neuroanatomist said:

Well over a decade ago, I wondered how long the DR debate would go on.

The Canon EOS R6 Mark III trails the Sony a7 V dynamic range by 2 stops but nobody can find the images - EOSHD.com - Filmmaking Gear and Camera Reviews

Aren’t you sick and tired of nerds? They have done so much damage to life on earth. Men and women used to make love, they used to raise families and build amazing industries, now all people can do is bicker about how many stops dynamic range a Canon and Sony has. Sony say it is

www.eoshd.com

Click to expand...

Some debates will never die, they feed too many click loving "experts".

neuroanatomist said:

As does Topaz. I have not used and have no intention of ever using Canon's digital tele-converter.

Click to expand...

I've given up on Topaz for upscaling (and for everything else as well)- its more recent AI "improvements" invent too much. PS is much more realistic. I posted some examples comparing them on a thread somewhere, which I can't find.

I want to make clear my discussion pertains to in-camera lens correction for JPEG output. My attachment sample is for chromatic aberration, but my point also applies to vignetting and geometric distortion.

Canon lens designers, with their Computer Aided Design (CAD) software, know exactly how a theoretical lens design performs regarding various aberrations. The lens design process involves numerous compromises to get to a marketable product.

One important lens design consideration is how easy it is to manufacture. A follow on from this is how consistent is unit to unit performance.

The in-camera lens correction software algorithm uses a ‘model’ of the lens to modify the internal RAW sensor data for JPEG engine output. Any ‘deviation’ of a particular lens being corrected from the model of that lens will result in a sub optimal corrected result.

My attachment is an EF 17-40mm f/4 L lens at 17mm and f/4. Top is software correction off and bottom is chromatic aberration correction on. The left and right sides are magnified crops of the left and right sides of an image of two framed photos – the frame is black and the matte board is white.

The uncorrected image clearly shows evidence of chromatic aberration with magenta and green fringing along the photo frame edges. However, on the corrected image, the magenta and green flip sides, albeit with a better result than non-corrected.

My conclusion is that my copy of the EF 17-40 doesn’t conform to the software model exactly. It’s overcorrected, so my copy is ‘better’ than the model, ha ha.

I understand post processing RAW gives one more flexibility regarding corrections, but my workflow is mostly JPEGs. In that regard, I’m greatly appreciative of in-camera software corrections.

Del Paso said:

That's absolutely right. As you wrote, in film times, optical correction was a necessity, lens manufacturers didn't have a choice.
Yet, when I see how good the VCM lenses have become, "despite" software correction,

Click to expand...

The VCM lenses are crazy good! I love my 50mm and find myself reaching for the 85mm F2 a lot less...

Del Paso said:

I wonder how long the debate optical vs. software can still go on...

Click to expand...

I believe people on the internet will keep the debate going forever, just so they have something to complain and talk about.
Personally, I´ve made up my mind: I love digital correction! The results with the 16mm, 14-35mm and now 50mm are just marvelous! The weight savings are amazing and very welcome.

Billybob said:

What some are missing is that the 14-35L is an absolutely phenomenal lens. It is the best UW zoom I've ever owned/tried (I'm not including UUW lenses like the 11-24/10-24, which I have never used), and it's better than the 15-35L, which I also owned. As others have mentioned, the uncorrected lens is wider than 14mm (it may be closer to 13mm than to the 13.5mm already mentioned), so I struggle to find problems with the corners that are "cutoff" with correction

Click to expand...

I agree to 100%. I have owned both, I chose the 14-35mm and sold off the 15-35mm. Never regretted it.

EthenJ said:

Or look at the EF 100-400L vs the RF 100-400. The RF is much lighter, yes, but the EF is sharper and cheaper. And that's considered one of the best value RF lenses around.

Click to expand...

I choked hard when I read the comment. Even the mki version from 1998 sells for around 630 - 680 €, whereas the RF 100-400mm sells used for around 500-580 €. The 100-400mm mki is nearly 30 years old and some of it is features (inferior IS, push zoom) are outdated. It actually should be cheaper, but it is not. Used copies of 100-400mm mkii start at 1.300 € and go all the way up the 1.800 €. That should be the lens to compare it with because IS is similar and the zoom design as well.

AlanF said:

Photoshop Generative Upscale does a reasonable 2x and 4x upscale as well.

Click to expand...

As does Topaz. I have not used and have no intention of ever using Canon's digital tele-converter.

John Wilde said:

"I haven't talked to anyone that thinks there will ever be a Mark II of the R3."

Click to expand...

Except for the people here on this forum who think there will be one. They can't agree on what it will be, but they are sure we'll see it.

Actually, in one way they can agree on what it will be...the camera they personally want. It's just that they all want something different.

Sporgon said:

I think we both agree that a mark two R3 in its current form doesn't seem to have a logical place in the current Canon lineup. The original EOS 3 was not a gripped body, nor was the EOS 1 for that matter, but times, circumstances and requirements change.

Click to expand...

You're ignoring a couple of rather important differences. The EOS 3 was a film camera, not a digital camera (#D) or a mirrorless camera (R#). More importantly, the EOS 3 launched in 1998 – it was over two decades and literally a generation (in people terms) before the R3 and Canon's re-use of the series numeral.

Sporgon said:

So, as the first R3 series is a gripped, budget R1 does that mean its form is written in stone from now on ? I don't think it has to be.

Click to expand...

Written in stone from now on? No. But it seems far too soon given that the R3 is still current and being sold directly by Canon. Having an R3II that differs wildly from the model it's directly replacing in the lineup and nomenclature seems like a complete non-starter.

Sporgon said:

Form a commercial point of view I would have thought that a separate high mp model series would be a more attractive sales proposition than a higher res version of a current model, as Canon previously did with their 5Ds/sr.

Click to expand...

Why? I think the point of the 5Ds/R was that it was a 5-series body. An very successful line for Canon, and they wanted to make the point that it was very much a part of that line but with a high MP sensor. I think the same applies today, with the still-successful 5-series.

Sporgon said:

Also, remember that you just didn't get Canon putting a crop sensor into the RF mount

Click to expand...

I didn't get it because of the very successful EOS M line. But Canon didn't keep that around, they killed it.

neuroanatomist said:

The Digital Tele-Converter function crops the image then upscales it back to the original MP count of the full sensor. No, it's not a replacement of a physical extender...but it's doing digitally what the physical extended is doing optically – taking the central portion of the image and magnifying it to fill the sensor.

Click to expand...

Photoshop Generative Upscale does a reasonable 2x and 4x upscale as well.

neuroanatomist said:

I can't see an R3II of any sort, but if there's another 3-series it would have to be the R3II and would you really expect a MkII version of a gripped, low MP body to be a non-gripped, high MP body? I don't see how that makes any sense. On the other hand, Canon had the 5D series and came out with one of them that was high MP called the 5Ds. So why call a new, non-gripped high MP body an R3II instead of an R5s? I really just don't get it.

Click to expand...

I think we both agree that a mark two R3 in its current form doesn't seem to have a logical place in the current Canon lineup. The original EOS 3 was not a gripped body, nor was the EOS 1 for that matter, but times, circumstances and requirements change. However, there is a perceived gap in the current Canon line up in that they do not offer a high mp body, that is a body that has a significantly higher resolution / output than the current model range. Form a commercial point of view I would have thought that a separate high mp model series would be a more attractive sales proposition than a higher res version of a current model, as Canon previously did with their 5Ds/sr. To this end, Canon have the 3 series position available, which makes sense from a marketing position as it would be below the 1 series but above the 5 series. Of course there is no physical different between an R5S and an R3 in virtually the same body but with a much higher res sensor, but that is marketing semantics. As you point out, Canon will know their margins and profits on the 5DS/sr, and perhaps they feel they could be more commercially successful next time.
So, as the first R3 series is a gripped, budget R1 does that mean its form is written in stone from now on ? I don't think it has to be.
Also, remember that you just didn't get Canon putting a crop sensor into the RF mount

"I haven't talked to anyone that thinks there will ever be a Mark II of the R3."

In a nutshell.

Ekpil said:

That is crop no full replacement of a physical Extender but points in the right direction

Click to expand...

The Digital Tele-Converter function crops the image then upscales it back to the original MP count of the full sensor. No, it's not a replacement of a physical extender...but it's doing digitally what the physical extender is doing optically – taking the central portion of the image and magnifying it to fill the sensor.

That is crop no full replacement of a physical Extender but points in the right direction

Ekpil said:

Your pictures won’t developed in your camera. They go online (cloud)in big Data Centers to be converted.

Click to expand...

Ekpil said:

We will see simple steps like Extender that will be replaced by software soon.

Click to expand...

Not soon...already here.

Del Paso said:

...I wonder how long the debate optical vs. software can still go on...

Click to expand...

Well over a decade ago, I wondered how long the DR debate would go on.

Richard CR said:

OpticalLimits has recently gotten its hands on the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM, which was announced way back on June 29, 2021. That in itself probably isn't newsworthy. So instead of talking about the review itself, I focused on a specific part of the review that caught my eye. This part of the review […]

See full article...

Click to expand...

The future is near! Over the years Hardware is getting les important and software is getting better and cheaper.
How do I get an uncorrupted picture? For canon it’s hard to migrate to more software without loosing your Core business.
AI is coming fast and change the game(s) The distance between an IPhone and the R1 is getting closer and shows the direction it all moves. Your pictures won’t developed in your camera. They go online (cloud)in big Data Centers to be converted. The next R1 has a Uni Lens that can converted by software in any lens….
We will see simple steps like Extender that will be replaced by software soon.
Nothing is impossible. And tks to Richard to share his thoughts.
And yes I am an old style and came from analog photography ;-))

mb66energy said:

I love e.g. the LAOWA 180 4.5 for very high correction & compactness & 1.5 max reprod. ratio & well implemented (while still limited) AF as a whole package.
If Canon would sell a 150 2.0 with medium need for correction at twice the price it would be similarly acceptable.

Click to expand...

The types of corrections being discussed here result from the image circle being smaller than the sensor. Notice how we're talking about lenses like the RF 14/1.4, the RF 14-35/4, etc. With telephoto lenses, that typically does not happen so your proposals of 150-180mm lenses with a 'need for correction' is a red herring. They won't need it. Even a correction-requiring lens like the RF 24-105/2.8L Z covers the full image circle by 28mm, it's only at the very wide end that it needs digital correction to fill the corners.

justaCanonuser said:

Thank you Richard, for this very interesting analysis and conclusion. I am with you, I think when Canon went mirrorless, it was logical to implement a more heavy-handed digital correction with such extremely demanding lens designs like the RF 14mm or with lenses that should be lighter, more compact and more affordable for what they offer to a photographer. With the EF lenses, the limitation to digital correction was not only caused by the optical viewfinders, Canon engineers had also to keep in mind that there are still some film shooters out there who wanted high quality optical corrected lenses. That was a minority, of course.

But now, with the RF mount, that's over, and Canon can look into the future without the need to make such compromises. We all use smartphones which tiny cameras only are useable because of a massively algorithm driven processing of the images. So it is logical to take some of these advantages to bigger digital cameras. In future, a camera-lens combo will be much more consequently treated as a complete system than it was, I guess.

Click to expand...

That's absolutely right. As you wrote, in film times, optical correction was a necessity, lens manufacturers didn't have a choice.
Yet, when I see how good the VCM lenses have become, "despite" software correction, I wonder how long the debate optical vs. software can still go on...

AlanF said:

I think he is genuinely comparing RF 100-400 with the EF 100-400 and got the pricing wrong.

Click to expand...

Then he got the pricing wrong by over $2000, a mistake of >300%. Either way, he's genuinely confused...

I would prefer options.
1→ compact, high aperture with correction-dependency: PASS
2→ larger, medium wide aperture with corr.-dep.: NO PASS
3→ cheap with correction: PASS
4→ expensive (excl. 1) with correction: NO PASS

I love e.g. the LAOWA 180 4.5 for very high correction & compactness & 1.5 max reprod. ratio & well implemented (while still limited) AF as a whole package.
If Canon would sell a 150 2.0 with medium need for correction at twice the price it would be similarly acceptable.

Background: I use ~24 MPix - with 50+ MPix correction would be more acceptable for me

neuroanatomist said:

You’re apparently confusing the RF 100-400 with the RF 100-500L. The former is considered a great value and it’s far cheaper the EF 100-400L (even used, low quality copies of the MkI sell for more than the $500 that I paid for my RF 100-400). The EF L lens is sharper, sure. It’s also 4-5x the cost and a stop faster.

The rational comparison is EF 100-400L II vs RF 100-500L. Image quality is the same, the RF lens is lighter and 100mm longer, and it’s $200 more expensive ($2700 vs $2900, a 7.5% difference).

You might want to go back to the drawing board on your line of reasoning here.

Click to expand...

I think he is genuinely comparing RF 100-400 with the EF 100-400 and got the pricing wrong. He describes the RF 100-400mm as being considered as one of the best value lenses for money, which it is, and as much as I love the RF 100-500 no way would I describe it as that!

justaCanonuser said:

I wouldn't regard the RF 600 and 800mm f/11 as any sort of RF mount successor to the EF 400mm F/4.0 DO L lenses. [...] But looking at the faster RF tele lens selection available today, I miss such a lens.

Click to expand...

I agree they aren't successors to the EF 400 DO but undoubtedly when the RF lineup was being planned, sales of various older lenses were analysed and some were sacrificed - there's been no RF 500 and apparently there won't be. And of course mirrorless has given them more options - reliable autofocus at f/11 couldn't have been dreamt of in the DSLR days. The 400 DO was always a niche within a niche. When the prototype 600 DO was shown, it generated some excitement but was never turned into a commercial product - we can speculate why.

justaCanonuser said:

Maybe Nikon forces Canon to come up with something competitive

Click to expand...

Given the relative positions of the two companies now, I very much doubt that will happen. And as you say, it would take a long time. As Neuro has suggested before, perhaps Nikon has targeted those niches that Canon doesn't provide for not because they want to usurp the leader, but because they can't compete in the other areas? I'm sure all the manufacturers pay close attention to what the others are doing, but there is a persistent belief on here that they should all replicate the same lineup, and I don't think that is logical.

What some are missing is that the 14-35L is an absolutely phenomenal lens. It is the best UW zoom I've ever owned/tried (I'm not including UUW lenses like the 11-24/10-24, which I have never used), and it's better than the 15-35L, which I also owned. As others have mentioned, the uncorrected lens is wider than 14mm (it may be closer to 13mm than to the 13.5mm already mentioned), so I struggle to find problems with the corners that are "cutoff" with correction (I'm also not a landscape purist and rarely shoot landscapes faster than f8). When I look at the OL results, I see amazing sharpness that doesn't fall off much until the far corners. By contrast my 15-35L falls off much quicker. To me, I easily prefer images from my 14-35 to my 15-35. The only reason I still own the faster lens is procrastination. When I do get in the mood to sale unused gear, the 15-35L will be the first to go.

Regarding EF lenses from the film era with strong distortion: I once had the EF 24-85mm/3.5-4.5 USM, with really strong barrel distortion at 24mm.
A guy on the usenet called it a 'moderate fisheye'.