jabird56 said:

Canon EOS 90D with a Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L II USM Lense
Processed with DXO Photolab Elite 9View attachment 227470

Click to expand...

I really like this one, looks kind of abstract and kind of like from another world.
The others are very interesting too,

David_B said:

But the ability to pull apart some of the individual beams is lost.

To go to an extreme point, why even bother with a full frame lens if all we need to do is put an APS-C lens on the front of a full frame model and then stretch that image such that it "fill the picture".. Afterall, what's a few dark corners/boundary between friends if digital corection is ok? Where's the cutoff point between too much stretching vs acceptable stretching?

The detail that gets lost in the squashed iamge (it doesn't fill the srnsor, so I'm using "squash" as the term to refer to it being made small) can't be made to reappear with some magic process. Even if you take into account the blur from the AA, there must be less refined data to work from in an image that's only 19.96mm "high".

Click to expand...

This is how I look at it:

• If the image circle of a lens covers the entire sensor then there is no a priori pixel loss, but the lens that requires the most geometric correction will result in a (slightly) less image quality since more pixels will be "stretched" / extrapolated.
• If it doesn't then there is an additional (small) loss of quality: an optically corrected lens may still require stretching, but the data used to create the corrected image is based on the full mp count of the sensor, while with digitally corrected lens whose image circle does not cover the full sensor, the stretching will be done using less data (less pixels), therefore more pixels are "created" with digitally corrected lenses.

This is based on my own reasoning that, essentially, the less data you interpolate and / or the more data you start from, the better.
I do not have a scientific proof of this. It makes sense to me. But no one has given me reasons to reject my reasoning so far.
So I will continue to believe that optical corrections, all else being equal, are better IQ-wise, and obviously worse size- and weight-wise. Maybe marginally, but better. And therefore I will continue to have a slight preference for optically corrected lenses... the good ones at least

David_B said:

You've eyeballed some images and made some claims that you're asking us to accept on no better grounds than faith.

I don't trust humans to be a good judge of the evidence because humans are unreliable and all too frequently plagued by biases.

Click to expand...

@neuroanatomist has freely admitted that his evidence is empirical and therefore potentially imprecise. And it is entirely possible that the differences, while present (imho), are not meaningful enough to make a difference in real life shooting scenarios. But I do not believe that Neuro has an agenda here.

Excellent sequence. Beautiful shots.

Pretty cool shots. Well done!

EricN said:

LIKE YOURSELF, ERICN IS ALSO NOT A FLAWED HUMAN BAG OF MEAT.

Click to expand...

Your profile picture (and mine) suggests otherwise .

David_B said:

I don't trust humans to be a good judge of the evidence because humans are unreliable and all too frequently plagued by biases.

Click to expand...

LIKE YOURSELF, ERICN IS ALSO NOT A FLAWED HUMAN BAG OF MEAT.

neuroanatomist said:

The light that is digitally corrected to fill the corners when required still falls on the sensor.

Click to expand...

But the ability to pull apart some of the individual beams is lost.

To go to an extreme point, why even bother with a full frame lens if all we need to do is put an APS-C lens on the front of a full frame model and then stretch that image such that it "fill the picture".. Afterall, what's a few dark corners/boundary between friends if digital corection is ok? Where's the cutoff point between too much stretching vs acceptable stretching?

Canon's asking people using its equipment to take it on good faiith that the dark corners from various lens is acceptable. Or at least I say that because I haven't see Canon say anything with authority on this subject matter and I'm pretty sure if you had then you'd have quoted it by now.

The detail that gets lost in the squashed iamge (it doesn't fill the srnsor, so I'm using "squash" as the term to refer to it being made small) can't be made to reappear with some magic process. Even if you take into account the blur from the AA, there must be less refined data to work from in an image that's only 19.96mm "high".

neuroanatomist said:

The difference is that I’ve provided empirical evidence to support my points. Have you? Has anyone who claims that optical correction of geometric distortion is inherently superior to digital correction.

Click to expand...

You've eyeballed some images and made some claims that you're asking us to accept on no better grounds than faith.

I don't trust humans to be a good judge of the evidence because humans are unreliable and all too frequently plagued by biases.

neuroanatomist said:

So you shoot RAW, and you don’t use a lens profile in your RAW converter? I’m skeptical. Especially after your intentionally evasive reply to @AlanF.

Click to expand...

Correct. Using a lens profile is not a requirement of using a raw converter, nor is using CA correction.

Faith is an interesting word to being up in the discussion of this topic because there is practically no verifiable analysis done on it but we're alll excepted to accept the new lay of the land as being ok. Summary, Canon's asking us all to take a huge leap of faith in it.

AlanF said:

The point of the question is to lead to a discussion of what happens when we process RAW data and the choice of RAW converters. If you are unaware of your software doing correction, then how on earth could that make you a liar? (Lying is deliberately telling an untruth.)

Click to expand...

Good software that does raw conversion gives you the option of whether or not to do correction based on known lens profiles or CA elmination. I leave those check boxes to the default software position - off.. Maybe DPP turns it all on by default, IDK 'cause I don't use it. As I said above/previously, I don't use lens profiles/CA correction and I said that knowing that the software I use doesn't have those things turned on for images that I process.

I'm surprised more of the reviews didn't catch the focus shift issue. Or it could be a quality control issue because of the cheap price?

If you can't get eyes in perfect focus at f/1.4 - f/2 on an R5 autofocus, the lens is absolutely a no go.

neuroanatomist said:

It would likely depend on the comparison. For example, I’m not sure that comparing the digitally corrected corners of the inexpensive RF 16/2.8 to the optically corrected RF 15-35/2.8 would be valid, because the base quality of the two lenses is very different. Having said that, it is interesting that the digitally corrected corners of the RF 16/2.8 deliver similar IQ to the optically corrected corners of the far more expensive (but also much older) EF 14/2.8L II.

Click to expand...

Now you get it.

neuroanatomist said:

I see. So you’re belief that optical correction is superior is akin to faith – belief without evidence.

Click to expand...

If I was to believe that digital correction was the equivalent to or better than optical correction then that too would be akin to faith because I have no evidence to support it.

AlanF said:

As @neuroanatomist has written many times, he has the same charts as the digital-picture and has got them to correct some results. You can do digital-picture type charts for free by downloading them from the bobatkins site. However, to measure lp/mm with precision you need to use IMATEST or similar, which is done by opticallimits, lenstip, ephotozine etc.

Click to expand...

To get meaningful results, I think dedicate software such as IMATEST or similar is required. Otherwise there's too much subjetivity.

I kept digging regarding the lack of 28mms and found this review. Such a shame that Canon doesn't offer a similarly sized 28mm but with at least the image quality of the EF IS and fast autofocus. Sadly their pancake has great image so it will never happen, there are just not enough people looking for a great autofocus on this focal length.

- It may seem a bit strange but these days full-format 28mm prime lenses are almost exotics. The unpopularity probably relates to the perception that such lenses aren’t wide enough for landscapes or architecture and too wide for everything else.
[...]
As already hinted in the introduction, direct competitors to the Sony FE 28mm f/2 (shown to the left below) don’t exist.

A beautiful animal well captured. My favourite is the third.

R7 II CFB card slot, R8II R10II CFB/SD express please, no more UHS-II

I bought the EF 50 1.4 just before this lens was announced. Fits better in my bunch of EF lenses and can be used with a variable ND adapter.
R7 destroys that lens wide open - on FF with 24MPix it is very usable wide open. What I like is that the older EF version has low distortion and moderate CAs without any correction.
Now about the RF 1.2 45: It is close to these older designs in IQ, suffers from strong distortion and it has AF which is not the case for 3rd party lenses, a huge advantage!
Now my opinion about IQ wide open etc:
If you can use f/2.8 or f/4.0 and the lens is sharp, contrasty, gives good colors you can use it for landscape, lots of portrait situations, nature, architecture.
With f/1.2 or f/1.4 you have the option for low DOF or night shots which are not accessible with e.g. a f/4 or f/2.8 zoom. Some degradation in sheer sharpness is traded in to get the photo which is not possible with f/4 or f/2.8.

I would be satisfied with a well corrected (not relying on computational correction for good results) RF-S 15-60 4.0 IS USM with a good close focus range (1:3 reprod. ratio would be stunning).
But maybe three lenses?
→ f/2.8 High End Z type 15-60
→ f/4.0 High quality fixed aperture 15-60
→ f/2.8...5.6 good quality var aperture 15-85 like the older EF-S version
And the EF-S 15-85 is of really good quality, very low noise AF, IS and reasonably sharp at least for 4k video - the R7s 32 MPix sensor reveals the non-perfect sharpness but photography is more than just pixel peeping.

Click said:

I really like this shot. Well done, danfaz.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Click!

Hey everyone, here's a few selections from a sequence of shots I captured yesterday.

I really like this shot. Well done, danfaz.

Cute American Kestrel.

More flowers from today: I didn't see any bird deserving to be on photo.

7DmkI said:

Take off!

Click to expand...

....With the landing gear in transition. Nice shot!

Click said:

Cute little ball of feathers. Nicely done, Alan.

Click to expand...

The Goldcrest is Europe's smallest bird, weighing in at 5.5g/0.2oz. The Firecrest, which I saw yesterday, is very close in weight and size, but is much rarer.