Correction: Canon is bringing us an RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM Macro

Kit.

EOR R
Apr 25, 2011
1,700
1,049
When we look back when we were still using film, the ISO showed us how sensitiv the film was, no matter how big the area of the film was; the same amount of light on a certain area gave the same exposure, and to expose a bigger film you needed more light.
First of all, when we were still using film, we were typically using higher exposures by necessity (try to find a color ISO 3200 film, for example), while the sensor itself was much noisier by its nature. As a result, the photon noise was less important than the sensor noise.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,749
674
Yes. You’d never catch Ansel Adams shooting at f/7.1.
You’d also never catch him shooting at 12 FPS or panning , etc. apologies for a sarcastic comment. I find your POV quite inconclusive.

From my perspective, this lens should have been 28-90/4-5.6 Instead.
you would remember Canon EF 28-90/4-5.6 lens from 2004? Small, light, inexpensive.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,380
358
Davidson, NC
You’d also never catch him shooting at 12 FPS or panning , etc. apologies for a sarcastic comment. I find your POV quite inconclusive.

From my perspective, this lens should have been 28-90/4-5.6 Instead.
you would remember Canon EF 28-90/4-5.6 lens from 2004? Small, light, inexpensive.
It was sort of a joke. Sorry if I missed you on that. Adams was famously part of a group that called themselves Group f/64.

But it does suggest that maybe some decent photos can be shot at f/7.1, or maybe even smaller. In real life the difference between f/5.6 and f/7.1 is rather inconsequential. With image stabilization and good quality images at ISO 3200 in many full-frame bodies it becomes even less of an issue. It's more that f/7.1 sounds worse. DOF is not that different, either.

I don't plan to buy the lens, and I may never buy a camera it would fit on anyway. I'm just amused at all the pearl clutching, mostly by folks who wouldn't have bought the lens either even if it had been f/5.6 instead.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,749
674
It was sort of a joke. Sorry if I missed you on that. Adams was famously part of a group that called themselves Group f/64.

But it does suggest that maybe some decent photos can be shot at f/7.1, or maybe even smaller. In real life the difference between f/5.6 and f/7.1 is rather inconsequential. With image stabilization and good quality images at ISO 3200 in many full-frame bodies it becomes even less of an issue. It's more that f/7.1 sounds worse. DOF is not that different, either.

I don't plan to buy the lens, and I may never buy a camera it would fit on anyway. I'm just amused at all the pearl clutching, mostly by folks who wouldn't have bought the lens either even if it had been f/5.6 instead.
It doesn’t suggest though in fact that a real life difference of 2/3 stop is difference between shooting at a border acceptable ISO6400 and ISO10800-ish. Which is quite a difference once you cross that faint line of acceptable vs not so much.
Again, in my humble opinion, for a kit lens I do not see why Canon neglected a possibility of introducing a 28-90/4-5.6 lens instead? On RF, it may have been even 24-90/4-5.6 That EF 28-90/4-5.6 lens was mighty popular on consumer Canon SLRs of early 00s
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,380
358
Davidson, NC
It doesn’t suggest though in fact that a real life difference of 2/3 stop is difference between shooting at a border acceptable ISO6400 and ISO10800-ish. Which is quite a difference once you cross that faint line of acceptable vs not so much.
Out of curiosity, I tried taking a few shots in a very dimly lit room at f/7.1 and ISO 6400 of a dark subject with a 100mm lens. The camera chose a shutter speed of 1/20 or 1/13 sec over a few tries, which is a bit marginal handheld with IS. If that is typical of conditions for your shoots, then this lens is obviously not for you. I would expect those in the target audience for this kit lens more likely would use flash or at least turn on a lamp in this situation. Also the lens would likely not be zoomed all the way in, so not limited to 7.1 in a fair-sized indoor room.

I didn’t pixel peep to try to see the difference between shots at ISO 6400 vs. the ones at whatever ISO I tried that was close to your 10800ish.

Cleary those shooting owls in flight should choose something else.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,749
674
Hey, Steve

Just a couple of points.
Use of flash is not always practical or even permitted.
6400 vs 10800 iso point is just to demonstrate that 2/3 of a stop does matter for many use cases / applications.
I don’t think you got my point sorry.

Use case: cloudy conditions, shooting fast action (sports) outdoor with 100-400/ x-5.6 lens at shutter speeds around 1/2000 of a second.
ISO range would be within the zone of comfort of 5D iV being around ISO 3200. With a Fx-7.1 lens instead I will already bring the iso 5600-ish plus.

The realisation that f7.1 is a very limiting aperture would come with experience.

I shoot with nothing slower than F2.8 indoors. Sure, stop down whenever possible but allow for poor light and no flash allowed.
 

Pape

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 31, 2018
510
313
Hey, Steve

Just a couple of points.
Use of flash is not always practical or even permitted.
6400 vs 10800 iso point is just to demonstrate that 2/3 of a stop does matter for many use cases / applications.
I don’t think you got my point sorry.

Use case: cloudy conditions, shooting fast action (sports) outdoor with 100-400/ x-5.6 lens at shutter speeds around 1/2000 of a second.
ISO range would be within the zone of comfort of 5D iV being around ISO 3200. With a Fx-7.1 lens instead I will already bring the iso 5600-ish plus.

The realisation that f7.1 is a very limiting aperture would come with experience.

I shoot with nothing slower than F2.8 indoors. Sure, stop down whenever possible but allow for poor light and no flash allowed.
10800 iso looks ok on 50% magnificiation ,most peoples wont do big prints or got 8k computer screen.
Ok i guess my eyes arent very experienced . but same goes to most of photograpers
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,380
358
Davidson, NC
Hey, Steve

Just a couple of points.
Use of flash is not always practical or even permitted.
6400 vs 10800 iso point is just to demonstrate that 2/3 of a stop does matter for many use cases / applications.
I don’t think you got my point sorry.

Use case: cloudy conditions, shooting fast action (sports) outdoor with 100-400/ x-5.6 lens at shutter speeds around 1/2000 of a second.
ISO range would be within the zone of comfort of 5D iV being around ISO 3200. With a Fx-7.1 lens instead I will already bring the iso 5600-ish plus.

The realisation that f7.1 is a very limiting aperture would come with experience.

I shoot with nothing slower than F2.8 indoors. Sure, stop down whenever possible but allow for poor light and no flash allowed.
And my experience suggests that the marginal situation is unusual enough for kit lens usage. No one is claiming that the lens is the one lens to replace them all.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,749
674
And my experience suggests that the marginal situation is unusual enough for kit lens usage. No one is claiming that the lens is the one lens to replace them all.
marginal situation? not really... situations take place regardless what lens you got on your camera at the time. .. you shoot with what you got and you better have something that can do the job ask event shooters, PJs , indoor sport shooters. Even as a travelling kit, the lens is limiting. it is ok in a good light. that is all it is good for. there is a host of 28-80, 28-90, 35-80 / 4-5.6 EF kit legacy zoom lenses that are light , compact and aren't exactly great. but at least 2/3 stop faster.
Anyway.. lets leave it there. it does not worth our time.
here is a worthy contender:

 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,749
674
10800 iso looks ok on 50% magnificiation ,most peoples wont do big prints or got 8k computer screen.
Ok i guess my eyes arent very experienced . but same goes to most of photograpers
no, my friend. Sorry. 10800 looks crap even on 5dIV. I would not speak for most photographers, 6400 on 5DIV looks descent after proper de-noising. 10800 is over the limit. you loose details, contrast, etc.
 

FamilyGuy

EOS M50
Feb 5, 2020
43
58
no, my friend. Sorry. 10800 looks crap even on 5dIV. I would not speak for most photographers, 6400 on 5DIV looks descent after proper de-noising. 10800 is over the limit. you loose details, contrast, etc.
I see statements like these a lot on here. I think I understand why. My question is, if everyone bags on ISO’s much higher than 6400, why do camera companies keep making native iso ranges higher and higher? 40,000 for the RP, 50,000 plus for the R, etc...

Are there times when a pro would go there and be glad they were able to?
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,749
674
I see statements like these a lot on here. I think I understand why. My question is, if everyone bags on ISO’s much higher than 6400, why do camera companies keep making native iso ranges higher and higher? 40,000 for the RP, 50,000 plus for the R, etc...

Are there times when a pro would go there and be glad they were able to?
ISO 40,000? sure, why not. Black and White.. any day..if you had to.
 

Czardoom

EOS M50
Jan 27, 2020
46
96
No one is saying the lens is for everyone. It is OBVIOUSLY a cheaper, lighter and smaller alternative to an L lens meant for those who are not shooting wide open all the time. For those thinking that 2/3rds of a stop is a deal breaker - fine, but don't assume your opinion is the same for everyone. For those who think 10800 ISO produces "crap" don't assume that your opinion is the majority or even held by many.

Attached a comparison image between 5.6 and 7.1 - all other settings the same (ISO 3200) indoor, night time shot. Also a pic at 12800 ISO, f/4. Everyone can decide for themselves if 7.1 really matters or not. EOS R.

compare5-6-7-1.jpg


iso-12800.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
1,072
141
I see statements like these a lot on here. I think I understand why. My question is, if everyone bags on ISO’s much higher than 6400, why do camera companies keep making native iso ranges higher and higher? 40,000 for the RP, 50,000 plus for the R, etc...
I suspect marketing has a lot to do with it, to allow the manufacturer to say, "this camera is better/greater than the one it's replacing." ISO 3,000,000 sounds great to put down on a spec sheet. There may indeed be an actual difference on the sensor level, or, more likely, it may simply be processor-based noise "magic" at play.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,749
674
No one is saying the lens is for everyone. It is OBVIOUSLY a cheaper, lighter and smaller alternative to an L lens meant for those who are not shooting wide open all the time. For those thinking that 2/3rds of a stop is a deal breaker - fine, but don't assume your opinion is the same for everyone. For those who think 10800 ISO produces "crap" don't assume that your opinion is the majority or even held by many.

Attached a comparison image between 5.6 and 7.1 - all other settings the same (ISO 3200) indoor, night time shot. Also a pic at 12800 ISO, f/4. Everyone can decide for themselves if 7.1 really matters or not. EOS R.

View attachment 188948

View attachment 188949
yeah. ISO 12800 file down-sampled to 2048 x 1366 pixels. if that is your default image output resolution than sure. lets look at a full res output. shall we..

please retain EXIF information. I am really curious now. Thanks.

p.s. 5.6 vs 7.1 shots above. they differ from each other. quite a lot. (exposure, focus, contrast, etc. etc. etc.) like chalk and cheese.
 

FamilyGuy

EOS M50
Feb 5, 2020
43
58
yeah. ISO 12800 file down-sampled to 2048 x 1366 pixels. if that is your default image output resolution than sure. lets look at a full res output. shall we..

please retain EXIF information. I am really curious now. Thanks.

p.s. 5.6 vs 7.1 shots above. they differ from each other. quite a lot. (exposure, focus, contrast, etc. etc. etc.) like chalk and cheese.
Jumping in with a non-photographer view. Most people buying this lens for the RP aren’t producing art. They are capturing memories at a better quality than their phone can produce, and have the disposable income to spend $1,199 on a kit to do so. My guess on a future price anyway.

Walking around outside at Disney, I was living at F8 - F11. Using the 24-240 was great for additional reach, but I could see really appreciating the weight savings for this one. Indoor, neither one is much good anyway and I used flash for character pictures with the kids and the 35mm 1.8 on dark rides.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,749
674
Jumping in with a non-photographer view. Most people buying this lens for the RP aren’t producing art. They are capturing memories at a better quality than their phone can produce, and have the disposable income to spend $1,199 on a kit to do so. My guess on a future price anyway.

Walking around outside at Disney, I was living at F8 - F11. Using the 24-240 was great for additional reach, but I could see really appreciating the weight savings for this one. Indoor, neither one is much good anyway and I used flash for character pictures with the kids and the 35mm 1.8 on dark rides.
++++ Jumping in with a non-photographer view.

Probably shouldn’t. .... as We discuss iso 12800 usability.

++++ Most people buying this lens for the RP aren’t producing art. They are capturing memories at a better quality than their phone can produce, and have the disposable income to spend $1,199 on a kit to do so.

What makes you think so? You are admitted to being a non photographer. what your judgement based on then?

Phones are pretty capable these days. A dedicated Camera becoming utility for enthusiasts and pros only. Increasingly so.
RP is a capable tool.