fair of consumer electronics. Canon always had a huge tent there in the outdoor area:View attachment 205529
I have not been at IFA for a while, but that could still be the place to go in Germany, if you want to see the latest Canon gear. I do not know though if the Canon tent still exist. IFA 2022 just ended this week. So the next chance for Canon gear is Photopia in Hamburg from October 13 to 16. I will probably go there on a Sunday because during Covid I love empty trains.
> the last (or first) element of a lens can now be much closer to the sensor, light rays will now hit the sensor in a much shallower angle with all the negative consquences that bringsThe more reviews I see about the wider RF lenses, the more I think that while the shorter flange distance makes some new formulas and lighter lenses possible, it also has a huge disadvantage: As the last (or first) element of a lens can now be much closer to the sensor, light rays will now hit the sensor in a much shallower angle with all the negative consquences that brings. If you use an EF lens with an adapter instead, the angle of the light has a much higher minimum steepness. I always thought about the short flange distance as one of the main advantages of mirrorless cameras and Nikon was very proud that its flange distance is even shorter than the one of Canon's mirroless cameras, but I am not so sure any more if it really is an advantage. For long lenses it is not used anyway (the additional space is just filles with air) and at wide angle lenses it could lead to heavy vignetting. The RF 14-35 f/4 for example has four (!) stops of vignetting in the corners at 14mm and f/4. That means a handheld shot with ISO 1,600 for example is ISO 25,600 in the corners, as you have to amplify the corners by 16 times (four stops). Of course you could just crop the image, but then you lose the advantage of heaving a 14mm lens. Compare that with a Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 lens also at 14mm and f/4 and you will only the a fraction of the vignetting of the RF lens. Maybe if Sigma built a real RF version, it would be lighter than the EF version, but also show that heavy vignetting. That is not a trade off that I am willing to make. Distortion is also much worse on the Canon RF version than on the Sigma EF lens. Not sure if that also has to do with those new optical formulas.
After observations like that I doubt more and more that I will ever buy RF glass except the 800mm f/11.
This is usually a smart tradeoff. Distortion can be corrected easily in software at the cost of like 1 pixel's worth of blur at most., and lenses that don't need to be so corrected for distortion can instead correct better for things you can't easily fix in software, whether optical aberrations, or size and price. It's TRIVIAL to get the geometry perfect. You simply have to sacrifice other things (coma, chromatic aberration, size, price, weight, fragility, etc.) to get it.Distortion is also much worse on the Canon RF version than on the Sigma EF
3rd party lenses have identified themselves as Canon lenses for a long time without copying their firmware. Cameras don't look at the lens' firmware. The camera and lens communicate digitally over the mount, and somewhere in one of the messages, the lens inserts a number identifying its model. Third party lenses insert the same codes used by original Canon lenses, and the cameras accept it at face value.As some users on CR and other forums have noticed, the Viltrox lens has been identify as EF 85mm F1.4 in post-production, so I guess the company might have copied Canons firmware.
But it's not really a disadvantage of the RF mount, because a lens can always be designed leaving extra room. After all, a bunch of the Sigma EF lenses were just extended to become Sony FE lenses, and the Canon 400mm f/2.8 RF is the EF version optically. It's an additional level of flexibility for the lens designer; no possibility was eliminated by switching to the shorter flange distance.The more reviews I see about the wider RF lenses, the more I think that while the shorter flange distance makes some new formulas and lighter lenses possible, it also has a huge disadvantage: As the last (or first) element of a lens can now be much closer to the sensor, light rays will now hit the sensor in a much shallower angle with all the negative consquences that brings. If you use an EF lens with an adapter instead, the angle of the light has a much higher minimum steepness. I always thought about the short flange distance as one of the main advantages of mirrorless cameras and Nikon was very proud that its flange distance is even shorter than the one of Canon's mirroless cameras, but I am not so sure any more if it really is an advantage. For long lenses it is not used anyway (the additional space is just filles with air) and at wide angle lenses it could lead to heavy vignetting. The RF 14-35 f/4 for example has four (!) stops of vignetting in the corners at 14mm and f/4. That means a handheld shot with ISO 1,600 for example is ISO 25,600 in the corners, as you have to amplify the corners by 16 times (four stops). Of course you could just crop the image, but then you lose the advantage of heaving a 14mm lens. Compare that with a Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 lens also at 14mm and f/4 and you will only the a fraction of the vignetting of the RF lens. Maybe if Sigma built a real RF version, it would be lighter than the EF version, but also show that heavy vignetting. That is not a trade off that I am willing to make. Distortion is also much worse on the Canon RF version than on the Sigma EF lens. Not sure if that also has to do with those new optical formulas.
After observations like that I doubt more and more that I will ever buy RF glass except the 800mm f/11.
Of course they could, but the "disadvantage" is that lens designers might use the option to sacrifice image quality for a more compact design that is made possible by the shorter flange distance. As you say, in the past some third party EF lenses were just extended for mirrorless, as that of course was a cheap option.But it's not really a disadvantage of the RF mount, because a lens can always be designed leaving extra room.
I've already responded to your potentially mistaken point that there's any sacrifice at all.the "disadvantage" is that lens designers might use the option to sacrifice image quality for a more compact design that is made possible by the shorter flange distance
I understand what you mean. It is mathematical set theory. If you increase a set (like a set of options for example), the maximum of that set can't go down. It can only stay the same or go up. For example the best tennis player from California can't be worse than the best tennis player from Los Angeles, as Los Angeles is part of California. Either the guy from Los Angeles is already the best or there is someone better in California, but outside of Los Angeles.I've already responded to your potentially mistaken point that there's any sacrifice at all.
I just edited my responses a little so if you didn't understand before you may understand now.
The way engineering works is that there's always a compromise, you just have to select the area where the compromise will be.I've already responded to your potentially mistaken point that there's any sacrifice at all.
I just edited my responses a little so if you didn't understand before you may understand now.
Jan,Hi Dolina,
I'm sorry if this message has accidentally been published twice.
While I am certainly well aware of the option to use the old and outdated 2004 Canon 28-300mm with an EF to RF converter, with my Canon EOS R3 bodies, I came from 50 years of shooting with Nikon (with an intervening and hugely costly detour to Sony's A1, lenses, etc.). I had no Canon EF lenses or the converter. To waste even more money now by purchasing Canon's old, poorly rated and very expensive 28-300mm EF lens, plus an EF to RF converter, when what I really want (and am reluctantly willing to continue waiting for) is a Canon 28-300mm (or similar) RF lens — preferably L-Series, with weather-sealing, etc. for shooting on dusty race tracks, with rubber particles and sometimes heavy rain.
In case you are curious, my reason for switching cold turkey from 50 years of shooting Nikon (most recently with a D5, D4S and Z6, a large group of Nikon and Tamron lenses, and all sorts of accessories) which I prematurely and foolishly sold at a huge loss, was because of a friend's demonstration of the Sony A1's incredible focus tracking of a hummingbird in flight. I wrongly assumed that since the A1 could track a tiny hummingbird in flight so well, then surely it would do an awesome job tracking race cars on the track. I sold my Nikon and Tamron gear and bought a two-camera A1 system and accessories, only to discover through experience that it would lose the cars if anything came between me and them.
That is when I had to make a critical decision: to start all over again with Nikon (the Z9 was not yet available) or try Canon by ordering two EOS R3 bodies. That is what I chose to do.
Now I have a small selection of RF glass, Canon flashes, batteries, memory cards, etc., and I have been trying hard to learn how to shoot with Canon and overcome decades of muscle memory experience with Nikon. Rotating the zoom ring on lenses the Canon direction instead of the Nikon direction continues to be a recurring problem, when I have to react quickly to get shots. I am also unable to change important settings nearly as quickly as I did with Nikon.
All that said, the EOS R3 has been great for shooting car racing, as is (for the first time) having two identical camera bodies. When shooting car races, I quickly switch back and forth between a long zoom lens on one body and a wider zoom lens on the other.
Changing lenses while on the track is not a viable option, due to the likelihood of flying dust and rubber contaminating the image sensor.
You can see the results of me shooting with Canon R3 bodies and (mostly L-Series) glass by searching for my most recent (2022+) auto racing coverage on my AutoMatters.net website.
Jan
The parallels you draw are quite good I think.However the same also is true for a minimum of a set. If you increase the set, the minimum either stays the same or you get a new, even lower minimum. So if you take the worst tennis player from Los Angeles and then look at whole California, you might find and even worse tennis player than the worst from Los Angeles.
I spoke to my local CPS center on another matter and told them they need to have at least one L quality super zoom in the line up at some point.
Cheers
Maybe the difference is that I try to avoid bokeh whenever possible. So I do not really care too much if out-of-focus area appear green or magenta oder even have an annoying colour fringing. I also do not care about the shape of the bokeh balls. My focus are skyscrapers and I try to get them into focus as much as possible. That of course is very different for portrait photographers. I also have to admit though that even vignetting is only a problem in the rare circumstances when I am forced to shoot wide open die to the lack of light. Usually I use f/8 or f/11.Finally, I don't think you're appreciating that some lens aberrations are trivial to correct in software where others are impossible. Lateral CA, distortion and vignetting are trivial to fix. Axial (longitudinal, bokeh) CA is impossible, as is coma and several other aberrations, and including simply nice out-of-focus highlight shape and so on.
OK, but you may be losing more resolution from diffraction at f/11 than you possibly could from geometry correction. And I believe the geometry correction will correct perfectly, more rectilinear than even the most accurate uncorrected primes. In your field, the geometry correction is likely to be visible even at internet resolutions where I can promise you the at-most 1/2-pixel blur from geometry correction will not be.Maybe the difference is that I try to avoid bokeh whenever possible. So I do not really care too much if out-of-focus area appear green or magenta oder even have an annoying colour fringing. I also do not care about the shape of the bokeh balls. My focus are skyscrapers and I try to get them into focus as much as possible. That of course is very different for portrait photographers. I also have to admit though that even vignetting is only a problem in the rare circumstances when I am forced to shoot wide open die to the lack of light. Usually I use f/8 or f/11.
Sometimes it annoys me though that a new technology is created to address problems that I did not have in the first place. Then I might have to experience the downsides without benefitting from the upsides. Mirrorless cameras are a good example for that. One of the big reasons they were introduced was the improvement of autofocus. Autofocus points from edge to edge, face recognition and other stuff are only possible without a mirror. Either in Live View or with a mirrorless camera. However for the subjects of my photography, I hardly ever had trouble with autofocus. Skyscrapers do not have faces and I almost always use the single autofocus point in the center. I also do not really need video. I see video more as a gimmick. You can't really hang a video to your wall. At least not that easily. Yet those new cameras are heavily influenced by the video aspect. For example when the camera manufacturer decides about the resolution of the sensor. Of course the sensor is read out all the time anyway. So video should not be expensive to implement. However I am sure that video is a part of the price calculation of each camera. You do not get any features for free. Even those you do not need. I wish there was a stills only R3 for less money.It's possible that most of the improvements simply don't affect you, so if you can make use of the far far cheaper ocean of EF lenses, I can only be envious!