Why Waiting for The Next Rf Body Is So Frustrating

[Viggo]

I wish I could reassign the Menu-button, I have the *-button as Menu, but can’t reassign the default Menu-button. And even worse is that some submenu’s that uses Menu as “back/return” I can’t use my assign button, but have to use the default one anyway, why?

Great that I can reassign the trashcan, but things like that Menu-“bug” and the fact that I have to have two dials that does EC feels overlooked by Canon, and a weird issue.

 

[Ozarker]

I've been having trouble programming the touch bar for some reason, but then again, I can't really find a use for it in my case. I use the control ring for ISO and the two dials are programmed for shutter speed and f-stop. I'd like to map a button to switch mode between manual and aperture priority, but have not really looked into that or know whether it is possible yet. On a side note: I chimped constantly on my 5D Mark III for focus on eyes. The eye focus on the R is so good I don't even worry about it anymore. I can't wait for the upcoming major firmware update. I think it will be stunning. Truly, this is the best camera by far that I have ever owned. It sure gets a lot of hate though. I find that very hard to understand. I few minutes ago I read a post by somebody who said, "Ten years ago we all would have killed for a camera like the R. But, today it's lackluster enough that it's seen as an unacceptable hindrance to taking good photos." I couldn't help but laugh. If one cannot take a good photo with the R, the problem isn't the R. Again, I think these comments come mostly from people who have never used the camera. Cameras don't take good photos anyway, good photographers do.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Goodness gracious. I really am amazed at assumptions being played out as facts on these threads... mostly by people who have not used the camera or lenses.

I would just say that anyone who finds the R a 'hindrance to taking good photos should give up photography and stick to fingerpainting. Fact is there is no new ILC on the market that is a hindrance to taking good photos

 

[Ozarker]

I would just say that anyone who finds the R a 'hindrance to taking good photos should give up photography and stick to fingerpainting. Fact is there is no new ILC on the market that is a hindrance to taking good photos

Exactly. The quality of a photo is more dependent on the skill set of the user, not the camera.

 

[3kramd5]

Cameras don't take good photos anyway, good photographers do.

I bet within a decade that will no longer be true; we’ll see beautiful photos from cameras operating autonomously.

 

[SecureGSM]

I bet within a decade that will no longer be true; we’ll see beautiful photos from cameras operating autonomously.

it depends on what one's definition of a "beautiful photos" is... is that about sharpness, DR, etc.? or about composition, storytelling?

https://flic.kr/p/29xCCNq

 

[sdz]

I would just say that anyone who finds the R a 'hindrance to taking good photos should give up photography and stick to fingerpainting. Fact is there is no new ILC on the market that is a hindrance to taking good photos

This. It's a joy to use the best in class of anything. But my inexpensive cast iron pan cooks burgers as well as my expensive All-Clad pans. It's a matter of strengths and weaknesses, costs and benefits after that point becomes clear.

 

[Random Orbits]

The computer would likely cost as much or more than the camera.

Yeah, something like that. I'm starting to put together the pricing and specs for a new computer build and it's starting to get there. How much do you think for this high MP camera, 3500+?

 

[Ozarker]

Yeah, something like that. I'm starting to put together the pricing and specs for a new computer build and it's starting to get there. How much do you think for this high MP camera, 3500+?

I think the price will suprise us considering the bargain the R turned out to be, but yeah, $3,500+.

 

[3kramd5]

it depends on what one's definition of a "beautiful photos" is... is that about sharpness, DR, etc.? or about composition, storytelling?

I meant the latter.

 

[SecureGSM]

I meant the latter.

I trust we a safe here from a creativity and artistry perspective. Technically excellent photo is not necessarily a beautiful one. As you confirmed. Photography isn’t about technical skills but largely about talent, vision and ability to uncover beauty and create a reality.

 

[3kramd5]

I trust we a safe here from a creativity and artistry perspective. Technically excellent photo is not necessarily a beautiful one. As you confirmed. Photography isn’t about technical skills but largely about talent, vision and ability to uncover beauty and create a reality.

I’m not so sure. I think we’re approaching that age during which machines will be able to learn human aesthetic.

Take this music as an example. It’s not great, but were it not synthesized it would be “bad.” It’s easily better than a lot of pop music. And it’s wholly created by (not in; by) software.


It’s hard to not predict machines that can go out and take beautiful photographs.

 

[SecureGSM]

I’m not so sure. I think we’re approaching that age during which machines will be able to learn human aesthetic.

Take this music as an example. It’s not great, but were it not synthesized it would be “bad.” It’s easily better than a lot of pop music. And it’s wholly created by (not in; by) software.


It’s hard to not predict machines that can go out and take beautiful photographs.

Not in next 10 years, my friend. Neural post processing. Yes, agree. Music. Yes. Visuals? Not so much. It is really complex from a cognitive perspective. Not that majority of your audience would even recognise a talent. Ever. It sounds a bit elitistic. I know. But geniuses like Ming Thein despite being recognised by some artistic folks, and some very large multinationals are not very well known to a broader photographic community.
His photography is an absolute magic.

 

[3kramd5]

Not in next 10 years, my friend. Neural post processing. Yes, agree. Music. Yes. Visuals? Not so much. It is really complex from a cognitive perspective. Not that majority of your audience would even recognise a talent. Ever. It sounds a bit elitistic. I know. But geniuses like Ming Thein despite being recognised by some artistic folks, and some very large multinationals are not very well known to a broader photographic community.
His photography is an absolute magic.

Hmm. I’d think logic similar to that used to allow cars to drive themselves could be adopted to allow machines to take pictures. They can already recognize objects fairly well. Feed AI photographs to learn from and give it the ability to recognize objects, light, and color.

Sure, it might not have the unique creativity of Ming.

The limiting factor would be its source material. I guess that’s going to be about a billion crappy photographs from Instagram, so you’re probably right

 

[SecureGSM]

yup, you are correct. just one more image .. I cannot resist the urge

https://flic.kr/p/o7aU4E

 

[Michael Clark]

But the ef 50mm 1.2 is not for me. Just doesn't measure up in IQ, and working around focus shift is a deal breaker. I had the 85mm 1.2L II, and I probably should have kept it, but the allure of IS on the 85mm 1.4L prompted me to switch. I like this 85mm 1.4L, but it lacks in the punch and drama I liked in the 1.2. BUT, now the even BETTER RF 85mm 1.2 is calling my name...

I'm going out on a limb here and thinking that your perceived difference between the EF 85mm f/1.2L II and the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS is not the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4. It's the difference between designing a lens that leaves in enough field curvature and maybe a bit of spherical aberration to give pleasing out of focus areas at the expense of less than perfectly sharp corners when shooting a flat test chart and designing a lens with enough flat field correction to do well shooting flat test charts all the way to the corners (because that is what is required these days to sell large numbers of lenses - no matter the intended purpose, a new high end lens *MUST* be sharp in the corners when shooting a flat test chart or most buyers won't even consider it).

If I had to bet on the RF 85mm f/1.2L, I'd put my money on it looking a lot more like the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS than the EF 85mm f/1.2L II.

 

[YuengLinger]

I'm going out on a limb here and thinking that your perceived difference between the EF 85mm f/1.2L II and the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS is not the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4. It's the difference between designing a lens with enough flat field correction to do well shooting flat test charts all the way to the corners (because that is what is required these days to sell large numbers of lenses - no matter the intended purpose, a new lens *MUST* be sharp in the corners when shooting a flat test chart or most buyers won't even consider it) and designing a lens with enough field curvature and maybe a bit of spherical aberration to give pleasing out of focus areas at the expense of less than perfectly sharp corners when shooting a flat test chart.

If I had to bet on the RF 85mm f/1.2L, I'd put my money on it looking a lot more like the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS than the EF 85mm f/1.2L II.

I haven't tried it yet, so you might be correct about the rf 85mm 1.2; however, the RF 50mm f1.2L is everything I could wish for in terms of rendering, character, draw, depth, punch, dreamy, creamy magic. (Sorry, these adjectives are as technical as I can get.)

I feel the same way about my ef 35mm f/1.4L II as I do about this new RF 50mm lens--it's just absolutely amazing.

The ef 85mm f/1.4L IS just doesn't have quite the same appeal to me personally. It has decent bokeh without busy, "nervous" out of focus areas; it is slightly sharper than the 85 1.2L, and it has good IS. I couldn't even say for sure that I'm seeing it objectively, but it seems no matter the light, its images just don't have the "glow" I'm looking for in skin tones and backgrounds.

I'll look a lot of sample images, read reviews, and stay tuned here before pulling the trigger on the new 85!

 

[Ozarker]

I'm going out on a limb here and thinking that your perceived difference between the EF 85mm f/1.2L II and the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS is not the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4. It's the difference between designing a lens that leaves in enough field curvature and maybe a bit of spherical aberration to give pleasing out of focus areas at the expense of less than perfectly sharp corners when shooting a flat test chart and designing a lens with enough flat field correction to do well shooting flat test charts all the way to the corners (because that is what is required these days to sell large numbers of lenses - no matter the intended purpose, a new high end lens *MUST* be sharp in the corners when shooting a flat test chart or most buyers won't even consider it).

If I had to bet on the RF 85mm f/1.2L, I'd put my money on it looking a lot more like the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS than the EF 85mm f/1.2L II.

Mike, I don't know whether this even helps the debate, but her are two shots taken with the RF 85mm f/1.2L 1/320 sec, f/1.2, ISO 1000. The first with all camera corrections off, the second with all camera corrections on. Sorry, no human available. If I can be more helpful, please let me know, or if I am not helpful at all, let me know that also. I have never used either of the other two lenses. Personally, I like distortion and not so much sharpness edge to edge. That is impossible to tell with these examples at f/1.2. Focus is on the animal's lets eye. Yes, eye-af worked. haha.

I'm going out on a limb here and thinking that your perceived difference between the EF 85mm f/1.2L II and the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS is not the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4. It's the difference between designing a lens that leaves in enough field curvature and maybe a bit of spherical aberration to give pleasing out of focus areas at the expense of less than perfectly sharp corners when shooting a flat test chart and designing a lens with enough flat field correction to do well shooting flat test charts all the way to the corners (because that is what is required these days to sell large numbers of lenses - no matter the intended purpose, a new high end lens *MUST* be sharp in the corners when shooting a flat test chart or most buyers won't even consider it).

If I had to bet on the RF 85mm f/1.2L, I'd put my money on it looking a lot more like the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS than the EF 85mm f/1.2L II.

I may be really stupid and misunderstand the debate here. Please forgive me if so. I have taken two photos with the RF 85mm f/1.2L / 1/320 sec, f/1.2, ISO100. One is with all corrections off. The other with all corrections on. Sorry, but no human available. I have not used either of the two lenses you guys are talking about. I guess I should print out some test charts for proper comparison? Personally, unsharp corners on what I use for portraits would not bother me a bit. If my example is stupid, please feel free to let me know. I'm in a manic phase right now. Except for some vignette, I can't tell a difference, and I might be imagining the vignette.

 

[Ozarker]

it depends on what one's definition of a "beautiful photos" is... is that about sharpness, DR, etc.? or about composition, storytelling?

https://flic.kr/p/29xCCNq

It's beautiful geometry no matter what it is.

 

[privatebydesign]

I would just say that anyone who finds the R a 'hindrance to taking good photos should give up photography and stick to fingerpainting. Fact is there is no new ILC on the market that is a hindrance to taking good photos

I think that is too broad a brush, whilst obviously any modern camera can take amazing images the fact is the R and RF are not necessarily the best Canon cameras to get the highest keeper rate in many photographic genres, and that is the key. I think few right minded people would say the R is a dud, but many can justifiably say it is no better for what they personally shoot than what they currently have.