Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

[HMC11]

I'll make you simpler what ReflexVE is saying.

Let make two cases:

A- R6 mk II
B- R10

Both uses an RF 85 f1.2
Both use the same exposure triangle, let's say f1.2 1/1000s 100iso, for the very same scene, shot in the very same moment
Subject will be kept of the same size in the frame, so with the R10 he'll be some steps behind to account for the crop effect.
He will end up with two pictures of the same resolution (both camera have 24mpx), with the same subject.
Both pictures will have same brightness, because exposure triangle is the same.
Subject's eyes will be more likely both in focus in the R10 picture, because to have the same subject size, he stepped back, meaning the lens uses a longer focus distance, meaning the DoF is more then the DoF you'll get in the very same picture shot with R6II.

Dynamic range is different between FF and Aps? He doesn't care, because it's not the point.
Noise is different between FF and Aps? He doesn't care, because it's not the point.

What he does care is:
-He gets with R10 the same picture I get with R6II, with the same exposure, but he gets more DoF then me, that is the thing he cares about
-He gets what he wanted with a camera smaller and lighter then mine; and if available, he could have used an 85 f1.2 specific for Aps, so smaller and lighter.

OR

Or he could have achieved the same thing with a 50 f1.2 (FF or Aps lens it's not important) without stepping back, but still achieving more DoF then me because he's using a wider lens, a 50, compared to my 85, so he gets more DoF for the same exposure, and the same aperture of course, even when the focus distance is the same.

Many talks about "how much light get to the sensor, let's calculate it"; well, for the same exposure triangle, for the same EV of a given scene, the light falling on a sensor or a film is exactly the same, regardless you're using a medium format or a smartphone, regardless of the lens you're using.

My bad. My assumption when comparing was to have as identical an image as possible as the basic starting point, including perspectives. As such, your case 1 is outside the scope of my scenarios. As for your case 2, if one were to use the FF equivalent for focal length and f-stop, then the DoF is exactly the same whether APSC and FF are used, which I believe is the point made by others. As for the overall point about DoF being the only point, then using a camera with a 1inch sensor or a camera phone will achieve even greater depth of field for your case 1 – both of which are cheaper and much lighter .

I do not want to enter into a debate about whether APSC or FF is a better system, as both have their pros and cons, although both can achieve the same DoF with the right settings, or that diffraction sets in ‘early’ for APSC at lower f-stop (but that’s not the point as you said). I think the main difference between the two systems is that in terms of available camera bodies and lenses, the FF format provides more choices with higher quality in general. This is the case not because FF is better in principle (for that matter one can also say that a large format is better than FF because it has a larger sensor), it is simply that most manufacturers have focused on FF (Fuji is a notable exception, and they do have quality apsc lenses and bodies). Given what is available, FF seems to be a reasonably natural point to rally around, but apsc, with it lighter weight and pricing, can be rather appealing to photographers as well. As for unique apsc images, I am really curious as to what apsc can produce that FF can’t. (I know, I know, this is not the point as it is all about DoF, but if I recall correctly, an earlier post did say something to this effect). Perhaps someone who knows about this can share samples for our collective education?

 

[EricN]

I know nothing otherwise you seems to know a lot, so you're the best guy to write that book!
You would just pardon me if I won't read it, as it surely would be too complicate for me; I don't even speak English natively, so I would surely encounter difficulties, but I wish you all the best luck with it!

No, no, I thought you are a great wedding photographer, so you definitely should write the book. I'm just a starving artist barely scraping by, nobody would care about my book, and like you said they probably can't understand anyway, so you explain it in a way they can make some money. Or better yet, make a youtube channel!

 

[EricN]

Was not referring to you specifically of course, I was asking generally why bash ourselves in a forum, where no one of us is earning or losing anything by being right or wrong

It's a good question... Why do you do it?

 

[neuroanatomist]

As for unique apsc images, I am really curious as to what apsc can produce that FF can’t.

With current cameras, the top pixel densities of APS-C models are higher than those of FF sensors. FF sensors are at ~60 MP, cropping that to 1.5x APS-C yields an image of ~27 MP. The Fuji X-H2 has a 40 MP APS-C sensor. Put the latter sensor behind the XF 150-600mm lens, and you can get a usable image of a subject that's further away than with a Sony 60 MP FF camera and the FE 200-600mm.

Of course, you could pair a Canon R5 with the RF 1200mm lens and get even more reach (or just use that $25K to buy a car and drive closer).

 

[Sporgon]

That's the problem; the difference is not field relevant. And this seems something not acceptable by many.

People need to take pictures, instead of discussing about the maths involved in taking pictures

I think one of the reasons people are being persistent in their answers is because it is field relevant; you can achieve the same dof on your FF camera whilst only reducing its ‘quality’ to that equal to a crop camera, not more.
Even the diffracting argument doesn’t hold up due to the fact that the pixels in a FF are generally larger than a crop, so can take the smaller aperture without loss of sharpness.
When talking about practical use, FF even comes out pretty well against denser pixelled crop sensors when cropping in for reach.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think one of the reasons people are being persistent in their answers is because it is field relevant; you can achieve the same dof on your FF camera whilst only reducing its ‘quality’ to that equal to a crop camera, not more.
Even the diffracting argument doesn’t hold up due to the fact that the pixels in a FF are generally larger than a crop, so can take the smaller aperture without loss of sharpness.
When talking about practical use, FF even comes out pretty well against denser pixelled crop sensors when cropping in for reach.

It's definitely field relevant. There's a good reason @AlanF uses both an R5 and an R7, he understands the real-world consequences of the camera he uses for any given situation. I typically shoot with a FF camera (except for some M6II use during travel, and soon I'll be playing with an IR-converted M6), but I also understand the real-world consequences of the camera I use (and that's why I shoot distant subjects with that FF camera mostly at 840mm f/5.6).

 

[AJ]

I think one lesson here is that some people often don't stop down their lenses far enough to get deep dof. If you're used to shooting f/8 or f/11 on APSC, you had better stop down to f/16 to f/22 on FF to get the same effect.
One of the reasons people don't stop down is fear of diffraction effects, which can soften the image. At this point, it's worth keeping in mind that FF cameras typically have larger pixels, which helps in this regard. In any case, f/8 to f/11 is well beyond the diffraction limit on an APSC camera, as is f/16 to f/22 on full-frame. Here is a calculator: https://www.photopills.com/calculators/diffraction
Another reason why people don't stop down is that shutterspeeds get low, requiring a boost in iso. People are reluctant to do this for fear of noise. Again, this is where larger pixels help. If you're used to shooting 200 iso on APSC, then get used to shooting 800 iso on FF. However, this is where FF has an advantage: if you have lots of light, or if IS is helping you out, then you may be able to get away with slower shutterspeeds and lower iso.

 

[neuroanatomist]

 

[Vilacom]

I can understand gearhead people being frustrated that there aren’t cool shiny new 3rd party RF lenses for them to buy for the canon lineup but for anyone else I really cannot understand this argument. The adaptation from EF to RF is damn near flawless, there is a massive lineup of fantastic third party EF glass that is nicely discounted and would absolutely continue to be cheaper than any new RF glass those companies bring out, you’re already looking to go bang for the buck as opposed to top of the line or you’d be buying the canon RF stuff regardless of 3rd party offerings, and any responsible reviewer who talks about a new RF lens from Tameron or Sigma would say “Yeah this new one is great, but you should still probably buy and adapt the EF version for significantly cheaper”

Why do all these people seems to pretend that entire ecosystem just vanished the instant RF glass was released? Why is that not the absolutely correct answer? If Sigma came out with a fantastic new…85mm 1.2 EF that just needed the RF adapter, why is that not an amazing option for anyone who wants to stick with canon bodies but wants the lower cost 3rd party glass?

 

[Del Paso]

I'm not sure, but I think people with delusions get angry if someone attempts to talk about reality.

People who want wedding photos definitely care about quality over price when it comes to photography, but they will always cheap out on things like wedding rings, catering, the bride's dress and the venue. So @Walrus should write a book or make an instructional video to teach us all about his extensive knowledge so we can confidently transcend wasting our money on Canon and move on to a better company that cares about it customers by not making us waste time updating our firmware.

Just buy a magical Viltrox plus Fuji and become the Wedding Photographer of the Year!
Satisfaction guaranteed (seen on TV!)
FOX News, of course...

 

[AJ]

If Sigma came out with a fantastic new…85mm 1.2 EF that just needed the RF adapter, why is that not an amazing option for anyone who wants to stick with canon bodies but wants the lower cost 3rd party glass?

It would be, yes. But: it looks like Sigma's new releases are for E and L mount and don't come in EF. I'd say it is very probable that Sigma will make a 85/1.2 in the future, but it is very improbable that it will come in an EF mount.
Rather than continuing along with the retro-engineered EF mount, it seems that Sigma has shied away completely from Canon. Could Canon's litigious attitude be a factor in this? My guess is that it is.

 

[Del Paso]

Why all the heck about 3rd party lenses?
What we need are Canon's RF 14mm, 11-24mm, TSE 14mm, 70-135 f2, 24mm f1,4, 35mm f1,2 (I hear you, roby17269!), a Nikkor 800mm f6,3...and big white tele-zooms!

 

[Sean C]

Hah, read 20 pages of side tracked comments to see if anyone had already asked:
Is anyone waiting to see if 3rd party lenses will actually be allowed before deciding on where to go after EF, or is everyone here a pro/gearhead enough they've already gone mirrorless? I'm a hobbiest who paused due to a car wreck, have a 5D MKIV (and III w/magic lantern - really missing that on newer bodies!). I could go Canon R, or use Metabones to jump. My EF lenses will be adapted either way. Probably unpopular point: Canon could turn off EF compatibility later if they wish to force lens sales, there is less likely to be a move that'd break metabones by Sony (probably - but ofc you can never be certain).
I've restricted my spending to studio lighting gear lately, to not tie myself further to a system. I've been tentatively planning to wait for the R5II and make a choice then (assuming my hand/wrist has healed enough).

 

[EricN]

I can understand gearhead people being frustrated that there aren’t cool shiny new 3rd party RF lenses for them to buy for the canon lineup but for anyone else I really cannot understand this argument. The adaptation from EF to RF is damn near flawless, there is a massive lineup of fantastic third party EF glass that is nicely discounted and would absolutely continue to be cheaper than any new RF glass those companies bring out, you’re already looking to go bang for the buck as opposed to top of the line or you’d be buying the canon RF stuff regardless of 3rd party offerings, and any responsible reviewer who talks about a new RF lens from Tameron or Sigma would say “Yeah this new one is great, but you should still probably buy and adapt the EF version for significantly cheaper”

Why do all these people seems to pretend that entire ecosystem just vanished the instant RF glass was released? Why is that not the absolutely correct answer? If Sigma came out with a fantastic new…85mm 1.2 EF that just needed the RF adapter, why is that not an amazing option for anyone who wants to stick with canon bodies but wants the lower cost 3rd party glass?

I think it would be fantastic, but there will be something about "I don't want to use adapters" and I can continue the typical way this conversation goes, but you probably already know it.

 

[Del Paso]

It would be, yes. But: it looks like Sigma's new releases are for E and L mount and don't come in EF. I'd say it is very probable that Sigma will make a 85/1.2 in the future, but it is very improbable that it will come in an EF mount.
Rather than continuing along with the retro-engineered EF mount, it seems that Sigma has shied away completely from Canon. Could Canon's litigious attitude be a factor in this? My guess is that it is.

Let me quote you...
"It would, it looks like, probable, improbable, it seems, could, my guess" etc...
Just like you wrote: no certainties, but guesses and assumptions. Nobody but Sigma and Canon know what will or won't happen.

 

[AlanF]

Let me quote you...
"It would, it looks like, probable, improbable, it seems, could, my guess" etc...
Just like you wrote: no certainties, but guesses and assumptions. Nobody but Sigma and Canon know what will or won't happen.

Are you certain of that?

 

[EricN]

It would be, yes. But: it looks like Sigma's new releases are for E and L mount and don't come in EF. I'd say it is very probable that Sigma will make a 85/1.2 in the future, but it is very improbable that it will come in an EF mount.
Rather than continuing along with the retro-engineered EF mount, it seems that Sigma has shied away completely from Canon. Could Canon's litigious attitude be a factor in this? My guess is that it is.

It's possible it never happens that Canon will allow third party autofocus. And it's possible a person only wants to use new lenses with certain specs. I do like to understand if these people bought a rf body knowing that, if they think all photography before mirrorless was bad, and so on.
I also wonder if anyone can think all of Canon's employees can survive on bread and water living in a cardboard box?

 

[EricN]

Why all the heck about 3rd party lenses?
What we need are Canon's RF 14mm, 11-24mm, TSE 14mm, 70-135 f2, 24mm f1,4, 35mm f1,2 (I hear you, roby17269!), a Nikkor 800mm f6,3...and big white tele-zooms!

Thats the kind of Canon Rumors I think most of us are interested in even if we don't want to pay the price for the actual items.

 

[EricN]

Hah, read 20 pages of side tracked comments to see if anyone had already asked:
Is anyone waiting to see if 3rd party lenses will actually be allowed before deciding on where to go after EF, or is everyone here a pro/gearhead enough they've already gone mirrorless? I'm a hobbiest who paused due to a car wreck, have a 5D MKIV (and III w/magic lantern - really missing that on newer bodies!). I could go Canon R, or use Metabones to jump. My EF lenses will be adapted either way. Probably unpopular point: Canon could turn off EF compatibility later if they wish to force lens sales, there is less likely to be a move that'd break metabones by Sony (probably - but ofc you can never be certain).
I've restricted my spending to studio lighting gear lately, to not tie myself further to a system. I've been tentatively planning to wait for the R5II and make a choice then (assuming my hand/wrist has healed enough).

If you have any doubts, I would wait until both 5D series cameras are unusable. By then, the situation will hopefully be more clear.
Good luck with your hand/wrist

 

[AlanF]

It's possible it never happens that Canon will allow third party autofocus. And it's possible a person only wants to use new lenses with certain specs. I do like to understand if these people bought a rf body knowing that, if they think all photography before mirrorless was bad, and so on.
I also wonder if anyone can think all of Canon's employees can survive on bread and water living in a cardboard box?

Those who designed the RF TCs and the RF 100-500 and RF 70-200 f/2.8 not to be fully or only partly compatible may deserve a cardboard box and bread and water as contrition?