Latest activity

Click · Dec 25, 2025

Beautiful shots, Dragon.

Richard CR · Dec 25, 2025

AlanF said:
I attempted some testing for the correction of diffraction using DLO and found limitations in lenses where it could be applied. It can be applied to the RF 200-800mm on the R5ii and with the 1.4xTC but it is not compatible with the 2x. It is compatible with the 2x on the RF 100-500mm. And it is not compatible with the RF 100-400mm on the R7. The DLO box was greyed out n those incompatible cases.

I recall when I did testing, I had a difficult time seeing the diffraction correction effects. They were quite subtle. The aberration correction, especially at the time the Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM, which had the worst PF known to the modern photography universe, would clean up amazingly well.

That was what impressed me the most - since PF was troublesome to correct in post.

Dragon · Dec 25, 2025

Christmas Hummers. R7 & RF 200-800

Yes, those are raindrops

I think I see Santa Claus

Del Paso · Dec 25, 2025

AlanF said:
Thanks for the link, which I have now read and the subsequent discussion. I get your point about the number of pixels in the corners etc when compressed. It remains moot until someone has done the necessary investigation to discover whether there is the same amount of image quality and information content in the periphery of an image that is stretched by an analogue lens method or a mathematical method of expansion of the compressed periphery. Information is lost on compression and the question is whether the analogue lens method manages to avoid that loss by prevention or is it simply expanding the compression similar to digital? I don't know the answer. Do you know as I would like to learn whether it does? It probably depends on how much effort and expenses they put in.

I'm no scientist at all.
But wouldn't it be an easier way to get rid of all these geometric correction issues to "simply" design MF lenses and use them on FF (like TS lenses)?
Thus, they could make use of the best portion of a lens' projection circle. Could it be the recipe behind the RF 1,2 50 & 85 in order to also get sharp corners at f/1,2?

OK, cost would significantly go up...
But, as I wrote, I'm no scientist., and still hoping for a 35mm f/1,2...

Chig · Dec 25, 2025

Richard CR said:
Richard CR said:

meh, sorry, i didn't like the 45mm f1.2 - it's a very specialized lens that you have to like the look out of the lens. if you don't, then it's dead to you. Not everyone wants a lens with that yes, it's a f/1.2, but it's a f/1.2 because they are allowing a literal dump truck of aberrations to exist.

And the Sony 50-150 is a lens that has never been done before, and it's optically, mechanically, everything, excellent.

if the 50-150 didn't make the cut as the best, then there's tons of others I would choose over the 45mm even if I had to take into account "bang for buck" - ie: the Sigma 200/2, or the freakishly incredible Sony 100mm Macro. there's just way too many amazing lenses out there this year, that in my mind would be above the 45mm.

I do like Canon making bang for the buck lenses that will have their followings - much like the EF mount, so it's all a good thing. as long as they fire the dude that decided the 75-300 was a good idea.

Click to expand...

Richard CR said:

meh, sorry, i didn't like the 45mm f1.2 - it's a very specialized lens that you have to like the look out of the lens. if you don't, then it's dead to you. Not everyone wants a lens with that yes, it's a f/1.2, but it's a f/1.2 because they are allowing a literal dump truck of aberrations to exist.

Click to expand...

Well clearly you don't know what "literal" means (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language) but calling the RF 45mm a very specialised lens is bizarre: I spent most of Xmas Day taking family photos with it and it performed brilliantly and I found it very versatile as you'd expect with 45mm. It does have some minor flaws but they make barely any difference to the results in normal usage.

Click · Dec 25, 2025

SirIssacNewton said:
Christmas morning visitors! Taken with my Canon R8 and RF 600mm f11

Lovely shots, Sir. Merry Christmas!

roby17269 · Dec 25, 2025

Exploreshootshare said:
Oohhhh, that sounds great!!! Enjoy it and have some fun. And maybe, just maybe, post a nice wintery pic here

Thanks and Merry Christmas! We’ve been lucky: we’ve had a snowy Xmas here. Better than expected when we arrived to pretty bare mountains.
I usually do post travel photos here…. But only if I have taken any I like

Sometimes in Jan when I’ll be back and will have processed them

SirIssacNewton · Dec 25, 2025

Christmas morning visitors! Taken with my Canon R8 and RF 600mm f11

Dpcj2 · Dec 25, 2025

My pick would be a native RF anamorphic lens with available autofocus.

Exploreshootshare · Dec 25, 2025

roby17269 said:
I am on the Alps with an iPad so I’m not retyping all of that

Oohhhh, that sounds great!!! Enjoy it and have some fun. And maybe, just maybe, post a nice wintery pic here

ISv · Dec 25, 2025

Fun on the lanai: Last week my wife complained that a caterpillar is eating her lemon again. Today I found two pupae of Papilio xuthus!
Edit: This should be our official Christmas tree

!

ISv · Dec 25, 2025

Click said:
Very nice shots, ISv. Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Click!

ISv · Dec 25, 2025

AlanF said:
They are ruddy well turning stones. (A British idiom). I'll be lucky to get even a crow where we are over Christmas, but you never know. Enjoy Hawaii's better weather! All the best for 2026!

Merry Christmas!

AlanF · Dec 25, 2025

AlanF said:
They are ruddy well turning stones. (A British idiom). I'll be lucky to get even a crow where we are over Christmas, but you never know. Enjoy Hawaii's better weather! All the best for 2026!

Well, just some luck - a Robin on Christmas Day, the British favourite Christmas bird - or maybe second to the Turkey. (R7 + RF 100-400mm)

AlanF · Dec 25, 2025

Richard CR said:
they don't bake the RAW file, correct. but it's a good idea unless there's a performance hit to turn it on for JPEG output.

DLO is more than what Adobe, etc can do. Canon boils the camera and lens down to their mathematical and data representation and then use deconvolution to reverse aberrations based on the camera and lens combination.

one of the rumors of the RF mount was that each lens could have its own unique DLO mathematical representation based upon its actual QC data testing.

However, I'm not sure they are actually doing that, since you still download the profiles from Canon.

I started to write an article on CanonNews about DLO way back when, and recently got Craig all excited about what DLO could do (I showed him one of the RF STM lenses before and after), and now he's a fan after it blew his mind. One of us is going to do a deep dive in the new year on it.

It's probably the most underrated thing that Canon gives us for free.

I attempted some testing for the correction of diffraction using DLO and found limitations in lenses where it could be applied. It can be applied to the RF 200-800mm on the R5ii and with the 1.4xTC but it is not compatible with the 2x. It is compatible with the 2x on the RF 100-500mm. And it is not compatible with the RF 100-400mm on the R7. The DLO box was greyed out n those incompatible cases.

Buylongterm · Dec 25, 2025

Kiton said:
Cocaine is cheap! Photography is an expensive habit!
The 70-200 Z is an absolutely beautiful lens that is superbly well balanced in the hand.

That it is! LOL. I broke down (no will power) and bought it! I got it for 2900.00, so I convinced myself it was a deal that I couldn't refuse.

Buylongterm · Dec 25, 2025

Richard CR said:
because that typo will haunt me until the end of days, or until the R5 Mark III comes out. 5D mark II vs R5 Mark II is another one, i think both Craig and I have made that one.

We appreciate all you do! You're excused from a few typos. Happy Holidays.

tareqphoto · Dec 25, 2025

Because of R1 up to R5 latest models/versions i am putting my hope on both, R6 Mark III and R7 Mark II, i don't think i have to go very high specs, i came from 1DX and 1 series so i am sure many mirrorless nowadays can match quality or even surpass for sure, and that is all what i need, i don't care much about body performance, i am planning to return back to sports photography, i won't think too much about high flagship body because i don't do anything professionally and not very serious or not getting paid, so i won't spend for R1/A1/Z9 or even Z8/R3/A9III level to justify it, i saw enough results from R5 and R6 and R7 and even R8 that showing me that quality is there, struggling with focus or settings is another story.

tareqphoto · Dec 25, 2025

Why did you start a new thread when you already have one before?

Also, what equipment [camera+lens] do you use nowadays?

Chig · Dec 25, 2025

Click said:
Lovely series, Chig.

Thank you

m4ndr4ke · Dec 25, 2025

Richard CR said:
it's a good idea unless there's a performance hit to turn it on for JPEG output.

That's what I'm currently doing. A few months ago I decided to quit using RAW for personal stuff, preferring final exposures in-camera. I'm shooting medium quality, max resolution jpegs with DLO and ALO.
It's not that I'm taking much advantage of DLO, as in fact I dial down sharpness a little but, I when I tested the 45mm, I noticed that DLO also cleared residual spherical aberrations, and that lead me to give it a try with all lenses.

David_B said:
Depends on the correction - does stretching qualify as correction?

That's the thing, yes. Even if being done optically, it's still stretching. Some defend adding, for instance, an extra lens element to straighten the image.
Will that extra element lead to a softer image? Perhaps.
Will that optically corrected image be softer than cropping a few pixels and enlarging a little bit? Hmm maybe, we don't really know.

Two things are certain:
1. The uncorrected image is the sharpest.
2. Profile corrections can be improved with new algorithms, for the same existing lenses, via lens firmware, new DLO methods or updates to post-processing software, while optical corrections stay the same for the lens lifetime.

bf · Dec 25, 2025

Intresting selection!
Suggestion: let's add a category for video cameras.
Comment: good discussion about RF 45 f1.2 (no personal opinion, no experience with it).
Personl opinion: I nominate Nikon Zf Silver for the best camera, not that I care that much about silver trim - I prefer that body and ergonomics over Z5/Z6 and it's technically a 2025 release!

Click · Dec 25, 2025

Very nice shots, ISv. Merry Christmas!

AlanF · Dec 25, 2025

David_B said:
Depends on the correction - does stretching qualify as correction?

Not to stretch a point, yes.

EricN · Dec 25, 2025

I wouldn't consider myself a scientist, but I become a fanatic of ultra wide lenses. So I have made some observations. a major thing depends on the quality of the optics, the sensor, and the correction process. I've come to believe each will have some effect on the final image. So, ideally everything is best possible. That said, two out of three isn't bad, is it?

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics