High-resolution EOS R Camera, Where are you?

[EricN]

Thank you, I am happy I could help you. Well, I work as a science journalist and edit a physics magazine, so I am used to explain things as simple to understand as possible. Luckily, wave optics is easier to explain than quantum computing

If you have time, and it's not tedious, please post a new thread about equivalency that people occasionally can't grasp fully.

 

[EricN]

Speaking of hyperfocal focusing, there's one thing I noticed. Digital cameras are far less tolerant than film. I ruined several pictures relying on the lens barrel indications, the focus area being more limited than it should have been.
Since I was using a brand new lens (Zeiss ZM 2,8/25), I contacted Zeiss for an explanation (was something wrong with the WA?). They said that if I wanted to use for example hyperfocal at f11, I should rely on f5,6 lens barrel indications (2 diaphrams wider) and so on. Properly focused, the Zeiss 25mm is maybe the sharpest lens I have.
Strange is that I never had any issues with original Leica M lenses in similar situations...

Do you mean you were focusing according to the distance indicated on the lens barrel and it was off? To be honest, I only look at it if I was set near infinity and I intend to go for something near mfd or vice versa. I know many street photographers will set focus for a distance to try to be less obvious. It could be helpful in the case of shooting near total darkness with a non-mirrorless...

I think my sharpest is the rf 85mm f/1.2

 

[Del Paso]

Do you mean you were focusing according to the distance indicated on the lens barrel and it was off? To be honest, I only look at it if I was set near infinity and I intend to go for something near mfd or vice versa. I know many street photographers will set focus for a distance to try to be less obvious. It could be helpful in the case of shooting near total darkness with a non-mirrorless...

I think my sharpest is the rf 85mm f/1.2

I was focusing a manual lens, which had a DOF scale, so that, aperture set on f16, infinity marking on the lens corresponded to f16 marking on the DOF scale

 

[EricN]

I was focusing a manual lens, which had a DOF scale, so that, aperture set on f16, infinity marking on the lens corresponded to f16 marking on the DOF scaleView attachment 213272

It's been a while for me. In the photo, the orange line is 2.8 indicating that the center of focus should be just before five meters and the other 16 indicates between 2 and 3 meters. According to the woman, you can't expect the area of acceptable focus to be as wide as then lens indicates?

 

[justaCanonuser]

Speaking of hyperfocal focusing, there's one thing I noticed. Digital cameras are far less tolerant than film. I ruined several pictures relying on the lens barrel indications, the focus area being more limited than it should have been.
Since I was using a brand new lens (Zeiss ZM 2,8/25), I contacted Zeiss for an explanation (was something wrong with the WA?). They said that if I wanted to use for example hyperfocal at f11, I should rely on f5,6 lens barrel indications (2 diaphrams wider) and so on. Properly focused, the Zeiss 25mm is maybe the sharpest lens I have.
Strange is that I never had any issues with original Leica M lenses in similar situations...

Interesting, I've heard about such issues never before with Zeiss lenses. I have a Zeiss 18mm/3.5 but never tried to compare it with digital vs. film, since I mostly shoot film with my New Mamiya 6 MF camera. Plus, I am not a dedicated landscape photographer, I do that but I am not so much focused on that genre that I have a record of setting notes (what I would start when I'd mainly do landscape, including notes about filters used etc.).

 

[Del Paso]

It's been a while for me. In the photo, the orange line is 2.8 indicating that the center of focus should be just before five meters and the other 16 indicates between 2 and 3 meters. According to the woman, you can't expect the area of acceptable focus to be as wide as then lens indicates?

Yes, the lens on the photo should theoretically be sharp fro 2,5 meters to infinity.

Interesting, I've heard about such issues never before with Zeiss lenses. I have a Zeiss 18mm/3.5 but never tried to compare it with digital vs. film, since I mostly shoot film with my New Mamiya 6 MF camera. Plus, I am not a dedicated landscape photographer, I do that but I am not so much focused on that genre that I have a record of setting notes (what I would start when I'd mainly do landscape, including notes about filters used etc.).

Could the reason be that this specific lens has a much "harder" transition from in-focus to out-of-focus? My other Zeiss ZM or EF lenses don't exhibit such a funny behaviour. But, as I wrote, the ZM 25mm f2,8 is absolutely sharp when normally focused. I enjoy it very much for its extreme sharpness and contrast. I even like it more than the Leica M 24mm...

 

[justaCanonuser]

Could the reason be that this specific lens has a much "harder" transition from in-focus to out-of-focus? My other Zeiss ZM or EF lenses don't exhibit such a funny behaviour. But, as I wrote, the ZM 25mm f2,8 is absolutely sharp when normally focused. I enjoy it very much for its extreme sharpness and contrast. I even like it more than the Leica M 24mm...

Ah, this could be the reason. With my ZM 3.5/18mm I never noticed such effects, but as I said I never compared film vs digital with that lens. My Distagon is the ZF.2 version, I think it hit the market roughly about 15 yrs ago, so it is not the newest design. My feeling is that it behaves more like the older Zeiss Distagon lenses. It is very sharp, good for crisp contrast and great for landscape, smaller and lighter than the famous 2.8/21mm (I do not need superfast wide angle lenses for my way of shooting). But like any extreme lens, it also has some shortcomings: its slightly moustache-like barrel distortion can be disturbing if architecture with straight horizontal lines is the motive, and its heavy-sided field curvature can be distracting when shooting closer objects. But overall, I like this lens, I even used it for street shooting.

 

[Del Paso]

Ah, this could be the reason. With my ZM 3.5/18mm I never noticed such effects, but as I said I never compared film vs digital with that lens. My Distagon is the ZF.2 version, I think it hit the market roughly about 15 yrs ago, so it is not the newest design. My feeling is that it behaves more like the older Zeiss Distagon lenses. It is very sharp, good for crisp contrast and great for landscape, smaller and lighter than the famous 2.8/21mm (I do not need superfast wide angle lenses for my way of shooting). But like any extreme lens, it also has some shortcomings: its slightly moustache-like barrel distortion can be disturbing if architecture with straight horizontal lines is the motive, and its heavy-sided field curvature can be distracting when shooting closer objects. But overall, I like this lens, I even used it for street shooting.

I'm also using the ZM 18 f4 on Leica and the 2,8/21 in EF mount, for landscapes. So, in case they distort moustache-like a bit, it doesn't matter, I haven't ever noticed. For architecture, I prefer using the Canon TS-E lenses. Both Zeiss are mechanically and optically great lenses. The only little but costly issue is that the Leica ZM versions lack the "6 bit" coding, native Leica M lenses are fitted with.
I had to send them to the Netherlands to get them coded for about Euro 280 each..but it was worth it!

 

[Dragon]

Thank you, I am happy I could help you. Well, I work as a science journalist and edit a physics magazine, so I am used to explain things as simple to understand as possible. Luckily, wave optics is easier to explain than quantum computing

Quantum computing is more like trying to explain a Ouija board.

 

[Del Paso]

Quantum computing is more like trying to explain a Ouija board.

Well, if some people succeed in "understanding" and "explaining" Qanon "messages"...
Maybe a tin- foil hat could be helpful here too?

 

[Dragon]

Well, if some people succeed in "understanding" and "explaining" Qanon "messages"...
Maybe a tin- foil hat could be helpful here too?

I think Qanon was invented by the people who hate the people they claim are listening to Qanon but actually aren't. (see how confusing that is )

 

[scyrene]

I thought you were talking about Kwanon at first there.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Same thoughts....Kwanon, Qanon, Canon, Cannon....what's next? Precision Optical Instruments?

 

[EricN]

Same thoughts....Kwanon, Qanon, Canon, Cannon....what's next? Precision Optical Instruments?

Procession optional trumpets?

 

[DhlcadR6]

Procession optional trumpets?

Precision Optical Instruments, Co., Ltd was Canon Inc.'s old name.

 

[Michael Clark]

No clear glass added, just remove the low-pass filter to increase the 'sharpness' and more moire

That doesn't work without changing the actual flange to sensor distance (as opposed to the effective optical flange to sensor distance when all of the filter stack in front of the sensor is taken into account.).

Please see Roger Cicala's excellent blog entry about cover glass thickness as well as this follow up and the final entry in the series.

 

[Michael Clark]

Yes, the lens on the photo should theoretically be sharp fro 2,5 meters to infinity.


Could the reason be that this specific lens has a much "harder" transition from in-focus to out-of-focus? My other Zeiss ZM or EF lenses don't exhibit such a funny behaviour. But, as I wrote, the ZM 25mm f2,8 is absolutely sharp when normally focused. I enjoy it very much for its extreme sharpness and contrast. I even like it more than the Leica M 24mm...

At what display size are you viewing the results?

Typical lens barrel markings assume a maximum display size of 8x10" at a viewing distance of 10" (25 cm).

Double the linear dimensions of the viewing medium and you halve the DoF. Viewing a part of a 24MP image on a 24" FHD monitor (96ppi) at 100% is like looking at a part of a 60"x40" enlargement.

 

[Michael Clark]

Canon claims the R5 has the highest resolution ("Confirm with the CPA resolution chart according to ISO12233") of any EOS camera as of July, 2020. Since they made the EOS 5DsR several years before, I presume they'd have included that as an EOS camera.

I'd be inclined to think that Canon's claim is based on in-camera processing to JPEG at factory default settings. Processing decisions can have an effect as well.

It may also include using similar but not identical EF lenses on the 5Ds R and RF lenses on the R5?

Your 5DSR and R5 behave differently from mine. The 5DSR gave me great results in terms of sharp images and detail, the best I had until then, but the R5 is slightly better. This borne out by measurements -
https://www.optyczne.pl/457.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R5_Rozdzielczość.html

https://www.optyczne.pl/312.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5Ds__R_Rozdzielczość.html

The 5Ds R was tested with an EF 35mm f/2 USM (not even as sharp as an EF 35mm f/1.4 L II).

The R5 was tested with an RF 50mm f/1.2 L.

Those lens difference can more than account for the differences in results.

 

[Michael Clark]

Maybe they didn't make a big deal out of it, but they certainly mentioned this new feature often and in many places.

Detailed Features

"...Reduced mirror vibration for maximum sharpness. The EOS 5DS R uses Canon’s Mirror Vibration Control System to reduce vibrations caused by internal movements within the camera, which can spoil image sharpness and reduce resolution. Cams are used to drive the mirror up and down in a more controlled fashion, avoiding any sudden stops and also softening the shutter-release sound. ..."

View attachment 212998View attachment 212999

"Mirror Vibration Control System" was just a fancy way of saying, "Since the processor can only handle 5 fps anyway, we've slowed down the speed of the mirror movement so it causes less vibration."

 

[Michael Clark]

I don't think that is quite what I said. My experience is that the 5DSR actually has a better MTF than the R5 with the same lens, but the lack of AA filter can sometimes obfuscate that advantage due to aliasing if there is sufficient energy in the subject beyond the Nyquist limit. Another way to say that is if you were to test with a sinusoidal test pattern that stopped at the Nyquist limit, the 5DSR would have a higher MTF. In contrast, the Imatest approach looks at what is effectively a square wave input, so if the lens has adequate MTF, the sensor will definitely alias in the absence of an AA filter. Bottom line is that the difference is small enough that it is hardly worth arguing over, and if you have better results for your subjects with the R5 then it will be the obvious choice since it has so many other benefits in any case. It is interesting that Canon seems to be the only vendor left that is incorporating AA filters and that includes the MF vendors where aliasing can actually be a significant problem (although less so at 150 MP than at 50 MP or even 100 MP). It would be interesting to know if the decision to omit the AA filter by the other vendors was based on perceived image quality or just an attempt to save a buck.

At 150MP, even with digital MF sensor sizes, the resolution limit of the lens effectively becomes the AA filter.