Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

[ReflexVE]

It’s only brought up in response to those complaining about it. So who is really bringing it up? The fact that Canon seems to be maintaining a 50% market share in ILC, given all the competition out there, tends to show that this is only an issue with a very small number of people. While their concerns are valid for them, they aren’t valid for most others.

This is not how 'concerns' work. I mentioned Microsoft for a reason. People don't buy a given product for one single feature very often, nor do they quit it for one single decision very often. It's always a mix of needs/likes/dislikes with people buying based on the overall value proposition vs the competition. And no one in this or other threads is contending otherwise, that's simply a strawman that keeps being stood up as though it's a defense, and to avoid actually trying to defend the situation beyond 'Canon make money go brrrr!'

 

[ReflexVE]

Ok I don't think anyone has explained it in easy terms here yet, but the responses you're getting are in part because unfortunately you are mistaken. For any given combination of DOF on APS-C you can adjust the settings on FF to give the same result (stop the lens down and increase the ISO). But FF gives you more options because you can have a shallower DOF on that setup (there is no lens <~f/0.95). The tradeoffs are in price and to some extent size, but there is no image an APS-C camera can produce that a FF cannot, as you seem to believe. It's not a difference of opinion.

You keep saying this. I want a given aperture with a deeper DoF than that *same aperture* gives me on FF. I do not want to stop down and lose light. I am not sure how many different ways I can make this clear. I know what stopping down is. I do it all the time for some situations. I know how it affects DoF. Why can you not understand that *for me* a deeper DoF at a given aperture is an advantage, and a shallower one at that same aperture is a drawback? I know FF shooters often have some sort of weird idea that their sensor size is the standard that all others aspire to, but it is not, nor was it ever, and many creatives want a different look than what FF offers. You literally cannot produce shots like I can with a H2s and the Viltrox 75mm f/1.2. There is no equivalent body/lens combo in Canon's lineup that can produce the images I do with that combo. That kind of uniqueness is what I'm looking for, something less standard without sacrificing light.

If I wanted my work to look like everyone else I'd own a R5 or A73 with the standard three primes and a zoom. I don't which is why I love the third party options that give me non-typical focal lengths, fast apertures, and vintage glass. And the bodies that can use them. And before anyone gets up in arms, there is nothing wrong with sticking with the standards either. For a professional I'm sure that's what is expected.

 

[EricN]

Literally not what I was saying. I was discussing DoF and it's not an 'advantage' it is a difference. At the same brightness FF sensors have a narrower DoF vs APS-C. Some prefer the FF DoF and consider that an advantage. For my shooting I prefer the deeper DoF I get on APS-C. I happen to own a GFX 100S for those times when I actually want a very thin DoF (or spectacular landscapes), but for most practical shooting I find the deeper DoF on APS-C at a given aperture to be advantageous. Others will feel the inverse and that is fine.

 

[Dragon]

You keep saying this. I want a given aperture with a deeper DoF than that *same aperture* gives me on FF. I do not want to stop down and lose light. I am not sure how many different ways I can make this clear. I know what stopping down is. I do it all the time for some situations. I know how it affects DoF. Why can you not understand that *for me* a deeper DoF at a given aperture is an advantage, and a shallower one at that same aperture is a drawback? I know FF shooters often have some sort of weird idea that their sensor size is the standard that all others aspire to, but it is not, nor was it ever, and many creatives want a different look than what FF offers. You literally cannot produce shots like I can with a H2s and the Viltrox 75mm f/1.2. There is no equivalent body/lens combo in Canon's lineup that can produce the images I do with that combo. That kind of uniqueness is what I'm looking for, something less standard without sacrificing light.

If I wanted my work to look like everyone else I'd own a R5 or A73 with the standard three primes and a zoom. I don't which is why I love the third party options that give me non-typical focal lengths, fast apertures, and vintage glass. And the bodies that can use them. And before anyone gets up in arms, there is nothing wrong with sticking with the standards either. For a professional I'm sure that's what is expected.

Several folks here have done an excellent job of explaining the physics to you, but you seem incapable of understanding that a "given aperture" has no meaning in the absence of frame size, or maybe you just want argue for the sake of arguing but it is abundantly clear at this point that you are blowing hot air and have no interest in reality.

 

[ReflexVE]

Several folks here have done an excellent job of explaining the physics to you, but you seem incapable of understanding that a "given aperture" has no meaning in the absence of frame size, or maybe you just want argue for the sake of arguing but it is abundantly clear at this point that you are blowing hot air and have no interest in reality.

Cool story bro.

 

[Walrus]

when I look at the equipment listed in your forum signature, it appears to be rather basic. You aren't operating at my level. Moreover, you don't even own or shoot with top-of-the-line gear. Consequently, your advice doesn't carry much weight.

I was with you previously, but frankly I think here you went a little too far.

EOS R5 // EOS R // EOS R6 Mark II
EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM // EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM // EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM // EF 135 f/2L USM // EF 16-35 f/4L IS USM // Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art // Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art // RF 24-105 f/4L IS USM

Calling "rather basic" this kind of gear (I cut away some extras) is pretty snobbish in my personal opinion; this kind of gear is close to the best you can get for any common photo work, except motor sports and fast paced situations in general. For me this is top of the line, definitely.

But other than that, saying "you have no high end gear (which is not true here, IMHO), so your opinion is useless BS, not gonna listen to you" is even more snobbish; I call myself a professional, since more then 10 years, but I'm always happy to learn from the latest of the amateurs, with the most basic stuff ever in their bags, as long as they have something interesting and/or new to discuss, which may give me ideas, suggestions, and possibly improve my work.

I feel you for the back pains, and I totally agree on the heavy stuff part; but not with the rest, I'm sorry.

 

[ReflexVE]

I was with you previously, but frankly I think here you went a little too far.

EOS R5 // EOS R // EOS R6 Mark II
EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM // EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM // EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM // EF 135 f/2L USM // EF 16-35 f/4L IS USM // Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art // Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art // RF 24-105 f/4L IS USM

Calling "rather basic" this kind of gear (I cut away some extras) is pretty snobbish in my personal opinion; this kind of gear is close to the best you can get for any common photo work, except motor sports and fast paced situations in general. For me this is top of the line, definitely.

But other than that, saying "you have no high end gear (which is not true here, IMHO), so your opinion is useless BS, not gonna listen to you" is even more snobbish; I call myself a professional, since more then 10 years, but I'm always happy to learn from the latest of the amateurs, with the most basic stuff ever in their bags, as long as they have something interesting and/or new to discuss, which may give me ideas, suggestions, and possibly improve my work.

I feel you for the back pains, and I totally agree on the heavy stuff part; but not with the rest, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I liked it for the other stuff but that part was...over the top. The parts i agree with are the discussion of his individual needs, both physical and professional, which people here seem unable to grapple with instead attacking everyone for making different decisions than them. In other words if we make our own list of priorities and choose our equipment around those we are doing it wrong, vs choosing the brand and then somehow fitting all our priorities into that brand.

 

[Walrus]

you seem incapable of understanding that a "given aperture" has no meaning in the absence of frame size

I have not read all the previous post and discussions about it, I say it in advance.

So I'm referring just to this phrase I quoted, extrapolated from the context.

If you ever used an incident light exposure meter, you would have seen that nowhere the "frame size" is ever taken into consideration; the EV (exposure value) of a scene is always the same, regardless of your gear. So if you "block" two sides of the triangle, the shutter speed and the iso (yes, "real" iso vary from brand to brand, and even between cameras of the same brand; let's pretend that iso is the same), than the aperture, when measured with an incident light meter, or the total light measured with a lux meter, it's the same thing, well the aperture/light intensity is exactly the same, regardless of your sensor size.

 

[scyrene]

You keep saying this. I want a given aperture with a deeper DoF than that *same aperture* gives me on FF. I do not want to stop down and lose light. I am not sure how many different ways I can make this clear.

I will try one more time. You do not lose light. Simple as that. You have more light on FF to begin with because the sensor is larger. So when you stop down a lens on a FF body to get the same DOF as a given crop sensor setup, the loss of light only takes you to the same place - you do not have less light than the crop sensor image! Nothing is lost! And there is no "for you". I'm sorry if this punctures your sense of being right but in this case you are unequivocally mistaken on a matter of physics. It is widely misunderstood so don't feel bad. Please just try to learn. There are resources online that explain it in more technical detail than I have time for. A search for "equivalence" should take you there.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Several folks here have done an excellent job of explaining the physics to you, but you seem incapable of understanding that a "given aperture" has no meaning in the absence of frame size, or maybe you just want argue for the sake of arguing but it is abundantly clear at this point that you are blowing hot air and have no interest in reality.

He’s one side short of a triangle.

 

[Brikna]

Yeah, I liked it for the other stuff but that part was...over the top. The parts i agree with are the discussion of his individual needs, both physical and professional, which people here seem unable to grapple with instead attacking everyone for making different decisions than them. In other words if we make our own list of priorities and choose our equipment around those we are doing it wrong, vs choosing the brand and then somehow fitting all our priorities into that brand.

I'm really sorry if anyone here feels attacked by me. I will try to change my tone of communication. I thought it was acceptable, but apparently it is not.

However, I still think that someone who has some kind of health condition that makes a piece of equipment too heavy for him should still say that, for example - R3 is too heavy for me because of my health condition and that is one of the reasons why I have to change the equipment and even the system.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I have not read all the previous post and discussions about it, I say it in advance.

So I'm referring just to this phrase I quoted, extrapolated from the context.

If you ever used an incident light exposure meter, you would have seen that nowhere the "frame size" is ever taken into consideration; the EV (exposure value) of a scene is always the same, regardless of your gear. So if you "block" two sides of the triangle, the shutter speed and the iso (yes, "real" iso vary from brand to brand, and even between cameras of the same brand; let's pretend that iso is the same), than the aperture, when measured with an incident light meter, or the total light measured with a lux meter, it's the same thing, well the aperture/light intensity is exactly the same, regardless of your sensor size.

True, but not the point. Exposure meters don't take pictures, image sensors do. Exposure meters don't care about noise, photographers (hopefully) do.

Let me try to illustrate with two related examples.

APS-C camera: 50mm, f/2.8, ISO 400
FF camera: 80mm, f/2.8, ISO 400

The framing is the same (50x1.6=80), the DoF is thinner with the FF camera, the 'brightness' of the resulting image is the same (f/2.8, ISO 400).​

APS-C camera: 50mm, f/2.8, ISO 400
FF camera: 80mm, f/4.5, ISO 1250

The framing is the same (50x1.6=80), the DoF is the same (FF stopped down to 1.3-stops to match DoF), the 'brightness' of the resulting image is the same (f/4.5, ISO increased 1.3-stops to compensate for narrower aperture).​

Image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered by a sensor. That's why the the FF R8 has a native ISO range up to 102,400, whereas the APS-C R7's native range tops out at 32,000 (and the iPhone 14 Pro tops out at 12,768) – manufacturers decide what is a maximum tolerable noise level and set the range accordingly (Apple sets a higher ISO cap relative to sensor size because of the heavy reliance of onboard, AI-driven noise reduction).

In the first example, the image noise is lower with FF. The ISO (gain) is the same, but the FF sensor is bigger so it gathers more total light. In the second example, the image noise is the same (the increased noise from the higher ISO used offsets the lower noise from more total light). Thus, in the first example the FF sensor is trading DoF for lower noise. In the second example, the resulting images are the same in terms of framing, DoF, 'brightness' and image noise – they are equivalent.

The larger sensor allows you to achieve thinner DoF if you want it (and benefit from lower noise), but if you don't want the thinner DoF you stop down to get the the same DoF and simply raise the ISO and get the exact same image you'd get on APS-C. So, the larger sensor gives you more flexibility and more options. Importantly, one of those options is to get exactly the same image you'd get with APS-C.

If you're shooting in ample light (or adding your own) and don't need much subject isolation, there's really not much of an advantage to FF. But in more challenging conditions, FF has advantages – lower noise for working in low light (but you have to accept shallower DoF to get it), thinner DoF if you need maximum subject isolation (to match framing but get DoF as thin as f/1.2 on FF, you'd need an f/0.75 lens for your APS-C camera...good luck with that). In the example above, ISO 400 is not going to look meaningfully different on either sensor. But ISO 6400 on FF will look a lot better than ISO 6400 on APS-C. In that situation, you can have eyes in focus and ears not with a FF sensor...or you can have eyes and ears in focus with either sensor with the shot unusable due to high noise.

Put another way, FF gives you options that APS-C does not, in terms of the types of images you can obtain. A FF camera can do everything an APS-C camera can do in terms of DoF, shutter speed, ISO and noise, but it can also do more because it gathers more total light.

As I've already stated, the potential advantages of APS-C over FF are smaller/lighter systems, lower cost, and more pixels on target if you're focal length limited. That's it. Period. If you believe there are other advantages, you're arguing with optical physics...and you'll lose that argument. Every. Single. Time.

But as I've also stated, some people (far too many, IMO) are perfectly willing to ignore things like facts and physics and just assume their personal opinion is correct. It's clear that @ReflexVE falls into that category, hopefully you do not and you've learned something today.

 

[JTP]

I was with you previously, but frankly I think here you went a little too far.

EOS R5 // EOS R // EOS R6 Mark II
EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM // EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM // EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM // EF 135 f/2L USM // EF 16-35 f/4L IS USM // Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art // Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art // RF 24-105 f/4L IS USM

Calling "rather basic" this kind of gear (I cut away some extras) is pretty snobbish in my personal opinion; this kind of gear is close to the best you can get for any common photo work, except motor sports and fast paced situations in general. For me this is top of the line, definitely.

But other than that, saying "you have no high end gear (which is not true here, IMHO), so your opinion is useless BS, not gonna listen to you" is even more snobbish; I call myself a professional, since more then 10 years, but I'm always happy to learn from the latest of the amateurs, with the most basic stuff ever in their bags, as long as they have something interesting and/or new to discuss, which may give me ideas, suggestions, and possibly improve my work.

I feel you for the back pains, and I totally agree on the heavy stuff part; but not with the rest, I'm sorry.

Hey, if you have a different perspective, that's perfectly fine. Your opinion is valid, and you have every right to express it. I initially commented on the original post to share my thoughts and frustrations. Then, someone unrelated to the discussion chimed in with their thoughts, suggesting that I might regret my decisions and implying that amateurs use Sony and later switch to Canon.

In response, I conveyed my own thoughts and feelings, emphasizing that I don't place much importance on their opinions because they don't use the same equipment that I do. I believe we all have our unique needs and preferences, and it's natural for people to have differing viewpoints. If anyone felt hurt by my response, that's their right, but this situation highlights a common issue in today's discourse.

I want to clarify that I wasn't trying to be unkind to the individual. I wasn't claiming superiority; I'm just a person who uses a particular camera to support my family. I'm nothing extraordinary. However, it's reasonable to expect that others might not be too interested in your opinions if you don't use the same equipment they do. Everyone has their own needs and priorities, just as I do.

If this person wanted to engage in a meaningful conversation, it might have been more constructive to start with a question rather than making a statement about my physical condition. Holding a 7-pound camera to your face for 15 minutes, let alone 10 hours, is a challenge that very few people can manage. The reason I use the R3 is because it's comparable in weight to the R5 but offers superior dynamic range, white balance, and tones. The Sony equivalent is smaller, but I'm not here to convince anyone to switch sides. If you love your Canons and they work for you, that's fantastic. I also love my Canon gear, but when I see a friend shooting with an 85 that offers similar quality and is half the size, I consider moving in that direction for the sake of size and weight savings.

Ultimately, the key is to use what works best for you and supports your family.

cheers

 

[ReflexVE]

Everyone has their own needs and priorities, just as I do.

Amazing how few people seem capable of respecting this very simple fact.

 

[Jethro]

What you initially said:

You aren't operating at my level. Moreover, you don't even own or shoot with top-of-the-line gear. Consequently, your advice doesn't carry much weight.

What you now say:

I want to clarify that I wasn't trying to be unkind to the individual. I wasn't claiming superiority;

A very 'common issue in today's discourse' is the inability of people to simply acknowledge mistakes that they've made and, apologise for them, and move on.

 

[JTP]

What you initially said:

What you now say:

A very 'common issue in today's discourse' is the inability of people to simply acknowledge mistakes that they've made and, apologise for them, and move on.

again, you simply do not get it. I do not care about his opinions because he is not operating at the level of gear that I am. Does it make me superior? No. I do not care... How hard is that to understand?

 

[Walrus]

Amazing how few people seem capable of respecting this very simple fact.

We discussed about that, you know what I think about it

 

[David - Sydney]

again, you simply do not get it. I do not care about his opinions because he is not operating at the level of gear that I am. Does it make me superior? No. I do not care... How hard is that to understand?

If you don't care, then why spend the time to respond telling him/her that they aren't at your "level".
I don't expect you to respond as I don't own expensive enough equipment.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Everyone has their own needs and priorities, just as I do.

Yes, everyone is entitled to their own needs, priorities, and opinions. Everyone is not entitled to their own facts.

Of course, some people have a different opinion even about that last one. In this country, those people tend to wear vermillion-colored head coverings emblazoned with a slogan – Me Amazing Great Awesome or something like that.

 

[David - Sydney]

Yes, everyone is entitled to their own needs, priorities, and opinions. Everyone is not entitled to their own facts.

Ah yes, the post-truth world of fake news.
Do your own research!
I'm sure that AI will help with that :-(