Are these the 7 RF lenses Canon will be announcing in 2020? [CR1]

[Quarkcharmed]

But the first processing unit doesn't have to wait for the last step to finish, before it can start work on the next image.

Yep, that's exactly my point. If your system can process target render frame N and N+1 at the same time (in different processing units as you say), yes in theory you can have 30 fps and a lag of > 1/30s.

Each processing unit is only present once, but they are all active at the same time. So they can be seen as parallel, as you say. It is just not the kind of parallel one may talk about with more general processing.

It is parallel processing. I simply don't know how it's done in DIGIC, but in principle it doesn't matter. There may be multicore CPU that runs software off RAM, or off ROM, or it can be hardwired, it doesn't matter.

There are also other interesting considerations, such as memory buffers for 'processing units'. In order to show 30fps, you need to do exposures 30 times a second. Then if you do parallel processing, you need to double your buffers after readouts.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

There is nothing Canon-specific. Any pipeline is both parallel and sequential at the same time. For example, the sensor acquiring a new image in parallel to the EVF displaying an older one.

That I covered in this message. This kind of parallelisation helps reduce the lag, and we're trying to explain how we can have a long lag.

My point was, with sequential processing it's not physically possible to have 30fps and the lag > 1/30s.
Parallel processing of two frames simultaneously may help explain that, but analysis would require a deeper knowledge of Canon's architecture. But we should keep in mind some operations cannot be parallelised: exposure and readout take a big part and there's no way to run them in parallel, and we need to expose 30 times a second no matter what, or we don't get 30fps.

 

[koenkooi]

Yep, that's exactly my point. If your system can process target render frame N and N+1 at the same time (in different processing units as you say), yes in theory you can have 30 fps and a lag of > 1/30s.
[..]

If latency is important, you can work slice based, e.g. take 128 lines, push to memory, grab next 128 lines, etc.

 

[Kit.]

That I covered in this message. This kind of parallelisation helps reduce the lag,

It doesn't. I'd say it "increases" the lag by introducing interface delays (related to both data transfer and synchronization).

 

[m4ndr4ke]

My point was, with sequential processing it's not physically possible to have 30fps and the lag > 1/30s.

Doesn't the EOS R's EVF work at 60p, rather than 30p? I think it changes to 30p when one enables the power saving mode.
60p makes it easier to drop a few frames without being noticeable to the human eye.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Doesn't the EOS R's EVF work at 60p, rather than 30p? I think it changes to 30p when one enables the power saving mode.
60p makes it easier to drop a few frames without being noticeable to the human eye.

It may be 60, earlier someone in this thread said it was 30, but that doesn't matter too much, the question was theoretical, can you have 30 fps and a lag > 1/30s.
In other words, if an EVF does 30fps, does it guarantee the lag is no longer than 1/30s? The lag being the time between the exposure and the image displayed in the EVF.
If it's 60fps, the same question, can the lag be > 1/60s.

The answer is unclear, but in my opinion, while it's technically feasible, it's unlikely to be happening in camera. If you have 60fps in the EVF, your lag is no more than 1/60s.

 

[Joules]

Doesn't the EOS R's EVF work at 60p, rather than 30p? I think it changes to 30p when one enables the power saving mode.
60p makes it easier to drop a few frames without being noticeable to the human eye.

Do you have any source for the EVF refresh rate? In the past I could not find it. For LiveView, you are correct, as Canon states it's 60 unless you want to save energy. But for the viewfinder, you'll even find many people who used it claim it is 120 Hz. Which would make sense, as that's the refresh rate stated for the external EVF for the M line.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

It doesn't. I'd say it "increases" the lag by introducing interface delays (related to both data transfer and synchronization).

Actually I've just realised it depends on the definition of lag. If the lag is defined as the time between the beginning of exposure and EVF display, it'll be very close to 1/30s if the EVF does 30fps.

But if we define the lag as time passed between an arbitrary event and the moment it's shown in the EVF, it'll be anything between 1/30s and 1/15s, 1/20s on average, because the event can happen right after the exposure.

Whether or not any processing is done during the exposure probably doesn't matter as long as the system does the required 30fps.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Do you have any source for the EVF refresh rate? In the past I could not find it. For LiveView, you are correct, as Canon states it's 60 unless you want to save energy. But for the viewfinder, you'll even find many people who used it claim it is 120 Hz. Which would make sense, as that's the refresh rate stated for the external EVF for the M line.

Tbh I don't remember if I ever read that, but I tried the R in the past and it definitely seemed like 60p on the EVF (and not 120, btw).

 

[Etienne]

50 f/1.4 IS with image quality similar to sigma 50 f/1.4 art will not be small and affordable. It will cost as much as other L primes. There are two option for canon to make 50mm affordable and small. Use old optical formula (double gauss) but it will sacrifice image quality or make it f/1.8 that compete directly to nikon z 50mm f1.8

It doesn't have to be "equivalent to the 50 f/1.4 art," which is why I suggest "modest"

 

[Joules]

Tbh I don't remember if I ever read that, but I tried the R in the past and it definitely seemed like 60p on the EVF (and not 120, btw).

There is a difference in Viewfinder smoothness if you use an RF lens instead of an adapted EF one. Do you remember which one you were using?

It would be weird if they used only 60 if 120 seems to be the standard for the better M model. Quote from the official M5 material:

"Frame your shot with confidence and see pin sharp detail right to the edge of the frame, thanks to precision optics in the large, high resolution (approx. 2.36 million dots) OLED electronic viewfinder. An ultrafast refresh rate (120 fps) and minimal lag ensure maximum responsiveness and usability when following fast action."

But I just can't find anything official about the R or RP EVF. Trying it in a store, I mostly remember how much better I found the R viewfinder compared to the RP. But

 

[Kit.]

Actually I've just realised it depends on the definition of lag.

The lag is of course defined as the delay introduced by image capturing, digitizing, digital processing and optical output (as compared to a simple optical viewfinder).

If the lag is defined as the time between the beginning of exposure and EVF display, it'll be very close to 1/30s if the EVF does 30fps.

I don't see why. How come that the exposure time and the sensor readout speed play no role in your estimation?

 

[Richard CR]

But I never claimed it was continuous. T time is measured from the beginning of the exposure till the image is rendered in the EVF. It obviously includes the exposure itself, readout, internal processing and data transfer, render of HUD interface and copying the rendered frame to the EVF buffer. Or maybe it renders right in the buffer.

What I'm saying is if the processing is single-threaded and sequential (and it's mostly sequential), the T time must not be longer than 1/30s or you inevitably get the lag growing indefinitely. It simply means there's not enough processing power to render at 30fps. There are ways to optimise it such as doing rendering during exposure, but that's not the point here as we're trying to explain how T can be more than 1/30s, with EVF still rendering at 30fps.

you're assuming the lag cause it the same per each frame. what I'm saying is that it may not be.

   F1 ----------F2---------F3

At the EVF it arrives at:

          (lag cause) F1 ---------F2---------F3

if the lag cause just happens pre video streaming then the entire video stream is offset from your actual viewing.

so optical viewing would see something but EVF viewing would be slightly delayed by delta T. thus lagged by an offset. but the video stream is still happily processing along at 1/30th of a second intervals or 1/60th .. or on the M5 and others up to 1/120th.

so it could have nothing to do with intra frame processing.

There could also be hiccups that inject into the frames randomly, ie: a long AF operation. that cause more delta T.. but I would imagine that Canon has a way to monitor delta T and "get it back to 0" somehow, or it would simply build over time.

 

[Architect1776]

This is an amazing list. But why release the converters without well-suited primes to use them with?

Because it looks like there are very well suited zooms.
Especially if they are as hyper sharp as the TC's are with the current 100-400mm MII.

 

[Bert63]

Actually, I think the 500 f/4 is more suited to holding doors open, being bigger and heavier

I was also thinking RV wheel chock for when I'm camping.

 

[Act444]

Every single time I read the specs on the 100-500 I die a little inside.

It could have been amazing. Considering the 500mm F4 I want is $10K, I'd have paid a pretty penny for a nice 100-500.

This thing is a doorstop.

Let’s hope for a 500 5.6 DO, that could be a nice middle ground.

 

[tron]

Let’s hope for a 500 5.6 DO, that could be a nice middle ground.

Yes sometimes like tomorrow, or even yesterday Assuming it weighs as much as Nikon though!

 

[unfocused]

@canonnews, @Quarkcharmed @Joules etc.

I have no clue what you guys are saying, but my takeaway is that getting an electronic viewfinder to be as responsive as an optical viewfinder is a lot harder than some people think. Am I close?

 

[Ph0t0]

Because it looks like there are very well suited zooms.
Especially if they are as hyper sharp as the TC's are with the current 100-400mm MII.

Which RF zooms (except possibly 100-500) are very well suited for TCs?
Looking at photos of 1.4x and 2x and their protruding elements I'm not even sure if they would fit on the RF 70-200mm.

Previous rumor mentioned that there is a possibility of two DO prime super-telephoto lenses being announced for RF.
I think those would be the prefect candidates to be coupled with RF 1.4x an 2x extenders.
Since the rumor also mentioned that we should expect slower lenses, maybe some light lenses like 300mm f4 IS, 400mm f4 or f5.6 IS or 500mm f5.6 IS?

 

[m4ndr4ke]

There is a difference in Viewfinder smoothness if you use an RF lens instead of an adapted EF one. Do you remember which one you were using?

Yeah, it was a RF 35mm f/1.8 STM.

But of course, I could be wrong.