# Letter to Canon



## Deleted member 383276 (Aug 3, 2019)

Dear Canon,

You continue to make great gear, but while I've been enjoying to use Canon cameras and lenses for years, there's something I do not understand:
Do we all need (and want) big fat heavy fast lenses?
Do we all need (and prefer) to shoot wide open?
What about the many landscape photographers and travellers - don't we earn the same attention, wouldn't we appreciate and enjoy small and lightweight L-primes as well as our portrait, wedding and astro photographer friends do with their big primes?

_''We have first class zooms'', _you may say, _''which offer many focals lenghts in one lens and maybe even less weight than with a couple of prime lenses.'' _
Right... but you know better than me the advantages of primes over zooms – or why does anyone make and use primes at all? Do you want to tell me that I can only choose between zooms and older EF non-L primes, if I don't want to carry bricks in my backpack?
_
''But then we can make these lenses not faster than f4 or even f5.6''_ , you may say, and maybe you're right again.
Well... does this really matter to landscape photographers who more than often stop down to f8 anyway?
You can taylor lenses to perform best at f1.4 or so. Can't you taylor small primes for optimum performace at f11 or even f16? Ok, optimize them for f8 and give us sensor based focus stacking instead. With IBIS, we even wouldn't need in-lens IS, and the majority of landscape photographers that I know and meet use tripods anyway.

Hey Canon, you make ''Look-what-we-can-do'' lenses with incredible performance and we are really deeply impressed.
I know, physics are limiting things now and then, and I'm not an expert in this regard, but do ''Look-what-we-can-do'' lenses automatically need to be big and heavy?
Well, you're in good company with other lens makers in this regard, but show us what *YOU* can do by giving us a series of small L quality primes, from 12mm to 135mm or so.
Make them *small*, make them *light*, make them *L*, make them *perfect*.

I think you will make more money, because you will have more custumers: those who don't want to carry or who can't afford the heavy beasts.

Last but not least, don't tell me this would be impossible. 50 years ago, men flew to the moon.

Continue to be the best, and don't forget the rest!

Very truly yours,
A Friend
_

1. I'm not new to photography (30 years of medium and large format behind me, Canon shooter for five years now), but I'm new to this forum.
2. English is not my native language, so forgive me some bumps here and there.
3. I'd like to know what you photographer friends out there think..._


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2019)

Sorry, Canon has never lived here. No forwarding address is available. Might want to check the Japanese directory, or at least the white pages for Melville, NY.


----------



## Deleted member 383276 (Aug 3, 2019)

This ''letter'' was meant to hear your opinions, folks. 
I know where Canon lives.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 3, 2019)

In what universe does Canon not make many light, slow lenses? Here on Earth One, we can buy them online and even in big box stores.

Have you ever tried, and here is just one example from a large library, the ef-s 35mm f/2.8 IS Macro? It's a tiny gem.

Full frame? Pancake lenses? 16-35mm f/4L? 24-70mm f/4 IS?

That's my opinion. Canon has all the light, slowish and very slow lenses any photographer needs. None of them, however, has a unicorn horn, so they might need a little more creativity.

If you need tiny lenses like spies use, full frame might not be the right sensor format for you. Maybe a smartphone?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 3, 2019)

paco said:


> This ''letter'' was meant to hear your opinions, folks.
> I know where Canon lives.


I'm not sure I understand your post. 

Canon primes that are light and relatively low cost:

24 mm f2.8 EF IS
24 mm f2.8 EF-S Pancake
28 mm f2.8 EF IS
35 mm f2.0 EF IS
40 mm f2.8 EF pancake
50 mm f2.8 EF STM
85 mm f1.8 EF
100 mm f2.8 IS USM Macro
135 mm f2.0 EF 
200 mm f2.8 EF

Many of these lenses are underrated, but still very good. Keep in mind that "L" is a marketing tool. It has no clear definition and simply means whatever Canon wants it to. Some of the lenses I've listed are "L." Some are not. I own or have owned the 24mm f2.8 IS, the 24 mm EF-S pancake, the 85mm f1.8, the 100 mm f2.8 IS Macro and the 200 mm f2.8. They are all very good lenses. I happen to prefer zooms for the convenience, but I would have no hesitation using or recommending any of these lenses.

If you are suggesting that Canon should make, for example, a 24mm f4 "L" lens, I'm not sure why. I doubt it would be any sharper or lighter than the 24 mm f2.8 EF IS that they already make. And, I'm pretty sure they would sell a lot fewer of them, so the price is likely to be much higher for no gain in quality. 

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that only "L" lenses are high quality. If you really want an "L" lens in some of these focal lengths, just buy yourself some red paint and masking tape. It will save you a lot of money.


----------



## Deleted member 383276 (Aug 3, 2019)

Here on Earth One and Only, my dear sarcastic YuengLinger, I have - thanks to your information - indeed noticed a difference in smartphone and full frame sensors, but I haven't heard or read of small, full frame, *L quality*, native R-mount lenses from Canon so far. Have you on Earth Two?

Unfocused, you want to tell me that painting a red ring around my 35mm/f2 IS USM or 50mm/f1.8 STM will seal them against moisture and dust... cool.
I will inform Canon that they don't need to make any L lenses anymore, because there is no difference between L and non L lenses. They will be more than happy to learn that they just need some red paint and masking tape and can save a lot of money.

I don't care if Canon calls their lenses L or D or Harry... I was talking about landscape photography, which involves rain and sand and dropping lenses... things like that tend to happen on Earth One. And I was talking about Canon putting out (almost) only big/heavy lenses for R mount, so far.

Some say the new big/fast R-lenses are needed to match the upcoming high res sensors (not smartphone sensors of course, YuengLinger).
Okay, now I'm trying to understand that the existing fast EF L-primes (and zooms) do not match the future high res sensors, but the existing small non-L EF primes do?
Hm... (scratch head)

Stupid me, I was thinking about a couple of highest (optical and built) quality, small and lightweight lenses, for highest quality small and lightweight R-mount cameras.
Here on Earth One, by the way.

I didn't expect that thought to be so otherworldly.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 4, 2019)

The people who want small and light would tend to get zooms instead of a bag of primes, and canon already has a bunch of slow kit zooms at low price.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 4, 2019)

paco said:


> _...3. I'd like to know what you photographer friends out there think..._



Apparently you don't really want to know what others think. Because, when I told you what I think, you decided to argue with me, instead of accepting it.

So, here is a little more of what I think. I think I would rather carry a since zoom lens in the range that I want, instead of several small, slow primes. I think that if I am worried about weather sealing, it is much better to carry a single zoom lens than change multiple primes in the field. I think that the quality of zoom lenses today is equal to most prime lenses, so the main advantage of primes is usually their speed, not their sharpness. I think that generally speaking prime lenses do not sell nearly as well as zooms and the relative costs of primes are higher than more popular zoom lenses. And, finally, I think Canon does market research and analysis and has a pretty good idea of what the market demand is and makes lenses to fit that demand, so if Canon does not make slow, weather-sealed prime lenses, it is probably because there is not sufficient demand to justify making them.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 4, 2019)

Its true that lenses can be made somewhat smaller and lighter by reducing aperture sizes, by eliminating heavy glass corrective elements, and by using light weight and less durable construction. 

Canon has let third party manufacturers fill the needs for such low end lenses with a few exceptions, like the kit lenses for APS-C DSLR's. Those are reasonably sharp, but sacrifice durability.

More than any other element, the lens controls the sharpness of the image, so most enthusiast users want the best glass they can afford. 

One way to get smaller and lighter but still high quality lenses is to purchase cameras with smaller sensors. You give up light gathering ability, but as long as you have good lighting, they work very well.

We are all stuck with the laws of physics, and would like to get the impossible, but until someone comes up with a different paradigm, we are stuck.


----------



## Pape (Aug 4, 2019)

Canon makes first lenses for peoples who needs lenses for work ,sport photographers and model photographers and product photographers. 
Lanscape photographers and wild life lenses comes when they got time ,if they never get time nowadays . competition is hard. 
They middle of mirrorless shutttterless revolution and megapixel war. 
Takes years when they can consetrate again for hobby photographers needs more better .


----------



## Kit. (Aug 4, 2019)

paco said:


> _I'd like to know what you photographer friends out there think..._


I think that Canon needs to paint a red ring around a G9X II lens, and that will probably make you happy.

Also I think that Canon should not waste its time and money on what modern smartphones with computational photography can do better.


----------



## Besisika (Aug 4, 2019)

paco said:


> Dear Canon,
> 
> _''We have first class zooms'', _you may say, _''which offer many focal lenghts in one lens and maybe even less weight than with a couple of prime lenses.'' _
> Right... but you know better than me the advantages of primes over zooms – or why does anyone make and use primes at all? Do you want to tell me that I can only choose between zooms and older EF non-L primes, if I don't want to carry bricks in my backpack?


I see your pain in your sentences, but I don't feel it. That is, maybe, because we do not shoot the same thing. If you want people to fee it, find a way to put them in your shoes. Examples maybe!

The 200mm 2.8 is a fantastic prime lens and I use it relatively often. Still, I prefer the zoom 70-200mm II any time because it is better in many, many ways. I use only the prime when I am practicing and forcing myself to use a specific focal length. I bought the prime first but I realized very quickly that the lack of zoom caused a lot more trouble than the weight.

That is an example of what I feel, making me not feel your pain at all.

Let me put it this way; if I feel that way, then there is a chance that Canon decision makers feel the same.
Again, find a way to put people in your shoes, even for a minute, you might increase your chance for them to share your path.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2019)

paco said:


> Make them small, make them light, make them L, make them perfect.
> 
> I think you will make more money, because you will have more custumers: those who don't want to carry or who can't afford the heavy beasts.


Canon has dominated the ILC market for 16 years. That suggests they’re pretty good at designing and making the products most photographers want to buy. 

You may _think_ they’d make more money if they make a particular lens you want, Canon has millions of data points on who buys what lenses, they periodically survey thousands of customers, and thus they probably have a better idea of what _most people _would buy than you or me. 

Incidentally, ‘perfect’ lenses are practically impossible. Very high quality is possible, but requires more optical correction, which means more elements, which means bigger and heavier.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 4, 2019)

So which company is making the "right" lenses for landscape? You need to tell all those struggling photographers using Canon in OUTDOOR PHOTOGRAPHER magazine. Imagine what they could do with the "right" gear!

By the way the 135 mm f2 is pretty small, lightweight, and very sharp at f11. Plus it has the added bonus of being fast. What more would you want? And it's very cheap! Same could even be said for the 85mm 1.8.

This is silly.


----------



## Deleted member 383276 (Aug 4, 2019)

Dear Unfocused, I surely don't want to argue with anyone on earth, but I felt I didn't earn "hints" like painting red color on my lenses to get L quality feeling, or considering smartphones... 
Some may not see my point, some may disagree, some may see my point but not share it... whatever.
You all are free to think and express what you like and the way you like, but so am I, too. I'm just a bit kind of allergic to sarcasm.

As for the topic, interesting answers in many ways, thank you and go on.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 4, 2019)

I'm not satisfied with the blue in the sky. Please I'm entitled to my opinion. No sarcasm!


----------



## Durf (Aug 4, 2019)

I wrote a letter like this to Canon a couple of years ago and they mail me back a coupon code for 20% off on any 1 Sony Camera, up to 30 Sony Batteries, and an air conditioner.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm not satisfied with the blue in the sky. Please I'm entitled to my opinion. No sarcasm!


Try a CPL!


----------



## Deleted member 383276 (Aug 4, 2019)

Besisika said:


> I see your pain in your sentences, but I don't feel it.



I feel no pain. 
I was just asking myself, what would be wrong with a series of small/light landscape optimized lenses to pick from, just about the same as sport, model and product photographers pick big Canon glass optimized for their needs.

I see the point with zooms, I use some on my 5DS R (16-35/2.8 III, 70-200/4 II), as well as some primes (24/2.8 IS, 35/2 IS, 50/1.8 STM, 85/1.8, 135/2). 
I shoot mostly at f8, sometimes f11. Whatever focal lenght I use with my zooms, to me the (non L!) primes *are* sharper (exeption 24mm, where I see no difference between the prime and the zoom).

As a landscaper, I will always try to find the sharpest camera/lens combination, which (for me) excludes smaller sensors.
With upcoming R-mount cameras and high resolution sensors, existing EF zooms and lightweight primes might not match these sensors. Sure, Canon makes new and fantastic R-mount zooms to catch up with these sensors, but here we are again, they are big and heavy...

That was my point.*
*


----------



## Deleted member 383276 (Aug 4, 2019)

Did my initial "letter" offend anyone of you?
I'm quite surprised by the mood in some replies. 

And sorry YuengLinger, suggesting lenses for spies or smartphones here on Earth One was off topic, impolite and not too smart.
Try to spell the name of your camera correctly instead.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2019)

paco said:


> As a landscaper, I will always try to find the sharpest camera/lens combination, which (for me) excludes smaller sensors.
> With upcoming R-mount cameras and high resolution sensors, existing EF zooms and lightweight primes might not match these sensors. Sure, Canon makes new and fantastic R-mount zooms to catch up with these sensors, but here we are again, they are big and heavy...


Anything wrong with the dozens of EF lenses you can mount on an EOS R? Moreover, you can mount them with the option to put a CPL or VND _behind_ them, which for me is far more convenient than the salad-plate front filters I have for my TS-E 17 or the dinner-plate filters I didn’t bother buying for my 11-24.


----------



## Pape (Aug 4, 2019)

Hmm i would think there are plenty of manual focus lanscape lenses from many manufacturer ,you can use practically what ever with R camera and adabters even medium format lenses with speedbooster.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 4, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I own or have owned the 24mm f2.8 IS... They are all very good lenses. I happen to prefer zooms for the convenience, but I would have no hesitation using or recommending any of these lenses.
> 
> If you are suggesting that Canon should make, for example, a 24mm f4 "L" lens, I'm not sure why. I doubt it would be any sharper or lighter than the 24 mm f2.8 EF IS that they already make. And, I'm pretty sure they would sell a lot fewer of them, so the price is likely to be much higher for no gain in quality.



The image quality comparison at the-digital-picture gives me the impression that the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM mkIII is better at f/11 than the 24mm f/2.8 IS at the same aperture. I doubt Canon is unable to make a 24mm prime at least as good as the zoom at equivalent apertures, esp if it doesn't need to have wider apertures.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 4, 2019)

paco said:


> As a landscaper, I will always try to find the sharpest camera/lens combination, which (for me) excludes smaller sensors.



There are quite a few professional landscape photographers turning to micro four-thirds such as the Olympus E-M1 mkii and report no problems with the images they get. And that camera has better weather-sealing than most DSLRs or 35mm mirrorless.
You may have very specific needs for photography but most times I think people just have an out-moded idea of 'it must be full frame'.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 4, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> There are quite a few professional landscape photographers turning to micro four-thirds such as the Olympus E-M1 mkii and report no problems with the images they get. And that camera has better weather-sealing than most DSLRs or 35mm mirrorless.
> You may have very specific needs for photography but most times I think people just have an out-moded idea of 'it must be full frame'.


Micro 4/3 for postcards, perhaps? Ok, maybe calendars at the dollar store? How many of these "professional landscape photographers" are also sponsored or, at the least, compensated by Olympus? Now we are heading towards Cloud Cuckoo Land!


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 4, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Micro 4/3 for postcards, perhaps? Ok, maybe calendars at the dollar store? How many of these "professional landscape photographers" are also sponsored or, at the least, compensated by Olympus? Now we are heading towards Cloud Cuckoo Land!


They are fine in good light.... but when it comes to shooting birds in a dark forest with a long lens there is no option to FF


----------



## ArtisanCraft (Aug 4, 2019)

I don't get some of the hate in the replies. There's no reason to be sour for the sake of it. OP has a reasonable request here. I don't think he is flaming Canon, he is just asking for L quality 1.8 lenses. Honestly what's wrong with that?

I would buy a 1.8 L in heartbeat. Weather sealed, light, and optically as good as it could be at 1.8? I would pay $1k for that, for an optically superb, L quality 1.8 RF lens. I would use the 50 1.2 I have for special occasions, but when I go out on the street or travelling light, it would be great to have a light lens that performs as well and is as well-built as the Nikon 50 1.8. Canon could charge even higher for this lens, and I would gladly pay.

I have no idea why there would be hate on an idea like that? Do some people just act bitter for the sake of being bitter? Honestly that's not helpful for anyone...

I get the hating on trolls, but OP's request is reasonable. I would support a line of 1.8 L primes without batting an eye.

I own the 35 1.8 - great at 2.8, but at 1.8 it just isn't the greatest performer. And isn't weather-sealed. In London, that sucks, because if it starts raining I would have to stress while shooting street... It is a nice lens for what it is, but I would rather pay double and get an L 1.8 designed to be light and optically well performing... 

I understand why they haven't released it yet. They can't perform miracles. But as a request for the future? Come on people be reasonable. It's a very nice request. Totally on board, OP


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 5, 2019)

ArtisanCraft said:


> I don't get some of the hate in the replies. There's no reason to be sour for the sake of it. OP has a reasonable request here. I don't think he is flaming Canon, he is just asking for L quality 1.8 lenses. Honestly what's wrong with that?
> 
> I would buy a 1.8 L in heartbeat. Weather sealed, light, and optically as good as it could be at 1.8? I would pay $1k for that, for an optically superb, L quality 1.8 RF lens. I would use the 50 1.2 I have for special occasions, but when I go out on the street or travelling light, it would be great to have a light lens that performs as well and is as well-built as the Nikon 50 1.8. Canon could charge even higher for this lens, and I would gladly pay.
> 
> ...


Disagreeing with a premise, even expressing mild scorn, is light-years from "hate." Despite what second-grade teachers might say, there are dumb questions! I've asked plenty myself!


----------



## Pape (Aug 5, 2019)

They could make couple what can squeeze everything out from 100megapixel full frame like 135mm f1,8L and 50 f1,8L .
Sounds ok plan ,later when they got time design some 
Its crazy how zoom lenses beating primes nowdays ,but big money talks there . Most of lenses they sell are zooms and most of design money goes to zooms.


----------



## Deleted member 383276 (Aug 5, 2019)

ArtisanCraft said:


> I don't get some of the hate in the replies. There's no reason to be sour for the sake of it. OP has a reasonable request here. I don't think he is flaming Canon, he is just asking for L quality 1.8 lenses. Honestly what's wrong with that?



Thank you - perfect landing!
For landscapes, I'd be even happy with f4 lenses as long as they were small, ligthweight, weather sealed, mechanical and optical as good as it can be - otherwise known as L quality (at least the last three properties).



YuengLinger said:


> Disagreeing with a premise, even expressing mild scorn, is light-years from "hate." Despite what second-grade teachers might say, there are dumb questions! I've asked plenty myself!



Hate and scorn are not so far apart... but why even mild scorn? You may disagree with whatever you want as much as you like, but why scorn? Are my thoughts, questions or wishes despicable in any way?
Just to ask some more dumb questions.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 5, 2019)

ArtisanCraft said:


> I don't get some of the hate in the replies. There's no reason to be sour for the sake of it. OP has a reasonable request here.


I don't see how the request for "small, full frame, *L quality*, native R-mount lenses from Canon" right now is "reasonable" given the current market conditions.



ArtisanCraft said:


> I would buy a 1.8 L in heartbeat. Weather sealed, light, and optically as good as it could be at 1.8? I would pay $1k for that, for an optically superb, L quality 1.8 RF lens.


Maybe, maybe not. Saying is not paying. Maybe you will use those $1k on buying a weather-resistant P&S, or even a cameraphone... happening to be just good enough by the time Canon sorts out the production of more important RF lenses and will be able to afford developing lenses in that tiny niche.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 5, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Micro 4/3 for postcards, perhaps? Ok, maybe calendars at the dollar store? How many of these "professional landscape photographers" are also sponsored or, at the least, compensated by Olympus? Now we are heading towards Cloud Cuckoo Land!



I am trying hard not to hit the sarcasm button here because your reply is total and utter......rubbish.
Firstly, why does someone have to be paid to prefer something to FF?
Second, Olympus (like any proper camera company) will sponsor people who use their gear,not sponsor them to make them switch.
Third, why would a professional compromise their image quality, and therefore their career and earnings for the sake of a free camera?

Answer those and I may give your reply some sembleance of credibility.

Also note I was responding to the OPs comments about not using smaller format sensors which to me sounded like a bias rather than something they have tried and found did not meet their needs. So maybe hold back on the 'scorn' when replying to a post not directed at you?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 5, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> Firstly, why does someone have to be paid to prefer something to FF?
> Second, Olympus (like any proper camera company) will sponsor people who use their gear,not sponsor them to make them switch.
> Third, why would a professional compromise their image quality, and therefore their career and earnings for the sake of a free camera?
> 
> Answer those and I may give your reply some sembleance of credibility.



Just playing Devils Advocate here but:-
1/ Landscapers in particular (for photographers) are know to value image quality, anybody that tries to argue nothing beats sensor size when talking about image quality is being disingenuous. FF/135 format has seen the most development and has far and away the best high quality lens selections. Find me a medium format or a M4/3 distortion free 11mm rectilinear lens, for example.
2/ Nonsense, camera companies encourage interesting and high profile 'influencers' to switch all the time. I know Sony have reached out to established photographers.
3/ Most photographers can make more money teaching than selling their photos, workshops and classes are the new norm, sponsorship raises awareness and grants respectability to both parties. Image quality is not the most important thing to many many photographers, if it was there would be many more people shooting MF and far fewer people with kit lists like half ours.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 5, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> Firstly, why does someone have to be paid to prefer something to FF?
> Second, Olympus (like any proper camera company) will sponsor people who use their gear,not sponsor them to make them switch.
> Third, why would a professional compromise their image quality, and therefore their career and earnings for the sake of a free camera?



My take:

1) They don't. Smaller formats can have significant size and reach advantages. As the prime audience for interchangeable lens cameras ages, the appeal of smaller cameras is likely to grow. With modern sensors, it's entirely possible to print very large images of high quality from cameras using smaller sensors. In addition, many full-frame and APS-C shots are cropped, so starting with a smaller sensor doesn't necessarily mean the final image has any less resolution. Just because a photographer has changed formats, that doesn't mean he or she is sacrificing image quality. Canon, Nikon and Sony have all spent a lot of money convincing everyone that full frame is the way to go, but in the real world, most people would be hard-pressed to see any difference between full frame and APS-C or micro four-thirds. 

2) I'm not sure about that. I would be willing to bet that there are photographers who get solicited to try a different brand. In addition, relationships change. Sometimes the camera manufacturer drops a particular photographer for a variety of reasons. Sponsored photographers like Explorers of Light aren't sponsored simply because Canon is nice. They have to meet certain metrics. If they don't deliver they can be dropped. Can't find it right now, but I think there was a thread here recently about a photographer who was dropped by Nikon and picked up by Olympus. 

3) We are not talking about free cameras, we are talking about a reliable income stream. As PBD said, most high visibility photographers are making their money from workshops and classes (including online classes like Creative Live). That requires finding a sponsor, usually either a camera manufacturer or a software company like Adobe. And, as I said, they aren't sacrificing image quality or selling out.


----------



## Deleted member 383276 (Aug 5, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I don't see how the request for "small, full frame, *L quality*, native R-mount lenses from Canon" right now is "reasonable" given the current market conditions.



Looking beyond market conditions has been a recipe for success more than often.
As far as I know, there were no ''markets'' for cars or hairdryers when they were introduced.
I really don't want to compare some Canon lenses I would like to see with cars or hairdryers, but sometimes products _create_ markets.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 5, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Just playing Devils Advocate here but:-
> 1/ Landscapers in particular (for photographers) are know to value image quality, anybody that tries to argue nothing beats sensor size when talking about image quality is being disingenuous. FF/135 format has seen the most development and has far and away the best high quality lens selections. Find me a medium format or a M4/3 distortion free 11mm rectilinear lens, for example.
> 2/ Nonsense, camera companies encourage interesting and high profile 'influencers' to switch all the time. I know Sony have reached out to established photographers.
> 3/ Most photographers can make more money teaching than selling their photos, workshops and classes are the new norm, sponsorship raises awareness and grants respectability to both parties. Image quality is not the most important thing to many many photographers, if it was there would be many more people shooting MF and far fewer people with kit lists like half ours.


What he said!

Yes, I had to avoid rolling my eyes hearing yet another claim that micro 4/3 is just as good as FF for landscape, or weddings, or astro, etc, etc. It might be adequate for you, but it certainly doesn't equal the quality of FF. Or are you trying to depress the landscape photographers who invested in medium format too?

Wouldn't we all love to carry a shirt-pocket camera with a fixed lens has the same quality as a FF camera? The OP wants it all--FF and tiny lenses. And he/she is complaining that Canon doesn't have an adequate selection of cheap to mid price, relatively lightweight lenses for dSLR's. Not sure how I got off track here. Threads usually have several conversations going at once.

And why so willing to believe Olympus would never recruit photographers who aren't already using Olympus gear? What better spokesman for brand A than somebody who used brand B for years, then "discovered" the advantages of brand A? And what would be wrong with recruiting an influential pro? Nothing!


----------



## Deleted member 383276 (Aug 5, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> And he/she is complaining that Canon doesn't have an adequate selection of cheap to mid price, relatively lightweight lenses for dSLR's.



(Almost) right.
First, I'm not complaining, I'm thinking and asking.
Second, I didn't ask for cheap or midpriced lenses. I was talking about small, lightweight, optically superb, L quality prime lenses for upcoming high resolution sensors. Of course they can't be cheap, I never expected them to be.
Third - yes, I would like full frame tiny lenses, from Canon, for Canon cameras, and I still don't feel silly (your word).


----------



## jd7 (Aug 6, 2019)

paco said:


> (Almost) right.
> First, I'm not complaining, I'm thinking and asking.
> Second, I didn't ask for cheap or midpriced lenses. I was talking about small, lightweight, optically superb, L quality prime lenses for upcoming high resolution sensors. Of course they can't be cheap, I never expected them to be.
> Third - yes, I would like full frame tiny lenses, from Canon, for Canon cameras, and I still don't feel silly (your word).


Hi Paco
I follow what you are saying, but I'm not sure if small and lightweight (on the one hand) and optically superb and L build quality (on the other hand) is actually realistic. If you can give up a little bit of build quality, there are already good EF prime options which are fairly and small and light (eg 35/2 IS, etc, as noted in one of the earlier posts). I understand what you say about them not being weather sealed, but perhaps a cover for the camera and lens could deal with that at least if you are just talking about light rain?

Also, I'm not sure how much of a market there would be for prime lenses with a maximum aperture of, say, f/4. For the "price" of about 600g to 700g in weight, and a fairly moderate size in the context of lenses for full frame cameras, you can get f/4 zooms (such as 16-35 f/4L IS and 24-70 f/4L IS) with image stabilisation, L build quality, and very good optics. (And if you move up to around the 750g to 800g mark, the 70-200 f/4L IS v1 and v2 come into the picture. You could also include the 24-105 f/4L IS v1 and v2 in this discussion although it seems they are optically a little weaker than the others). Non-L primes such as the 35/2 IS generally weigh around 300g-ish, and my guess is an f/4 prime of the type you are looking for would end up being heavier than that. How many people would choose an f/4 prime which weighs even, say, 400g, over an f/4 zoom which gives them some flexibility in focal length for the "price" of another 200g? I anticipate you will say a prime could be better optically, and I assume that is correct, but at the same time the zooms have very good image quality (especially by the time you stop down to something like f/8 or f/11, as you often would for landscape shooting), reasonable size and weight given the optical quality, the flexibility which a zoom provides, the inclusion of IS and the L build quality. By the time you do some post processing, and deal with the issues which printing introduces (different types of paper and inks providing different levels of sharpness, etc), I question whether you would really see a difference in the final output, especially assuming you were shooting at something like f/8 or f/11. (I'm open to being convinced you would see a difference, but at least at this point I have my doubts.)

My guess is Canon will eventually release a range of f/1.8 primes or thereabouts (perhaps f/1.4 to f/2 depending on focal length) for the RF system which are relatively small and light (although I have doubts they will be L lenses). But given the EF lenses already available, and the adapter to use them on the R cameras, I don't think it is so hard to see why Canon is concentrating its early efforts on "high end" RF lenses. I can imagine those lenses enticing some people to give the R system a go, plus the very wide aperture lenses allow the accuracy of the R system's AF to be shown off (again enticing some people, eg portrait shooters, to give the R system a go), where if all that was on offer was another f/2.8 or even f/1.8 prime they might be happy to stick with what they have already. I know in my case I'm not particularly excited about mirrorless (eg I like the OVF and battery life of a DSLR), but the AF accuracy at wide apertures and the ability to put an AF point just about anywhere in the frame are the things which appeal to me about the RF system.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2019)

paco said:


> Looking beyond market conditions has been a recipe for success more than often.
> As far as I know, there were no ''markets'' for cars or hairdryers when they were introduced.
> I really don't want to compare some Canon lenses I would like to see with cars or hairdryers, but sometimes products _create_ markets.


The introduction of a novel product is not analogous to releasing a few more ILC lenses to their expansive portfolio which all mount on R-series bodies. 

A better analogy would be wanting Conair to release a few new hairdryer models that are 2 cm shorter and deliver an extra 25 W of power. 

But personally, I wouldn’t mind some small L-series RF primes along your line of thinking.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 6, 2019)

Durf said:


> I wrote a letter like this to Canon a couple of years ago and they mail me back a coupon code for 20% off on any 1 Sony Camera, up to 30 Sony Batteries, and an air conditioner.....


These are sayings that come to mind while sitting around the campfire my mountain man friend. Good show!


----------



## Kit. (Aug 6, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Wouldn't we all love to carry a shirt-pocket camera with a fixed lens has the same quality as a FF camera? The OP wants it all--FF and tiny lenses.


Olympus Stylus Epic had quite a good lens for a 135 format camera of its time.

Now, though, we have better quality lenses in some smartphones.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 6, 2019)

paco said:


> Looking beyond market conditions has been a recipe for success more than often.


Actually, it is usually a recipe for failure.



paco said:


> As far as I know, there were no ''markets'' for cars or hairdryers when they were introduced.


Neither the first car nor the first hair dryer were successful _market products_. The first hair drier was created for exclusive use in its creator's salon. The first car was tested and found practically unusable.



paco said:


> I really don't want to compare some Canon lenses I would like to see with cars or hairdryers, but sometimes products _create_ markets.


You cannot "create" a market that already exists but is captured by superior products (premium compacts and computational photography smartphones).


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 6, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Just playing Devils Advocate here but:-
> 1/ Landscapers in particular (for photographers) are know to value image quality, anybody that tries to argue nothing beats sensor size when talking about image quality is being disingenuous. FF/135 format has seen the most development and has far and away the best high quality lens selections. Find me a medium format or a M4/3 distortion free 11mm rectilinear lens, for example.
> 2/ Nonsense, camera companies encourage interesting and high profile 'influencers' to switch all the time. I know Sony have reached out to established photographers.
> 3/ Most photographers can make more money teaching than selling their photos, workshops and classes are the new norm, sponsorship raises awareness and grants respectability to both parties. Image quality is not the most important thing to many many photographers, if it was there would be many more people shooting MF and far fewer people with kit lists like half ours.




1 - I agree with your points, but the unspoken question behind my point was not 'what is best' but 'what is good enough'. If MFT gives images 'good enough' with additional portability then why tell them they should be using FF? If image sales are unaffected by using MFT, then why care? I often find in these gear discussions that the gear user places far more concern on adpects of quality than other viewers care about.

2 - I agree. But, linked to the third point, a pro will only switch after trying the gear and assessing if it affects his sales or his credibility.

3 - I agree. But they will only win sales of their courses if they produce images that people think are good enough quality.

I will also repeat what I have said many times before: if someone wants to use a certain system because it meets their personal critiera, even if those critiera produce differences indiscernible to anyone else that is their choice. I was railing more against snobbish attitude that the only reason a pro would use MFT is because they are paid to do so.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 6, 2019)

paco said:


> Dear Canon,
> 
> You continue to make great gear, but while I've been enjoying to use Canon cameras and lenses for years, there's something I do not understand:
> Do we all need (and want) big fat heavy fast lenses?
> ...


Yawn.  Canon Makes lenses for most any need. If Canon doesn't provide for your needs, buy something else. Canon obviously doesn't make fast glass to satisfy the needs of all, just like TS-E lenses are not made for all. Canon does make lenses to satisfy most any genre. I suggest you look through the catalogue. Buy what suits your niche and quit with the self-centeredness you seem to think the rest of us have.  These screeds get worse and worse.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 6, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> What he said!
> 
> Yes, I had to avoid rolling my eyes hearing yet another claim that micro 4/3 is just as good as FF for landscape, or weddings, or astro, etc, etc. It might be adequate for you, but it certainly doesn't equal the quality of FF. Or are you trying to depress the landscape photographers who invested in medium format too?



What a dumb comment. This is not about what is the best, but what is 'good enough' and each user has their limit on what is 'good enough' yet you seem unable to accept that a professional would find MFT 'good enough'. 
I was replying to an idea that MFT is not 'good enough' for no other reason that it had a smaller sensor.





YuengLinger said:


> And why so willing to believe Olympus would never recruit photographers who aren't already using Olympus gear?



Where did I say anything approaching that? I was saying why would a professional agree to switch if it gave substandard (by their standard) images in return for free gear. If they agree to switch it will only be because, after a trial term, they found the image quality did not compromise their livelihood.


----------



## Deleted member 383276 (Aug 7, 2019)

Kit. said:


> The first hair drier was created for exclusive use in its creator's salon. The first car was tested and found practically unusable.


You're all so smart. Come on, at some point these and other things were introduced and they created a ''need" which didn't exist before. Did people call for coke before it was invented?



Kit. said:


> You cannot "create" a market that already exists but is captured by superior products (premium compacts and computational photography smartphones).


You tell me that the market for small, lightweight, optically superb, L quality FF prime lenses for upcoming high resolution sensors from Canon is already captured by premium compacts and smartphones.
Interesting. As a FF shooter, I must have missed something.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 7, 2019)

paco said:


> (Almost) right.
> First, I'm not complaining, I'm thinking and asking.
> Second, I didn't ask for cheap or midpriced lenses. I was talking about small, lightweight, optically superb, L quality prime lenses for upcoming high resolution sensors. Of course they can't be cheap, I never expected them to be.
> Third - yes, I would like full frame tiny lenses, from Canon, for Canon cameras, and I still don't feel silly (your word).



Portraying yourself as perfectly reasonable and neutral ('I'm not complaining...') whilst describing responses as 'hate' (a word used by someone else but whose comment you appeared to agree with) or 'scorn' is not a good way to foster polite discussion on any forum.

Fwiw I think a lot of the problematic nature of your original post lies in these lines: "Make them small, make them light, make them L, make them perfect. I think you will make more money, because you will have more custumers: those who don't want to carry or who can't afford the heavy beasts."

You're coupling what sounds to be an unreasonable request with the contention that it would be a good business move. I don't think that circle can be squared. _Something_ has to give.

We come back to the same broad response to most complaints/requests on this site: if Canon doesn't make it, they're either planning to do so, or more likely they've looked at the market and decided it's not worth it. Loads of people think they know better, but so what?


----------



## Kit. (Aug 7, 2019)

paco said:


> You're all so smart. Come on, at some point these and other things were introduced and they created a ''need" which didn't exist before.


Oh, now it's "at some point". You are so desperate in moving your goalposts.



paco said:


> Did people call for coke before it was invented?


Are you intentionally coming up with such ridiculous examples?

Coke started as a "patent medicine" against substance dependence, despite containing _cocaine_.



paco said:


> You tell me that the market for small, lightweight, optically superb, L quality FF prime lenses for upcoming high resolution sensors from Canon is already captured by premium compacts and smartphones.
> Interesting. As a FF shooter, I must have missed something.


Yes and yes.

Unless you are not a photographer, but a gear fetishist. Then those would indeed be different market niches.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2019)

paco said:


> You're all so smart. Come on, at some point these and other things were introduced and they created a ''need" which didn't exist before. Did people call for coke before it was invented?
> 
> You tell me that the market for small, lightweight, optically superb, L quality FF prime lenses for upcoming high resolution sensors from Canon is already captured by premium compacts and smartphones.


It seems reasonable that some people would want, "Small, lightweight, optically superb, L quality FF prime lenses." But I think more people who can afford 'Luxury' want something special for their money. Historically L-series prime lenses have had fast apertures (relative to their focal length). Fast apertures mean bigger and heavier lenses. If they're not fast, they are unique in other ways (TS-E, 100L Macro IS).

What you're asking for is L primes where the main 'luxury' feature is image quality. Even there, high IQ generally means more corrections needed, meaning more lens elements, meaning bigger and heavier. 

What you're suggesting is that there's a market for slow L-seires prime lenses, e.g. 50/1.8L, 85/1.8L, 200/4L, etc. What others are saying is that Canon has been making lenses for a long time, and they haven't made such lenses. In other words, you're claiming you understand the lens market better than Canon. 

Over the past 30 years, Canon has sold >130,000,000 lenses...an average of 8.24 lenses _per minute_...but you know the market better than they do. And you wonder why you're getting push-back?


----------



## Deleted member 383276 (Aug 8, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> If you need tiny lenses like spies use, full frame might not be the right sensor format for you. Maybe a smartphone?





unfocused said:


> If you really want an "L" lens in some of these focal lengths, just buy yourself some red paint and masking tape.





Kit. said:


> I think that Canon needs to paint a red ring around a G9X II lens, and that will probably make you happy.





YuengLinger said:


> This is silly.





YuengLinger said:


> Despite what second-grade teachers might say, there are dumb questions!





CanonFanBoy said:


> quit with the self-centeredness you seem to think the rest of us have.



Agreed. That's not a good way to foster polite discussions in any forum.

Dear friends, I came here with some thoughts, which turned into ideas, questions and wishes. For no specific reason, just because I liked it, I choose to write my post as a "letter".
I wanted to start a lively discussion about these thoughts, ideas and wishes, and I'm happy with many replies. Admittedly not so much with some replies cited above.
Just to make a few things clear, whatever you might believe: I didn't notice or feel hate here, nor did I agree with someone else who used this word (although I noticed he/she also felt some irritation). As I previously said, I'm wondering about the (sarcastic) mood in some replies, because neither did I attack Canon (who wouldn't need volunteer defenders anyway) nor did I offend anyone of you in any way, to my best knowledge. I said that hate and scorn (again, someone else used this word) are not so far apart, and I affirm this point of view, which is completely my own way to see and describe it.
I need help to understand what's wrong with that.

Canon make many lenses for many needs, I know that.
Feel free to think one step further: I wrote my ''letter" _because_ I know the Canon camera and lens lines very well.
I'm perfectly happy for all of you who are happy with the existing Canon lens line. Did I disredard any rule here by not being fully in line?



neuroanatomist said:


> What you're suggesting is that there's a market for slow L-seires prime lenses, e.g. 50/1.8L, 85/1.8L, 200/4L, etc. What others are saying is that Canon has been making lenses for a long time, and they haven't made such lenses. In other words, you're claiming you understand the lens market better than Canon.



No, I don't know the market better than Canon, where exactly did I claim that? ''In other words...'' is your conclusion, not mine.
Yes, I think there's a market for such lenses, but this is what *I* think. Ridiculous examples or not, I stand by my view that new products can create a need which didn't exist before. Canon do their research and make what they think people would need, and they've been successful with that. Without knowing better, I feel free to think of different lenses and free to think they could make money with it. Why this is a reason to get push-back is beyond me.

I'd find those lenses to be a fine addition, and if the majority of you disagree, absolutely FINE with me!
I leave it to you, if push-back - for nothing but thoughts, ideas and wishes, reasonable or not, niche or not - is fine with you.

''If anyone does not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave.''

Paco (Esperanto word for peace)


----------



## unfocused (Aug 8, 2019)

This is something that I never understand. Someone starts a thread saying they want to get other people’s views. But it turns out they don’t really want to hear from anyone who disagrees. But how can you have a discussion if everyone just says “what a great idea!,” especially if it’s not a particularly good idea in the first place.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 12, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> There are quite a few professional landscape photographers turning to micro four-thirds



But there are only a few professional landscape photographers to start with ! 

I know some of those professional landscape togs and some full time amateur, the formats range from FF to LF, with FF being the small, 'go anywhere' format. In my experience the more reach a photographer requires the smaller the format they are prepared to use....the wider they shoot the larger the format. 

I wanted to like Olympus and it's micro four thirds, but I found it just can't take the same degree of enlargement as even aps-c to be honest. Not that an engaging landscape picture comes down to resolution and tonal gradient, but choosing micro four thirds for landscape in a professional capacity is like choosing a racehorse with only three legs.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 13, 2019)

I agree with almost everything you say and nowhere have I said different.



Sporgon said:


> but choosing micro four thirds for landscape in a professional capacity is like choosing a racehorse with only three legs.



The part that too many people forget in these discussions is whether that 'fourth leg' is something you find important to your style of photography, and if not 'important' whether MFT offers better compromises and all of that is, of course, personal preference. Isn't all this rather remenisicent of how MF pros used to look down on 35mm when it first came out? When does portability of kit override and advantages of the technology override ultimate image quality? Some people think it is there already. All I was saying was the poster should not dismiss MFT based on nothing more than it being a smaller sensor. 



Sporgon said:


> the wider they shoot the larger the format



Why is that? 
Panasonic has the excellent 8-18 and Olympus the 7-14 (14mm or 16mm on FF) - how many photographers shoot wider than 16mm (the excellent Panasonic 8-18 on MFT has the same FOV). And once you get to panorama switching it all becomes moot.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Aug 13, 2019)

Maybe Canon can create a P(ortable) series like the Tamron 17-35mm and Tamron 35-150mm f/2,8-f/4


----------



## Jethro (Aug 14, 2019)

Ah-Keong said:


> Maybe Canon can create a P(ortable) series like the Tamron 17-35mm and Tamron 35-150mm f/2,8-f/4


I'm sure they _could _create such a series, but their efforts are now focused on the RF series, and will be for some time. The answer to most of these questions would be in M series lenses anyway: the quality (and size and weight) are fine for most non-specialist uses if you ignore the lack of an 'L' moniker.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Aug 14, 2019)

Like it or not, we get what Canon gives us. I'll give them credit for understanding their capabilities and matching them to the marketplace. They didn't get to be number one by being stupid or unresponsive. There are other choices, with advantages and risks associated, but for the most part "what you get it what you see." Ever consider needlepoint?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 14, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> The part that too many people forget in these discussions is whether that 'fourth leg' is something you find important to your style of photography, and if not 'important' whether MFT offers better compromises and all of that is, of course, personal preference.



I agree with this and as I said, technical quality alone doesn't make for a compelling image. However your comment was in the context of a professional photographer and so it's not so much what is important to "you", but the audience that you are selling to.



Mikehit said:


> Isn't all this rather remenisicent of how MF pros used to look down on 35mm when it first came out? When does portability of kit override and advantages of the technology override ultimate image quality? Some people think it is there already.



Well MF film pros were quite right to look down on 35mm film if what they were shooting could be shot on MF. Indeed LF (5x4") users looked down on MF if the subject being shot allowed the use of a 5x4 camera ! Serious landscape photography in those days was really done on 5 4, but those were the days when a really excellent landscape shot was something valuable. Now the digital world is awash with amazing landscape images. 

A 5 4 image was in a different league to 35mm, and you are quite right in that modern digital technology has completely changes all this, and I agree that there is nothing like the same difference between digital MF and MFT as there was in the different film formats. But likewise there is not the same differences in portability now either. When comparing a 5 4 film camera to 35mm, and then digital MF to MFT there is nothing like the same differences in portability or perhaps more significantly, shoot ability. From a personal point of view I agree entirely that bogging yourself down with heavy gear is likely to result in poorer images, but to day we have total unrestricted portability without losing anything in quality with digital FF, even more so with the likes of the Canon R _et al. _




Mikehit said:


> Why is that?
> Panasonic has the excellent 8-18 and Olympus the 7-14 (14mm or 16mm on FF) - how many photographers shoot wider than 16mm (the excellent Panasonic 8-18 on MFT has the same FOV). And once you get to panorama switching it all becomes moot.



I guess it's because of resolution and definition. When shooting wide the detail in the picture tends to be small, and so if the capture size is large it's easier to define the detail. Panorama stitching changes this, especially if shooting multiple vertical frames because the focal length that you are using to get the vertical field of view will be much longer than if shooting the same in one frame, and so the image is magnified more and the capture size is bigger. Even though I now use exclusively 5DSs I still prefer the wide images that I get from stitching a 'normal' focal length to those images where I have used an ultra wide.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 14, 2019)

Sporgon said:


> I agree with this and as I said, technical quality alone doesn't make for a compelling image. However your comment was in the context of a professional photographer and so it's not so much what is important to "you", but the audience that you are selling to.



I agree. But we are keen photographers with an eye to getting the maximally pliable image. Most clients do not care about the technicalities and it comes down to 'do I like the image'. We get carried away with gear and technicalities to an extent that passes the client by. Even on paid contracts.




Sporgon said:


> But likewise there is not the same differences in portability now either. When comparing a 5 4 film camera to 35mm, and then digital MF to MFT there is nothing like the same differences in portability or perhaps more significantly, shoot ability.



Quite a few professionals will disagree. E-M1 mkii with 7-14 f2.8 versus a 5D4 with 16-35 f2.8. Or even EOS-R with 16-35 f4. Then add a couple more lenses (such as a 60mm macro and wide primes and even a standard zoom) plus the filters and spare batteries and other paraphernalia then lug it all for 6hours cross-country. 
I agree that it seems other mirrorless marques are narrowing the gap but the gap is there - and when it narrows more I suspect that those shifting to MFT may switch back and get the best of both worlds but we aren't there quite yet.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 14, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> Quite a few professionals will disagree. E-M1 mkii with 7-14 f2.8 versus a 5D4 with 16-35 f2.8. Or even EOS-R with 16-35 f4. Then add a couple more lenses (such as a 60mm macro and wide primes and even a standard zoom) plus the filters and spare batteries and other paraphernalia then lug it all for 6hours cross-country.


Hehe. Have you ever tried to shoot 4x5" without a tripod?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 15, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Hehe. Have you ever tried to shoot 4x5" without a tripod?


Yes.

It was not a good idea.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 16, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> I agree. But we are keen photographers with an eye to getting the maximally pliable image. Most clients do not care about the technicalities and it comes down to 'do I like the image'. We get carried away with gear and technicalities to an extent that passes the client by.



Hmmmmm........




Mikehit said:


> Quite a few professionals will disagree. E-M1 mkii with 7-14 f2.8 versus a 5D4 with 16-35 f2.8. Or even EOS-R with 16-35 f4. Then add a couple more lenses (such as a 60mm macro and wide primes and even a standard zoom) plus the filters and spare batteries and other paraphernalia then lug it all for 6hours cross-country.
> I agree that it seems other mirrorless marques are narrowing the gap but the gap is there - and when it narrows more I suspect that those shifting to MFT may switch back and get the best of both worlds but we aren't there quite yet.



I presume your argument here is that the Olympus MFT system has better dedicated lenses than an APS-c system ? From my experience in comparing these the larger sensor of the APS-c still wins hands down when it comes to large output. Also I've found that these small, high density sensors still require a good steady tripod to optimise their output. 

Perhaps you can point me towards some of these professional landscape photographers who are using MFT and I'll be able to get a better understanding.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 16, 2019)

Sporgon said:


> Perhaps you can point me towards some of these professional landscape photographers who are using MFT and I'll be able to get a better understanding.



I rather doubt that you can find any, but to be fair, that's not the market for crop cameras of any brand.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 16, 2019)

Sporgon said:


> From my experience in comparing these the larger sensor of the APS-c still wins hands down when it comes to large output. Also I've found that these small, high density sensors still require a good steady tripod to optimise their output.



I agree - and have not said otherwise, nor have I denied personal preference. But the point I have made all along is not what is better but what is good enough for their business and what the smaller format gives them. And the reason they use MFT is the portability compared to DSLR and the total weight of any kit they carry and if they can get images that meet their needs in smaller package why not? And my only point has been people who refuse to use only because it has a smaller sensor.
I agree that mirrorless are catching up regards size but pros are using these cameras now, not waiting for what may appear in the future. And maybe these guys will switch back to Canon/Nikon when their cameras offer pretty much the same advantages.




Sporgon said:


> Perhaps you can point me towards some of these professional landscape photographers who are using MFT and I'll be able to get a better understanding.



Stephen Elliott
Robin Whalley

And more if you search for 'landscape photographer micro four thirds'

Then portraiture, wildlife :
Damien McGillicuddy
Andy Rouse (a recent convert) - he was happy using Canon EOS-R but felt the frame rate was limiting for some action shots
Joe Edelman
Daniel Cox


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 17, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> Stephen Elliott
> Robin Whalley
> 
> And more if you search for 'landscape photographer micro four thirds'
> ...



Many thanks for these, I'll check them out


----------

