The Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM will be announced this year [CR2]

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,719
1,537
Yorkshire, England
Maybe to people like us size/weight isn't that important, but for a "casual" photographer perhaps size, weight and cost are important. I appreciate the 1" fixed lens cameras for their portability and for their unobtrusiveness.
I bet you’d appreciate a G1XIII even more ;)
 
Upvote 0

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,719
1,537
Yorkshire, England
Havent really seen a G1xiii vs M6ii comparison. Wonder if there will be a g1xiv?
Some people report preferring the M5 (and so G1XIII) sensor to the 32mp MII. Of course resolutionphiles will always prefer the latter. The G1XII's ace card is in being genuinely small and pocketable, and this has led to compromises in the lens, which is tiny really, but even so it's resolution is similar to that of a 5DII with the 24-105L lens. Vey underrated camera, not helped by the photog press continually comparing it to a 1" sensor camera and the speed of those camera's lenses. When looking at enlargements the APS-c is far superior to the 1" IMHO.

I think that putting the 32mp sensor in a tiny body with lens to suit would be a bridge too far, without the whole thing getting considerably larger and heavier. And honestly, who really wants more than 24mp in a pocket camera ? ( OK, 90% of people on CR, I concede ! ;) )
 
Upvote 0
Sep 17, 2014
1,038
1,395
Maybe to people like us size/weight isn't that important, but for a "casual" photographer perhaps size, weight and cost are important. I appreciate the 1" fixed lens cameras for their portability and for their unobtrusiveness.

Just check the size and quality of a M6 mark II + 32mm 1.4 combo. People would buy more M stuff if they would see some kind of future proofing and decent upgrades / lenses.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 13, 2010
4,932
1,608
Another 1kg $3000 lens, nice! Sensors are getting better and better in high ISO performance but we still creating 1.2 lenses weighting a ton.
So Canon will again have 35mm 1.2 for $3000 and a cheap plastic STM 35mm 1.8 for $500. Nothing in between.
Which also means the new sensors are MUCH more demanding of lenses…
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jan 22, 2012
4,472
1,329
In my view, story/emotion is an aspect of composition.
No no. I am talking about what the photo says. For example, the photo of the washed-up Syrian kid said a huge story and created emotion at the same time. It was not the 'best' photo as such but will be remembered for long for things other than composition. There are many such examples.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
I don’t think story/emotion and composition have any relationship at all. You can have compelling images with ‘bad’ composition (or at least little thought to it) and you can have great composition with zero emotion.

Compelling images often benefit from ‘good’ composition, conversely some great images deliberately ignore any compositional ‘rules’.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I can appreciate points being made in this thread about story/emotion... but in my humble opinion composition and probably to a larger degree, perspective, have at least SOME relationship with the story and emotion in a photo. Would a portrait of an emotionally charged face convey that emotion more strongly if framed tighter with features and expression clearly visible or would a full length portrait with other distracting elements competing with the primary subject do a better job?

It is also common to use a low perspective shooting upwards at a subject to convey power amd confidence... or a high down viewpoint looking down at a subject to help convey vulnerability.

Obviously I’m highlighting perspective/ subject distance but those two things are also directly tied to composition in my eyes. I’m sure there are many more examples...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
I can appreciate points being made in this thread about story/emotion... but in my humble opinion composition and probably to a larger degree, perspective, have at least SOME relationship with the story and emotion in a photo. Would a portrait of an emotionally charged face convey that emotion more strongly if framed tighter with features and expression clearly visible or would a full length portrait with other distracting elements competing with the primary subject do a better job?

It is also common to use a low perspective shooting upwards at a subject to convey power amd confidence... or a high down viewpoint looking down at a subject to help convey vulnerability.

Obviously I’m highlighting perspective/ subject distance but those two things are also directly tied to composition in my eyes. I’m sure there are many more examples...
Perspective is a foundational element to composition, focal length comes second to perspective. Focal length dictates the relative size of the subject within the frame, but the perspective dictates the relative size of the subject in relation to the other elements within (or not) that frame.

So I try to explain zoom lens use like this, walk around the scene to get your perspective, the relationship of the subject to other elements. Once you have the perspective you want use the zoom (or focal length) to frame those elements as desired.

Over time a lot of people end up finding specific focal lengths more pleasing, or they get their most compelling shots within a small focal length range, so gravitate from zooms to primes (specific genres excepted).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
803
1,637
Perspective is a foundational element to composition, focal length comes second to perspective. Focal length dictates the relative size of the subject within the frame, but the perspective dictates the relative size of the subject in relation to the other elements within (or not) that frame.

So I try to explain zoom lens use like this, walk around the scene to get your perspective, the relationship of the subject to other elements. Once you have the perspective you want use the zoom (or focal length) to frame those elements as desired.

Over time a lot of people end up finding specific focal lengths more pleasing, or they get their most compelling shots within a small focal length range, so gravitate from zooms to primes (specific genres excepted).

Very true. I always find it kinda funny when people say their photos and compositions are worse when they use a zoom lens.

I think one of the best lessons I ever learned was to look at a zoom lens as if it was a set of prime lenses, and choose my focal length based off the look I'm going for, vs zooming aimlessly to fit subjects in the frame. I think a lot of people can't fight the temptation of standing in one place with a zoom lens, and that's why they struggle to use them well.

If you look at the focal lengths I use my 24-70 and 70-200 at in Lightroom, you'll see the absolute biggest groups around 24, 35, 50, 85, 135, and 200, since I'm mainly using the zooms to accomplish a specific look. That said, I love my primes for commercial marketing work, since the wide apertures give great bokeh and subject isolation. But my zooms are a must on breaking news and sports when I can't switch from a 24mm to a 50mm in a split second and need to zoom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
If you look at the focal lengths I use my 24-70 and 70-200 at in Lightroom, you'll see the absolute biggest groups around 24, 35, 50, 85, 135, and 200, since I'm mainly using the zooms to accomplish a specific look. That said, I love my primes for commercial marketing work, since the wide apertures give great bokeh and subject isolation. But my zooms are a must on breaking news and sports when I can't switch from a 24mm to a 50mm in a split second and need to zoom.
I continue to struggle with the usefulness of a super fast 35mm prime, at least to the extent where it makes the lens substantially larger/ heavier/more expensive. f/1.8-f/2.0 is ok as can still be done in a relatively compact size, low weight, low price. But comparatively f/1.2-f/1.4 are much larger and heavier, at higher price with limited use cases for me at least.

I tend to use 35mm as a group portrait, street photog, or environmental lens. In none of those cases would f/1.4 or below be useful frequently as I'd want more DOF, not less, for those use cases. If I want individual portrait I'll use 50mm or higher. Yeah, you can find a specialty use for every lens and justify having it by a shot here or there. Like 24mm, I just don't find 35mm conducive to frequent f/1.4 and below usage; I'd rather have a smaller, less obtrusive prime that's slightly slower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0