snapshot said:

The sensor corners are not collecting photons, but i sort of see your point.

Click to expand...

You are right that parts of the sensor are not exposed and thus "wasted", so that the image circle from further in has to be stretched outwards but only into the corners, as @neuroanatomist mentioned earlier, leading to a loss of resolution in the corners. Now, this sounds bad on its own, but since most lenses already fair less than optimal in the corners, particularly at lower prices, and as long as the stretching results in an equivalent image quality, we can benefit at "similar" image quality from smaller, lighter, and cheaper lenses.

What I am trying to say is that while this might waste some pixels in the corners, it is effectively irrelevant to us users, if we still get the same image quality as we would get from a not-wasteful larger, but still equally priced lens.

Took theses the other Evening on a trip we took to Japantown in SF, I have to say there is a strong argument for only needing the 28-70 and 70-200 to cover a TON of ground I mean a ton. This lens really has floored me It is my go to in my studio here , it has been used heavily for music, product photography, event photography and headhot/portrait work as well. It does almost all of it flawlessly and while It isn't quite on par with my 85 1.2 for full on portrait shots it sure is a fantastic one lens wonder in my eyes.

This lens is bad in ways that are hard to express. For me the revulsion is nausea inducing. It's just bad in too many ways.

AlanF said:

Yes. Resolution is the ability to separate two close lines or points, and your image is virtually devoid of such detail. Resolution and acuity are two very common ways to assess technical quality of photographic images. Resolution refers to how much subject detail is retained in the image or print. Acuity refers to the sharpness of fine edges and lines.

Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining. Makes sense, I've had it wrong all along. Either way, I would say the r3 does better but every man to his own.

Mark flyer said:

Really? Looks like you can almost see individual pixels. The key is almost, count down the left side of the right peak for detail

Click to expand...

Yes. Resolution is the ability to separate two close lines or points, and your image is virtually devoid of such detail. Resolution and acuity are two very common ways to assess technical quality of photographic images. Resolution refers to how much subject detail is retained in the image or print. Acuity refers to the sharpness of fine edges and lines.

Planterz said:

You're missing the 1.6x crop factor. Even if the resolution remains the same as the R7, if you're shooting small/distant things (birds, planes, Kriptonians) that's a lot more pixels on subject. Most likely, this will be Canon's target customer base. I don't really see them trying to compete with either Sony or Fuji in this regard. Sony's a6XXX APS-C cameras are rangefinders and less appropriately suited to action/wildlife and Fuji's tends to cater more towards those interested in the aesthetics of the camera and their jpeg picture profiles.

Click to expand...

Its alllllll about those Kriptonians man...

But there's not much else to compare to, sorry

Planterz said:

A distant mountain is a poor choice. Too much atmosphere in the way to resolve fine detail, too much that can change between shots.

Click to expand...

Planterz said:

A distant mountain is a poor choice. Too much atmosphere in the way to resolve fine detail, too much that can change between shots.

Click to expand...

I see your point

A distant mountain is a poor choice. Too much atmosphere in the way to resolve fine detail, too much that can change between shots.

Really? Looks like you can almost see individual pixels. The key is almost, count down the left side of the right peak for detail

AlanF said:

It would be rather difficult to choose a worse example for assessing resolution. It’s virtually devoid of detail to resolve

Click to expand...

Mark flyer said:

View attachment 227424View attachment 227425

Click to expand...

It would be rather difficult to choose a worse example for assessing resolution. It’s virtually devoid of detail to resolve.

Yea I don't want this, for the STM line just do a 70-180 or even 70-150 and make it as small as possible don't start it at 50, if 70-150 (or even 135) meant it was as small as the 16-28 and 28-70 its an instant buy.

HOWEVER

I would LOVE a 50-150 f/2.0

You will also notice that it's not as cropped in

Quack said:

R5 is very obviously out-resolving the R3. Not sure why you can't see it.

Click to expand...

Mark flyer said:

Top is r3, bottom r5, cropped in on mount bachelor, im not sure if the r3 out resolved the r5 but either way there's not much difference

Click to expand...

R5 is very obviously out-resolving the R3. Not sure why you can't see it.

M4rcin said:

You serious with that 3rd party on Canon APSC? Bruh.... Also it's wildlife body and Canon have many high end glass for that porpoise good enough for 40mp apsc sensor.

Click to expand...

Maybe people want to photograph more than porpoises with their APS-C cameras. And I don't just mean dolphins or whales. Maybe they want to shoot landscapes or portraits or street life too.

Mark flyer said:

View attachment 227424View attachment 227425

Click to expand...

Top is r3, bottom r5, cropped in on mount bachelor, im not sure if the r3 out resolved the r5 but either way there's not much difference

neuroanatomist said:

That is not correct. It's not cropping, it's digitally correcting the barrel distortion. Light that would have filled the corners was bent further into the frame, the correction stretches it back to the corners. As an example, when comparing the RF 14-35/4 (black corners at 14mm), with correction in DxO the resulting image gives a FoV equivalent to ~13.5mm on the EF 11-24/4 (which is essentially distortion free at 13-14mm as it transitions from strong barrel distortion to milder pincushion distortion). It helps that the uncorrected RF 14-35/4 has a FoV of a bit wider than 13mm.

Click to expand...

The sensor corners are not collecting photons, but i sort of see your point.

You serious with that 3rd party on Canon APSC? Bruh.... Also it's wildlife body and Canon have many high end glass for that porpoise good enough for 40mp apsc sensor.

"robust against manufacturing errors"

A way of decreasing manufacturing costs.