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.
Upvote
0
High-resolution EOS R Camera, Where are you?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
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.
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.
Myth Busting: Focal Length & Perspective :: Photography Tips Blog « AustralianLight - Fine Art Landscape Photography - Framed Prints & Wall Art
Myth Busting: Focal Length & Perspective :: Photography Tips Blog « AustralianLight - Fine Art Landscape Photography - Framed Prints & Wall Art
www.australianlight.com.au
Upvote
0
All of their resources are never concentrated on only one product. They have multiple lens teams. They have multiple camera body teams. They're spread out over multiple locations all over Japan.
Upvote
0
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
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.
Upvote
0
RF 1200mm + 2x extender
Can I live inside it when I'm not out taking pictures with it?
Upvote
0
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
Lol, that's too much even for me which I'm always super critical ahaha
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
Dear Walrus,
It's been 30 years now. We are never, ever getting back together.
Love,
Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens
Upvote
0
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 !!!
DXOMARK
www.dxomark.com
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
So you’re saying the type of beer I like doesn’t matter? Flashback over a decade…
APS-C lens mm are correct
Its just common to say "equivalent of blabla on APS-C". Maybe its just the wrong term used but so what? everybody knows what it supposed to mean. You'd think so, but >80 posts here and many other threads on the topic suggest otherwise...
www.canonrumors.com
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
So you’re saying the type of beer I like doesn’t matter? Flashback over a decade…
APS-C lens mm are correct
Its just common to say "equivalent of blabla on APS-C". Maybe its just the wrong term used but so what? everybody knows what it supposed to mean. You'd think so, but >80 posts here and many other threads on the topic suggest otherwise...
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
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
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:
Upvote
0
Well, the caps do appear to still be firmly attached to the bottles...
...so no beer goggles yet for you.
Upvote
0
It is f/5.6 with the teleconverter active.
That would be 1 full stop since the RF 200-800 is f/8 at 600 mm.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
