Here is the Canon EOS R5 and Canon EOS R6, along with the announcement date

[Graphic.Artifacts]

It's a useful metric, only it doesn't tell a lot about the dynamic range. This is how the author explains it:



It doesn't tell us how good a sensor is at the base ISO.

I understand what it’s measuring. I also understand that there is a very strong correlation between iso invariance and noise performance including at base iso. Those differences at base iso can be very difficult to measure and compare while invariance exaggerates the difference and makes it easier to compare trends across brands and models. If that isn’t helpful to you that’s fine. Others reading this may or may not get some benefit. YMMV.

 

[lawny13]

Hmmm... funny. The post states that two lenses are missing and thus perhaps it means they will ship later.

But I noticed that there are 5 bodies there. The R, RP, R5, R6 and.... ???

Or is canon just filling up the space in the picture?

 

[Ozarker]

Hmmm... funny. The post states that two lenses are missing and thus perhaps it means they will ship later.

But I noticed that there are 5 bodies there. The R, RP, R5, R6 and.... ???

Or is canon just filling up the space in the picture?

Canon U.S.A., Inc. | EOS Ra

Capture the intricacies of a starry night sky with the new EOS Ra camera - Canon's first full-frame mirrorless camera dedicated to deep sky and night sky photography.

www.usa.canon.com

 

[raptor3x]

Nobody said it is impossible. Nobody. What we are saying is that it is impracticable for most situations.

This is exactly what Aussie was suggesting.

You are not shooting at 1/400 on an 800mm lens. Even with a tripod you would get soft images 90% of the time. In rrality 1/800sec is the minumum. So you would then be looking at ISO 10000

The idea that you'll get 90% soft images at 800mm and 1/400s with a modern IS + IBIS system is absurd.

When you mention an equivalency between f/7.1 and f/14, the equivalency is the DOF (I believe), not the amount of light let in. My f/2.8 on my m43 lens lets in the same light as f/2.8 on a FF lens. Same exposure settings for the same scene.


Exposure: m43 F4 = FF F4 (same ISO and shutter)

This is only because ISO is defined in a way to make it appear consistent to the user. In reality, your m43 camera is applying roughly twice the amount of gain to produce the same exposure brightness as your FF camera. m43 sensors aren't noiser at corresponding ISO settings because the sensors are somehow worse, they're noisier because what's labeled ISO 200 on a m43 is, for the most part, the same as ISO 800 on a FF camera.

BTW: I see nothing in the exif indicating that HHHR mode was used. I'm simply giving the benefit of the doubt to be friendly.

The picture comes from here. The original poster is comparing the .ORI (single image) vs the .ORF (HHHR composite).

I certainly do not believe the bird sat completely still for as long as you say for that mode to have been used. If you say the bird sat still for 16 shots at 1/40 sec, then okay. I don't see that. I am seeing a single shot. HHHR mode is for static subjects.

That's the whole point though, your gut feeling is that there's no way that a bird can be still enough for such a long exposure but the fact that HHHR can produce a clean image with at least some improvement in resolution over the single shot suggests that your assumption is incorrect. I know I've personally used it with larger animals and people with reasonable success.

EDIT: Just adding some bird shots I just took to demonstrate my point. These are at 560mm equivalent and 1/15s and 1/30s. Be warned, I'm not a bird photography person so the pictures themselves are not good but I think it demonstrates that you can get feather detail sharp images of small birds at slow shutter speeds even while they're active, you just have to time the shots to when the birds momentarily pause. Would I attempt this if I knew I needed the get "the shot"? Heck no. But if I just needed to get "a shot" then it's a valid option. Plus, if a knucklehead like me can pull it off within 5 minutes of trying it and minimal experience with birds then someone more interested should be able to take it much further.

EDIT2: CR seems to be stripping the exif data out of these. I'd be happy to provide RAWs if anyone cares.

 

[Ozarker]

This is exactly what Aussie was suggesting.



The idea that you'll get 90% soft images at 800mm and 1/400s with a modern IS + IBIS system is absurd.



This is only because ISO is defined in a way to make it appear consistent to the user. In reality, your m43 camera is applying roughly twice the amount of gain to produce the same exposure brightness as your FF camera. m43 sensors aren't noiser at corresponding ISO settings because the sensors are somehow worse, they're noisier because what's labeled ISO 200 on a m43 is, for the most part, the same as ISO 800 on a FF camera.



The picture comes from here. The original poster is comparing the .ORI (single image) vs the .ORF (HHHR composite).



That's the whole point though, your gut feeling is that there's no way that a bird can be still enough for such a long exposure but the fact that HHHR can produce a clean image with at least some improvement in resolution over the single shot suggests that your assumption is incorrect. I know I've personally used it with larger animals and people with reasonable success.

EDIT: Just adding some bird shots I just took to demonstrate my point. These are at 560mm equivalent and 1/15s and 1/30s. Be warned, I'm not a bird photography person so the pictures themselves are not good but I think it demonstrates that you can get feather detail sharp images of small birds at slow shutter speeds even while they're active, you just have to time the shots to when the birds momentarily pause. Would I attempt this if I knew I needed the get "the shot"? Heck no. But if I just needed to get "a shot" then it's a valid option. Plus, if a knucklehead like me can pull it off within 5 minutes of trying it and minimal experience with birds then someone more interested should be able to take it much further.

View attachment 190934

View attachment 190935

And Aussie is correct on all counts. The images are too soft for my taste. They may be acceptable to someone else. The thing is, I am not interested in what someone else thinks is acceptable to them. I need acceptable to me. Don't you understand that?

My "gut feeling" has nothing to do with it. I talk from personal experience with both FF and M43. I own both, for years. Do you?

Here's the thing, we are talking about FF sensors with FF lenses. We are not talking about M43 sensors. We are not talking about M43 lenses. Why you insist on even bringing this into the conversation is a mystery to me... unless, of course, you are trying to be an ambassador for Olympus. Look at my signature. I own both FF and an Olympus. I know exactly what the capabilities are. I even have a 400mm FF lens I have put on the Olympus. It's widest aperture is f/6.3.

The fact of the matter is that a M43 sensor cannot compete in low light situations. I know this for a fact because I often shoot indoors where I live. My FF shots are always cleaner at the same equivalent focal lengths in the same exact lighting. So why you want to argue otherwise is, again, a mystery. Do you insist that I must agree with you? I do not. You also bring into the conversation a camera that almost none of us here have. Why? If I were to use a FF lens at 600mm or 800mm f/11 I certainly would not choose my Olympus for the task of shooting birds in the shade or the dark woods. That's just me. You want to? That's your choice. Unacceptable to me. I can't even stand the images in my own apartment at short focal lengths, compared to FF.

I don't have the patience for taking 100 shots and getting a 10% keeper rate when a bird decides to play statue. That would not be my idea of fun at all.

 

[slclick]

Canon U.S.A., Inc. | EOS Ra

Capture the intricacies of a starry night sky with the new EOS Ra camera - Canon's first full-frame mirrorless camera dedicated to deep sky and night sky photography.

www.usa.canon.com

This was tackled very early on in the thread, it's funny how some just jump right in...but hey, at least they avoided the tariff and taxation maths.

 

[Ozarker]

This was tackled very early on in the thread, it's funny how some just jump right in...but hey, at least they avoided the tariff and taxation maths.

I'm always ready to pile on. Especially if I haven't had my medicine yet. Oops, I'm exactly an hour late. 5:20 CST.

 

[Aussie shooter]

I think you're going to pleasantly surprised here. Sure, if you have moving wildlife that all goes out the window, but for things like perched birds or animals at rest then you can go pretty low with shutterspeed. In the m43 world, you get people shooting at 800mm EFL at shutter speeds of around 1/10s pretty regularly and 1200mm at 1/20s.

Perched birds still move. A flick of the head requires a 1/500 shutter speed to freeze. So yes. You MIGHT get the shot. And you will miss 9 out of 10 because of those tiny movements

 

[slclick]

I'm always ready to pile on. Especially if I haven't had my medicine yet. Oops, I'm exactly an hour late. 5:20 CST.

You were right on schedule for my time zone (out)

 

[raptor3x]

And Aussie is correct on all counts. The images are too soft for my taste. They may be acceptable to someone else. The thing is, I am not interested in what someone else thinks is acceptable to them. I need acceptable to me. Don't you understand that?

The first one is a touch soft because it's at f/11 which is well into diffraction territory for m43; if you think the second one is soft for a 100% crop then you're delusional. Further, there's zero motion blur in either of them; Aussie's claim about not being able to shoot 800mm below 1/500s is complete nonsense.

My "gut feeling" has nothing to do with it. I talk from personal experience with both FF and M43. I own both, for years. Do you?

Yes, I shot 1- and 5-series bodies for years before even touching a m43 camera. I only shoot m43 now because most of my photography involves shoot why hiking and skiing so FF makes less sense.

Here's the thing, we are talking about FF sensors with FF lenses. We are not talking about M43 sensors. We are not talking about M43 lenses. Why you insist on even bringing this into the conversation is a mystery to me... unless, of course, you are trying to be an ambassador for Olympus. Look at my signature. I own both FF and an Olympus. I know exactly what the capabilities are. I even have a 400mm FF lens I have put on the Olympus. It's widest aperture is f/6.3.

The m43 cameras are relevant because the closest thing on the market to these new lenses, the 600mm and 800mm f/11 primes, are what we have in m43. In addition, m43 is currently the best example of what can be accomplished with a dual IS + IBIS system. The earlier rumors claimed that the new Canon bodies would have similar performance to what we're seeing from the m43 systems, 7-8EV of stabilization.

The fact of the matter is that a M43 sensor cannot compete in low light situations. I know this for a fact because I often shoot indoors where I live. My FF shots are always cleaner at the same equivalent focal lengths in the same exact lighting. So why you want to argue otherwise is, again, a mystery.

I never claimed that they were competitive, but please keep pounding on those strawmen. All I'm addressing are the absurd claims by you and Aussie about the new lenses from Canon.

Do you insist that I must agree with you?

Not at all, you're the type to stick his fingers in his ears and go "Nananana I can't hear you". I'm just trying to provide some actual information to counter the nonsense you two are putting out there.

I do not. You also bring into the conversation a camera that almost none of us here have. Why? If I were to use a FF lens at 600mm or 800mm f/11 I certainly would not choose my Olympus for the task of shooting birds in the shade or the dark woods. That's just me. You want to? That's your choice. Unacceptable to me. I can't even stand the images in my own apartment at short focal lengths compared to FF.

Like I said before, I'm bringing up m43 because it's the closest analogy we currently have to these new f/11 lenses if I needed to get "the shot" in those situations these setups are still far from ideal, sometimes "there's no replacement for displacement". It's just that they can the "a shot" if you have the patience. I think the vast majority are more likely to go for "a shot" and save $10K or so.

 

[Ozarker]

Ouch! Here are the Canon EOS R5 and the Canon EOS R6...

You couldn't just talk about DR or taxes? Trying to talk about dialects now?

 

[Ozarker]

You were right on schedule for my time zone (out)

Adjusted now. Please excuse me a moment while I "ignore" the jack wagon. On Hawaii time now.

 

[Aussie shooter]

This is exactly what Aussie was suggesting.



The idea that you'll get 90% soft images at 800mm and 1/400s with a modern IS + IBIS system is absurd.



This is only because ISO is defined in a way to make it appear consistent to the user. In reality, your m43 camera is applying roughly twice the amount of gain to produce the same exposure brightness as your FF camera. m43 sensors aren't noiser at corresponding ISO settings because the sensors are somehow worse, they're noisier because what's labeled ISO 200 on a m43 is, for the most part, the same as ISO 800 on a FF camera.



The picture comes from here. The original poster is comparing the .ORI (single image) vs the .ORF (HHHR composite).



That's the whole point though, your gut feeling is that there's no way that a bird can be still enough for such a long exposure but the fact that HHHR can produce a clean image with at least some improvement in resolution over the single shot suggests that your assumption is incorrect. I know I've personally used it with larger animals and people with reasonable success.

EDIT: Just adding some bird shots I just took to demonstrate my point. These are at 560mm equivalent and 1/15s and 1/30s. Be warned, I'm not a bird photography person so the pictures themselves are not good but I think it demonstrates that you can get feather detail sharp images of small birds at slow shutter speeds even while they're active, you just have to time the shots to when the birds momentarily pause. Would I attempt this if I knew I needed the get "the shot"? Heck no. But if I just needed to get "a shot" then it's a valid option. Plus, if a knucklehead like me can pull it off within 5 minutes of trying it and minimal experience with birds then someone more interested should be able to take it much further.

EDIT2: CR seems to be stripping the exif data out of these. I'd be happy to provide RAWs if anyone cares.

View attachment 190936

View attachment 190937

I could post similar images shot at similar shutter speeds. and they are sharp. I could also post 10 others from a sequence that are not sharp because of animal movement. IBIS and/or lens stabilization will not stop blurring with fast, minute animal movements. it just won't. So. As I said. IF you are happy at getting one in ten shots sharp then fine. But that means you have a much smaller chance of that one shot being THE shot. Because those tiny movements the animal makes are what puts it features in the best position to make the image. So no. NOBODY said it was impossible. A 10%chance by definition is NOT impossible. It is impractical

 

[raptor3x]

I could post similar images shot at similar shutter speeds. and they are sharp. I could also post 10 others from a sequence that are not sharp because of animal movement. IBIS and/or lens stabilization will not stop blurring with fast, minute animal movements. it just won't. So. As I said. IF you are happy at getting one in ten shots sharp then fine. But that means you have a much smaller chance of that one shot being THE shot.

For the most part I agree with you 100% here, it's the difference between getting "a shot" and "the shot". It's the same with shooting sports, if you just need to get "a shot" most sports can be shot with entry level gear, but if you need to know you'll be able to capture a specific moment then you generally actually need the higher end gear. These new lenses are clearly targeted at the market that's just going for "a shot" and I suspect they'll be extremely well received by that group.

Because those tiny movements the animal makes are what puts it features in the best position to make the image. So no. NOBODY said it was impossible. A 10%chance by definition is NOT impossible. It is impractical

To clarify, you're previous claim was a very different statement.

You are not shooting at 1/400 on an 800mm lens. Even with a tripod you would get soft images 90% of the time. In rrality 1/800sec is the minumum.

Shooting an 800mm lens at 1/400s, and much lower, with modern stabilization systems is trivial; especially once you start using electronic shutters to eliminate mechanically induced vibrations. Look at how stabilization success drop off with shutter speed; if we were only getting 10% sharp on a tripod like you claim then getting 1/10-1/20s handheld would indeed be effectively impossible.

 

[David_E]

You couldn't just talk about DR or taxes? Trying to talk about dialects now?

Like everyone else here, I don't know the camera's dynamic range, so I couldn't talk about that. Sales and other taxes in the USA are too low to be of note, so I didn't feel that taxes were worth discussing. So I talked about what I know: grammar (not "dialect"). Believe me, I am very liberal on grammar, and especially on those typographical errors which might appear to be grammar errors, but are not. But when an error is so egregious that it nearly blinds me, I sometimes feel constrained to mention it. Especially when it's in bold type in a headline.

 

[Aussie shooter]

For the most part I agree with you 100% here, it's the difference between getting "a shot" and "the shot". It's the same with shooting sports, if you just need to get "a shot" most sports can be shot with entry level gear, but if you need to know you'll be able to capture a specific moment then you generally actually need the higher end gear. These new lenses are clearly targeted at the market that's just going for "a shot" and I suspect they'll be extremely well received by that group.



To clarify, you're previous claim was a very different statement.



Shooting an 800mm lens at 1/400s, and much lower, with modern stabilization systems is trivial; especially once you start using electronic shutters to eliminate mechanically induced vibrations. Look at how stabilization success drop off with shutter speed; if we were only getting 10% sharp on a tripod like you claim then getting 1/10-1/20s handheld would indeed be effectively impossible.

The reference to 1/800 being the minimum is to freeze the animal movement. So my previous comment wasn't very different. I still expressed the same sentiments. 90% miss rate(defining missed as softness induced by animal movement), 10%success rate(the rare times when an animal is PERFECTLY still). Not once did I say you will NEVER get a decent shot at low shutter speeds(in my opinion for wildlife using a telephoto lens anything below 1/800 is slow and anything below 1/400 is VERY slow unless you are intentionally trying to achieve some blur in the shot). I just said it becomes very difficult to get a good shot and most will not be acceptable or at least will require a reason other than sharpness to be considered acceptable but as my main points have been to do with sharpness I have avoided going in the other direction. I agree if you are just after any shot then absolutely you can shoot at slower speeds but are the people who are just after ANY shot really going to fork out 2-3k for an 800prime when they could get a third party 150-600 for half the price that delivers 10 times the versatility?(that last bit obviously being a reference to the new super teles on offer). And if you do have the option to bump the ISO a bit and drop open up the apatuer then why would you shoot at 1/50?

 

[slclick]

It had the looks to attract many hipster girl photographers half my age, and who's to say it didn't I mean I am quite the catch however no matter how much noise I make on the forum, the Pen F made much more. So glad I sold (and made a profit) from that little black rectangle. The sensor size is irrelevant when discussing FF bits. The aperture is meaningless. Don't try.Get those tiny photosites out of here stat.

 

[scyrene]

Yes. You are not shooting at 1/400 on an 800mm lens. Even with a tripod you would get soft images 90% of the time. In rrality 1/800sec is the minumum. So you would then be looking at ISO 10000

Haven't we been through this on another thread? I haven't read all of this one so apologies to all if I'm going over old ground or missing the point. But - the old adage was 1/focal length. Then modern lens-based IS such as in the mark II big whites claimed (and my experience, and what tests I've seen done, agree) 4-5 stops better. So for an 800mm lens that's 1/50-1/30. Naturally that doesn't account for subject movement. I'd personally not want to shoot songbirds slower than ~1/200-160 and even then only in extremis. And higher res sensors demand faster shuter speeds if you want pixel-level sharpness. But all that being said, your 1/800 seems an arbitrary figure.

But if theory isn't going to sway you, then eyeballing the Canon EF 800mm f/5.6 group on Flickr is a useful way to see what shutter speeds are feasible at that focal length. Here's a bird at 1/125s

https://flic.kr/p/Sg2TcA

one at 1/60

https://flic.kr/p/2jdj6Rv

and here's one at 1/15

https://flic.kr/p/2i2t9aj

- if we're just talking about shutter speeds; naturally they use different apertures, although the second is at f/10 so isn't far off what an 800mm f/11 could produce, though I expect the optical quality of the latter to be poorer, given the expected budget price.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Haven't we been through this on another thread? I haven't read all of this one so apologies to all if I'm going over old ground or missing the point. But - the old adage was 1/focal length. Then modern lens-based IS such as in the mark II big whites claimed (and my experience, and what tests I've seen done, agree) 4-5 stops better. So for an 800mm lens that's 1/50-1/30. Naturally that doesn't account for subject movement. I'd personally not want to shoot songbirds slower than ~1/200-160 and even then only in extremis. And higher res sensors demand faster shuter speeds if you want pixel-level sharpness. But all that being said, your 1/800 seems an arbitrary figure.

But if theory isn't going to sway you, then eyeballing the Canon EF 800mm f/5.6 group on Flickr is a useful way to see what shutter speeds are feasible at that focal length. Here's a bird at 1/125s

https://flic.kr/p/Sg2TcA

one at 1/60

https://flic.kr/p/2jdj6Rv

and here's one at 1/15

https://flic.kr/p/2i2t9aj

- if we're just talking about shutter speeds; naturally they use different apertures, although the first is at f/10 so isn't far off what an 800mm f/11 could produce, though I expect the optical quality of the latter to be poorer, given the expected budget price.

All accurate but animal movement is what we are referring to. As you said 1/200 is something you would only use in extremes. And yes. My 1/800 was somewhat arbitrary but it was a figure I generally go by as even at 1/500 I find most shots of small birds have some lack of sharpness caused by tiny imperceptable(to the eye) animal movement. Love both those shots by the way but especially the second one.

 

[raptor3x]

The reference to 1/800 being the minimum is to freeze the animal movement. So my previous comment wasn't very different. I still expressed the same sentiments. 90% miss rate(defining missed as softness induced by animal movement), 10%success rate(the rare times when an animal is PERFECTLY still). Not once did I say you will NEVER get a decent shot at low shutter speeds(in my opinion for wildlife using a telephoto lens anything below 1/800 is slow and anything below 1/400 is VERY slow unless you are intentionally trying to achieve some blur in the shot).

Again, I'm completely with you on this. I think the confusion happened here.

You are not shooting at 1/400 on an 800mm lens. Even with a tripod you would get soft images 90% of the time. In rrality 1/800sec is the minumum.

If we're talking about subject movement here then the lens focal length and whether or not it's on a tripod are completely irrelevant. The statement reads like you're talking about motion blur due to camera shake. Fair enough though if you meant subject motion.

I just said it becomes very difficult to get a good shot and most will not be acceptable or at least will require a reason other than sharpness to be considered acceptable but as my main points have been to do with sharpness I have avoided going in the other direction. I agree if you are just after any shot then absolutely you can shoot at slower speeds but are the people who are just after ANY shot really going to fork out 2-3k for an 800prime when they could get a third party 150-600 for half the price that delivers 10 times the versatility?(that last bit obviously being a reference to the new super teles on offer). And if you do have the option to bump the ISO a bit and drop open up the apatuer then why would you shoot at 1/50?

It will be really interested to see how much these lenses cost, how sharp they are, and how much they weigh. If they're a combination of two from: incredibly sharp, very lightweight, sub-$2K; then I can still see them being extremely popular.