Canon EOS R7 Mark II to Have Stacked 40MP Sensor?

[Maximilian]

Again, changing one setting as simple as the "fast" or "quality" preview in DPP's settings can significantly change the result you see on your screen when you open the same Canon raw file in DPP.

So you have no solution for my comparison experiment. I got it!
But thank you for beating around the bush for so long. Could have saved you and me some time.
@AlanF showed some RL examples. Thank you for that, Alan.

 

[Michael Clark]

No, there are good and better copies of a lens. But the theoretical best copy of the EF 70-200/2.8L II is not going to be quite as good as the theoretical best copy of the RF 70-200/2.8L. And the theoretical best copy of the RF 70-200/2.8L Z is going to be better than both of them.

No one has theoretical copies of any lens. Theoretical lenses are, as someone else here likes to call some things, unicorns.

Uncle Roger has also pointed out that the best copies of an expensive lens do not necessarily beat the best copies of a cheaper lens.

The graph below shows plots from multiple copies of two prime lenses. Let's call them 'Red' and 'Green'. The Green lens is a fairly expensive, pro-grade optic. The Red lens is a cheaper, consumer-level prime. You'll see that there's one copy of each in roughly the middle of this graph, away from the main cluster at upper-right. I'd return both of these samples to the manufacturer. So would you – they're awful.

(I have no idea how I managed to erase the link to your previous comment above. My apologies for not going back and rewriting this entire post.)

 

[Michael Clark]

So you have no solution for my comparison experiment. I got it!
But thank you for beating around the bush for so long. Could have saved you and me some time.
@AlanF showed some RL examples. Thank you for that, Alan.

None of the examples Alan showed you are "SOOC raw files", though.

 

[neuroanatomist]

No one has theoretical copies of any lens.

You can say “upper left quadrant” lenses if that helps you understand the point. I understand that you believe you have an excellent copy of a particular lens. To claim that your lens is better than other lenses, based on comparison with pictures posted online taken with those lenses, remains an unsupportable claim.

 

[EricN]

No one has theoretical copies of any lens. Theoretical lenses are, as someone else here likes to call some things, unicorns.

Uncle Roger has also pointed out that the best copies of an expensive lens do not necessarily beat the best copies of a cheaper lens.



(I have no idea how I managed to erase the link to your previous comment above. My apologies for not going back and rewriting this entire post.)

I beg to differ! I have several theoretical copies HarryFilm lenses!

 

[Maximilian]

None of the examples Alan showed you are "SOOC raw files", though.

But they can be compared, can't they? Yes or no? And if "no" why in detail?

 

[AlanF]

I beg to differ! I have several theoretical copies HarryFilm lenses!

Sapphire-coated acrylic, I recall.

 

[AlanF]

But they can be compared, can't they? Yes or no? And if "no" why in detail?

It’s as you imply a reasonable comparison with Canon DPP4 used for processing for both with same minimal settings.

 

[Mr. Warbucks]

I am following the News on the R7ii regularly. One of the key features, in my humble opinion, is the weight of the set. OM-1 is an attractive alternative from that perspective. When the R7ii will be pounded with all the features we wantrouwen see it should go at expense of size and weight, as the difference with r6iii becomes too small

 

[Planterz]

I am following the News on the R7ii regularly. One of the key features, in my humble opinion, is the weight of the set. OM-1 is an attractive alternative from that perspective. When the R7ii will be pounded with all the features we wantrouwen see it should go at expense of size and weight, as the difference with r6iii becomes too small

Everything is, has been, and always will be a tradeoff. Even with the likely extra size and weight of the R7 II, there's still a weight benefit in the lenses. There's the small and light RF 100-400mm. With the 100-500mm you've got a 160-800mm effective range without the size/weight of the 200-800mm on a full frame body. Sure an OM-1 with the 100-400mm is lighter, but you're getting a significantly more megapixels with a less noisy sensor. Worth it in my opinion, for my purposes, anyway. Definitely easier than the 6lbs than of an R6 III with the 200-800mm.

 

[AlanF]

Everything is, has been, and always will be a tradeoff. Even with the likely extra size and weight of the R7 II, there's still a weight benefit in the lenses. There's the small and light RF 100-400mm. With the 100-500mm you've got a 160-800mm effective range without the size/weight of the 200-800mm on a full frame body. Sure an OM-1 with the 100-400mm is lighter, but you're getting a significantly more megapixels with a less noisy sensor. Worth it in my opinion, for my purposes, anyway. Definitely easier than the 6lbs than of an R6 III with the 200-800mm.

The relative “range” depends also on the relative pixel densities of the sensors. A 40 Mpx APS-C gives a 1.6x crop factor x 1.3 vs a 24 Mpx FF.