Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 10 Oct 2018 (Wednesday) 10:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

-= Canon EOS R owners unite! Post photos and discuss.

 
russbecker
Member
223 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 281
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Central PA, USA
     
Nov 24, 2018 11:05 as a reply to  @ post 18757498 |  #946

The question wasn't whether the posted images are 'sharp' or 'great'; they are. The question was whether they could or could not have been achieved with another camera body, in this case the EOS 80D. Without an actual side-by-side comparison that question cannot be answered in an objective manner.

There was no dissing of the EOS R images. I happen to think that most of what I have seen, in this forum and on FM, looks very good, but so does the 5D4 in similar situations.

In the end, this will be all about the new RF lens mount. If native RF lenses offer features that aren't available with EF lenses, there will be a migration to the new system.


7D2 | 7D | 80D | 40D | 100-400 f/4-5.6 IIL | 300 f/4 L | 70-200 f/2.8 IIL | 70-200 f/4L | 135 f/2 L | 85 f/1.8 | 100 f/2 | 60 f/2.8 macro | nifty-fifty | 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 | Tamron 150-600 | Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 | Sigma 30 f/1.4 | Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 | Sigma 120-400

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mdvaden
Goldmember
Avatar
2,803 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 965
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Post edited 2 months ago by mdvaden.
     
Nov 24, 2018 11:27 |  #947

russbecker wrote in post #18757477 (external link)
Agreed. Anything less than an actual side-by-side comparison is more subjective than objective. In general, the EOS R should produce higher quality RAW files since it has a close cousin of the 5D4's sensor. However, if you are not in a photon-starved situation, then it can easily be difficult to tell the 80D from the EOS R.

russbecker wrote in post #18757477 (external link)
Agreed. Anything less than an actual side-by-side comparison is more subjective than objective. In general, the EOS R should produce higher quality RAW files since it has a close cousin of the 5D4's sensor. However, if you are not in a photon-starved situation, then it can easily be difficult to tell the 80D from the EOS R.

I've got the M5 which is the mirrorless counterpart to the 80D

There's a fair size chasm between the M5 and EOS R. If the images were scaled down to 8 x 10 they could seem similar. But I tend to view and print 16 x 20 and larger. The color shares similarity at full size. The EOS R is such that I would easily consider it as an extra primary camera for wedding or portrait session. The M5 not so, although I would use that one as a 3rd accessory body with maybe Rokinon 12mm 2.0 or 8mm 2.8 Fisheye for some fun shots.


vadenphotography.com (external link) . . . and . . . Coast Redwoods Main Page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lijoec
Senior Member
Avatar
949 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 3401
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Long Island
     
Nov 24, 2018 12:09 |  #948

russbecker wrote in post #18757447 (external link)
Eh, I don't know about that. Depends on the quality of the light, and, whether you have good glass like the 100-400 Mk2. You have to remember these web images are seriously downsampled. First one is only ISO 500, second is ISO 1000. Depends on how much frame-filling occurred on the original RAW image. Hard to say without a side-to-side comparison.

you are right without a side by side we will never know. What I can say is I have that 80D/ 100-400II combo, and in good lighting yes it can be very sharp. I was looking at his shutter speed, apature and ISO and surmising the lighting conditions. Under those circumstances (from what I can gather) the 80D would be a tad softer and details a little more muddled out. Just my opinion! The problem I have with controlled testing is, IMO that in real use you will not get the same results unless you work is all done in a studio. Real life use might be harder to quantify but the real difference is in the amount of uasable images you can keep in less then perfect situations. The other half is the ability to take your time for a setup for controlled testing doesn't equal the ability of spur of the moment or changing situations.

You guys are probably right, this is just my take on it.


Cheers,
Joe
"Image Editing OK"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
randy98mtu
Goldmember
Avatar
3,561 posts
Gallery: 327 photos
Likes: 1488
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Michigan
     
Nov 24, 2018 12:30 |  #949

russbecker wrote in post #18757530 (external link)
The question wasn't whether the posted images are 'sharp' or 'great'; they are. The question was whether they could or could not have been achieved with another camera body, in this case the EOS 80D. Without an actual side-by-side comparison that question cannot be answered in an objective manner.

There was no dissing of the EOS R images. I happen to think that most of what I have seen, in this forum and on FM, looks very good, but so does the 5D4 in similar situations.

In the end, this will be all about the new RF lens mount. If native RF lenses offer features that aren't available with EF lenses, there will be a migration to the new system.

I certainly agree with you there - you can get fantastic images from most modern bodies and the IQ differences will be minimal.


Canon EOS M6 - EOS R - EF, EF-M and RF lenses
Donate for Forum Costs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pondrader
"now I'm no rocket scientist but I do get a shot or two"
Avatar
15,714 posts
Gallery: 2421 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 53784
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Minden, Ontario, Canada
Post edited 2 months ago by Pondrader. (2 edits in all)
     
Nov 24, 2018 22:27 |  #950

Umm wow lol... I think photographers in general can see an image and decide for themselves if they think its sharp and in focus...

Just like looking at a painting... you either enjoy the detail or you love the blur...

I'm not sure anyone cares but here is the head cut from the raw file....

I guess anything I post or any one speaking to my post will be in question...

what has POTN come to....

I think you all have your own opinion's and should not be under constant scrutiny by John or anyone else.

judge for yourself....


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Jeff ........, 7D, 70-300L, 100-400LII
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DigitalTuned
All these thoughts give me nightmares
Avatar
4,516 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 1563
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Lynn Massachusetts
     
Nov 25, 2018 00:01 |  #951

IMAGE: http://i68.tinypic.com/2zpm3nm.jpg

Red Rock Park
Lynn MA
11/24/18

Shot with Canon R and the Osawa MC 35-70mm Macro vintage lens

Isaac
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
Abraham Lincoln
facebook - (external link) - 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aladyforty
Goldmember
Avatar
4,034 posts
Gallery: 188 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5763
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Albany: Western Australia
Post edited 2 months ago by aladyforty.
     
Nov 25, 2018 01:07 |  #952

sharpness seems to be the be all end all these days, I also think the lens plays a HUGE part. I actually find it odd that my 70-200F4L is sharper on my 7DII than on my 5DIII. micro adjustment has made little difference. my full frame produces the sharper image generally and I also find the colours and just the general files and need for less editing way better. That said my 7DII produces a seriously sharp image in the right conditions. I would assume that the R being latest tech and a full frame camera will definitely be sharper than older tech. I also think when I moved to full frame from a crop i was amazed at the quality and sharpness. Any person moving from crop to full frame will notice this. Personally think that being sharp is not the only thing to look at in a camera, it will depend on what you are looking to photograph etc. The R certainly looks very sharp to me.


5D3 7D2 Fuji X100 Fuji X10 canon glass and the odd shot with other brands
https://500px.com/alad​yforty (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pondrader
"now I'm no rocket scientist but I do get a shot or two"
Avatar
15,714 posts
Gallery: 2421 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 53784
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Minden, Ontario, Canada
Post edited 2 months ago by Pondrader.
     
Nov 25, 2018 04:19 |  #953

Perceived sharpness .......... Pfftt.... By my definition... Critical focus in hand with a complete lack of motion blur...

Every camera I have shot and posted with here on POTN has had an AA filter... Judge for yourselves... I'm hiding nothing here...

I don't think anyone here needs a comparison testing or judgement made with any other camera..

Before long there will be 100's of thousands of images to view and judge. I think we'll do just fine.

I'll do my part.. how ever small and meaningless it may be.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Jeff ........, 7D, 70-300L, 100-400LII
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aladyforty
Goldmember
Avatar
4,034 posts
Gallery: 188 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5763
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Albany: Western Australia
Post edited 2 months ago by aladyforty.
     
Nov 25, 2018 05:30 |  #954

Pondrader wrote in post #18757974 (external link)
Perceived sharpness .......... Pfftt.... By my definition... Critical focus in hand with a complete lack of motion blur...

Every camera I have shot and posted with here on POTN has had an AA filter... Judge for yourselves... I'm hiding nothing here...

I don't think anyone here needs a comparison testing or judgement made with any other camera..

Before long there will be 100's of thousands of images to view and judge. I think we'll do just fine.

I'll do my part.. how ever small and meaningless it may be.
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Pondrader in
./showthread.php?p=187​57974&i=i197357262
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Pondrader in
./showthread.php?p=187​57974&i=i106675310
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras


looks pretty sharp to me, you should have kept it :-)

edit, I miss your fox photos ;-)a


5D3 7D2 Fuji X100 Fuji X10 canon glass and the odd shot with other brands
https://500px.com/alad​yforty (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Avatar
17,864 posts
Gallery: 277 photos
Best ofs: 10
Likes: 6041
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
     
Nov 25, 2018 05:55 |  #955

Pondrader wrote in post #18757974 (external link)
Perceived sharpness .......... Pfftt.... By my definition... Critical focus in hand with a complete lack of motion blur...

Every camera I have shot and posted with here on POTN has had an AA filter... Judge for yourselves... I'm hiding nothing here...

I don't think anyone here needs a comparison testing or judgement made with any other camera..

Before long there will be 100's of thousands of images to view and judge. I think we'll do just fine.

I'll do my part.. how ever small and meaningless it may be.
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Pondrader in
./showthread.php?p=187​57974&i=i197357262
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Pondrader in
./showthread.php?p=187​57974&i=i106675310
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

Well, I think both crops you posted on this page speak for themselves, Jeff. Sharp and rich in detail. They look great!


Levina
Please quote when responding to a post!!!
There is no such thing as ect. It's etc. (with period) from latin et cetera.
Colours are not complimentary but complementary.
My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lijoec
Senior Member
Avatar
949 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 3401
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Long Island
     
Nov 25, 2018 06:19 |  #956

aladyforty wrote in post #18757930 (external link)
sharpness seems to be the be all end all these days, I also think the lens plays a HUGE part. I actually find it odd that my 70-200F4L is sharper on my 7DII than on my 5DIII. micro adjustment has made little difference. my full frame produces the sharper image generally and I also find the colours and just the general files and need for less editing way better. That said my 7DII produces a seriously sharp image in the right conditions. I would assume that the R being latest tech and a full frame camera will definitely be sharper than older tech. I also think when I moved to full frame from a crop i was amazed at the quality and sharpness. Any person moving from crop to full frame will notice this. Personally think that being sharp is not the only thing to look at in a camera, it will depend on what you are looking to photograph etc. The R certainly looks very sharp to me.

I agree 100%


Cheers,
Joe
"Image Editing OK"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lijoec
Senior Member
Avatar
949 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 3401
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Long Island
     
Nov 25, 2018 06:24 |  #957

Pondrader wrote in post #18757974 (external link)
Perceived sharpness .......... Pfftt.... By my definition... Critical focus in hand with a complete lack of motion blur...

Every camera I have shot and posted with here on POTN has had an AA filter... Judge for yourselves... I'm hiding nothing here...

I don't think anyone here needs a comparison testing or judgement made with any other camera..

Before long there will be 100's of thousands of images to view and judge. I think we'll do just fine.

I'll do my part.. how ever small and meaningless it may be.
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Pondrader in
./showthread.php?p=187​57974&i=i197357262
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Pondrader in
./showthread.php?p=187​57974&i=i106675310
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

your one of the few that can make a squirrel photo look good(comp wise). also thanks for sharing your experiences.


Cheers,
Joe
"Image Editing OK"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pondrader
"now I'm no rocket scientist but I do get a shot or two"
Avatar
15,714 posts
Gallery: 2421 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 53784
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Minden, Ontario, Canada
     
Nov 25, 2018 06:25 |  #958

Yes I agree.. I think the R is going to blow the socks off of a few people lol ... Now where did I put my pet Fox ?? lol


Jeff ........, 7D, 70-300L, 100-400LII
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pondrader
"now I'm no rocket scientist but I do get a shot or two"
Avatar
15,714 posts
Gallery: 2421 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 53784
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Minden, Ontario, Canada
     
Nov 25, 2018 06:31 |  #959

lijoec wrote in post #18758018 (external link)
your one of the few that can make a squirrel photo look good(comp wise). also thanks for sharing your experiences.

Thanks Joe... Sharing in a open forum without the nay- sayer's is awesome.

Hopefully the EOS R can get past all the controversy soon and we can get down to sharing images without rebuttal.


Jeff ........, 7D, 70-300L, 100-400LII
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,565 posts
Likes: 316
Joined Jan 2010
     
Nov 25, 2018 06:43 |  #960

Pondrader wrote in post #18757840 (external link)
Umm wow lol... I think photographers in general can see an image and decide for themselves if they think its sharp and in focus...

I disagree. We are creatures of illusion, and without an anchored context, our imaginations can ascribe qualities that are not there to the degree that we imagine.

Just like looking at a painting... you either enjoy the detail or you love the blur...

A painting, viewed in person, has no technical artifacts or illusions about what it contains. Your eyes do not create aliasing, and paintings do not have any resampling. You are looking at the original analog creation.

I'm not sure anyone cares but here is the head cut from the raw file....

Still downsampled, unless one clicks on the spectacles and then "zoom to 100%". People who don't take these steps still won't see what you originally captured, but rather, a sharper-looking (but less detailed) version.

I guess anything I post or any one speaking to my post will be in question...

what has POTN come to....

I think you all have your own opinion's and should not be under constant scrutiny by John or anyone else.

Opinions and tastes are two different things; tastes can't be wrong, but opinions can make statements about empirical reality, and they can be clearly wrong. Anyone who thinks that the original capture in a 30MP image is critically sharp because a 0.5MP or 1.44MP version of the image on a web page is sharp is completely wrong. If they like the way it looks, that is taste. If they think the original must also be critically sharp, they are wrong, as a very pixel-soft 30MP image, even a very pixel-soft 8MP image, can be made into a very pixel-sharp 0.5MP web image. You can prove this yourself: take a razor-sharp 0.5MP image and resample it to 30MP, and then view at 100%. It is extremely soft. Then, to prove you haven't lost much information, resample back to 0.5MP, and, voila! Very sharp again.

judge for yourself....
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Pondrader in
./showthread.php?p=187​57840&i=i158039972
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Pondrader in
./showthread.php?p=187​57840&i=i52739067
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

If we bother to click through to the 100% view (and you could have cropped smaller and put 100% on the thread page, which is what I would have done, to make sure everyone sees the real original capture detail), we can see
that the capture is nowhere near as sharp as the 0.5MP and 1.44MP versions seen previously.

The same people that might drop their jaws over the 0.5MP or 1.44MP version might review a series of images at 100% pixel view on the back of their camera, looking for the sharpest of the same composition, and delete an image that would have wowed them at 0.5MP on this forum, if presented by someone else, aliased. I delete images about that sharp at the original pixel level, all the time, knowing full well that they could be sharp at a smaller size, but unless the image is unique, why keep it if I have a similar one that has more detail?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

194,203 views & 5,933 likes for this thread
-= Canon EOS R owners unite! Post photos and discuss.
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is digiculture
667 guests, 371 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.