Let me commit heresy here. When I look at an R7 image at 100% (one image pixel per one monitor pixel) on a 23 inch, 1920 x 1080 monitor, I am looking at a very small portion of an image that is 68 inches wide. At 50%, the image is 34 inches wide. If I can't see any difference between two images at 50% and there is only a small difference at 100%, I submit that any improvement of one over the other exceeds our ability to see it. We have reached the point of "good enough."

neuroanatomist said:

Thanks. Any sense of comparison of the RF 2x with the EF 2xIII? That’s what really stood out to me, that the RF was noticeably less sharp than the EF 2x.

Click to expand...

That seems like an issue with your RF 2x honestly. If you look at RF lenses with the RF 2x vs. EF lenses with the EF 2xIII in the Digital Picture's photo comparison tool, generally the RF 2x seems to be far better. Of course, some of the base RF designs have a significantly better starting place, but if you compare 2x vs. 2x, the RF still looks considerably better.

I have an old EF 200mm f/2.8 L II and EF 2xIII, and my 70-200Z with RF 2x is much better than that combination. The comparison is not really even close, and this chart comparison is pretty fair imo: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

neuroanatomist said:

... in stock at Canon for $450 (vs the current new price of $690). So I bought it…

Click to expand...

Good to hear! It will be interesting to see what the test results are. The price was good! I bought mine for 449€ last year, it was used. I keep wondering if someone had sold it for quality reasons...

john1970 said:

Just FYI I have two copies of both the RF 1.4x and RF 2x TCs. I don't see a difference between the 1.4x TCs, but one of the 2X TCs is a bit sharper on the 100-300 mm f2.8 than the other. Don't ask me why, but that is my observation.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Any sense of comparison of the RF 2x with the EF 2xIII? That’s what really stood out to me, that the RF was noticeably less sharp than the EF 2x.

neuroanatomist said:

I'm not thrilled with the 100-300/2.8 + 2x, but I think my copy of the RF 2x is the main issue. Since I have the EF 600/4 II (that I use mainly with the EF 1.4xIII), I don't typically need to use the 2x on the 100-300/2.8 (but I often use the 1.4x with that lens).

Quite some time back (but after my return window, lazy me), I tested my RF 2x and found that the EF 2xIII was noticeably better, and that the RF 2x yielded IQ about the same as the EF 1.4xIII and RF 1.4x stacked...the RF 2x should be better than that. I don't use it much, to be honest. However, you posing the question spurred me to order a second copy of the RF 2x that I will test against my first copy.

Click to expand...

Just FYI I have two copies of both the RF 1.4x and RF 2x TCs. I don't see a difference between the 1.4x TCs, but one of the 2X TCs is a bit sharper on the 100-300 mm f2.8 than the other. Don't ask me why, but that is my observation.

mimbu said:

View attachment 228507

Let's keep comparisons apples to apples.

We'll see how Canon does long term. If Sony chooses to develop garbage tier cameras like the R50 and (especially) R100, I would expect the gap to close quite a bit. For now, Canon owns the market for garbage. That's something you can be proud of.

Click to expand...

What you call “garbage” is what made Canon #1, it’s essentially a gateway drug to a more profitable(R1, R3, R5, R6, R7, L glass) addiction. High schoolers and college freshmen in photography buys into a camera ecosystem, which Canon will ALWAYS win due to a price/performance value proposition of over 130 million EF glass out in the wild readily accessible. EF-RF connection is butter smooth flawless compared to jerky 3rd parties, metadata and digital optical correction works. According to rumors, Canon will eventually have over 100 RF glass in its repertoire, ALL flawless connection to the EOS bodies. Canon’s masterplan is to chop up all the advantages(of 3rd party manufacturers) to fall between the RF advantages and focal lengths, which Canon wins because the glass is not handicapped(fps, metadata, in camera corrections). Let’s be honest here, camera manufacturers make their profit most from selling glass, NOT bodies, Sony just gave the most profitable part of the business to cheap rubbish Chinese companies, Sigma and Tamron are legit.

BTW, Sony TV is now owned by TCL, again a long list of failed Sony products going under. By the end of year, RF will have more native glass than Sony. Canon cinema line bodies are now superior to Sony, VCM lineup is superior to Sony and will take years for Sony to copy(weight and identical size).

Sony is on the ropes AGAIN(YOY market share decline), just like Sony products of the past, it’ll eventually end up in a “GARBAGE” bin.

To ALL the Sony fans, sell all your Sony gears ASAP, while it’s still worth something. Take that money and join the WINNING ecosystem by Canon….undisputed winners in film, in dslr and now mirrorless.

RF

Michael Clark said:

If the R7 Mark II turns out to be what many wished the R7 could have been, it will be a case of history repeating itself.

The 7D Mark II was what the 7D should have been, but the 7D had frustratingly inconsistent AF from one frame to the next, especially in AI Servo bursts but also with one shot single frame shooting. The 7D was also a lot noisier than the 7D Mark II at typical night field sports ISOs: 3200-6400.

Click to expand...

I really don't see it that way. The 7D was pretty good for 2009, and it came along just as I was wondering how to upgrade my 40D with something genuinely better that I could actually afford! Five years later I was well and truly ready for the Mark II, but not because of any real dissatisfaction with the 7D, just that five years of catching up was sorely needed by then.

The R7, on the other hand, was a dreadful disappointment. A fairly decent R-series successor to the 90D, masquerading as a mirrorless 7D3 which of course it wasn't. The one consolation was the 90D-level price, but the fact remains that in this, the twelfth year since the 7D2 was launched, it still has no successor. The R7 Mark II needs to be head and shoulders above the R7, not just an update like the 7D to 7D2.

AlanF said:

The love life of Peregrine Falcons. Male flying, Female perched, mating, separating, smooching, arguing. (RF5ii, 200-800mm).

Click to expand...

Well done, Alan. I really like the first shot.

Very nice series, antonn. He really seems to hate the rain in the second photo

Quack said:

Let's not put Sony on some sort of pedestal when it comes to high quality as opposed to junk. Their first two generations of mirrorless cameras like the A7 and A7 II were often referred to by reviewers and buyers as "Beta" releases. They were an embarrassment. I, too was swept up by the "Sony way ahead' forum baloney of the time and gave Sony a try. Very dull EVFs, Cameras in which all shots were a minimum 1 stop underexposed, as well as virtually non-existent weather sealing and ergonomics that were completely uncomfortable. From what I understand from some of today's reviewers, the EVFs (as well as back screens) still use cheaper glass and are not as bright as the competition, the ergonomics, while improved, are still poor. They had a class-action suit filed against them a few years ago because their shutters were breaking early and often, and another lawsuit was filed because they were putting serial number stickers on their lenses, rather than engraving the serial number into the lens. Users sending their lenses in for repair under warranty were denied warranty service because the lenses did not have serial numbers - the stickers had fallen off. So, plenty of junk coming from Sony - as well as a total lack of ethics - just look into their unethical practices when it came to CDs.

Click to expand...

You even forgot the paid "experts", influencers or "serious" but heavily biased reviews like Phototrend and others.
I cannot see Sony as a credible or reliable company. And certainly not as a viable alternative to Canon, Fujifilm, Panasonic, OM or Leica.
My Sony A7 was the worst c**p I ever bought, I sold it after 2 weeks at a huge loss...

Dragon said:

It is not an issue of Photoshop. Lightroom is not creating anything the lens didn't capture, but rather adjusting the ratios of the information that is already there. "In-camera" is very different from RAW to JPEG. You have to do a fair bit of correction in Lightroom to bring a RAW file to match the in-camera JPEG since most camera JPEG engines to quite a bit of "fitting" to get exposures to fit into the 8 bit JPEG space. I always shoot RAW, so Lightroom is always in the mix. I will admit that running Topaz sharpening is pushing the envelope a bit since Topaz uses AI to extend detail a bit beyond what you could nominally recover, but it is still not "Photoshopping" in the classic sense. As an aside, I think the mirrors I mentioned in my response to Alan are much better than either of the ones you identified above. The Opteka and Samyang are both made by Samyang and the newer ones have been made very cheaply (and poorly). The TTArtisans 250mm f/5.6 is an exception as it is actually quite good and not crazy expensive. I see photography as an art form, which is to say I am not trying to exactly recreate the image that was seen by the eye (impossible in any case, because there is no available display mechanism with enough DR), but rather to create an image that tells the story of what I saw when I looked at the scene.

Click to expand...

Fair!

I meant photoshop in the sense that some people will take great liberty with the image out of the camera and then present it as what the lens does. Even though in-camera is using an HEIC or JPEG conversion algorithm I’m assuming the end result from one Canon to the next is sufficiently consistent that opinions that are definitely about the lens and not one’s software skill can be made. I’m also using Affinity but if someone wants to know about the lens itself I’ll restrict the image to Canon internal algorithms. Beyond that, I might have used the lens but really I’m showing off interpretive art bespoke to me and not Canon + a lens.

NRN said:

Smallrig is worse than any other manufacturer according to this review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe-_BFC21gs&t=109s

Why is this promoted?

Click to expand...

The video says that the SmallRig got the lowest real-world capacity. And I don't care. I can charge in the field with a PowerBank or in the car and couldn't care less. Any battery without USB is a complete failure for me, including the original Canon.

Dragon said:

I have the Minolta 500 f/8. I think I posted a sample in the bird series. I have speculated getting a copy of the Minolta 800, but so far have not as they are a bit pricey for pastime experiments. Ditto for the Minolta 250mm f/5.6, but I did spring for the TTartisans 250mm f/5.6, which is an improved clone of the Minolta and much cheaper. It has also caused the Minolta prices on eBay to drop by about 50%. The Minolta 500 is one of the sharper mirrors I have, but it does not close focus like some of the others. I think the Canon 500 f/8 is the sharpest by nose and the Nikon 500 f/8 and 1000 f/11 are close seconds with the Minolta right in there. Can post samples of any you are curious about. They are all much more usable on mirrorless than on SLR.

Click to expand...

Have you used it on a body on which it will AF?

mimbu said:

...
Canon does not dominate the market. They have slightly more market share than Sony. Based on the limited data we get such as Amazon or B&H rankings, this is due to the very high volume of low end junk cameras like the R50 and R100 that Canon effectively shovels out the door. Sony does not compete well at those price points right now. I'm not sure if Sony will start to produce junk tier cameras like that as well, but I suppose if there is profit there, they might.

Click to expand...

Let's not put Sony on some sort of pedestal when it comes to high quality as opposed to junk. Their first two generations of mirrorless cameras like the A7 and A7 II were often referred to by reviewers and buyers as "Beta" releases. They were an embarrassment. I, too was swept up by the "Sony way ahead' forum baloney of the time and gave Sony a try. Very dull EVFs, Cameras in which all shots were a minimum 1 stop underexposed, as well as virtually non-existent weather sealing and ergonomics that were completely uncomfortable. From what I understand from some of today's reviewers, the EVFs (as well as back screens) still use cheaper glass and are not as bright as the competition, the ergonomics, while improved, are still poor. They had a class-action suit filed against them a few years ago because their shutters were breaking early and often, and another lawsuit was filed because they were putting serial number stickers on their lenses, rather than engraving the serial number into the lens. Users sending their lenses in for repair under warranty were denied warranty service because the lenses did not have serial numbers - the stickers had fallen off. So, plenty of junk coming from Sony - as well as a total lack of ethics - just look into their unethical practices when it came to CDs.

Del Paso said:

Oh my God, Canon hates me!
This makes me so sad I could cry all night long!
Time to jump ship and get tenderly loved by sweet Sony!

Click to expand...

He already did that. Now he is just shilling.

DocInfoSci said:

I have an Opteka 500 and a Samyang 900. Obviously they don't hold a candle to modern normal lenses, but they are fun when I want a distraction. I don't tend to edit them beyond in-camera settings for this reason. If they're soft they're soft — if I want clinically sharp I grab an appropriate tool.

But with these in-hand, I've wondered about some of the older mirrors, which I've read were of calibre when typical mirror characteristics are accounted for. I'd be interested in seeing (probably not in this thread, to avoid annoying people staying on-topic) any in-camera shots that you have of what are in your opinion good editions. I say in-camera because I'm not interested in what Photoshop can do with the image, I'm interested in what the glass in good hands can achieve.

Click to expand...

It is not an issue of Photoshop. Lightroom is not creating anything the lens didn't capture, but rather adjusting the ratios of the information that is already there. "In-camera" is very different from RAW to JPEG. You have to do a fair bit of correction in Lightroom to bring a RAW file to match the in-camera JPEG since most camera JPEG engines to quite a bit of "fitting" to get exposures to fit into the 8 bit JPEG space. I always shoot RAW, so Lightroom is always in the mix. I will admit that running Topaz sharpening is pushing the envelope a bit since Topaz uses AI to extend detail a bit beyond what you could nominally recover, but it is still not "Photoshopping" in the classic sense. As an aside, I think the mirrors I mentioned in my response to Alan are much better than either of the ones you identified above. The Opteka and Samyang are both made by Samyang and the newer ones have been made very cheaply (and poorly). The TTArtisans 250mm f/5.6 is an exception as it is actually quite good and not crazy expensive. I see photography as an art form, which is to say I am not trying to exactly recreate the image that was seen by the eye (impossible in any case, because there is no available display mechanism with enough DR), but rather to create an image that tells the story of what I saw when I looked at the scene.

mimbu said:

$12k or more. The chances of it being cheaper than the 100-300/2.8 that has the same front element size are very, very slim.

Click to expand...

On the other hand ... If it is not cheaper, the 100-300mm 2.8 + a 2xTC could be a more compelling option for many that value the 100-300mm range as well as 300-600mm focal distance.

mimbu said:

I may have had my Japan market numbers mixed with global numbers, or my numbers may have been out of date. Regardless, I do not expect Canon's anti-consumer stance to be a good thing for the company long term. When you hate your customers and try to bleed them for all they've got, most of them eventually figure it out.


Canon does not dominate the market. They have slightly more market share than Sony. Based on the limited data we get such as Amazon or B&H rankings, this is due to the very high volume of low end junk cameras like the R50 and R100 that Canon effectively shovels out the door. Sony does not compete well at those price points right now. I'm not sure if Sony will start to produce junk tier cameras like that as well, but I suppose if there is profit there, they might.

Click to expand...

Oh my God, Canon hates me!
This makes me so sad I could cry all night long!
Time to jump ship and get tenderly loved by sweet Sony!

Dragon said:

I have the Minolta 500 f/8. I think I posted a sample in the bird series. I have speculated getting a copy of the Minolta 800, but so far have not as they are a bit pricey for pastime experiments. Ditto for the Minolta 250mm f/5.6, but I did spring for the TTartisans 250mm f/5.6, which is an improved clone of the Minolta and much cheaper. It has also caused the Minolta prices on eBay to drop by about 50%. The Minolta 500 is one of the sharper mirrors I have, but it does not close focus like some of the others. I think the Canon 500 f/8 is the sharpest by nose and the Nikon 500 f/8 and 1000 f/11 are close seconds with the Minolta right in there. Can post samples of any you are curious about. They are all much more usable on mirrorless than on SLR.

Click to expand...

I have an Opteka 500 and a Samyang 900. Obviously they don't hold a candle to modern normal lenses, but they are fun when I want a distraction. I don't tend to edit them beyond in-camera settings for this reason. If they're soft they're soft — if I want clinically sharp I grab an appropriate tool.

But with these in-hand, I've wondered about some of the older mirrors, which I've read were of calibre when typical mirror characteristics are accounted for. I'd be interested in seeing (probably not in this thread, to avoid annoying people staying on-topic) any in-camera shots that you have of what are in your opinion good editions. I say in-camera because I'm not interested in what Photoshop can do with the image, I'm interested in what the glass in good hands can achieve.

AlanF said:

Do I recall you once had the Minolta AF mirror lens?

Click to expand...

I have the Minolta 500 f/8. I think I posted a sample in the bird series. I have speculated getting a copy of the Minolta 800, but so far have not as they are a bit pricey for pastime experiments. Ditto for the Minolta 250mm f/5.6, but I did spring for the TTartisans 250mm f/5.6, which is an improved clone of the Minolta and much cheaper. It has also caused the Minolta prices on eBay to drop by about 50%. The Minolta 500 is one of the sharper mirrors I have, but it does not close focus like some of the others. I think the Canon 500 f/8 is the sharpest by nose and the Nikon 500 f/8 and 1000 f/11 are close seconds with the Minolta right in there. Can post samples of any you are curious about. They are all much more usable on mirrorless than on SLR.

eero said:

What is your opinion of the 100-300mm - 2x at f/5.6?

Click to expand...

neuroanatomist said:

…you posing the question spurred me to order a second copy of the RF 2x that I will test against my first copy.

Click to expand...

Also, thanks – your timing was fortuitous. At about 7:30a local time this morning, I happened to check CPW for a Canon-refurbished RF 2x. It wasn’t listed with CPW’s top-line post on the current Canon refurb sale, but I searched up CPW’s entry for the 2x and clicked the link to find it in stock at Canon for $450 (vs the current new price of $690). So I bought it…

Checked this afternoon, turned out that CPW highlighted the refurb 2x just after 8a, and it was sold out by 1:30p.

Tirmite said:

$2500 per week for one year at 0%. Apply Now!

Click to expand...

Aww, man — I wish I had thought of that snappy response. Epic.

neuroanatomist said:

Trolls gonna troll.

Click to expand...

I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt but the repetition of idiosyncratic nonsense like "shovelling garbage tier" and dripping superiority complex sure stinks like trolling. Oh well, that's what the mute function is for.

mimbu said:

Which is exactly what the smart people are doing.

Click to expand...

Are you one of the smart people?

roby17269 said:

I could get behind that (literally and figuratively)... for $2.5K

Click to expand...

$2500 per week for one year at 0%. Apply Now!