Get closer, with images larger than life, using the Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro

Chaitanya

EOS R
Jun 27, 2013
1,401
591
35
Pune
I’m sorry I don’t understand, 1:1.4 is the same size on any sensor, what is to stop you simply cropping a larger sensor?
On this new macro lens mag ratio is 1.4:1 not 1:1.4. For wide angle macros(Venus Laowa 15mm Macro) I wouldnt mind buying a FF camera.
For photos of characters of herps using crop I wont lose resolution cropping from FF camera(researchers I work with are quite stingy in that regard )and butterflies(or dangerous reptiles and shy subjects) using crop sensor I can use .67x Mag ratio(little extra working distance) vs 1x on FF camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,594
1,913
Hamburg, Germany
On this new macro lens mag ratio is 1.4:1 not 1:1.4. For wide angle macros(Venus Laowa 15mm Macro) I wouldnt mind buying a FF camera.
For photos of characters of herps using crop I wont lose resolution cropping from FF camera(researchers I work with are quite stingy in that regard )and butterflies(or dangerous reptiles and shy subjects) using crop sensor I can use .67x Mag ratio(little extra working distance) vs 1x on FF camera.
The confusion comes from the way you're wording that. You make it sound as if just the difference between FF and APS-C (crop) is what matters to your use case. And of course, that is not the case, as it really is the pixel density that matters.

If you took two images of the same subject, with every setting including distance being the same, one with the 50 MP FF 5Ds and one with the 20 MP APS-C 7D II, you could crop the 50 MP one down to 20 MP and get virtually the same end result as the 7D II. Both cameras have essentially the same pixel density: 20 X 1.6^2 = 51.2. If that small difference concerns you, replace the 5Ds with the 5dsr in the example, which has greater detail due to the canceled low pass filter.

As of right now, it is of course correct that Canons FF bodies significantly lack behind the pixel density of their crop ones. At 32.5, the 90D and M6 II currently set the record and would require a body with 32.5 x 1.6^2 = 83.2 MP or more to be released. Which, when it does eventually, will likely cost more than either of those bodies and also more than an RF crop body with this pixel density would.

Nonetheless, just accounting for the pixel density being the important bit in the wording might help people be less confused.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,586
1,423
The confusion comes from the way you're wording that. You make it sound as if just the difference between FF and APS-C (crop) is what matters to your use case. And of course, that is not the case, as it really is the pixel density that matters.

If you took two images of the same subject, with every setting including distance being the same, one with the 50 MP FF 5Ds and one with the 20 MP APS-C 7D II, you could crop the 50 MP one down to 20 MP and get virtually the same end result as the 7D II. Both cameras have essentially the same pixel density: 20 X 1.6^2 = 51.2. If that small difference concerns you, replace the 5Ds with the 5dsr in the example, which has greater detail due to the canceled low pass filter.

As of right now, it is of course correct that Canons FF bodies significantly lack behind the pixel density of their crop ones. At 32.5, the 90D and M6 II currently set the record and would require a body with 32.5 x 1.6^2 = 83.2 MP or more to be released. Which, when it does eventually, will likely cost more than either of those bodies and also more than an RF crop body with this pixel density would.

Nonetheless, just accounting for the pixel density being the important bit in the wording might help people be less confused.
And aside from that, a 32MP APS-C crop from Canon is a lot cheaper than their FF counterpart.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,594
1,913
Hamburg, Germany
And aside from that, a 32MP APS-C crop from Canon is a lot cheaper than their FF counterpart.
As I said. It will likely cost more. Currently, there isn't even a counterpart. But the chance of it costing round about 1k when it releases is basically 0.

I personally would prefer one high resolution FF body as an eventuall upgrade to my 80D, just to get an improvement in range and low light performance. How the cost of such a solution will stack up against to different bodies is one of the interesting questions that Canon hopefully will soon address with the expansion of the RF lineup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chaitanya

pape2

EOS 90D
Mar 19, 2021
116
147
I've gotta say... I'm a little disappointed in the new RF 100's IS capabilities at macro distances... At 3:04 on Canon's promo video it states "Approx. 2-Stops of stabilization at 1.0x magnification." That is just about what I get with my 10 year old EF 100 L IS... Maybe it's just the Laws of Physics limiting the real-world effectiveness of IS at macro-levels... I don't know... But when I first read that this new RF 100 would have 8-Stops of stabilization on my R5, my pre-order trigger-finger started to twitch... Now, I might have to wait for some hands-on reviews... Sure, the additional 0.4x magnification is great. And the new SA adjustment might be fun to play with for portraiture, though I'm not sure if it'll really be applicable to macro work. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trolling or anything; I would love for someone to tell me what it is I'm not seeing here... BTW according to Bryan at The Digital Picture, the new RF 100 Macro will have the same 64mm filter threads as the EF 100, so the existing ring &/or twin flashes should be compatible.
Problem is with macro photographing image stabilation,when camera moves camera angle versus target changes LOT more.
Like if first part of exposure is showing only front side of bug and last part of exposure shows some of its side too. There is no way to getting those two picture aligned as one,without distortion or blur. Someone more clever with words can explain this bettter :p
 

vjlex

EOS R5
Oct 15, 2011
408
312
Osaka, Japan
It seems to me that you pretty much answered your own question. If you don’t use the very similar lens that you have, you don’t need to throw your money away on a newer version.
Maybe. At this time, I'm not inclined to get it. But there's a big difference between "least used" and never used. If the RF version offers significant advantages, I may trade up eventually. In that case, I wouldn't consider it throwing away money.
 

fox40phil

5DIV & RP
Apr 12, 2013
217
124
Germany
www.phileas-schoenberg.de
camera(researchers I work with are quite stingy in that regard )and butterflies(or dangerous reptiles and shy subjects) using crop sensor I can use .67x Mag ratio(little extra working distance) vs 1x on FF camera.
This is why I m using a 150mm 2.8 macro. I don’t want to be that close to the shy small insects or amphibious. That’s why I would love to have the option to use a TC on this 100mm! Or have a great >=150mm option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LostToFollowUp

Chaitanya

EOS R
Jun 27, 2013
1,401
591
35
Pune
This is why I m using a 150mm 2.8 macro. I don’t want to be that close to the shy small insects or amphibious. That’s why I would love to have the option to use a TC on this 100mm! Or have a great >=150mm option.
Given how Canon design TC and Macro lenses(from 100mm and shorter) very little chance we will see TC compatibility with this lens. Lets wait for 180mm Macro for TC compatibility with Macro lens or 3rd party TCs to appear for RF system. I used to borrow Sigma 180mm OS macro from my friend when working with few snakes(Russell's viper and Hump nosed pit viper both are quite temperamental and in case of Russell's viper its venom is nasty) that really scare me and I really am missing that lens, hopefully Sigma will also introduce 150mm and 180mm Macro lenses for MILC sooner with RF mount version as well.
The confusion comes from the way you're wording that. You make it sound as if just the difference between FF and APS-C (crop) is what matters to your use case. And of course, that is not the case, as it really is the pixel density that matters.

If you took two images of the same subject, with every setting including distance being the same, one with the 50 MP FF 5Ds and one with the 20 MP APS-C 7D II, you could crop the 50 MP one down to 20 MP and get virtually the same end result as the 7D II. Both cameras have essentially the same pixel density: 20 X 1.6^2 = 51.2. If that small difference concerns you, replace the 5Ds with the 5dsr in the example, which has greater detail due to the canceled low pass filter.

As of right now, it is of course correct that Canons FF bodies significantly lack behind the pixel density of their crop ones. At 32.5, the 90D and M6 II currently set the record and would require a body with 32.5 x 1.6^2 = 83.2 MP or more to be released. Which, when it does eventually, will likely cost more than either of those bodies and also more than an RF crop body with this pixel density would.

Nonetheless, just accounting for the pixel density being the important bit in the wording might help people be less confused.
Thanks for correction.

Addendum: Not sure where Canon has shot this promotional video but the animals featured in that video raise some questions as there is Amazon Tree boa, Honduran milk snake(not 100% sure about that one) and Great Oto all of which are found in Latin America but for some reason there is also a crested gecko from New Caledonia in there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

roby17269

R5 + RF & EF L glass
Feb 26, 2014
35
17
New York
rdmfashionphoto.com
Pre-ordered on the day :giggle:
I will transition all of my remaining EF glass as soon as RF equivalents appear. So my EF 100 L macro will be sold this July. It was a great lens, here's to hoping the new one will be even better. I am confident given how much I like the new 1.2 primes compared to the old ones. Bring on the 35 1.2 already :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

pape2

EOS 90D
Mar 19, 2021
116
147
This is why I m using a 150mm 2.8 macro. I don’t want to be that close to the shy small insects or amphibious. That’s why I would love to have the option to use a TC on this 100mm! Or have a great >=150mm option.
You can use tc with this lense ,just put extension ring between ,but wont focus very far then.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,240
2,113
Pre-ordered on the day :giggle:
I will transition all of my remaining EF glass as soon as RF equivalents appear. So my EF 100 L macro will be sold this July. It was a great lens, here's to hoping the new one will be even better. I am confident given how much I like the new 1.2 primes compared to the old ones. Bring on the 35 1.2 already :ROFLMAO:
I suggest you hang onto it long enough to make sure the new one works properly!
 

dirtyvu

EOS M6 Mark II
Jan 7, 2019
71
56
canon usa could learn some things from canon europe. the canon europe video makes me want to put money down now because of how good the images look and the videos. the canon usa video is a talking head video with few examples of usage.
 

sobrien

EOS M50
CR Pro
Apr 26, 2020
40
71
Stopping down and bumping up ISO on a full frame sensor should get you the same DOF with comparable noise, so not sure this most important benefit exists at all.
On reflection, I don’t think what I said above holds true at macro distances when you are comparing 1:1 with 1:1. On the contrary DOF seems to flip in that case. Looking at Bob Atkins piece on that now.
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,083
1,430
I believe the standard argument for a crop sensor is pixel density. Something like the M6 sensor is 32MP vs a cropped R5 sensor being about 17MP.
The gain might be not that big. f/2.8 at M=1.4 sounds quite close to being diffraction-limited at R5 pixel density.
 
<-- start Taboola -->