neuroanatomist said:

Can that be set up already? It can on my R1.

View attachment 229319

Click to expand...

Yes, it can.

AlanF said:

To be frank as I am not Frank, I can do better than optyczne and put some approximate numbers on things and try and give some meaning to the MTF in simple terms that is relevant to this discussion. A crude analogy is one with human vision, in a way pertinent to telephoto lenses. If you have 20/20 vision you are deemed normal. 20/30 is you resolve at 20' what normal vision would resolve at 30' and so are worse than normal, and 20/15 means you are better than average and resolve at 20' what normal would resolve at 15' (or 6/6, 6/9, 6/4.5 in m for metric). Similarly, a lens with MTF 0.75 has to be at 15' away to resolve detail as well as one with an MTF of 1.0 at 20'. The MTF at 50 lp/mm, the highest detail measured in those charts for the 100-400 zoom is 0.61 and for the 400/5.6 prime is 0.55. That is telling you the zoom resolves roughly as well at say 65m as the prime at does at 55mm for high detail. (On top of all of this you acutance differences etc.)

I think the difference between the EF and RF 2x extenders on the lenses is not necessary the sharpness of the two lenses but in the way the extenders are tailored to the lenses.

Click to expand...

Sorry Alan....I was messaging another chap, over on Whatsapp called Frank at the same time as i was writing my forum reply here and for some reason my brain got the two names mixed, I am so sorry.
Canon's lens MFT charts are measuring lens optical resolution at 30 lpm and contrast at 10 lpm. Optyczne's sensor tests are measuring 50 lpm, which is similar to what some other lens brands have used in the past to determin their Lens optical MFT charts. However, the two approaches do align to some degree and hold merit, but there needs to be adjustments between the two scales. As they currently stand, they are a reasonable approximation between sensor and lens sharpness testing.

it is super helpful to know that firmware updates are coming and available. thanks! i might still be running firmware 1.0 on my 5d4...

GMCPhotographics said:

Hi Frank, using this data and assuming https://www.optyczne.pl/testy_aparatów.html site's tesing is accurate / correct then any lens that scores over .75 lpm will render optically sharp images on your R5ii. So the resolution difference between these two optics is clear in the MFT charts but won't necessarily carry over to anything observable on a camera sensor that has a max optical sharpness of around .75 lpm.
the only time we really get to see anything observable is when the optical resoluton drops to below the sensor's required value, usually when we use tele coverters. I've found that my EF 100-400mm f5.6 II L isn't very sharp with my R6ii when using a 2x TC. This correlates with the MFT data from Canon.
Your RF 100-500mm LIS seems to fare a bit better than my EF 100-400 with a 2X Tc and it is quite possible that is in this area we see (and prove) that the RF 100-500 LIS is a slightly optically shaper lens.

Click to expand...

To be frank as I am not Frank, I can do better than optyczne and put some approximate numbers on things and try and give some meaning to the MTF in simple terms that is relevant to this discussion. A crude analogy is one with human vision, in a way pertinent to telephoto lenses. If you have 20/20 vision you are deemed normal. 20/30 is you resolve at 20' what normal vision would resolve at 30' and so are worse than normal, and 20/15 means you are better than average and resolve at 20' what normal would resolve at 15' (or 6/6, 6/9, 6/4.5 in m for metric). Similarly, a lens with MTF 0.75 has to be at 15' away to resolve detail as well as one with an MTF of 1.0 at 20'. The MTF at 50 lp/mm, the highest detail measured in those charts for the 100-400 zoom is 0.61 and for the 400/5.6 prime is 0.55. That is telling you the zoom resolves roughly as well at say 65m as the prime at does at 55mm for high detail. (On top of all of this you acutance differences etc.)

I think the difference between the EF and RF 2x extenders on the lenses is not necessary the sharpness of the two lenses but in the way the extenders are tailored to the lenses.

AlanF said:

The EF 100-400mm II was and still is a superb lens. Posted below are the real MTF values measured by Uncle Roger, averaged over several copies of it and the EF 400mm f/5.6. Apart from the extreme corners, the zoom beats it on contrast and increasingly so for higher resolution. Nowadays with the R5ii, AF acquisition seems instantaneous for BIF with my telephotos, and it was certainly damn fast with the EF 100-400mm II on DSLRs using a 9 point centre setting. I really love the RF 100-500mm, and it works well with the 2xTC at 1000mm. I was out yesterday and the 2x extender on when a tiny Longtailed Tit suddenly appeared 10m away, I took a quick shot at 1000mm, a crop from the centre posted below. The shutter speed was too low at only 1/100s but it was still sharp enough (I don't like going below 1/500s as these small birds twitch rapidly and IS in any case is a bit dodgy when cropping such long focal lengths).

View attachment 229324View attachment 229325View attachment 229326

Click to expand...

Hi Frank, using this data and assuming https://www.optyczne.pl/testy_aparatów.html site's tesing is accurate / correct then any lens that scores over .75 lpm will render optically sharp images on your R5ii. So the resolution difference between these two optics is clear in the MFT charts but won't necessarily carry over to anything observable on a camera sensor that has a max optical sharpness of around .75 lpm.
the only time we really get to see anything observable is when the optical resoluton drops to below the sensor's required value, usually when we use tele coverters. I've found that my EF 100-400mm f5.6 II L isn't very sharp with my R6ii when using a 2x TC. This correlates with the MFT data from Canon.
Your RF 100-500mm LIS seems to fare a bit better than my EF 100-400 with a 2X Tc and it is quite possible that is in this area we see (and prove) that the RF 100-500 LIS is a slightly optically shaper lens.

According to optyczne's sensor testing, the R5II scores a value (on his MFT-50 test) of .76. So in a reasonable approximation, any lens that scores a wide open value of over .76 on the Canon MFT charts with keep up with or out resolve the sesnor and render a sharp image. Any lens under this value might render a slightly soft image (which might need a lot more sharpening in post). Although Canon's resoluton and contrast MFT's are slightly different to optyczne's charts, they are both a common and give a similar and relatable score.
When I look at the files from my R6ii and R5, I generally find that I need slightly sharper lenses on my R5 than my R6ii and a lot sharper lenses than I needed on my 5DIII. When I look at optyczne's results for these three cameras, I broadly agree with his results.
When I migrated from my 5DIII to an R8 and R6ii, I broadly found that I need a lens that resolved over .6 lpm on Canon's MFT charts. I was finding that my images were slightly softer with my EF 35m f1.4, EF 24-70mm f2.8 L and 85mm f1.2 II L on my newer cameras. The Af on those cameras were giving those old lenses a new lease of life, but the optics were not as sharp as they once were on the older cameras. If I stopped down a bit, there sharpness was there again.
With my R5, I find the same is broadly true for lenses over .8 lpm on Canon's MFT charts. Thankfully, this puts my EF 100-400mm f5.6 II L and 1.4x TC comfortably in the category, along with my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II with a 2X TC mkIII. The images I get are super sharp on either camera, wide open.

Here are the results for the canon cameras that he's tested that are of interest to me personally (he has a lot more cameras tested on his site)

R6 60 https://www.optyczne.pl/465.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R6_Rozdzielczość.html
R6II 64 https://www.optyczne.pl/485.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R6_Mark_II_Rozdzielczość.html
R6III 71 https://www.optyczne.pl/521.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R6_Mark_III_Rozdzielczość.html
R5II 76 https://www.optyczne.pl/510.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R5_Mark_II_Rozdzielczość.html
R5 82 https://www.optyczne.pl/457.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R5_Rozdzielczość.html
R7 93 https://www.optyczne.pl/483.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R7_Rozdzielczość.html
EOS-R 54 https://www.optyczne.pl/413.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R_Rozdzielczość.html
R8 65 https://www.optyczne.pl/490.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R8_Rozdzielczość.html
5DII 42 https://www.optyczne.pl/92.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II_Rozdzielczość.html
5DIII 46 https://www.optyczne.pl/179.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III_Rozdzielczość.html
5DIV 55 https://www.optyczne.pl/351.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_IV_Rozdzielczość.html
5Ds 67 https://www.optyczne.pl/324.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5Ds_Rozdzielczość.html
5DSR 79 https://www.optyczne.pl/324.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5Ds_Rozdzielczość.html

You might find some fault in his methodology or even my attempt to corelate optical sharpness to sensor resolution. But for me and what i've seeing, I would strongly suggest that these figures work and that the two sytems are roughly comparible. Maybe a slight adjustment between the two systems is in order, but as a generalisation they seem to work.

However...in real world use, I'm sure we can take a slightly optically soft image and apply some post processing sharpness routines to eek out more resolution that what was appraent in the original source image. Image Sharpensing ahs come a long way over the last 3-4 years.

GMCPhotographics said:

I had the EF 400mm f5.6 L for a long while, which I replaced with the EF 100-400mm f5.6 II LIS. The Prime was amazing for locking on and tracking Birds in flight "coming towards you" shots and was pretty amazing at that one trick. The zoom was way more versatile and superior in every area except when birds came at you head on. I still use this lens with an adapter as my main long tele / short wilde life lens. It takes a 1.4x TC really well, but not the 2x TC so much.

In terms of sharpness, the prime was a legend, however our cameras got more sophiticated and our sensors more densly populated with pixels. In time our camreas became sharper than some of our lenses. The EF 100-400mm f5.6 II LIS was an answer from Canon to higher resolving sensors. Many of the earlier EF lenses were refereshed with sharper optics, the EF 35mm f1.4 II L for example. optically, there's not much between it and the current VCM RF versions (optically).

I'd like to trade it up for the RF 100-500, however, that's a lot of cash for a mild upgrade and I'm still getting great results from my EF zoom. Sure, the RF lens is lighter, doesn't need an adapter, has a removable collar (not just the foot), has slightly better AF and IS and had a bit more reach. That's a lot of £££ for mild upgrades across the board. Perhapse I should flip my EF 100-400mm f5.6 LIS II before it gets too battered and looses too much of it's resale value. It's probably more an economics choice more than the features / specs of the newer lens.

Click to expand...

The EF 100-400mm II was and still is a superb lens. Posted below are the real MTF values measured by Uncle Roger, averaged over several copies of it and the EF 400mm f/5.6. Apart from the extreme corners, the zoom beats it on contrast and increasingly so for higher resolution. Nowadays with the R5ii, AF acquisition seems instantaneous for BIF with my telephotos, and it was certainly damn fast with the EF 100-400mm II on DSLRs using a 9 point centre setting. I really love the RF 100-500mm, and it works well with the 2xTC at 1000mm. I was out yesterday and the 2x extender on when a tiny Longtailed Tit suddenly appeared 10m away, I took a quick shot at 1000mm, a crop from the centre posted below. The shutter speed was too low at only 1/100s but it was still sharp enough (I don't like going below 1/500s as these small birds twitch rapidly and IS in any case is a bit dodgy when cropping such long focal lengths).

Supposedly, two new features are 1) the addition of American Football as a Sports Event and 2) the electronic level can stay on during shooting. Both of these new features make sense. Source: Ordinary Filmmaker (YouTube).

Fingers still crossed for the ability to assign pre-capture to a single button.

Easer said:

I never EVER use the White Balance or the +/- button on top of the camera, I have +/- on the thump wheel, where I have had it for 35 years, and WB I set in post, just to say that not having these very well placed buttons available for customisation, is really, really stupid, it is some of the easiest accessible buttons on the camera, and they sit completely unused, and I bet that thát really goes for the most of us....

Any way, great if one-button precapture become a reality, an odd decision though, if they don't add it to the R5.2 also, thát is also a very expensive camera, and if they don't, I guess they will throw a lot of potential R5.2 customers in the direction of the R6.3, if not Sony/Nikon....;- /

Click to expand...

Same here I never use the White Balance or +/- buttons on top of the camera either and really wished they could be assigned to useful functions.

Here's a few images from my EF 100-400mm f5.6 LIS II, both with a 1.4x TC on a R6mkII.

AlanF said:

The EF 400mm f/5.6 L had quite a following, who thought it very sharp. Then along came the EF 100-400mm ii that was sharper than the prime, had excellent IS, not much heavier and was a zoom. A splendid lens, fully worth its price. Fortunately, it morphed into the RF 100-500 so I don't miss my two 100-400s.

Click to expand...

I had the EF 400mm f5.6 L for a long while, which I replaced with the EF 100-400mm f5.6 II LIS. The Prime was amazing for locking on and tracking Birds in flight "coming towards you" shots and was pretty amazing at that one trick. The zoom was way more versatile and superior in every area except when birds came at you head on. I still use this lens with an adapter as my main long tele / short wilde life lens. It takes a 1.4x TC really well, but not the 2x TC so much.

In terms of sharpness, the prime was a legend, however our cameras got more sophiticated and our sensors more densly populated with pixels. In time our camreas became sharper than some of our lenses. The EF 100-400mm f5.6 II LIS was an answer from Canon to higher resolving sensors. Many of the earlier EF lenses were refereshed with sharper optics, the EF 35mm f1.4 II L for example. optically, there's not much between it and the current VCM RF versions (optically).

I'd like to trade it up for the RF 100-500, however, that's a lot of cash for a mild upgrade and I'm still getting great results from my EF zoom. Sure, the RF lens is lighter, doesn't need an adapter, has a removable collar (not just the foot), has slightly better AF and IS and had a bit more reach. That's a lot of £££ for mild upgrades across the board. Perhapse I should flip my EF 100-400mm f5.6 LIS II before it gets too battered and looses too much of it's resale value. It's probably more an economics choice more than the features / specs of the newer lens.

OK, I see.
A video centered firmware.
Not for me.

Craig has fixed the cock up.

Seems like most people don't even want new features. There are many customization features missing. For me it is all about the EVF. The limitations about its activations and display are extreme. So much stuff on frame that you cannot disable and the hideous proximity sensor that eat up your battery. How are these not priorities?

On the video side, the ability to use false color when shooting CLog2 with view assist on would be really helpful (like the cinema cameras can do).

I never EVER use the White Balance or the +/- button on top of the camera, I have +/- on the thump wheel, where I have had it for 35 years, and WB I set in post, just to say that not having these very well placed buttons available for customisation, is really, really stupid, it is some of the easiest accessible buttons on the camera, and they sit completely unused, and I bet that thát really goes for the most of us....

Any way, great if one-button precapture become a reality, an odd decision though, if they don't add it to the R5.2 also, thát is also a very expensive camera, and if they don't, I guess they will throw a lot of potential R5.2 customers in the direction of the R6.3, if not Sony/Nikon....;- /

Pretty bummed this is f/4. I've been hoping for a 2.8 lens like this, though ideally starting at 18mm instead. I'd be willing to accept size and cost close to the 15-35. If Sony can make a 20-70/4, so can Canon. I have a hard time believing there's a larger market for gimbal users who want an internal zooming lens in this focal range and size/weight, compared to users who want a travel friendly lens that goes wider than 24mm. That Sony lens has been a real hit. But whatever, Canon does what Canon wants.

Guess I'll just wait for them to update the 24-105/4... which I suspect we'll be waiting several more years for, sadly. I hope I'm wrong.

blobmonster said:

Yes the size of the R8 is a massive advantage. Thats also ironically why Id love to see a built in flash.

Paired with the 28mm and a 50mm, there would be no lens shadow, and you don't need to bring a flash when travelling light. Its a real shame that you can buy the best full frame cameras but if you want a built in flash, you always need the aps-c. It makes little sense to me. If Im using a big lens, I will pack a big flash.

Click to expand...

I would also like to see a built in flash on the R8 II. I've used it a few times with my 90D and M50 II for butterflies to fill in the light.

Del Paso said:

You'll see it when reviewing in camera the picture you've just taken.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, that first message you get when booting up the camera. Very annoying.

AlanF said:

Hell, th

Hell, the site kept changing C o c k (without spaces) to penis!? I'll type it without spaces here, penis. And it changes it again!

Click to expand...

Just think what it will be like when Word Press incorporates AI .

robholding said:

One firmware feature I’d really love to see on the R5 Mark II is a dedicated “spirit level only” display mode.

Click to expand...

Can that be set up already? It can on my R1.

Glad to see that the new R1 firmware will allow us to assign a button to turn precapture on and off. Thank you Canon.

I do wonder what the major autofocus enhancement will be. It could be the addition of other sports under the Sports events setting?

I am going on a trip with the R1 in mid-May so I will not be updating the firmware until I get back (although the pre-assigned button has me tempted).

Honestly if they could add open gate I would be happy! Even if it requires the add on battery cooler.

robholding said:

One firmware feature I’d really love to see on the R5 Mark II is a dedicated “spirit level only” display mode.
At the moment, pressing INFO cycles through a black screen, a clean image with no info, and then the full info overlay which includes the level, but there’s no option to show just the level on its own without all the other icons and data.

A clean, standalone level (ideally slightly larger) would be incredibly useful for tripod work, interiors, architecture and landscapes. It’s a small firmware change that would make a big difference in real‑world shooting. Am I alone?

Click to expand...

You can turn off and edit all those screens. I am shooting real estate a lot and basicly I have one screen with histogram and big level (you can actually choose small or big one) and clean one. So pushing INFO btn I am quickly switching between those.

Hell, th

AlanF said:

C o c k Linnet this afternoon (R5ii + RF 200-800mm).

View attachment 229291View attachment 229292

Click to expand...

Hell, the site kept changing C o c k (without spaces) to penis!? I'll type it without spaces here, cock. And it changes it again!