Poll Time! Will you buy the R Locked

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

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?

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. 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. 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

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

Don, surely you're old enough to remember that lenses like the 85/1.2 and the 50/1.2 appeared originally on FD mount which has a much smaller throat diameter and crucially a very long flange distance.

Not all f/1.2 lenses are created equal.

I don't know what you're saying here. The 85/1.2 is virtually unchanged from it's FD version. It is certainly optically unchanged aside from coatings.

If the bazooka-sized Canon 28-70/2 is a big seller Sony will make an equivalent straight away.

I am not bashing Sony but only trying to point out that as good as they are they also have issues.

Totally correct, just not these ones.

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

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?

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. 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. 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

You can probably mount any maximum aperture lens you like via adapters but unfortunately it does not necessarily mean that all of the exit rays will be able to strike the sensor if the mount is too narrow to allow that.

The result of that might not be immediately obvious depending on the position of the exit pupil but in certain cases there may well be mechanical vignetting that effectively reduces the maximum aperture of the lens.

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

Don, surely you're old enough to remember that lenses like the 85/1.2 and the 50/1.2 appeared originally on FD mount which has a much smaller throat diameter and crucially a very long flange distance.

Not all f/1.2 lenses are created equal.

I don't know what you're saying here. The 85/1.2 is virtually unchanged from it's FD version. It is certainly optically unchanged aside from coatings.

Not wishing to be too picky but that's not quite true.  The overall design is similar but from memory the main difference was that the aspheric element was moved from the 2nd element to the 3rd in the EF version mainly to facilitate the somewhat different focusing system.

If the bazooka-sized Canon 28-70/2 is a big seller Sony will make an equivalent straight away.

I am not bashing Sony but only trying to point out that as good as they are they also have issues.

Totally correct, just not these ones.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

I will tell you.  That is the BS forum.

Rick Knepper wrote:

Teila Day wrote:

Rick Knepper wrote:

robert614 wrote:

Alright, Now that that the Canon EOS R has been officially announced, this begs the question. Will you be buying one?

Not because it doesn't stack up against the competition [they suck] but because it does not stack up against the 5DsR.

Stop reading my mind Rick...

I was hoping for more. I'm not biting for 30mp, though I do like the idea of a f/2 24-70 lens and I hope such fast zooms will become the norm. The enthusiast/pro version of the camera will hopefully surpass the 5dsr in capability/features.

Best of the day to you Rick

The question of the day: will the pro version be landscape/studio/architecture oriented or action oriented. Here's a comment from DPR I just read:

Our bet? There will be a speed-focused mirrorless EOS-1D type camera launched in time for the Tokyo olympics in 2020, alongside a similarly pro-oriented Nikon Z-mount competitor.

My bet would be on an action focused EOS-1D camera based on Canon seemingly relegating the "hi-res" feature to the 5D lineup (groan). What grinds me is that I think it's too easy for Canon to field a hi-res pro body that's also very fast with a deep buffer.

I'm not believing for a second that Canon can't produce a 60-80mp body (Sony sensor please) that shoots at least 10 raw frames-per-second for 50 frames. However, I understand that what can technically be done doesn't alway square with what makes business sense and can appreciate that reality.

60mp, mirrorless, EOS-1DX3"s"; shooting at 14fps for 25 frames coupled with a 28-70 f/2 would be very, enticing.

When Canon puts out a EOS R with IBIS and 8 fps+, I'll probably get one depending one what the prospects for 3rd party lenses looks like.

dgumshu wrote:

Dan_168 wrote:

robert614 wrote:

Alright, Now that that the Canon EOS R has been officially announced, this begs the question. Will you be buying one?

Definitely will NOT buy one.

I see this body going by way of the 6D ll price wise... selling for about $1,400=$1,500 within a year. Then they will start to sell like hotcakes.

Well, i think it still will sell like hotcake as this price now, Canon does have a lot of loyal customer and no matter what they bring out it still will sell. that's why they were in no big hurry to introduce this mirrorless model, i was just participating in this poll and saying i have no interest in this one.

Don Lacy wrote:

RubberDials wrote:

Don Lacy wrote:

RubberDials wrote:

Don, I'm not sure where you got this idea from but the A7III AF is definitely 'pro level' and is better than the 5Dmk4's AF.

In the field shooting next to photographers I respect who have many years experience with Canon and now shoot Sony where do you get yours.

"the fact that you could literally swap a Canon 1DX II for an a7 III and still get a similar or better hit-rate at an action event is unprecedented."

So you have no first hand experience with a 1DXMKII or 5DMKIV or for that matter an A7 nor have you shot in the field with these cameras nor know or talk to other photographers who have years of experience shooting action especially BIF.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7-iii-review/11

I was very courteous to you as we've spoken before and I've praised your work but I'll know not to bother in future.

I should not have used that last statement I should have worded it in a manner that was challenging or disparaging I apologize for that.

Don Lacy wrote:

RubberDials wrote:

I was very courteous to you as we've spoken before and I've praised your work but I'll know not to bother in future.

I should not have used that last statement I should have worded it in a manner that was challenging or disparaging I apologize for that.

That's very gracious of you Don, thank you.

When comparing the technical aspects of cameras it is impossible to prove anything by exchanging anecdotes or personal experiences as anecdotal experience is unquantifiable and incomparable. You need to compare samples from objective testing under control, which is handily provided for you by this website.

DPR AF testing is better then most but no where near comprehensive so I will always take the word of actual photographers who shot these cameras everyday putting thousands of frames through them. We will have to disagree on this I am of the opinion that 90% of reviewers really do not know what they are talking about when it comes to things that can't be measured on a chart and even then they over emphasize small differences that 99% of photographers will never see.

I agree with you in principle and DPR's testing of pro gear does fall short from time to time in ways that are visible even if you don't have hands on experience. For example they managed to produce two articles and a film about the Sony 400/2.8, none of which gave as much indication of the quality of the lens as Gustav's gallery of five shots in the Sony forum. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4304633

Some review sites are guilty of testing mirrorless AF as if it was DSLR AF, not taking on board differences in the systems such as mirrorless focussing points being much smaller, so centre spot focussing on a DSLR is actually the same as flexible spot focussing on a mirrorless, not centre spot focussing, which will give you a point too small to track a subject. Dpreview understands this.

The quote is from the A7III review on this site by the senior technical editor. I included it because it immediately refutes your claim that the A7III AF is not at 'pro level'. There's much more about the competence of the AF of the A7III in the review. It is basically the best AF system on the market outside the 1DXII/D5/A9 triumvirate.

Well since I use the those cameras as the bench mark it does not have a pro level AF that does not mean it does not have a very good AF or that 90% pf photographers will ever notice the difference so maybe I am now guilty of over emphasizing something that is is irrelevant to most photographers.

This is marketing BS, sorry. Don, surely you're old enough to remember that lenses like the 85/1.2 and the 50/1.2 appeared originally on FD mount which has a much smaller throat diameter and crucially a very long flange distance.

If the bazooka-sized Canon 28-70/2 is a big seller Sony will make an equivalent straight away.

Based that statement off of the head of Sigma's interview on the issues for designing high end glass for the E mount maybe he actually knows more then you.

He may know more than me but I'm not arguing with him, I'm arguing with you – and your knowledge is the bottleneck to this discussion.

Again when reading this today I was unnecessarily combative and should not have included the snide comment, sorry we are only talking about cameras not politics no need for me going there.

I appreciate your comments. All's good.

Since you haven't provided a link to the person you're basing your argument on and since you haven't elaborated why Sony can't make a 50/1.2 or a 28-70/2 we'll just have to assume that you don't know of any reason and are just regurgitating the current marketing BS.

Sony has filed a patent for a 28-70/2 lens incidentally. https://photorumors.com/2016/01/28/sony-fe-28-70mm-f2-lens-patent/

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.

RubberDials wrote:

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.

Adds to lens IS.

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.

Google: canon eos r white paper, p.32.

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.

You simply misunderstood it.

There isn't anything in Canon's marketing materials about their new mount that isn't well known.

Well, it is well known that a Porche drives better than a Fiat Uno, and it is true.

It might be new to Canon DSLR users but mirrorless users know all about the advantages of a shorter register.

Now you pretend that you do not understand. It is the combination of the shorted flange plus the wide mount.

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.

No, it is not. You know how many patents Canon has? They did not say that it was impossible to design an X/y lens. They said that the wider mount and the short flange makes it easier and allows for better performance.

You pretend again that you did not get this point and you keep repeating arguments which I debunked. You probably hope that I will get tired of this and you might be right.

Nobody even mentioned it before Canon did. If they told you Sony and Nikon cameras were made of cheese would you believe them?

Again, pretending I said something that I did not and attacking it.

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.

I thought that you were the gentleman?

The RF design might be 'dramatically different' to the EF35/2 but that's because that lens is a film-era design.

Wrong lens, wrong assumption. It is 5 year old.

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.

I see. So I can buy it and mount it on my 5D4?

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.

You should read it first before accusing them of making "100% false" statements. You can probably offer some advice, if they pay enough, of course.

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.

Well, tell the others. They would be equally amused.