Canon is thinking about more lenses like the RF 600mm f/11 STM and RF 800mm f/11 STM

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,497
1,780
Hamburg, Germany
You can't really say that as a rule because each camera has different ISO amplification quirks. Sometimes the hardware amp in the camera is better / lower noise than trying the same amplification in post-proc software for a given ISO.
That's what I was saying here. You usually are better off using a higher ISO to avoid a noisy image, rather than using a lower one and raising the brightness in post. In other words, a high ISO value is usually adding less noise than a lower one.

Shutter and aperture don't introduce any noise. How can they? They are purely mechanical functions. Noise arises from quantum and thermal effects in the sensor plus downstream processing.
The main source of noise in images shot with modern sensor is photon shot noise, which is a property of light itself and has absolutely nothing to do with the sensor. It purely depends on the amount of photons you gather - which is determined by the f/number and shutter speed. Read noise (what the camera introduces) plays a part, but it is not as significant anymore. That's why we don't see huge improvements between sensor generations anymore. The shot noise is a physical limit to how good it can get, and as the distance to the theoretical perfection shrinks, it gets harder and harder to push forward.
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,475
3,856
Actually, "equivalence" is exactly the argument I was avoiding in my OP. The original point was about losing or not losing light when cropping vs TC. F/11 vs f/16. How we think the final image looks is irrelevant to the argument. Would you rather take an image at f/11 and crop it? Or take the same image with a TC f/16 and no crop? I'll take the f/11 with a crop. Something tells me defraction at f/16 would make the image worse anyway. Not to mention the IQ hit a TC already gives on its own. Now, f/4 vs f/5.6 is a different situation, right?
But that is where you are missing the point, if the cropped image and the ff image are equivalent then they are identical from a visual perspective, light captured is the same, diffraction is the same, dof is the same, etc etc.

Now there can be practical differences, time to put on a TC might not be available, indeed you might not have a TC, focus speed might be affected, etc, but that doesn’t change the fact that when comparing uncropped images with a longer slower lens/tc against a cropped lens image you can’t separate or avoid equivalence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,305
1,958
You can't really say that as a rule because each camera has different ISO amplification quirks. Sometimes the hardware amp in the camera is better / lower noise than trying the same amplification in post-proc software for a given ISO. Consider that the manufacturer can tune the amp for given ISO equivalent values for a specific sensor, whereas software is generic and sensor-agnostic.

Shutter and aperture don't introduce any noise. How can they? They are purely mechanical functions. Noise arises from quantum and thermal effects in the sensor plus downstream processing.
Noise also results from the random distribution of photons from a light source. The dimmer the light source, the more random the distribution. The basic source of noise in most photographs is the lack of enough light, not read noise.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
821
913
Kentucky, USA
First, I'd like to thank MichaelClark and PrivateByDesign for their carefully explained posts regarding equivalence.
And thanks, AlanF, for correcting me that lack of noise is mainly proportional to sqrt(total #photons captured).
Also, my example with a 200mm f4 is just to simplify what I'm trying to say, rather than focusing on a specific lens I want or use.

I'd like to give my opinions on how these 3 things compare for the same FF camera & ideal FF sensor, with the viewed "images" at the same size & brightness (where "ideal" just means 100% sensor quantum efficiency or 100% lens transmittance to simplify the discussion):
#1: Using an ideal FF 200mm f4 lens, with a 2x crop
#2: Using an ideal FF 200mm f4 lens, with an ideal 2x TC
#3: Using an ideal FF 400mm f8 lens
* All will produce the same image regarding the same angle of view, DOF, and OOF blur.
* All will capture the same rate of total photons per unit time for the image.
The differences between them are:
* #1 has the image on just 25% of the sensor area, while #2 and #3 have the image on 100% of the sensor area.
* Thus #2 and #3 have 4x the full-well capacity for the image as #1 and thus can capture 4x the total amount of light for it.
* If you stop your exposure at time T (when #1 reaches full-well for the brightest area) then #1 reaches "full exposure" while #2 and #3 are only 25% exposed but use a 4x ISO amplification to reach full exposure, and thus all three will produce the same image brightness from the same total # of photons, and thus with the same level of noise, assuming lack of noise is mainly due to sqrt(total #photons captured).
* If you allow the exposure in #2 and #3 to continue to be four times longer (4*T) then they will reach full exposure with 4x the total photons and thus sqrt(4) = 2x less noise than #1 (but 4x longer exposure can have 4x more subject motion blur, if any).
* #1 will have less pixels displayed in the image (vs #2 and #3) and thus will have less resolution with rougher edges, but using good upsizing interpolation can start to look somewhat close to the others.
* #1 and #3 will use (typically) a similar number of lens elements, while #2 adds a significant # of extra lens elements with a slight transmission loss but a significant contrast and resolution loss.
* Since #1 uses 25% of the sensor area for the image, the remaining 75% around it is still recorded (assuming you told the camera to do so). That allows you to more easily track fast moving subjects that might move out of view, and the ability in post to shift your image somewhat for a subject that moved off-center, or to zoom out to get a wider image (which is very useful, but not the point of this discussion).

All in all, my preference (if limited to just these 3 choices) is to use:
#3 for the best quality image, assuming the subject is not moving too fast to follow, and I can afford an additional lens and be willing to carry it around.
#1 would be my 2nd choice (if #3 isn't chosen).
#2 would not be my choice, as I'd prefer #1 over it mainly for the extra 75% area coverage around the image which I could use for the 3 reasons mentioned above.
 
Last edited:

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,273
3,531
Irving, Texas
But that is where you are missing the point, if the cropped image and the ff image are equivalent then they are identical from a visual perspective, light captured is the same, diffraction is the same, dof is the same, etc etc.

Now there can be practical differences, time to put on a TC might not be available, indeed you might not have a TC, focus speed might be affected, etc, but that doesn’t change the fact that when comparing uncropped images with a longer slower lens/tc against a cropped lens image you can’t separate or avoid equivalence.
Actually, I used to have the Canon EF 2x III. I was always happier (much) with the cropped images from my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II than the images with the TC. Always. I was birding in those days. Might have been a different story with the 1.4x TC. Never happy with the 2x. There was a definite difference and no equivalence in IQ to my eyes. 2x on my old EF 400mm f/5.6L? Forget it. I always wished I’d bought the 1.4x instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpeeps

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
277
258
I doubt this price for the big whities....
All RF lenses were more or less 1,5x of the EF original price (not street price), so I would say 15-18k each....
I don't think Canon will price that high on the big whites. Unless there is a significant jump in quality or unique features, photographers would stick with their already great EF glass. They won't be the same price, but I don't see them carrying that premium.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

jeanluc

EOS 90D
Oct 29, 2012
194
102
I think they need to focus on basics...like figuring out how to produce what they have already “released”. My bitterness will improve in parallel to R5 availability...
 

YuengLinger

Godzilla needs boxing lessons.
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,453
1,857
USA
Actually, I used to have the Canon EF 2x III. I was always happier (much) with the cropped images from my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II than the images with the TC. Always. I was birding in those days. Might have been a different story with the 1.4x TC. Never happy with the 2x. There was a definite difference and no equivalence in IQ to my eyes. 2x on my old EF 400mm f/5.6L? Forget it. I always wished I’d bought the 1.4x instead.
Regarding that particular lens, I had what seemed a stellar copy, but it was poor with the 1.4x TC that worked fine on my long gone 100-400mm. Not a good combo for me at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,475
3,856
Actually, I used to have the Canon EF 2x III. I was always happier (much) with the cropped images from my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II than the images with the TC. Always. I was birding in those days. Might have been a different story with the 1.4x TC. Never happy with the 2x. There was a definite difference and no equivalence in IQ to my eyes. 2x on my old EF 400mm f/5.6L? Forget it. I always wished I’d bought the 1.4x instead.
And that goes into the specifics of what is available and practical, like I pointed out af speed and time to fit, or even if you have one to use, and usern4cr pointed out light transmission etc, but there are still more, cost, size, weight and on and on.

There is the theoretical, and the actual practical, but when doing calculations for equivalence it becomes too complicated to factor in every single variable, the important bit is understanding the image characteristics like diffraction, dof, light gathering, subject motion etc are theoretically all equivalent/identical. You then have to work out the best practical solution given the available options for your specific situation, and even then different occasions might very well call for different solutions for the same person.

One very important aspect in all this is to understand that what is the right solution for one user might very well not be the best solution for another, we rarely seem to grasp this in our posts almost always thinking that because we use one setup that should work as well for others when it often won’t.

I’d agree my 70-200 f2.8 with a 2xTC was always a disappointment, on the other hand I know a guy in Australia who shoots pro swimming with that combination when he could have just about anything, and he very much knows what he is doing and fully understands gear and the physics behind it all. I also know my TS-E 50 with my 2xTC II is sharper than my 100 L even at close focus distances, but it becomes an f5.6, but it has tilt and shift etc etc etc.
 

BirdDudeJosh

I'm New Here
Feb 6, 2020
18
15
I have the RF 800 and 600 along with both the RF 2x and 1.4X TCs and the 100-500. I havent used the RF 600 much cause the RF 800 is so good. I also have the 400 DO II and both TC IIIs. IQ wise the bare RF800 against the DO II with the 2X TC are about the same but the RF has better/faster AF and much better stabilization. I have found being limited to the center zone for AF actually works just fine for tracking BIF. When you can easily get away hand holding at 1/400th or less it helps to make up for the light loss I can't get away with that kind of shutter speed on the 400 DO II. Lets be honest am I getting the RF 800 to shot peregrine falcons in flight, no the 100-500 will be for that. I am so happy with all the new RF lenses though.

I think there are too many people with too many strong opinions that haven't used any of these RF lenses and don't know what they are talking about. They also have some preconceived notion of diffraction being overwhelming without any idea of what the end results can be. The RF 800 f11 with 2x TC is amazing and so much fun to shoot with. 1600mm f22 offers an amazing perspective and in the right conditions is amazing to me. Are you going to crop much, of course not. If you can't fill the frame and compose your shot at 1600mm than it's not the right setup for you. For me though 1600mm f22 is so much better than I could have ever imagined and along with the subject detection and AF system of the RF I am so happy right now.

Another use for this is someone who maybe isn't as serious in to photography but wants to get ID quality photos.

I have a lot of stuff I have shared that has been shot with the R5 and the RF 800mm f11 and the TC's on my IG birddudejosh
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,625
7,993
How would you compare the 800 f11 to a 1200 f16? Would you use a 1.4x TC to make it 1320 f15.4? That's still not 1400 and basically f16 and you have all those extra TC elements to muddy up the image further. If you instead crop the 800 f11 by 1.5x then you have a 1200 f16.5 with only 44% of the pixels used, so you have to use software upsampling with its artifacts to get the same MP. Either way I think you would have an appreciably worse image than the 1200 f16.
1200mm is for wimps. Real men use 2400mm https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/moon-at-2400mm-on-r5.39709/
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
821
913
Kentucky, USA
I have the RF 800 and 600 along with both the RF 2x and 1.4X TCs and the 100-500. I havent used the RF 600 much cause the RF 800 is so good. I also have the 400 DO II and both TC IIIs. IQ wise the bare RF800 against the DO II with the 2X TC are about the same but the RF has better/faster AF and much better stabilization. I have found being limited to the center zone for AF actually works just fine for tracking BIF. When you can easily get away hand holding at 1/400th or less it helps to make up for the light loss I can't get away with that kind of shutter speed on the 400 DO II. Lets be honest am I getting the RF 800 to shot peregrine falcons in flight, no the 100-500 will be for that. I am so happy with all the new RF lenses though.

I think there are too many people with too many strong opinions that haven't used any of these RF lenses and don't know what they are talking about. They also have some preconceived notion of diffraction being overwhelming without any idea of what the end results can be. The RF 800 f11 with 2x TC is amazing and so much fun to shoot with. 1600mm f22 offers an amazing perspective and in the right conditions is amazing to me. Are you going to crop much, of course not. If you can't fill the frame and compose your shot at 1600mm than it's not the right setup for you. For me though 1600mm f22 is so much better than I could have ever imagined and along with the subject detection and AF system of the RF I am so happy right now.

Another use for this is someone who maybe isn't as serious in to photography but wants to get ID quality photos.

I have a lot of stuff I have shared that has been shot with the R5 and the RF 800mm f11 and the TC's on my IG birddudejosh
It's good to hear that you're so happy with the RF 800 f11, even with all the other choices you have. And it's good to hear that you like to add the RF 2x TC with it as well. I'm probably going to just crop with it for now for further reach. But one day Canon will come out with more RF long teles (either longer, faster, or both) and eventually I'll get one for even further reach or maybe similar reach with wider aperture.
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS RP
Sep 20, 2020
262
194
A big reason that I got into Micro 4/3 is that I can get more reach out of lighter, and cheaper lenses.
Tony Northrup has long argued that much of the same could be accomplished in full-frame by having lower apertures.
However, Micro 4/3 will still be smaller.
Canon will never do Micro 4/3 but 1-inch or Super 16 ILC with RF or EF-M would be nice.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,625
7,993
I have the RF 800 and 600 along with both the RF 2x and 1.4X TCs and the 100-500. I havent used the RF 600 much cause the RF 800 is so good. I also have the 400 DO II and both TC IIIs. IQ wise the bare RF800 against the DO II with the 2X TC are about the same but the RF has better/faster AF and much better stabilization. I have found being limited to the center zone for AF actually works just fine for tracking BIF. When you can easily get away hand holding at 1/400th or less it helps to make up for the light loss I can't get away with that kind of shutter speed on the 400 DO II. Lets be honest am I getting the RF 800 to shot peregrine falcons in flight, no the 100-500 will be for that. I am so happy with all the new RF lenses though.

I think there are too many people with too many strong opinions that haven't used any of these RF lenses and don't know what they are talking about. They also have some preconceived notion of diffraction being overwhelming without any idea of what the end results can be. The RF 800 f11 with 2x TC is amazing and so much fun to shoot with. 1600mm f22 offers an amazing perspective and in the right conditions is amazing to me. Are you going to crop much, of course not. If you can't fill the frame and compose your shot at 1600mm than it's not the right setup for you. For me though 1600mm f22 is so much better than I could have ever imagined and along with the subject detection and AF system of the RF I am so happy right now.

Another use for this is someone who maybe isn't as serious in to photography but wants to get ID quality photos.

I have a lot of stuff I have shared that has been shot with the R5 and the RF 800mm f11 and the TC's on my IG birddudejosh
If, as you write quite correctly, you fill the frame, then you will get a decent image because high resolution really doesn't come in to it as the image size is so large compared with the diffraction blur. And that's how those lenses should be used. However, you will get just about as well-resolved images by using those narrow lenses without a TC on a high resolution sensor and cropping. I have posted the effects of TCs on their MTF-values in a thread https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...of-f-5-6-f-7-1-and-f-11-lenses-and-tcs.39118/

The TCs are more useful on a lower resolution like that on the R6. I find it much easier to locate small birds against a background using a shorter lens and then cropping, similarly for BIF. It was rather difficult even finding the moon when I shot it at 2400mm.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,625
7,993
A big reason that I got into Micro 4/3 is that I can get more reach out of lighter, and cheaper lenses.
Tony Northrup has long argued that much of the same could be accomplished in full-frame by having lower apertures.
However, Micro 4/3 will still be smaller.
Canon will never do Micro 4/3 but 1-inch or Super 16 ILC with RF or EF-M would be nice.
Nikon lost a fortune producing a rather good 1" ILC - the now discontinued 1-series - because not enough sold.
 

Canfan

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 17, 2019
50
45
It is an apples to apples comparison. The MP density on the 90D and M6 MKii is much higher technically than the R5.

Have tried out the 800mm. It isn't a bad lens for the price. You get similar performance from a 400mm 5.6 with a 2x convertor.




A 90D / M6 II with a 500 f/6.8 will produce the same image quality as the 800 mm f/11 on the R5. No such lens that I am aware of currently exits in EF mount. Plenty of lenses with 600 mm 6.3 on the long end exist and that is better in both reach and light - But comes at a price of weight and size. The EF 100-400 mm 4.5-5.6 L is also comparable, but much, much more expensive.

If you look just at the f/11 without factoring in the reach, you can't make an accurate judgement on the value provided by the 800 mm f/11. I don't believe the notion that that lens will end up collecting dust as long as it is used on FF bodies which match its price segment (RP, R6, ...). If you can afford an R5 and are serious about wildlife, there are of course much more suitable options out there and they will become more plentiful in the future - but the key here is the affordability.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS R5
Feb 14, 2018
1,219
1,076
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Noise also results from the random distribution of photons from a light source. The dimmer the light source, the more random the distribution. The basic source of noise in most photographs is the lack of enough light, not read noise.
I'm not sure how the randomness of the distribution can be measured.
There's actually less shot noise in the shadows. What matters for the final image is not the noise but signal-to-noise ratio in the signal range that gets converted to the viewable image. The noise is lower in the shadows. The SNR is higher.
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,067
1,417
I'm not sure how the randomness of the distribution can be measured.
Usually by its standard deviation.

There's actually less shot noise in the shadows. What matters for the final image is not the noise but signal-to-noise ratio in the signal range that gets converted to the viewable image. The noise is lower in the shadows. The SNR is higher.
The shot noise magnitude is about the square root of the magnitude of the signal. So, while the absolute magnitude of the shot noise is lower in the shadows, the SNR in the shadows is lower, too.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS R5
Feb 14, 2018
1,219
1,076
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Usually by its standard deviation.

I'd have guessed it was entropy not deviation, but I thought it was unlikely Michael Clack meant entropy.

The shot noise magnitude is about the square root of the magnitude of the signal. So, while the absolute magnitude of the shot noise is lower in the shadows, the SNR in the shadows is lower, too.

Sorry, of course. The SNR is lower in the shadows, and that leads to higher visible noise if the shadows are mapped to the resulting image. If they're not mapped or appear very dark and black, then there's little visible noise. If the shadows are lifted, that is mapped to mid-tones or even highlights in the resulting image, there will be more visible noise.

That is, it's actually ISO setting, when applied to the resulting image, creates visible noise. But we used the higher ISO because the image was too dark (the information was in the raw shadows with low SNR). So it's like chicken and egg problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr
<-- start Taboola -->