High-resolution EOS R Camera, Where are you?

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
The absolute length of the blur is the same,
it will be spread over more pixels. So when looking at the picture zoomed to 100% the blur is larger, because the relative magnification is greater.

It never ceases to amaze me how many folks can't wrap their head around the idea that looking at a 50MP image at 100% is a higher magnification than looking at a 24MP image at 100% on the same screen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
In theory yes. In reality a NO. The look of a telelens is very different. And when you crop, the slightest focus issues or camera shake magnify. 200mm to 500mm is not a slight crop. Sir.

The "look" of a telephoto lens is strictly a result of the distance from which it is used. Nothing more.

Perspective is dependent upon one thing and only one thing: Camera position.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
The 5DsR was much better in low light than the 5Diii which had almost half as many pixels and almost as good in low light as the 5Div years later - except at lower iso settings (which you typically do not use when light is missing). We should expect a high MPIX Canon R would be better and certainly no worse at managing noise than the R5. However, for now it remains vaporware.

The 5Ds R was introduced in 2015.
The 5D Mark IV was introduced in 2016.

The 5D Mark IV was not "years" later than the 5Ds R, it was one year later.

The 5Ds R has more in common with the 5D Mark IV (DiG!C 6, for example) than it has with the 5D Mark III (DiG!C 5).
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
I guess it depends on your budget but an R10 + RF 200-800 f/6.3-9 is far cheaper than an R5.
The RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 is even cheaper.
However, once we go to 1200 mm cropping in becomes the cheaper option.

Anyone who has actually shot sports under even a cloudy daytime sky knows that f/6.3-9 is practically unusable for sports unless you're willing to go into very high ISO territory. For shooting under the lights, f/2.8 is desired, though f/4 is manageable with the newest sensors like the stacked R3 sensor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
But the photos I take are moments in time that will never happen again - why would I sacrifice quality for convenience when I'm using higher end gear?

Because you're shooting for web distribution and the race to push the first photo to the wires of whatever just happened in front of you and the 15-50 other photogs also there trying to scratch out a living in 2023 is a very real factor?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Lol, that's too much even for me which I'm always super critical ahaha :LOL:

I don't feel Canon is imposing RF lenses, otherwise they wouldn't have manufactured an adapter that makes EF lenses work as good (or actually even better) then on DSLR. Redesign of lenses is simply needed due to flange difference when you remove mirror. And the new lenses are better then the previous, that's a fact.

I'll agree on prices, and I would say the only real thing I want from Canon is letting in third party lenses (and manufacturing a damn 50 f1.4 :devilish:), but other than that, we really have nothing to blame with Canon, I think you went too far with that.

Dear Walrus,

It's been 30 years now. We are never, ever getting back together.

Love,

Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens

1702201251725.png
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Go to the DXO website, you will see that our 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM, mounted on a 5DS R 50 MP body, are not capable of going beyond 24 MP. It's an optic that dates from 2009 and needs to be updated not only in RF but in EF too !!!


DxO tests one copy of a lens that may have gotten banged around in transit to them. Their results with the EF 100mm Macro and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II are laughable compared to others who tested those same lens models. Ask Roger Cicala why he rarely (i.e. NEVER) publishes test results unless he tested at least 10 different copies of the same lens model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,395
4,319
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.
What should habe been in the "quite sharp zone" was actually mushy, even seen on a 13" laptop screen. But, as I wrote, Zeiss confirmed that this could happen with this specific lens, that the hyperfocal sharpness barrel indications had to be "reduced" by 1 or 2 aperture values . Other Zeiss "M" lenses or native Leica ones showed no such extreme issues. Otherwise, when focused "on spot", the ZM 2,8/25 is dead sharp at every distance and diaphragm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,228
13,089
Perspective is dependent upon one thing and only one thing: Camera position.
So you’re saying the type of beer I like doesn’t matter? Flashback over a decade…


Perspective.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,167
2,461
Anyone who has actually shot sports under even a cloudy daytime sky knows that f/6.3-9 is practically unusable for sports unless you're willing to go into very high ISO territory. For shooting under the lights, f/2.8 is desired, though f/4 is manageable with the newest sensors like the stacked R3 sensor.
There were people shooting f/4 for sports on Canon DSLRs and probably still are.
The EF 200-400 f/4 is pretty popular.
Nowadays, plenty of folks use the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1
Boosting ISO is par for the cost.
That being said, there are plenty of sports photographers who only use f/2.8 and swear that is all that can be used even though there are people right next to them shooting f/4 or f/5.6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
So you’re saying the type of beer I like doesn’t matter? Flashback over a decade…


View attachment 213361

The camera position has changed or the relative position of the subjects have changed, which means one or the other, or both, have changed distance from the camera.

Even if the camera body is attached to the tripod at the same spot, the optical center of the lens (that is, the rear nodal point at which an equivalent single thin lens would be positioned) is shifting at the different focal lengths of the zoom lens or the different prime lenses.

Beyond that, the minor differences between the more distant bottle in the 3 shots on the left can be accounted for by the differences in geometric distortion (i.e. differences in magnification) between the center of the frame and the mid frame with the different lenses/zoom settings. Geometric distortion has nothing to do with perspective. Even if the size is slightly different, the same parts of the bottle are visible and the same parts of the bottle are not visible. That's what perspective is. Simple correction for geometric distortion, properly applied, would make the three shots on the left practically identical. No amount of distortion correction can do the same thing with the three images on the right because the exact same parts of the two bottles are not showing in each of the 3 right hand photos.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
There were people shooting f/4 for sports on Canon DSLRs and probably still are.
The EF 200-400 f/4 is pretty popular.
Nowadays, plenty of folks use the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1
Boosting ISO is par for the cost.
That being said, there are plenty of sports photographers who only use f/2.8 and swear that is all that can be used even though there are people right next to them shooting f/4 or f/5.6.

Yes, and the results showed why they should have been using an f/2.8 lens, especially in less well lit venues.

You can get away with a lot in "world class" venues such as those that host professional sports or *some* major college venues in the U.S. Go to mid-size or smaller colleges and most high schools (unless you're shooting large high school football in TX, they spend more on their lighting than many major colleges do - or did until blinking colored LED lights became all the rage at college football stadiums in the past five years or so) and the light is 2-3 stops dimmer and flickers at 120Hz.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
There were people shooting f/4 for sports on Canon DSLRs and probably still are.
The EF 200-400 f/4 is pretty popular.
Nowadays, plenty of folks use the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1
Boosting ISO is par for the cost.
That being said, there are plenty of sports photographers who only use f/2.8 and swear that is all that can be used even though there are people right next to them shooting f/4 or f/5.6.

A constant aperture f/4 lens is still several stops faster than an f/6.3-9 variable aperture lens as mentioned in the comment to which I first responded, especially when one considers that with field sports, where such long focal lengths would be used, one tends to shoot at the longest focal length most of the time.

I can't imagine anyone shooting for a major media distributer using an f/4-7.1 lens for field sports at night. The vast majority I know are still using 400/2.8 and/or 300/2.8, maybe with a 1.4X extender in afternoon games in daylight conditions. The zooms are 70-200/2.8 lenses on their "short" body.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,228
13,089
The camera position has changed or the relative position of the subjects have changed, which means one or the other, or both, have changed distance from the camera.

Even if the camera body is attached to the tripod at the same spot, the optical center of the lens (that is, the rear nodal point at which an equivalent single thin lens would be positioned) is shifting at the different focal lengths of the zoom lens or the different prime lenses.

Beyond that, the minor differences between the more distant bottle in the 3 shots on the left can be accounted for by the differences in geometric distortion (i.e. differences in magnification) between the center of the frame and the mid frame with the different lenses/zoom settings. Geometric distortion has nothing to do with perspective. Even if the size is slightly different, the same parts of the bottle are visible and the same parts of the bottle are not visible. That's what perspective is. Simple correction for geometric distortion, properly applied, would make the three shots on the left practically identical. No amount of distortion correction can do the same thing with the three images on the right because the exact same parts of the two bottles are not showing in each of the 3 right hand photos.
I think you missed my point. But that’s ok.
 
Upvote 0