Reading mode: Light Dark

Is Canon targeting m43 users?

Go to last post
photofan1986

photofan1986

Senior Member
Messages
4,123
Solutions
3
Reaction score
2,954
Location
BE
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?
 
photofan1986 said:
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$.
Click to expand...
Chances are it is not. Like buying a $649 used car.....
photofan1986 said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Aperture size doesn't tell the whole story. We can't make any firm conclusions about the demise of 4/3rds: for the 1000th time... yet. ;-)
 
Looking at all the entries you can see portability is becoming a selling feature. Look at Fuji MF new standard zoom, or Panasonic 20-60.

I suspect the moment of truth is coming for the format, the GH6 and Olympus EM1.4 are going to have to make a very compelling case for the format as larger formats get faster and smaller.

i will say I suspect the next round of bodies will do some very impressive things if they are built on modern stacked sensors. We were getting 18 FPS 5 years ago with AF and 60 fixed. The GH5 was the video leader Ave in many ways still keeps head to head.

i will say there is still nothing like the 12,17,25,45 lenses as well as the 12-45, 9-18 etc.



the real word trade off seems to always be range, we tend to get more for the same nominal aperture, and 1 stop in lens speed difference. Personally over the years the range and lens flexibility has always trumped the one stop, but with the new R5 and canon releasing a number of lenses I have been doing some window shopping.

Having said that, I won’t be doing anything until I see the next step for the format.
 
I'm sure there are others with more technical expertise but I have the impression from shooting my MFT and FF systems at equivalent apertures etc that the smaller sensor gets the benefit of a lower f-number in terms of AF speed in lower light.

It doesn't make much difference to my shooting but it would for any kind of action.

Andrew
 
photofan1986 said:
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?
Click to expand...
m43 is an extremely small market for Canon to target at this point. They are much more concerned about Sony and Nikon...
 
photofan1986 said:
[...]

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?
Click to expand...
I think the lower prices of some newer full-frame cameras like the RP or Z5 will definitely be of interest to some who use smaller sensors. However, typically the similarly priced full frame cameras do have less features than smaller-sensor counterparts, so that is something to consider also. For example, the G9 and RP cost about the same but the G9 has more video features like 180fps and 4k60. The G9 also has zebras and I am not sure if the RP has them or not....honestly my feeling is that the G9 is a superior practical video tool even if the RP's larger sensor would help in some areas.

I think it's nice that there is a lot of choice.
 
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.

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.)

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.

These are really different systems.

-J
photofan1986 said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If they are, so what. Competition is always a good prospect, it keeps the companies involved on their toes, as it were. It is not something to worry about. If I have another choice in something, why would I not want it?
 
jalywol said:
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.
Click to expand...
How ? You turn a dial on one. You turn a dial on the other.
jalywol said:
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.

These are really different systems.
Click to expand...
And yet, the beauty of the equivalence pretzel logic machine is that it shows that these really different systems should yield fairly similar results.

- Dennis
 
Dennis said:
jalywol said:
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.
Click to expand...
How ? You turn a dial on one. You turn a dial on the other.
Click to expand...
Yep. The benefit of FF is that in very good light you can shoot at base ISO 100 on FF at adequate shutter speed vs base ISO 200 at more than adequate shutter speed on Micro Four Thirds. This is basically giving DR and noise of ISO 25 with Micro Four Thirds. That said, I am pretty happy with DR and noise levels at ISO 200 on Micro Four Thirds.

I don't think Canon is targeting Micro Four Thirds, either, but it may be that Micro Four Thirds (and the fact that mirrorless cameras can focus at f/8 or smaller relative aperture) has opened their eyes.
Dennis said:
Dennis said:
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.

These are really different systems.
Click to expand...
And yet, the beauty of the equivalence pretzel logic machine is that it shows that these really different systems should yield fairly similar results.
Click to expand...
Mostly I think: Would FF give clear benefits over Micro Four Thirds? In most cases the answer is 'no'. Nowadays the question can also be reversed, and the answer in many cases is 'no'.
 
My thoughts -I think we may be looking at the demise of the EOS M series. Canon has been extremely half hearted about releasing lenses for their M cameras, right from the start. RF has had exponentially more attention right from the outset. I see that the M6II had had some pretty large price drops of late, it's available with the kit lens and detachable EVF for about $1200 AUD. Canon has forever tried to encourage users to move up to the larger format, I think this is just the latest round.
 
Last edited:
photofan1986 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Entry to Full Frame system isn't easy due to cost or the size of the equipment. Usually you are paying roughly a thousand or more for a single pro zoom or even a prime. Then it comes to the size of the gear which add additional layers of problems especially when shooting in the field. What are you going to be carrying it in, how accessible is your equipment or how much can you carry?

I feel the likes of M43, Fuji X and Canon M is more accessible to the amateur photographer. They give greater flexibility in the field at the expense of greater IQ.

I feel Canon is doing the right thing by putting the greatest distance between them and smartphones and making their system more accessible to all photographers.

If I can choose one system for Full Frame, it probably be the Canon R. That system like M43 and Fuji gives me great flexibility. I have the option to buy cheaper lenses like the 800mm F11 and buy some pro lenses like the 100-500mm and the 24-105mm F4.

Canon is leading the way to make Full Frame more accessible. Well done to them.

The problem is the camera bodies. Maybe in the future photographers can get a real bargain with the R6 when the R6.2 comes out. At the moment the RP in performance can't compete with the likes of the Xt4, GH5 series, S5, Em1, When the sensors for M43 and Fuji comes out, it will make the smaller sensor systems attractive again.
 
photofan1986 said:
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?
Click to expand...
In general competition is a good thing and drives innovation.
photofan1986 said:
What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Without an RF to mft adapter available I fail to see how Canon intends to successfully target mft users. There is a chance these lenses might only be meant for RF users.
 
acfo said:
photofan1986 said:
Will the m43 system suffer from the comparison?
Click to expand...
In general competition is a good thing and drives innovation.
Click to expand...
In general, healthy competition is good. Unhealthy competition leads to no competition. Canon is doing very good in the market, Micro Four Thirds not so much.
acfo said:
acfo said:
What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Without an RF to mft adapter available I fail to see how Canon intends to successfully target mft users. There is a chance these lenses might only be meant for RF users.
Click to expand...
They might want to lure (potential) Micro Four Thirds customers to the Dark side. Good FF camera bodies are quite expensive, but when several lenses like these become available the body price becomes more and more irrelevant, assuming that the lenses perform (very) well.

But as I stated in my previous post, I don't think Canon is targeting Micro Four Thirds in specific.
 
Dennis said:
jalywol said:
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.
Click to expand...
How ? You turn a dial on one. You turn a dial on the other.
Dennis said:
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.

These are really different systems.
Click to expand...
And yet, the beauty of the equivalence pretzel logic machine is that it shows that these really different systems should yield fairly similar results.

- Dennis
Click to expand...
you only need to look at the canon f11 lenses, the AF is restricted, because equating one to X on mft is nice to understand noise and dof, but misses that in use the canon still has to focus using an f11 lens, its mft equivilant will be using a much brighter f-stop, and not have the focus restrictions.

results in files vs results in use, pretty much as jalywol mentioned imo.
 
I doubt if canon sees mft as a major competitor to their stable of photographic gear
 
Before M4/3 I had a lot of Canon EF mount lenses, in fact i still have them.

Surprisingly I found that Panasonic had or has made most of the same equivalent focal length lenses available for my M4/3 pleasure.

Should I be paranoid that Panasonic is competing with Canon for the hearts and minds of disillusioned former dslr users? Or is it that these focal lengths are simply the most useful and popular equivalent field of view lenses for photographic purposes?

One might think that manufacturers of lenses might be scratching to find new lens types for any mature mount system after a short while.

However fora needs for new lenses never seems to subside. For 100 lens types that can be bought right at the moment an average user might have? …. three, four, five …. lenses in their stable to choose from and use - and yet the need for a different lens hit to talk and enthuse about never subsides.

Did anyone ever achieve the sublime eminence of having one of every lens made for amount format as it was released? I know that some might have at least been trying … :)

--
Tom Caldwell
 
Last edited:
jalywol said:
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.

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.)

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.

These are really different systems.

-J
Click to expand...
I agree fully. I don’t have the 50-200mm but it is a lens that I could buy. I do have the Panasonic 200/2.8 which must be of similar incomparable standards. All equivalence light gathering issues aside it is still undoubtedly a fast long lens. By a happy coincidence I have also had the Canon EF 400/2.8 (MkI) - all 5.5kg of it since new. Although this is also a very fast lens for its reach I say “equivalence be darned in wool” as the use-needs of a very fast long telephoto can be well compromised by a kit when your knees tremble at the weight involved.

Knowing what the EF 400/2.8 can do with a FF dslr body and knowing what the PL 200/2.8 can do with a M4/3 camera body I feel no equivalence disadvantage and the Panasonic lens has impeccable build, makes excellent images, and can be used hand held to make a photographers life easier.

Canon has worked hard to bring the weight of their 400/2.8 down and by MkIII it is indeed lighter but arguably still not in hand-held territory.

Furthermore by owning (say) f1.2 lenses in both FF and in 4/3 sensor formats and noticing the effects of light gathering and dof constraints and where they are not equivalent I still struggle with the idea that my M4/3 f1.2 is thought somehow not to be a f1.2 lens.

M4/3 suffers from the constant refrain that a f1.2 is not really a fast f1.2 lens.
jalywol said:
photofan1986 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I think Canon and the other FF manufacturers look at MFT as one big R&D lab for what they can put into their own products for release five years later.
 
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