Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 42

Thread: RF, EOS R and new Tele Lenses

  1. #31
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,087
    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    Canon has told a few vendors they are modifying the MTF's. Since version II was at almost 1 maybe they thought it necessary to modify so the new RF line can show improvement over older excellent models.

    Once you see the right MTF's the new lens is near identical.
    That is really weird. Canon Japan has changed (updated) the Mk II MTFs whereas Canon USA has the old (what I am used to MTFs) for the 600 Mk II but the new MTF style for the 600 MK III.

    When you click on the "how to read the MTF," it still links you to a 2013 article regarding the old MTFs.

    Just comparing the new MTFs....these new RF lenses (24-105, 28-70, and, to a lessor extent, 35 mm...no MTF on the 50 mm) are very impressive compared to the new MTFs of the 400/600.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin View Post
    I think Canon worries too much about cannibalization, but they are still clearly #1. It's probably just petty jealousy because I'm not willing to open up my wallet wide enough to get "the good features".

    If I were them I would worry more about Sony. They are on their generation 3 full frame cameras which is a healthy head start over Canon and Nikon.

    Dave
    Which "good features" are you looking into? If you want something, a common strategy is to buy previous 1-2 generations. If you want all the new features, yep, most any company is going to make you pay.

    I have a good friend, buys luxury cars that are being returned from their lease. It is brilliant. He just picked up a $65k, 1 yr old Infiniti with 8k miles for about 60% of the original price.

    The quick response would be that I think Sony is the one that needs to worry now that Canon, Nikon and likely Pentax are all entering the FF MILC market. It is just never good to have 3 well established companies enter your niche.

    A bit more detailed analysis, I believe Sony has become a legitimate 3rd camera manufacturer. But, personally, I massively dislike their camera in hand, EVF, and menu system (general ergonomics) whenever I have picked one up. Also, I was looking at their recent financials in an article. They are a conglomerate that is actually forecasting selling fewer cameras (3.8M) in FY2018 than in FY2017 (4.4M). Their "imaging" group is 155B yen of a 1,858B yen company and is the smallest their 8 named divisions.

    In short, Sony seems committed to their camera system, but I always worry that they may bolt once they have extracted the desired revenue from this market or if the market suddenly shifts on them when a disruption happens like 3 established companies suddenly competing with them.

    Last quick thought, Sony knows electronics and does electronics well. They bought Konica/Minolta who knew lenses. But most of their innovations seems to be on the electronics side, which isn't surprising as that is their base. Canon/Nikon are camera body/lens companies (historically). Now that they have entered MILC market, I think that history and base will be reflected in their products.
    Last edited by Kayaker72; 09-11-2018 at 01:07 PM.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,899
    The RF white paper has information about the new MTF charts.
    No F8 lines now.
    Changing format makes sense, some lenses were running out of headroom to show improvement.
    Only wide open makes sense to with current lenses.

    What doesn’t make sense is Canon marketing. Why wouldn’t they announce the change and put a positive spin on it?
    instead they lead people to believe IQ is getting worse.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Dave Throgmartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    990
    Quote Originally Posted by Kayaker72 View Post
    Which "good features" are you looking into?
    My comment was probably a blowing off steam type of thing... has been a bit of a rough patch recently on a personal level.

    However, in my opinion Canon does choose to product differentiate on some odds things. The 5D Mark II and 6D only have one reliable autofocus point. The 6DII has a sensor that does not appear terribly competitive in 2018 (although the wife bought one anyway).

    If you want a full frame camera with competent autofocus AND a modern sensor for a DSLR you have to buy the 5D IV at a minimum. That said, they do have the refurbished lens program which can be a substantial savings. They also have the largest used gear market, again allowing substantial savings.

    Nikon and Sony do not seem to have quite the same approach towards product differentiation although they have their other faults.

    Dave

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    256
    What i am interested is to see how this new R body works on nigh time. Since i 95% shoot at night time. I just changed my 5dsr to 5div to have actually proper body for stars, milky way and auroras. Next thing to get is the 2nd body to have more stills shootings since the 5d4 is on heavily time lapse duty.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,309
    On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr | On the web - http://www.GrassStainedPhoto.com
    1DsII | 7D | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 18-135mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L

  6. #36
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin View Post
    My comment was probably a blowing off steam type of thing... has been a bit of a rough patch recently on a personal level.

    However, in my opinion Canon does choose to product differentiate on some odds things. The 5D Mark II and 6D only have one reliable autofocus point. The 6DII has a sensor that does not appear terribly competitive in 2018 (although the wife bought one anyway).

    If you want a full frame camera with competent autofocus AND a modern sensor for a DSLR you have to buy the 5D IV at a minimum. That said, they do have the refurbished lens program which can be a substantial savings. They also have the largest used gear market, again allowing substantial savings.

    Nikon and Sony do not seem to have quite the same approach towards product differentiation although they have their other faults.

    Dave
    Sorry to hear about the personal issues. We've all been there. Good luck with everything.

    The merits of Canon's product announcements have been discussed at length in other forums. This group has tended to stay above the fray. But it is interesting. Ultimately, Canon does what Canon does. It makes sense for them.

    What is nice about the R is that it does seem to be a body that they added a lot too that is at a very nice price point. To get a 5DIV sensor at $2,300 in a new camera (I got my 5DIV on a refurbished sale) is a steal in Canonland. While I will wait on reviewers, the Canon AF may be as good or better than any other mirrorless camera.

    For a lot of people, I can see picking the R over the 6DII or even 5DIV right now. Just to name a few, it has future compatibility/side to side AF ability/low light AF ability over the 5DIV, the above issues, and sensor over the 6DII.

    So, right now I am left with the opposite feeling to what you described with Canon. Usually, I see distinct price points coupled with distinctly different products and it makes sense to me (as a consumer, I may not like it, but it makes sense). Here, I think Canon went lower on price, a bit higher on specs to enter the market. But, now I am left scratching my head a bit as the R really muddys the water in terms of product/price point differentiation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karsaa View Post
    What i am interested is to see how this new R body works on nigh time. Since i 95% shoot at night time. I just changed my 5dsr to 5div to have actually proper body for stars, milky way and auroras. Next thing to get is the 2nd body to have more stills shootings since the 5d4 is on heavily time lapse duty.
    While I haven't heard of anyone using it for astro yet, if you get into the video David linked, they talk a lot about low light focusing. It very much helps to have a fast lens as the more light that hits the sensor the better. But this could be a beast of a camera for low light/nightscapes.

  7. #37
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,087
    The RF lenses are looking very nice. Bryan has now reviewed the RF 24-105 and the review for the RF 50 f/1.2 was posted today. Plus, a number of other reviewers have been posting their thoughts.

    The review I am waiting for is the 28-70 f/2. Everyone is referring to it with superlatives, but I've yet to see a really thorough review.

    I just scrolled through the 50 f/1.2. Looks great. One thing I like about TDP reviews is all the comparisons. While very impressed with the wide open IQ I have to say, that is a big lens. I mean, I consider my Sigma 50A to be big and the RF is bigger. I know many will prefer the native Canon glass, assume native AF is better, etc, but I have had very good luck with Sigma and really like a number of their lenses. I would trade my 50A for something optically equivalent but smaller/lighter. The Canon RF 50 f/1.2 is the former, but not that latter (plus...RF mount).

    But, overall, it is nice to see Canon come out of the gate with some nice offerings in the RF lineup. As the need to differentiate becomes more important, great glass is one of the best ways to do it.

  8. #38
    Administrator Sean Setters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    Posts
    3,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Kayaker72 View Post
    I mean, I consider my Sigma 50A to be big and the RF is bigger. I know many will prefer the native Canon glass, assume native AF is better, etc, but I have had very good luck with Sigma and really like a number of their lenses. I would trade my 50A for something optically equivalent but smaller/lighter. The Canon RF 50 f/1.2 is the former, but not that latter (plus...RF mount).
    Note that I accidentally put the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art in place of the 50mm Art in the RF 50mm f/1.2L comparison images. I uploaded a fixed version of the sans-hood and with hood images, but... it takes forever for the server nodes to propagate the change (I fixed the error hours ago and the correct picture still isn't showing).

    Anyway, the RF 50 is definitely larger than the Sigma 50A, but... the difference isn't quite as large as the original comparison shows.

  9. #39
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Setters View Post
    Note that I accidentally put the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art in place of the 50mm Art in the RF 50mm f/1.2L comparison images. I uploaded a fixed version of the sans-hood and with hood images, but... it takes forever for the server nodes to propagate the change (I fixed the error hours ago and the correct picture still isn't showing).

    Anyway, the RF 50 is definitely larger than the Sigma 50A, but... the difference isn't quite as large as the original comparison shows.
    Ha....that certainly explains part of it.

    But, I was hoping that, as part of "mirrorless" the lenses would be smaller...at least by a bit. Instead, a bit bigger (granted, f/1.2 vs f/1.4)….but maybe not as much as it first appeared....

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by Kayaker72 View Post
    Ha....that certainly explains part of it.

    But, I was hoping that, as part of "mirrorless" the lenses would be smaller...at least by a bit. Instead, a bit bigger (granted, f/1.2 vs f/1.4)….but maybe not as much as it first appeared....
    I was surprised to see that Canon started its mirrorless range with lenses that big too. I'm curious to see if they bring more compact alternatives later. They would interest me more than a 28-70 f/2.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •