Wireless file transmitter for the Canon EOS R5 appears for certification

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
dunno where you seeing those figures as last time i checked, some sony APSC cameras beat every single canon full frame on dynamic range. Even the old nikon 7200 beats full frame canons on dynamic range. Also regarding ISO, youre wrong. 7 out of the top8 full frame ISO performers are sony, and 4 out of the top8 have over 40MP, (and one of them is a sony). the one that isnt a sony is the S1R, which is also like 47MP.

That whole "less MP is better for HIGH iso" is mainly a myth based on how cameras VIDEO performance used to line skip on higher MP sensors (like the A7R2/A7II line skips , while the A7S2 and A7III read the whole sensor)
the 2 best performing Canons on DR are the 5div and R with around 13.6 DR, most sonys have 14.5-14.8 stops DR.
Do you always shoot at ISO 100? Or do you actually take photos in the real world where lighting constraints and subject motion make that a pie-in-the-sky-in-the-sweet-by-and-by fantasy?

Look at the comparative DR and S/N ratio numbers for the latest Canon FF sensors compared to the latest Sony sensors at ISO 400, ISO 3200, or beyond. You might be embarrassed by what you see.

20200526ss2.png
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
I am perfectly satisfied with EF optics on an EF mount, in fact I have no interest at all in the RF bodies for photography; the only reason I would get an RF mount body is for its video features which has nothing to do with optics; Canon does not make a single EF mount DSLR body that matches the features I get with the GH5 and if they did I would get that instead.

I was not comparing EF lenses with an adapter to RF lenses without an adapter; my point was Canon has a new RF mount with lenses that so far are proving to be optically superior to their EF equivalents (as it should be), the adapter has nothing to do with it; so if I were to get an RF mount camera I would also get the optically superior RF mount lenses that Canon made for it.

The larger context of the discussion was why I don't use adapted lenses; so my point still stands, adapted EF mount lenses simply by the nature of the fact that they are from a previous generation more than likely will be inferior to a current generation RF mount lens, so by mounting an EF mount lens on an RF mount camera which by the way can only be done with an adapter; you are using a lens that is optically inferior to the RF mount equivalent.
I'd put at least one-third of the current EF mount lens catalog up against the RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 and come out ahead. Once Canon releases more lower tier RF mount lenses, as they are rumored to be preparing to do in the relatively near future, that list will grow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
Yes
Very easily can give you a 20DR with a jpg out of camera. It's often called "hdr mode" or bracketing in cameras.

Colour but rate has nothing to do with dynamic range. One is the number of gradient of the same colours, the other is the number of stops of light between darkest and lightest before clipping. Completely unrelated.
Always laugh when clueless youtubers say a 10bit video camera is more likely to give more DR because its 10bit.
You can capture a 20 stop scene that way, but you can't produce a 20 stop JPEG that way. The higher DR of the scene must be reduced to the lower DR of the output medium.

The way Ansel Adams figured out how to do that with film is why he is considered a genius.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM

David_E

Macrophotography
Sep 12, 2019
119
148
www.flickr.com
...my point was Canon has a new RF mount with lenses that so far are proving to be optically superior to their EF equivalents...
So you say after reading that somewhere. Or perhaps I’m mistaken and you ran the tests on your $100k optical bench. If I place two otherwise identical photos from an R or RP side-by-side, one made with EF + adapter, one made with equivalent RF, will you see a difference? No.
 

yeahright

EOS T7i
Aug 28, 2014
82
49
So you say after reading that somewhere. Or perhaps I’m mistaken and you ran the tests on your $100k optical bench. If I place two otherwise identical photos from an R or RP side-by-side, one made with EF + adapter, one made with equivalent RF, will you see a difference? No.
I will never understand why people on forums often take a statement of personal preference as a statement of universal truth. herein2020 has explained at length and quite plausibly why he/she does not want adapters in his/her personal workflow, here for instance. Still, you keep insisting that adapters have no drawbacks whatsoever, you simply ignore all of the plausible arguments. It might well be that an adapter is perfectly fine for many people, and this hasn't been doubted in any way, but for herein2020 it is not. Why is that such a problem for you? Concerning your last post: I think there is enough evidence that one can "read somewhere" that e.g. the RF 85mm f/1.2L is optically superior to the EF 85mm f/1.2L II, and the same goes for the RF 50 mm f/1.2L vs. the EF 50 mm f/1.2L. You don't need your own optical bench to come to that conclusion, just read some of the dozens of reviews out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: herein2020

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
204
310
So you say after reading that somewhere. Or perhaps I’m mistaken and you ran the tests on your $100k optical bench. If I place two otherwise identical photos from an R or RP side-by-side, one made with EF + adapter, one made with equivalent RF, will you see a difference? No.
I'm just going to stop wasting my time on this thread; who would have thought a discussion on lens adapters could devolve into such idiotic comments. You are still completely oblivious to the fact that you have been wrong since the moment you made the statement "there are no downsides to using an adapter vs native lenses" but now you are inferring that the entire Internet's body of knowledge which all concludes that the native RF lenses outperform and have features that adapted EF lenses do not must be wrong including Canon themselves who made the EF and RF lenses and the adapters while simultaneously cherry picking from my list of downsides the one area where you think you have a chance of being right...but simply are wrong again.

In case you want to "read somewhere" about the benefits of not using the adapter (since apparently there can be no benefits since there are no downsides to using an adapter) you can click a few of the links below. If you are simply trying to justify your purchase of the adapter vs. native lenses a better start would be to get your facts straight first.





Seriously, your first three points, though fairly miniscule, are legitimate gripes.

Your fourth point proves that you know absolutely nothing about what you are saying.


Try it, you'll like it!
So what you are saying then is that Canon, you know...the company that made the RF mount does not know what they are saying when they stated there are extra pins in the RF mount for faster lens communication, more IS options, the RF mount lets them optically improve on the EF mount etc., etc. Why two people (or maybe one person with two usernames, who knows) could possibly care enough about why I have decided adapters have no place in my workflow is beyond me. I'm done wasting time on this completely senseless topic.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
So what you are saying then is that Canon, you know...the company that made the RF mount does not know what they are saying when they stated there are extra pins in the RF mount for faster lens communication, more IS options, the RF mount lets them optically improve on the EF mount etc., etc. Why two people (or maybe one person with two usernames, who knows) could possibly care enough about why I have decided adapters have no place in my workflow is beyond me. I'm done wasting time on this completely senseless topic.
The Petapixel article says RF lenses can be better than EF lenses. It doesn't exactly say every RF lens is better than every EF lens.

The Digital Photography School article tests only two RF lenses against two comparable EF lenses and then declares "... the RF lens lineup is somewhat better" without even looking at the other eight lenses in the RF lineup. I'm sure if they had put the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II against the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM they'd be singing a different song and generalizing it across the board. This is fairly typical of the quality of articles published by DPS.

Just because the RF mount has the extra pins does not mean every single RF lens, either current or in the future, will take advantage of the faster communication made possible by them. The advantage of the shorter registration distance gradually fades for focal lengths past 44mm and disappears by about 2X the 44mm registration distance of the older mount.

Will many, maybe even most, RF lenses be better than their EF counterparts? Sure. Part of that is simply because the RF designs are more recent and take advantage of things that could have also been done with a new EF lens (e.g. the size advantage of the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS when stored in the 70mm position because Canon was willing to go from an internally zooming EF design to an externally zooming RF design.).

But what you started this conversation with was that *all* adapted lenses are optically inferior to *all* native lenses. That is simply not true, not by a long shot.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: briangus and SteveC

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
852
637
I'm just going to stop wasting my time on this thread; who would have thought a discussion on lens adapters could devolve into such idiotic comments. You are still completely oblivious to the fact that you have been wrong since the moment you made the statement "there are no downsides to using an adapter vs native lenses" but now you are inferring that the entire Internet's body of knowledge which all concludes that the native RF lenses outperform and have features that adapted EF lenses do not must be wrong including Canon themselves who made the EF and RF lenses and the adapters while simultaneously cherry picking from my list of downsides the one area where you think you have a chance of being right...but simply are wrong again.

In case you want to "read somewhere" about the benefits of not using the adapter (since apparently there can be no benefits since there are no downsides to using an adapter) you can click a few of the links below. If you are simply trying to justify your purchase of the adapter vs. native lenses a better start would be to get your facts straight first.







So what you are saying then is that Canon, you know...the company that made the RF mount does not know what they are saying when they stated there are extra pins in the RF mount for faster lens communication, more IS options, the RF mount lets them optically improve on the EF mount etc., etc. Why two people (or maybe one person with two usernames, who knows) could possibly care enough about why I have decided adapters have no place in my workflow is beyond me. I'm done wasting time on this completely senseless topic.
And again, you're blaming the (alleged) relative inferiority of EF lenses on the adapter. It has nothing to do with the adapter. This argument is a non-sequitur, when it comes to explaining "why adapaters are bad."

Would they be good, if somehow an EF lens was better than the corresponding RF lens? Why not? Oh, you have an answer for that? Well THAT answer is why THIS "reason" you give for adapters being bad is flat-out stupid. Because it has nothing to do with adapters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
I will never understand why people on forums often take a statement of personal preference as a statement of universal truth. herein2020 has explained at length and quite plausibly why he/she does not want adapters in his/her personal workflow, here for instance. Still, you keep insisting that adapters have no drawbacks whatsoever, you simply ignore all of the plausible arguments. It might well be that an adapter is perfectly fine for many people, and this hasn't been doubted in any way, but for herein2020 it is not. Why is that such a problem for you? Concerning your last post: I think there is enough evidence that one can "read somewhere" that e.g. the RF 85mm f/1.2L is optically superior to the EF 85mm f/1.2L II, and the same goes for the RF 50 mm f/1.2L vs. the EF 50 mm f/1.2L. You don't need your own optical bench to come to that conclusion, just read some of the dozens of reviews out there.
How about the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro STM versus the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II? Which one of those is far superior optically?
 
Last edited:

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
204
310
The Petapixel article says RF lenses can be better than EF lenses. It doesn't exactly say every RF lens is better than every EF lens.

The Digital Photography School article tests only two RF lenses against two comparable EF lenses and then declares "... the RF lens lineup is somewhat better" without even looking at the other eight lenses in the RF lineup. I'm sure if they had put the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II against the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM they'd be singing a different song and generalizing it across the board. This is fairly typical of the quality of articles published by DPS.

Just because the RF mount has the extra pins does not mean every single RF lens, either current or in the future, will take advantage of the faster communication made possible by them. The advantage of the shorter registration distance gradually fades for focal lengths past 44mm and disappears by about 2X the 44mm registration distance of the older mount.

Will many, maybe even most, RF lenses be better than their EF counterparts? Sure. Part of that is simply because the RF designs are more recent and take advantage of things that could have also been done with a new EF lens (e.g. the size advantage of the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS when stored in the 70mm position because Canon was willing to go from an internally zooming EF design to an externally zooming RF design.).

But what you started this conversation with was that *all* adapted lenses are optically inferior to *all* native lenses. That is simply not true, not by a long shot.
Wrong yet again here was my exact statement

"Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones) "

There are exceptions to every rule.
 

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
204
310
And again, you're blaming the (alleged) relative inferiority of EF lenses on the adapter. It has nothing to do with the adapter. This argument is a non-sequitur, when it comes to explaining "why adapaters are bad."

Would they be good, if somehow an EF lens was better than the corresponding RF lens? Why not? Oh, you have an answer for that? Well THAT answer is why THIS "reason" you give for adapters being bad is flat-out stupid. Because it has nothing to do with adapters.
And again you simply cannot comprehend the fact that I have never said the adapter affected the optical quality of the lenses. So for you as well, let me repost my original statement yet again then I'll even break it down for you. I also never said "adapters are bad" I said why I have chosen to exclude them from my workflow.

"Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones) "


The fact still remains that native lenses are still typically optically superior than the adapted ones. Since you are simply not comprehending the completed sentence structure let me make these much more elementary statements:

EF lenses need an adapter to work on the RF mount camera
EF lenses may have missing features that RF lenses have
EF lenses will probably be optically inferior to RF lenses

Conclusion

I am not going to use an adapter and I am going to use only RF lenses on RF cameras because if I use an adapter it means I am using lenses that may have missing features and that are probably optically inferior. At no point have I ever blamed the adapter for these shortcomings. I was simply stating the causality between using an adapter and the shortcomings of the lens mount that its use enables.

See what I did there? No? Probably not, but it's ok, this thread is good for comedic relief regardless.
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
852
637
And again you simply cannot comprehend the fact that I have never said the adapter affected the optical quality of the lenses. So for you as well, let me repost my original statement yet again then I'll even break it down for you. I also never said "adapters are bad" I said why I have chosen to exclude them from my workflow.

"Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones) "

The fact still remains that native lenses are still typically optically superior than the adapted ones. Since you are simply not comprehending the completed sentence structure let me make these much more elementary statements:

EF lenses need an adapter to work on the RF mount camera
EF lenses may have missing features that RF lenses have
EF lenses will probably be optically inferior to RF lenses

Conclusion

I am not going to use an adapter and I am going to use only RF lenses on RF cameras because if I use an adapter it means I am using lenses that may have missing features and that are probably optically inferior. At no point have I ever blamed the adapter for these shortcomings. I was simply stating the causality between using an adapter and the shortcomings of the lens mount that its use enables.

See what I did there? No? Probably not, but it's ok, this thread is good for comedic relief regardless.
OK, mister Context Is Key...

The WHOLE post was about why you'd never use an adapter. Here's the CONTEXT:

You gave the following reasons adapters are bad. [emphasis mine]

"So, I will repeat my list of why I do not use adapters again below since you missed it the first time:
  • Adaptors are another set of contacts between the body and the lens (i.e. something else that can break)
  • Adaptors are one more thing that can go wrong during a shoot, if you misplace it, lose it, or forget it you can't use the lens
  • Adaptors are another entry point for dust, moisture, and water
  • Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones)
  • I could keep going but if you don't get the point by now a longer list won't matter
[end quote]

Let's take them one by one:
  • Adaptors are another set of contacts between the body and the lens (i.e. something else that can break)
This would be true of ANY adapter on ANY camera under ANY circumstance. Check.

  • Adaptors are one more thing that can go wrong during a shoot, if you misplace it, lose it, or forget it you can't use the lens\
This would be true of ANY adapter on ANY camera under ANY circumstance, too. Check.

  • Adaptors are another entry point for dust, moisture, and water
This again would be true, perhaps unless the adapter has weather sealing on both sides whereas the native lens and body do not. But,, all things being equal, true, of any adapter, any time.

So far, so good. If you'd have stopped here (or maybe gone on to add the additional inconvenience) you'd have been fine. But then:

  • Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones)
Now you come up with one that isn't true all of the time, and arguably is NOT true in this specific case, and it's not really the adapter that's the issue here. Yet it's given in a list of reasons you won't use adapters (and you said "adapters" in general, note) and don't want to use them.

See how that doesn't FIT with the others?

  • I could keep going but if you don't get the point by now a longer list won't matter
And finally, reason number five is just insulting the people you're talking at, so it's no wonder you get pushback.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
204
310
OK, mister Context Is Key...

So far, so good. If you'd have stopped here (or maybe gone on to add the additional inconvenience) you'd have been fine. But then:

  • Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones)
Now you come up with one that isn't true all of the time, and arguably is NOT true in this specific case, and it's not really the adapter that's the issue here. Yet it's given in a list of reasons you won't use adapters (and you said "adapters" in general, note) and don't want to use them.

See how that doesn't FIT with the others?

  • I could keep going but if you don't get the point by now a longer list won't matter
And finally, reason number five is just insulting the people you're talking at, so it's no wonder you get pushback.
You still simply aren't getting it, no matter how simple I make it. So I'm going to make it even simpler....

Problem: The adapter is converting a superior lens mount (according to Canon) to an inferior lens mount (according to Canon) and by doing so the lenses from the inferior lens mount along with their possible shortcomings can now be mounted to the camera

Solution: I don't use the adapter

Do you get it yet? The adapter is the first piece of a larger equation which has the potential to cause a domino effect that results in a decrease in functionality/optical quality/camera performance/ insert effect here. So what possible list then do you think that should be on?

Reason number 5 was added because I had already repeated my reasons and continued to clarify for those that still didn't get it; kind of like now, so reason number 5 is still pretty accurate as well, which leads me back to the comedic value of this discussion because you started your post with "context is key" then proceeded to question a reason that is easily understandable when evaluated in the context for which it was given.
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
852
637
You still simply aren't getting it, no matter how simple I make it. So I'm going to make it even simpler....

Problem: The adapter is converting a superior lens mount (according to Canon) to an inferior lens mount (according to Canon) and by doing so the lenses from the inferior lens mount along with their possible shortcomings can now be mounted to the camera

Solution: I don't use the adapter

Do you get it yet? The adapter is the first piece of a larger equation which has the potential to cause a domino effect that results in a decrease in functionality/optical quality/camera performance/ insert effect here. So what possible list then do you think that should be on?

Reason number 5 was added because I had already repeated my reasons and continued to clarify for those that still didn't get it; kind of like now, so reason number 5 is still pretty accurate as well, which leads me back to the comedic value of this discussion because you started your post with "context is key" then proceeded to question a reason that is easily understandable when evaluated in the context for which it was given.
If your post had been "Why I don't want to use an adapted EF lens on an RF camera" you'd have a point.

But your post was about ADAPTERS IN GENERAL.

Then you gave a reason which is arguably FALSE in this SPECIFIC case--it is not invariably that case that RF lenses are superior to the EF ones, AND would not be a reason Adapters in General are bad, or even a reason THIS adapter is bad, even if it were true.

You can continue beclowning yourself, but I'm not the only one here who sees the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
204
310
If your post had been "Why I don't want to use an adapted EF lens on an RF camera" you'd have a point.

But your post was about ADAPTERS IN GENERAL.

Then you gave a reason which is arguably FALSE in this SPECIFIC case--it is not invariably that case that RF lenses are superior to the EF ones, AND would not be a reason Adapters in General are bad, or even a reason THIS adapter is bad, even if it were true.

You can continue beclowning yourself, but I'm not the only one here who sees the problem.
Finally, you are right about something, you are not the only one here who simply cannot grasp a very simple concept; I don't use adapters because I have no wish to use the lens mount they enable.

And yet again, you are saying adapters are bad, and you are saying my post was about adapters in general; neither is true. My post was about why I do not use adapters. But for me this thread has reached it's logical conclusion, clearly you are incapable of connecting two very simple dots together, at the end of the day none of it matters; if adapters fit your workflow so be it, I already know they don't fit mine.
 

yeahright

EOS T7i
Aug 28, 2014
82
49
OK, mister Context Is Key...

The WHOLE post was about why you'd never use an adapter. Here's the CONTEXT:

You gave the following reasons adapters are bad. [emphasis mine]

"So, I will repeat my list of why I do not use adapters again below since you missed it the first time: ...
I have read through the whole sub-thread on adapters again:
  • NOBODY has made a statement that adapters IN GENERAL are bad
  • NOBODY has made a statement that ALL EF lenses are optically inferior to RF lenses
  • NOBODY has claimed that any optical inferiority of an EF lens w.r.t. an RF lens has ANYTHING to do with the adapter
If you find such a statement, please point me to it.
 

yeahright

EOS T7i
Aug 28, 2014
82
49
How about the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro STM versus the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II? Which one of those is far superior optically?
Why would you compare two such completely different lenses? It hasn't been claimed that all RF lenses are better than EF lenses. It has been claimed that most RF versions are better than their comparable EF counterparts.
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
852
637
Why would you compare two such completely different lenses? It hasn't been claimed that all RF lenses are better than EF lenses. It has been claimed that most RF versions are better than their comparable EF counterparts.
And yet, that's supposedly a reason to NEVER use an adapter. Makes no damn sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Kit.

EOR R
Apr 25, 2011
1,821
1,134
cropping an image in the same sensor doesnt reduce dynamic range
Here again:

Can you illustrate it with your pictures? Those pictures where you need that dynamic range, of course.

(Hint: dynamic range of an image at a given spatial frequency is not dynamic range of a pixel)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM