Traveler said:

Too big and heavy
No I'm not joking. I really used the R5ii (also R6, R8, R) and it is that the R was the perfect size. R6 is acceptable (but without the top LCD) and the R5 is just too big and heavy. Call me crazy but that's what I feel and I returned the R5ii.

Click to expand...

Dragon said:

Just because Canon can make a few stacked sensors for high end cameras does not mean they have the fab capacity to make BSI sensors for "everything". Also, note that stacked sensors typically involve silicon from outside foundries for the computational and memory layers (and this is true for Sony as well as Canon). Both "simple" BSI and stacked sensors are more an advanced packaging issue than a fab issue and if you have been following the capacity woes of TSMC, you will know that advanced packaging is in seriously short supply around the world. Canon is about volume, so committing volume designs to limited capacity processes is not likely to happen.

Click to expand...

justaCanonuser said:

I always thought that prices & CLA costs do not matter for Leica users. Well, my perspective is always the one of a user, not a collector. But I understand that scratches and patina can really let explode the price of a camera, here is an example:

Leica M3 Bundeswehr olive f. Germany Military original vintage condition ca.195 | eBay.de

In ORIGINAL CONDIITON! Engraved 'Bundeseigentum 12-121-5418' on top plate, with matching Elmar 3.5/5cm no.1335666 engraved 'Bundeseigentum 12-121-5419'and matching olive green case. Gemäß EU-Recht gilt für Gebrauchtwaren eine Gewährleistungsfrist von einem Jahr.

www.ebay.de

Btw I learned that there are many faked copies of rare series are around... so a too greedy customer may get a "rare" Leica I, II, or III with the innerts of a cheap Soviet Leica copy

Click to expand...

mimbu said:

With the R6 II, Canon did not use noise reduction (NR) on the low ISOs, as can be seen by them being marked with circles on the Photons To Photos chart.

However with the R6 III, Canon seems to be using quite heavy noise reduction (NR) on the low ISOs, as shown with the triangles on the Photons To Photos chart.

Considering how close the R6 II and R6 III are in DR from ISO200 and up, it seems likely (not certain, but likely) that the "gain" in DR is due to the heavy application of NR with the new camera at low ISOs. I suspect that if there was a way to turn NR off, the R6 II & R6 III charts would closely track <200 ISO.

Click to expand...

EricN said:

Doesn't f2.8 become about f4.5 equivalent?

Click to expand...

EricN said:

I found it interesting from a technical point of view as I would not have guessed 500mm. Which lens and what f number?

Click to expand...

EOSR7MkII said:

Hello everyone! I have recently spotted two small patches of "white pixels" on my R7, and have been wondering if accidental exposure to the sun could have caused that during a recent shoot where I walked around with my mounted Nifty Fifty at f/1.8 without a lens cap (and focusing continuously). During that time, the sun definitely entered the frame a few times, but wasn’t stationary for more than ~10 seconds, so I am unsure if that caused it.

By doing some research, I had hoped to find a comprehensive guide on where the "danger zone" begins and which configurations are safe, but could not find anything concrete. Thus, I am hoping that some more experienced photographers could share their experiences to determine in an empirical way what is safe and what isn’t.

From what I understand, there are two distinct scenarios that are dangerous:

1. Thermally overwhelming single photosites: Focusing the sun with a low focal length and wide open aperture onto single photosites (sun covers very small area on sensor), overheating and damaging them, causing them to permanently malfunction, while adjacent photosites remain (mostly) intact.
2. Thermally overwhelming the sensor cooling capability: With a telephoto lens, project a larger image of the sun onto the sensor (lower intensity/photosite, but much more energy deposited on sensor overall), causing large portions of or the entire sensor to overheat, melt, and potentially cause a fire.

For the purpose of this thread (to make values comparable), I would like to mostly focus on the first scenario, although hearing about instances of the second will be insightful as well. I will also assume that the photosites are always the same size, also ignoring technicalities such as dual pixels and wiring for now. Let us also assume that we take a picture of the bright midday sun that emits a fixed (maximum) light intensity. Let us further assume that the camera is focused at "infinity" (or, you know, the distance of the sun) to produce the smallest-possible spot on the sensor.

It is my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong, though!) that the f-number and the duration of the exposure are the only relevant variables, with other things like focal length actually not (strongly) affecting the intensity of light at a single photosite (and instead mostly the total thermal load on the sensor).

Spoiler: Explanation

If I have a 200mm lens with f/1.8 compared to an 18mm lens with f/1.8, it is my understanding (based on this this formula) that the light intensity hitting each photosite is identical, only the image of the sun is much larger on the sensor in the former case (risking damage to many more photosites at the same time, and requiring larger turns of the camera to get the photosites out of the sun projection, and producing a much higher thermal load on the sensor as a whole). A wide-angle lens simply projects the same-intensity sun because of the same f-number, but onto much less photosites. This is correct, right?

I am aware that I am ignoring the fact that in case of telephoto lenses, there is a greatly reduced heat dissipation to neighboring photosites if they are also illuminated by the sun, since a whole section of the sensor then heats up as a whole. This may well introduce a (weak) dependence of the formula also on focal length, however, its impact should be lower (at most linear) compared to the f-number, which has a squared relationship according to this formula. For the sake of simplicity, I will thus ignore focal length.

ISO should not have any impact whatsoever, because it doesn't impact the intensity of light that shines onto the photosite.

Thus, I think it would be most useful to derive an approximation formula for maximum safe exposure time of a single photosite to the sun as a function of f-number ("N"). I created a simple prototype below:
t₀/N² < t_max(N²) < t₁/N²,
where t₀ is the largest reported time where you observed no sensor damage when using a lens of f-number "N", and t₁ is the smallest reported (by you, below!) time where you observed sensor damage when using a lens with f-number "N". t_max then is the f-number-dependent threshold exposure time, where sensor damage is starting to be expected.

As mentioned, I would like to derive upper time limits of what is safe and the lower time limits of when sensor damage can be expected (probably differing by a factor >2).

Therefore, I would like to ask YOU, if you ever photographed the sun without an ND filter for a certain amount of time and experience no damage, as well as if you ever photographed the sun and experienced sensor damage (with or without ND filter), to report the duration and f-number of the lens that you used (both of which is conveniently stored within images if you didn't use ND filters). It is important to note that the camera must have remained steady for this shot for wide angle lenses (less important for telephoto lenses, because the sun covers a large area of the sensor!).

As this is essentially two formulas in one, not only those who damaged their sensors are asked to comment their exposure times and f-numbers, but also everyone who pointed at the sun and DIDN'T damage their sensor. This will allow everyone reading this thread to get a feeling for what is generally safe, and what is generally destructive.

Based on this thread, we already have a first reported exposure duration of around 5 minutes that did not cause damage, although the f-number is missing. @Kit Lens Jockey if you are seeing this, do you by chance still have the picture and can report on the f-number and a rough approximation of the density of the solar-blocking filter on the window?

Thank you all for your help! Once some of you reported your experiences and concrete values, I will update this post to derive lower and upper limits (t₀ and t₁).

Click to expand...

ISv said:

Nothing interesting from the birds today. After the last rains as expected there were some mushrooms growing: for the first one (two photos) I would expect Agaricus comptus. Slightly yellow bruising on the very base of the stem. Otherwise not bruising at all. After that Agaricus comptuloides with that purplish fibrils on the cap. Both are reported from Hawaii. For the last one I don't know: my first reaction was Leucoagaricus meleagris but it differs by many macroscopic features... All photos with 500mm prime (+/- 3 meters from the object).
These are for people who are interested of mushrooms, nothing from photo point of view...

View attachment 227129View attachment 227130View attachment 227131View attachment 227132

Click to expand...

Del Paso said:

No chance using a shorter M focal on an EOS R or sony.
If the focal length is shorter than 35mm, you'll get some ugly color cast on the sides of the picture. You'd need a camera like the M, of course, or an SL with Leica's decoding adapter to get clean results. Even Panasonic's S series won't work with M lenses, despite it having the same bayonet as the SL.
I've tested all my M lenses on the R and R5 II, 35mm and longer work perfectly. But 28mm and shorter, no chance!

Click to expand...

zardoz said:

I have the EF 35L first gen, II and the RF 35 1.4L VCM. I'd pre-order this as soon as I can if it come out. The optical distortion along with the optical shortcomings on the 35 VCM vs the EF II have kept the EF one around in my kit, but I do enjoy the compact nature of the 35 VCM as this is less imposing for subjects.

Click to expand...

Sporgon said:

It’s a shame that people don’t feel the same about the highlight end of DR as they do shadows, in the depth of which it seems to be erroneously regarded by many as the Holy Grail of image quality.

Click to expand...

Quack said:

The point of the reply was to hopefully discourage people from making ridiculous statements based on zero facts and backed by zero evidence. Some of us (I hope) find that there is way too much of this kind of bullcrap on forums and the internet in general. If you don't mind bullcrap fine, don't reply to it or even give it a "like." I prefer when it is pointed out and hopefully discouraged.

Click to expand...

Bob Howland said:

What was the point of your reply? If his comment was so foolish, then your reply did nothing except make you look like an obnoxious bull, a role which you seem to relish..

Click to expand...

neuroanatomist said:

I don’t think we needed another demonstration that some people on the internet have no problem posting things that make them look foolish. But thanks, anyway.

Click to expand...