Further clarification of what will be announced by Canon next month

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,897
2,214
The more comments I see about the new RF extenders, the more confused I get.

if, as some say, the RF 70-200mm isn't compatible due to the lens elements being too close to the mount leaving no room for the extender, will this not effect most of the RF glass range as the whole point of the RF mount is to reduce distance between the sensor, flange and 1st element??

Are the RF extenders therefore going to be like the RF drop in filter mounts, where they can only be used with EF glass?

If so, this is pretty poor for anyone with native RF lenses. I suppose all will be revealed on 09/07/20.

Canon has never made wide angle or even normal lenses compatible with extenders. For prime lenses, nothing shorter than 135mm can handle an extender. For zoom lenses, the EF 70-200 series and the EF 100-400 series allow extenders, but that is based on the assumption that users will be at the longer ends of the focal length range when extenders are attached.

The big benefit of having a shorter registration distance is for wider angle lenses. Normal lenses benefit some, but not as much as wide angle lenses do. 70mm is right on the line between normal and telephoto. Anything past 85-100mm is not going to see much benefit from shorter registration distances in terms of image quality. A lens in that focal length range might see a benefit in terms of overall size and weight.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,897
2,214
Ive used the EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM II with & without the 1.4 teleconverter with the EOS R many times and its practically native to use. Because the combo is relative large anyway the EOS R adaptor really doesn't make any difference.

Which is exactly why Canon is introducing lenses with no EF counterpart before they introduce what basically amounts to EF lenses with 24mm more tube at the back in the RF mount.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,423
931
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
I personally can't wait to hear why on earth Canon spent R&D money to develop a lens like this. I can't wait to hear their explanation on who or what it's for.

Here's something that might surprise you. Canon don't release anything until it's been through a rigorous round of field testing with their photographers worldwide.

So, enough of them must have reported back that the lens was useful that they decided to put it in production. Let's wait and see. If you don't like f/11 there are, of course, more expensive big white options available.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,897
2,214
Nothing for that? The Canon programmers can't read the sensor and adjust exposure parameters accordingly? They can't adjust the levels of the read pixel elements in any way they see fit? They can't take as many exposures as they want and combine them in any way they want? They can't output to any bit-size format they want?

I guess we better tell Canon that you know best.

They can't increase the full well capacity of a photosite/sensel/pixel well. Once enough photons have struck it to bring it to full charge, there is nothing software can do to enable it to record additional photons that might strike it. Nothing.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,897
2,214
Of course.
But they've already started taking pre-orders, so I thought it wouldn't do any harm if I asked.

And your dealer thought that there could be potential harm in violating the terms of their contract with Canon by answering it with what they know.

They probably know the exact date and time that the embargo will be lifted after Canon makes the official announcement. They may not yet know the exact date they will receive bodies, or the exact date they will be allowed to distribute them to their customers.

There's nothing in their contract that says they can't have a waiting list for a model that has had an official development announcement.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,260
2,141
Kentucky, USA
They can't increase the full well capacity of a photosite/sensel/pixel well. Once enough photons have struck it to bring it to full charge, there is nothing software can do to enable it to record additional photons that might strike it. Nothing.
You just have to read the sensor before the full well capacity is reached. Then you can immediately start another exposure and add/combine with the previous ones, etc. If the time between exposures can be kept small then it effectively becomes an arbitrarily long exposure with arbitrarily deep well capacity. Of course read noise is repeated, but it's always in an exposure anyway so it won't be any worse than normal, and it can even be subtracted out as the average read noise over many reads becomes much more predictable, and *all* of the photons are counted for the exposures (excluding read intervals) instead of ignoring almost all of them when using a strong physical neutral density filter. You can even get fancier by changing the duration of the various exposures which then becomes something like a quick HDR stack into a higher bit capacity raw format. Software can do practically anything given a fast enough graphics processor and minimal read timing.
 
Last edited:

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Motorsports, Commerical, & Real Estate
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
560
598
www.diossiphotography.com
The 5D Mark III had the same AF hardware as the 1D X. The 5D Mark IV had the same AF hardware as the 1D X Mark III. Both didn't have as many software options and both seemed to be a TAD, but not by much, less consistent from shot to shot. I think most of us are expecting the AF performance of the R5 to be very close but not quite equal to that of the 1D X Mark III in LV. Even at that level, it will be a massive improvement over the EOS R.
Same hardware, yes. But the 1D series always had better processing power with dedicated chips for autofocus while the 5D shares image processing and AF on the same chip.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,260
2,141
Kentucky, USA
Well, the EF 200-400mm f/4 + 1.4X IS is about 134 ounces/3780 grams with hood and tripod ring. With the built-in extender engaged, it's a 280-560mm f/5.6, so presumably a 200-600mm f/5.6 would weigh slightly more. That is, unless they do the same thing as what they did with the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS and give it an extending barrel.
Yes, I do assume/hope that they'd do the same as their RF 70-200 f2.8 and get the size & weight of a RF 200-600 f5.6 L IS down to something that didn't have to be towed behind my car on a trailer. :ROFLMAO: Heck, they might even get it light enough for me to backpack it with my other gear and tripod.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starting out EOS R

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,626
5,969
I don't have time to go through all 84 pages of this post at Photography on the Net and pick out the ones made using the 1D X Mark III in LV with stacked extenders at f/9 and f/11, but the OP has posted more than a few that are fairly impressive, both in terms of technique and IQ. I guess one could look through his Flickr photostream and find them easier.
I’m just reporting on my experiences with my equipment. As I said I’m sure others will get great results from the f11 lenses, I personally wouldn’t buy them and I am equally sure many people will be disappointed in the results they get from them purely because of the iso needed to get the shutter speed up high enough to get a sharp image of whatever they are shooting.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,897
2,214
Software can do practically anything given a fast enough graphics processor and minimal read timing.

You also need a sensor with fast enough readout or that become a limiting factor. If, for example, one is already recording video at a Tv that is the same as the required amount of time to read the sensor, then your multiple image method is of no benefit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,260
2,141
Kentucky, USA
You also need a sensor with fast enough readout or that become a limiting factor. If, for example, one is already recording video at a Tv that is the same as the required amount of time to read the sensor, then your multiple image method is of no benefit.
OK - With the latest high speed R5 video speed demon or future cameras, you still don't see the potential in a software ND filter feature? What about this? :

Olympus EM1X and EM1_III have a software ND filter. They mention:
"Why Use Internal ND Instead of a Traditional Filter?
The benefit to the internal ND filters are that it requires less equipment and less transition in shooting the desired image. Not having to add on an external filter provides for quicker image set up and mobilization. Given that I am shooting moving features such as water or clouds, timing can sometimes be critical in the process."

From the EM1 III manual:
"Slowing the Shutter in Bright Light (Live ND Shooting)
The camera makes a series of exposures and combines to create a single photo that appears to have been taken at a slow shutter speed."
"Choose an ND filter type; the camera will convert it to an exposure value and reduce exposure by that amount. Options are available in increments of 1 EV:
[ND2 (1EV)], [ND4 (2EV)], [ND8 (3EV)], [ND16 (4EV)], [ND32 (5EV)]"

Another article states:
"Another addition, available currently only on one mirrorless camera, but due to appear on others very soon, is the Live ND feature. With this, you can take long exposure shots without having to use ND filters. Linked to image stabilization, taking pictures hand-held becomes easy. There is no need for a tripod, filters, or lengthy exposure times."

When people want smooth waterfalls, they take extra long exposures but to keep their desired aperture they avoid overexposure by using ND filters. But now you can do the same thing with software ND filters. And you could do it even better by keeping all the photons (instead of throwing them away in the filter) by storing the result into a higher bit raw file for drastically better IQ. You could also just do continuous image stacking with normal exposure which accumulates into higher bit raw files so that you could display the merged image and stop the accumulation at any time with the properly exposed image in the appropriately larger bit raw file. Or you could store it to a normal size raw file but reduce the noise for the non-moving imagery by a factor of 10x or more.

Of course, if the R5 doesn't have this feature then I'll just have to wait until they come out with a firmware update for it, just like a lot of people had to wait for firmware updates that suddenly gave them an intervalometer function where it didn't exist before. Come on, Canon!
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,897
2,214
Same hardware, yes. But the 1D series always had better processing power with dedicated chips for autofocus while the 5D shares image processing and AF on the same chip.

Not according to Chuck Westfall before he passed away. The 5D Mark III had the same additional processor as the 1D X MArk II did to handle AF functions.

Please read this article at The-Digital-Picture were Chuck responded to a questionnaire from Bryan about comparing the 1D X, 5D Mark III, and 7D Mark II AF systems. With regard to AF speed, Chuck said, "AF calculation speeds will vary with all three cameras based on the number of active focusing points, ambient light levels, subject contrast, subject distance, lens focal length, maximum aperture, etc. But when all else is equal, all three cameras are virtually equal in terms of AF calculation speed because they all use a similar if not identical AF processor."

In this interview in 2012, Chuck said, "Both the 1D X and the 5D Mark III use dedicated AF microprocessors; these AF microprocessors are not DIGIC chips."
 

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
263
183
The whole point of an ND filter is to protect the highlights.
Not really. If you fit, say, a three stop ND, the metering system will simply add three stops to the exposure to take you right back where you were wrt the brightness of any highlights. Depending on the circumstances that may result in a larger aperture (useful when you want a very large aperture for e.g. shallow depth of field portraits in bright sunlight), or a slow shutter speed (blurring moving water is the classic example).

To protect highlights you have to reduce the exposure, either by dialling in some negative exposure compensation or by making an adjustment to a manual exposure setting. Most of the time you can do this without recourse to an ND filter.

Another way to protect highlight detail is to use the lowest available ISO setting, as this will give you maximum dynamic range. This is the exact opposite of using an ND filter!
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,897
2,214
Not really. If you fit, say, a three stop ND, the metering system will simply add three stops to the exposure to take you right back where you were wrt the brightness of any highlights. Depending on the circumstances that may result in a larger aperture (useful when you want a very large aperture for e.g. shallow depth of field portraits in bright sunlight), or a slow shutter speed (blurring moving water is the classic example).

To protect highlights you have to reduce the exposure, either by dialling in some negative exposure compensation or by making an adjustment to a manual exposure setting. Most of the time you can do this without recourse to an ND filter.

Another way to protect highlight detail is to use the lowest available ISO setting, as this will give you maximum dynamic range. This is the exact opposite of using an ND filter!

Not always. If I want to shoot at f/1.8 without an ND filter and even at base ISO and 1/8000 the highlights will blow and the entire image will be three stops overexposed, then using a three stop ND filter will allow me to use base ISO at 1/8000 and f/1.8 and get a result that is three stops darker.

Or with video, if I am determined to use a 180° shutter and f/1.8, and even at base ISO I'm three stops too bright, then using a three stop filter allows me to use the shutter angle and aperture I want while reducing exposure three stops.
 
Last edited:

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
257
354
Kenosha, WI
You might be able to do it by placing a 12mm extension tube in between them. I know a few EF shooters that do it with EF III extenders and Super Telephotos and they still get pretty long focus distances (measured in hundreds of feet), even if they don't get infinity focus for things like the moon.

I did try that but I need infinity for NASCAR super speedways.
 

canonnews

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2017
855
1,426
Canada
www.canonnews.com
OK - With the latest high speed R5 video speed demon or future cameras, you still don't see the potential in a software ND filter feature? What about this? :

you don't need a feature in the camera to do this you know. you can already do this with most cameras.
you simply rattle off a burst and combine in photoshop.

the LiveND though is really cool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr