Poll Time! Will you buy the R Locked

J A C S wrote:

RubberDials wrote:

J A C S wrote:

RubberDials wrote:

In lens can only give you two axes of stabilisation - pitch and yaw. To get 5 axes you need IBIS which gives you compensation on the X an Y axis plus roll.

IBIS adds roll only. The other two axes are "virtual".

No. The X and Y and roll movement is actual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ncye37e6xM

As I said.

You didn't though, did you. You said IBIS only adds roll, which is one axis.

There's no real defence for Canon's position as the trend is to combine in-lens with in-body - all Sony lenses above 85mm have in-lens stabilisation that works in concert with the in-body stabilisation.

Something I have not seen mentioned here: The R uses the sensor feedback to control the IS of the lens. Not sure if Sony does it.

As far as I know the R body doesn't have a gyro or an accelerometer, so what motion feedback would there be from the camera?

Blur in real time. Read the white paper.

Link? And why don't you explain it for the sake of brevity.

I would imagine there was a technical issue why they left it off - perhaps to do with processing power as it does involve computation.

I’m curious as to how Canon is going to charge more for features found in Sony’s $2k entry level camera with a straight face. And will people actually buy it?

Because they are better built cameras maybe that does not matter to you but I have had to chip ice off my 1D to use it how much is that quality worth.

Interesting times.

Yes interesting especially when Canon takes full advantage of the mount to design lenses that Sony can’t match due to the restrictions of their mount size.

This is marketing BS, sorry.

Why would Sigma say it? Come to the PST forum and tell us that it is BS.

Say what? No-one has provided a link to what they said.

Where is your link that this is BS?

I didn't say the Sigma statement was BS - I don't know what the Sigma statement was. I said that Don's statement below was BS.

Don has claimed that Canon has taken "full advantage of the mount to design lenses that Sony can’t match due to the restrictions of their mount size."

And that's simply rubbish. There's no other word for it.

Thank you for your deep insight. Again, read the white paper. It may make you look less ignorant.

Your sarcasm is unwanted. Leave it out please. You've posted factually incorrect information about IBIS numerous times - you did it above - I corrected you but without sarcasm or personal comment.

There isn't anything in Canon's marketing materials about their new mount that isn't well known. It might be new to Canon DSLR users but mirrorless users know all about the advantages of a shorter register.

I provided a link to a Sony patent for a 28-70/2. There are already at least three f1.2 lenses available natively in e-mount. Many users adapt Canon f1.2 lenses. It's obviously marketing BS. Nobody even mentioned it before Canon did. If they told you Sony and Nikon cameras were made of cheese would you believe them?

You can already buy f1.2 (and larger) native lenses in E-mount, just not from Sony. Sony has a patent for a 28-70/2 https://photorumors.com/2016/01/28/sony-fe-28-70mm-f2-lens-patent/ which they may or my not make. The likelihood that they will has probably increased.

You can also adapt all the Canon f1.2 lenses (including the FD ones) and there are many Canon users who also shoot Sony who use the 85/1.2L with the metabones or MC-11

It is not just about fast lenses - it allows dramatically different lens design.

From Canon's white paper

You show your immense ignorance here, both in terms of recent lens design and assuming that I somehow would not know this.

The RF design might be 'dramatically different' to the EF35/2 but that's because that lens is a film-era design. The RF design is just a modern telecentric wide-angle with the exit pupil further from the film plane - this has nothing to do with RF mount per se – it is simply the best practice for designing digital wide angles.

Here's the Sony 35/2.8 which employs exactly the same reverse telephoto design with a large rear element to maximise telecentricity of the ray bundle. (Ignore the MTF - I couldn't find a schematic without it). This is not new, this is a design principle behind all mirrorless lenses. It has absolutely nothing to do with Canon's mount. I haven't seen the white paper (link?) but if Canon is claiming that only they can implement this kind of design that is 100% a false statement.

I don't know what the PST forum is but I'm happy to discuss this there or in person.

Photographic Science and Technology.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4312633

Come tell us that it is all BS.

Us? There aren't any posts by you in that thread - which I read when it was live.