Are you sure that the R5 II can use more voltage? I recall discussions here that it uses the same voltage but can draw more current for some purposes.
Upvote
0
Opinion: Love it or Hate it, Digital Correction is here to Stay
- Thread starter Richard-CN
- Start date
Only the R3 and R1 support dual power AF, because of the higher battery power of the LP-E19 battery pack.
Edit: With RF lenses that support this, like the RF 400mm f2.8 and RF 600mm f4.
See: See: https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/rf-mount/ under "Faster focusing".
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Wide open it seems that at 1/3 the price, the RF 45/1.2 is a little sharper throughout the frame than the EF 50/1.2L. You can say the RF lens is a little less dreamy, if you prefer.If you want a soft EF 1.2, there is a very cheap RF alternative of the RF 45mm f/1.2.
Upvote
0
The 28-70mm f/2 is my gig lens and I'll happy hold it for three hours shooting a musical. But I'm not bringing it out on the street or at a party, my point is that the Sigma is great optically but impractical for what you would want to use a 40mm for, and not versatile enough to justify its size and weight.
Upvote
0
It's just a shame that truly portable stuff like the pancakes are treated as toys by Canon. A weather sealed pancake series with a full-time focus control ring would win me over in a second. A pancake set of that grade like 16, 20, 28, 35, 45 all at f/2 or f/2.8 would be an instant purchase. Something like that in my mind would full justify small image circles and over-bearing software corrections — but in a manner totally appropriate to the physical primary goals of portability and resilience, where optical shortcomings and trickery would be an acceptable tradeoff. A little pudgier than a standard pancake would be OK -- more like a biscuit in the American sense.
Upvote
0
Photography is a luxury hobby and @DocInfoSci is correct that enthusiasts with extra cash can build large collections over time. While the "global average" is low because of casual users, dedicated hobbyists often own 5 to 10 lenses. Using older EF lenses like the EF 50mm f/1.0L or EF 200mm f/1.8L on modern bodies like the EOS R1 or R5 Mark II is common for collectors and professionals who want a specific "look" that modern RF lenses do not provide.
@P-visie is correct that many "Big White" EF lenses support the maximum burst speeds of the R1 and R5 Mark II.
According to Canon’s official compatibility list, the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II and IS III as well as the EF 600mm f/4L IS II and IS III, support the full high-speed continuous shooting (+H) mode.
However the older EF 200mm f/1.8L and EF 50mm f/1.0L are not on this list. They are limited to slower burst rates (around 7 fps) because their internal focus motors and aperture diaphragms were not designed for 30 or 40 fps movement.
Both of you & @AlanF are correct regarding the power requirements for the fastest autofocus.
Dual Power AF feature is currently exclusive to the R1 and R3. It requires the LP-E19 battery which provides a higher voltage (approx. 10.8V) compared to the 7.2V of the LP-E6P battery used in the R5 Mark II and R7.
RF benefit found in the RF 400mm f/2.8L and RF 600mm f/4L feature "Dual Power" drive systems. When mounted on an R1 the camera sends more power to the ring-type USM motor allowing it to move the heavy glass elements faster than it can on an R5 II or R7.
While the R1 and R5 II can provide more current (amps) to EF lenses to keep the motors at peak performance they cannot exceed the physical design limits of an old EF motor. The R5 II does not use higher voltage to drive lenses it uses the standard voltage of the LP-E6P battery.
Regardless of the battery or lens age the Autofocus Accuracy is improved on all three bodies. Because the sensor itself acts as the AF sensor the mechanical "slop" or calibration errors of a DSLR are gone. The legendary EF 50mm f/1.0L & EF 200mm f/1.8L will have a much higher "hit rate" on an R7 or R1 because the camera is looking at the subject's eye & not just a focus point on a separate mirror.
@P-visie is correct that many "Big White" EF lenses support the maximum burst speeds of the R1 and R5 Mark II.
According to Canon’s official compatibility list, the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II and IS III as well as the EF 600mm f/4L IS II and IS III, support the full high-speed continuous shooting (+H) mode.
However the older EF 200mm f/1.8L and EF 50mm f/1.0L are not on this list. They are limited to slower burst rates (around 7 fps) because their internal focus motors and aperture diaphragms were not designed for 30 or 40 fps movement.
Both of you & @AlanF are correct regarding the power requirements for the fastest autofocus.
Dual Power AF feature is currently exclusive to the R1 and R3. It requires the LP-E19 battery which provides a higher voltage (approx. 10.8V) compared to the 7.2V of the LP-E6P battery used in the R5 Mark II and R7.
RF benefit found in the RF 400mm f/2.8L and RF 600mm f/4L feature "Dual Power" drive systems. When mounted on an R1 the camera sends more power to the ring-type USM motor allowing it to move the heavy glass elements faster than it can on an R5 II or R7.
While the R1 and R5 II can provide more current (amps) to EF lenses to keep the motors at peak performance they cannot exceed the physical design limits of an old EF motor. The R5 II does not use higher voltage to drive lenses it uses the standard voltage of the LP-E6P battery.
Regardless of the battery or lens age the Autofocus Accuracy is improved on all three bodies. Because the sensor itself acts as the AF sensor the mechanical "slop" or calibration errors of a DSLR are gone. The legendary EF 50mm f/1.0L & EF 200mm f/1.8L will have a much higher "hit rate" on an R7 or R1 because the camera is looking at the subject's eye & not just a focus point on a separate mirror.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I don't think heat is an issue, given there's plenty of things that I can do on my R5 that generate a lot of heat; cooling is vastly improved on the R1 and R5 II and this feature is not used in rapid-fire scenarios; rather, it's used for landscapes and situations where images are carefully planned.
The AI upscaling is adding detail and artifacts that are not there. It's not the same, and lens artifacts can creep in and increase the margin of error. The goal is to capture more detail, not AP upscale a jpeg in-camera. I don't see any technical reason why this can't be added to the newer EOS IBIS-equipped bodies. AI slop is not the way.
One huge use case I have is for high resolution macro images, where this will get me far more detail. AI fabricated slop is not going to help me in this use case.
As with all these things, I am fascinated from a product management perspective as to why this feature wasn't made available on the R5 II at least. It's perhaps the one and only reason why I have kept my R5 and not replaced it with the R5 II.
It's not just the software stretch and loss of resolution, but the way this interacts with the noise pattern. Noise from sensor gain at high ISO should be uniform and consistent across the whole image, however once we change the geometry, we will be squeezing in and stretching out the noise, creating artifacts that look like a lattice, moire and so on. Furthermore, this conflicts with noise reduction principles that assume a consistent noise pattern across the image. This is further compounded b stronger vignetting on some of the RF lenses; I don't mind the vignetting look sometimes, but I don't often get to choose anymore due to these two features conflicting; that's around two stops on the RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM, so you've now got an image with ISO 51200 exposure in the corners of an ISO 12800 image, which in darker situations, results in near-unusable images if any corrections are made - and by my testing, the vignetting falloff occurs closer to the centre of the frame than it does on the EF variant. So whilst the t-stop is measured from the centre of the image in both cases, we ned up a lower potential average t-stop on the newer lenses (using this to account for transmission loss, which impacts low light performance at the same aperture).
Re: the Sigma - the new Sigma is shorter and lighter than the RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM. I don't believe that the optical formula is any larger on the mark II vs the RF 35L VCM. Furthermore, the testing and reviews so far don't seem to suggest any significant penalty for autofocus. The only aspect I don't understand is whether the VCM motor is physically larger and is taking up space that is forcing the optical elements to be of a smaller diameter. I appreciate that in video situations, the VCM lens distortion is less relevant, but still an issue for high gain/high ISO situations due to the aforementioned issues. There is no excuse to have a 35 with that much barrel distortion in 2026. This is a solved problem that has been un-solved.
It's a snowball effect. I was jumping for joy when the EF 35L II was announced, as optical distortion on the first-generation EF 35L was a bugbear of mine. I can only hope that this is swiftly addressed. I wouldn't be so frustrated about being left high-and-dry if third party RF lenses were available.
Upvote
0
Fantastically described scenario. Agree
% but I've never thought to articulate it in this way. I also often need to shoot at higher ISO when outside due to a combination of field conditions and shutter speed requirements affecting available light. My specific EF zooms and primes, for all of their shortcomings vs. newer editions, do not suffer in this regard.I can understand how solutions like the VCM line of lenses provide a reasonable compromise for hybrid shooters, and as hybrid shooters dominate the market these days the fact that Canon would optimize a lens series accordingly is as smart as all-season tires for the auto market. (And for many hobbyists honestly they're probably a perfectly fine modern analog to the gold-ring USM value.)
But I believe that what you have put into words would affect many of us stills shooters beyond the usual snap-and-post scenarios. I wonder if anyone else where can't unsee it if they start looking?
(Aside, why isn't the
emoji available in the like tool?!)EDIT: To avoid the usual back and forth about imperfect EF lenses, I'm just saying my EF lenses, which is what I have, as applied to this scenario don't suffer in this regard. As others have mentioned, there are EF lenses that probably would suffer and some RF lenses that would not.
Upvote
0
Before I could consider unseeing it, I'd have to see it in the first place. Here's an image with the RF 20/1.4L VCM shot at f/1.4, 1/200 s, ISO 16000. Seems to meet the criteria of high ISO in a dark situation.
Here's the uncropped, original image pushed two stops (so an effective ISO 64000), there is a bit of residual vignetting:
Here's the upper left corner of that pushed, uncropped image:
So, ISO 16000 pushed to ISO 64,000 plus probably >2 stops more pushing in the corners so that's something north of ISO 256,000. Where are these 'artifacts that look like a lattice, moire and so on' that are caused by ‘squeezing in and stretching out the noise‘ that I am supposed to see and that are supposed to render my images unusable?
Upvote
0
Hmm. Does look clean. Maybe it would matter on the generation of camera or software doing the adjustment?
Upvote
0
I chose a corner with no details because the point being made was that the noise characteristic was problematic and not 'uniform and consistent', and an area of the image lacking detail is the best place to see noise artifacts, if there are any to be seen.
But sure, here's the lower left corner of the image, with some people standing/sitting around. Including at least one person staring at their phone and completely ignoring the lighted fountain sprays set to the music of Prince.
Upvote
0
The 2024 EOS R1 and 2024 R5 Mark II do not include the mechanical "Sensor Shift" mode found in the original R5. Instead they use In-Camera Upscaling driven by a neural network. @zardoz is correct that these are different technologies. Sensor shift captures nine separate frames to record real optical data which is better for macro and landscape details. AI upscaling uses math to guess what the extra pixels should look like. This can create "artifacts" or fake details that were not in the original scene. For users who need the most accurate data for large prints the older 2020 R5 method is technically superior to AI guessing.
Digital correction in lenses like the RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM affects image quality. To fix barrel distortion the camera software stretches the pixels in the corners. This ruins the uniform noise pattern of the sensor. As zardoz noted stretching the noise can create a "lattice" or grid pattern. Furthermore many RF lenses have heavy vignetting. If the camera boosts a dark corner by two stops a photo shot at ISO 12,800 will have the noise level of ISO 51,200 in the corners. This makes it harder for the R1 or R5 II to clean up the image compared to using "optically straight" lenses like my 2008 EF 200mm f/2L IS USM.
The VCM in new RF lenses is designed for fast silent video focus. However this motor takes up space that could be used for larger glass elements. This is why some new lenses rely on software to fix distortion instead of using better glass. Lenses like the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN Art use a traditional optical design that is physically corrected. For still photographers this means the Sigma or older 2015 EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM may provide a cleaner raw file with less digital "stretching" than the VCM version.
My "Big White" EF lenses like the 2011 EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II and 1999 EF 500mm f/4L IS do not suffer from these digital correction issues. They were built with large glass elements that correct distortion and light falloff physically. When you mount these on the EOS R1 or R5 II you get a uniform noise pattern across the whole frame. On the 2022 EOS R7 the smaller APS-C sensor crops out the corners anyway so you never see the vignetting or stretching. This confirms @DocInfoSci’s point that older EF glass often provides a more consistent "raw" image than newer software-dependent RF lenses.
Digital correction in lenses like the RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM affects image quality. To fix barrel distortion the camera software stretches the pixels in the corners. This ruins the uniform noise pattern of the sensor. As zardoz noted stretching the noise can create a "lattice" or grid pattern. Furthermore many RF lenses have heavy vignetting. If the camera boosts a dark corner by two stops a photo shot at ISO 12,800 will have the noise level of ISO 51,200 in the corners. This makes it harder for the R1 or R5 II to clean up the image compared to using "optically straight" lenses like my 2008 EF 200mm f/2L IS USM.
The VCM in new RF lenses is designed for fast silent video focus. However this motor takes up space that could be used for larger glass elements. This is why some new lenses rely on software to fix distortion instead of using better glass. Lenses like the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN Art use a traditional optical design that is physically corrected. For still photographers this means the Sigma or older 2015 EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM may provide a cleaner raw file with less digital "stretching" than the VCM version.
My "Big White" EF lenses like the 2011 EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II and 1999 EF 500mm f/4L IS do not suffer from these digital correction issues. They were built with large glass elements that correct distortion and light falloff physically. When you mount these on the EOS R1 or R5 II you get a uniform noise pattern across the whole frame. On the 2022 EOS R7 the smaller APS-C sensor crops out the corners anyway so you never see the vignetting or stretching. This confirms @DocInfoSci’s point that older EF glass often provides a more consistent "raw" image than newer software-dependent RF lenses.
Upvote
0
I wish there was a way for manufactures to share their lens correction data properly.
Possible an open source file format?
This way Lightroom etc. can benefit from the exact correction data to use in their lens profiles. Also, this would work in other ways. It would allow third party lens manufacturers to give their lens correction data to Canon, Nikon, etc. for use with in camera correction.
Possible an open source file format?
This way Lightroom etc. can benefit from the exact correction data to use in their lens profiles. Also, this would work in other ways. It would allow third party lens manufacturers to give their lens correction data to Canon, Nikon, etc. for use with in camera correction.
Upvote
0
Sorry, but your post here (like several other recent posts of yours) reads like an AI-generated summary of this thread (complete with hallucinations common to such things), with references to lenses you own tossed in.
Perhaps you can show your own examples of this ‘problem’, just to add a touch of realism? Or point out the problem in the examples that I posted above, because I don’t see it.
If the VCM is the reason, why do lenses without VCM also require algorithmic correction of distortion to fill the corners? Or do the RF 16/2.8, RF 24-240 and RF 14-35/4L and RF 24-105/2.8L Z have VCM but Canon just forgot to tell us?
Upvote
0
I am also writing with the the premise of explaining things that I recently learned about and I think others may not be aware of it. If they are wrong I appreciate corrections done in a professional, friendly and polite method.
As for why my lenses are mentioned I do so out of lived experiences and to showcase my work. After all this is a photo forum where we do showcase it.
If it bothers you then perhaps ignoring me is your best option.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
To clarify, I was not suggesting you were using AI but that your posts read like AI to me. Lots of repeating what was already posted in the same thread, but not adding much understanding. Repeating something is not the same as explaining it, and repeating it doesn't really aid others in understanding, IMO.
For example, in discussing lenses which require correction of distortion, your counterexamples are all telephoto lenses. The reason some newer RF lenses require digital correction of distortion is that the image circle is smaller than the sensor, and all of the lenses with that characteristic have a wide or ultrawide angle of view. An image circle that is smaller than the sensor is never an issue with telephoto lens designs because the image circle is not a limiting factor (for the same reason, there are no long lenses designed for APS-C sensors). So of course your big white lenses do not suffer from strong geometric distortion requiring digital correction. It's not the 'large glass elements', the old EF 300/4L has less distortion than your "optically straight" EF 200/2L.
With apologies for bluntness, that you used telephoto lenses as examples for the issue of a smaller-than-sensor image circle suggests that you don't have a good understanding of the underlying concepts. An analogy might be a thread discussing problems of keeping a motorcycle balanced when riding it, and you saying that you never have problems with tipping over while driving your Mercedes sedan. That may be lived experience but it's really not relevant to the discussion.
As for showcasing your work, that was part of why I asked for an example of the problem you highlight. You've posted many excellent images through the years, and I was wondering if you had direct experience of the problem described: "To fix barrel distortion the camera software stretches the pixels in the corners. This ruins the uniform noise pattern of the sensor." To me, there's a big difference between repeating stuff you read on an internet forum and explaining a concept you learned about. The latter requires you to dig a bit deeper and hopefully gain an understanding of the concept.
In this case, when I read that claim I was skeptical. To me, some skepticism seemed warranted when reading that digital correction of geometric distortion and vignetting, which is common across many lenses and has been applied for decades (many EF lenses have significant distortion and vignetting, too) now somehow, "...results in near-unusable images if any corrections are made," as @zardoz stated and you repeated. But I didn't merely claim the opposite – I looked though my own images, found a relevant example and tried to see the effect described (even taking an image to an extreme point), but I could not see the problem. Still, after that post you repeated the initial claim...but you did not provide any evidence to support it. So, may I ask...what understanding have you gained about this concept that you would like to share with others on this photography forum?
I do not believe that ignoring a post that repeats unverified claims is the best option.
In an example that conflates two issues that you mention in adjacent paragraphs (AI upscaling and geometric distortion correction; you did not conflate them), multiple people have repeated the claim the black corners of lenses like the 16/2.8 and 20/1.4 VCM are filled with AI-generated image data (including someone that, like you, has a long posting history here including many excellent images). That is false, and repeating here it does not add value to the forum, nor is ignoring it the best option, IMO.
Upvote
0