- Messages
- 7,597
- Name
- Riz
- Edit My Images
- No
Ermmm nope lol....These Canon waistcoats were only given to Canon Fanboys
I can give you a Canon camera strap - I don't use them Tee-hee
Ermmm nope lol....These Canon waistcoats were only given to Canon Fanboys
I can give you a Canon camera strap - I don't use them Tee-hee
I have been pondering too much lately, considering a move back to Dslr just to pull away from all this latest ML malarky and worry more about getting out and shooting! But I sat down with the G80 last night, setting up custom menus - since I got a replacement everything was a bit all over the shop. And I couldn't help but admire how well put together this little camera is. The ease of use, the ultra-responsive touch screen - and for everything, not just limited to AF or swiping through previews, you can pretty much use the touch screen for all settings without ever touching a button. Then I thought about the image quality, and for the money it is tough to beat, I've never found it wanting in decent lighting, images are ultra sharp [thanks to no AA filter partly] the ISO performance is just as good as many APSC cameras, whether ML or dslr [I fiddled about in DPR's image comparison, pitting it against other possible options it stands up much better than I would have thought] - it's got a lot of the things we see people yearning for like very decent 4K, excellent IBIS, the flippy-flappy screen, weather sealing, solid construction [bar the issues I've had with hinges] and I would say ergonomically sound - though, I do wish it was a little bigger/taller so my pinky has a place to rest. I do like a nice grippy camera. Pondering even more so now if it's a G9 I want to upgrade to ... I don't think I want to lose all those features you just do not get with a dslr. The G9 adds dual slots, even better IBIS, larger grip, 6K and high res shooting modes, better ISO performance [just a tad] more resolution, better evf etc ... then in the new year when all the dust has settled on these FF ML models, see what I fancy then.
Yes, it comes with a standard LC-E6E battery charger supplied (for LP-E6N batteries).If this is true, it makes Sony charger prices look cheap, hopefully its not true and the Canon R comes bundled with a charger.
I guess its sometimes the price you have to pay to wear the Canon name lol
That's more like itYes, it comes with a standard LC-E6E battery charger supplied (for LP-E6N batteries).
Should you want to buy another one they're currently £43.99 at WEX.
no not really. the quote i linked is about a USB charger one.That's more like it
Oh ermmmm lolno not really. the quote i linked is about a USB charger one.
A very quick google...no not really. the quote i linked is about a USB charger one.
That's right up there with Apple will release a new phone next year.
I think he's right but missing the point, Canon will get some sales due to those unique lenses but we're talking tiny numbers due to their cost/size/weight. It would be a bad idea just to recreate the current EF range in RF, this helps sell the new system even if most of it is psychology.
not really jonney. you have just jumped on my last sentence.Which proves his point that it's been rushed to the market
Where are you based?
Happy to bring a 5D4 and a A73 with a Sigma MC-11 adaptor for you to take some images and then go home to edit to see for your self. The sensor in the 5D4 will be the same, you can then see how sharp the Canon can be, although I’d be honest with you, no matter how much I macro adjust, I can’t get it 100% as sharp when compared to using Dual Pixel AF.
Or I can send you some RAW files with each, let me know what kind of lenses you like, I am sure I can find some samples.
My overall feeling and experience is that the Sony is sharper (no doubt IBIS plays a part), but the Canon isn’t soft like it has vaseline all over it.
No. The primary motive is to make them cheaper to build (no moving parts). I suspect that a secondary motive is to get consumers locked into faster upgrade cycles, like the phone manufacturers have done, which will be easier once those awkward moving parts are done away with.Weren't mirrorless camera's developed so that camera bodies could be made smaller?
.....
Don't forget, the manufacturers are doing this for their benefit, not ours.
If this is true, it makes Sony charger prices look cheap, hopefully its not true and the Canon R comes bundled with a charger.
I guess its sometimes the price you have to pay to wear the Canon name lol
More a realistCynic
Nope you have to buy some adapter to do that for £120 i heardSo am i right in thinking that you can't just charge it up with a standard USB C cable and plug that you'd already have for laptops? Thats really annoying if so!
A few respected names are making far too much of the new larger lens mount IMHO. And if it's true that a big mount is the key to optical nirvana, then Sony is properly stuffed already. I don't think so. And until a couple of weeks ago I don't remember a) any great clamour for an f/1.0 prime or f/2 zooms, nor b) anyone saying it was impossible with DSLR mounts - perhaps because it's obviously not...
A big lens mount and short flange-back distance only benefits short focal length lenses with apertures below approx f/1.4 with primes, and broadly speaking f/2.8 with zooms but even then there's no free lunch...
Used to get a brighter image in the viewfinder with SLR or so I was told, didnt really notice it unless comparing f1.8 with say f4 lens, even then it wasnt massive, so I doubt there's much advantage between 1.8 and 1.2 in the viewfinder.I suppose there are reasons for larger apertures, I suppose DoF for artistic reasons and I suppose a genuine need for speed. Dunno if I've missed anything
I suppose you have to balance the light gathering advantage of the wider aperture against the disadvantages for the image.
I suppose there are reasons for larger apertures, I suppose DoF for artistic reasons and I suppose a genuine need for speed. Dunno if I've missed anything
I'm a bit of a fan of thin DoF but only sometimes and sometimes I think it can be waaaaay overdone. I wonder how many shots really suit f1.x apertures. I don't think the genuine need for speed aspect affects me too much especially as if going that route the f1.x aperture is going to mean that very little is sharp so I wonder how often I and others really should be using f1.x rather than just wanting to.
A few respected names are making far too much of the new larger lens mount IMHO. And if it's true that a big mount is the key to optical nirvana, then Sony is properly stuffed already. I don't think so. And until a couple of weeks ago I don't remember a) any great clamour for an f/1.0 prime or f/2 zooms, nor b) anyone saying it was impossible with DSLR mounts - perhaps because it's obviously not.
A big lens mount and short flange-back distance only benefits short focal length lenses with apertures below approx f/1.4 with primes, and broadly speaking f/2.8 with zooms but even then there's no free lunch. With f/numbers that low, size, weight and cost skyrocket and when the lens gets too close to the sensor, vignetting becomes even more serious than it already is with fast apertures (off-axis pixels don't collect light as efficiently) and flare issues can arise with light received at extreme angles conflicting with the sensor stack (UV, IR and AA a filters in front of the sensor) as users of heritage Leica/Zeiss super-wides have discovered when adapted to Sony mirrorless bodies.
Basically, these exotic lenses make nice halo products but will account for a tiny number of actual sales. And claiming that the new mount somehow throws the door open to untold new optical delights is simply untrue.
Canon's reasoning on pages 7-9
....It sounds like you may not have read the white paper pdf which Gary (Gaz J) posted a while ago which describes Canon's reasoning on pages 7-9. It made good sense to me when I read it and still does, especially as it considers future developments. I have downloaded it but don't know how to upload a pdf to this forum.
Correct..... exotic lenses will be sold in small numbers to a very niche crowd..... low volume = higher costs usually.I have read it Rob. It's marketing, and it doesn't change anything. The new mount etc is nice to have, but in reality it will make no difference to me and I strongly suspect no difference to most others.
I have read it Rob. It's marketing, and it doesn't change anything. The new mount etc is nice to have, but in reality it will make no difference to me and I strongly suspect no difference to most others.
Correct..... exotic lenses will be sold in small numbers to a very niche crowd..... low volume = higher costs usually.
....Even if it is marketing or at least if it has a significant marketing spin, the hard information contained in the document should not be ignored if someone wants to learn more about Canon's EOS R products.
The new mount is going to physically strengthen the lens to body connection and as a user of heavy glass, I see that alone as a plus.
Perhaps I am being naive and too much of a Canon fanboy*, but I didn't read the document as being marketing biassed enough to ignore - It is hardly b******t in my opinion.
[*I am more of a Canon enthusiast in reality and not blind nor even blinkered]
....This begs the question of when is a lens considered to be "exotic"? Is it only a term relating to price?
There are professional photographer TP members aren't there? Perhaps not well known high earning ones, but I expect they are very happy that so-called 'exotic' lenses are offered if only just to hire them for a shoot.
Even serious amateurs like and will buy 'exotic' lenses if it suits their aspirations and efforts. Okay, they may be a minority but I say long may lens designers strive to raise the bar higher and give everyone choices.
It's a a sales brochure dressed up with the apparent gravitas of a White Paper. I'm not saying there are no advantages to the new lens mount and reduced flange-back distance, just that it only makes a small difference to the design of a very few niche and very expensive lenses.
To put it another way, what is it that's now possible with the new R-mount that was previously not possible with EF? If it's just a stronger lens mount, that's not very compelling even if true.
Correct......That's a tricky question to answer given that we don't know what Canon is planning, so let's look at what they've shown so far to showcase the new mount.
The new ER 28-70mm with f/2 max aperture is possible because it only goes down to 28mm rather than 24mm, which is the crunch end in terms of optical design. The 50mm f/1.2 is not at all revolutionary, DSLR history is littered with similar spec and even faster DSLR lenses going back many years. Nikon's new Z mount 58mm f/0.95 is pushing things a lot further optically, but just look at it! It's colossal, weighs half a ton and costs $6k (manual focus only). It's not going to be a big seller.
I'm not dissing the new mount and its associated benefits, just wanting to add some realism. If anyone thinks it's some kind of optical new dawn and that we'll see a whole new range of amazing lenses that we'll all be wanting and using, they're going to be disappointed.
And some amateurs will buy exotic lenses "because they're there". And possibly never even use them?
Personally I can't imagine ever needing a f1.2 lens or an f2 standard zoom, and I'm a professional (just)........ It looks to me as if Canon (for example) offer these exotic lenses because they can.
lol beeeeh beeeeeeh!Brownish wool things: Amateur photographers
Black and white things: marketing departments and Brand ambasadeurs
Whistling noise: Executive boards of the camera Brands
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MNDLrutTo4
Brownish wool things: Amateur photographers
Black and white things: marketing departments and Brand ambassadors
Whistling noise: Executive boards of the camera Brands