Latest activity

Noreaster · Sunday at 12:22 PM

American goldfinch and white breasted nuthatch

neuroanatomist · Sunday at 11:27 AM

Snapster said:
I might also be inherently against "one lens solution" type of lenses. It's rarely if ever the best tool for the job.

IMO, sometimes the ‘one lens solution’ is the best tool for the job. For me, when the ‘job’ is a family trip where I want good quality photos including memory shots, but don’t want to detract from time with the family by carrying a bag full of lenses and changing them out, the best tool is often the R8 and RF 24-240mm.

But yeah, if I’m being honest then I will add that I often also carry a fast, wide prime (24/1.4, 24/1.8 or 20/1.4) and the 10-20/4 since that kit fits in a bag small enough that it isn’t excluded from venues (museums, etc.) that don’t allow backpacks.

Click · Sunday at 11:02 AM

Cute little ball of feathers. Nicely done, Alan.

AlanF · Sunday at 10:51 AM

I went back to the same spot as I saw a Firecrest yesterday, this time armed with the RF 100-500mm as the conditions were so dire between showers. Got in just one shot as a bird briefly appeared for about 20 seconds. And, when I looked at the image - a Goldcrest. (1/200s at iso 40,000), I am tempted to buy a used 400mm f/4 DO ii for these conditions, but it would rarely be used and still cost about £3500).

Snapster · Sunday at 9:55 AM

Checking travel pics from last summer, I realized I shoot so much landscape at 200mm this won't make it. Also in cities and with people I often use apertures faster than 2.8.

I might also be inherently against "one lens solution" type of lenses. It's rarely if ever the best tool for the job.

Click · Sunday at 9:44 AM

ISv and Speedfinder,

Very nice shots, guys.

Traveler · Sunday at 9:43 AM

Would be much nicer to have something like 70-180 (closer to the 200mm and maybe less wide if it makes the lens easier to design). But I get that the diameter of the front element depends… you all know it.

And Canon probably needs to protect their 70-200 (both f/4 and f/2.8) so there must be some disadvantages to that STM lens.

Speedfinder · Sunday at 9:37 AM

Forgot to add, its a Corn Bunting central Spain

Speedfinder · Sunday at 9:35 AM

They might be LBJs but they can sing .

neuroanatomist · Sunday at 9:31 AM

David_B said:
If someone used different lenses and could prove a difference, would it be accepted? Or would people argue that the results aren't meaningful because different lenses. Maybe it doesn't matter because people will just be argumentative.

It would likely depend on the comparison. For example, I’m not sure that comparing the digitally corrected corners of the inexpensive RF 16/2.8 to the optically corrected RF 15-35/2.8 would be valid, because the base quality of the two lenses is very different. Having said that, it is interesting that the digitally corrected corners of the RF 16/2.8 deliver similar IQ to the optically corrected corners of the far more expensive (but also much older) EF 14/2.8L II.

David_B said:
Sorry, I can't help as I don't have the required equipment (a lens that doesn't fill the sensor.)

I see. So you’re belief that optical correction is superior is akin to faith – belief without evidence.

David_B said:
IMHO, to do a proper test you'd need to shoot a test pattern chart, the kind that's used by digitalpicture, dpreview, with all the lines at angles to enable measuring lpmm, etc.

As @AlanF mentioned, I have the same enhanced ISO 12233-type charts used by Bryan/TDP.

David_B said:
Thanks, I didn't know that.

You’re welcome.

Skyfall · Sunday at 9:20 AM

Exploreshootshare said:
For city trips, I take the R5 along with the 14-35mm F4 L and the 70-200mm F4, sometimes a fast prime. For hiking, it depends on the route. Either I take the exact same combo, or I switch the 14-35mm for the 35mm F1.8. The 16mm sometimes gets a place somewhere between my stuff

This year, I have to go lighter because we're now traveling with a kid So, I got the R8 (surprisingly capable camera!!) and I plan to pair it with the 28mm F2.8 for landscapes and such, 50mm (family pics and my kid) and a zoom. I don't which zoom I'll be carrying. I can always take my in-laws 100-400mm (which used to be mine) in exchange for my 100-500mm. I am currently looking to replace the 24-105mm F4 L (too heavy for the R8), but I don´t exactly know what I want. I'll wait and see what Canon does with the third F2.8 STM lens.

I agree, i mostly just use the 14-35mm or 24-105 f4 for hiking with the 100-500 in the bag(its to heavy to have on your neck while hiking), but a 50-150 with the 14-35 would be more versatile, light and still long enough for the ocassionnal wildlife pic

than both a 70-200 and the 100-500

AlanF · Sunday at 9:07 AM

neonlight said:
It's the "optimal conditions" that's the issue. Diffraction limiting will start early on an APSC with ~39Mpx. That's just under 3 micron pixels. Good for resolution, if the lens performs ...

I wrote "optimal" to give the upper limit. Under suboptimal conditions, you still get varying degrees of extra resolution, from nearly none at the real extreme to nearly twice. The diffraction limited aperture for a 39 Mp sensor is f/4.7, as opposed to f/5.2 for the R7. DLA is not a sharp cut off but there is a progressive decrease in what can be resolved as you approach it. There are several posting here who use the RF 200-800mm on the R7 at f/9, nearly 2 x the DLA on not the sharpest of lenses, because they squeeze out more detail than on their FF bodies. An f/4 lens would bring out closer to the best.

neuroanatomist · Sunday at 9:04 AM

David_B said:
While optical correction is bending light, you don't disagree with the statement that optical correction doesn't stretch light. Arguing about bending light is a bit pointless because that's the whole point of a lens - to bend light such that it lands on the sensor.

The light that is digitally corrected to fill the corners when required still falls on the sensor.

David_B said:
Some lenses deal with this better than others. Some subjects are impacted by this more than others. Measuring CA is what a lot of lens test websites do when they shoot specific subjects to measure lpmm, etc. Your generalizations here are no better than mine.

The difference is that I’ve provided empirical evidence to support my points. Have you? Has anyone who claims that optical correction of geometric distortion is inherently superior to digital correction.

David_B said:
Let me make your day: I don't use distortion correction when processing images, I can't even remember when I last used CA correction.

So you shoot RAW, and you don’t use a lens profile in your RAW converter? I’m skeptical. Especially after your intentionally evasive reply to @AlanF.

neonlight · Sunday at 8:49 AM

Still waiting for Canon to develop a 17-55 2.8 equivalent in RF.
That's been my favourite walk-around if I didn't have the 24-105 mounted.
Or a 10-22 as the extra 4mm is handy compared with the 10-18.

neonlight · Sunday at 8:42 AM

AlanF said:
If you are often reach-limited and generally cropping to APS-C and below, a 39 Mpx sensor is a huge advantage over a 34-30 Mpx FF with almost twice the linear resolution under optimal conditions.

It's the "optimal conditions" that's the issue. Diffraction limiting will start early on an APSC with ~39Mpx. That's just under 3 micron pixels. Good for resolution, if the lens performs ...

scyrene · Sunday at 8:35 AM

rombe3jr said:
Is it important to have a fast sensor to prevent rolling shutter? I am not a bird / sport shooter but would assume this camera could be useful to that market but with fast moving subjects it seems like a faster sensor would be better.

Yes but only really if the birds are moving (I've generally only done perched/static bird shots so it wouldn't be an issue).

Exploreshootshare · Sunday at 8:35 AM

Del Paso said:
That's "exactly" what I do, for day-trips, RF 15-35 f/2,8 + RF 70-200 f/4, each on its own body. I dislike changing lenses (missed occasions and laziness).
But for longer trips, I add the RF 100-500 + EF 24mm TSE + 60mm macro.

For city trips, I take the R5 along with the 14-35mm F4 L and the 70-200mm F4, sometimes a fast prime. For hiking, it depends on the route. Either I take the exact same combo, or I switch the 14-35mm for the 35mm F1.8. The 16mm sometimes gets a place somewhere between my stuff

This year, I have to go lighter because we're now traveling with a kid

So, I got the R8 (surprisingly capable camera!!) and I plan to pair it with the 28mm F2.8 for landscapes and such, 50mm (family pics and my kid) and a zoom. I don't which zoom I'll be carrying. I can always take my in-laws 100-400mm (which used to be mine) in exchange for my 100-500mm. I am currently looking to replace the 24-105mm F4 L (too heavy for the R8), but I don´t exactly know what I want. I'll wait and see what Canon does with the third F2.8 STM lens.

EricN · Sunday at 7:43 AM

AlanF said:
The point of the question is to lead to a discussion of what happens when we process RAW data and the choice of RAW converters. If you are unaware of your software doing correction, then how on earth could that make you a liar? (Lying is deliberately telling an untruth.)

I agree with this, no shame in making a mistake when we admit it. Digging our heals in and doubling down to avoid embarrassment is more shameful.

GirlsAreBeautiful · Sunday at 7:18 AM

Too soon for a global shutter imho.

AlanF · Sunday at 5:52 AM

David_B said:
I can see where you're going. What's the point of your question? To try and turn me into a liar because CA/LensCorrection is being done implicitly without me being aware of it? That's a disappointing angle to take.

The point of the question is to lead to a discussion of what happens when we process RAW data and the choice of RAW converters. If you are unaware of your software doing correction, then how on earth could that make you a liar? (Lying is deliberately telling an untruth.)

David_B · Sunday at 5:04 AM

AlanF said:
How do you process images? Do you use jpegs straight out of camera or do use RAW? If you use RAW, how do you convert to jpegs or TIFF or whatsoever to view them?

I can see where you're going. What's the point of your question? To try and turn me into a liar because CA/LensCorrection is being done implicitly without me being aware of it? That's a disappointing angle to take.

AlanF · Sunday at 4:45 AM

David_B said:
Let me make your day: I don't use distortion correction when processing images, I can't even remember when I last used CA correction.

How do you process images? Do you use jpegs straight out of camera or do use RAW? If you use RAW, how do you convert to jpegs or TIFF or whatsoever to view them?

AlanF · Sunday at 4:39 AM

David_B said:
IMHO, to do a proper test you'd need to shoot a test pattern chart, the kind that's used by digitalpicture, dpreview, with all the lines at angles to enable measuring lpmm, etc.

As @neuroanatomist has written many times, he has the same charts as the digital-picture and has got them to correct some results. You can do digital-picture type charts for free by downloading them from the bobatkins site. However, to measure lp/mm with precision you need to use IMATEST or similar, which is done by opticallimits, lenstip, ephotozine etc.

David_B · Sunday at 3:35 AM

neuroanatomist said:
It doesn't have to be the same lens, a similar one would be fine.

If someone used different lenses and could prove a difference, would it be accepted? Or would people argue that the results aren't meaningful because different lenses. Maybe it doesn't matter because people will just be argumentative.

neuroanatomist said:
As I've stated, I compared the RF 14-35/4 to the EF 11-24/4, where the latter at 14mm has very little geometric distortion to start. Corner sharpness of the corrected RF lens at 14mm was similar. That supports the idea that digital correction is non-inferior from an IQ standpoint. What I keep asking is for someone to provide some reasonable evidence to back up the claim that digital correction is inferior.

Sorry, I can't help as I don't have the required equipment (a lens that doesn't fill the sensor.)

IMHO, to do a proper test you'd need to shoot a test pattern chart, the kind that's used by digitalpicture, dpreview, with all the lines at angles to enable measuring lpmm, etc.

neuroanatomist said:
Wrong. The distortion correction (stretching) is done during conversion of the RAW image. If you open a RAW image from a lens that doesn't fill the corners and turn off the lens profile, you see the black corners.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

David_B · Sunday at 3:27 AM

neuroanatomist said:
I've suggested before that you refrain from engaging in technical arguments, and you repeatedly fail to heed that advice. Optical correction is bending light, and that is not without consequence. While you are correct that a single photon cannot hit two pixels instead of one, a picture is not generated from one photon. Light from a point in space can certainly be bent in a way that more than one pixel is hit, in fact that's the basis of chromatic aberration, as illustrated for lateral CA here:

While optical correction is bending light, you don't disagree with the statement that optical correction doesn't stretch light. Arguing about bending light is a bit pointless because that's the whole point of a lens - to bend light such that it lands on the sensor.

Some lenses deal with this better than others. Some subjects are impacted by this more than others. Measuring CA is what a lot of lens test websites do when they shoot specific subjects to measure lpmm, etc. Your generalizations here are no better than mine.

neuroanatomist said:
Like geometric distortion, CA is something that is easily and routinely digitally corrected.

What about photon strikes that are in the wrong place? I mean, many ultrawide zoom lenses that fill the corners still have 3-5% barrel distortion. Do you turn off all distortion correction in your images (along with CA correction), so that they remain 'optically pure'? I doubt it.

Let me make your day: I don't use distortion correction when processing images, I can't even remember when I last used CA correction.