Patent: Canon RF 12mm f/2.8, RF 14mm f/2.8 and RF 20mm f/2.8
- By Canon Rumors
- Patents
- 26 Replies
Threads
Problems Using Canon R5 With Pocket Wizard and Monolights
- By iPhotoSports
- EOS R
- 3 Replies
I am trying to figure out flash sync setup for R5 and pocketwizard triggered monolights. All of the info I find is regarding setup for external Canon speedlights. Anyone firing monolights from an R5?
I am getting a dark edge down the right which tells my I am not synced properly, but can't figure out what settings to use to correct the problem.
I am getting a dark edge down the right which tells my I am not synced properly, but can't figure out what settings to use to correct the problem.
Canon to release a 100mp EOS R system camera next year [CR2]
- By Canon Rumors
- EOS Bodies
- 421 Replies
My R6 failed during an interview this afternoon.
- EOS R
- 18 Replies
Was in the middle of interviewing a candidate today when my R6 image (using as a webcam) started to shake like there was an earth quake. The Camera made some nasty noises and displayed Err 20.
The IBIS system is shot for sure and feels like someone is rattling rocks inside the Camera when you flip it on. Tried a reset for shits and giggles but still borked. Switched over to the R5 for the rest of the interview so nice it was handy.
Sent in a request to CPS to get a loaner and will ship the Camera off to them on Monday. I am on the west coast and CPS Canada is out east so they were gone for the day.
shizzle happens just happy it broke now while it is under warranty and not when I was on a trip.
For those interested the Camera has not been doing a lot of heavy lift with only about 1500 shots taken since Nov 2020 and maybe 5 hours of video. Was likely doomed when it was built because that is pretty low usage and I have not seen any similar reports.
Again shizzle happens and nothing is perfect, if it is going to pack it in do it early and all the way.
The IBIS system is shot for sure and feels like someone is rattling rocks inside the Camera when you flip it on. Tried a reset for shits and giggles but still borked. Switched over to the R5 for the rest of the interview so nice it was handy.
Sent in a request to CPS to get a loaner and will ship the Camera off to them on Monday. I am on the west coast and CPS Canada is out east so they were gone for the day.
shizzle happens just happy it broke now while it is under warranty and not when I was on a trip.
For those interested the Camera has not been doing a lot of heavy lift with only about 1500 shots taken since Nov 2020 and maybe 5 hours of video. Was likely doomed when it was built because that is pretty low usage and I have not seen any similar reports.
Again shizzle happens and nothing is perfect, if it is going to pack it in do it early and all the way.
Is there something wrong with this RF lens?
- Canon Lenses
- 10 Replies
HI all,
I have an my RF 24-105 f4 for about 6 months. I have noticed smeary corners in photos from time to time, but just put it down to camera shake (although I shoot mostly on a tripod). I decided to print out a big focus chart and test my lenses.
To me it looks like the top and especially top right have ghosting issues. It's worse at 50mm than at wide open. Even on f8 it's ghosting a lot compared to the left bottom corner. This image is f8 at 50mm, where it appears worse (also bad at around 35mm). It's a little cleaner at 24 and 105mm.
Here's a link to the full size image: https://ibb.co/QQP4HmT
I have an my RF 24-105 f4 for about 6 months. I have noticed smeary corners in photos from time to time, but just put it down to camera shake (although I shoot mostly on a tripod). I decided to print out a big focus chart and test my lenses.
To me it looks like the top and especially top right have ghosting issues. It's worse at 50mm than at wide open. Even on f8 it's ghosting a lot compared to the left bottom corner. This image is f8 at 50mm, where it appears worse (also bad at around 35mm). It's a little cleaner at 24 and 105mm.
Here's a link to the full size image: https://ibb.co/QQP4HmT
R5 detailed lens testing of RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 vs. RF 800 f11, with & without RF 1.4x TC, for super-telephoto use.
*** PART 1 ***
A fellow R5 user, AlanF, and I enjoy taking photos of birds, sometimes at far distances. We've been wondering how the IQ (image quality) of the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L (with or without the RF 1.4x TC) compares to the RF 800 f11 on the R5 for super telephoto shots. I think it was AlanF that suggested that I consider doing a comparative test on them, since I had all of those items, and could do my own test of the IQ of these lenses on the R5, comparing (initially) 500mm, 700mm (500mm & 1.4x TC), and 800mm.
AlanF had suggested that a quantitative test was needed so that the resolution of the lenses could be measured as well as providing images for contrast and overall IQ. He suggested a test chart from Bob Atkins, which I looked at but thought it didn't have the fine resolution that I was hoping to find. So I continued looking online and found another chart, from Erlend Rønnekleiv, that had more detail. I thought I could improve on it, and so I used AffinityPhoto to re-arrange the pieces of it together into a more compact form with more detail in the same space. Erlend gave me permission to use & post this rearranged version, which is:
I taped this chart, printed on 8.5" x 11" paper, onto some wood and positioned the camera & tripod 6 meters away. I used a laser measure to ensure the chart was centered in the camera view and was exactly perpendicular to the camera. The 800mm f11 was just past minimum focal distance and viewed the whole test sheet plus just a little extra. Then I took photos at the same distance with it and the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L (with and without the RF 1.4x TC). For each I took 5 photos, 1 AF'd in the center and 1 AF'd as far as I could get to the 4 corners. In looking at all 4 corners of the images in their respective photos, they seemed to me to be the same as it was when AF'd in the center, so I only need to show the center AF'd photo from each.
I used DXO PhotoLab4 standard profile, set white balance, and used deep prime only to output tif files, which went to Affinity Photo, where I cropped the center of each (and the original test chart) at 1:1. Note: I did not adjust all white levels to the same brightness (which I'll do next time). So don't worry about them having different brightnesses.
Here they are, for:
original test chart, 500mm, 700mm(500 & 1.4x), and 800mm
The #lines resolved per sensor height is:
N * 6 * 5464(R5 sensor pixel height) / A
where N is the #(number) on the chart where you get the limit of resolution (N >> 40 (the max on the chart), so I used 40 below)
and A is the #pixels in the photo between the indicated test pattern line start & end, which is:
for 500mm: 1,355
for 700mm: 1,904
for 800mm: 2,340
So, the #lines resolved per sensor height is far greater than these numbers:
for 800: 560
for 700: 689
for 500: 968
So, at this relatively near focal distance, the chart still does not have enough small resolution to properly measure the resolution of the lenses.
Taking photos from further away would solve this, but this was just the initial test I did to see how everything worked.
I'd like to mention that there were many posts between us regarding these results, and further ideas regarding them. AlanF had many great insights into the results and had suggestions on how better to write up the results which I could post for the general CR community. It took a while for me to go through the next steps, since I had other pressing things at home to do and, well, sometimes I pause one task to do other ones. This post and those that follow are a revised summary of what we both came up with, and I hope that it's much more informative and enjoyable for all of you to see.
It occurred to me that I could probably create a higher resolution chart (lines closer together) from scratch using AffinityPhoto.
So that is what I planned to do, which will become Part 2 (next).
A fellow R5 user, AlanF, and I enjoy taking photos of birds, sometimes at far distances. We've been wondering how the IQ (image quality) of the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L (with or without the RF 1.4x TC) compares to the RF 800 f11 on the R5 for super telephoto shots. I think it was AlanF that suggested that I consider doing a comparative test on them, since I had all of those items, and could do my own test of the IQ of these lenses on the R5, comparing (initially) 500mm, 700mm (500mm & 1.4x TC), and 800mm.
AlanF had suggested that a quantitative test was needed so that the resolution of the lenses could be measured as well as providing images for contrast and overall IQ. He suggested a test chart from Bob Atkins, which I looked at but thought it didn't have the fine resolution that I was hoping to find. So I continued looking online and found another chart, from Erlend Rønnekleiv, that had more detail. I thought I could improve on it, and so I used AffinityPhoto to re-arrange the pieces of it together into a more compact form with more detail in the same space. Erlend gave me permission to use & post this rearranged version, which is:
I taped this chart, printed on 8.5" x 11" paper, onto some wood and positioned the camera & tripod 6 meters away. I used a laser measure to ensure the chart was centered in the camera view and was exactly perpendicular to the camera. The 800mm f11 was just past minimum focal distance and viewed the whole test sheet plus just a little extra. Then I took photos at the same distance with it and the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L (with and without the RF 1.4x TC). For each I took 5 photos, 1 AF'd in the center and 1 AF'd as far as I could get to the 4 corners. In looking at all 4 corners of the images in their respective photos, they seemed to me to be the same as it was when AF'd in the center, so I only need to show the center AF'd photo from each.
I used DXO PhotoLab4 standard profile, set white balance, and used deep prime only to output tif files, which went to Affinity Photo, where I cropped the center of each (and the original test chart) at 1:1. Note: I did not adjust all white levels to the same brightness (which I'll do next time). So don't worry about them having different brightnesses.
Here they are, for:
original test chart, 500mm, 700mm(500 & 1.4x), and 800mm
The #lines resolved per sensor height is:
N * 6 * 5464(R5 sensor pixel height) / A
where N is the #(number) on the chart where you get the limit of resolution (N >> 40 (the max on the chart), so I used 40 below)
and A is the #pixels in the photo between the indicated test pattern line start & end, which is:
for 500mm: 1,355
for 700mm: 1,904
for 800mm: 2,340
So, the #lines resolved per sensor height is far greater than these numbers:
for 800: 560
for 700: 689
for 500: 968
So, at this relatively near focal distance, the chart still does not have enough small resolution to properly measure the resolution of the lenses.
Taking photos from further away would solve this, but this was just the initial test I did to see how everything worked.
I'd like to mention that there were many posts between us regarding these results, and further ideas regarding them. AlanF had many great insights into the results and had suggestions on how better to write up the results which I could post for the general CR community. It took a while for me to go through the next steps, since I had other pressing things at home to do and, well, sometimes I pause one task to do other ones. This post and those that follow are a revised summary of what we both came up with, and I hope that it's much more informative and enjoyable for all of you to see.
It occurred to me that I could probably create a higher resolution chart (lines closer together) from scratch using AffinityPhoto.
So that is what I planned to do, which will become Part 2 (next).
New feature firmware coming to the EOS R5, EOS R6 and EOS-1D X Mark III in the next couple of weeks [CR3]
- By Canon Rumors
- EOS Bodies
- 106 Replies
Filter
Forum statistics
Gallery statistics
- Categories
- 1
- Albums
- 29
- Uploaded media
- 372
- Embedded media
- 1
- Comments
- 25
- Disk usage
- 1 GB