Is Canon targeting m43 users?

[jalywol]

Look, you can stick your nose in the air at me and argue that I do not understand the physics of light and sensors, and fine. Some of it I do, and some of it I don't.

What I do understand is that conflating the sensor and lens behavior generates massive confusion and is totally unnecessary.

Sensors are, very simply, the equivalent of film. Any given camera body has a particular set of "film" (sensor) behaviors that is very specific for that particular body. Similar bodies will behave similarly, but not identically, and choices about which to use, even amongst similar bodies, will (or should) depend on the particular characteristics that a given body has.

Think of this as essentially akin to selecting a particular brand or type of film based on the characteristics of the final image it produces....I used to prefer one of the Fuji films, for instance, over its Kodak equivalent, when I was using a film camera many moons ago. (Yes, I know this is an oversimplification, but go with it).

So, when I use a camera, I come to know what its "film" characteristics are. After working with it for a little while, I develop an understanding of what level of noise, color behavior, DR, etc., it has at any given ISO and lighting situation, and I know what the limits are of my tolerance for increases and decreases in these parameters in my images. This makes it very easy to choose what lenses I need for a particular setting, since it's based on that particular camera's output and my own preferences.

Ok, you say, but when you are comparing different systems, you HAVE to incorporate all of this data in or, or, or..... No you do not.

I posit that there really is no equivalence. Further, I am convinced that all of this data mashup trying to make everything equivalent in one neat little generalizable ball is a total waste of time and energy, and instead makes newly interested people trying to get a handle on photography want to run in the other direction and stick to using their cell phones instead. And it generates huge arguments on forums, because, essentially, it's really pointless except in the abstract, and those of us out there who actually use our damned cameras and get to know them, understand that, but can't get that across to the measurebator contingent, who are, as a rule, a lot more strident about it all.

Kind of reminds me of what is going on in everything else nowadays actually.

So. Yes, I have M43. Yes, I have FF. No they are not the same. Can I make them look pretty similar. Yeah, but why bother? I use each in the areas they are strongest, and they complement each other. If I sat down and tried to make an equivalence chart between them, would I gain anything? No. I know, via usage, what each body can and can't do, and I know what the lenses I have for each can and can't do, and all of the "equivalence" calculations in the world are not going to tell me, or anyone else, any of that. And that's why lens behavior and sensor behavior need to be kept separate in equivalence evaluations.

-J

 

[Great Bustard]

Look, you can stick your nose in the air at me and argue that I do not understand the physics of light and sensors, and fine. Some of it I do, and some of it I don't.

There is no "nose sticking in the air" about what one knows or doesn't. There is disappointment in people arguing against facts when the facts are presented, explained, and supported by *all* the evidence.

What I do understand is that conflating the sensor and lens behavior generates massive confusion and is totally unnecessary.

Photos are made with both a lens and sensor. Either by itself creates nothing. Likewise, noise comes from both the light (lens) and from the sensor (both in terms of how much of that light the sensor records, and how much additional noise the sensor and supporting hardware add in).

Sensors are, very simply, the equivalent of film.

How dare you use the word "equivalent"! :-D

Any given camera body has a particular set of "film" (sensor) behaviors that is very specific for that particular body. Similar bodies will behave similarly, but not identically, and choices about which to use, even amongst similar bodies, will (or should) depend on the particular characteristics that a given body has.

Think of this as essentially akin to selecting a particular brand or type of film based on the characteristics of the final image it produces....I used to prefer one of the Fuji films, for instance, over its Kodak equivalent, when I was using a film camera many moons ago. (Yes, I know this is an oversimplification, but go with it).

So, when I use a camera, I come to know what its "film" characteristics are. After working with it for a little while, I develop an understanding of what level of noise, color behavior, DR, etc., it has at any given ISO and lighting situation, and I know what the limits are of my tolerance for increases and decreases in these parameters in my images. This makes it very easy to choose what lenses I need for a particular setting, since it's based on that particular camera's output and my own preferences.

That's like saying, "I've swum in all these different rivers, and, while they're all just water, I've come to understand the differences between the rivers" and then disregard the "technocrat" saying that these differences can be explained by understanding current, temperature, salinity, etc..

Ok, you say, but when you are comparing different systems, you HAVE to incorporate all of this data in or, or, or..... No you do not.

You don't have to do anything at all. I am saying that *if* you are comparing different systems, then it's not merely the "magic" of A vs the "magic" of B. It can very much be explained and quantified. To say that you know by experience, even given that the experience is from a competent and knowledgeable photographer, doesn't discount the science.

I posit that there really is no equivalence.

That's like saying "I posit there there really is no framing, DOF, motion blur, and noise."

Further, I am convinced that all of this data mashup trying to make everything equivalent in one neat little generalizable ball is a total waste of time and energy, and instead makes newly interested people trying to get a handle on photography want to run in the other direction and stick to using their cell phones instead. And it generates huge arguments on forums, because, essentially, it's really pointless except in the abstract, and those of us out there who actually use our damned cameras and get to know them, understand that, but can't get that across to the measurebator contingent, who are, as a rule, a lot more strident about it all.

But saying "f/2 = f/2" for all formats devoid of how it affects the photos makes sense to you?

Kind of reminds me of what is going on in everything else nowadays actually.

Big time.

So. Yes, I have M43. Yes, I have FF. No they are not the same. Can I make them look pretty similar. Yeah, but why bother?

The point of Equivalence is *absolutely not* to make different formats look similar.

I use each in the areas they are strongest, and they complement each other.

And Equivalence doesn't say anything to the contrary.

If I sat down and tried to make an equivalence chart between them, would I gain anything?

It's not an "equivalence chart". For mFT and FF, it's an equivalence ratio (crop factor) of 2. Of course, there's also pixel count, quantum efficiency, image stabilization, HHHR, AF speed/accuracy, etc., etc., etc.. But all of these things are quantifiable -- you don't need to buy the equipment to know.

No. I know, via usage, what each body can and can't do, and I know what the lenses I have for each can and can't do, and all of the "equivalence" calculations in the world are not going to tell me, or anyone else, any of that. And that's why lens behavior and sensor behavior need to be kept separate in equivalence evaluations.

That's a common counter -- "I know by experience". OK, maybe you do (you'd be surprised how many think they know, but don't -- that is, their experience shows more their limitations as a photographer than the limitations of the equipment).

But the point is, Equivalence isn't hard to understand, and you can know without buying the equipment, which is *extremely useful* for those considering different equipment (for example, an mFT shooter who might want a 12-35 / 1.4, it's worth mentioning that they can get an equivalent lens in a 24-70 / 2.8). Equivalence is also *extremely useful* for understanding how to make the most of the equipment you do down.

You know what's not extremely useful? Arguing against the facts. Another thing that's not useful? Saying your personal experience trumps the facts. Another thing that's not useful? Assuming the facts are not relevant to anyone else.

However, if you instead wish to say, "Who cares? If you can't take a great photo with any modern camera (and many, many, many not so modern cameras), and even smartphones, then Equivalence won't help you." Sure -- I don't disagree.

 

[jalywol]

That's a common counter -- "I know by experience". OK, maybe you do (you'd be surprised how many think they know, but don't -- that is, their experience shows more their limitations as a photographer than the limitations of the equipment).

But the point is, Equivalence isn't hard to understand, and you can know without buying the equipment, which is *extremely useful* for those considering different equipment. It's also *extremely useful* for understanding how to make the most of the equipment you do down.

But, here's the thing. It's not. At least not how it is being used.

Look. People distill down what they can grab out of a wall of words, and run with it.

"Equivalence", in the "throw all of it in one basket and come out with stew" format that you and the geek contingent love to propound, instead ends up with "throw it all in one basket and come out with dross", and from that sludgy mess, people pop forth with the one or two components that they understand. In other words, even if the wall of facts might have a component or two that are useful, the sum of them ends up generating so much confusion that it's really pointless. Plus, I posit that some of these facts are indeed arguable, as their significance is open to interpretation, but because of the obfuscating nature of their presentation, it becomes impossible to contradict their proponents without opening the floodgates for another spew of factoids that may or may not mean a damned thing.

You know, when I was in Vet school, one of the more important lessons I learned was not related to to the medical curriculum, but it was about what made effective instructors, and what didn't. There were a number of instructors who were tops in their fields, and made sure their students knew it, by dragging out complex and arcane tidbits of information that they thought would impress and dazzle them with their brilliance and storehouse of knowledge. Then there were a whole other group of instructors who worked their rear ends off to distill the most important concepts and facts in their field into a framework that their students could access and then use to build on as they gained further knowledge and experience. Guess which ones were more successful at their jobs? Thirty plus years on, I still remember and can use the information communicated by the instructors who didn't glory in their own mental prowess, and I can't remember bupkis from the ones who did.

Similarly, when I became a college instructor myself, I would watch some of my colleagues, who were so enamored of the complex chemistry of the cellular respiration process that they would dump the entire thing on their intro general (NON MAJORS) biology students, and make them memorize it in infinite detail. I spent a lot of time tutoring those poor students (I also worked as a tutor for the department) so they could just pass that instructor's tests, which were full of tiny, fine, details about what the chemical formulas were for the molecules in each step of the cycle, and how they changed through it, etc. The thing is, none of them ended up understanding the big picture of how the cellular respiration cycles worked and why they were so important (and remarkable); instead they got stuck dreading and memorizing the infinite minutiae of the processes which their instructor loved so dearly. So, when they came in for tutoring help, I'd sit them down and teach them the way I taught my classes, and the way that my best instructors taught me, and that was to distill the concept to its essence and communicate the fundamentals, since once they had the concepts, then they could fill in the tiny details and have them make sense. And it worked.

So, my challenge to you, is to find a way to explain what your facts are in a way that is accessible to us non-physicists, and develop a simple, logical framework that ties all these equivalence components together while still being able to be communicated effectively to the photographic hoi polloi here.

I guarantee you if you can do that, you will both find that more people will accept what you are saying without argument, and those that do not accept it will have a much clearer set of points to base their arguments against your points on.

Let me also say this; I am no slouch in the brains department, so if I tell you that your posts are annoyingly and unnecessarily hard to follow, you might want to take that under advisement. And, you never know, you might end up seeing things you didn't before when you start weeding out the wheat from the chaff in your posts.

-J

 

[George1958]

My few pence on the matter, all other camera manufacturers target each other. The mission is gaining and holding new business.

The question is, why would two lenses from canon change anything? Sure, price might induce some. But saying that, changing a systems costs are made up of losses on your old stuff and the price of the new gear.

Further, and I am typical of many M4/3 users, I could have picked any system but I chose M4/3 because it had the right blend of features that matter to me. To my way of thinking , its irrational to jump based on a couple of cheap lenses that don't do anything better than the gear I have got.

 

[Great Bustard]

That's a common counter -- "I know by experience". OK, maybe you do (you'd be surprised how many think they know, but don't -- that is, their experience shows more their limitations as a photographer than the limitations of the equipment).

But the point is, Equivalence isn't hard to understand, and you can know without buying the equipment, which is *extremely useful* for those considering different equipment. It's also *extremely useful* for understanding how to make the most of the equipment you do down.

But, here's the thing. It's not. At least not how it is being used.

For sure, there are people who misrepresent Equivalence to push the "superiority" of this system or that. But it absolutely *is* useful. You want a 35-100 / 1.4 for mFT? Well, there isn't one. But there's a 70-200 / 2.8 for FF. And it's large, heavy, and expensive -- as would be a 35-100 / 1.4 for mFT. So what does Equivalence tell you? Wait for a 35-100 / 1.4 to be made for mFT, get a FF camera and a 70-200 / 2.8 to mount on it, or decide you don't really need the lens that much, after all.

Look. People distill down what they can grab out of a wall of words, and run with it.

"Equivalence", in the "throw all of it in one basket and come out with stew" format that you and the geek contingent love to propound, instead ends up with "throw it all in one basket and come out with dross", and from that sludgy mess, people pop forth with the one or two components that they understand. In other words, even if the wall of facts might have a component or two that are useful, the sum of them ends up generating so much confusion that it's really pointless. Plus, I posit that some of these facts are indeed arguable, as their significance is open to interpretation, but because of the obfuscating nature of their presentation, it becomes impossible to contradict their proponents without opening the floodgates for another spew of factoids that may or may not mean a damned thing.

You disparage Equivalence because there are those that misrepresent it?

You know, when I was in Vet school, one of the more important lessons I learned was not related to to the medical curriculum, but it was about what made effective instructors, and what didn't. There were a number of instructors who were tops in their fields, and made sure their students knew it, by dragging out complex and arcane tidbits of information that they thought would impress and dazzle them with their brilliance and storehouse of knowledge. Then there were a whole other group of instructors who worked their rear ends off to distill the most important concepts and facts in their field into a framework that their students could access and then use to build on as they gained further knowledge and experience. Guess which ones were more successful at their jobs? Thirty plus years on, I still remember and can use the information communicated by the instructors who didn't glory in their own mental prowess, and I can't remember bupkis from the ones who did.

Similarly, when I became a college instructor myself, I would watch some of my colleagues, who were so enamored of the complex chemistry of the cellular respiration process that they would dump the entire thing on their intro general (NON MAJORS) biology students, and make them memorize it in infinite detail. I spent a lot of time tutoring those poor students (I also worked as a tutor for the department) so they could just pass that instructor's tests, which were full of tiny, fine, details about what the chemical formulas were for the molecules in each step of the cycle, and how they changed through it, etc. The thing is, none of them ended up understanding the big picture of how the cellular respiration cycles worked and why they were so important (and remarkable); instead they got stuck dreading and memorizing the infinite minutiae of the processes which their instructor loved so dearly. So, when they came in for tutoring help, I'd sit them down and teach them the way I taught my classes, and the way that my best instructors taught me, and that was to distill the concept to its essence and communicate the fundamentals, since once they had the concepts, then they could fill in the tiny details and have them make sense. And it worked.

So, my challenge to you, is to find a way to explain what your facts are in a way that is accessible to us non-physicists, and develop a simple, logical framework that ties all these equivalence components together while still being able to be communicated effectively to the photographic hoi polloi here.

Funny you mention it, 'cause it's been done. Not only been done, but linked and quoted countless times. For example, but far from limited to:

Equivalence on the Quick.

[Photographic] Equivalence -- what it is and isn't.

Total Light. (follow up from the above link)

In all cases, a simple and direct explanation. In the last two links (DPR threads), it's not hard to find the anti-Equivalence crowd hard at work misrepresenting Equivalence, arguing against facts, and good old-fashioned willful ignorance.

I guarantee you if you can do that, you will both find that more people will accept what you are saying without argument, and those that do not accept it will have a much clearer set of points to base their arguments against your points on.

Well, I gave some examples above. Yes, there are those that accept it without argument. Yes there are the willfully ignorant. Yes there are those that misrepresent Equivalence, both intentionally and out of ignorance. No, there is *no one* who has made a single *valid* argument against Equivalence, much less "a much clearer set of points to base their arguments against your points on".

Disagree? Put me to the test. Tell me *anything* Equivalence says that is not true (as opposed to something someone said that actually misrepresented Equivalence).

Let me also say this; I am no slouch in the brains department, so if I tell you that your posts are annoyingly and unnecessarily hard to follow, you might want to take that under advisement. And, you never know, you might end up seeing things you didn't before when you start weeding out the wheat from the chaff in your posts.

Let's go with the first link above:

Equivalence on the Quick.

If you can't follow that, please let me know. If you disagree with that, well, that's what the rest is all about -- explaining why what was said "on the quick" is true (which has been substantiated time and time again with actual photos).

And all the long posts about Equivalence that are "hard to follow"? Addressing the willfully ignorant and those who seek to misrepresent what Equivalence actually says.

So, again, tell me what in the link immediately above is "hard to follow" -- I'm honestly curious.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

Most FF photos I see, most of the image is out of focus. It's usually particularly bad on portraits.

really? I'd go look through some of the challenges and you'll see some great FF pictures...they might be in focus too

 

[paolop23]

The Canon 100-400 would allow the user to have a lens that is similar to the PL 50-200 while also having the option of higher performing tele zooms and primes plus a while range of lenses with perfromance characteristics that m43 cannot match. They can have both a smaller lighter setup and a larger higher performing setup while staying within one system.

Not so similar.

Light gather and AOV is almost identical but it is much longer lens. Build will probably be STM level plastic, not L level at that price.

Focus in lower light or on low contrast subject will render it poor choice for wildlife and action photography.

Maybe for soccer mom on sunny day? Eh, probably use cell phone instead

Isnt it convenient how the thicker R3 body makes the lens look longer...

Maybe a more reasonable combination with an r6 might help

https://camerasize.com/compact/#852.1016,725.725,ha,t

For someone new deciding between a G9+50-200 Panaleica for $2600 vs R6+100-400 for $3000 seems pretty hard to justify considering the FF is probably going to outperform it in terms of sharpness and AF, while giving you the option to get much better lenses in the wide to normal range.

 

[FoPar]

As soon as someone brings up equivalence, a thread goes down the toilet

 

[Gary from Seattle]

My few pence on the matter, all other camera manufacturers target each other. The mission is gaining and holding new business.

The question is, why would two lenses from canon change anything? Sure, price might induce some. But saying that, changing a systems costs are made up of losses on your old stuff and the price of the new gear.

Further, and I am typical of many M4/3 users, I could have picked any system but I chose M4/3 because it had the right blend of features that matter to me. To my way of thinking , its irrational to jump based on a couple of cheap lenses that don't do anything better than the gear I have got.

It is probably irrational on several levels; but shopping itself is kind of irrational. What I strongly believe gives one the best chance at a good portfolio of images (not camera collections) is familiarity with a system. As in the other thread currently going on, it takes a good deal of familiarity and practice with the EM-1 II to become proficient with that body as there are all sorts of options and set-ups that can lead one to maximize the photographic (not shopping) value of that body.

Each new body - to a lesser extent lens - takes a fair bit of time to learn, let alone maximize for imagery; a new system just makes that process a lot harder.

 

[George1958]

My few pence on the matter, all other camera manufacturers target each other. The mission is gaining and holding new business.

The question is, why would two lenses from canon change anything? Sure, price might induce some. But saying that, changing a systems costs are made up of losses on your old stuff and the price of the new gear.

Further, and I am typical of many M4/3 users, I could have picked any system but I chose M4/3 because it had the right blend of features that matter to me. To my way of thinking , its irrational to jump based on a couple of cheap lenses that don't do anything better than the gear I have got.

It is probably irrational on several levels; but shopping itself is kind of irrational. What I strongly believe gives one the best chance at a good portfolio of images (not camera collections) is familiarity with a system. As in the other thread currently going on, it takes a good deal of familiarity and practice with the EM-1 II to become proficient with that body as there are all sorts of options and set-ups that can lead one to maximize the photographic (not shopping) value of that body.

Each new body - to a lesser extent lens - takes a fair bit of time to learn, let alone maximize for imagery; a new system just makes that process a lot harder.

It’s a good point that you make Gary. It also pretty much describes my experience. There have been a fair few system jumpers in our local camera club. What is interesting to note is their photography tends to stay about the same , likely because of the emphasis on “buying” better rather than using better.
To add my best images have always been because of both knowing how to get the best out of my equipment and shooting in light that offered creative scope, such as in fog, early or late light etc.

 

[victorav]

After the slow telephoto primes, Canon comes out with this: https://m.dpreview.com/news/5329830...-new-rf-100-400mm-f5-6-8-and-16mm-f2-8-lenses

Interestingly, the lens is very comparable in specs to the Panasonic 50-200 2.8-4.0. Similar eq. focal length, similar eq. aperture, similar weight. And it is priced extremely reasonably at 649$. Of course, the PL 50-200 is probably better built but the price difference is considerable, especially if IQ is good. For the same price you could get a FF Canon RP with this lens or just the PL lens alone. For someone starting from scratch, it is really worth considering.

Will the m43 system suffer from the comparison?

As it is probably easier to design longer focal range slower lenses than shorter focal range faster lenses, m43 manufacturers will have a hard time trying to compete with larger sensor cameras. Maybe they should concentrate on really tiny high quality lenses where FF can't compete.

lol samyang 24mm2.8 at 90 grams 45mm1.8 165grams. compete ? they have won.

Well if you define "won" as who had/has the most market share ff won a long time ago, for ilc.

But actually the real winner is the smartphone.

tell me a smart phone that has an 45 mm lens and i will buy it. the new iphone 13 is 26mm distorted heads live on.

Show me a full frame (goes for mft too) camera that sells as much as phone, and can fit in your pocket. The market has already spoken. People like you and me who see the benefit of an ilc are not the majority.

The new iphone will certainly outsell any camera on the market.

 

[Jeff]

After the slow telephoto primes, Canon comes out with this: https://m.dpreview.com/news/5329830...-new-rf-100-400mm-f5-6-8-and-16mm-f2-8-lenses

Interestingly, the lens is very comparable in specs to the Panasonic 50-200 2.8-4.0. Similar eq. focal length, similar eq. aperture, similar weight. And it is priced extremely reasonably at 649$. Of course, the PL 50-200 is probably better built but the price difference is considerable, especially if IQ is good. For the same price you could get a FF Canon RP with this lens or just the PL lens alone. For someone starting from scratch, it is really worth considering.

Will the m43 system suffer from the comparison?

As it is probably easier to design longer focal range slower lenses than shorter focal range faster lenses, m43 manufacturers will have a hard time trying to compete with larger sensor cameras. Maybe they should concentrate on really tiny high quality lenses where FF can't compete.

lol samyang 24mm2.8 at 90 grams 45mm1.8 165grams. compete ? they have won.

Well if you define "won" as who had/has the most market share ff won a long time ago, for ilc.

But actually the real winner is the smartphone.

tell me a smart phone that has an 45 mm lens and i will buy it. the new iphone 13 is 26mm distorted heads live on.

Don

Just hit the 2x button on your iPhone Pro. It's pretty decent, too.

 

[lightnchade]

Probably no to the headline question, they've always had a creative attitude towards lenses and the RF gives them new possibilities. These type of lenses are at least as much about attracting the typical buyer of their own APS-C DSLR range into the mirrorless world.

Will the m43 system suffer from the comparison?

Probably yes to that.

What are your thoughts?

I really like what I'm seeing from Canon in RF. They are continually adding options to support different approaches to photography.

The new lens is reportedly very light and easy to handle, and the sample images look very promising.

Here's a mockup on an RP comparing it to a µ43 G90/95 with 50-200/2.8-4, so identical equivalent aperture.



I don't know how accurate the scale is, I just tried to gauge the width of the mount, it looks about right.

The Canon is obviously larger, which is evident simply from the specs, 165mm vs 132mm.

Judging by an initial preview video with the lens, I may have made the Canon lens just a fraction too big here, it looks very slightly smaller in the video, but in terms of real world usability, there's relatively little in it anyway given the how much the lenses protrude, and they weigh the same.

Some might point out the Panasonic is a high quality build, a different class of lens. No argument, it is. But you can only buy what's available.

One of the issues on µ43 is for consistently good performance across the zoom range and to shoot at F8 equivalent or wider you have to buy lenses like this, and they cost. ($1800 for this one).

 

[PhotonBeam]

After the slow telephoto primes, Canon comes out with this: https://m.dpreview.com/news/5329830...-new-rf-100-400mm-f5-6-8-and-16mm-f2-8-lenses

Interestingly, the lens is very comparable in specs to the Panasonic 50-200 2.8-4.0. Similar eq. focal length, similar eq. aperture, similar weight. And it is priced extremely reasonably at 649$. Of course, the PL 50-200 is probably better built but the price difference is considerable, especially if IQ is good. For the same price you could get a FF Canon RP with this lens or just the PL lens alone. For someone starting from scratch, it is really worth considering.

Will the m43 system suffer from the comparison?

As it is probably easier to design longer focal range slower lenses than shorter focal range faster lenses, m43 manufacturers will have a hard time trying to compete with larger sensor cameras. Maybe they should concentrate on really tiny high quality lenses where FF can't compete.

What are your thoughts?

I am not sure if Canon is specifically targeting micro 4/3 users, but I do think that they are trying to capture as much of the camera market as they can. They realize that there is a market for smaller lightweight equipment.

I think it is a good strategy. Offer the small and light "consumer" grade equipment on the same platform as the expensive stuff. It provides a very natural upgrade path.

 

[jwilliams]

But saying "f/2 = f/2" for all formats devoid of how it affects the photos makes sense to you?

How about saying "50 = 50". Thats the 'light opening' (new term I just created) on both a 200 f4 and a 400 f8 lens. Let's try to get the lens manufacturers try try and relabel the lenses using this convention. Then the PL 50-200 2.8-4 becones the PL 50-200 17.9-50 and the Canon becomes a 100-400 17.9-50. Now the m43 folks can multiply the FL by 2x and leave the 'light opening' number as is when doing comparisons.

There, I've solved the equivalence debate forever

Now I'll let you and jalywol get back to your regularly shceduled debate.

 

[fitzrovian]

No.

 

[pannumon]

Remember, they also have a small body/lens system (the M series), which sells very well, so this will affect that market also. (No adapters possible for RF to M mounts either).

Canon has always had a wide assortment of lenses (and camera bodies) at a variety of price points to meet the needs of their users. This lens is very smart in terms of what they did with it; including making it compatible with teleconverters (which Panasonic should have done with their FF L mount 70-300mm lens, but didn't). Sure, it will be really, really, slow with a TC, but it gets the reach....and it's cheap.

This lens is going to gather the DSLR market that Canon had with their EF 70-300mm USM II lens, which was reasonably light, very decent IQ, and affordable. It's not a shot across the bow of M43, it's just Canon filling an equivalent niche in their RF lens lineup, as they play the long game of transitioning their product line(s) to mirrorless.

What's going on here is that mirrorless can AF just fine at the higher f-numbers, whereas DSLRs could not (the AF sensors of DSLRs depended on the *geometry* of the f-number, whereas mirrorless does not have this geometry restriction. This is why we're only seeing such high f-number lenses only now.

What the heck is geometry of the f-number?

 

[victorav]

Remember, they also have a small body/lens system (the M series), which sells very well, so this will affect that market also. (No adapters possible for RF to M mounts either).

Canon has always had a wide assortment of lenses (and camera bodies) at a variety of price points to meet the needs of their users. This lens is very smart in terms of what they did with it; including making it compatible with teleconverters (which Panasonic should have done with their FF L mount 70-300mm lens, but didn't). Sure, it will be really, really, slow with a TC, but it gets the reach....and it's cheap.

This lens is going to gather the DSLR market that Canon had with their EF 70-300mm USM II lens, which was reasonably light, very decent IQ, and affordable. It's not a shot across the bow of M43, it's just Canon filling an equivalent niche in their RF lens lineup, as they play the long game of transitioning their product line(s) to mirrorless.

What's going on here is that mirrorless can AF just fine at the higher f-numbers, whereas DSLRs could not (the AF sensors of DSLRs depended on the *geometry* of the f-number, whereas mirrorless does not have this geometry restriction. This is why we're only seeing such high f-number lenses only now.

Oh, and the PL 50-200mm is an entirely different beast than the decent consumer grade Canon lenses. The equivalent M43 lens, in terms of IQ is going to be the Panasonic 100-300mm, judging from my experience with the EF 70-300mm, PL 50-200mm, and 100-300. The PL 50-200mm is one of the finest zooms out there, and I guarantee you the upcoming Canon, which will be a nice lens, is not going to be even remotely on par with it. (There's also the Panasonic 45-200mm II, which should be in the same class as the Canon, but I have not used it so I can't give you a direct comparison.)

We should probably wait and see what the photos look like, first.

And, don't be fooled by equivalence pretzel logic. If you are shooting the PL 50-200mm at f4 at 200mm, and trying to keep the shutter speed up to capture some fast action, you are going to have a much easier time of it than trying to use the Canon at 400mm at f8. Yeah, sensor noise is going be be different in the FF vs M43, but an f8 lens is not an f4 lens, no matter how you dance on the head of a pin.

Oh for goodness sakes! 100-400mm f/5.6-8 on FF is *equivalent to* 50-200 / 2.8-4 on mFT: same [diagonal] angle of view, same DOF, and same total amount of light projected on the sensor for a given exposure time.

To *disingenuously* say that "an f8 lens is not an f4 lens, no matter how you dance on the head of a pin" is to imply that the number, for the number's sake alone, is what matters, as opposed to the effect the number has on the photographic qualities of the resulting photo.

Well context matters here. A ff lens with an aperture of f8 is equivalent to an mft lens with an aperture of f4. So yes in that sense the above quote is wrong.

A ff lens with an aperture of f8 is not the same as another ff lens with an aperture of f4. Unless you saying this is also the case?

 

[Great Bustard]

Remember, they also have a small body/lens system (the M series), which sells very well, so this will affect that market also. (No adapters possible for RF to M mounts either).

Canon has always had a wide assortment of lenses (and camera bodies) at a variety of price points to meet the needs of their users. This lens is very smart in terms of what they did with it; including making it compatible with teleconverters (which Panasonic should have done with their FF L mount 70-300mm lens, but didn't). Sure, it will be really, really, slow with a TC, but it gets the reach....and it's cheap.

This lens is going to gather the DSLR market that Canon had with their EF 70-300mm USM II lens, which was reasonably light, very decent IQ, and affordable. It's not a shot across the bow of M43, it's just Canon filling an equivalent niche in their RF lens lineup, as they play the long game of transitioning their product line(s) to mirrorless.

What's going on here is that mirrorless can AF just fine at the higher f-numbers, whereas DSLRs could not (the AF sensors of DSLRs depended on the *geometry* of the f-number, whereas mirrorless does not have this geometry restriction. This is why we're only seeing such high f-number lenses only now.

What the heck is geometry of the f-number?

Here ya go:

Loading…

www.the-digital-picture.com

Here is the actual AF sensor for the 1D X. The set of five f/2.8 diagonal crosses stands out pretty clearly.



When looking at the diagonal f/2.8 sensors, it's apparent that they are much more widely spaced than the f/5.6 sensors - almost to the edges of the chip. This accounts for the longer baseline that results in greater accuracy than the f/5.6 sensors.

Hope that helps!

 

[Great Bustard]

Remember, they also have a small body/lens system (the M series), which sells very well, so this will affect that market also. (No adapters possible for RF to M mounts either).

Canon has always had a wide assortment of lenses (and camera bodies) at a variety of price points to meet the needs of their users. This lens is very smart in terms of what they did with it; including making it compatible with teleconverters (which Panasonic should have done with their FF L mount 70-300mm lens, but didn't). Sure, it will be really, really, slow with a TC, but it gets the reach....and it's cheap.

This lens is going to gather the DSLR market that Canon had with their EF 70-300mm USM II lens, which was reasonably light, very decent IQ, and affordable. It's not a shot across the bow of M43, it's just Canon filling an equivalent niche in their RF lens lineup, as they play the long game of transitioning their product line(s) to mirrorless.

What's going on here is that mirrorless can AF just fine at the higher f-numbers, whereas DSLRs could not (the AF sensors of DSLRs depended on the *geometry* of the f-number, whereas mirrorless does not have this geometry restriction. This is why we're only seeing such high f-number lenses only now.

Oh, and the PL 50-200mm is an entirely different beast than the decent consumer grade Canon lenses. The equivalent M43 lens, in terms of IQ is going to be the Panasonic 100-300mm, judging from my experience with the EF 70-300mm, PL 50-200mm, and 100-300. The PL 50-200mm is one of the finest zooms out there, and I guarantee you the upcoming Canon, which will be a nice lens, is not going to be even remotely on par with it. (There's also the Panasonic 45-200mm II, which should be in the same class as the Canon, but I have not used it so I can't give you a direct comparison.)

We should probably wait and see what the photos look like, first.

And, don't be fooled by equivalence pretzel logic. If you are shooting the PL 50-200mm at f4 at 200mm, and trying to keep the shutter speed up to capture some fast action, you are going to have a much easier time of it than trying to use the Canon at 400mm at f8. Yeah, sensor noise is going be be different in the FF vs M43, but an f8 lens is not an f4 lens, no matter how you dance on the head of a pin.

Oh for goodness sakes! 100-400mm f/5.6-8 on FF is *equivalent to* 50-200 / 2.8-4 on mFT: same [diagonal] angle of view, same DOF, and same total amount of light projected on the sensor for a given exposure time.

To *disingenuously* say that "an f8 lens is not an f4 lens, no matter how you dance on the head of a pin" is to imply that the number, for the number's sake alone, is what matters, as opposed to the effect the number has on the photographic qualities of the resulting photo.

Well context matters here. A ff lens with an aperture of f8 is equivalent to an mft lens with an aperture of f4. So yes in that sense the above quote is wrong.

Sure.

A ff lens with an aperture of f8 is not the same as another ff lens with an aperture of f4. Unless you saying this is also the case?

No, I am most certainly not saying that! Unless cropping to the middle 25% of the f/4 photo to match the framing of the f/8 photo taken with twice the focal length.