Canon Still Working on New 800mm Lens [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Nininini said:
Funny that, I can't tell the difference as to whether I am carrying my 5DIII + 100-400mm II or my 7DII + 100-400mm II. My G3 X with its 24-600mm equivalent fov is definitely lighter, though. The little Canon is, actually, superb, having the best of both worlds, a Sony sensor and Canon body, glass and software. But, it can't match the two bigger boys.
There are arguments on both sides of the FF vs crop. Neuro with his 1Dx and 600/4 can definitely get better quality shots than me with my 7DII + 100-400mm II. I am too old to carry Neuro's gear but I can get some opportunistic shots he would find difficult. Ideally, I'd like to go on a hike with my kit and have a second set of a 1Dx + 600/4, carried by Neuro for me.
Upvote
0
Didn't someone post comparison images between the 600f4 and SX50HS a few years ago and end up at roughly equal IQ? (per square area of sensor of course)
I was watching the SX60HS launch with great anticipation, they gave it a better buffer and burst speed but it turned out to be almost the same or worse in IQ than last generation and the current Nikon superzoom beats it quite handily.
With the AF some morrorless cameras are getting I almost expect a compact superzoom to perform reasonably well in sports and wildlife any day now, someone just has to throw all the right technology into the same body.
I was watching the SX60HS launch with great anticipation, they gave it a better buffer and burst speed but it turned out to be almost the same or worse in IQ than last generation and the current Nikon superzoom beats it quite handily.
With the AF some morrorless cameras are getting I almost expect a compact superzoom to perform reasonably well in sports and wildlife any day now, someone just has to throw all the right technology into the same body.
Upvote
0
Nininini said:
You must be talking about one of the Rebels because the 7D II isn't that much different in size and weight than the 5Ds R or the 5D III. Using Length x Width x Height the 7D II occupies a space of 79.81 Cubic Inches compared to the 5Ds R which occupies 82.02 Cubic Inches, a difference of only 2.2 Cubic Inches which is only 2.69%. The 7D II weighs 32.1 ounces compared to the 5Ds R at 32.8, a difference of . 7 ounces which is only 2.13%. The 5D III is only slightly more.
As for extra reach it is true that if you are in a situation which you must crop to the size of a crop body, the 7D II will give you around 15% additional reach over the 5D III. The old 7D gave a little but it required more PP to get it to that level. However compared to the 5Ds R in the same situation I have tested it and have yet to see a benefit from either body. I expected to see a slight resolution boost above the 7D II with the 5Ds R but the difference is so negligible that any method I have used so far show no appreciable difference.
The extra reach advantage only occurs when you must crop and this is usually at your longest focal length. (Again there is no "extra reach" benefit when comparing to the 5Ds and 5Ds R.) However, the extra reach benefit disappears against the 5D III when you can properly frame your subject with the FF. The benefit in IQ of a picture of the FF body when properly framed is far greater than the benefit of "extra reach" using a crop body for a the cropped photo if comparing the two side by side.
Upvote
0
takesome1 said:
It's very interesting what you write about the 5Ds R vs the 7DII. For the day I had a Sony A7RII, shot iso12233 charts with the 100-400mm II and 300/2.8 II with a Metabones vs the same lenses on the 7DII. To my initial disappointment, and subsequent relief, the much vaunted 42 Mpixel sensor did not out-resolve that of the 7DII using the same lenses. Oh well, until I can have Neuro in tow, the 7D II + 100-400mm II is the best for me, personally.
Upvote
0
9VIII said:
I tested the SX60 vs the old SX50, and found the 50 better. The G3 X beats them all hollow, despite being only "600mm". Its lens is much better and, crucially, they are all diffraction limited at the longer focal lengths as it is the diameter of the Airy disk that is limiting in resolution, not the smaller pixels.
Upvote
0
AlanF said:
If tweety birds and cropping are your game, there is no way I would recommend the 5Ds R for an additional $2,000. But for everything else there are better options.
I recall reading from different sources that the 5Ds R should give you 3% to 8% additional resolution over the 5Ds. Maybe it is there against the 7D II but I couldn't make it out with the methods I was using. I compared test shots I made while I had set up to do AFMA. Maybe the samples need to be more refined, or perhaps 3% is just to slight of a difference to see with my monitor and pixel peeping methods.
Upvote
0
takesome1 said:
APS-C.... 55-250mm STM f/4-5.6 (88-400mm equivalent) -----> 375 grams
Full Frame.... 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L II -----> 1500 grams
MASSIVE difference, the closest full frame lens is 4 times as heavy as the APS-C equivalent
(the equivalent aperture isn't the same, that's irrelevant to me under 99% of conditions)
Upvote
0
Nininini said:
Then it is no comparison, how can light gathering ever be irrelevant in photography! As has previously been stated, using that logic a G3X would be even 'better' after all it has a '600mm' lens and weighs 739 grams for the lens, camera and battery.
Or compare the 55-250 with a non L 'equivalent' of similar optical performance¹, the 70-300 IS, it weighs 630 grams.
1: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=358&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Not at all. Because there is a right camera for every condition.
Your logic is severely flawed, your argument is that more light supersedes reach, weight, size and cost.
Me recommending you buy a medium format camera, or even large format camera, without knowing under what conditions you shoot..is just as retarded as you recommending me a G3X with a small 1″ sensor without knowing what conditions I shoot in. Equivalent aperture is only a small part of the equation, once you have enough light, it's irrelevant.
There is a right sensor for every circumstance, I am shooting in lighting conditions during the day, where I don't need more light, I don't even need f/5.6, it's not even the sharpest aperture of those lenses, f/8 is. The APS-C solution offers me a far ligther and smaller set-up, for a fraction of the price.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
The 70-300 IS is an outdated terrible lens by today's standards, I wouldn't recommend it to my worst enemy. It's a decade old for crying out loud, and it wasn't even a good lens back then.
The fact you only managed to find a terrible full frame lens that still weighs over twice the recent and much superior 55-250 STM APS-C, shows how hard it is to find a light tele for full frame.
It also shows how flawed these arguments are that Full Frame is comparable in weight to APS-C, it's not, not in this universe.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Because you're not always gathering the maximum amount of light you could. For example, if you're regularly stopping down the 100-400L on full-frame for DOF purposes, you're not gathering more light than you could from a smaller lens on a smaller sensor because total light gathered and DOF go together in a format-independent way.
Upvote
0
Nininini said:
I have a magazine cover that was shot on a 70-300IS and a Rebel XT. The printed version is very sharp and colorful. At that size, you probably wouldn't be able to tell it from a shot taken on a 300/2.8.
The 70-300IS was not terrible at all. It was quite respectable, in fact. The 75-300 (all versions) was quite a bit worse.
Upvote
0
If you are filling most of the frame with the image and the light is good, most lenses and most cameras will give excellent results. It's when you are pushing them to extremes of making heavy crops under adverse conditions that you see the differences between a high quality wide aperture lens on a good body and a good second tier set up. That is not to decry a 50-250 on a rebel, it's just that you are more restricted on what you can do with it. Unfortunately, I am most often working at the limits and need at least 400mm on a crop and preferably 560-600mm. There are times when I would do just as well as with a 50-250 on a rebel, but for me they are not often.
Upvote
0
