A lot of that sharpness is artificial, especially with smartphones.
Modern cameras and lenses do help, but it still takes skill to capture sharp images before artificial sharpening.
Upvote
0
Canon talks EOS R3, and confirms that it is not the flagship mirrorless
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Modern cameras and lenses do help, but it still takes skill to capture sharp images before artificial sharpening.
It is not anti-competitive at all.
No one has the obligation to share technology and anyone can read the patents.
Upvote
0
basically anything that benefit from lots of detail which makes me think the MP would be lower than an A1 but who knows with tech advancement.
Upvote
0
It's not just about great it's about choice. There are niche lenses that a large company like Canon is never going to bother with. But the third party companies can spread those niche lenses over multiple mounts
Upvote
0
Yup. This is the R1 in all but name, they just don't want to call it that for a few reasons:
- they don't want to make 1DX owners feel bad about their year-old camera already being made obsolete
- they feel the 'real' R1 isn't ready and want to make a splash when they finally get quad pixel autofocus (or whatever feature they have planned) ready
- they want to avoid direct comparisons against the Sony A9, whether on price or features
Look at the form factor. There's no way Canon is going to have both an R1 and R3 exist alongside each other. Once Canon finally feels like they can make a good enough camera called the R1, they'll quietly forget about the R3, just like they did with the EOS R.
Upvote
0
Well Sigma 14mm 1.8 and sigma 20mm 1.4 both helped me make some nice shots in low light situations. And I don't really know what the Canon equivalent is for these lenses.
I also used Sigma 20-35 f2.0 for a couple of low light reportages.
I don't own a 120-300mm 2.8 but I can imagine a couple of scenarios where that lens would be usefull.
And then there are a bunch of lenses that have a Canon equivalents or something in similar focal range, but are cheaper and do the job just as well. Sigma 40mm 1.4 is one of those lenses that I use a lot. It is really sharp and I actually sold my 35mm and 50mm to use the 40mm insteead.
And then the Sigma... 135mm 1.8
Sure Canon has an old 135mm 2.0 model, but it is a bit outdated and too soft for my taste.
Since mirorless cameras have a different AF system I think that makes fast aperture lenses (where focus accuracy is critical) much easier to use. And therefore maybe gives companises even more incentive to produce some niche fast aperture third party lenses.
Heck, I even find I use my 24mm TS-E more just because now I also habe the option to zoom in preview the focus in the viewfinder while shooting handheld.
Upvote
0
Well, Canon has already stated that the R3 is slotted between the R5 and 1DX, so I'm expecting it to be better than the R5 for stills in every way. My only question is whether it will match or exceed the R5's resolution. While I think that it will be at least 45MP (see my previous posts), there's not enough information available yet to be certain of that conjecture.
To address your question, the R3 will differ from the R5 in price and form factor. I'm hoping that it will come in under $6000, but I would not be surprised if it matched the Sony A1's $6500 price.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Just more bait and switch from Canon. The R1 will decide if Canon makes a HUGE amount of money transitioning over their professional base. It represents many billions of dollars if they get it right.
Upvote
0
I always saw it as "competitive" behavior. How these people view it as anti-competitive is a mystery to me. Let Canon develop the tech/mount, and then give it away to competitors who'll cut Canon off at the knees? Weird.
Upvote
0
I don't believe the "professional base" is worth as much as one might think. This is an industry in steep decline... especially the sports photographer and photojournalism base. The wedding and portrait photographers don't have much call for an R1. That's a much bigger "base", though also in decline.
Upvote
0
Patent law allows you to patent a mount for your camera but you are not allowed to patent accessories that fit on to that mount. And that is to prevent a monopoly situation. Similarly, US and other intellectual property law allows reverse engineering of coding protocols if it enables third party devices to work better. It might stop Canon making even more profit but the law is there to protect us the consumer .
Upvote
0
Long time Reduser, first time poster: I don't think its true that Canon shared (do you have some evidence?) Red's just gotten some RF lens control capability in BETA fairly recently - probably just reverse engineered. Also, thought I read somewhere that although they won the patent suit with apple on compressed raw it may be somehow limited to 4K and below so cameras above 4K aren't subject. .R3D has been a big part of Red's success but in fairness I've never been convinced that compression of it was patentable. Compression of large files - particularly of media files, has been widespread and either open or licensable for free for at least 30 years - so the idea and execution (.r3d is a flavor of wavelet (JPEG2000?) compression) so fairly obvious and obvious extensions of existing technologies are not supposed to be patentable. Patents like that come down to patent lawyer language, someone's willing to contest, and the USPTO's ability to understand the technology.
This is just stuff they I have vague knowledge of and not heavily researched so take it all with a grain of salt.
Upvote
0
Thanks, agree that some Laowa offerings are unique. Regarding the 2x macro, Canon has had the MP-E 65 for decades, that's a 1x-5x macro. I forgot about the 12/2.8.
I had certainly considered the 150-600mm zooms from Sigma/Tamron, but IMO those don't really count – Canon's 100-400mm II and more so the RF 100-500 offer much better IQ, sufficiently better that either cropping to the 600mm framing (where the 150-600 lenses are weakest) yields similar or better IQ, and adding a 1.4x TC to a Canon 100-400/500 yields a longer lens with similar IQ. The Sigma/Tamron are actually pretty good at the short end, but I doubt anyone is buying a 150-600mm lens to use it in the 150-300mm range.
On balance, while there are a handful of unique offerings, on balance I think the main advantage the 3rd party lenses deliver is lower cost, which as I stated is certainly a meaningful advantage.
Upvote
0
Ha, I totaly agree on the 100-400!
I had the 150-600 Tamron, but now I have the 100-400 Canon. The Image Quality is indeed a bit better, even If cropped in to match the 600mm framing. Given the much lower weight and size, its indeed the better lense for me.
I am curious about the 150-600 Sigma Sports lense- this looks pretty impressive build. But I guess its still not worth the weight over the 100-400 or ne new RF 100-500 which also looks interesting.
I agree with you on the quality aspect =)
Upvote
0
I’ve been thinking the same. I have a love/hate relationship with Tamron. Under really bright conditions, my Tamron 45mm is a POS. Other than that, it’s a really nice lens. Also used to have Tamron’s 15-30. Another nice lens.
I’ve recently moved to a tiny town in the Arkansas Ozarks. I’m very tempted to get into birding again. While I’d love a great white, a good zoom would be more practical for me, and far less money.
Upvote
0
I understand that. What I don’t get is people demanding Canon help the competition.
Upvote
0
demand is a strong word. and helping the competition is never what somebody wants to do. on the otherhand, building a community of partnerships might create a larger market for your stuff. there is value in having the ability to accessorize and build a system using components within an active community of suppliers. and i am ok with folks choosing components based upon interoperability and adherence to formal and informal standards.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
