Opinion: Love it or Hate it, Digital Correction is here to Stay

[dolina]

I've played with the in-camera upscaling as I feel like I was probably the only person on earth who used the IBIS-operated high resolution mode on the R5, and I've found that it adds detail that's not present in the original scene (even on the RF 85 1.2L). As with most AI-driven technology, you're not actually adding anything real; it's just guessing at best, and the results honestly look horrid to my eyes. The sensor shift tech was great - I've used it a few times in an Olympus body to produce high resolution raw files and it does the job quite nicely as long as the scene is still.

In terms of "sensor flare", I see this issue on the R1 with modern RF lenses including the RF 85L, 28-70 f/2, and even the RF 35 VCM. And sensor bloom where you get vertical flaring with mechanical shutter modes - which wasn't present on the 1DX II - is present on all RF bodies to date including the R1, R3 and R5 II (but oddly not on the 1DX III).

Back on the digital correction argument - Sigma just released a new 35mm f/1.4 DC DN II ART lens. This thing is almost perfect in terms of geometry, sharpness, CA control, is about the same size and is lighter than the 35L VCM. I would pay the same price as the Canon RF 35L VCM for that Sigma lens if there were an RF version. And you bet it performs better in terms of CA, sharpness etc than the RF 35L VCM.

I've said this before - if the RF VCM lenses were geometrically correct, I would have bought everything below the 50 (and probably the 50 as well - the 50 is however, geometrically appropriate). I actually cancelled my first-batch-in-the-country RF 35L pre-order after seeing the reviews, and affirmed my decision with an evaluation loan - but my EF II developed an issue that CPS were struggling to repair, so they offered me the replacement of either the EF II or the RF brand new - I should have gone for the EF, but I figured the increased contrast and size on the RF will be more practical in reality (but my photos are just not up to the same level of quality).

Perhaps there is a compromise on optical performance made to facilitate the use of the VCM AF system, or perhaps to allow for more economical repair or more resilient build quality to stand up to the rigours of professional use (something the Sony 35 GM absolutely fails at).

The 2024 EOS R1 and 2024 EOS R5 Mark II do not use "Sensor Shift" (IBIS High Res) to create extra pixels. Instead they use a Neural Network Upscaling tool. This tool uses AI to predict and add pixels to a JPEG or HEIF file after it is taken. You are correct that this does not add "real" optical data. Instead it estimates detail based on deep-learning patterns.

The 2020 EOS R5 included sensor shift as a firmware update. This required taking 9 separate photos while moving the sensor. This method is now absent in newer RF bodies for three reasons:

Speed: High-speed stacked sensors in the R1 and R5 II are designed for 30–40 fps action. Multi-shot sensor shift requires the camera to be perfectly still for up to a second which limits its use for pros.

Processing: Upscaling is faster for the new DIGIC Accelerator processor to handle than merging 9 raw files into one 400MP image.

Heat: Constant sensor movement for high-res shots creates heat which conflicts with the thermal demands of 6K/8K video and high-speed bursts.

"Sensor flare" or "ghosting" happens when light reflects off the sensor and bounces back from the rear lens element. Modern RF lenses like the RF 85mm f/1.2L use Air Sphere Coating (ASC) to stop this. However you are correct that flare still exists in some mirrorless setups. Older EF glass like your 2007 EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM or 2006 EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM was coated for film or early digital. These coatings are less effective at handling the high reflectivity of modern "Stacked" sensors found in the R1.

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN Art uses a large optical formula to correct distortion physically. The Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM is designed to be a "Hybrid" lens. It prioritizes the Voice Coil Motor (VCM) for near-silent instant focus in video. To keep the lens small and the AF fast Canon uses digital correction to fix the extreme barrel distortion.

As you noted stretching these pixels in software causes a loss of raw detail in the corners.

On the 2022 EOS R7 this is less noticeable because the "crop" sensor ignores the lens corners. On the R1 or R5 II the "software stretch" is visible in large prints.


The EOS R1 reaches its maximum performance only with native RF glass. While the 2011 EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM and 2008 EF 200mm f/2L USM are optically excellent they use older 8-pin communication. The R1’s Dual Pixel Intelligent AF and 40 fps burst require the 12-pin speed of RF lenses to maintain "sticky" focus on fast subjects.

 

[AlanF]

Hello AlanF, long time no hear! Thank you for your input on lens design.

The EF and RF mounts share a 54mm inner diameter but the flange focal distance is significantly different. The EF mount requires a 44mm gap to clear the mirror box while the RF mount is only 20mm from the sensor. This shorter distance allows RF lens designers to place much larger rear glass elements closer to the sensor. This design principle called telecentricity ensures light rays strike the sensor at a more perpendicular angle.

Agreed for uwa lenses. In practice, this is true for up to 35mm focal length, fading to hardly any difference at 50mm and all gone by 85mm. Even so,I really don't understand the high prices for some EF big white lenses unless people are still using DSLRs for the other reasons you suggest.

 

[dolina]

Agreed for uwa lenses. In practice, this is true for up to 35mm focal length, fading to hardly any difference at 50mm and all gone by 85mm. Even so,I really don't understand the high prices for some EF big white lenses unless people are still using DSLRs for the other reasons you suggest.

The benefit of the short 20mm flange distance is most significant for wide-angle lenses. For lenses like my TS-E 17mm f/4L or EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM the mirror box in DSLRs forced designers to use complex "Retrofocus" designs. Moving the rear glass closer to the sensor in RF wide-angles allows light to strike the sensor more perpendicularly, reducing vignetting and corner smear. As you noted this physical advantage decreases as focal lengths increase. For telephoto lenses like my EF 300mm or EF 500mm the light rays are already largely parallel so the short flange distance provides little to no optical benefit.

High prices for "Big White" EF lenses (such as the 2008 EF 200mm f/2L IS USM or 2011 EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II) remain high for three reasons:

Optical Perfection: Lenses like the 2018 EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III use the exact same optical glass formula as the newer 2021 RF 400mm. Since the glass is the same there is no optical reason to pay double for the RF version if you already own the EF version.

Adaptability: These lenses work perfectly on the EOS R1, R5 Mark II and R7. While they are limited to roughly 7 to 10 fps (depending on the model and battery) the Dual Pixel AF makes them focus more accurately than they ever did on a DSLR.

Build Quality: These lenses contain large amounts of expensive Fluorite and UD (Ultra-low Dispersion) glass. The cost of raw materials and the precise manufacturing required for super-telephotos does not drop just because a new mount exists.

The EOS R1 and R5 Mark II can drive the focus motors of "Big Whites" with more voltage than older DSLRs. This often results in faster "Initial Acquisition" (the time it takes to first find the subject). However the 12-pin communication of native RF lenses is required for the R1 to hit its full 40 fps potential. My EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM for example will be limited in burst speed but the Eye-Control AF on the R1 will still lock onto a bird's eye with 100% precision through the adapter.

 

[DocInfoSci]

As much as I sing praises for in-camera DLO's ability to correct optical aberrations sadly it cannot fix hardware limitations. Modern sensors like the 45MP R5 Mark II and the high-density 32.5MP R7 reveal softness in older EF glass. The EOS R1 uses a high-speed bus that EF lenses cannot fully saturate. Native RF lenses provide 12-pin communication for faster data transfer and more precise AF tracking than the 8-pin EF system.

The price of RF lenses includes new tech like Voice Coil Motors (VCM) and Nano USM. These motors move heavy glass faster and quieter than old Ring USM motors found in lenses like my 2006 EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM or 1999 EF 500mm f/4L IS USM. Many older EF lenses use "Focus-by-Wire" systems. When these electronic motors fail the lens cannot be focused manually. Canon typically stops making parts 7 years after a lens is discontinued. If I bought the last 1988 EF 200mm f/1.8L USM with the 1st batch of 2003 EOS 10D before its 2004 discontinuation and 1989 EF 50mm f/1.0L USM when it was discontinued in 2000 I wouldn't be able to get brand new spare parts in 2026 as they're past this support window.

RF lenses are designed for the short flange distance of the RF mount. This allows for larger rear elements that hit the sensor with straighter light rays. This reduces purple fringing and corner softness. Older EF wide-angle lenses such as your 2007 EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM or 2007 EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM show more distortion on mirrorless sensors compared to native RF versions. The R1 and R5 Mark II also offer Coordinated Image Stabilization. This combines sensor movement with lens movement for up to 8 stops of shake correction. Older EF lenses often provide only 3 to 4 stops or zero correction if they lack lens IS.

Focus speed is a critical difference for professional work. The EOS R1 can shoot at 40 fps. Most EF lenses released before 2006 cannot move their focus elements fast enough to keep up with this rate. Using a 2001 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM on an R1 will result in fewer sharp shots during fast action compared to the RF version. For revenue-generating work the risk of a motor failure on a discontinued lens like the 1999 EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM represents a total loss of the tool with no path for official repair.

The size and weight of RF lenses improve ergonomics for long workdays. Newer designs move the center of gravity closer to the camera body. This reduces fatigue for photographers. While EF lenses are cheaper on the used market they require an adapter which adds length and weight. For hobbyists this is a fair trade. For mission-critical professionals the lack of spare parts and slower communication speeds make pre-2006 EF lenses a liability.

As we approach the 10th year anniversary of the RF mount in 2028 more and more EF lenses will cease getting the 7 years of spare parts support with no path of repair except from donor lenses.

This is why I wish by 2017 I unloaded 30% of my oldest EF lenses and 2008 EOS 5D Mark II & 2009 EOS 1D Mark IV. By Q1 2024 unloaded 2014 EOS 7D Mark II & 2015 EOS 5Ds R to get the R1 & R5 Mark II released months later with these RF lenses

• 2019 RF 50mm f/1.2L USM
• 2020 RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM
• 2020 RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
• 2020 RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
• 2021 RF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
• 2023 RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM
• 2023 RF 28mm f/2.8 STM
• 2024 RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM

With last year getting the 2025 RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM.

From 2019-2023 I hardly did enough photogrpahy to merit any upgrades.

Yours is an awesome reply. I'd love more like this.

For family and friends doing typical family and friends things, I still thing all of the mentioned advantages of RF glass is nice to have and not essential for the job improvements. If a Joe or Jane can pick up a new EF 50mm f/1.2 for $1,500 or RF 50mm f/1.2 for $3,199 (today's Vistek price) I'd still recommend the EF edition at this point — for what they do. The VCM edition at $2,099 (again, today at Vistek)... hmm, if they wanted to buy into an RF prime line I'd say yeah but otherwise I'd still recommend the EF.

But, if you know you know — if you know the EF drive is insufficient, or you know the weight will kill you over the day, or you know the financial risk due to a repair is high, or you know you lean more on a spray of pictures and hope some come out sharp with the computer doing most of the work (Olympics...) then you know that you need the latest and greatest and the $1,500 price difference in the above example is worth every penny from warranty to AF speed. And today that is the RF glass.

But, for $1,500... you really ought to know.

 

[dolina]

Yours is an awesome reply. I'd love more like this.

For family and friends doing typical family and friends things, I still thing all of the mentioned advantages of RF glass is nice to have and not essential for the job improvements. If a Joe or Jane can pick up a new EF 50mm f/1.2 for $1,500 or RF 50mm f/1.2 for $3,199 (today's Vistek price) I'd still recommend the EF edition at this point — for what they do. The VCM edition at $2,099 (again, today at Vistek)... hmm, if they wanted to buy into an RF prime line I'd say yeah but otherwise I'd still recommend the EF.

But, if you know you know — if you know the EF drive is insufficient, or you know the weight will kill you over the day, or you know the financial risk due to a repair is high, or you know you lean more on a spray of pictures and hope some come out sharp with the computer doing most of the work (Olympics...) then you know that you need the latest and greatest and the $1,500 price difference in the above example is worth every penny from warranty to AF speed. And today that is the RF glass.

But, for $1,500... you really ought to know.

The RF lenses I pointed to are for lenses I would not have if I sold 1999-2005 EF lenses by 2017 & for focal lengths I never had in the first place.

My priority right now would be RF 28mm f/2.8 STM & RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM.

 

[DocInfoSci]

The 2020 EOS R5 included sensor shift as a firmware update. This required taking 9 separate photos while moving the sensor. This method is now absent in newer RF bodies for three reasons:

Speed: High-speed stacked sensors in the R1 and R5 II are designed for 30–40 fps action. Multi-shot sensor shift requires the camera to be perfectly still for up to a second which limits its use for pros.

Yeah, totally agreed. But it weirds me out that it never got bumped to the R6 line where it seems to make good sense for still life and macro shots and where hobbyists could tolerate the slower methodology.

 

[DocInfoSci]

The RF lenses I pointed to are for lenses I would not have if I sold 1999-2005 EF lenses by 2017 & for focal lengths I never had in the first place.

My priority right now would be RF 28mm f/2.8 STM & RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM.

Ah, in which case... you know! Enjoy.

 

[DocInfoSci]

My priority right now would be RF 28mm f/2.8 STM & RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM.

If they made a 28mm pancake with weather sealing I'd be so all over that. The weather sealing + size combo would make every other compromise a secondary concern. Even a pudgy pancake would be OK (muffin? biscuit?).

 

[roby17269]

For family and friends doing typical family and friends things, I still thing all of the mentioned advantages of RF glass is nice to have and not essential for the job improvements. If a Joe or Jane can pick up a new EF 50mm f/1.2 for $1,500 or RF 50mm f/1.2 for $3,199 (today's Vistek price) I'd still recommend the EF edition at this point — for what they do. The VCM edition at $2,099 (again, today at Vistek)... hmm, if they wanted to buy into an RF prime line I'd say yeah but otherwise I'd still recommend the EF.

Disagree with you here:

• most Joes and Janes will not buy an expensive L prime for those use cases, they would get a cheaper zoom
• In the specific case, if Joe and Jane were to actually buy a EF 50 1.2, they'd probably go home and wonder why most of their photos are soft and be put off buying another expensive prime and go back taking pictures with their phones
• moreover, the comparison EF 50 1.2 v RF 50 1.2 is one of the very few cases where the extra cost of the RF version is justified by the massive improvement it represents compared to the EF version

 

[dolina]

If they made a 28mm pancake with weather sealing I'd be so all over that. The weather sealing + size combo would make every other compromise a secondary concern. Even a pudgy pancake would be OK (muffin? biscuit?).

I still have the 2012 EF 40mm f/2.8 STM and its form factor is a reason I want to collect all future RF pancake lenses.

If I get the lightest RF body like the 2023 EOS R8 or R100 + RF 28mm f/2.8 STM would have a camera that weighs a total of 581g & 476g respectively. The ideal travel camera with FF & APS-C image sensor.

 

[DocInfoSci]

Disagree with you here:

• most Joes and Janes will not buy an expensive L prime for those use cases, they would get a cheaper zoom

Maybe. I know several people who reached for L primes because:

• Their skills have grown to surpass the limits of non-L glass (they know)
• There is something fun about getting the fancier edition
• They can

All three points equally justify the acquisition of RF glass, but they absolutely apply to EF glass when other purchasing priorities are considered. For a lot of people I know they have non-photography careers, make good but not amazing money, and yet are still skilled enough to push edges of their hobby. These are the people reaching for such glass, probably eyes wide open.

My kid? Yeah, STM lenses all the way. Once graduated? Probably VCM primes. But first a zoom as you suggest. (But let's be honest, she'll butter me up for my collection and extol to me the virtues of upgrading my collection to RF...)

• In the specific case, if Joe and Jane were to actually buy a EF 50 1.2, they'd probably go home and wonder why most of their photos are soft and be put off buying another expensive prime and go back taking pictures with their phones

OK My experience has not been that, but there are many people I don't yet know in this world.

The 50mm is hardly soft in the eyes of those hobbyists I do know, especially with the usual tricks applied. I am putting together another book for my region and I also don't find it soft in the slightest for what I'm up to in this regard. Soft is probably use case based and subjective, and for the Joes and Janes I work with or hand cameras to plus a little education these older lenses produce marvels. Just as they did in years gone by. Unless you place your subject in the corner. In which case... yeah, soft, especially at 1.2.

• moreover, the comparison EF 50 1.2 v RF 50 1.2 is one of the very few cases where the extra cost of the RF version is justified by the massive improvement it represents compared to the EF version

My earlier point exactly. Zero complaints with my EF tele glass, and only minor gripes elsewhere outside of astro.

 

[DocInfoSci]

I still have the 2012 EF 40mm f/2.8 STM and its form factor is a reason I want to collect all future RF pancake lenses.

If I get the lightest RF body like the 2023 EOS R8 or R100 + RF 28mm f/2.8 STM would have a camera that weighs a total of 581g & 476g respectively. The ideal travel camera with FF & APS-C image sensor.

Right?! Love my 40mm. It's more like a cake than a pancake or muffin with the adapter. I don't mind my 24-70 with an adapter -- after a while big is just big. But that pancake...

 

[dolina]

Maybe. I know several people who reached for L primes because:

• Their skills have grown to surpass the limits of non-L glass (they know)
• There is something fun about getting the fancier edition
• They can

All three points equally justify the acquisition of RF glass, but they absolutely apply to EF glass when other purchasing priorities are considered. For a lot of people I know they have non-photography careers, make good but not amazing money, and yet are still skilled enough to push edges of their hobby. These are the people reaching for such glass, probably eyes wide open.

My kid? Yeah, STM lenses all the way. Once graduated? Probably VCM primes. But first a zoom as you suggest. (But let's be honest, she'll butter me up for my collection and extol to me the virtues of upgrading my collection to RF...)


OK My experience has not been that, but there are many people I don't yet know in this world.

The 50mm is hardly soft in the eyes of those hobbyists I do know, especially with the usual tricks applied. I am putting together another book for my region and I also don't find it soft in the slightest for what I'm up to in this regard. Soft is probably use case based and subjective, and for the Joes and Janes I work with or hand cameras to plus a little education these older lenses produce marvels. Just as they did in years gone by. Unless you place your subject in the corner. In which case... yeah, soft, especially at 1.2.


My earlier point exactly. Zero complaints with my EF tele glass, and only minor gripes elsewhere outside of astro.

Casual/Entry-Level dSLR (and maye mirrorless) user has the body + kit lens. They may even add a nifty fity and that's it making it 1-2 lenses per body.

Enthusiast/Hobbyist users may have 3-5 lenses.

Professionals have 5-10+ lenses.

If you are active in photography forums CR or camera clubs your "personal average" is likely 4 or 5 lenses. You are seeing the "Enthusiast Bubble." The global average is weighed down by thousands of corporate studios buying one lens for headshots, vloggers buying one lens for YouTube and casual travelers who buy one kit and call it a day.

 

[DocInfoSci]

Just tossing in a broad statement with the EF discussion:

I believe that once someone grabs a series (such as VCM) or L RF lens (such as 70-200) for their stable then new EF purchases should be taken off the table unless there is a real hardship at play. The reasons being consistency of user experience for mechanical functionality, hardware support, and ancillary efforts such as mounting (avoiding adapter mixing, etc. in the field).

The exception to this thought is a collector with access to inexpensive EF glass and an awareness of the lifetime expectation (with inexpensive being relative to the lens rarity, condition, and active warranty / support).

 

[DocInfoSci]

Casual/Entry-Level dSLR (and maye mirrorless) user has the body + kit lens. They may even add a nifty fity and that's it making it 1-2 lenses per body.

Enthusiast/Hobbyist users may have 3-5 lenses.

Professionals have 5-10+ lenses.

If you are active in photography forums CR or camera clubs your "personal average" is likely 4 or 5 lenses. You are seeing the "Enthusiast Bubble." The global average is weighed down by thousands of corporate studios buying one lens for headshots, vloggers buying one lens for YouTube and casual travelers who buy one kit and call it a day.

LOL

I have one or more of the following: 20mm, 24mm, 40mm, 50mm, 100mm, 27-70mm, 70-200mm, 28-135mm, 300mm, 400mm, and 600mm plus extenders and extensions. Also esoteric stuff like mirror lenses. I also used to have the gold ring 28, 50, 85, and 100s — now gifted to family. Also some uwa from Tokina, sold. And some Tamron stuff, also sold.

I am not a pro photographer in the sense of career. I have been at this for a while. Many of my friends and family sit in the same category, but I tend to make more money in my day job so have a little extra to spend.

I guess I really am a pro.

But seriously, enthusiasts with sufficient luxury cash are more than capable of building collections at one each year or two.

 

[roby17269]

Maybe. I know several people who reached for L primes because:

• Their skills have grown to surpass the limits of non-L glass (they know)
• There is something fun about getting the fancier edition
• They can

All three points equally justify the acquisition of RF glass, but they absolutely apply to EF glass when other purchasing priorities are considered. For a lot of people I know they have non-photography careers, make good but not amazing money, and yet are still skilled enough to push edges of their hobby. These are the people reaching for such glass, probably eyes wide open.

hey that's me I mean I work a tech job, I'm not rich and I dare to think I am a good photographer... But with my eyes wide open it's the RF 50 1.2 all day.

My kid? Yeah, STM lenses all the way. Once graduated? Probably VCM primes. But first a zoom as you suggest. (But let's be honest, she'll butter me up for my collection and extol to me the virtues of upgrading my collection to RF...)


OK My experience has not been that, but there are many people I don't yet know in this world.

The 50mm is hardly soft in the eyes of those hobbyists I do know, especially with the usual tricks applied. I am putting together another book for my region and I also don't find it soft in the slightest for what I'm up to in this regard. Soft is probably use case based and subjective, and for the Joes and Janes I work with or hand cameras to plus a little education these older lenses produce marvels. Just as they did in years gone by. Unless you place your subject in the corner. In which case... yeah, soft, especially at 1.2.


My earlier point exactly. Zero complaints with my EF tele glass, and only minor gripes elsewhere outside of astro.

Your Joes and Janes are becoming a bit better photographers at every line you write
My point was, trying to use your terminology:

• If they do not know (e.g. entry-level soccer mom) then they a) don't use primes and b) don't even know that earlier generation compatible primes exist
• if they know and they can afford it, they will get the RF prime (1.2 or 1.4)
• if they know but cannot afford the RF 1.2, they'll probably get the RF 1.4 prime which is at a similar price point than the EF 1.2
• very few will go for the EF 1.2, mostly because they have "inherited" one from friends or family...

Now, this is my view, mostly based on my abysmal experience with the EF 50 1.2 v my nirvana-like experience with the RF 50 1.2. Maybe I had a bad copy, who knows? But I haven't heard anyone calling the EF 50 1.2 sharp - of course there are people that prefer to call overweight people "non-slim', so there's that, i.e. yes, it is in the eye of the beholder.

If you were to compare different lenses, like big white exotics, it would be different, but in any case I do not really see your J&J's buying those, unless they are rich.

 

[DocInfoSci]

You Joes and Janes are becoming a bit better photographers at every line you write
My point was, trying to use your terminology:

• If they do not know (e.g. entry-level soccer mom) then they a) don't use primes and b) don't even know that earlier generation compatible primes exist
• if they know and they can afford it, they will get the RF prime (1.2 or 1.4)
• if they know but cannot afford the RF 1.2, they'll probably get the RF 1.4 prime which is at a similar price point than the EF 1.2
• very few will go for the EF 1.2, mostly because they have "inherited" one from friends or family...

Yeah, all totally fair. My perspective is decades, and my kiddo + friends is definitely more to your point.

Now, this is my view, mostly based on my abysmal experience with the EF 50 1.2 v my nirvana-like experience with the RF 50 1.2. Maybe I had a bad copy, who knows? But I haven't heard anyone calling the EF 50 1.2 sharp - of course there are people that prefer to call overweight people "non-slim', so there's that, i.e. yes, it is in the eye of the beholder.

I identify as awesome. My wife thinks I should stick with mostly nice guy and OK human.

If you were to compare different lenses, like big white exotics, it would be different, but in any case I do not really see your J&J's buying those, unless they are rich.

Yeah, the big whites are probably a purchase for the enthusiast who has everything else. Like a warm place to stay, transportation, good health, children who have moved out of the house...

 

[P-visie]

While they are limited to roughly 7 to 10 fps (depending on the model and battery)

The EF 400mm f2.8 II and III (and a bunch of other EF lenses) support the maximum continuous shooting speed of the R1, R3 and R5 Mk II.
See: https://cam.start.canon/en/H001/supplement_0080.html

 

[DocInfoSci]

I guess I think of my family and friends as representing more typical non-pros than, say, my much younger child + generation is that photography of the Canon sense has become anything but a poor person's sport. Maybe not a rich person's sport with judicious purchases, but definitely a luxury cash sport. So for me the most likely purchasers past the kit lens are those with a bit of a career, decent health, basics and then some taken care of, and a little nerdiness.

 

[AlanF]

Disagree with you here:

• most Joes and Janes will not buy an expensive L prime for those use cases, they would get a cheaper zoom
• In the specific case, if Joe and Jane were to actually buy a EF 50 1.2, they'd probably go home and wonder why most of their photos are soft and be put off buying another expensive prime and go back taking pictures with their phones
• moreover, the comparison EF 50 1.2 v RF 50 1.2 is one of the very few cases where the extra cost of the RF version is justified by the massive improvement it represents compared to the EF version

If you want a soft EF 1.2, there is a very cheap RF alternative of the RF 45mm f/1.2.