Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

[EricN]

Or they just have less tacky and ostentatious friends

Good point!

 

[Deleted member 383640]

Meanwhile, some people aren't successful or well liked enough to have experienced an impressive wedding.

At some of the "most modest" weddings, I met some of the most wonderful people and had the most wonderful time, and even took some of my favorite photos (and with very modest and "heavy" equipment - I'm looking at you Canon EOS 5D Mark II with battery grip).

 

[Deleted member 383640]

Sorry, I must have been unclear.

I mean do they change the focus by rotating the lens (to get the transition to happen at whatever speed) or let the camera do it based on her settings (and the focus transition happens at the camera's speed)?

Always manually, in such a way as to determine with a finger on the touch screen what the camera should auto focus on.

 

[David - Sydney]

Well, it seems that Sony users are very vocal about no post purchase firmware upgrades vs Canon/Nikon. They have admitted the their execs have heard the about the issue for some time but haven't done anything about it (so far) and would prefer users to buy a new body instead.
https://petapixel.com/2023/10/02/sony-exec-on-demand-for-firmware-updates-sony-knows-about-it/

So photographers can't have everything at this time
We always have something to complain about though!

 

[Deleted member 383640]

We always have something to complain about though!

One of my rare remarks (even though I'm quite picky ) regarding the RF mount and everything related to that topic, was the absence of a lens cap that can be mounted on both the EF and the RF mount lensed in any way, but that remark has now been resolved - BlackRapid Lensbling with the inscription 50 on the cap!

Long live Canon, long live RF mount, and may EF stay with us for a long time!

 

[Sporgon]

Well, it seems that Sony users are very vocal about no post purchase firmware upgrades vs Canon/Nikon. They have admitted the their execs have heard the about the issue for some time but haven't done anything about it (so far) and would prefer users to buy a new body instead.
https://petapixel.com/2023/10/02/sony-exec-on-demand-for-firmware-updates-sony-knows-about-it/

So photographers can't have everything at this time
We always have something to complain about though!

I thought Sony did supply regular firmware updates, they just happen to be in new bodies.

 

[ReflexVE]

This is an amateurish attempt to answer the question of whether an APSC system has a ‘brightness’ advantage over a FF system. To do this, let’s consider the case of capturing the same composition using a FF lens (say, 70-200mm F4) on an APSC and a FF body. We can then ask the question of whether at a specific F-stop, the APSC could get more light compared to the FF shot (adjusted to have the equivalent Focal Length and F-stop).

To set up the comparison, consider using 100mm with f5 on an apsc body vs 160mm with f8 on a FF body (canon’s crop factor is 1.6, so this set up will provide the same composition for the same subject distance). Below is a summary of these and other operating assumptions:

Same lens: say, 70-200mm F4
Equivalent composition, same subject distance, identical light intensity (all spectrum)
Same shutter speed of S and same Light Intensity of L (ISO can be changed to achieve the same exposure) – this is for a ‘fair’ comparison.
All light entering camera falls uniformly onto the image circle – this is inaccurate but a decent simplifying assumption.

The table below tabulates the various parameters as well as the total ‘amount’ (can think of this as the total number of photons across different frequencies) of light reaching the respective sensors.

	Focal Length	F-stop / Diameter	Aperture Area	Amount of light entering body	Sensor area / image circle*
APSC Body	100mm	F5 / 20mm	0.00126	L x S x 0.00126 = T	23%
FF Body	160mm	F8 / 20mm	0.00126	L x S x 0.00126 = T	59%

*The FF lens has an image circle with a minimum radius of 21.6mm (canon’s ff sensor size is 36x24mm). It means that the sensor covers an area approximately 59% of the image circle whereas an APSC sensor would cover 23% of this an FF image circle.


Based on the scenario above, the APSC body, when using a FF lens, would actually receive ‘less’ light than an FF body, so it does not quite have the ‘brightness’ advantage.

What about using an APSC lens? This is hard to compare accurately with a FF lens without the optical details of the lenses. However, an APSC lens would have a smaller image circle, and, in general, is likely to have smaller lens elements, which broadly translate into a reduced ability to ‘collect’ light. If we ignore this, and assume that the amount of light collected is simply dependent on the aperture size and shutter speed, and all of it falls uniformly across the image circle, then the total amount of light reaching the APSC sensor would also be about 59% of that reaching its image circle. All else being the same (mostly not quite true), then there is still no real ‘brightness’ advantage for an APSC body, even with an APSC lens operating ideally.

Having said all this, it ultimately depends on personal preferences with how the image looks. As long as one is happy with it, then use the system that best meet one's preferences. For me, I use APSC to save weight and cost. However, with the RF mount, the weight 'disadvantage' of FF is reduced considerably. There is still the pricing, of course, so one good lens at a time and mix in with EF lenses work for me.

Literally not what I was saying. I was discussing DoF and it's not an 'advantage' it is a difference. At the same brightness FF sensors have a narrower DoF vs APS-C. Some prefer the FF DoF and consider that an advantage. For my shooting I prefer the deeper DoF I get on APS-C. I happen to own a GFX 100S for those times when I actually want a very thin DoF (or spectacular landscapes), but for most practical shooting I find the deeper DoF on APS-C at a given aperture to be advantageous. Others will feel the inverse and that is fine.

 

[Ryrock77]

Weird response. I made the decision because Canon did not offer a reasonable replacement/update to the M50 in 2020 when I was ready to upgrade. What product did they have that met my needs of small/light, good image quality, reasonable price and, ideally but not necessarily, a crop sensor? The RF mount at that point had zero crop sensor bodies, the R/RP were questionable bodies, the R5 was nearly 4x the price of the competition and the lens lineup had even fewer reasonably priced lens options than it has now (which is still very limited for a prime shooter like myself). I wanted a more advanced body, they didn't offer it. At the time I was looking at Fuji but I did not find the classic control scheme appealing at all. When they suddenly announced the X-S10 it was literally what I had been hoping for the hypothetical M7 that was in all the rumors back then, and had a massive and highly rated lens lineup, so I jumped.

What about this is child like decision making? And what has really changed competitively? Were I making the decision today the equation would be a bit different in that Canon does have some competitive options but the lens lineup is still lacking. Meanwhile Fuji and Sony have both released very nice APS-C and even small FF options (like the A7C) priced similarly and with a much more fleshed out lens lineup.

While today I would have a bit more pause before switching, an unbiased decision likely would still lead to a switch given the state of the overall ecosystems comparatively, which is exacerbated by the actual topic of the article this thread is attached to, namely Canon's lack of third party lens options. Canon literally has no answer to several lenses on other systems, such as the Viltrox 13, 27 and 75mm lenses. Their crop sensor option has no 56mm option. The 50mm f/1.8 they released is quite terrible compared to the competition. It's just not a fleshed out ecosystem without an EF adapter, and again I can go native on other systems or if I really want an EF lens they are easy to adapt to Sony or Fuji.

Nothing weird about my response. I'm just reading your comments that you keep making to other people. You honestly seem hurt when people question you and your decisions.

How many lens can you buy and actually use?

What camera did you end up going with?

 

[melgross]

So why do you keep bringing it up? Why does market share matter when I'm discussing something on topic to the actual article: Frustration of Canon users over Canon keeping the RF mount closed to third parties?

The article isn't about market share. It isn't about your opinions of who cares or not. I care. I was a Canon user. I switched. This was one reason (the other was ending the M line before an adequate replacement existed). I don't claim others are superior and I'm not getting into a brand war. I'm pointing out that the topic of the article resonates with me, as it's part of why I switched (as did several friends of mine, but anecdotes are not data and Canon's market is likely secure).

But hey, if you don't want to hear on topic remarks you can feel free to block me. Go have your brand wars with people who care about that sort of thing. I just take photos.

It’s only brought up in response to those complaining about it. So who is really bringing it up? The fact that Canon seems to be maintaining a 50% market share in ILC, given all the competition out there, tends to show that this is only an issue with a very small number of people. While their concerns are valid for them, they aren’t valid for most others.

 

[scyrene]

Literally not what I was saying. I was discussing DoF and it's not an 'advantage' it is a difference. At the same brightness FF sensors have a narrower DoF vs APS-C. Some prefer the FF DoF and consider that an advantage. For my shooting I prefer the deeper DoF I get on APS-C. I happen to own a GFX 100S for those times when I actually want a very thin DoF (or spectacular landscapes), but for most practical shooting I find the deeper DoF on APS-C at a given aperture to be advantageous. Others will feel the inverse and that is fine.

Ok I don't think anyone has explained it in easy terms here yet, but the responses you're getting are in part because unfortunately you are mistaken. For any given combination of DOF on APS-C you can adjust the settings on FF to give the same result (stop the lens down and increase the ISO). But FF gives you more options because you can have a shallower DOF on that setup (there is no lens <~f/0.95). The tradeoffs are in price and to some extent size, but there is no image an APS-C camera can produce that a FF cannot, as you seem to believe. It's not a difference of opinion.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Ok I don't think anyone has explained it in easy terms here yet, but the responses you're getting are in part because unfortunately you are mistaken. For any given combination of DOF on APS-C you can adjust the settings on FF to give the same result (stop the lens down and increase the ISO). But FF gives you more options because you can have a shallower DOF on that setup (there is no lens <~f/0.95). The tradeoffs are in price and to some extent size, but there is no image an APS-C camera can produce that a FF cannot, as you seem to believe. It's not a difference of opinion.

@AlanF tried, and was ignored. Your explanation is quite clear, and of course correct.

As I said, some people choose to believe their own opinion is correct even in the face of manifest evidence to the contrary. Here on a camera gear forum, the impact and significance of that are of little relevance compared to, for example, the situation in US politics where that mindset is also prevalent.

 

[Dragon]

@AlanF tried, and was ignored. Your explanation is quite clear, and of course correct.

As I said, some people choose to believe their own opinion is correct even in the face of manifest evidence to the contrary. Here on a camera gear forum, the impact and significance of that are of little relevance compared to, for example, the situation in US politics where that mindset is also prevalent.

Oh, so true.

 

[scyrene]

you don't even own or shoot with top-of-the-line gear. Consequently, your advice doesn't carry much weight.

Kinda snobbish but whatever.

I'm not a wedding photographer but one aspect of your original post that raised an eyebrow was the implication that Canon mirrorless gear is heavier than what came before, which surely isn't true. I guess you meant the competition offer something equivalent but lighter? The R-mount bodies are a bit smaller and lighter than the equivalent DSLRs they replace; some of the new high end lenses are heavier.

 

[Del Paso]

I just came back from my vacation.
Didn't have time to read all the posts.
Just want to say I understand those who'd like 3rd party lenses.
But I don't, Sigma, Tamron, Sanyong: I don't care.
There are more than enough excellent EF lenses available. Even used ones.
Yet, the Nikon 800mm f/6,3... but it ain't no 3rd party one.
Edit: Sorry, I was a bit tired. And meant Samyang...

 

[Deleted member 383640]

Hello Brikna,

I'm in my mid-30s, and I must admit that I have had a lingering back injury that has been a constant companion throughout my adult life. However, even if I were to set aside that injury, it's a challenge for anyone to hold an R3, 28-70 F2, and an EL1 to their face for three consecutive parent dances, which can sometimes last 12 to 15 minutes. Doing this after already shooting for 6-7 hours takes its toll on the neck, shoulders, and back. Over time, joints and cartilage wear out, regardless of who you are. Engaging in this kind of heavy lifting repeatedly is bound to take a toll on your body. I'm striving to preserve my body, not wear it out.

You mentioned in your message's conclusion that I would eventually realize I made a mistake by switching. Let me be clear, I don't want to offend you, as you did in your introduction, but when I look at the equipment listed in your forum signature, it appears to be rather basic. You aren't operating at my level. Moreover, you don't even own or shoot with top-of-the-line gear. Consequently, your advice doesn't carry much weight. I'd be open to hearing your thoughts once you start shooting with R3s, 85mm 1.2s, 50mm 1.2s, 28-70 f2s, along with EL1s, but until then, it's just background noise. I was among the first to make the switch to Canon Mirrorless. In fact, I was an early adopter, and I acquired the 28-70 f2 for just $2400 because no one was interested in them at the time.

I have no qualms about investing $50,000 to switch systems. At this stage of my life and career, it holds no significance for me to spend that amount to safeguard my physical well-being and continue enjoying life for as long as possible. While the weight savings of 1-2 pounds might not be a game-changer for you, it's life-changing for me. Regardless of whether it's Sony, Canon, Leica, or another brand, I will make a full-time living, and my clients won't notice a difference in the end.

Enjoy yourself and I hope that you someday reach the point to where you can just look at the equipment as a tool to do the job and not the other way around.

Thank you very much for the clarifications you made. I hope that your condition/disease will not progress further - I wish you all the best!

I also hope you continue to have such a successful career, and from what you're saying the least of your worries is the gear you work with, at least on the creative side. I believe that neither the R3 nor the RF 28-70, and even less the EL-1, did not bring you to that stage in your career, but it is possible that with such heavy equipment you damaged your own health. But you will be smarter, as you yourself decided. Man learns while he lives.

You don't have to worry about me and my basic equipment, nor about the level at which I operate - I'm currently quite satisfied with the situation I'm in. It can always be faster, better, more, but the question is where it all leads in the end.

Well, enjoy your new camera system and be sure to let us know about its benefits.

 

[EricN]

Always manually, in such a way as to determine with a finger on the touch screen what the camera should auto focus on.

I really like the way you worded that!

 

[Dragon]

Hello Brikna,

I'm in my mid-30s, and I must admit that I have had a lingering back injury that has been a constant companion throughout my adult life. However, even if I were to set aside that injury, it's a challenge for anyone to hold an R3, 28-70 F2, and an EL1 to their face for three consecutive parent dances, which can sometimes last 12 to 15 minutes. Doing this after already shooting for 6-7 hours takes its toll on the neck, shoulders, and back. Over time, joints and cartilage wear out, regardless of who you are. Engaging in this kind of heavy lifting repeatedly is bound to take a toll on your body. I'm striving to preserve my body, not wear it out.

You mentioned in your message's conclusion that I would eventually realize I made a mistake by switching. Let me be clear, I don't want to offend you, as you did in your introduction, but when I look at the equipment listed in your forum signature, it appears to be rather basic. You aren't operating at my level. Moreover, you don't even own or shoot with top-of-the-line gear. Consequently, your advice doesn't carry much weight. I'd be open to hearing your thoughts once you start shooting with R3s, 85mm 1.2s, 50mm 1.2s, 28-70 f2s, along with EL1s, but until then, it's just background noise. I was among the first to make the switch to Canon Mirrorless. In fact, I was an early adopter, and I acquired the 28-70 f2 for just $2400 because no one was interested in them at the time.

I have no qualms about investing $50,000 to switch systems. At this stage of my life and career, it holds no significance for me to spend that amount to safeguard my physical well-being and continue enjoying life for as long as possible. While the weight savings of 1-2 pounds might not be a game-changer for you, it's life-changing for me. Regardless of whether it's Sony, Canon, Leica, or another brand, I will make a full-time living, and my clients won't notice a difference in the end.

Enjoy yourself and I hope that you someday reach the point to where you can just look at the equipment as a tool to do the job and not the other way around.

Amazing. You are griping about the weight of an R3 (a pro camera with dual grips) loaded with 3 of the fastest lenses in the world and suggesting Sony is much lighter when Sony has no equivalent product for anything but the 50mm f/1.2. I do believe the R3 is the lightest dual grip FF ever made and by the time you strap a battery grip onto the Alpha 1 it will weigh as much or more.

 

[ReflexVE]

Nothing weird about my response. I'm just reading your comments that you keep making to other people. You honestly seem hurt when people question you and your decisions.

How many lens can you buy and actually use?

What camera did you end up going with?

It's weird because you and many others seem unable to answer the points I make and instead make up their own to answer (strawman fallacy). Imagining emotion on my side is also a...choice. It's just a camera. This is a site for discussion of cameras, and this is an article about a decision made by a camera maker. Discussing that decision is literally why the article was posted.

For my current lens setup -

Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 (rarely used but quality and reasonably priced)
Fuji XF18mm f/1.4 (often used as a webcam, occasionally used in constrained spaces)
Fuji XF33mm f/1.4 (my most commonly used lens)
Viltrox 78mm f/1.2 (my second most commonly used lens, best portrait lens I've owned, non-GFX division)
Fuji XF90mm f/2 (second least used, excellent images but tougher to work with due to length)

I'd like a 'standard' portrait length, either the XF 50mm f/1 or the XF 56mm II, but beyond that maybe a long prime? I don't have any need for zooms. Most of my photos are subject photography (people/objects/etc). I'm tempted by the Viltrox 27mm f/1.2 but honestly it would be a splurge, not sure when I'd use that vs the 33.

The body I started in Fuji with was the X-S10, but when the X-H2s hit I had to have it as it resolved my last remaining complaint about the system (autofocus). I don't see myself upgrading for a long time although interesting lenses always catch my attention. I have a couple vintage lenses I mentioned previously and I wouldn't mind a Jupiter at some point.

I also do own a GFX 100S and a GF110mm f/2, this is only brought out for special situations but it gives me that standard portrait focal length and it's 102MP makes for amazingly detailed landscapes should I have the opportunity.

Oh, and I did re-acquire my old M50 with my old lens kit, I'll use it when I worry about losing/damaging my equip, or when I'm teaching someone new to photography since its a very simple entry point.

 

[ReflexVE]

It’s only brought up in response to those complaining about it. So who is really bringing it up? The fact that Canon seems to be maintaining a 50% market share in ILC, given all the competition out there, tends to show that this is only an issue with a very small number of people. While their concerns are valid for them, they aren’t valid for most others.

This is not how 'concerns' work. I mentioned Microsoft for a reason. People don't buy a given product for one single feature very often, nor do they quit it for one single decision very often. It's always a mix of needs/likes/dislikes with people buying based on the overall value proposition vs the competition. And no one in this or other threads is contending otherwise, that's simply a strawman that keeps being stood up as though it's a defense, and to avoid actually trying to defend the situation beyond 'Canon make money go brrrr!'

 

[ReflexVE]

Ok I don't think anyone has explained it in easy terms here yet, but the responses you're getting are in part because unfortunately you are mistaken. For any given combination of DOF on APS-C you can adjust the settings on FF to give the same result (stop the lens down and increase the ISO). But FF gives you more options because you can have a shallower DOF on that setup (there is no lens <~f/0.95). The tradeoffs are in price and to some extent size, but there is no image an APS-C camera can produce that a FF cannot, as you seem to believe. It's not a difference of opinion.

You keep saying this. I want a given aperture with a deeper DoF than that *same aperture* gives me on FF. I do not want to stop down and lose light. I am not sure how many different ways I can make this clear. I know what stopping down is. I do it all the time for some situations. I know how it affects DoF. Why can you not understand that *for me* a deeper DoF at a given aperture is an advantage, and a shallower one at that same aperture is a drawback? I know FF shooters often have some sort of weird idea that their sensor size is the standard that all others aspire to, but it is not, nor was it ever, and many creatives want a different look than what FF offers. You literally cannot produce shots like I can with a H2s and the Viltrox 75mm f/1.2. There is no equivalent body/lens combo in Canon's lineup that can produce the images I do with that combo. That kind of uniqueness is what I'm looking for, something less standard without sacrificing light.

If I wanted my work to look like everyone else I'd own a R5 or A73 with the standard three primes and a zoom. I don't which is why I love the third party options that give me non-typical focal lengths, fast apertures, and vintage glass. And the bodies that can use them. And before anyone gets up in arms, there is nothing wrong with sticking with the standards either. For a professional I'm sure that's what is expected.