Reading mode: Light Dark

A m43 shooter handles a Canon EOS R

Go to last post
Great Bustard said:
Ab Latchin said:
Great Bustard said:
Ab Latchin said:
BirdShooter7 said:
To better understand Canon's lens releases it would probably help to read the white paper that they released with the launch of the R. In the context of the white paper the lenses make a lot of sense.
Click to expand...
I just flicked through it. It doesn't explain why the two main primes are an f1.2 $2k lens and a 35mm f1.8 macro... Then a 28-70 f2 for $3k and their general f4 zoom.

Compare that to Nikon's very sensible 50mm f1.8, 35mm f1.8 and a 24-70f4, all well sized, then for boasting they have an f0.95 on the roadmap. But their trio of lenses cover a great deal of general photography.
Click to expand...
Both Canon's and Nikon's initial mirrorless lens offerings are stellar, in my opinion. Canon's offerings are proof-of-concept, that is, they show what the new mount is capable of. For less audacious lenses, just use their current EF lenses which work seemlessly on the R with an adapter -- no loss in performance whether that be IQ or operation. Nikon, on the other hand, as you said, have released some excellent and practical lenses for their new mirrorless mount that have what look to be class-leading performance.

In my opinion, both companies have done an outstanding job with their initial lens offerings. They simply had different priorities. Both philosophies greatly appeal to me, actually!
Click to expand...
Proof of concept is fine. In fact it reminds me of Olympus approach with 43rds. Like I said their proof of concept will appeal mostly to their base, because they already have the ef lenses. Maybe that is a good approach, but compare the Sony 50mm f1.8 or the Nikon 50mm f1.8 plus body to the Canon... Well you would have to use their old lenses plus adapter.
Click to expand...
Is there a problem with using EF lenses and the adapter, given that they will work as well with the adapter on the R as they do on DSLRs?
Great Bustard said:
Not a world beating strategy, one aimed at moving their own DSLR crowd over.
Click to expand...
Well, anyone wanting the best 50 / 1.2 around and/or a 28-70 / 2 might be won over, but Canon's mediocre sensor (with respect to the competitions' FF sensors) is more the issue than the lenses.
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
While Canon only has one prime, whose performance seems to be okay at best...
Click to expand...
A relatively small and light 35mm f/1.8 (17 / 0.9 mFT equivalent) with 1:2 macro and IS for $500, well, that's pretty cool.
Click to expand...
Not judging by their charts. It is very mediocre.
Click to expand...
Looks pretty damned good to me for a 17 / 0.9 mFT equivalent with 1:2 macro at $500:

732ed07a31fb48b88e7a4acec858e232.jpg

I'm thinking that a 17 / 0.9 on mFT wouldn't look quite so good at 20 lp/mm and 60 lp/mm wide open.
Click to expand...
That 35mm F/1.8 with 1:2 macro is a potentially excellent standard prime . Does it come in Nikon ? :-) Have you seen any tests with it often as the macro side of a lens gets better it loses out a bit in AF speed
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
Equivalence doesn't improve its performance so I'd a weak and cheap point.
Click to expand...
Well, we can wait and see, for example, how its MTF-50 scores at f/2.5 compare to the 17 / 1.2 wide open.
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
...then a beast of an f1.2 prime :)
Click to expand...
That's also a simply amazing performer. In any case, as I said, I think both companies did a stellar job with their initial lens offerings; they simply differed in their philosophies.
Click to expand...
One is very practical, the other a statement. We will see who gets the markets approval.
Click to expand...
Canon's problem is not the lenses -- it's their sensor and lack of IBIS.
Click to expand...
Canon have a superb selection of lenses and over the last few years, have been slowly updating a number of popular focal lengths. The base ISO DR is poorer than Sony sensor based FF cameras, however when you look at higher ISO they are competitive . I have no great need for IBIS for still but on a hybrid camera that shoots video it is an odd thing to leave out

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
 
Last edited:
bobn2 said:
Cornu said:
I have taken 6x6 photos on a Rolleiflex clone and neither of them had halos (see the legs of the KO boxer).
Click to expand...
You mean Sonny Liston?
bobn2 said:
The photo looks like done with a cellphone from a print or so.
Click to expand...
Very likely there's been some PP along the way. The original very definitely was taken with a Rollei and not a cellphone.
Click to expand...
"some PP" is quite an understatement. Not much is left of the claimed 6x6 glory.

Whatever you wanted to prove, you failed to convince me.
 
No one is forcing anyone to buy anything.

Both the Canon R and Nikon Z look decent starts albeit a little safe and slightly cynical (in the case of Canon). Come back in 2-3 years and see how they’re getting on with more modern sensors and AF systems, video, features et al. I’m sure they will sell well to folks who like that kind of thing. They are not for me being far too large and not evolved enough, as overall systems, but it’s hard to see anything actually wrong with them. Even the biggest and best rarely get it all right first time but it won’t take either outfit long to sort out the early hassles.

--
==================
https://www.flickr.com/photos/petreluk/
 
Last edited:
Cornu said:
bobn2 said:
Cornu said:
I have taken 6x6 photos on a Rolleiflex clone and neither of them had halos (see the legs of the KO boxer).
Click to expand...
You mean Sonny Liston?
Cornu said:
The photo looks like done with a cellphone from a print or so.
Click to expand...
Very likely there's been some PP along the way. The original very definitely was taken with a Rollei and not a cellphone.
Click to expand...
"some PP" is quite an understatement. Not much is left of the claimed 6x6 glory.

Whatever you wanted to prove, you failed to convince me.
Click to expand...
You seem to have completely got the wrong end of the stick. All I was seeking to 'prove' was that 6x6 cameras were used for sports photography.

It looks like you're completely unaware of that photo's place in photographic history.

http://100photos.time.com/photos/neil-leifer-muhammad-ali-sonny-liston

'perhaps the greatest sports photo of the century'.
 
Last edited:
Great Bustard said:
Ab Latchin said:
Great Bustard said:
Ab Latchin said:
BirdShooter7 said:
To better understand Canon's lens releases it would probably help to read the white paper that they released with the launch of the R. In the context of the white paper the lenses make a lot of sense.
Click to expand...
I just flicked through it. It doesn't explain why the two main primes are an f1.2 $2k lens and a 35mm f1.8 macro... Then a 28-70 f2 for $3k and their general f4 zoom.

Compare that to Nikon's very sensible 50mm f1.8, 35mm f1.8 and a 24-70f4, all well sized, then for boasting they have an f0.95 on the roadmap. But their trio of lenses cover a great deal of general photography.
Click to expand...
Both Canon's and Nikon's initial mirrorless lens offerings are stellar, in my opinion. Canon's offerings are proof-of-concept, that is, they show what the new mount is capable of. For less audacious lenses, just use their current EF lenses which work seemlessly on the R with an adapter -- no loss in performance whether that be IQ or operation. Nikon, on the other hand, as you said, have released some excellent and practical lenses for their new mirrorless mount that have what look to be class-leading performance.

In my opinion, both companies have done an outstanding job with their initial lens offerings. They simply had different priorities. Both philosophies greatly appeal to me, actually!
Click to expand...
Proof of concept is fine. In fact it reminds me of Olympus approach with 43rds. Like I said their proof of concept will appeal mostly to their base, because they already have the ef lenses. Maybe that is a good approach, but compare the Sony 50mm f1.8 or the Nikon 50mm f1.8 plus body to the Canon... Well you would have to use their old lenses plus adapter.
Click to expand...
Is there a problem with using EF lenses and the adapter, given that they will work as well with the adapter on the R as they do on DSLRs?
Click to expand...
You are claiming people might get this camera for the potential Canon is demonstrating... But will ride themselves over with older tech. It isn't the most sensible point.
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
Not a world beating strategy, one aimed at moving their own DSLR crowd over.
Click to expand...
Well, anyone wanting the best 50 / 1.2 around and/or a 28-70 / 2 might be won over, but Canon's mediocre sensor (with respect to the competitions' FF sensors) is more the issue than the lenses.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but I don't think there is that much of an issue... I mean I use m43rds commercially.
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
While Canon only has one prime, whose performance seems to be okay at best...
Click to expand...
A relatively small and light 35mm f/1.8 (17 / 0.9 mFT equivalent) with 1:2 macro and IS for $500, well, that's pretty cool.
Click to expand...
Not judging by their charts. It is very mediocre.
Click to expand...
Looks pretty damned good to me for a 17 / 0.9 mFT equivalent with 1:2 macro at $500:
Click to expand...
I don't see why you seem to think a fictitious lens you are comparing it to is improving its performance. This is not a Steller lens, it is a good and versatile lens. But again I value even frame performance.
Great Bustard said:
732ed07a31fb48b88e7a4acec858e232.jpg

I'm thinking that a 17 / 0.9 on mFT wouldn't look quite so good at 20 lp/mm and 60 lp/mm wide open.
Click to expand...
Again, why the fictitious lens comparison? Do you need to prop up Canons lens with a made up lens?
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
Equivalence doesn't improve its performance so I'd a weak and cheap point.
Click to expand...
Well, we can wait and see, for example, how its MTF-50 scores at f/2.5 compare to the 17 / 1.2 wide open.
Click to expand...
We can also look at the MTF charts and see the 17mm f1.2 has very even performance wide open, so slightly less sharp in the centre, but much sharper outside the centre. But again, you seem to need to prop up this lens performance... Strange.
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
...then a beast of an f1.2 prime :)
Click to expand...
That's also a simply amazing performer. In any case, as I said, I think both companies did a stellar job with their initial lens offerings; they simply differed in their philosophies.
Click to expand...
One is very practical, the other a statement. We will see who gets the markets approval.
Click to expand...
Canon's problem is not the lenses -- it's their sensor and lack of IBIS.
Click to expand...
The Ibis is a crutch for me now, without question it has made me a lazier photographer... The sensor though I think is fine.

Now don't get me wrong, I love good lenses, I think the f1.2 lenses from Olympus and the 40-150 are stellar and worth the money... I am simply questioning the market success of this strategy.
 
Ab Latchin said:
Now don't get me wrong, I love good lenses, I think the f1.2 lenses from Olympus and the 40-150 are stellar and worth the money... I am simply questioning the market success of this strategy.
Click to expand...
If you want to present the m4/3 system as a complete system, capable of replacing full-frame system in just about any situation (and Olympus want to do just that), you need f/1.2 (and f/0.95) lenses. Even if these lenses are not a huge commercial success, they nevertheless add to the overall image of the system and thus help sell less expensive cameras and lenses.
 
Okapi001 said:
Ab Latchin said:
Now don't get me wrong, I love good lenses, I think the f1.2 lenses from Olympus and the 40-150 are stellar and worth the money... I am simply questioning the market success of this strategy.
Click to expand...
If you want to present the m4/3 system as a complete system, capable of replacing full-frame system in just about any situation (and Olympus want to do just that), you need f/1.2 (and f/0.95) lenses. Even if these lenses are not a huge commercial success, they nevertheless add to the overall image of the system and thus help sell less expensive cameras and lenses.
Click to expand...
You mis-understand. I am questioning Canon's strategy of releasing flagship lenses as half the total lens releases on day one.
 
Ab Latchin said:
Okapi001 said:
Ab Latchin said:
Now don't get me wrong, I love good lenses, I think the f1.2 lenses from Olympus and the 40-150 are stellar and worth the money... I am simply questioning the market success of this strategy.
Click to expand...
If you want to present the m4/3 system as a complete system, capable of replacing full-frame system in just about any situation (and Olympus want to do just that), you need f/1.2 (and f/0.95) lenses. Even if these lenses are not a huge commercial success, they nevertheless add to the overall image of the system and thus help sell less expensive cameras and lenses.
Click to expand...
You mis-understand. I am questioning Canon's strategy of releasing flagship lenses as half the total lens releases on day one.
Click to expand...
Ah, in that case the reason is most probably to show-off the potential of mirrorless system. I am sure Canon is not expecting from the new system to bring much profit in the first year or two or three. And it doesn't really have to be profitable, as long as DSLRs (and "old" lenses) are still the main selling product. The overall image and perception of the new system is at the moment more important than profit. And in a year or two a flagship mirrorless will follow, so is it's a good strategy to have some prestige lenses ready by that time.
 
Okapi001 said:
Ab Latchin said:
Okapi001 said:
Ab Latchin said:
Now don't get me wrong, I love good lenses, I think the f1.2 lenses from Olympus and the 40-150 are stellar and worth the money... I am simply questioning the market success of this strategy.
Click to expand...
If you want to present the m4/3 system as a complete system, capable of replacing full-frame system in just about any situation (and Olympus want to do just that), you need f/1.2 (and f/0.95) lenses. Even if these lenses are not a huge commercial success, they nevertheless add to the overall image of the system and thus help sell less expensive cameras and lenses.
Click to expand...
You mis-understand. I am questioning Canon's strategy of releasing flagship lenses as half the total lens releases on day one.
Click to expand...
Ah, in that case the reason is most probably to show-off the potential of mirrorless system. I am sure Canon is not expecting from the new system to bring much profit in the first year or two or three. And it doesn't really have to be profitable, as long as DSLRs (and "old" lenses) are still the main selling product. The overall image and perception of the new system is at the moment more important than profit. And in a year or two a flagship mirrorless will follow, so is it's a good strategy to have some prestige lenses ready by that time.
Click to expand...
Strategically speaking, Nikon did a very similar thing by announcing their 50mm f0.95, but offered much better entry level lenses into their new system.

Olympus did a very similar thing with the 43rds system and their f2 zooms, but much more sensibly with m43rds launched with small and light. Of course that initial perception has become a bit of an anchor with people complaining newer pro lenses are not small or light compared their their premium lines.

Personally I think a grass roots movement was good 7 years ago, maybe today there aren't enough casual users to justify it and gunning for the guys who will spend $2000 for a 50mm lens is the way to go.
 
Ab Latchin said:
Great Bustard said:
Is there a problem with using EF lenses and the adapter, given that they will work as well with the adapter on the R as they do on DSLRs?
Click to expand...
You are claiming people might get this camera for the potential Canon is demonstrating... But will ride themselves over with older tech. It isn't the most sensible point.
Click to expand...
GB is perfectly on point.

There are more EF lenses than ANY other type on the planet. The potential is huge. Canon perfected the DPAF tech so they would not abandon those with large glass investments. EF lenses on the R will work just as good as they do on a DSLR. This is a huge advantage, but of course you fail to acknowledge this because it isn't your beloved m43. Now there will certainly be lots of RF lenses coming and they have gotten off to a pretty good start. This adds up to the largest lens choice available in the camera market.

I'm a typical target customer for this camera. I own the f4 trio of zoom L lenses. These are as good as anything made by Oly, Sony, Nikon or anyone else. Some of the best zooms lenses ever made. Should I just throw them away and spend huge sums of money buying something else? That would be the definition of stupidity.

People usually have existing gear, often Canon. The R is a good camera regardless if you already own canon. If you do own Canon glass it is the perfect solution. Yes it is first gen and not perfect, but anyone looking at it objectively would see it certainly has some advantages over the m43 format.

--
Jonathan
 
Last edited:
jwilliams said:
If you do own Canon glass it is the perfect solution. Yes it is first gen and not perfect,
Click to expand...
;-) It's the perfect solution, but not perfect. ;-)
 
jwilliams said:
Ab Latchin said:
Great Bustard said:
Is there a problem with using EF lenses and the adapter, given that they will work as well with the adapter on the R as they do on DSLRs?
Click to expand...
You are claiming people might get this camera for the potential Canon is demonstrating... But will ride themselves over with older tech. It isn't the most sensible point.
Click to expand...
GB is perfectly on point.

There are more EF lenses than ANY other type on the planet. The potential is huge. Canon perfected the DPAF tech so they would not abandon those with large glass investments. EF lenses on the R will work just as good as they do on a DSLR.
Click to expand...
Just curious, because this has been stated a couple of times. Could you point me to some testing that backs up this statement? I've been under the impression that any adapter is at best a compromise when it comes to Continuous AF performance, shooting speed, etc. If the Canon R adapter does prove out to be this good in real world field test this will certainly be a significant difference from the adapters I'm aware of so far (Sony).

Thanks in advance...…..
jwilliams said:
This is a huge advantage, but of course you fail to acknowledge this because it isn't your beloved m43. Now there will certainly be lots of RF lenses coming and they have gotten off to a pretty good start. This adds up to the largest lens choice available in the camera market.

I'm a typical target customer for this camera. I own the f4 trio of zoom L lenses. These are as good as anything made by Oly, Sony, Nikon or anyone else. Some of the best zooms lenses ever made. Should I just throw them away and spend huge sums of money buying something else? That would be the definition of stupidity.

People usually have existing gear, often Canon. The R is a good camera regardless if you already own canon. If you do own Canon glass it is the perfect solution. Yes it is first gen and not perfect, but anyone looking at it objectively would see it certainly has some advantages over the m43 format.
Click to expand...
 
gary0319 said:
jwilliams said:
Ab Latchin said:
Great Bustard said:
Is there a problem with using EF lenses and the adapter, given that they will work as well with the adapter on the R as they do on DSLRs?
Click to expand...
You are claiming people might get this camera for the potential Canon is demonstrating... But will ride themselves over with older tech. It isn't the most sensible point.
Click to expand...
GB is perfectly on point.

There are more EF lenses than ANY other type on the planet. The potential is huge. Canon perfected the DPAF tech so they would not abandon those with large glass investments. EF lenses on the R will work just as good as they do on a DSLR.
Click to expand...
Just curious, because this has been stated a couple of times. Could you point me to some testing that backs up this statement? I've been under the impression that any adapter is at best a compromise when it comes to Continuous AF performance, shooting speed, etc. If the Canon R adapter does prove out to be this good in real world field test this will certainly be a significant difference from the adapters I'm aware of so far (Sony).

Thanks in advance...
Click to expand...
You should not understand it as an adapter solution. The adapter in this case does nothing, it's a tube. The EF lenses work in exactly the same way as on a DSLR in live view, which Canon perfected using its DPAF technology for many years.
 
Just look for recent reviews of any recent Canon camera (DSLR. M or R). I have seen it stated many times, but can't remember an exact review. I do remember a youtube video with that Kai fellow using a recent model DSLR in live view with a 70-300 zoom tracking go carts successfully. It was very impressive.

I own a Canon SL2 (DSLR) and in live view it focuses every bit as good or better than any of my m43 cameras. I'm talking about m43 with regular CDAF. I don't own an EM1 so maybe a closer comparison there.

Also if you do some digging you will find that it is hands down the best video AF out there. Look at Steve Huffs site. He bought a Canon DSLR for doing his Vlogging and he is a mirrorless guy thru and thru.
 
kolyy said:
gary0319 said:
jwilliams said:
Ab Latchin said:
Great Bustard said:
Is there a problem with using EF lenses and the adapter, given that they will work as well with the adapter on the R as they do on DSLRs?
Click to expand...
You are claiming people might get this camera for the potential Canon is demonstrating... But will ride themselves over with older tech. It isn't the most sensible point.
Click to expand...
GB is perfectly on point.

There are more EF lenses than ANY other type on the planet. The potential is huge. Canon perfected the DPAF tech so they would not abandon those with large glass investments. EF lenses on the R will work just as good as they do on a DSLR.
Click to expand...
Just curious, because this has been stated a couple of times. Could you point me to some testing that backs up this statement? I've been under the impression that any adapter is at best a compromise when it comes to Continuous AF performance, shooting speed, etc. If the Canon R adapter does prove out to be this good in real world field test this will certainly be a significant difference from the adapters I'm aware of so far (Sony).

Thanks in advance...
Click to expand...
You should not understand it as an adapter solution. The adapter in this case does nothing, it's a tube.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be so sure of that. The R lens interface doesn't look to be exactly like the EF or the EF-M interface. Likely there is a chip in there doing some translation. It would be very strange if Canon had made a brand new mount subject to the same limitations as a forty-year-old one, groundbreaking as that was at the time.
kolyy said:
The EF lenses work in exactly the same way as on a DSLR in live view, which Canon perfected using its DPAF technology for many years.
Click to expand...
That is true, and should be very effective, if not as effective as lenses dedicated to the new mount.
 
jwilliams said:
Ab Latchin said:
Great Bustard said:
Is there a problem with using EF lenses and the adapter, given that they will work as well with the adapter on the R as they do on DSLRs?
Click to expand...
You are claiming people might get this camera for the potential Canon is demonstrating... But will ride themselves over with older tech. It isn't the most sensible point.
Click to expand...
GB is perfectly on point.

There are more EF lenses than ANY other type on the planet. The potential is huge. Canon perfected the DPAF tech so they would not abandon those with large glass investments. EF lenses on the R will work just as good as they do on a DSLR.
Click to expand...
I'd qualify that a little. They will work just as well as they do on a DSLR in LV focus mode. I think it is still a stretch for OSPDAF to work as fast and track as well as the specialist AF units in DSLRs. They have a lot of advantages going for them (as well as the obvious disadvantages).
 
bobn2 said:
kolyy said:
You should not understand it as an adapter solution. The adapter in this case does nothing, it's a tube.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be so sure of that. The R lens interface doesn't look to be exactly like the EF or the EF-M interface. Likely there is a chip in there doing some translation. It would be very strange if Canon had made a brand new mount subject to the same limitations as a forty-year-old one, groundbreaking as that was at the time.
Click to expand...
There are no electronics in the adapter. The R does have another set of contacts that are not found on EF lenses in addition to the EF contacts. Look at a pic of an R lens. There are 2 sets of contacts.
 
jwilliams said:
Just look for recent reviews of any recent Canon camera (DSLR. M or R). I have seen it stated many times, but can't remember an exact review. I do remember a youtube video with that Kai fellow using a recent model DSLR in live view with a 70-300 zoom tracking go carts successfully. It was very impressive.

I own a Canon SL2 (DSLR) and in live view it focuses every bit as good or better than any of my m43 cameras. I'm talking about m43 with regular CDAF. I don't own an EM1 so maybe a closer comparison there.

Also if you do some digging you will find that it is hands down the best video AF out there. Look at Steve Huffs site. He bought a Canon DSLR for doing his Vlogging and he is a mirrorless guy thru and thru.
Click to expand...
I am not disputing Canon's excellent focusing system in their DSLR. What I'm not seeing is any real world experience comparing EF lenses on say a 5D/4 vs the R with adapter, for sports/wildlife. The reason I question the comment about there being no difference, is that some friends of mine recently moved to the Sony A7III and that their non-native lenses (Canon and Sony A mount) failed to perform up top snuff using the Sony adapters. Once they opted for the native mirrorless Sony lenses, the performance of the cameras improved significantly. I'm just suspicious that these claims of "no difference" with the adapter are unfounded, particularly since the new mirrorless lenses incorporate new linear motors instead of the old USM ring motors...…..why would that be (maybe, other than the obvious size advantage).

Maybe I'm just a skeptical type of guy.....
 
bobn2 said:
kolyy said:
gary0319 said:
jwilliams said:
Ab Latchin said:
Great Bustard said:
Is there a problem with using EF lenses and the adapter, given that they will work as well with the adapter on the R as they do on DSLRs?
Click to expand...
You are claiming people might get this camera for the potential Canon is demonstrating... But will ride themselves over with older tech. It isn't the most sensible point.
Click to expand...
GB is perfectly on point.

There are more EF lenses than ANY other type on the planet. The potential is huge. Canon perfected the DPAF tech so they would not abandon those with large glass investments. EF lenses on the R will work just as good as they do on a DSLR.
Click to expand...
Just curious, because this has been stated a couple of times. Could you point me to some testing that backs up this statement? I've been under the impression that any adapter is at best a compromise when it comes to Continuous AF performance, shooting speed, etc. If the Canon R adapter does prove out to be this good in real world field test this will certainly be a significant difference from the adapters I'm aware of so far (Sony).

Thanks in advance...
Click to expand...
You should not understand it as an adapter solution. The adapter in this case does nothing, it's a tube.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be so sure of that. The R lens interface doesn't look to be exactly like the EF or the EF-M interface. Likely there is a chip in there doing some translation. It would be very strange if Canon had made a brand new mount subject to the same limitations as a forty-year-old one, groundbreaking as that was at the time.
Click to expand...
Of course, the interface is new, but I am pretty sure it's backwards compatible and the camera understands the old protocol as well. I don't have any insider information about that, of course, but it would be incredibly stupid no to do it in this way and require some translation chip instead of just using appropriate firmware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top