neuroanatomist said:

I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate in the final image the inferiority of digital geometric distortion correction, compared to optical correction that some people claim is superior. I tried and failed, finding that digital correction was just as good. Since you clearly believe that optical correction is better, perhaps you'll be the one to actually show some evidence to support that belief?

I won't hold my breath.

Click to expand...

seems like mostly a cake and eat it too thing. i want to buy lenses that create low distortion images. in the film days, without digital lens correction i had to buy big / heavy and live with a lot of aberration (EF 17-40: i am talking about you). EF17-40 was pretty popular before the full frame digitals became available.

i guess i FEEL like i spend all this money on a full frame sensor (rather than a APSC) and so i want lenses that illuminate the whole thing. once the corners are dark, the digital lens correction is essentially cropping in. (2 mm-ish in the above example)

For the EF 17-40 the entire 35mm frame was covered in light but the corners were not very good. digital lens correction can make a big difference in its images and i am happy for DLC.

But, now designs are assuming digital lens correction from the jump, maybe choosing to exhibit easier to correct distortions and better control hard to correct distortions. I feel like my full frame is wasted but probably need to appreciate the size, weight, and cost savings present in the lenses. I have to say I am pretty happy with the picts from the RF 24-240. I havent owned the EF 28-300 but it looked big and heavy. BTW, I also liked the Tamron EF 28-300 as a travel lens, DLC helps it too.

Richard CR said:

Given the lack of elements and the fact that the lens does not fill the entire image circle on the wide end, I don't think this is an L-grade design, but it would make a lot of sense as a prosumer constant f/2.8 lens.

Click to expand...

Looks like ~17 elements (hard to be sure on my phone screen). That’s the same number as in the RF 70-200/2.8 lenses (Z and non-Z), so I wouldn’t call that a ‘lack of elements’. Also worth noting that the RF 24-105/2.8L Z does not fill the entire image circle on the wide end.

Having said that, I agree that this is most likely a design for prosumer lens to match the current 16-28 and 28-70 f/2.8 STM lenses.

Honestly expected 70-180

What happened to that patented RF-S 15-60 F2.8 Z? That one would have been my preference (though it's a teeny bit less exciting now that the Sigma 17-40 f/1.8 is available) but if that's been scrapped then here's hoping for the 15-70 f/2.8-4. Even with it apparently darkening quickly, that extra stop of light on the wide end is VERY useful indoors.

Also hope Canon's revising the 18-45 so future budget RF-S bodies have something more useful. Still can't believe they started it at 18mm vs the 15mm of it's predecessor!

GirlsAreBeautiful said:

R52 is definetely worth it over the 1, AF is spotless if you have a capable RF lens. How much did you pay for the body?

Click to expand...

£1600 UKP. It was a very good price for a new R5mk1

This would be a lens that has my attention.

It would be a nice travel lens. I think it would sell quite well if the price was reasonable. Good for the crop sensor cameras.
I’ve a suggestion a new Canon RF 75-300mm f/4-5.6. They could call it Canon RF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 II and that name would be the only thing they need to change.

GirlsAreBeautiful said:

not really, also where is the bubble? a lot of AI is satisfying a real need.

Click to expand...

"Bubble" is in that we see advertisements suggesting "you can get rich if you learn AI NOW!!!" and the commercialization of pastiche-like "creative" software. Eventually, people will realize they can't get rich so easily, and pastiche is pastiche.

ISv said:

Click to expand...

You're sad? You should see the weather here. Thank you for your beautiful photos, they warm the heart.

Beautiful flowers. Nicely done, ISv.

blackcoffee17 said:

Not filling the whole image circle. What's next? Filling half of the sensor with AI generated image?

Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate in the final image the inferiority of digital geometric distortion correction, compared to optical correction that some people claim is superior. I tried and failed, finding that digital correction was just as good. Since you clearly believe that optical correction is better, perhaps you'll be the one to actually show some evidence to support that belief?

I won't hold my breath.

Etnaphele said:

This makes me VERY jealous of Sony boys with the new TC compatible 100mm Macro. Or would it still not cut it?

Interesting, I have a couple of butterfly shots taken with the 200-800 but environmental rather than closeup macro. I won't ever justify an additional 100-500 for myself, but am seriously thinking about the 100 Macro. I have to dig deeper to understand what floats my boat...

Click to expand...

Consider the RF 100-400mm. It's one of the bargain kings, and small, light and versatile.

Maximilian said:

Does anything speak against the Sigma f/2.8 zooms for video?

Click to expand...

They have no IS. And with the R50 (or R50 V) having no IBIS, this is not a dream combination for video.

P-visie said:

No, the working distance from the front of the lens to the subject would be way too short for skittish insects like dragonflies and butterflies. Cropping is no substitue for a long RF macrolens.

Click to expand...

This makes me VERY jealous of Sony boys with the new TC compatible 100mm Macro. Or would it still not cut it?

AlanF said:

This is where the RF 100-500 and 100-400mm are so good. It's just great to have a lens you can use for both birding and dragonflies on a hike. Put a 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm and you have a good 1000mm for long distances and x0.6 at about 1m for dragonflies and butterflies. Although the 200-800mm is my favourite for birding, it's second fiddle to the RF 100-500mm on many occasions.

Click to expand...

Interesting, I have a couple of butterfly shots taken with the 200-800 but environmental rather than closeup macro. I won't ever justify an additional 100-500 for myself, but am seriously thinking about the 100 Macro. I have to dig deeper to understand what floats my boat...

Richard CR said:

ah, you've missed all my lectures on the subject!

Consider a card like a small SSD, there's a finite number of times that you can write to each cell before you start to get problems. and unlike SSD's where alot of the data on them is atypically static, cards typically get their entire contents flushed and re-written frequently. Also some cards have wear leveling, and some do not. it's not something they commonly mention either.

so it's just a bad idea to keep using the same few cards over and over, especially if you use your cameras frequently and take a ton of photos or video. To be fair, this is usually measured in years of use. it's not as if they'll die in 6 months, but if you tend to fill a card, wipe it and use it again, and do this over and over - just realize there are limits - especially with high capacity cards.

it's probably a good topic to discuss on it's own - sounds like an article in there. I may have to blow up a few cards to write it.

Click to expand...

You can use Crystal Disk Info to check the quality and wear of your memory cards (windows only).
See: https://crystalmark.info/en/software/crystaldiskinfo/

P-visie said:

No, the working distance from the front of the lens to the subject would be way too short for skittish insects like dragonflies and butterflies. Cropping is no substitue for a long RF macrolens.

Click to expand...

This is where the RF 100-500 and 100-400mm are so good. It's just great to have a lens you can use for both birding and dragonflies on a hike. Put a 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm and you have a good 1000mm for long distances and x0.6 at about 1m for dragonflies and butterflies. Although the 200-800mm is my favourite for birding, it's second fiddle to the RF 100-500mm on many occasions.

David - Sydney said:

Does a r7ii with this resolution and the rf100 macro negate the need for a long macro lens (working distance)? AF and fps would support handheld usage

Click to expand...

No, the working distance from the front of the lens to the subject would be way too short for skittish insects like dragonflies and butterflies. Cropping is no substitue for a long RF macrolens.

AlanF said:

I wouldn't argue with your experience at viewing high and low MP sensors output at the same size. But, when not downsizing the higher MP sensor, the wider and sharper the lens, the more the improvement in increasing MP. I really noticed this when I had both the 400mm f/4 DO ii and 100-400mm f/5.6 ii and the 90D.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I’ve stopped using what might be regarded as mid level lenses on my 5DS for landscape work, lenses such as the EF 24-70 f/4 L for instance, because the IQ I get from ‘high resolution’ lenses is stunning, especially when viewed at full output. But technique is also critical of course, my most important accessory now is an umbrella to keep wind off the camera !
As you noted, my comments were based on viewing high and ‘low’ res files at more normal sizes, so closer to the lower mp camera’s output size.

Not filling the whole image circle. What's next? Filling half of the sensor with AI generated image?

Oh yes, finally some hope. 100% agree. Just do it!

Sporgon said:

Using a middle of the road lens on a ‘high’ mp sensor definitely gives a sharper, higher IQ image when reduced in size to the output of a ‘low’ mp sensor using the same lens. However, if you use a really high resolving lens on both then the ‘low’ mp sensor steps up to match the reduced ‘high’ mp in my experience, at least when not shooting at the extremes of either spherical aberration or diffraction.
I agree with you; high mp is a good selling point, and will no doubt continue to increase until such a time when manufacturers can gain further sales by offering a ‘low’ mp model of about 20 mp !

Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue with your experience at viewing high and low MP sensors output at the same size. But, when not downsizing the higher MP sensor, the wider and sharper the lens, the more the improvement in increasing MP. I really noticed this when I had both the 400mm f/4 DO ii and 100-400mm f/5.6 ii and the 90D.

mangobutter said:

I'm not really sure what the point of 40mp crop sensor is if Canon doesn't really have any dedicated high-end APS-C lens ecosystem. Best case scenario, such a high res aps-c sensor (high pixel density) is optimal with the latest 70-200Z and RF 24-105 2.8 or other super high end lenses... i mean sure you can use this with any lens, but at that point, what's the point in getting this body other than to say you have the latest and greatest Canon crop camera.

Click to expand...

This is the reason why Canon is the only (full-frame) company making this type of camera (mid/upper range crop sensor): it is a specific tool for specific needs. It will mostly be bought as a second body to a full frame camera, hence the absence of specialized APS-C lenses. As others wrote, if you crop a lot and value pixels on target, such a high-performing crop camera makes perfect sense. Birding, macro, astro should be the main uses for it. It (may) not target lower weight or cost reduction as is usually the case for R10 und below.

The alternative is a very high MP count camera with high price and where you don't use much of the sensor: the R5II gives around 17MP in crop mode. The current 33MP R7 has 40% more linear resolution than that.

This would be my lens for the holiday bag. Used the Sigma 50-150 EX II in conjunction with the Canon 17-55 2.8 back in the EOS 30D days. The Sigma was soft but very compact.... always hoped the y would bring a sharper version on RF

Traveler said:

Because high MP is a good selling point and people overestimate it. I know people using high-MP cameras with low-res lenses and they are absolutely sure that it brings them much more sharpness.
Give people high numbers and they are happy.

Click to expand...

Using a middle of the road lens on a ‘high’ mp sensor definitely gives a sharper, higher IQ image when reduced in size to the output of a ‘low’ mp sensor using the same lens. However, if you use a really high resolving lens on both then the ‘low’ mp sensor steps up to match the reduced ‘high’ mp in my experience, at least when not shooting at the extremes of either spherical aberration or diffraction.
I agree with you; high mp is a good selling point, and will no doubt continue to increase until such a time when manufacturers can gain further sales by offering a ‘low’ mp model of about 20 mp !

Uneternal said:

Sounds like a pretty boring upgrade, similar to the EOS R6III. From 33 to 39MP isn't that big of an upgrade, but at least they finally compete with Fujifilm. I wonder if Sony will still trail behind with 26MP.

Click to expand...

I'm all in for boring updates, now the kinks of the RF systems have been mostly ironed out: body ergonomics of the R7 are one of these kinks and really hope they use the R6 body. The MP count upgrade won't be the focus of the Mark II, but its speed: a jump from 33 to 39 plus a faster scan is a huge upgrade sensor side. Personally, I would prefer they stick with 33 but really kill rolling shutter.