Why Waiting for The Next Rf Body Is So Frustrating

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,114
3,252
Irving, Texas
I think that is too broad a brush, whilst obviously any modern camera can take amazing images the fact is the R and RF are not necessarily the best Canon cameras to get the highest keeper rate in many photographic genres, and that is the key. I think few right minded people would say the R is a dud, but many can justifiably say it is no better for what they personally shoot than what they currently have.
Absolutely not a sports camera. Best portrait camera I have ever owned. Best keeper rate for that compared to my 5D mark III (speaking to eyes being in perfect focus). I know nothing of any other FF capabilities. I'm a very happy boy, but smart enough to know it isn't for everyone or every use case (Same as a 1DX Mark III or 5DSr). But please keep in mind that this is what we were responding to: "Ten years ago we all would have killed for a camera like the R. But, today it's lackluster enough that it's seen as an unacceptable hindrance to taking good photos. " And he's just plain wrong, painting not with a broad brush, but a pressure washer. ;) His remark was across the board, not specific to a particular use case. Like many around here that trash a particular piece of equipment, he's probably never used it or even seen it. He's probably watched a lot of youtube videos, though.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,057
1,801
Mike, I don't know whether this even helps the debate, but her are two shots taken with the RF 85mm f/1.2L 1/320 sec, f/1.2, ISO 1000. The first with all camera corrections off, the second with all camera corrections on. Sorry, no human available. If I can be more helpful, please let me know, or if I am not helpful at all, let me know that also. I have never used either of the other two lenses. Personally, I like distortion and not so much sharpness edge to edge. That is impossible to tell with these examples at f/1.2. Focus is on the animal's lets eye. Yes, eye-af worked. haha.


I may be really stupid and misunderstand the debate here. Please forgive me if so. I have taken two photos with the RF 85mm f/1.2L / 1/320 sec, f/1.2, ISO100. One is with all corrections off. The other with all corrections on. Sorry, but no human available. I have not used either of the two lenses you guys are talking about. I guess I should print out some test charts for proper comparison? Personally, unsharp corners on what I use for portraits would not bother me a bit. If my example is stupid, please feel free to let me know. I'm in a manic phase right now. Except for some vignette, I can't tell a difference.
You're comparing apples. I'm comparing lawn mowers.

Field curvature has very little to do with geometric distortion in a photograph, it has to do with the shape of the field of focus. Uncorrected, all refractive lenses have field curvature. Rather than being a flat plane, the field of focus is a portion of a sphere. Imagine a string attached to the front of your lens that is the same length as your focus distance. As you move the string left or right and up or down, the point of focus moves in an arc equidistant from the center of your camera's lens.

1568693763942.png


Only a pinhole camera has an actual flat field.

1568693827619.png


Lenses highly corrected for field curvature have wavy fields of focus that look like a lasagna noodle, but if the waves are small enough they fool us into believing the field of focus is flat.

1568693916236.png


Note that the scale left to right covers 40mm in each chart, the scale from top to bottom only covers 1.2mm of change in sensor position behind the lens, and that sagittal and tangential fields of focus can be different (which is basically what astigmatism is).

This is very useful for things such as macro lenses that are often used for things like document and art reproduction. But like many things in lens design, making one characteristic "better" results in making another characteristic "worse." Out of focus details and highlights tend to look harsh or busy with lenses highly corrected for field curvature. That's why using a macro lens optimized to perform best at close focus distances with high amounts of flat field correction may not always be the best lens for wide aperture portrait photography.

If you want to get into field curvature a lot deeper, look at Uncle Roger's "Fun with Field of Focus, Pt.1" and "Pt. 2." (which is were I "borrowed" the last graphic above)

Correcting for geometric distortion (or anything else) in post processing does not alter the lens' field of focus or affect the quality (as in characteristics) of the lens' out of focus highlights the way changing the lens design to correct for optical aberrations does.
 
Last edited:

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,114
3,252
Irving, Texas
"On the lens side, there's nothing that special or uniquely challenging about making RF lenses, so they are cranking those out right and left. But they just don't have the technology ready for release yet to give people a truly pro quality mirrorless."

It's nice to have lens design experts in a forum where you wouldn't expect them. In this case I'd guess it's an expert from Nikon or Sony because their lens quality and selection is far superior and they turn them out every month. Or maybe I got this wrong, perhaps it's a former lens designer from Canon who's got an axe to grind and wishes to put Canon down since his superior ideas were being rejected and they just were not worthy of his services, so he jumped ship. I'd be interested in hearing what credentials we are talking about here. Some sample designs would go a long way in clearing this up. :confused:

Jack
Imagine the blood boiling in this scenario: Canon releases a "R1X" last fall, but no high end native RF lenses are available. The way people think is astounding at times. Gotta start somewhere.
 

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,114
3,252
Irving, Texas
I think the technology needs to evolve to the point where there are no hindrances to overcome and every one of us who are not the greatest photographers will have artificial intelligence cameras that take perfect photos using robots. Doesn't that sound like utopia? Get rid of the challenges and we'll all be sooooo happy. And then we can get on with other things rather than wasting our time and efforts on photography with lack lustre cameras.

Sadly, this mode of thinking just removes the pleasure one derives from one's accomplishments. I'm with Neoro on this; my problem is not the camera or the lenses.

Jack
Don't tell anyone, but I've started cutting out Ansel Adams photos and presenting them as my landscape portfolio. The hipsters don't know the difference. ;)
 

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,114
3,252
Irving, Texas
You're comparing apples. I'm comparing lawn mowers.

Field curvature has very little to do with geometric distortion in a photograph, it has to do with the shape of the field of focus. Uncorrected, all refractive lenses have field curvature. Rather than being a flat plane, the field of focus is a portion of a sphere. Imagine a string attached to the front of your lens that is the same length as your focus distance. As you move the string left or right and up or down, the point of focus moves in an arc equidistant from the center of your camera's lens.

Only a pinhole camera has an actual flat field. Lenses highly corrected for field curvature have wavy fields of focus that look like a lasagna noodle, but if the waves are small enough they fool us into believing the field of focus is flat. This is very useful for things such as macro lenses that are often used for things like document and art reproduction. But like many things in lens design, making one characteristic "better" results in making another characteristic "worse." Out of focus details and highlights tend to look harsh or busy with lenses highly corrected for field curvature. That's why using a macro lens optimized to perform best at close focus distances with high amounts of flat field correction may not always be the best lens for wide aperture portrait photography.

If you want to get into field curvature a lot deeper, look at Uncle Roger's "Fun with Field of Focus, Pt.1" and "Pt. 2."

Correcting for geometric distortion (or anything else) in post processing does not alter the lens' field of focus or affect the quality (as in characteristics) of the lens' out of focus highlights the way changing the lens design to correct for optical aberrations does.
Thanks! I'll give it a read. Edit: Just read it. Way over my head . ;) I just know corner to corner sharpness and a flat field is not what I like.
 
Last edited:

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
831
1,041
I think that is too broad a brush, whilst obviously any modern camera can take amazing images the fact is the R and RF are not necessarily the best Canon cameras to get the highest keeper rate in many photographic genres, and that is the key. I think few right minded people would say the R is a dud, but many can justifiably say it is no better for what they personally shoot than what they currently have.
A phase one 100mp isn't the best in all genres either but no o e would call it a 'hindrance' would they. The R and the Rp are both cameras that are perfectly capable of producing excellent results in the hands of even incompetent photographers. A hindrance will actually prevent one from doing so. That is not the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viggo

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,057
1,801
I would just say that anyone who finds the R a 'hindrance to taking good photos should give up photography and stick to fingerpainting. Fact is there is no new ILC on the market that is a hindrance to taking good photos
Different tools for different tasks. Some are better for doing one thing, others are better for doing others. There is no single "best" camera, just as there is no single "best" lens. There are some shots one can get with some camera/lens combinations that one can not get with other camera/lens combinations, and vice-versa.
 

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,114
3,252
Irving, Texas
You're comparing apples. I'm comparing lawn mowers.

Field curvature has very little to do with geometric distortion in a photograph, it has to do with the shape of the field of focus. Uncorrected, all refractive lenses have field curvature. Rather than being a flat plane, the field of focus is a portion of a sphere. Imagine a string attached to the front of your lens that is the same length as your focus distance. As you move the string left or right and up or down, the point of focus moves in an arc equidistant from the center of your camera's lens.

View attachment 186636

Only a pinhole camera has an actual flat field.

View attachment 186637

Lenses highly corrected for field curvature have wavy fields of focus that look like a lasagna noodle, but if the waves are small enough they fool us into believing the field of focus is flat.

View attachment 186638

Note that the scale left to right covers 40mm in each chart, the scale from top to bottom only covers 1.2mm of change in sensor position behind the lens, and that sagittal and tangential fields of focus can be different (which is basically what astigmatism is).

This is very useful for things such as macro lenses that are often used for things like document and art reproduction. But like many things in lens design, making one characteristic "better" results in making another characteristic "worse." Out of focus details and highlights tend to look harsh or busy with lenses highly corrected for field curvature. That's why using a macro lens optimized to perform best at close focus distances with high amounts of flat field correction may not always be the best lens for wide aperture portrait photography.

If you want to get into field curvature a lot deeper, look at Uncle Roger's "Fun with Field of Focus, Pt.1" and "Pt. 2." (which is were I "borrowed" the last graphic above)

Correcting for geometric distortion (or anything else) in post processing does not alter the lens' field of focus or affect the quality (as in characteristics) of the lens' out of focus highlights the way changing the lens design to correct for optical aberrations does.
Thank you. That helps a lot. A lot of smart guys around here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,057
1,801
A phase one 100mp isn't the best in all genres either but no o e would call it a 'hindrance' would they. The R and the Rp are both cameras that are perfectly capable of producing excellent results in the hands of even incompetent photographers. A hindrance will actually prevent one from doing so. That is not the case.
Trying to shoot sports/action with a Phase One would definitely be an "hindrance" compared to using a D5 or 1D X Mark II.
 

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
831
1,041
Trying to shoot sports/action with a Phase One would definitely be an "hindrance" compared to using a D5 or 1D X Mark II.
If one were shooting sports or action with a phase one then the hindrance wouldn't be the camera. It would be one's mental capacity to make logical decisions ;) . Specialist use cases were not mentioned in the OP . Just that the cameras make it hard to take good photos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viggo

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,568
1,260
Trying to shoot sports/action with a Phase One would definitely be an "hindrance" compared to using a D5 or 1D X Mark II.
No, it’s actually “not made for that” or simply; using the wrong tool. Nothing wrong with this Phillips screwdriver, but that is a flathead screw.

You don’t go up against F1 cars at their track in a WRC car, or the other way around.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,057
1,801
No, it’s actually “not made for that” or simply; using the wrong tool. Nothing wrong with this Phillips screwdriver, but that is a flathead screw.

You don’t go up against F1 cars at their track in a WRC car, or the other way around.
Which is entirely the point. When someone makes a blanket statements like "no one" would call a Phase One a "hindrance" or "I would just say that anyone who finds the R a 'hindrance to taking good photos should give up photography and stick to fingerpainting", it's as ridiculous as saying anyone who finds an F1 car to be a hindrance for the morning commute should give up driving.
 

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
831
1,041
Which is entirely the point. When someone makes a blanket statements like "no one" would call a Phase One a "hindrance" or "I would just say that anyone who finds the R a 'hindrance to taking good photos should give up photography and stick to fingerpainting", it's as ridiculous as saying anyone who finds an F1 car to be a hindrance for the morning commute should give up driving.
This comment makes no sense. At all. The blanket statement is entirely accurate. Because if you are finding the phase one a hindrance to your action photography it is because the flaw is with the user for choosing the wrong camera. Same as anyone who finds the R a hindrance to taking good photos. They are either crap photographers or crap decision makers. But either way it is not the camera that is the hindrance is it? What is the old saying? 'A poor workman blames his tools'. Oldie but a goodie and perfectly applicable. The R is not a hindrance to any photographer unless the photographer is a hindrance to themselves. As a matter of fact the only cameras that are an actual hindrance to taking good photos are one's that stop working.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,057
1,801
This comment makes no sense. At all. The blanket statement is entirely accurate. Because if you are finding the phase one a hindrance to your action photography it is because the flaw is with the user for choosing the wrong camera. Same as anyone who finds the R a hindrance to taking good photos. They are either crap photographers or crap decision makers. But either way it is not the camera that is the hindrance is it? What is the old saying? 'A poor workman blames his tools'. Oldie but a goodie and perfectly applicable. The R is not a hindrance to any photographer unless the photographer is a hindrance to themselves. As a matter of fact the only cameras that are an actual hindrance to taking good photos are one's that stop working.
I would just say that anyone who finds the phillips head screwdriver a 'hindrance to using fasteners of all types should give up fastening things and stick to duct tape. Fact is there is no new phillips head screwdriver on the market that is a hindrance to attaching any kind of fastener.
 

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
831
1,041
I would just say that anyone who finds the phillips head screwdriver a 'hindrance to using fasteners of all types should give up fastening things and stick to duct tape. Fact is there is no new phillips head screwdriver on the market that is a hindrance to attaching any kind of fastener.
Nup. Again. You have missed the point entirely. Anyone who is USING a Phillips head screwdriver to attach all types of fasteners shouldn't even be allowed to use duct tape. Clearly the screwdriver isn't the problem. It is the user. How are you missing this very basic point?
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
1,990
1,346
it depends on what one's definition of a "beautiful photos" is... is that about sharpness, DR, etc.? or about composition, storytelling?
When it comes to modern AI, "beautiful photos" are what generates more "likes" from the target audience.
 
Last edited:

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
1,990
1,346
Either use the cameras and lenses that are available, or don't. Technology is always advancing, and it tends to move exponentially, so more and more there is always going to be a faster or better camera just on the horizon. Ten years ago we all would have killed for a camera like the R. But, today it's lackluster enough that it's seen as an unacceptable hindrance to taking good photos.
I'm not getting it. What happened to all your good photos from ten years ago? Are they no good anymore? Do you blame the cameras for that?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
1,990
1,346
Depending on your target audience. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Training a neural network to select (or even actively seek) "golden ratio on steroids" images should not be a hard task.