Could you specify what isn't Canon? Are you saying that you don't believe this effect is caused by the lens?This is not Canon.
Upvote
0
Could you specify what isn't Canon? Are you saying that you don't believe this effect is caused by the lens?This is not Canon.
I am not interested in this conversation. However, the proposed cause of this issue sounds way too opportunistic for a risk averse enterprise. Read : Canon.Could you specify what isn't Canon? Are you saying that you don't believe this effect is caused by the lens?
Is G7X II Canon? Because its lens works in the same way (not that Sony RX100V lens is any different).A lot of assumptions that do not make a lot of sense or aren’t typical of Canon. Sorry. This is not Canon.
small sensor fixed lens point and shoot vs an R camera with a FF lens attached. ok. i see a logic here.Is G7X II Canon? Because its lens works in the same way (not that Sony RX100V lens is any different).
Personally, I see a logical fallacy here. "No true Scotsman" fallacy, to be precise.small sensor point and shoot with fixed lens vs an R camera with a FF lens attached. ok. i see the logic here.
I am not interested in this conversation. However, the proposed cause of this issue sounds way too opportunistic for a risk averse enterprise. Read : Canon.
And what exactly does "logic" have to do with anything? Hmmmm?DPR photo shows some extreme vignetting at 24mm. Other people's shots do not show it.
The logical thing to do is to wait until other (and more trusted) sources weigh in.
You are a demonstrably wrong sorry.For someone "not interested in this conversation" you've been devoting a fair amount of effort to telling participants in it that they are wrong. Though you've not followed through and supplied anything to support that. Maybe that's what you're not interested in doing.
Don't misunderstand me; if I am demonstrably wrong, I want to know it. But I'm not going to conclude I was wrong on the basis of some guy on the internet who isn't interested in backing up an assertion that I am wrong.
You are a demonstrably wrong sorry.
I expressed my opinion ( made a single short comment) but not in a position to engage in arguments or have time for responding to Rhetorical questions.
I do not see this being devoting a fair amount of effort.
I Hope this explains.
Upon further testing by opening RAW photos from my lens at 24mm F4 using different RAW converters, I can confirm that my lens shows mechanical vignetting or not depending on the RAW conversion pathway. All of the final images are 6240X4160 so there is clearly some cropping and up-scaling for some RAW conversion pathways that I was not aware of.Distortion at 24mm, yes. Not covering full frame, false. EOS RP with 24-240mm at 24mm F4. RAW image processed in Adobe RAW with no lens correction.View attachment 186607
Upon further testing by opening RAW photos from my lens at 24mm F4 using different RAW converters, I can confirm that my lens shows mechanical vignetting or not depending on the RAW conversion pathway. All of the final images are 6240X4160 so there is clearly some cropping and up-scaling for some RAW conversion pathways that I was not aware of.
Are there RF TCs?Does it take a TC?
That’s because you are relatively new to this game and you have admitted that earlier. Have merely expressed my opinion and di not want to engage in meaningless conversation. That’s all.I may be demonstrably wrong...but as you haven't demonstrated it...dismissed.