Opinion: This patent identifies my ongoing issue with Canon

[ISv]

In woodworking, there is the philosophy to use the tool that makes the shape you want or adjust your design to use the tool you have. It can be applied well in other situations.

Interesting! I like the idea!
But if you are professional in woodworking or professional photographer you may not want to change the "shape" - there is a lot of concurrence there and you probably must do that "special" shape in order to be different (=survive, prosperous). Off course it depends on what level is your "professional" attitude!
Fortunately I'm not a professional photographer and even if I post some photos that are "not that much" (or even bad!) in some of the threats, I know I will get some . That is priceless - I mean you get no money for your "exercise" but the professionals are not working for !

 

[Richard CR]

In woodworking, there is the philosophy to use the tool that makes the shape you want or adjust your design to use the tool you have. It can be applied well in other situations.

hell no! that's just the excuse you need to purchase MORE tools. the woodworker who started that philosophy obviously had his wife standing behind him watching.

In all seriousness, we've all done that - when our sensors didnt' have enough DR, we shot AEB, or exposing to the right, etc.

 

[mimbu]

Canon and Nikon have abandoned APS-C and entry level in general to Sony. The combination of many great Sony APS-C lenses and the availability of many more from Sigma and Tamron have created a great ecosystem. Meanwhile Canon and Nikon are focusing on only high end products for wealthy (often older) existing customers. Long term, this is not going to go well for either company.

Edit: Sigma is about to complete their APS-C trinity of mirrorless-native f2.8 zooms! 10-18/2.8 and 18-50/2.8 are available now, 50-130/2.8 coming soon. On E mount. Likely never to be seen on Z or RF.

 

[Richard CR]

Canon and Nikon have abandoned APS-C and entry level in general to Sony. The combination of many great Sony APS-C lenses and the availability of many more from Sigma and Tamron have created a great ecosystem. Meanwhile Canon and Nikon are focusing on only high end products for wealthy (often older) existing customers. Long term, this is not going to go well for either company.

Edit: Sigma is about to complete their APS-C trinity of mirrorless-native f2.8 zooms! 10-18/2.8 and 18-50/2.8 are available now, 50-130/2.8 coming soon. On E mount. Likely never to be seen on Z or RF.

there's something to be said about this (in before canon's marketshare quotes).

but - Sony is ALWAYS in the camera sites, lenses being reviewed for it, and so on. When I'm looking for instance for an article to write up on a new lens review, all my favorite review sites? they haven't done a canon lens in months - but they have done 10+ for sony E mount. It's this sigma lens reviewed on a sony or tamron, etc,etc.

sooner or later, that incessant display isn't going to help Canon.

 

[danfaz]

Canon and Nikon have abandoned APS-C and entry level in general to Sony. Meanwhile Canon and Nikon are focusing on only high end products for wealthy (often older) existing customers.

Okay, I get the APS-C complaints, but entry level? Only focusing on high end products?

RF & RF-S lenses. 17 in stock lenses that are less than $1000 USD:

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/lenses/mirrorless-lenses?facet_lens_mount_type=1116%2C1115&product_list_mode=list&product_list_order=price_asc&stock=1

Mirrorless cameras. 16 in stock bodies or kits less than $1500 USD. +4 entry level kits above $1500, but below $2100:

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/cameras/mirrorless-cameras?product_list_order=price_asc

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon and Nikon have abandoned APS-C and entry level in general to Sony. The combination of many great Sony APS-C lenses and the availability of many more from Sigma and Tamron have created a great ecosystem. Meanwhile Canon and Nikon are focusing on only high end products for wealthy (often older) existing customers. Long term, this is not going to go well for either company.

I see. So Sony is leading the entry level market and Canon is focused on the high end. Yet the data show that Canon sells far more cameras than Sony, while Sony’s revenue from camera sales is higher.

So, your opinion doesn’t match up with the facts. The question is, are you ignorant of the facts or do you just not care because you think you’re right in spite of them?

 

[mkush]

The OM 150-400 f4.5 is the equivalent of a full frame 300-800 f9.

Where does the f/9 come from? My understanding is that it would have the depth of field and light gathering ability of a 400 f/4.5 but the reach of an 800. (Not counting the built-in 1.25x TC of course.) In other words, f/4.5 is f/4.5 regardless of what the sensor size is. But a 400mm lens has greater depth of field than an 800.

But maybe I’m not understanding correctly.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Where does the f/9 come from? My understanding is that it would have the depth of field and light gathering ability of a 400 f/4.5 but the reach of an 800. (Not counting the built-in 1.25x TC of course.) In other words, f/4.5 is f/4.5 regardless of what the sensor size is. But a 400mm lens has greater depth of field than an 800.

But maybe I’m not understanding correctly.

Equivalent means you get similar image quality in the end. Similar field of view, DOF, noise and DR. Now you can use 400mm F4.5 ISO 100 on micro 43 and 800 F9 on full frame. The two setups will have the same field of view (400mm x 2 vs. 800m), same DOF (4.5 on m43 vs. F9 on full frame) and very equivalent image quality (ISO 100 on micro43 vs ISO 400 on full frame). So the bigger sensor can compensate for smaller aperture.

In other words, you can use a smaller aperture lens on full frame and raise the ISO for similar image quality in the end. And not only for DOF but noise also.

 

[mkush]

Equivalent means you get similar image quality in the end. Similar field of view, DOF, noise and DR. Now you can use 400mm F4.5 ISO 100 on micro 43 and 800 F9 on full frame. The two setups will have the same field of view (400mm x 2 vs. 800m), same DOF (4.5 on m43 vs. F9 on full frame) and very equivalent image quality (ISO 100 on micro43 vs ISO 400 on full frame). So the bigger sensor can compensate for smaller aperture.

In other words, you can use a smaller aperture lens on full frame and raise the ISO for similar image quality in the end. And not only for DOF but noise also.

I see. Is it for sure true that, for example, ISO 100 on MFT (e.g. OM-1) has similar noise to ISO 400 on full frame (e.g. R6m2)? I suppose so since, assuming similar resolution, the larger pixels will gather more light and thus be less prone to noise, right?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I see. Is it for sure true that, for example, ISO 100 on MFT (e.g. OM-1) has similar noise to ISO 400 on full frame (e.g. R6m2)? I suppose so since, assuming similar resolution, the larger pixels will gather more light and thus be less prone to noise, right?

Image noise is inversely proportional to the total light gathered. It’s not pixel size, it’s sensor size that matters. A bigger sensor gathers more light, so the noise is lower. It is for sure true.

 

[EricN]

I think I can understand that more when canon actually used humans for most of their lens assembly. but they do not have haven't for the last 10 years.

Is assembly the only stage that costs money?

 

[EricN]

hell no! that's just the excuse you need to purchase MORE tools. the woodworker who started that philosophy obviously had his wife standing behind him watching.

In all seriousness, we've all done that - when our sensors didnt' have enough DR, we shot AEB, or exposing to the right, etc.

The point is you have two basic options: use the 16mm and back up or use third party manual focus.

 

[EricN]

I see. So Sony is leading the entry level market and Canon is focused on the high end. Yet the data show that Canon sells far more cameras than Sony, while Sony’s revenue from camera sales is higher.

So, your opinion doesn’t match up with the facts. The question is, are you ignorant of the facts or do you just not care because you think you’re right in spite of them?

It tends to be both on the internet. When they can't accept attempts to educate, they block...

 

[YuengLinger]

I see. So Sony is leading the entry level market and Canon is focused on the high end. Yet the data show that Canon sells far more cameras than Sony, while Sony’s revenue from camera sales is higher.

This may be the first confusing thing by you I've read. The data shows what? Could you spoon feed me here? Do you mean Canon makes less from cameras? Do you mean Canon's total revenue is less than Sony's, or the per-camera revenue?

Completely over my head...

 

[koenkooi]

This may be the first confusing thing by you I've read. The data shows what? Could you spoon feed me here? Do you mean Canon makes less from cameras? Do you mean Canon's total revenue is less than Sony's, or the per-camera revenue?

Completely over my head...

From previous conversations: Sony makes more money/profit per camera. Canon sells more units overall.

 

[neuroanatomist]

This may be the first confusing thing by you I've read. The data shows what? Could you spoon feed me here? Do you mean Canon makes less from cameras? Do you mean Canon's total revenue is less than Sony's, or the per-camera revenue?

Completely over my head...

Canon’s unit sales are higher than Sony’s, Sony’s revenue is higher (therefore Sony’s average unit price is higher). By the numbers, in 2022 (the most recent full year data available), Canon sold 3.35 million cameras yielding 507 billion yen, while Sony sold 1.88 million cameras yielding 565 billion yen (source).

So, the data show the opposite of what the guy said, namely that Canon sells a lot of cheaper cameras while Sony sells fewer, more expensive cameras. Likely that derives from Sony’s focus on FF MILCs.

 

[Walrus]

In other words, f/4.5 is f/4.5 regardless of what the sensor size is.

Exactly.

And yes, of course smaller sensors have more noise then bigger sensor, so probably a MFT sensor @200iso has same noise of a FF sensor @800 iso, so you can get away with darker lenses on bigger sensors by raising the iso.

BUT the iso is the only parameter of the exposure triangle that doesn't increase light captured by the sensor (lower shutter speed gives you light for longer, wider aperture gives you more light), it's just a digital gain, and increase of the (very same) signal.

So f4.5 is f4.5 regardless of sensor size, and you definitely are better off with bright lenses, because ISO is the last thing you want to touch, even if the modern sensors are super clean; I get it on cheap superteles, but short lenses like the RF 24-105 f4-7.1 are pretty embarrassing in their light gathering, while in film and early dslr days kit lenses were 5.6 at worst, and medium range lenses (24-85, 28-105, 70-210, etc) were f4.5 on the darkest aperture, not the brightest.

 

[AJ]

it would encourage APS-c users looking for more performance to dig themselves into the non-upgradeable hole that I mentioned at the beginning. Canon has clearly long wanted serious photographers to move to FF, so anything that encourages them to stay on APS-c will be frowned upon.

Until recently, Canon did very well with their M series gear. It was a non-upgradable hole.

also RF-S lenses work on an RF camera. it's not a non-existant non upgradable hole.

Technically yes, but few people shoot their FF gear in crop mode. Basically, RF-S is a non-upgradable hole.

I'd argue that RF is also a non-upgradable hole. There is no way to move to medium format. It is downgradable though - works great on R mount APSC.

In short, you are best off picking a line and sticking with it. For years I shot a 70D with a Tamron 17-50/2.8. Awesome setup - small, light, sharp, under-the-radar. That gear is now collecting dust and that's okay - after 40+ countries and several cumulative years on the road, that setup doesn't owe me anything. I still love the images that system delivered and at the time I rarely wished for full-frame, except for a few high-iso situations. I liked being able to use Canon EF-S lenses, Canon EF lenses, and thirdparty crop and ff lenses. It was compatible with a huge array of lenses. I have now moved to R mount FF because the R mount APSC options didn't appeal to me. I guess that Canon's strategy of arm-twisting people into FF seems to be working....

 

[neuroanatomist]

…because ISO is the last thing you want to touch, even if the modern sensors are super clean;

Completely disagree. I set the shutter speed I want based on subject motion and the aperture I need based on how much or little subject isolation I want. Those are what determine how well I capture the subject, in other words they are what matter. Noise can be addressed in post, and if there’s some left over that’s secondary to capturing the subject.

Put it another way – which would you prefer, a blurry subject, a very busy background that distracts from your subject, or the least possible noise in the final image?

But in one sense, I agree with you…just not in the sense you mean. For me, ISO is the last thing I touch…because I leave it set to Auto and let it run up to 25600 if that’s where it needs to go.

 

[mxwphoto]

Where does the f/9 come from? My understanding is that it would have the depth of field and light gathering ability of a 400 f/4.5 but the reach of an 800. (Not counting the built-in 1.25x TC of course.) In other words, f/4.5 is f/4.5 regardless of what the sensor size is. But a 400mm lens has greater depth of field than an 800.

But maybe I’m not understanding correctly.

The f/stop number pasted on a lens IS a factor of sensor size. If you look at physical dimensions, both OM and Canon lenses have 95mm front filter, indicating similar light gathering capabilities, so why is OM f4.5 and Canon f9? It is because the OM reduces all that light into a m4/3 image circle size of 22.5mm diameter while the Canon spread the light over 43.3mm (approximately 2x crop factor on OM).

Works just like a projector, the larger the image on the wall, the dimmer the picture. Do note that it is still the same image, just one is brighter and smaller while another is larger and dimmer. Thus, the resulting DOF of both systems at OM 400mm and Canon 800mm would be roughly the same.