benperrin said:

I looked into masks some time ago but the problem I have is that it makes the process more complicated rather than less. Focus on Stars has an option for 14mm that might work but some sort of adapter would be required.

Click to expand...

More complicated compared with what? There is no simpler method, it takes about 30 seconds. You don’t even have to attach the mask to the camera. You are using it for so little time you can just hold it in place.

Don’t trust a fixed position switch that promises infinity focus. Don’t trust buttons that claim to go to infinity focus. They cannot possibly work correctly. The infinity focus point on any lens is temperature dependant. That’s why lenses use a “drunken L” symbol at infinity. It is also why they can go past the supposed infinity point. Because it moves as the temperature changes. Manual focus by eye, using a zoomed in view finder, is a start. However, that last little part is very difficult to spot with stars. A mask will get you there, quickly, easily and very simply, it's what professionals use with telescopes. Try it and you won't go back.

Focus on Stars is a Bahtinov Mask, altered in some fashion. They even say so in their description. If you look at their video / gif of it in action, that is almost exactly what you would see with a Bahtinov Mask.

David - Sydney said:

This is the point of anamorphic lenses - right? Has there been any empirical data for end quality of the result?

Click to expand...

Yes. Regarding their original purpose on film it’s pretty clear that the significantly increased film area’s effect of reducing grain and increasing resolution overcame the softness created by optically stretching the image back out to correct the squeezed distortion. I’m sure there will be some calculations somewhere if you looked for it.
However, due to digital’s much greater resolution per area and cleaner output the anamorphic technique isn’t as relevant for improved quality. In fact because it is digital the desqueeze has to be done through interpolation, similar to distortion correction that this thread is discussing, and my understanding is that unlike film, this produces a technically inferior result, and so it’s used to specifically produce a less perfect ‘look’.
It’s worth noting that desqueezing is going to require much more interpolation than tweaking the distorted corners in our RF lenses.

neuroanatomist said:

Comparing the new 14/1.4 VCM with the Sigma 14/1.4 Art (also a mirrorless lens) yields a similar conclusion – the Sigma lens is twice the weight and much larger.
Choice is good, and I know which lenses I prefer.

Click to expand...

Yes, assuming that we can actually use both options and have an appropriate budget to suit.
Canon would clearly prefer that users only have one RF option though :-(
At least we have one option now!

Sporgon said:

On the subject of digital correction, where a curved image is stretched back out to be straight again it’s worth remembering that in the movie industry when wanting to shoot in wide screen format it was common practice to shoot a compressed (and so distorted - ‘squeezed’) image in order to use the full width of (normally) 35mm film, and then distort it out the other way (desqueeze) to give the required wide screen format. And the reason ? To improve quality, where using more of the film area gave an improved quality and resolution despite having to be significantly distorted ‘post processing’ in order to view.
Incidentally the same thing is often done in digital image filming.
So digital correction is nothing to get hot under the collar about, as long as it’s not taken to the point where it is so severe that data is having to be created after the event.

Click to expand...

This is the point of anamorphic lenses - right? Has there been any empirical data for end quality of the result?

Del Paso said:

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

Click to expand...

We have to debate about something - right?
Bad enough for keyboard brand warriors but worse in cases (like distortion correction) to get empirical data.
Even photons to photos has problems identifying in-camera noise reduction in raw files.

Ekpil said:

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 ;-))

Click to expand...

Just as MP3 players replaced discmans, users preferred convenience vs quality. Same is today with photos except smart phones have computational improvements in-phone on the fly.

One thing that will improve but isn't there yet is constant and fast internet speed vs battery life.
Starlink is creating a different option for remote shooting but battery life is an issue. GPS in camera is hard enough.
Tethered cameras to phones for that reception and GPS location information seems to have a variable experience.
If Apple provided their latest BT etc technology for connectivity to a camera then this last point would be improved a lot.

bendilts said:

Example shot from the 600x1.4 wide open; I don't buy the "have to stop down to get focus" argument.

Click to expand...

Depends on what you're shooting, the subject size and distance, and how much of that subject you want in focus. Here's a shot with the 600/4 II + 1.4x at f/6.3, the head and feet of the snowy egret are in focus but the wing tips are not (shutter speed was more than fast enough to freeze them). I don't mind the wingtips being outside the DoF, but if I had wanted the whole bird in focus then I'd have needed f/9 or so (this was ISO 500, so I had plenty of freedom to stop down).

scyrene said:

Direct comparison with the EF era is tricky because the overall size of the market has shrunk so much. The economics of the thing must have changed a fair bit over the past couple of decades.

Click to expand...

I don't think that we can compare directly at all now. Materials cost/technologies, exchange rates/tariffs, manufacturing techniques, marketing and profit expectations, volume changes, competitive landscape and of course buyer demographic changes.

The increase in disposable income in middle classes especially in China, the reduction in media staff photographers and of course the rise of the essential smart phones and computational photographer.

So what can we compare with EF?? Focal range, aperture and sharpness seems about it.

I'm headed to Kenya on safari this spring, particularly looking for migratory birds that should be really plentiful in the rainy season. My main gear is the current RF 600 f/4 on the R5ii, and I'll also have an R7 with a much shorter lens, probably a 70-200 f/2.8, for larger and closer subjects. In my experience, the 600 sees almost all of the action on safari.

I'd happily shell out to replace it with a 300-600 f/4L even if it's heavier. No interest in a slower lens, as I've absolutely loved the extra light collection in poor conditions vs the otherwise excellent 100-500 lens, and honestly I struggle to see the big draw of 300-600 f/5.6 over that lens.

If they make a true RF 600 f/4 with a 1.4x toggle built in, I'll pre-order day 1.

Example shot from the 600x1.4 wide open; I don't buy the "have to stop down to get focus" argument.

AlanF said:

Decent light and closer makes all the difference with the same camera and lens. Shoveller, Shelduck and Nuthatch.View attachment 228054View attachment 228055View attachment 228056

Click to expand...

Great photos, love the shelduck

If the 300-600mm is under $5k, I’ll preorder. Is that a realistic expectation?

AlanF said:

Decent light and closer makes all the difference with the same camera and lens. Shoveller, Shelduck and Nuthatch.View attachment 228055View attachment 228056

Click to expand...

Well done, Alan.

Canon Rumors said:

I'm currently in Colombia chasing birds. I have seen a bunch of those Nikon primes. They're great. I would buy a 600 6.3 yesterday if it was an option. No point in the f/4 even for hummingbirds.

Click to expand...

Yep, it's all about magnification. If the lens focuses close enough to make a hummingbird large in the frame, then f/8 is about as fast as you can go if you want the whole bird in focus and that is pretty much independent of focal length.

Richard CR said:

There is certainly a cost associated with supporting CPS everywhere that is 100% certain. and someone pays, they aren't a charity

Click to expand...

I suspect that their Olympics support comes out of Canon's Imaging Marketing Department budget. Used/returned cameras and lenses can be resold as refurbished. Last year their Imaging division had a 16.4% operating profit margin, which doesn't strike me as being excessive.

tron said:

And instead of trying to

I never said that I use it at 14mm ONLY. I have the RF14-35. I use if for landscapes at full range, some more some less.

Click to expand...

You were saying to test it 14mm. As both the 11mm and 12mm don't stop at 14mm, I interpreted your meaning as "ONLY." My sincere apologies.

ISv said:

Eating the saucepan is also cheaper:
"Killing a brush turkey is illegal in Australia as they are a protected species, with fines ranging from roughly
$667 to over $133,000, and potential jail time. In New South Wales, penalties can reach up to $22,000, while in Queensland, serious offenses can incur penalties up to $483,900 or two years"
From the Internet.

Click to expand...

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are generally allowed to catch and eat Australian brush turkeys, provided it is for non-commercial purposes.

AlanF said:

Some shots under terrible conditions yesterday. Miserable light, far away and tiny crops from the R5ii + RF 200-800mm. Meadow Pipit, Fieldfare and Wren.

View attachment 228051View attachment 228052View attachment 228053

Click to expand...

The Wren looks pretty good indeed! Nicely posing.

AlanF said:

Do I recall that the advice about cooking and eating a Bush Turkey is to boil it for 24 hours then throw it away and eat the saucepan?

Click to expand...

Eating the saucepan is also cheaper:
"Killing a brush turkey is illegal in Australia as they are a protected species, with fines ranging from roughly
$667 to over $133,000, and potential jail time. In New South Wales, penalties can reach up to $22,000, while in Queensland, serious offenses can incur penalties up to $483,900 or two years"
From the Internet.

zardoz said:

Every image I've ever shot is in Lightroom for dating back from my 1Ds Mark II and 20D. I'm somewhat wedded to that platform. LR's library management is critical to me.

Click to expand...

There's a really easy facility to export from LR to stand-alone applications like DxO. The result of which can then easily be imported back into LR. Traditionally, a lot of people (including me) used LR mainly as a cataloguing tool, with the ability to do some basic manipulation. Frankly, the level of adjustments you can do no the latest LR version means that I rarely venture out. But a lot of people will still do so to get particular results, especially noise reduction at high ISOs, but also decent stacking. Raw conversion with lens correction profiles is very much a matter of individual taste, and people will use whatever software they think gives THEM the best result.

Decent light and closer makes all the difference with the same camera and lens. Shoveller, Shelduck and Nuthatch.

Some shots under terrible conditions yesterday. Miserable light, far away and tiny crops from the R5ii + RF 200-800mm. Meadow Pipit, Fieldfare and Wren.

Click said:

I really like the last one.

Click to expand...

+1!!!

Dragon said:

I found it interesting that the 600 and 800 f/11 lenses used DO but didn't really talk about it nor did they sport the green ring.

Click to expand...

The quality and specs of these lenses aren't up to a green ring, the EF 400mm f/4.0 DO lenses had full L quality, which was reflected in their prices, of course.

Dragon said:

Nikon applied the Fresnel treatment to their Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3 PF VR S and that also points out how much weight and cost savings are possible with that approach.

Click to expand...

Plus the Z 600mm f/6.3, which is really sharp, my wife as a copy as I wrote in my previous post, and I am impressed by that little gem of a supertele lens. The Z 800mm must be impressively light, too, but I guess it is too long for birds-in-flight. When I pair my EF 600mm III with a 1.4x TC I really struggle to keep a fast flying bird in the very narrow image frame.

shire_guy said:

Australian Brush-turkey

View attachment 228005

White-faced Heron (with lunch)

View attachment 228006

Click to expand...

Do I recall that the advice about cooking and eating a Bush Turkey is to boil it for 24 hours then throw it away and eat the saucepan?

tron said:

I also said that a more apples to apples - if you want - comparison is to compare lenses at the same focal length.

Now, instead of talking with irony (mostly) @neuro and you, you could compare with other zoom lenses with the same starting FL. Like say Sigma 14-24.

Click to expand...

The main topic of this thread is digital correction of distortion, not image quality at a given focal length. I’m not sure why we would compare one lens at the extreme of its focal range with another lens somewhere in the middle of its focal range, where for the latter the distortion is much reduced.

I mean, we could compare the RF 14-35/4 to the RF 24-50/4.5-6.3 with both lenses at 24mm, but why…especially in the context of this topic? At 24mm, the RF 14-35/4 has essentially no distortion, while the 24-50/4.5-6.3 has lots.