Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

[EricN]

I'm really sorry if anyone here feels attacked by me. I will try to change my tone of communication. I thought it was acceptable, but apparently it is not.

However, I still think that someone who has some kind of health condition that makes a piece of equipment too heavy for him should still say that, for example - R3 is too heavy for me because of my health condition and that is one of the reasons why I have to change the equipment and even the system.

You're a true gentleman

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why don't you post some of your shots with a H2s and the Viltrox 75mm f/1.2 and we can test if they can or can't be reproduced?

There isn’t a 112.5mm f/1.8 lens for a Canon FF camera. It’s absolutely not possible to shoot with a 135mm f/1.8L, crop a little, and raise the ISO by a stop. Not even close close to possible. It would be totally different.

 

[danfaz]

I'm curious to know when you sent your flashes in for servicing? Have you ever tried Profoto speedlites yourself?

I sent my flashes in during the summer of 2021. The problem never went away, actually becoming worse over time.
Never have tried Profoto, but have been curious about them!
I kept my EL-1 for bounce flash applications, but sold off my 600s and replaced them with Godox AD200s for off camera. The Godox have never lost communication so far.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's all of Canon's flashes it would seem, though I haven't heard how the EL-5 is doing.

The EL-5 hasn’t even been out for 5 months yet. I’d say it’s too early to tell. I’ve had no issues, but I’m also not an avid flash user.

 

[EricN]

There isn’t a 112.5mm f/1.8 lens for a Canon FF camera. It’s absolutely not possible to shoot with a 135mm f/1.8L, crop a little, and raise the ISO by a stop. Not even close close to possible. It would be totally different.

You're right, s/he must be some kind of creative genus to have thought this up and absolutely can not share the amazing photos possible with Fuji cameras. Thank goodness Canon abandoned M50 users or none of that impressive work could have ever been produced by him/her.

 

[melgross]

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!'

No, not quite. No company satisfies everyone. That’s impossible. Even monopolies such as Microsoft have problems with customer satisfaction. Likely more actually, as a lot of people in their system aren’t there because they want to be, but because they’re forced to be.

fortunately, we are very rarely forced to choose a camera system.. So customers buy in because they want to. The question of whether a particular company is doing something to displease its customers can be judged by how that marketshare fluctuates over the years. If a large number are dissatisfied, marketshare goes down, if not, it goes up or remains steady. So how has Canon been doing? Very well.

companies always have reasons to do what they do, we, as customers have reasons to be happy with that or not.

 

[Del Paso]

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.

Thank you!
Now I understand why all my pictures are so crappy!
I'll jump to the next Viltrox and Fuji dealer after having sold my shitty Leica, Olympus and Canon stuff.
My time has come to create wonderful pictures like yours!

 

[dash2k8]

Given how well the R series is selling, I don\'t think the lack of 3rd party lenses has harmed sales. Not sure there\'s anything to be upset about, much less stop writing for a certain website over a company\'s business decision.

 

[Walrus]

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?

It's like singing to the deaf, or showing fireworks to the blinds; too many in here know nothing about photography, they just fantasize on exotic and expensive lenses to brag on how thick their wallets (supposedly?) are.
Just leave them be, it's useless to teach to someone who isn't interested in listening; you do what you got to do, anybody else will do what they're gonna do, right or wrong, and everybody turns out happy enough for itself.

 

[Del Paso]

True, but not the point. Exposure meters don't take pictures, image sensors do. Exposure meters don't care about noise, photographers (hopefully) do.

Let me try to illustrate with two related examples.

APS-C camera: 50mm, f/2.8, ISO 400
FF camera: 80mm, f/2.8, ISO 400

The framing is the same (50x1.6=80), the DoF is thinner with the FF camera, the 'brightness' of the resulting image is the same (f/2.8, ISO 400).​

APS-C camera: 50mm, f/2.8, ISO 400
FF camera: 80mm, f/4.5, ISO 1250

The framing is the same (50x1.6=80), the DoF is the same (FF stopped down to 1.3-stops to match DoF), the 'brightness' of the resulting image is the same (f/4.5, ISO increased 1.3-stops to compensate for narrower aperture).​

Image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered by a sensor. That's why the the FF R8 has a native ISO range up to 102,400, whereas the APS-C R7's native range tops out at 32,000 (and the iPhone 14 Pro tops out at 12,768) – manufacturers decide what is a maximum tolerable noise level and set the range accordingly (Apple sets a higher ISO cap relative to sensor size because of the heavy reliance of onboard, AI-driven noise reduction).

In the first example, the image noise is lower with FF. The ISO (gain) is the same, but the FF sensor is bigger so it gathers more total light. In the second example, the image noise is the same (the increased noise from the higher ISO used offsets the lower noise from more total light). Thus, in the first example the FF sensor is trading DoF for lower noise. In the second example, the resulting images are the same in terms of framing, DoF, 'brightness' and image noise – they are equivalent.

The larger sensor allows you to achieve thinner DoF if you want it (and benefit from lower noise), but if you don't want the thinner DoF you stop down to get the the same DoF and simply raise the ISO and get the exact same image you'd get on APS-C. So, the larger sensor gives you more flexibility and more options. Importantly, one of those options is to get exactly the same image you'd get with APS-C.

If you're shooting in ample light (or adding your own) and don't need much subject isolation, there's really not much of an advantage to FF. But in more challenging conditions, FF has advantages – lower noise for working in low light (but you have to accept shallower DoF to get it), thinner DoF if you need maximum subject isolation (to match framing but get DoF as thin as f/1.2 on FF, you'd need an f/0.75 lens for your APS-C camera...good luck with that). In the example above, ISO 400 is not going to look meaningfully different on either sensor. But ISO 6400 on FF will look a lot better than ISO 6400 on APS-C. In that situation, you can have eyes in focus and ears not with a FF sensor...or you can have eyes and ears in focus with either sensor with the shot unusable due to high noise.

Put another way, FF gives you options that APS-C does not, in terms of the types of images you can obtain. A FF camera can do everything an APS-C camera can do in terms of DoF, shutter speed, ISO and noise, but it can also do more because it gathers more total light.

As I've already stated, the potential advantages of APS-C over FF are smaller/lighter systems, lower cost, and more pixels on target if you're focal length limited. That's it. Period. If you believe there are other advantages, you're arguing with optical physics...and you'll lose that argument. Every. Single. Time.

But as I've also stated, some people (far too many, IMO) are perfectly willing to ignore things like facts and physics and just assume their personal opinion is correct. It's clear that @ReflexVE falls into that category, hopefully you do not and you've learned something today.

Sometimes, it seems the laws of physics matter far less than personal erroneous opinions. What I believe is true, even if it contradicts proven scientific facts.
Does it make sense to argue with believers in four-sided triangles?

 

[HMC11]

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.

I agree with you that your preference for how an image looks is personal-to-holder, and so am perfectly happy to accept that no one should impose his/her choice on you. The argument about not wanting to ‘stop down and lose light’ is somewhat more complicated. I am not sure if I get the following right, but hope that it can help, so here goes:

Let’s compare the amount of light reaching the sensor in the three cases (A) apsc lens on apsc body for 100mm at f5; (B) FF lens on FF body for 160mm at f8; and (C) FF lens on FF body for 160mm at f5. The aperture diameter for both (A) and (B) are the same at 20mm, whereas (C) has an aperture diameter of 32mm. Assuming the same shutter speed in all cases, then cases (A) and (B) have roughly the same ‘amount’ of light entering the respective camera bodies, and (C) has 1.6 times more ‘light’. Thus, at the same f-stop value, there is more light entering the FF body than the APSC body; whereas for the same ‘equivalent’ f-stop value, the same ‘amount’ of light enters the respective bodies.

For the latter, while the ‘amount’ of light entering the body is the same, and that the sensor area to image circle area ratio can be considered to be approximately the same (at 59%), it is spread over a larger sensor surface in the FF body. So, if we compare the per square area ‘amount’ of light, then it appears that the APSC body has an advantage. However, it is not so clear cut. For comparison, consider 2 scenarios: (1) both apsc and ff sensors have the same pixel density; and (2) both have the same number of pixels. In (1), this means that each pixel in both sensors has the same size, and that the apsc sensor would have 2.56 times fewer pixels. In this scenario, the apsc pixel will individually receive a greater ‘amount’ of light compared to the FF pixel, so there is indeed an ‘amount’ of light advantage. However, the lower pixel count would also mean the apsc image is small, and if enlarged to the same image size as the FF image, would appear more pixelated than the FF image (of course this is not always the case depending on how much details there are in the scene). In this scenario, the ‘amount’ of light advantage might not be that useful. For (2), each pixel in both the apsc and FF sensor would receive the same ‘amount’ of light. However, the apsc pixel has an area that is 2.56 times smaller than that of the FF pixel. In this scenario, there in no ‘amount’ of light advantage for the apsc sensor, and if the ‘amount’ of light is small, would result in more noise in the apsc image compared to the FF image. In these scenarios, the ‘amount’ of light advantage is not clear-cut where image IQ is concerned. However, as I said at the start, if the resulting image is what you like, that is perfectly fine.

Apologies for being long-winded.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But as I've also stated, some people (far too many, IMO) are perfectly willing to ignore things like facts and physics and just assume their personal opinion is correct. It's clear that @ReflexVE falls into that category, hopefully you do not and you've learned something today.

Well, that was a futile hope.

It's like singing to the deaf, or showing fireworks to the blinds; too many in here know nothing about photography...Just leave them be, it's useless to teach to someone who isn't interested in listening

At least you're right about that. You've made it clear that you're in that category, and have no desire to learn what you don't know.

Well, you know how to press a shutter button and some people are willing to pay you to do it, so you must already know everything about photography. Good for you!

 

[koenkooi]

If I had an APS-C R body, I’d be a lot more interested in 3rd party lenses, I really enjoy the Sigma 56mm on my M6II.

But since I have an M6II as well as an R8, there aren’t any 3rd party lenses that I desire. I mainly do macro and family pics and I’m fine with STM motors, so Canon has me covered for RF.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sometimes, it seems the laws of physics matter far less than personal erroneous opinions. What I believe is true, even if it contradicts proven scientific facts.
Does it make sense to argue with believers in four-sided triangles?

I prefer to try and teach people when they lack knowledge. But when it becomes evident they have no desire to learn, there’s no point. @ReflexVE and @Walrus have shown they choose to be willfully ignorant. Their loss, and their choice to make themselves look foolish here.

I’ve met a couple of Flat Earthers. Same attitude – the earth is flat, don’t tell me what I already know. Okay, live in your fantasy world where the earth is flat and APS-C gives more DoF than you can get with FF.

 

[scyrene]

It's like singing to the deaf, or showing fireworks to the blinds; too many in here know nothing about photography, they just fantasize on exotic and expensive lenses to brag on how thick their wallets (supposedly?) are.
Just leave them be, it's useless to teach to someone who isn't interested in listening; you do what you got to do, anybody else will do what they're gonna do, right or wrong, and everybody turns out happy enough for itself.

"There's none so blind as those who will not see". Disappointing but not surprising. All the technical information has been laid out, and you choose to stick your fingers in your ears (let's mix metaphors). Fascinating to see you projecting that onto others too - you've presented no evidence to support your assertion or refute what has been said because you believe your opinion trumps (ha!) facts. As others have said, all too common, sadly. Add in a nice bit of superiority complex - everyone else is "ignorant, a fantasist, a braggart". Don't expect civility on these forums in future if this is how you choose to behave here.

 

[Walrus]

Let’s compare the amount of light reaching the sensor in the three cases.. ETC ETC

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.

 

[Walrus]

Don't expect civility on these forums in future if this is how you choose to behave here.

I won't sleep tonight and believe me when I say I'm one of the most civil users.

Btw, many can laid out all the technical info they want; those info are still wrong, sad no one can see it

 

[Sporgon]

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.

I think you’re going to get involved in the difference between light intensity and quantity soon !!

 

[Del Paso]

I think you’re going to get involved in the difference between light intensity and quantity soon !!

You're such an optimist...

 

[AlanF]

I think you’re going to get involved in the difference between light intensity and quantity soon !!

He is!