Canon RF 300-600mm Update…. Again

[DocInfoSci]

It is not an issue of Photoshop. Lightroom is not creating anything the lens didn't capture, but rather adjusting the ratios of the information that is already there. "In-camera" is very different from RAW to JPEG. You have to do a fair bit of correction in Lightroom to bring a RAW file to match the in-camera JPEG since most camera JPEG engines to quite a bit of "fitting" to get exposures to fit into the 8 bit JPEG space. I always shoot RAW, so Lightroom is always in the mix. I will admit that running Topaz sharpening is pushing the envelope a bit since Topaz uses AI to extend detail a bit beyond what you could nominally recover, but it is still not "Photoshopping" in the classic sense. As an aside, I think the mirrors I mentioned in my response to Alan are much better than either of the ones you identified above. The Opteka and Samyang are both made by Samyang and the newer ones have been made very cheaply (and poorly). The TTArtisans 250mm f/5.6 is an exception as it is actually quite good and not crazy expensive. I see photography as an art form, which is to say I am not trying to exactly recreate the image that was seen by the eye (impossible in any case, because there is no available display mechanism with enough DR), but rather to create an image that tells the story of what I saw when I looked at the scene.

Fair!

I meant photoshop in the sense that some people will take great liberty with the image out of the camera and then present it as what the lens does. Even though in-camera is using an HEIC or JPEG conversion algorithm I’m assuming the end result from one Canon to the next is sufficiently consistent that opinions that are definitely about the lens and not one’s software skill can be made. I’m also using Affinity but if someone wants to know about the lens itself I’ll restrict the image to Canon internal algorithms. Beyond that, I might have used the lens but really I’m showing off interpretive art bespoke to me and not Canon + a lens.

 

[Del Paso]

Let's not put Sony on some sort of pedestal when it comes to high quality as opposed to junk. Their first two generations of mirrorless cameras like the A7 and A7 II were often referred to by reviewers and buyers as "Beta" releases. They were an embarrassment. I, too was swept up by the "Sony way ahead' forum baloney of the time and gave Sony a try. Very dull EVFs, Cameras in which all shots were a minimum 1 stop underexposed, as well as virtually non-existent weather sealing and ergonomics that were completely uncomfortable. From what I understand from some of today's reviewers, the EVFs (as well as back screens) still use cheaper glass and are not as bright as the competition, the ergonomics, while improved, are still poor. They had a class-action suit filed against them a few years ago because their shutters were breaking early and often, and another lawsuit was filed because they were putting serial number stickers on their lenses, rather than engraving the serial number into the lens. Users sending their lenses in for repair under warranty were denied warranty service because the lenses did not have serial numbers - the stickers had fallen off. So, plenty of junk coming from Sony - as well as a total lack of ethics - just look into their unethical practices when it came to CDs.

You even forgot the paid "experts", influencers or "serious" but heavily biased reviews like Phototrend and others.
I cannot see Sony as a credible or reliable company. And certainly not as a viable alternative to Canon, Fujifilm, Panasonic, OM or Leica.
My Sony A7 was the worst c**p I ever bought, I sold it after 2 weeks at a huge loss...

 

[VivaLasVegas]

View attachment 228507

Let's keep comparisons apples to apples.

We'll see how Canon does long term. If Sony chooses to develop garbage tier cameras like the R50 and (especially) R100, I would expect the gap to close quite a bit. For now, Canon owns the market for garbage. That's something you can be proud of.

What you call “garbage” is what made Canon #1, it’s essentially a gateway drug to a more profitable(R1, R3, R5, R6, R7, L glass) addiction. High schoolers and college freshmen in photography buys into a camera ecosystem, which Canon will ALWAYS win due to a price/performance value proposition of over 130 million EF glass out in the wild readily accessible. EF-RF connection is butter smooth flawless compared to jerky 3rd parties, metadata and digital optical correction works. According to rumors, Canon will eventually have over 100 RF glass in its repertoire, ALL flawless connection to the EOS bodies. Canon’s masterplan is to chop up all the advantages(of 3rd party manufacturers) to fall between the RF advantages and focal lengths, which Canon wins because the glass is not handicapped(fps, metadata, in camera corrections). Let’s be honest here, camera manufacturers make their profit most from selling glass, NOT bodies, Sony just gave the most profitable part of the business to cheap rubbish Chinese companies, Sigma and Tamron are legit.

BTW, Sony TV is now owned by TCL, again a long list of failed Sony products going under. By the end of year, RF will have more native glass than Sony. Canon cinema line bodies are now superior to Sony, VCM lineup is superior to Sony and will take years for Sony to copy(weight and identical size).

Sony is on the ropes AGAIN(YOY market share decline), just like Sony products of the past, it’ll eventually end up in a “GARBAGE” bin.

To ALL the Sony fans, sell all your Sony gears ASAP, while it’s still worth something. Take that money and join the WINNING ecosystem by Canon….undisputed winners in film, in dslr and now mirrorless.

RF

 

[john1970]

I'm not thrilled with the 100-300/2.8 + 2x, but I think my copy of the RF 2x is the main issue. Since I have the EF 600/4 II (that I use mainly with the EF 1.4xIII), I don't typically need to use the 2x on the 100-300/2.8 (but I often use the 1.4x with that lens).

Quite some time back (but after my return window, lazy me), I tested my RF 2x and found that the EF 2xIII was noticeably better, and that the RF 2x yielded IQ about the same as the EF 1.4xIII and RF 1.4x stacked...the RF 2x should be better than that. I don't use it much, to be honest. However, you posing the question spurred me to order a second copy of the RF 2x that I will test against my first copy.

Just FYI I have two copies of both the RF 1.4x and RF 2x TCs. I don't see a difference between the 1.4x TCs, but one of the 2X TCs is a bit sharper on the 100-300 mm f2.8 than the other. Don't ask me why, but that is my observation.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Just FYI I have two copies of both the RF 1.4x and RF 2x TCs. I don't see a difference between the 1.4x TCs, but one of the 2X TCs is a bit sharper on the 100-300 mm f2.8 than the other. Don't ask me why, but that is my observation.

Thanks. Any sense of comparison of the RF 2x with the EF 2xIII? That’s what really stood out to me, that the RF was noticeably less sharp than the EF 2x.

 

[eero]

... in stock at Canon for $450 (vs the current new price of $690). So I bought it…

Good to hear! It will be interesting to see what the test results are. The price was good! I bought mine for 449€ last year, it was used. I keep wondering if someone had sold it for quality reasons...

 

[homebodyMacro2]

Thanks. Any sense of comparison of the RF 2x with the EF 2xIII? That’s what really stood out to me, that the RF was noticeably less sharp than the EF 2x.

That seems like an issue with your RF 2x honestly. If you look at RF lenses with the RF 2x vs. EF lenses with the EF 2xIII in the Digital Picture's photo comparison tool, generally the RF 2x seems to be far better. Of course, some of the base RF designs have a significantly better starting place, but if you compare 2x vs. 2x, the RF still looks considerably better.

I have an old EF 200mm f/2.8 L II and EF 2xIII, and my 70-200Z with RF 2x is much better than that combination. The comparison is not really even close, and this chart comparison is pretty fair imo: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

 

[Bob Howland]

Let me commit heresy here. When I look at an R7 image at 100% (one image pixel per one monitor pixel) on a 23 inch, 1920 x 1080 monitor, I am looking at a very small portion of an image that is 68 inches wide. At 50%, the image is 34 inches wide. If I can't see any difference between two images at 50% and there is only a small difference at 100%, I submit that any improvement of one over the other exceeds our ability to see it. We have reached the point of "good enough."

 

[DocInfoSci]

Generally speaking, I think that for the 2x controversy it's possible for everyone to be right:

• The quality of the original lens matters the most: the 2x TC magnifies what is being captured. (Yeah, obviously.)
• Imperfect copies of either the base lens or the TC will skew the final image.
• Air quality between the lens and the subject matters — temperature differences in the hood (think cold days from a warm car with the window down), temperature differences between the ambient air and the ground (or water), etc. all create thermal currents that skew the result because the image entering the glass might be subject to shimmer, which will be magnified. The closer the subject, generally the less impact from shimmer (hood aside).
• Similarly, light spill and other factors will also be magnified and skew a casual inspection. Uncontrolled light really kills TC outcomes.
• Use of digital aids, like DLO, can make a monstrous difference.

I think within one's own stable of lenses it's possible to form a solid opinion on whether a copy of the 2x TC is working or not. I think that it's a very subjective thing to take a sentance-or-two answer from someone else and apply it to one's own situation. Obviously credibility of the source counts for a lot, but situation and the transparency into the scenarios counts for more.

I have used EF II and III 2x extenders with close outcomes. When I test, versus just chimp on images, I try to equally to fill the frame with a subject — easy enough to do with a tripod and stand-in subject. My 300 f4 IS works very well with DLO, my 70-200 f4 non-IS is for emergency use only when any serious distance is considered — like what I'd put between me and a mamma bear with cub — but if I just want a close at hand duck or chipmunk then it's actually pretty fine with some minor editing.

For my copy of the II, light control is imperative for quality outcomes.

Can you draw anything from that? Well, if you have a 300mm f4 IS and a 70-200 f4 non-IS and you trust me to do this decently then yes. If you have any other lens or don't trust me... I'd consider the bullet points, a good friend or camera store, and some education by the Digital Picture.

I have found that my friend's 70-200 f/4 IS ii with 2x III makes perfectly fine images with DLO turned on. For anything but the most critical work when travelling light I wouldn't blink to slap that on, get some great shots when travelling light, and print the outcomes.

Sucks if you get a bad copy. These are expensive experiments! It helps a lot of you have a sympathetic camera store with long aisles.

 

[mimbu]

On the other hand ... If it is not cheaper, the 100-300mm 2.8 + a 2xTC could be a more compelling option for many that value the 100-300mm range as well as 300-600mm focal distance.

The 100-300/2.8 + 2x TC will not compare to the 300-600/5.6 natively, nor will it give you a likely very good 420-840/8.0.

 

[mimbu]

Oh my God, Canon hates me!
This makes me so sad I could cry all night long!
Time to jump ship and get tenderly loved by sweet Sony!

Canon sees you as a paypig that they will bleed and bleed.

 

[mimbu]

Smart people can recognize sarcasm. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Smart people ignore sarcasm when it's just a mild shield for the actual truth.

 

[mimbu]

Despite your characterization of Canon's entry level models, if you can't take excellent pictures with one then the only thing that is rank garbage at the bottom of the trash pile is your skill as a photographer.

Even the guy running this site would agree the R100 is a POS.

 

[mimbu]

People complain the 100-300mm + 2X is not sharp at f/5.6. If the new lens was razor sharp all the way to 600mm wide open, that might please all the birders out there. What is your opinion of the 100-300mm - 2x at f/5.6? I have noticed that it is indeed sharper with 1.4x when fully open, but you usually have to pixel-peep to notice. However, this minor sharpness issue plus the possibility to go even further with extenders is very tempting to me.

I would certainly expect a $12k 300-600/5.6 to be razor sharp throughout the range, and to remain excellent with a 1.4x TC as a 420-840/8.0.

 

[David - Sydney]

Which is why Canon has blocked all 3rd party native glass from FF RF, and probably will do so in perpetuity.

Clearly incorrect. There are no issues with manual RF mount lenses (I love my full frame Astrhori 6/2.8).
Be specific if you going to make claims. Otherwise you are just a troll.

The Chinese lens manufacturers don't seem to have a problem with annoying Canon - similar to what Sigma and Tamron did in the EF era. Different story for them today.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Even the guy running this site would agree the R100 is a POS.

So the only camera you can pick on is the bottom R100, made for the lowest income countries and people. It's selling for like $399 when on offer, half the price of the cheapest Sony. That matters a lot when your salary is $500 a month.

 

[Malm]

....By the end of year, RF will have more native glass than Sony. C.....

You like Canon which is completely OK, but it's useless to 'fight' for the better camera system. We have different alternatives and everybody can chose what he prefers.

One issue with the RF mount is the lack of modern lenses as Canon is excluding 3rd party AF glasses and the older EF lenses are not always an alternative. One of the strong points of the EF system was the large amount of different lenses where everyone could find the optimum lenses for his interest. This is not the case for the RF mount any more and Canon will not be able to fill that gap with his 5-10 new lenses per year.
I understand the economic argumentation concerning the sell of native lenses, but unhappy clients moving to another brand have also an economic impact.

 

[mimbu]

Clearly incorrect. There are no issues with manual RF mount lenses (I love my full frame Astrhori 6/2.8).
Be specific if you going to make claims. Otherwise you are just a troll.

The Chinese lens manufacturers don't seem to have a problem with annoying Canon - similar to what Sigma and Tamron did in the EF era. Different story for them today.

Sure, we can add AF to the disclaimer. It's the same for Laowa. Laowa even offers MF versions of their FF 10/2.8 and 12/2.8 lenses for RF mount, but AF versions on other mounts. Viltrox withdrew their RF AF lenses after legal threats from Canon. So the line seems to be at AF, and probably at AE as well.

I doubt Canon will ever let FF AF lenses from Sigma onto RF. Or Viltrox. Or Laowa. Or Tamron. Or anyone else.

 

[mimbu]

So the only camera you can pick on is the bottom R100, made for the lowest income countries and people. It's selling for like $399 when on offer, half the price of the cheapest Sony. That matters a lot when your salary is $500 a month.

The R50 is junk tier too, just not complete garbage tier like the R100 is.

Interesting you mention "lowest income countries" for the R100 when it is consistently the #1 or #2 camera sold on Amazon.com. I guess the US has become a "low income country" now?

Canon has always been great at marketing & selling vast numbers of low end cameras. That's why they have long had the overall #1 ILC market share, because that is the only way a company can get that #1 market share. Those are the cameras that sell in the highest volumes, but also with the very lowest of lowest profit levels. Razor thin margins. Those margins get subsidized by not allowing 3rd party FF AF glass onto the mount, so anyone who buys a decent camera has to buy expensive RF glass.

 

[Del Paso]

Canon sees you as a paypig that they will bleed and bleed.

Nice to know that Sony's little crappies come as a gift to Sony loverboyz.