rscheffler wrote:
No, but I think EB-1's reply was just pushing gkinard1952's buttons because he's usually very critical about Canon, yet for some reason is still a Canon shooter (apparently trapped in the system due to the uneconomical cost to switch).
It seems to me the 45/1.2 is more a response to Nikon's 'cheap' and imperfect 35/1.4 character lens.
I kinda get a kick out of shooting with a second tier system like Canon for birding. Love it... It's cheap, and good enough for me. If it weren't so cheap I would probably switch..
A quick edit here, There are good things about Canon I love. The main one is when they launch a camera they have inventory. People and sites always try to play this down for sales, but it is every where very fast... Easy to pick up used, I picked up an R5 II at a pawn shop... . Their EF lenses are excellent, and so far as I can tell match up perfectly with the new cameras. I bought two of my most used lenses on e-bay.
rscheffler wrote:
No, but I think EB-1's reply was just pushing gkinard1952's buttons because he's usually very critical about Canon, yet for some reason is still a Canon shooter (apparently trapped in the system due to the uneconomical cost to switch).
It seems to me the 45/1.2 is more a response to Nikon's 'cheap' and imperfect 35/1.4 character lens.
I should have just asked why, not made any assumptions. But it seems I was correct in that assemsent.
rscheffler wrote:
It seems to me the 45/1.2 is more a response to Nikon's 'cheap' and imperfect 35/1.4 character lens.
I think so, to, but just coincidence -- I don't think Canon cares what anyone else is doing, really. Canon always seems to do what Canon wants to do, 'cause there are so many things that they "should" respond to that they don't, it's just a bit hard to believe that an "innocuous" lens like Nikon's 35 / 1.4 "character" lens is where Canon suddenly takes note and takes action.
johnctharp wrote:
If it is [a response to Nikon's 35 / 1.4 "character" lens], well, I think I'd rather have 45/1.2 on either/any mount natively. I don't need more resolution wide-open, but faster exposures are always welcome especially in such a small package.
You can get exposures just as fast with an f/1.8 lens -- just up the ISO setting a stop. More noisy, sure, but if you don't need more resolution wide open, just use a bit more noise reduction. Honestly, if wide open resolution isn't a concern, the only reason to care about f/1.2 is for DOF reasons.
takowasa wrote:
You can get exposures just as fast with an f/1.8 lens -- just up the ISO setting a stop. More noisy, sure, but if you don't need more resolution wide open, just use a bit more noise reduction. Honestly, if wide open resolution isn't a concern, the only reason to care about f/1.2 is for DOF reasons.
Well, the lens should sharpen up quite a bit by f/1.8. This makes it versatile!
Personally, I’d love a 45/1.2 with the right aberrations. Had the RF 35L for a while when it was released and ultimately dumped it because I didn’t care much for both the corrected and uncorrected look.
What would really be a dream come true for me would be if they took a similar optical formula to the Voigtlander 40/1.2 and added autofocus. Take my money!!
The interesting thing to me is that it appears that R6iii will be comparable in price to R5 original $2800 new on B&H.
R5 45mpx is way better than 32mpx (R5 vs R6ii)
Similar read out speed ? not stacked.
R5 has the best iso / low noise in canon line up aside from low mpx R1/R3.
So if its just has advantages of 40fps variable , likely precapture, clog2 (vs 45mpx) . personally I would go with R5 original at the expected price, unless I was a birder.
EB-1 wrote:
That looks bogus to me. There is no EDT by November 6. 1AM EDT (which does not exist) would be 12AM EST if true.
EBH
Yep, I didn't even bother thinking much about it because I don't really care, but you're correct. I just searched for it on YouTube but couldn't find it any longer.
Like Mike suggest, possibly just a typo or goofed?
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
What would really be a dream come true for me would be if they took a similar optical formula to the Voigtlander 40/1.2 and added autofocus. Take my money!!
Well, that's an option if you adapt the M mount version to Sony or Nikon with the relevant AF adapter. Of course, that option is unavailable for Canon RF...
I still think the baseline comparison will be the 'cheap' Nikon 35/1.4. I have not looked into how it performs, but I guess it's not bad. A fast ~$400 lens nowadays has tougher competition and most cheap kit lenses are much better than their equivalents 15+ years ago. So I think it's realistic to expect decent performance and not something like the EF 28/1.8. Some of the competition is coming from the newish Chinese brands, though those are all so far still locked out of RF AF. It would not surprise me to see at least one of those brands release RF AF capable lenses, at least for the Chinese market, as a challenge for Canon to try to stop them via the Chinese legal system...
Scott Stoness wrote:
The interesting thing to me is that it appears that R6iii will be comparable in price to R5 original $2800 new on B&H.
R5 45mpx is way better than 32mpx (R5 vs R6ii)
Similar read out speed ? not stacked.
R5 has the best iso / low noise in canon line up aside from low mpx R1/R3.
So if its just has advantages of 40fps variable , likely precapture, clog2 (vs 45mpx) . personally I would go with R5 original at the expected price, unless I was a birder.
Again it depends on individual needs.
It will likely share a lot of the current AF capabilities of the R5II and R1, just apparently probably not with the additional hardware acceleration. For many of my applications this would warrant it over an original R5/R6 generation camera.
It's apparently not stacked, so I am already disappointed. If it's USD 2800 and directly translated to CAD without removal of the Trump Tariff on Japanese goods, it will be CAD 3900, which IMO will be pushing it for a '6' series camera, considering the R6II is currently CAD 3100 (and originally launched at CAD 3200). The inflation calculator suggests that around CAD 3400-3500 would be inline with the R6II's 2022 launch price.
As useable as my R6II has been, I feel it has been clearly surpassed in capability by the R5II and R1 (not surprisingly). If the R6III is an insignificant performance upgrade from the R6II, then I'd just look for a well priced R5II instead. Or maybe a used R3. While I don't need 45MP most of the time, with respect to overall functionality, the R5II is a more versatile, customizable camera than the R6II, and should continue to be so compared to the R6III. And it has a stacked sensor. In my world, that's a significant feature. So far, from the leaked rumor site specs, there's nothing that excites me about this camera and would make me want to pay more than the R6II's current price. But I'd very likely pay CAD 3900 for a stacked sensor R6III.
As is usually the case, it will probably be the little details that are difficult to determine from spec sheet lists with regard to how they will affect the shooting experience in user-specific situations.
rscheffler wrote:
Well, that's an option if you adapt the M mount version to Sony or Nikon with the relevant AF adapter. Of course, that option is unavailable for Canon RF...
I’ve actually been doing that with both the Techart and Fotodiox AF adapters since the M mount version came out with my Sonys (which I’m still much more heavily invested in), but it does have very significant limitations/caveats (AF is limited and significant field curvature induced). It would be nice if the 45/1.2 was optically able to yield a similar look but had true AF ability to marry with my R5ii’s AF abilities.
@EB-1 not sure if you were referring to the Voigt. But if so, it’s definitely not a $400 lens.
rscheffler wrote:
But I'd very likely pay CAD 3900 for a stacked sensor R6III.
You'll be able to buy an R5 II for CAD $5200 soon, so an R6 III would have to be pretty amazing (and have a stacked sensor) to get me to pay $3900 (although it sounds like there may be some attractive lens bundles offered with the new camera...)
Some of the competition is coming from the newish Chinese brands, though those are all so far still locked out of RF AF. It would not surprise me to see at least one of those brands release RF AF capable lenses, at least for the Chinese market, as a challenge for Canon to try to stop them via the Chinese legal system...