The smaller AF area is a function of the sensor, the cameras released after the R5/R6 have a much larger AF area when used with the f/11 lenses.F/9 is ok, assuming the AF area isn't crippled like with the f/11 primes. I don't mind the higher ISO as much as the AF area interfering with composition on a fixed focal length.
Do you know whether it is the sensor or it is just a firmware thing that Canon could port to the R5/R6 if they could be bothered?The smaller AF area is a function of the sensor, the cameras released after the R5/R6 have a much larger AF area when used with the f/11 lenses.
My interpretation is that Canon decides which sensor is sensitive enough to get a wider area. So they could decide to give the R5 a larger area through a firmware upgrade, but I doubt that will happen.Do you know whether it is the sensor or it is just a firmware thing that Canon could port to the R5/R6 if they could be bothered?
Edit: Just checked, the RF 100-500mm + 2xTC at 1000mm f/14 has a much larger area in the focus frame of the R5 than does the 800mm f/11.
Personally, I was ok with 3200 on my R5, but now I am more liberal with ISO due to the new AI-powered software NR. I think the improvements in sensor noise are there, but also that those are dwarfed by the improvements in NR algorhytms.The ISO side of the triangle has certainly changed significantly (from the relevant standpoint of image quality). Sensors have lower read noise, and AI-driven noise reduction software is far better these days.
My first FF DSLR was a 5DII, and I preferred to keep the ISO at 1600 or lower, but would use 3200 if really needed. With my R3, I prefer to keep it at 12800 or lower but will use 25600 if needed (and if anything, my tolerance for image noise has gotten more stringent over the years).
That’s a 3-stop improvement in ISO, which more than offsets the 2/3 to 2-stop narrower aperture some people are complaining about.
Subject isolation is a different matter (but another area in which AI is being successfully applied).
In this patent application (2023-125584), Canon is attempting to design lightweight telephotos with good optical characteristics. First up we have some full-frame telephotos ranging from a 4x 200-800 F5.6-9 to a 6x 100-600mm F5.6-9. The designs are interesting, but they, even with F9.0 would have some pretty big front elements, and at least two large
See full article...the 200-800 will appeal to many if it will be light weight and also light budget as well. I wish such a lens to be in the range of 2K.. that will be the best for the quadret 11-24, 24-70-70-200 and 200-800... it just need to match the 63MP R5II
The ISO perofrmance and ability of my R8/R6ii is simply astonishing compared to my old 5D3's.The ISO side of the triangle has certainly changed significantly (from the relevant standpoint of image quality). Sensors have lower read noise, and AI-driven noise reduction software is far better these days.
My first FF DSLR was a 5DII, and I preferred to keep the ISO at 1600 or lower, but would use 3200 if really needed. With my R3, I prefer to keep it at 12800 or lower but will use 25600 if needed (and if anything, my tolerance for image noise has gotten more stringent over the years).
That’s a 3-stop improvement in ISO, which more than offsets the 2/3 to 2-stop narrower aperture some people are complaining about.
Subject isolation is a different matter (but another area in which AI is being successfully applied).
The loss of sharpness by diffraction is usually overstated. The diffraction limited apertures as listed on the digital picture, for example, ignore the Bayer filter and any low-pass filter, which make it larger in practice as it is not the size of a single pixel that determines resolution but it's of the array. A simple way of visualising the effects is to look at the MTF values vs apertures as measured by people like opticallimits.com. Below is their chart for the RF 85mm f/2 on the R5. You can see that the value at f/11 is still 85% of the maximum at f/4. They have measured the 800 f/11 and it's the same as the 85mm at f/11. And, if you want a real shock, the sharpness of the RF 800mm f/11 shown on the digital picture looks looks better in the centre than the RF 800mm f/5.6. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1513&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0The ISO perofrmance and ability of my R8/R6ii is simply astonishing compared to my old 5D3's.
I think f7.1 for a 105mm is quite low. But for a 500mm, it's actually quite useful because I'd probably shott at that aparture anyhow due to the DOF required for front to back subject sharpness. I find it a bit of a suprise that the 800mm f11 and 600mm f11 both share the same aperture value. I would have expected the 600mm to be a tad brighter. The 800 seems to be a better choice than the 600 for that reason. more reach for the same aperture.
The issue with small aperture lenses is the resolution encroaching diffraction. so for an R5, the figure is f7.1. With an f11 optic, difraction limits will be observed in every R mount camera body. Even the R8/R6ii has a DLA of f9.6. If the new R5 has the same pixel pitch as the R7 then diffraction will be seen in F5.6 glass. So darker lenses are not necessarily the way forwards if we want to see sharp images.
...."These appeal to me. 800mm f/9 has 2/3rd stop more light gathered per duck than a 500/7.1 or 400/5.6 and the same as a 600/6.3 (all have the same diameter front element/entrance pupil). For many years, my main telephoto was an EF 400mm f/4 DO II with a 2xTC on it to give 800mm f/8, which was used on a DSLR. f/9 on a current mirrorless will be better for AF and IQ. A 200-800mm f/9 should be approximately the same size as a 200-600mm f/6.3 and give extended range. If it is built to a lightweight design, it should be light enough even for me and a winner as far as I am concerned. Even at L-standard, I might consider it as an alternative when I do not need to hike. The 100-600mm f/9 is very slightly slower than a 100-500 f/7.1 and could either be an expensive successor to the current RF 100-500 or a cheap larger version of the RF 100-400, depending on the quality of construction.
I've been using the 1.4xTC on the RF 100-500mm to give 700mm f/10 with the R7, and f/10 is quite ok as these cameras go up to very high isos when combined with DxO PL or other modern noise reduction software..
more light gathered per duck"....... ok that is hilarious! thank you
how is 7.1 bad? i've been using this lens for a few years now, and its clearly one of the best telephotos zoom lens you can purchase. even at 12800 iso it still produces amazing detail and sharpness.Just when I thought f/7.1 was bad. “Hold my beer,” says Canon. “We’re moving the bar higher…again!”
Either that or whine more.One thing I do like about these slower long lenses is that they will teach people to be more mindful of their background.
I see that you don't work for SigmaI too would certainly prefer a 5,6/200-800 if:
- It weren't for its huge weight
- It weren't for its exhorbitant price
- It weren't for its size requiring the largest possible backpack
And that's why I'll happily accept, as a non professional, its f9 aperture.
Well, since Canon can only make so many lenses at a time I can sympathize with people not getting lenses that they want.The people/market decided that they could live quite well with the f/8 of the 100-400 as well as the f/7.1 of the 100-500L.
So why not give them more choices.
Personally, I know both RFs, the 100-400 and the 100-500. And from my point of view, those were definitely good designs.
And for sure, I'd take a 200-800/9 with variable aperture over an 800/11 fixed.
Of course, the MFD would be very interesting/deciding for me.
Let the people decide if they like it or not.
... especially when others state, that those suit them very well. Like "other opinions do not count, only my own."What I do not sympathize with is when people think that lenses that do not suit them personally should not exist at all.
How dare Nikon make a fast tele way less expensive than Canon.... The hubris....Too right, man. How dare Canon design supertelephoto lenses with such narrow apertures that they are in price ranges affordable by a large number of photographers? The hubris! Such focal lengths should be restricted only to professionals and those with a ton of disposable income.
Just when I thought f/7.1 was bad. “Hold my beer,” says Canon. “We’re moving the bar higher…again!”