When Canon got serious about mirrorless camera and lenses, they put all their attention into developing full frame options. Of course, many users prefer APS-C cameras for their lower prices, smaller form factor, and extra reach. It looks like those users will be happy in 2023, with more APS-C cameras and lenses on the way.
Canon Rumors is reporting that Canon will be releasing at least three RF-S lenses in 2023, with the RF-S 11-22mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM being one of them. The EF-M 11-22mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM was popular for offering a lot of image quality in a portable footprint and at a low price, and I suspect the RF-S version will be as well. I have long thought that Canon would quietly phase out the EF-M line once they established the RF line a bit, and it seems like that will be the case. Cameras like the EOS R7 and EOS R10 have shown the company can produce capable APS-C cameras, and with the EOS R8 and three RF-S lenses waiting in the wings, it looks like 2023 will be the year of the crop sensor (not that that rules out full frame releases as well). Certainly, it'll be great to have more options from the company, particularly at lower price points!
For amateur people, aps-c has more noise but it is not as expensive as full-frame.
But the way to go should not be with bad lenses (above F2.8), because that means not so good colors, and smartphones also have good lens (F2.0 and alike).
IMHO the noise difference is almost insignificant today.
About 2,5 stops are insignificant? Compare a full-frame and an aps-c camera on dpreview scene image.
There are people with full-frame in sport events (basketball, football at night) that shot without flash. Can you do that with aps-c?
Bad lens =/= starts above f/2.8, just look at the Canon f/4 L zooms. Being above f/2.8 doesn't mean anything regarding colors. F/2 on a mobile phone is equivalent (most of the time) to f/8 on a full frame body, don't get fooled.
I can't get a comparison of colors, but for example, compare sharpness of canon f4 vs canon f2.8
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?...
F2.8 lens are a lot better than F4.
And the fact is that colours are a lot better from a smartphone than in any camera kit lens. When you see smartphone photos at 100%, they are horrible, but at screen size, they have very good colours.
Sharpness is a different topic, you only mention it now. Here is the RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?..., better across the field at f/4, than the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM at f/2.8. In itself f number isn't the main factor of the picture quality. You should read the Lensrentals blog, lots of information about lenses.
It is not a fact, colors are not facts, and most of the time they have nothing to do with the lens (of course there are lens coatings, but leave it just there). Not mentioning the top of the line camera phones (but not ruling out either), the colors are mainly oversaturated, details are lost due to heavy noise reduction (as I said, above f/8 equiv. lenses...) and everything is oversharpened, to mimic details. Of course every bad quality picture becomes a good quality one, if looked at a particular distance, but that is because our biology.
Kit lens doesn't mean bad colors, nor horrendous quality. 15 years ago maybe bad quality, but not nowdays. Have you ever used the Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS on a T20 or Panasonic LUMIX G VARIO 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH. Power O.I.S. on a G80? Really nice lenses on sweet camera bodies. What you need is more experience.
Disclaimer: I had shitty lenses and camera bodies in the last 20 years, now I don't have, but really good ones, and many times my eyes are bleeding looking at average mobile phone JPEGs...
I think I don't need more experience, I need more lens to try ;)
Just compare that two lens at same f4
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?...
With kit lens I was refering to canon 18-55. hehehe. (On the other side, canon 18-200 has more or less good colors, despite it's zoom).
But I think a canon 18-55 kit lens can't compete against colors of a good smartphone camera. Bad lens => there is no colors to retrieve.
You're partially correct there, comparing kit lenses to much less anything else is pointless. They are kit lenses for a reason, they are not there to show amazing image quality.
I'm comparing entry DSLR (or mirrorless) kit lens with smartphone kit lens. A lot of people, at entry level will not buy additional F2.8 lens, so I thing this is a reasonable comparison.
Maybe the mistake is selling DSLRs or mirrorless with bad kit lenses.
I wonder if Nikon will keep trying to compete in APS-C or just let it go.
3 Z-mount APS-C lenses to date with 2 on the roadmap. They certainly aren't in any rush.
I have done pro work with my R7.
NO noise issues and the reach is a huge help where even cropping with the R5 I get far less resolution.
For all the years that Canon made APS-C DSLRs they never made a good APS-C lens. I know because I had a bunch of them. Now is the time for them to make a few L Series APS-C lenses. Come on Canon.
If you want L series quality, and are willing to pay for it, then why not just use the regular lenses on your APS-C bodies? There is barely any saving of weight of bulk now, with the mirrorless configuration, so what is there to gain by having lenses made specifically for smaller sensors? I mean, with L quality costs, and little to zero savings of weight or bulk, what could possibly be the advantage?
Back when I used APS-C and APS-H sensors, I used regular EF lenses on those smaller bodies, and they worked great in every way. I even got an advantage by using full-frame coverage lenses on smaller sensor bodies, and that was that the deep corners were really bright and sharp, and the image quality in the deep corners of the frame is really super important, so that advantage was not one to be taken lightly.
I used the 15-85mm on a T2i for a few years. It was decent, just obvious struggles in low light.
What about the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM? Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM was also nice.
As always, Canon is late to the party. Every other manufacturer has been deep into the mirrorless aps-c game for a while now. Especially in the recent months. APSC strikes a delicate balance between price and performance.
My experience with Canon APS-C DSLRs led me to Micro Four Thirds.
.
That is an interesting comment that makes me want to know all the details behind it. Would you please expound?
.
I swapped a 7D mk2 for an EM1 mk2, and got the adavantage of smaller professional glass designed for MFT, rather than over spending on Full frame glass for APS-C. Let's face it none of the APS-C glass was professional quality.
So I saved literally thousands getting a professional set up and now have a system that doesn’t change lens mount to resell me the same lenses.
The EM1 mk2 has the same dynamic range as the 5D mk4, but with much smaller lenses.
Thanks for the details!
Not exactly the same DR, the 5DIV has a 0.5-1 EV advantage (https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm), but much better SNR: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/?attr18=daylight&attr1...
Everything else fits.
MFT is.. not crop, and is nowhere in the league of FF.
They can all take pictures, sure. But your 2x crop (!) automatically puts it at a disadvantage in any direct comparison.
Canon is terrible at glass for crop though, ill give you that.
"The year of ASPC" totally ignores Canon's own history of how they treat APSC.
First launching with an embarrassing lack of glass, Canon RFS will rehouse existing EFM lenses and ...what else are they really going to do in the space? It seems like they are still hoping that you are forced to buy big full frame lenses for your cameras to make u for lack of crop lenses. Given that, there might end up being a single 1.4 lens, which you guessed it, an R version of the 32 1.4.
Otherwise there is zero evidence that Canon's going to do anything really interesting for mirrorless crop lenses. Zero. If anything the next two crop bodies will be interesting in the sense that they will be different from the current R10 and R7. There is a chance the smallest RFS body will do something interesting.
For small M-style body cameras, ASPC is fantastic. I have 3 M bodies, and love them. But for RFS, the lenses have to be there.
Title is very, very misleading, IMHO.
Edo,
In this comment of yours, and many previous comments you have made, you seem to be stuck on the idea of cheap lenses for APS-C cameras.
I have shot APS-C cameras in the past, and I am strongly considering a 90D or R7 for purchase in the next 6 months. But I will just use my full frame glass on the crop body. There is no good reason to need "crop lenses" for crop cameras.
In fact, one great benefit of crop sensors is that there is no vignette, and the deep corners and edges of the frame are just as bright and sharp and clear as the center of the frame. Of course, you only get those bright, clear corners if you use full frame glass;f you use a crop lens, you then forfeit this wonderful advantage of crop sensor bodies.
Crop lenses make no sense, except on a cost basis, which isn't really as important as you seem to think it is. Spend 6 or 8 hundred more dollars now, and you have a great lens that you will use for years and years and years to come. If you expect L lens quality at a much cheaper price, then you are being unreasonable. Top notch quality is going to cost top notch dollars. Savvy photographers understand and accept that.
There are SO MANY interesting lenses out there, and you can use them on your crop bodies. Or you can use them on your full frame bodies. What is the problem with that?
Aps-c lens are really expensive for what you get. Example: Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8. Aprox. 900 € for a plastic lens, not sealed, with not really good glass... Full-frame Canon L lens are more expensive, but they are far better.
But the problem with full-frame lens on aps-c body is multiplication factor. So, there is no Canon EF 17-55 f2.8 (27-88 mm full-frame equiv. on aps-c). You can buy a Canon 24-70 F2.8 (38-112 mm full-frame equiv. on aps-c), but it's not the same focal length.