Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

[scyrene]

Take a light reading in a scene, let's say f2 1/250s 100iso, input those values in a medium format, a FF, an Aps and a 1" sensor camera, and see if the exposure value (aka the light intensity in the picture) changes. The sensor/film size is irrelevant to the captured EV of a scene.

Do you think an image taken with the same headline exposure values on every format will look the same? Do you think ISO 3200 looks the same on a phone as APS-C??

 

[AJ]

In 2016, I made the mistake of purchasing a Sigma Art 50mm lens. After about a week, I noticed that some of my portraits were misfocused by about 1cm shooting the lens wide open. I exchanged the lens, but it did not help. My fellow photographers and I put the lens to a focus test with a focusing target on a Canon 1DsMkIII and a 5DMkiV. We shot the lens on a tripod, Single shot AF at wide open focusing at about 4 feet. We got the green dot focus confirmation in the cameras every time. 45% of shots were perfectly focused, 10% were out of focus by at least 6cm, and 45% of shots were front or back focused by about o.5cm. We used their dock to try to fix the misfocusing but could not. We used the old EF 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 for the same test and they focused correctly 99% of the time.

We confronted the Canada Sigma sales rep with this information. He reluctantly acknowledged that Canon has never shared any code or other information with Sigma; all their autofocus protocols for Canon bodies have been reverse engineered by Sigma on their own, ALWAYS. He thought they (Sigma) were damn good at their achievements, we should just chill, stop the lens down one or two stops and be happy. We returned the lens and just bought EF and Rf lenses since then. Case Closed.

Yes - that's how it used to be, with phase-detect AF systems.
I never got very far with the AF calibration system. The issue was a inconsistency, rather than consistent back/front focus issues
But now we have mirrorless cameras where these kinds of focusing problems go away. Chances are, that 2016 Sigma 50 Art you had would have focused perfectly on a mirrorless body.
Which begs the question. Did Canon cut off the 3rd party lens manufacturers once Canon's AF advantage was gone? Hmmm....

 

[Walrus]

Do you think an image taken with the same headline exposure values on every format will look the same? Do you think ISO 3200 looks the same on a phone as APS-C??

No, I don't.

But that's not the point; we're talking EV of a scene, pure exposure; we're not talking SNR.

Sun doesn't care about your camera, nor a strobe set to a certain power will care about your camera and its sensor; the EV of a scene doesn't change with your sensor size.

 

[Redline]

I don’t get why people are really pissed at this, it’s their mount, their company. I guess they can do what they want? I purchase rf lenses so I have no issue with this.

It's annoying. It wouldn't be so annoying if they produced enough lenses to justify cornering their "RF" mount market if you want to call it that. And look what happens when companies don't allow such innovation and restricting it. They don't, in my opinion, never go anywhere other than people moving away from it. Sony is doing well by allowing 3rd party solutions. People will buy what they want but restricting it I don't think it's beneficial at all.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's annoying. It wouldn't be so annoying if they produced enough lenses to justify cornering their "RF" mount market if you want to call it that. And look what happens when companies don't allow such innovation and restricting it. They don't, in my opinion, never go anywhere other than people moving away from it. Sony is doing well by allowing 3rd party solutions.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Too bad the facts prove your opinion to be incorrect. As of last year, Canon had grown to become the #1 mirrorless brand. They continue to dominate the overall camera market (which they've led for 20 years). Sony is now a relatively distant second, and though they gained substantial market share in the past few years (Nikon used to be a close second to Canon, now they're a distant third), last year Sony's gains seem to have plateaued (they lost a small bit of market share).



As always, you are welcome to your own opinion...but not to your own facts. At least you have the support of people like @Walrus, who also completely ignores facts and physics in favor of his own beliefs.

People will buy what they want but restricting it I don't think it's beneficial at all.

Evidently Canon has a different opinion. I'm certain that the company who's led the ILC market for >20 years knows more about what is beneficial for them in that market than a rando on the internet. I get that it's not beneficial to you, and that's fine, but Canon doesn't care.

 

[Dragon]

Take a light reading in a scene, let's say f2 1/250s 100iso, input those values in a medium format, a FF, an Aps and a 1" sensor camera, and see if the exposure value (aka the light intensity in the picture) changes. The sensor/film size is irrelevant to the captured EV of a scene.

OK, I will try this another way. EV represents light intensity per unit area, and as you say, the numbers will look the same re f stop, speed, and ISO but here is the difference. If I use a 20 MP FF it will have pixels 2.5 times the size (area) of the pixels on a 20 MP APS-c (Canon) so each pixel will have more than a full stop of extra light to integrate than the APS camera. You will need make the aperture about 1-1/3 stops smaller on the FF to have the same amount of light hitting each pixel on the FF as you had before on the crop frame camera (you also have to turn up the ISO by 1-1/3 stops) At that point, magically, you will also have the same depth of field (and signal-to-noise) as you had with the larger aperture and lower ISO setting on the crop camera. Look up equivalency and read and read again until you understand what is going on. It is not intuitive until you take all the variables into account, but when you do, it is obvious and it really works.

The FF does come out ahead with high MP cameras because equivalently high MP crop cameras challenge lenses much more both in terms of design limits and diffraction limits. Shoot with an M6 II, a 90D or an R7 for while and you will see what I mean.

 

[AlanF]

This is true, but only for engines they don't want to produce themselves, for reasons of cost, volumes, experience etc...
If I'm not mistaken, you're never given the choice between the original -brand engine and the competitor's in the same c.c. and output category.
So, no competition like in the camera industry between OEM and 3rd. party.

We all use analogy as a form of argument but it is basically unsound because situations are rarely, if ever, truly analogous. And, the more the dissimilarity, the poorer the analogy argument. A car is sold with an engine that is not intended to be exchanged by its owner. So a conventional car has some analogy to a camera with a fixed lens, not to a camera with an interchangeable lens when it comes to choice of interchangeable lenses vs engines. Where there are similarities, is that a car manufacturer has by law to allow any other manufacturer to make an engine that will fit their car if the rival wanted to.

 

[Del Paso]

We all use analogy as a form of argument but it is basically unsound because situations are rarely, if ever, truly analogous. And, the more the dissimilarity, the poorer the analogy argument. A car is sold with an engine that is not intended to be exchanged by its owner. So a conventional car has some analogy to a camera with a fixed lens, not to a camera with an interchangeable lens when it comes to choice of interchangeable lenses vs engines. Where there are similarities, is that a car manufacturer has by law to allow any other manufacturer to make an engine that will fit their car if the rival wanted to.

Right!
But spares, like air filters, brake calipers, even pistons, turbo-chargers can, by law, be made by anybody.
As long as they meet OEM specs, customers are allowed to use them without any restrictions. Even if car makes often try to convince us they are lower quality. (Often true for oil filters and brake-pads, as tests performed by my company's lab have proven, and confirmed by the parts makers). Doesn't mean those differences are actually relevant...

 

[Walrus]

OK, I will try this another way. EV represents light intensity per unit area, and as you say, the numbers will look the same re f stop, speed, and ISO but here is the difference. If I use a 20 MP FF it will have pixels 2.5 times the size (area) of the pixels on a 20 MP APS-c (Canon) so each pixel will have more than a full stop of extra light to integrate than the APS camera. You will need make the aperture about 1-1/3 stops smaller on the FF to have the same amount of light hitting each pixel on the FF as you had before on the crop frame camera (you also have to turn up the ISO by 1-1/3 stops) At that point, magically, you will also have the same depth of field (and signal-to-noise) as you had with the larger aperture and lower ISO setting on the crop camera. Look up equivalency and read and read again until you understand what is going on. It is not intuitive until you take all the variables into account, but when you do, it is obvious and it really works.

The FF does come out ahead with high MP cameras because equivalently high MP crop cameras challenge lenses much more both in terms of design limits and diffraction limits. Shoot with an M6 II, a 90D or an R7 for while and you will see what I mean.

Guys, you all are overcomplicating this.

You are right. All of you.

But you're not listening what I'm saying.

Last time, then really, for mental sanity of all of us, I'm not answering anymore; everybody will be happy with its own idea.

I'm in a church, shooting the groom waiting for the bride; exposure is f2 1/125s 1600iso.
My colleague, that was outside for bride arrival, now enters the church for shooting bride entering, and asks me "man, what's the exposure in here?"
I answer "dude, exposure is f2 1/125s 1600iso", without caring what camera he has, what lens, etc.
He sets the exposure, starts shooting.
If needed, maybe he adjust f1.4 1/250s 1600iso if wants faster time for the entrance? Or he has a good camera at high iso, so goes f2 1/250s 3200iso?
Or maybe he just uses what I told him the EV was.
End of it.

The EV of the scene never changed. NEVER. He may have altered the triangle, but the exposure is still the same.

No one really cared about DR, SNR, perspective, etc. That's educational stuff. We're not doing a conference.
We're working.
What's the EV in here?
EV is as follows.
We work.
End of it.

The dot pitch of my sensor is totally irrelevant in the field, God almighty won't change light intensity in that church according to which one of us is shooting with which camera.
We use the same setting, he has an Aps and I have FF, so his SNR is worse then mine? Who cares, he needs to take a sharp, in focus and non-motion shot of the bride entering the scene, what do I or he care if his shoot has a little more noise?

Guys, really?

I'll go silent, if you can't agree on this, there's no point in continuing arguing; with all due respect, we do different things, people don't pay me for good pics, people pay me because I don't get caught changing battery or card during the ring exchange. No bride has ever told me that the SNR of my camera was not of her liking. Maths is a thing, working in the real world is another thing. No one of that is better then the other. But they're different things, still.

 

[EricN]

Take a light reading in a scene, let's say f2 1/250s 100iso, input those values in a medium format, a FF, an Aps and a 1" sensor camera, and see if the exposure value (aka the light intensity in the picture) changes. The sensor/film size is irrelevant to the captured EV of a scene.

How about actually take photos and compare the photos?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Look up equivalency and read and read again until you understand what is going on. It is not intuitive until you take all the variables into account, but when you do, it is obvious.

Equivalency? Variables? Math? Meh, just press the shutter button. Better yet, tap the ‘button’ on your iPhone, because noise,DR, SNR, and perspective don’t matter for photography.

 

[EricN]

No, I don't.

But that's not the point; we're talking EV of a scene, pure exposure; we're not talking SNR.

Sun doesn't care about your camera, nor a strobe set to a certain power will care about your camera and its sensor; the EV of a scene doesn't change with your sensor size.

Actually, that IS the point.

Didn't you notice and wonder why that other person claimed s/he needed a wider aperture for more light, but with more area in focus, BUT also said, "I don't care about noise"? Any normal person would just crank that iso up if they don't care about noise.

 

[EricN]

Equivalency? Variables? Math? Meh, just press the shutter button. Better yet, tap the ‘button’ on your iPhone, because noise,DR, SNR, and perspective don’t matter for photography.

Why take a photo? You can never upload a photo, but make whatever claim you want while ignoring accepted facts. and if people realize what's going on, you can get upset.

 

[EricN]

It's annoying. It wouldn't be so annoying if they produced enough lenses to justify cornering their "RF" mount market if you want to call it that. And look what happens when companies don't allow such innovation and restricting it. They don't, in my opinion, never go anywhere other than people moving away from it. Sony is doing well by allowing 3rd party solutions. People will buy what they want but restricting it I don't think it's beneficial at all.

What's annoying to me is the idea of someone buying a new camera with a new mount before the lenses they believe they need are available and then complaining about the company. I don't think any one was forced at gunpoint to buy an RF camera, but if it happened, you should definitely report the incident.

 

[Del Paso]

Equivalency? Variables? Math? Meh, just press the shutter button. Better yet, tap the ‘button’ on your iPhone, because noise,DR, SNR, and perspective don’t matter for photography.

What did Kodak say?
You press the button, we do the rest.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Any normal person…

To be honest, it’s probably ‘normal’ for people to think they make good decisions**. Should someone question the reasons behind those decisions, many people will simply refuse to acknowledge facts that call their rationale into question. The decision may have worked out well enough, but revisiting it is actively avoided.

Thus, ‘I picked APS-C over FF because it gives more DoF’. Or the other one, ‘I got a Fuji G for when I want really thin DoF.’ Their zooms are the equivalent of f/3.2 on FF, their ‘classic’ portrait prime focal lengths, 63/2.8 and 110/2 (there’s no 135mm equivalent) are effectively slower than the corresponding 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 on FF meaning a deeper DoF, not shallower. The two fastest G series primes, 55/1.7 and 80/1.7, are still equivalent to f/1.3 (rounding down in Fuji’s favor), and wider equivalent focal lengths to boot. So the fact is that if ‘really thin DoF’ is the goal, a FF camera from Nikon with the Z 58/0.95 or Sony with one of the 3rd party f/0.95-1 lenses is the better choice.

But as we’ve already seen, closing one’s mind with, “Don’t tell me what I already know,” is the response when presented with the relevant facts.

**Someone who sold his M50 kit then had to buy it back is probably not the best example of someone who makes good decisions, lol.

 

[Dragon]

Yes - that's how it used to be, with phase-detect AF systems.
I never got very far with the AF calibration system. The issue was a inconsistency, rather than consistent back/front focus issues
But now we have mirrorless cameras where these kinds of focusing problems go away. Chances are, that 2016 Sigma 50 Art you had would have focused perfectly on a mirrorless body.
Which begs the question. Did Canon cut off the 3rd party lens manufacturers once Canon's AF advantage was gone? Hmmm....

DPAF is still a phase detect system and only differs from SLRs in that it doesn't have mechanical/optical errors that can provide misinformation to the lens if the SLR mechanism is not adjusted properly. If the lens is intermittently off focus, the problem is almost always traceable to the mechanical design of the lens (i.e. sticky mechanism, weak focus motors, etc.). The lens is simply not always following the instruction the camera gave it. The exception is CDAF where the camera will keep tweaking the lens until it is happy with the focus. I have several Tamron and Sigma lenses that are slow but accurate in live view mode on the 5DSr (CDAF) but routinely intermittent on any SLR as well as the R5 and R7.

 

[Dragon]

Equivalency? Variables? Math? Meh, just press the shutter button. Better yet, tap the ‘button’ on your iPhone, because noise,DR, SNR, and perspective don’t matter for photography.

Funny thing is, that is almost exactly what his response was (and he was serious). I rather liked the "one side short of a triangle" post that seems to have disappeared.

 

[AlanF]

Funny thing is, that is almost exactly what his response was (and he was serious). I rather liked the "one side short of a triangle" post that seems to have disappeared.

He’s one side short of a triangle.

 

[Richard CR]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Too bad the facts prove your opinion to be incorrect. As of last year, Canon had grown to become the #1 mirrorless brand. They continue to dominate the overall camera market (which they've led for 20 years). Sony is now a relatively distant second, and though they gained substantial market share in the past few years (Nikon used to be a close second to Canon, now they're a distant third), last year Sony's gains seem to have plateaued (they lost a small bit of market share).

View attachment 212052

That's disingenuous because what you show is total digital cameras including DSLR's and point in shoot.

For 2022 apparently, canon shipped 1.54 million and Sony 1.25 million, while Canon enjoys #1 position in 2022, it's a 38% marketshare and includes EOS-M. A great deal of those mirrorless cameras are EOS-M or cheaper RF-S units, even more than Sony. We can determine that because Sony is ranked #1 overall in camera sales value, while selling 20% freaking percent less than Canon. You do the math on that. You are implying that they were #1 based upon the RF mount. You do realize they were the #1 mirrorless brand in Japan before the RF mount, yes? While we don't know the sales split, we do know that Canon sells ALOT of cheaper cameras.

Why Canon pulled away on your chart isn't because of mirrorless it's because they completely dominate... what's remaining of the dying market of DSLR's .. 1.32 million versus 200k for nikon - and Canon sells a significant amount of cheaper cameras.

In many ways Canon's overall marketshare is foisted up by two dying brands - DSLR's and EOS-M, there is a reason Canon's throwing everything into their cameras, doing firmware upgrades that would make Fuji blush - and it's not because they love us. They can see the writing on the wall as they are trying to roll the hard six on their camera division.