AlanF said:

Optical limits is one of Richard's favourite sites
Summary:
The Good
Very sharp at medium aperture settings
f/1.2 on a budget

The Bad
Blurry corners from f/1.2 to f/2
Excessive axial color fringing at f/1.2
Very pronounced focus shift
Wavy field curvature
Miserable corner bokeh in certain scenes
Overpriced for what it is

1.5/5 stars, Avoid!

Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM Review - OpticalLimits

A Canon lens with an aperture of f/1.2 and offered below $500 USD? Can this work out here? Let's check the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM ...

opticallimits.com

Click to expand...

I'll buy 10!~

Philnick said:

I didn't know I had wandered into a private clubhouse. Keep it up, folks, and you'll find yourselves alone here.

I didn't say a word abouf f/stop in my criticism of neuro's post - I criticized it for implying that APS-C images were terrible.

PS No you're not here for anyone but neuro and neuro's friends. Honest discussion is only allowed, it appears, if it doesn't call out dishonest posts as such.

Click to expand...

In my universe, we were talking about Equivalency and how the depth of field (among other things) is affected. If your interpretation was it's terrible that's on you. Some people would say the left photo is preferable because more is in focus. As I attempted to explain before they contrast and artifacts can be attributed to the sensors dynamic rage, MP count and processing. Several of the people you seem to be upset with have a variety of cameras with an array of sensor sizes. I can admit I'm not the most conservative person with my spending habits, but even so, I wouldn't have bought an R7 or an S25 ultra if I thought the image quality was poor.
If Neuro said something I disagree, think is dishonest or whatever with, I'll ask him, but probably not in an insulting way (the redneck in me is going to come out and say, "mess with the bull and you get the horns").
I don't know what else to say other than sorry for offending you with my crazy sense of reality. I'll go see a therapist soon.

danfaz said:

Christopher Frost on YouTube discovered a pretty significant focus shift when stopping down.
Possibly copy variation, but worth pointing out.

Click to expand...

Bryan (TDP) mentions it in his review, though he suggests it’s mild:

This lens seems to exhibit a slight focus shift (caused by residual spherical aberration, RSA), with the plane of sharp focus moving slightly backward as the aperture is narrowed. The greatest impact is around f/2.8, where the focused-on subject sometimes appears slightly softer.

Click to expand...

EricN said:

*IF* f/stop isn't important between apsc and full frame, then why would it mater if it's the iphone's 2.8 lens or the r7 or R1? I believe the point was that it's it's easier to see the depth of field changes between the more extreme difference in sensor sizes. Sometimes it's hard to admit we're wrong, but I'm here for you

Click to expand...

I didn't know I had wandered into a private clubhouse. Keep it up, folks, and you'll find yourselves alone here.

I didn't say a word abouf f/stop in my criticism of neuro's post - I criticized it for implying that APS-C images were terrible.

PS No you're not here for anyone but neuro and neuro's friends. Honest discussion is only allowed, it appears, if it doesn't call out dishonest posts as such.

Click said:

This is the first time I've seen this mushroom. They're very pretty with their white stripes. Are they edible?

Click to expand...

No idea about the specific mushroom, but the overwhelming majority of mushrooms fall into the category of ‘edible but not tasty and will probably cause some GI discomfort’. A small number of mushrooms are in the ‘edible and tasty’ category, and an even smaller number are in the ‘deadly if ingested’ category.

The hen-of-the-woods falls into the large edible but not tasty group.

Christopher Frost on YouTube discovered a pretty significant focus shift when stopping down.
Possibly copy variation, but worth pointing out.

Philnick said:

Inserted, unlabeled, into a discussion about using an APS-C sensor to get more reach from a lens - and prefaced by mocking those who believe in the magic of a crop sensor - no one would assume it was a smartphone photo unless they were familiar with you having done that kind of thing in the past. As a relative newcomer to this forum, I didn't know I was dealing with someone as deceptive as you, and was entitled to take your post at face value. Once again, you try to evade responsibility for a deliberate deception by blaming those who didn't see through it.

Please stop trying to justify your actions by blaming those who criticize them. What's appropriate would be an apology from you - but I'm not holding my breath waiting for one, since an apology from you would be totally out of character.

At this point, I'd settle for you shutting up about this dispute.

Click to expand...

*IF* f/stop isn't important between apsc and full frame, then why would it mater if it's the iphone's 2.8 lens or the r7 or R1? I believe the point was that it's it's easier to see the depth of field changes between the more extreme difference in sensor sizes. Sometimes it's hard to admit we're wrong, but I'm here for you

Markov said:

Indeed. You get more depth of field, when you use the same framing as on a full-frame camera. Or you get the same DOF but with a larger effective magnification.

Click to expand...

Technically, if you keep the subject distance the same between FF and APS-C, the field of view is smaller with APS-C and the depth of field is slightly shallower at the same aperture setting. The ‘deeper DoF with crop’ is entirely due to increasing the subject distance to match framing. The magnitude of the effect of increasing distance on DoF is greater than that of the opposing effect of a smaller sensor.

The scenario of keeping the distance the same is arguably more common with macro photography, because the minimum focus distance (which delivers the maximum magnification for the lens) is an intrinsic property of the lens.

neuroanatomist said:

What was untrue about that comparison, other than your mistaken assumption about what was being compared? The images were photos that I took, and one was taken with longer lens and a bigger sensor while the other was taken with a shorter lens with a smaller sensor. As I stated. You assumed I was comparing APS-C and FF, but really if you look at the image on the left, it's very obvious that it was taken with a smartphone. But your assumption about what I was comparing triggered you, and you can't seem to get past that. How sad for you.

Click to expand...

Inserted, unlabeled, into a discussion about using an APS-C sensor to get more reach from a lens - and prefaced by mocking those who believe in the magic of a crop sensor - no one would assume it was a smartphone photo unless they were familiar with you having done that kind of thing in the past. As a relative newcomer to this forum, I didn't know I was dealing with someone as deceptive as you, and was entitled to take your post at face value. Once again, you try to evade responsibility for a deliberate deception by blaming those who didn't see through it.

Please stop trying to justify your actions by blaming those who criticize them. What's appropriate would be an apology from you - but I'm not holding my breath waiting for one, since an apology from you would be totally out of character.

At this point, I'd settle for you shutting up about this dispute.

This is the first time I've seen this mushroom. They're very pretty with their white stripes. Are they edible?

EricN said:

Which rail are you using?

Click to expand...

This one:

With the extender for a collared lens:

AlanF said:

Optical limits is one of Richard's favourite sites
Summary:
The Good
Very sharp at medium aperture settings
f/1.2 on a budget

The Bad
Blurry corners from f/1.2 to f/2
Excessive axial color fringing at f/1.2
Very pronounced focus shift
Wavy field curvature
Miserable corner bokeh in certain scenes

Click to expand...

Anyway, It costs as much as the list price of the EF 50 mm 1.4 used to be and gives us the optical performance of the EF 50 mm 1.2.
I think it’s a fair package. Maybe I'll give it a try.
If you need „more“ there are RF 50mm 1.4 L VCM and RF 50mm 1.2 L.

Planterz said:

From what I understand, yes. Micro 4/3 cameras are popular for macro for a few reasons. You get extra working distance because you get to/have to back a bit to fill the frame with the same object (assuming same focal length lens). The 2x crop factor gives you twice the depth of field at the same aperture, which in some cases will let you keep the aperture more open for faster shutter speeds and less ISO. I think the Olympus/OM lenses also accept their teleconvertors, so you can combine TCs and extension tubes for some pretty crazy magnification factors (not sure about Panasonic). The higher end M4/3 bodies also have very good IBIS and the stacked sensor ones like the OM-1 can shoot up to 50fps, so you can fire off handheld brackets easier. I've reason something about OM holding a patent for some fancy focus stacking thing they do, but I'm not sure what that is.

Click to expand...

Indeed. You get more depth of field, when you use the same framing as on a full-frame camera. Or you get the same DOF but with a larger effective magnification. I did quite a bit of checking and reading and decided against the micro 4/3 sensor and went for APS-C though. Also because of some of the other features of the R7. I also do flower photography and then the increase DOF can hurt you because the background is not blurred enough. (Fortunately you can correct that in post-processing nowadays.)

IBIS does not work too well with macro. Maybe one or two stops. So when shooting hand-held I always use a shutter speed of 1/300 or more. I often use a diffused flash to get enough light. And don't forget to use continuous autofocus (Servo) as any minor motion of yourself or the subject will throw off the focus.

As far as I know, the focus bracketing of the OM is similar to the R7. (I think OM takes the shots from back to front and Canon from front to back; both have advantages and disadvantage).

Planterz said:

From what I understand, yes. Micro 4/3 cameras are popular for macro for a few reasons. You get extra working distance because you get to/have to back a bit to fill the frame with the same object (assuming same focal length lens). The 2x crop factor gives you twice the depth of field at the same aperture, which in some cases will let you keep the aperture more open for faster shutter speeds and less ISO. I think the Olympus/OM lenses also accept their teleconvertors, so you can combine TCs and extension tubes for some pretty crazy magnification factors (not sure about Panasonic). The higher end M4/3 bodies also have very good IBIS and the stacked sensor ones like the OM-1 can shoot up to 50fps, so you can fire off handheld brackets easier. I've reason something about OM holding a patent for some fancy focus stacking thing they do, but I'm not sure what that is.

Click to expand...

I remember OM has something for astronomy to take multiple photos as opposed to one long exposure, but that's about as far from Macro as you can get.

EricN said:

Back on topic: Is the following correct? Using the smaller sensor on macro, you could achieve the wider depth of field with the same settings (which could be useful for moving subject that can't be focus stacked), but noise would be increased and with the higher magnification, any motion or shake would be more visible.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, yes. Micro 4/3 cameras are popular for macro for a few reasons. You get extra working distance because you get to/have to back a bit to fill the frame with the same object (assuming same focal length lens). The 2x crop factor gives you twice the depth of field at the same aperture, which in some cases will let you keep the aperture more open for faster shutter speeds and less ISO. I think the Olympus/OM lenses also accept their teleconvertors, so you can combine TCs and extension tubes for some pretty crazy magnification factors (not sure about Panasonic). The higher end M4/3 bodies also have very good IBIS and the stacked sensor ones like the OM-1 can shoot up to 50fps, so you can fire off handheld brackets easier. I've reason something about OM holding a patent for some fancy focus stacking thing they do, but I'm not sure what that is.

EricN said:

Which rail are you using?

Click to expand...

I am not using a focus rail. The built-in focus bracketing of the current R7 works fine for most of my situations (I don't do extreme macro). When I am careful I can even use it handheld. The only problems are that you cannot use a flash and that you cannot set the interval between shots, which is in the newer Canon models.

No R100?

PinholeR5 said:

I'm very curious to know how you guys make use of the SA Control

Click to expand...

Post in thread 'Wildflower Photos' https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/wildflower-photos.37056/post-991839

Post in thread 'Flowers and other Flora' https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/flowers-and-other-flora.22225/post-985165


Post in thread 'Autumn/Fall 2022' https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/autumn-fall-2022.41806/post-947024

The R5m2 shows the SAC value in the EVF.

Philnick said:

@neuroanatomist Have you never heard the expression, "Many a true thing is said in jest" ? But of course you take that further by posting untrue things - like that unlabeled comparison photo - and when called on them excuse them as jokes- and blame those who take offense as thin skinned.

That kind of conduct does not belong in a public forum - if indeed it belongs anywhere. The only place I'm aware of it being applauded is when practiced by picadors in a bull-fight. This forum should not tolerate it.

Click to expand...

Why don't you want to blame Bob for bringing up sexuality?

Further off topic: this is the most interesting the forum has been in quite a long time.

Back on topic: Is the following correct? Using the smaller sensor on macro, you could achieve the wider depth of field with the same settings (which could be useful for moving subject that can't be focus stacked), but noise would be increased and with the higher magnification, any motion or shake would be more visible.

Philnick said:

So what, pray tell, was the point of neuro's post #38 in this thread, which explicitly mocked a discussion of the advantages of an APS-C camera in getting more reach from a lens by calling those who said that those "who still believe in fairies, wizards and the magic of the crop factor." and then included the following image:

View attachment 227196
with no disclosure that it was actually a comparison of an iPhone photo to a picture taken with an R3 with a 70-200mm f/2.8L until 63 posts later in post #101, and then only if you followed the link in post #101 to see it was that image.

I consider it perfectly appropriate to call that intentionally deceptive, which is why, in post #85 I was demanding that neuro tell us what gear was used to take those shots. If neuro had labeled that image as what it was in post #38, it could be claimed as disclosed with full caveats, but the opposite was the case.

Click to expand...

It's point should be (and sorry if I'm putting words into mouths) evident purely by observation = the depth of field - which is what we've been talking about! The rest can be attributed to processing/hardware.

Many people state they don't care about depth of field [B]which is fine[/B], but it's important point to it out for the people who do care or are curious.

neuroanatomist said:

If the R7II has the stacked sensor that is mentioned in this rumor, the ability to use flash with electronic shutter and thus combine flash with focus stacking (as currently possible on the R1 and R5II) might be of significant interest to you. That assumes you use the camera's focus stacking feature, if you use a macro rail as I sometimes do then you won't have that limitation.

Click to expand...

Which rail are you using?

Just White-rumped Shama and Red-crested Cardinal from today...

After the rains (and more are coming!) a mushroom that I haven't seen for several dry years: Agaricus rotalis! After that something that I don't know. It's ~3.5-4cm tall...

Philnick said:

@neuroanatomist Have you never heard the expression, "Many a true thing is said in jest" ? But of course you take that further by posting untrue things - like that unlabeled comparison photo - and when called on them excuse them as jokes- and blame those who take offense as thin skinned.

Click to expand...

What was untrue about that comparison, other than your mistaken assumption about what was being compared? The images were photos that I took, and one was taken with longer lens and a bigger sensor while the other was taken with a shorter lens with a smaller sensor. As I stated. You assumed I was comparing APS-C and FF, but really if you look at the image on the left, it's very obvious that it was taken with a smartphone. But your assumption about what I was comparing triggered you, and you can't seem to get past that. How sad for you.