What’s Coming Next from Canon?

[scyrene]

There really is a lack of good but non L "Standart Zooms" like the good old 24-85.
But my main desire is a 40mm pancake as 28 is often too wide for me.

It's been said on here that pancake focal length is roughly the same as flange(?) distance so I don't think it's feasible?

 

[homebodyMacro2]

I would love to be able to get a 50mm 1.2 but newer generation with VCM technology or ultra fast AF like the 85 1.2.

Genuine question: are you aware there's a 50mm f/1.4 L VCM? There's not a very meaningful difference vs. f/1.2, and it solves your other requests.

 

[David - Sydney]

i bought a used 20 1.4 and took it for a spin last week in the eastern sierra. i haven't processed the files yet but the raws look great.

Ahhh, to be able to find a second hand rf20mm in australia

 

[Del Paso]

Ahhh, to be able to find a second hand rf20mm in australia

Don't you worry!
You've got so many other bitingly sharp "things" in Australia...

 

[Yana_a]

RF version M6 II like with updated spec, 2 mode, both APSC and FF

 

[Uneternal]

Ahhh, yes…the free lunch that comes with a smaller sensor. Truly magical. The reality is that you’re losing over a stop of light with APS-C compared to full frame. Along with the smaller FoV (effective increase in focal length), you get 1.3-stops more noise. So, for example, ISO 3200 on APS-C looks like ISO 8000 on FF.

Can you explain how you get the idea that you lose light on APS-C? It's the same as if you have a full-frame picture in Photoshop and you take a 1.6 crop out of it. Where did you lose a stop of light? And how would the field of view add more noise?

You're right that ISO 3200 looks like ISO ~8000 on full frame, but that's not because you lose light nor because of FOV. The only thing adding more noise is the fact that APS-C sensor pixels are way smaller and thus less effective in determining brightness values. At the same resolution, APS-C sensor pixels are 1.6x smaller and thus about 2.56x (1.6 squared) less effective in capturing a brightness value. Multiply the ISO by that factor, and you get exactly that equivalent ISO: 8192.

Take a crop from a high megapixel camera like the R5, and you get roughly the same noise as an 18 megapixel APS-C camera delivers. Compare a newer APS-C like R10 to an old 5D, and you roughly have the same noise. Because light is not a factor, it's the sensor pixel efficiency.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Can you explain how you get the idea that you lose light on APS-C? It's the same as if you have a full-frame picture in Photoshop and you take a 1.6 crop out of it. Where did you lose a stop of light?

Put a small cup and a large bucket out in the rain, in a fixed amount of time which vessel will collect more water? A smaller sensor will collect less light. It's that simple.

And how would the field of view add more noise?

It doesn't.

You're right that ISO 3200 looks like ISO ~8000 on full frame, but that's not because you lose light nor because of FOV. The only thing adding more noise is the fact that APS-C sensor pixels are way smaller and thus less effective in determining brightness values. At the same resolution, APS-C sensor pixels are 1.6x smaller and thus about 2.56x (1.6 squared) less effective in capturing a brightness value. Multiply the ISO by that factor, and you get exactly that equivalent ISO: 8192.

No, pixel size is irrelevant. Sensor size determines total light gathered, image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered.

Take a crop from a high megapixel camera like the R5, and you get roughly the same noise as an 18 megapixel APS-C camera delivers.

Dynamic range is primarily determined by the noise floor. If what you say is true, then an APS-C crop from the R5 sensor would have the same noise floor, and thus the same dynamic range, as the full frame image. It doesn't.



Likewise, if smaller pixels mean more noise as you suggest above, then larger pixels will have less noise, and an image from a similar-generation camera with smaller pixels and the same size sensor will have more noise and thus less dynamic range. It doesn't.



Same size pixels, smaller sensor area = more noise and less DR. Smaller pixels, same sensor area = same noise and same DR.

One key point for all of the above is that you actually have to compare the resulting images at the same output size. You mentioned cropping an image in Photoshop, which is conceptually similar to using crop mode on a FF camera but not identical. To actually compare, you'd need to first crop the image, then resize it to the same dimensions as the original. You don't 'lose light' in Photoshop when doing that, but if you were using a negative and an enlarger, you would get a dimmer image after enlargement. It's the same underlying basis as the circle of confusion for depth of field (which is why, for example, an APS-C sensor will actually have a slightly shallower DoF than a FF sensor at the same subject distance).

 

[Uneternal]

A smaller sensor will collect less light.

The exact same amount of light hits the sensor; it doesn't collect less light, it doesn't lose light. It is simply less efficient in measuring light. That's my point. Saying you lose light is incorrect because the projected image of the lens doesn't magically turn darker just cause you change the sensor size. It's a simple thing that many people fail to understand. You're just taking a smaller area from the projected image; it's the same as cropping in post.

No, pixel size is irrelevant.

You contradict yourself. In your first paragraph, you talk about bucket sizes. Then you say pixel size is irrelevant. Please pick one, you can't have both.

If what you say is true, then an APS-C crop from the R5 sensor would have the same noise floor, and thus the same dynamic range, as the full frame image. It doesn't.

Not at all what I said, I said the crop has the same noise as an APS-C camera.

Likewise, if smaller pixels mean more noise as you suggest above, then larger pixels will have less noise, and an image from a similar-generation camera with smaller pixels and the same size sensor will have more noise and thus less dynamic range. It doesn't.

The PDR chart normalizes the data to a standard print size, so you can't really compare high-res to low-res because they basically scale it down, which merges pixels. To get a better idea of sensor-pixel performance, you might wanna look at real-world pictures, where the R3 has roughly a stop of noise advantage, if we ignore the higher resolution of the R5. Thus, proving the point that smaller pixels are less efficient in measuring light.

 

[AlanF]

The exact same amount of light hits the sensor; it doesn't collect less light, it doesn't lose light. It is simply less efficient in measuring light. That's my point. Saying you lose light is incorrect because the projected image of the lens doesn't magically turn darker just cause you change the sensor size. It's a simple thing that many people fail to understand. You're just taking a smaller area from the projected image; it's the same as cropping in post.

You contradict yourself. In your first paragraph, you talk about bucket sizes. Then you say pixel size is irrelevant. Please pick one, you can't have both.


Not at all what I said, I said the crop has the same noise as an APS-C camera.

The PDR chart normalizes the data to a standard print size, so you can't really compare high-res to low-res because they basically scale it down, which merges pixels. To get a better idea of sensor-pixel performance, you might wanna look at real-world pictures, where the R3 has roughly a stop of noise advantage, if we ignore the higher resolution of the R5. Thus, proving the point that smaller pixels are less efficient in measuring light.

View attachment 229696
View attachment 229697

@neuroanatomist is correct in stating that a smaller sensor collects less light, and he is not contradicting himself about pixel size being irrelevant for overall sensor area but being different for individual pixels. I leave it to him to explain. Basically, you are confusing photons per unit area to total photons which requires multiplying photons per unit area by the area.

 

[Ph0t0]

The exact same amount of light hits the sensor; it doesn't collect less light, it doesn't lose light. It is simply less efficient in measuring light.

Not at all what I said, I said the crop has the same noise as an APS-C camera.

Aha ... So by your logic, the crop suddenly becomes less efficient in measuring light, but the same amount of photons hit the cropped area of the sensor as the entire sensor ... Brilliant.