Worst of Canon 2023: It’s Unanimous

[AlanF]

Sigh. I wish I could say that I’m surprised by the level of entitled cluelessness here, but I’m not. Fortunately, some people get that the price gap between the R100 and R50 is huge for a large fraction of the world. At one point, that difference was our household weekly gross income, and we were still better off than much of the world. Now, for us it’s a decent dinner for two not including the wine, but I haven’t forgotten.

People claiming a touchscreen should have been included because they only saved $10 by leaving it out lack an understanding of business. That $10 likely represents a significant fraction of the margin at this price point. The marketing team selected a price target, leadership set a margin, and the design team had to get the cost of goods aligned.

The real question is how well the R100 is selling. I don’t know the answer to that, nor does anyone on this forum. Canon does.

Anecdotally, the R100 + 18-45 kit is the #4 best seller in mirrorless on Amazon US right now. The ‘much better for only a couple hundred more’ R50 is at #10. To paraphrase a character played by Tom Hanks, “Better is as better sells.”

Funny how the ‘unanimous’ (n=2) worst product of the year that is ‘insulting to the price-sensitive target audience in the developing world’ seems to be selling quite well even in a first-world country.

I agree 100%. It's very important not to be disrespectful of what people can afford.

 

[mpphoto]

It is indeed a fact, from the source that was ever kind to Canon.

Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

I used to consider his charts the go-to for image quality, but ever since he posted his charts for the RF 100-400mm, I have taken them with a grain of salt. The charts he has for the RF 100-400 didn't look good to me, yet I find image quality from that lens great in practical use.

 

[David - Sydney]

hah!

Craig and I were talking and I said .. "i didn't know if he was being sarcastic"

Isn’t the best sarcasm where there is a strong element of potential truth in it?

 

[AlanF]

I used to consider his charts the go-to for image quality, but ever since he posted his charts for the RF 100-400mm, I have taken them with a grain of salt. The charts he has for the RF 100-400 didn't look good to me, yet I find image quality from that lens great in practical use.

There are anomalies with his charts. opticallimits is one of the most reliable sites for measuring sharpness and shows the RF 100-400mm is pretty sharp (as are my two copies) wide open: https://opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1182-canonrf100400f568
and the Sony 200-600 is excellent, and actually outperforms the more expensive Sony 100-400 where they overlap, https://opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1097-sony200600f5663oss

I hope to test a demo of the 200-800 next week.

 

[AlanF]

hah!

Craig and I were talking and I said .. "i didn't know if he was being sarcastic"

It's a bit of a problem for us Brits and Aussies who use irony without emojis to indicate it as we are more used to being ironic.

 

[Brikna]

I agree 100%. It's very important not to be disrespectful of what people can afford.

...or what they want to buy.

Of course the R100 seems like a total disaster from the perspective of more or less everyone on this forum, but I'm sure no one here is the target clientele for the R100.

It's amazing how many people can only see everything from their own perspective without considering the bigger picture.

 

[neuroanatomist]

There are anomalies with his charts. opticallimits is one of the most reliable sites for measuring sharpness and shows the RF 100-400mm is pretty sharp (as are my two copies) wide open

The most careful test is of limited utility when only one copy of a lens is tested. When results from the 24-70/2.8L II were not as good as Bryan expected, he tested three more copies. But when his results for the EF-M 18-150 weren’t very good, he left them up without further testing until I showed him my tests of that lens, after which he bought and tested another copy, which turned out to be much better.

 

[Brikna]

The most careful test is of limited utility when only one copy of a lens is tested. When results from the 24-70/2.8L II were not as good as Bryan expected, he tested three more copies. But when his results for the EF-M 18-150 weren’t very good, he left them up without further testing until I showed him my tests of that lens, after which he bought and tested another copy, which turned out to be much better.

The fact that there are very bad and very good copies is by no means a good recommendation for a lens (nor for the manufacturer's production standards and quality control), in fact, it can only be a bad recommendation.

 

[AlanF]

...or what they want to buy.

Of course the R100 seems like a total disaster from the perspective of more or less everyone on this forum, but I'm sure no one here is the target clientele for the R100.

It's amazing how many people can only see everything from their own perspective without considering the bigger picture.

Einstein wrote: “Everyone sits in the prison of his own ideas; he must burst it open, and that in his youth, and so try to test his ideas on reality.” The great man summed it up.

 

[Del Paso]

I used to consider his charts the go-to for image quality, but ever since he posted his charts for the RF 100-400mm, I have taken them with a grain of salt. The charts he has for the RF 100-400 didn't look good to me, yet I find image quality from that lens great in practical use.

You may also look at his EF 180mm macro charts...
I would never have bought this lens if I had relied on his "lens image quality" results. I tend to be quite skeptical, never relying on a single review, no matter how reputed it may be. Nor do I rely on flat chart test-photography.
Same for OpticalLimits (EF 1,4/35 L II), one single lens tested, quality mediocre at best (!). And I think many of us know it is superb...
Real life testing often yealds different results

 

[AlanF]

Agreed. I have purchased the 200-800 mm lens, but from my testing it can be a bit soft wide open at 800 mm. I say sometime because other times it is very sharp. I can address the resolution short comings in post , but I am considering returning the lens for a refund.

Does the softness happen in lower light? The AF tends to be a bit erratic at the narrower apertures then.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The fact that there are very bad and very good copies is by no means a good recommendation for a lens (nor for the manufacturer's production standards and quality control), in fact, it can only be a bad recommendation.

It’s the case for all manufacturers. QC to the point where bad copies don’t happen would make most products prohibitively expensive. So instead, vendors have return policies and manufacturers offer warranties.

 

[Brikna]

The most careful test is of limited utility when only one copy of a lens is tested. When results from the 24-70/2.8L II were not as good as Bryan expected, he tested three more copies. But when his results for the EF-M 18-150 weren’t very good, he left them up without further testing until I showed him my tests of that lens, after which he bought and tested another copy, which turned out to be much better.

And now (again) something off topic from me - those moderately sharp lenses are not bad at all when Canon cameras now have sensors that are very prone to creating moire and false colors.

 

[Del Paso]

Einstein wrote: “Everyone sits in the prison of his own ideas; he must burst it open, and that in his youth, and so try to test his ideas on reality.” The great man summed it up.

And Nietzsche once wrote: "One paints oneself on the wall and says Ecce Homo".
We, CR forum members, are not the ones who should judge an inexpensive camera, but those who might buy it. I know my wife, her sister, niece, her nephew, even my own sister would be happy with the EOS R 100.
Even though I'd frankly dislike it. But I'm not THE market...

 

[EricN]

The most careful test is of limited utility when only one copy of a lens is tested. When results from the 24-70/2.8L II were not as good as Bryan expected, he tested three more copies. But when his results for the EF-M 18-150 weren’t very good, he left them up without further testing until I showed him my tests of that lens, after which he bought and tested another copy, which turned out to be much better.

Is lens rentals the only company that normally tests more than one copy of a lens?

 

[Brikna]

It’s the case for all manufacturers. QC to the point where bad copies don’t happen would make most products prohibitively expensive. So instead, vendors have return policies and manufacturers offer warranties.

In my experience, Canon has achieved with the last generation of EF lenses and onwards that the differences in sample variation are very low and hardly noticeable in real usage conditions. The differences have become negligible and can hardly be seen except when using test charts, but even those methods are very questionable - some lenses are tested from an inappropriately small distance, very often only one single test chart is used, etc. I stopped looking at test chart results a little bit and I trust the live experience more.

 

[Brikna]

Is lens rentals the only company that normally tests more than one copy of a lens?

I think the manufacturers themselves test even more samples than LensRentals

 

[AlanF]

You may also look at his EF 180mm macro charts...
I would never have bought this lens if I had relied on his "lens image quality" results. I tend to be quite skeptical, never relying on a single review, no matter how reputed it may be. Nor do I rely on flat chart test-photography.
Same for OpticalLimits (EF 1,4/35 L II), one single lens tested, quality mediocre at best (!). And I think many of us know it is superb...
Real life testing often yealds different results

The only copy of a lens that counts is the one on your camera. I didn't buy the EF 400mm DO II because his charts, and he had tested two copies, have it soft wide open and it has to be stopped down to f/5.6 to be as sharp as the EF 100-400mm II. I eventually bought 2 copies at different times, and both were very sharp wide open, sharper than the 3 copies of the 100-400mm II I have owned. Otherwise, I love his site, the best source of reliable information and good judgement.

 

[Del Paso]

Worst of Canon 2023 in Europe?
The introduction of Pay CPS !

 

[AlanF]

Is lens rentals the only company that normally tests more than one copy of a lens?

They used to, but now Roger has retired it is a thing of the past.