Canon Introduces Three New Lenses, Enhancing Still Photography and Video Production for Any Skill Level

[SwissFrank]

No correction is forced or done when shooting RAW.

LOL, I literally don't leave the house without that 16mm (it's in my backpack) and I've had it like two years... and didn't actually realize that! I still have Photoshop CS4 so I have to go through Canon software to convert RAW's to something I can actually edit, so while I shoot raws just in case I get something worthy of covering an entire wall with, but in fact I must have never used the 16mm raw images.

 

[SwissFrank]

There's been a conventional wisdom over the past 8 years or so that phone cameras have eliminated the low end in the dedicated camera market, but there appears to still be enough of that market for Canon to have maintained the M series for as long as they did, and now to be aggressively going after it with cameras like the R50 and R100.

So where does that leave those of us who consider ourselves hobbyists or enthusiasts, i.e., the middle? I fear we're a relatively large and vocal group in online equipment forums, but not such a big factor when it comes to product strategy for a company like Canon. Modern cameras and lenses are very expensive to develop and manufacture, and all of the camera companies need to show a good return on investment.

I'd see the M shooters and today's budget R shooters as the middle. I've shot the 50/1.8 far more than anything else and it's a middle lens that is utterly superior to my iPhone. (Though the iPhone turns out great photos too, I have to admit.) Lenses like the RF50/1.8 and RF16/2.8 aren't "low-end" lenses from a quality perspective. Canon's never made a 50mm as sharp as the RF50/1.8, for instance, in the firm's entire history before RF. RF16/2.8 is far better than my EF14/2.8 or an EF20/2.8 I borrowed for several months. And the advances in DR, IS, IBIS give you a LOT better quality now on a cheap body than you could even get with MF in the 90s. (I shot a Rollei SL66 and a Mamiya 7 with 43/80/150 that I thought was the bomb, but it was pathetic compared to my R.)

 

[koenkooi]

LOL, I literally don't leave the house without that 16mm (it's in my backpack) and I've had it like two years... and didn't actually realize that! I still have Photoshop CS4 so I have to go through Canon software to convert RAW's to something I can actually edit, so while I shoot raws just in case I get something worthy of covering an entire wall with, but in fact I must have never used the 16mm raw images.

DPP4 does force corrections on some lenses, the 16mm is one of those. If you want to use an uncorrected RAW in photoshop, download the free Adobe DNG Converter to convert the CR3 to DNG.

Or try the 30 day trial for dxo pureraw to see what a tuned combination of demosaic, denoise and correction can do.

 

[SwissFrank]

If you want to use an uncorrected RAW in photoshop, download the free Adobe DNG Converter to convert the CR3 to DNG.

Actually I have it but kind of forgot about it, thanks for the reminder.

To be clear I have no desire or even really curiosity about what the uncorrected 16mm raw image looks like. As an engineer whose written some image-processing software I'm convinced the distortion correction shouldn't cause any issues with image quality that one could detect. At worst it blurs images by up to half a pixel, but I don't think this could be detected in practice. I'm pretty sure you'd need at least a 4000 pixel wide final image, if not 8000, before even pixel-peeping would reveal such a loss of sharpness,

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I must be the oddbird here, but I'm most interested in the new rf-s 10-18mm, the other two are out of my (justified) price range right now. 200-800 is still something to look after, and might be added to my collection some day.
Personally not interested in 24-105 F2.8.
Now I have to wait the reviews of the wonderfully compact, light and small rf-s 10-18mm. And I think it is really going to be very satisfying lens for me. Must be as good as ef-m 11-22, or better, right? And with a hood!! Wow!

Not at all, Canon have announced three very different lenses for three very different users and pockets. All three are very specific and really hit their target audiences.

 

[EricN]

Actually I have it but kind of forgot about it, thanks for the reminder.

To be clear I have no desire or even really curiosity about what the uncorrected 16mm raw image looks like. As an engineer whose written some image-processing software I'm convinced the distortion correction shouldn't cause any issues with image quality that one could detect. At worst it blurs images by up to half a pixel, but I don't think this could be detected in practice. I'm pretty sure you'd need at least a 4000 pixel wide final image, if not 8000, before even pixel-peeping would reveal such a loss of sharpness,

It's worth taking a look at not sp much for sharpness, but more for seeing what's getting cropped off - It's more than I guessed

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's worth taking a look at not sp much for sharpness, but more for seeing what's getting cropped off - It's more than I guessed

For comparison, consider how much gets cropped off when you make an image from the 15/2.8 fisheye rectilinear.

 

[SwissFrank]

It's worth taking a look at not sp much for sharpness, but more for seeing what's getting cropped off - It's more than I guessed

Thanks for pointing me in that direction. I guess I should take a look. I can't imagine why anything would be cropped off but I suppose it'd be obvious enough it I took a look...