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 05 Sep 2018 (Wednesday) 02:31
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "How's the new EOS-R stack up for you?"
It's Amazing!
69
26.5%
It's kind of a let down
88
33.8%
It's trash
22
8.5%
It's good for the price
61
23.5%
It helped me pick a new body
20
7.7%

189 voters, 260 votes given (3 choices choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

EOS-R - It's out. Thoughts?

 
this thread is locked
Capn ­ Jack
Goldmember
Avatar
2,231 posts
Gallery: 981 photos
Likes: 5166
Joined Mar 2010
Location: NE USA
Post edited 2 months ago by Capn Jack. (2 edits in all)
     
Dec 09, 2018 09:20 |  #2416

cdifoto wrote in post #18767295 (external link)
Sigma 150-600 is 6.3 on the long end. And probably pretty early on. (I'm not looking it up). That's not really a miracle. 6.3 is slow as molasses.

I had a Bigma. Trust me it ain't that useful.

There is no way in hell Canon can make an F/4 smaller than Sigma's 150-600mm. The camera body isn't gonna make a difference. It still needs to resolve to a full frame sensor.

That R mount 28-70 isn't small. It's not performing any miracles size-wise. And it's not 24mm. It loses 4mm on the wide to gain twice the weight for one stop over the ef mount.

Simply put, you're deluded and back on the size train again.

My Bigma practically stays on the camera, it works really well. I'm surprised how well it works in low light- https://photography-on-the.net …637&mg=238081&i​=i70683450
https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18590443

It's been very useful to me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,565 posts
Likes: 316
Joined Jan 2010
     
Dec 09, 2018 09:25 |  #2417

cdifoto wrote in post #18767295 (external link)
Sigma 150-600 is 6.3 on the long end. And probably pretty early on. (I'm not looking it up). That's not really a miracle. 6.3 is slow as molasses.

For what purpose? Compared to what? "f/6.3" has no absolute practical meaning, except perhaps, to PDAF, which sees f-ratios as an absolute factor. For capture, f/6.3 only tells you about exposure from a grey wall as a subject, with a given shutter speed. 600/6.3 gets 2/3 stop more light from a subject, from the same distance and with the same shutter speed, as a 300/4, no matter whether you put a TC on the 300/4 or not. Except for the PDAF issue, it's about proximity and entrance pupil size. Have someone point a 24/1.4 at you and someone next to them, a 600/6.3. How do the light-catching entrance pupils compare? The 6.3 gets 31x as much light, almost 5 stops more, from your face, per millisecond. You normally don't notice how much noisier the 24/1.4 would be, because you don't magnify the face that much, because it falls apart for other reasons like pixelation.

It should be a given that the more magnification you have, the higher the expected typical f-numbers will be. it is the entrance pupil that determines the ratio. 600/6.3 only captures 1/3 stop less light than 400/4 with a 1.4x TC.

I had a Bigma. Trust me it ain't that useful.

There is no way in hell Canon can make an F/4 smaller than Sigma's 150-600mm. The camera body isn't gonna make a difference. It still needs to resolve to a full frame sensor.

What does it mean to "resolve a sensor"? That's a very strange way of looking at things; sensors are what resolve the analog projections of the lenses. Anyway, the diameter of the front optical element of the lens must be at least the maximum focal length divided its minimum f-number at that focal length, plus the sleeve to hold the front element.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Dec 2005
Post edited 2 months ago by cdifoto.
     
Dec 09, 2018 09:37 |  #2418
bannedBack in 21 days

John Sheehy wrote in post #18767340 (external link)
For what purpose? Compared to what? "f/6.3" has no absolute practical meaning, except perhaps, to PDAF, which sees f-ratios as an absolute factor. For capture, f/6.3 only tells you about exposure from a grey wall as a subject, with a given shutter speed. 600/6.3 gets 2/3 stop more light from a subject, from the same distance and with the same shutter speed, as a 300/4, no matter whether you put a TC on the 300/4 or not. Except for the PDAF issue, it's about proximity and entrance pupil size. Have someone point a 24/1.4 at you and someone next to them, a 600/6.3. How do the light-catching entrance pupils compare? The 6.3 gets 31x as much light, almost 5 stops more, from your face, per millisecond. You normally don't notice how much noisier the 24/1.4 would be, because you don't magnify the face that much, because it falls apart for other reasons like pixelation.

It should be a given that the more magnification you have, the higher the expected typical f-numbers will be. it is the entrance pupil that determines the ratio. 600/6.3 only captures 1/3 stop less light than 400/4 with a 1.4x TC.

What does it mean to "resolve a sensor"? That's a very strange way of looking at things; sensors are what resolve the analog projections of the lenses. Anyway, the diameter of the front optical element of the lens must be at least the maximum focal length divided its minimum f-number at that focal length, plus the sleeve to hold the front element.

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

If you don't, you're not a photographer.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mdvaden
Goldmember
Avatar
2,806 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 970
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Post edited 2 months ago by mdvaden. (2 edits in all)
     
Dec 09, 2018 12:43 |  #2419

JeffreyG wrote in post #18767324 (external link)
And it's too big, and too heavy. There's no magic here. The 28-70/2 isn't a miraculous lens born of the magic of the RF mount. It's about what you get when you decide to lop off the bottom 4mm from a 24-70 and go ahead and make a 1.4kg standard zoom.

If a subtantial population of Canon professional photographers gladly purchase 70-200mm 2.8 lenses, how can the the 28-70mm be too heavy when shown on Canon's specs as 30g lighter? I've seen both men and women shoot with the 70-200mm for years.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18767308 (external link)
I have the Sigma 100-400/5-6.3, and that one actually is pretty sharp at 400/6.3, and draws a lot less unwanted attention from bored tourists than my 400/4 DO II with its oil-drum lens hood.

The oil drum description is one of the better figures of speech I've read to describe the bigger lens hoods.

cdifoto wrote in post #18767295 (external link)
That R mount 28-70 isn't small. It's not performing any miracles size-wise. And it's not 24mm. It loses 4mm on the wide to gain twice the weight for one stop over the ef mount.

That's one point of view. The other point of view is two gains and no loss for the 28-70mm. The design gains for f-stop and light. That's one gain. The other may be a gain for lenses like the 16-35mm which overlaps. A lot of photographers have both, and this can mean the wider zoom gains 4mm's more (often) use. Canon's design simply nudges a decision point for when one lens is swapped for another. And photographers with a "holy trinity" have to swap at one point or another.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,462 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 559
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
Post edited 2 months ago by JeffreyG.
     
Dec 09, 2018 13:00 |  #2420

mdvaden wrote in post #18767471 (external link)
If a subtantial population of Canon professional photographers gladly purchase 70-200mm 2.8 lenses, how can the the 28-70mm be too heavy when shown on Canon's specs as 30g lighter? I've seen both men and women shoot with the 70-200mm for years.

I guess I'm not grasping the point you are making. Are you saying that so long as a given lens is lighter than the heaviest lens anyone uses, it's fine? There are people who use the EF 400/2.8 as well. That doesn't mean I want all of my lenses to be that weight. I have a 70-200/2.8 IS II, and I do not take it along in a lot of situations because it's really big and heavy.

Again, obviously, sometime you have to put up with a big and heavy lens to get the shot. And often if what you are doing is working (for pay or otherwise) as a photographer then the weight might not be a big deal. So I could imagine the 28-70/2 being chosen by a wedding photographer for example. But people who are taking pictures while doing other things (hiking, vacationing, at a school play etc) are probably going to see the lens as too big and too heavy for a standard zoom.

Umphotography's point seemed to be that an f/2 zoom was impossible before the RF mount. I'm thinking it's more that Canon just decided to go ahead with a standard zoom that was a lot bigger and heavier than previous lenses to make a bit of a splash for the new RF mount.

The short register distance of MILC cameras means a few things for lens design:
1) Wide angle lenses can be made very small compared to SLR designs, if you are willing to make standard lens designs. This is not the direction Canon is going.
2) Wide angle lenses can be made very sharp across the entire image with a retrofocus design, even for fast lenses. This is especially true with a wide mouth like the RF has. This is the direction Canon seems to be going.

The RF mount is not going to make a 28-70/2 zoom any smaller or lighter (It might make the wide end perform a bit better). It really is not going to make telephoto lenses any sharper, lighter, or smaller.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mdvaden
Goldmember
Avatar
2,806 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 970
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Post edited 2 months ago by mdvaden. (3 edits in all)
     
Dec 09, 2018 13:09 |  #2421

JeffreyG wrote in post #18767484 (external link)
I guess I'm not grasping the point you are making. Are you saying

If a lot of people own a big lens (could have named several), how could the 28-70mm be too heavy. Especially when there are also lighter lenses to choose from? So even phrased this way, I think my earlier reply seems to say similar. And it's not because I use 10 pound chainsaws in my work. But because so many men and women already use lenses in the weight range of the RF 28-70mm. Its also a dwarf compared to the bigger Canon, Nikon and Fuji largest lenses.

What I'm curious to see though, is the rumored RF 24-70 and whether there will be just an f/4 or also an f/2.8 ... or other.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Dec 2005
Post edited 2 months ago by cdifoto. (2 edits in all)
     
Dec 09, 2018 13:46 |  #2422
bannedBack in 21 days

mdvaden wrote in post #18767492 (external link)
If a lot of people own a big lens (could have named several), how could the 28-70mm be too heavy. Especially when there are also lighter lenses to choose from? So even phrased this way, I think my earlier reply seems to say similar. And it's not because I use 10 pound chainsaws in my work. But because so many men and women already use lenses in the weight range of the RF 28-70mm. Its also a dwarf compared to the bigger Canon, Nikon and Fuji largest lenses.

What I'm curious to see though, is the rumored RF 24-70 and whether there will be just an f/4 or also an f/2.8 ... or other.

You're still not making sense. Sounds like you're saying an 8lb 50mm is acceptable just because a 500mm f/4 lens weighs 8lbs.

Anyone who finds a 100lb backpack acceptable is a masochist.

Everything's too heavy. Add it all up and it's stupid. If we're being honest. We carry it because we're committed to the craft. Not because we like it.

I don't want a 3.0lb standard zoom when there's a 1.75lb standard zoom and quite honestly I wish it was 0.5lb.

This is why the casual users are using their phone. It's in their pocket. And most of the time it'll take fantastic images.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mdvaden
Goldmember
Avatar
2,806 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 970
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Post edited 2 months ago by mdvaden. (7 edits in all)
     
Dec 09, 2018 16:41 |  #2423

cdifoto wrote in post #18767528 (external link)
You're still not making sense. Sounds like you're saying an 8lb 50mm is acceptable just because a 500mm f/4 lens weighs 8lbs.

If I rephrase to say that an RF 24-70mm is not "too" heavy using an example of many men and women shooting with 70-200mm lenses for years, it's not a matter of not making sense, but certain minds repelling that point of view.

Using my saw example, most chainsaws are not exceptional heavy. But the biggest saws run circles around smaller saws, and some arborists choose to buy the biggest ones. Meanwhile, the smaller saws remain for sale to everybody. For one tree worker to say the biggest saws are "too heavy" when the plethora of smaller exist, would make that sort of tree worker seem out of touch with reality. Few advanced tree services would give a darn about what that guy doesn't want. They're more impressed by the increased availability and options.

And Stihl, Husquevarna and Sachs Dolmar would be incompetent to avoid large size saw research and development solely on account of the fraction who don't like those and prefer the smaller lighter saws. Odds are anyone in sales or development trying to erase the larger more powerful models would be fired, otherwise sales would decline.

Pro workers with the strength and need, would simply recognize the larger tools as advanced extra options to add to their equipment inventory. And there would never be a shortage finding people willing and able to use the larger tools. And there also isn't a shortage of the smaller tools and people to use those either.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,269 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4851
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited 2 months ago by TeamSpeed. (3 edits in all)
     
Dec 09, 2018 16:54 as a reply to  @ mdvaden's post |  #2424

Just because we had to carry the heavy lenses for years neither means we have to nor want to. The way it was isn't how it has to be. We used to put meat on the table by throwing sticks at animals too, but development moved on, and now I can just go to the supermarket and get some prime cuts.

The point is that with mirrorless, the expectation has been set that equipment is generally smaller and lighter, and possibly less expensive too potentially. Canon went the other way with size, weight and price. This has nothing to do with what other gear folks might have, it is all about expectation, and actually reality with the other manufacturers' gear already out that does the same thing or better as the EOS R.

Smaller sizes are indeed a huge selling point. The SL2 sells well not because of feature, because quite frankly it doesn't have too many, it is its size that sells. If the SL2 was the size of a 50D, nobody would buy it.

The M series is a hot seller again due to size, and being able to shoot with the 80D sensor in such a package, along with lenses that are about 1/2 the size of the EF/EFS counterparts.

The EOS R is selling simply due to lenses. I think if the EOS R had an EF mount only and no new lenses came out at the announcement, it would not be as desirable a purchase. The RF lenses are selling the camera. If the EOS R was a smaller body that could take EF, EFS, or EFM lenses and no new RF line, it would be as popular as it is now with the RF line announced.

Argue size doesn't matter all you want, but it does, no matter if you are talking about photography or otherwise. ;)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nardes
Goldmember
1,489 posts
Gallery: 266 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 6604
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Australia
     
Dec 09, 2018 17:27 |  #2425

RodS57 wrote in post #18767289 (external link)
Interesting. When I do carry two cameras (about 30% of the time), I do it the other way around: Wildlife rig out ready to go and the body with the short lens in the bag. I figure I have lots of time to capture an object that isn't moving.

Nice shot by the way.

Rod

Hi Rod

Normally, that would be the way to go, but I can't find a Think Tank Holster tailored to suit my macro rig, so I have to carry it as my main instrument with the EOS R / 100-400mm Mk II holstered.:-)

Cheers

Dennis


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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RodS57
Senior Member
785 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 659
Joined Jun 2014
     
Dec 09, 2018 18:00 |  #2426

nardes wrote in post #18767649 (external link)
Hi Rod

Normally, that would be the way to go, but I can't find a Think Tank Holster tailored to suit my macro rig, so I have to carry it as my main instrument with the EOS R / 100-400mm Mk II holstered.:-)

Cheers

Dennis
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by nardes in
./showthread.php?p=187​67649&i=i117721587
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

Looking at that picture and now I really understand your problem :-)

Rod


>>> Pictures? What pictures? <<<<

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DigitalTuned
All these thoughts give me nightmares
Avatar
4,517 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 1563
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Lynn Massachusetts
     
Dec 09, 2018 22:54 |  #2427

it works ;-)a

IMAGE: http://i65.tinypic.com/2uygaae.jpg

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
mdvaden
Goldmember
Avatar
2,806 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 970
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Post edited 2 months ago by mdvaden.
     
Dec 10, 2018 01:54 |  #2428

nardes wrote in post #18767649 (external link)
Hi Rod

Normally, that would be the way to go, but I can't find a Think Tank Holster tailored to suit my macro rig, so I have to carry it as my main instrument with the EOS R / 100-400mm Mk II holstered.:-)

Cheers

Dennis
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by nardes in
./showthread.php?p=187​67649&i=i117721587
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras


That reminds me of a torture device !!

Are all those components available online like Amazon, or is part homemade? It looks manufactured like factory stuff.

I was going to ask if that lens was the RF 24-105mm or another zoom, but the body looks like a 5D mk iv or something of the sort.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,472 posts
Gallery: 100 photos
Likes: 3166
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Dec 10, 2018 05:16 |  #2429

mdvaden wrote in post #18767838 (external link)
That reminds me of a torture device !!

Are all those components available online like Amazon, or is part homemade? It looks manufactured like factory stuff.

I was going to ask if that lens was the RF 24-105mm or another zoom, but the body looks like a 5D mk iv or something of the sort.


120mm lens plate
Really Right Stuff B87-QR
Home made right angle bracket attached to the RRS bracket
Lumiquest Softbox
Canon 100mm L Macro
Yongnuo YN-E3-RT flash trigger
How'd I go Dennis?


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,400 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 460
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Dec 10, 2018 06:11 |  #2430

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18767625 (external link)
Just because we had to carry the heavy lenses for years neither means we have to nor want to. The way it was isn't how it has to be. We used to put meat on the table by throwing sticks at animals too, but development moved on, and now I can just go to the supermarket and get some prime cuts.

Also, you tend to get thrown out of the supermarket for throwing sticks in the frozen foods isle...


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

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

112,671 views & 1,660 likes for this thread
EOS-R - It's out. Thoughts?
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 nazarshine
861 guests, 376 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.