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.

 
rebop
Senior Member
519 posts
Likes: 34
Joined May 2005
     
Jul 18, 2019 15:50 |  #5011

john crossley wrote in post #18895987 (external link)
The Image Stabilisation on the RF24-105 is very very quiet.

In Menu AF5 “Lens Drive When AF Impossible” set to ON.

Thanks John. Will try it. I thought it only worked for long tele lenses, not for the RF24-105.


UPDATE: Thank you! That was the issue.


I'm Bob and I'm an L-coholic
1DX - EOS R - 6D - G5 X
16-35
L - RF24-105 L - 24-105 L - 24-70 II L - 50 1.2 L
70-200 2.8 L - 70-300 L - 100 2.8 L Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
rebop
Senior Member
519 posts
Likes: 34
Joined May 2005
     
Jul 18, 2019 15:54 as a reply to  @ rebop's post |  #5012

Now to solve the RF vs EF 24-105 differences. Which are going in the wrong direction :) (EF much sharper)


I'm Bob and I'm an L-coholic
1DX - EOS R - 6D - G5 X
16-35
L - RF24-105 L - 24-105 L - 24-70 II L - 50 1.2 L
70-200 2.8 L - 70-300 L - 100 2.8 L Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WilsonFlyer
Senior Member
666 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 295
Joined Mar 2011
Post edited 1 month ago by WilsonFlyer.
     
Jul 18, 2019 15:58 |  #5013

rebop wrote in post #18896040 (external link)
Now to solve the RF vs EF 24-105 differences. Which are going in the wrong direction :) (EF much sharper)

Going to be interesting to see where this goes. I've been putting off buying an RF in lieu of my (already paid for and good enough for me) EF 24-105. Reinforcement is good, but I admit the why is bothering me on this one.

I've been on the edge wondering, "If my old EF looks THIS good, just imagine what it would look like with the RF."




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lijoec
Goldmember
Avatar
1,157 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 4675
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Long Island
     
Jul 18, 2019 16:26 |  #5014

rebop wrote in post #18896040 (external link)
Now to solve the RF vs EF 24-105 differences. Which are going in the wrong direction :) (EF much sharper)

Can you post examples? Controlled if possoble? The only reason I'm shocked because the 100-400II is the sharpest zoom I own and the RF 24-105 is right there with it.


Cheers,
Joe
"Image Editing OK"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rebop
Senior Member
519 posts
Likes: 34
Joined May 2005
     
Jul 18, 2019 16:58 |  #5015

I will Joe. Right now getting mixed results. Trying to see if it is most noticeable at wide open or ISO 100 or....

Are you able to hear the RF IS working? I cannot with RF and obvious on EF. That alone could be the problem. Then again, if RF is really quiet, might not be.


I'm Bob and I'm an L-coholic
1DX - EOS R - 6D - G5 X
16-35
L - RF24-105 L - 24-105 L - 24-70 II L - 50 1.2 L
70-200 2.8 L - 70-300 L - 100 2.8 L Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rebop
Senior Member
519 posts
Likes: 34
Joined May 2005
     
Jul 18, 2019 17:01 |  #5016

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #18896044 (external link)
Going to be interesting to see where this goes. I've been putting off buying an RF in lieu of my (already paid for and good enough for me) EF 24-105. Reinforcement is good, but I admit the why is bothering me on this one.

I've been on the edge wondering, "If my old EF looks THIS good, just imagine what it would look like with the RF."

I can tell you one thing Wilson (at least for me) the corners are darker in the RF than the EF. Going to be testing more on sharpness. Could be my copy. Could be me :)

For now, every other issue has been solved. This is the only remaining.


I'm Bob and I'm an L-coholic
1DX - EOS R - 6D - G5 X
16-35
L - RF24-105 L - 24-105 L - 24-70 II L - 50 1.2 L
70-200 2.8 L - 70-300 L - 100 2.8 L Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lijoec
Goldmember
Avatar
1,157 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 4675
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Long Island
     
Jul 18, 2019 17:19 |  #5017

rebop wrote in post #18896074 (external link)
I will Joe. Right now getting mixed results. Trying to see if it is most noticeable at wide open or ISO 100 or....

Are you able to hear the RF IS working? I cannot with RF and obvious on EF. That alone could be the problem. Then again, if RF is really quiet, might not be.

I'm a sheetmetal worker, so my hearing is shot.:lol: so to me they are all quiet. The only one I can hear is the sigma macro 105.;-)a


Cheers,
Joe
"Image Editing OK"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheGForce
Mostly Lurking
10 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2019
Location: UK
     
Jul 18, 2019 18:39 |  #5018

rebop wrote in post #18895608 (external link)
So, today was testing day.

I have Lightroom 6 so no CR3.
Faststone Viewer with a questionable CR3 display.
DPP with CR3
Windows codecs for DNG, etc.

The JPG and DNG look very close in Windows Photo Viewer and very good. Not identical, but very comfortably close and good.
The CR3 in Faststone looks oversaturated, but crisp.
The CR3 in DPP looks great, as does the JPG. But I cannot find a workflow in DPP that comes close to LR. But the crudely edited images look OK.

Now, I convert the CR3 to DNG win Adobe DNG Converter. Import both the DNG and JPG to Lightroom 6.

The JPG looks good! The DNG is soft and very noisy. Nothing I try to remove noise, sharpen, contrast, clarity gets it to look anywhere close to the JPG in LR. Lots of color fringing as well.

I m at a loss what to do as I won't rent Adobe, ON1 does not have CCr3 decoding yet and DPP just does not seem to be a tool I can relate to.

I am amazed how bad the DNG's are in LR6.

I recall others here use and like those results. Anyone using Adobe Converter and LR 6? Working for you? I have to believe that its the DNG converter doing a poor job, but open to ideas.

(And converting to TIF in DPP and importing those to LR creates large files and is a very slow workflow).

Hey Rebop, send me your CR3, JPG and DNG and I'll take a look to see what I make of it, will see if anything wrong with the DNG, and will try to get it to match the JPG - or establish if there's a problem.

I'm using DNG's fine with the EOS R and Lightroom 6. Certainly no imagine quality problems, and am not missing the use of the Canon color schemes/profiles built into LR6.

Few other thoughts:
- Have you installed Adobe Camera Raw 11.0?
- When installing DPP, did it give you an option to install a Windows plug-in CODEC for .cr3 files? If so this would give you the ability to view CR3 files using Windows Picture viewer - so you could check both the DNG and CR3 side by side using the same viewer. Faststone, DPP and LR6 will all vary slightly in their interpretation of the CR3 files
- Do you always get "soft and noisy" raw files with both your RF and EF lenses, even at low ISO's? Have you done a comparison of similar picture at ISO 100 on different lenses, and are the results consistent?
- You mentioned you get darkening in your corners on your 24-105 - that's really strange, as I get absolutely none at all. Given you mentioned your EF seems sharper, I'm wondering if there's a fault somewhere
- In the DNG, the raw information is unchanged from the CR3 - it's "raw", it's the bitmap of pixels from the sensor - this is not 'converted' or processed by the converter in anyway.

Happy to send you a CR3, DNG, JPG set of an image set I have if you want to take a look.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheGForce
Mostly Lurking
10 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2019
Location: UK
     
Jul 18, 2019 18:51 |  #5019

rebop wrote in post #18895969 (external link)
DNG conversion has issues and flaws noise, softness, lack of lens correction, etc).

Think on RF lenses "Lens Correction" is automatically applied to the image, which negates the need to click the box in Lightroom.
Whilst I can't click the box to check differences in LR6, I have not noticed any issues with the image. I don't have 'distortion' correction enabled in the camera (I'm thinking I'm going to enable it) but generally haven't noticed any significant distortion issues, or felt the need to "correct". Maybe some barrel type distortion on a few close up shots at 24mm.

Check page 114 of the PDF manual.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheGForce
Mostly Lurking
10 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2019
Location: UK
     
Jul 18, 2019 19:01 |  #5020

john crossley wrote in post #18895981 (external link)
I first subscribed to the Adobe Creative Cloud photography plan in August 2015 and it cost me £83.39 (£6.95/pm). I have just renewed my subscription via Amazon at a cost of £69.99 (£5.83). So I am paying less now then I did four years ago when I first subscribed. Also in the four years that I have subscribed to the CC photography plan I have never paid full price for it.

That's a pretty good price actually. Did you get that on the Prime deals earlier this week?
Amazon and Adobe showing as £119 at the moment. Problem is, if I went Adobe I'd want more than 1 app, and that's £599 per year currently - crazy money. Over 3 yrs, that's £200 more that the price the RP body!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Trout ­ Bum
Senior Member
502 posts
Gallery: 110 photos
Likes: 528
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Idaho, USA
     
Jul 18, 2019 20:13 |  #5021

lijoec wrote in post #18896067 (external link)
Can you post examples? Controlled if possoble?

If not controlled, folks should not be posting anything about their results of this lens vs that lens, etc.
If I'm going to compare this lens vs that, they will be on a tripod with IS off if necessary.
Compare the IS handheld shots of this lens vs that? That should be controlled as much as possible as well.


Mark
My photography website (external link)
My fine art website (external link)
My youtube channel (external link)
Instagram: @MarkMilleArt

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rebop
Senior Member
519 posts
Likes: 34
Joined May 2005
     
Jul 18, 2019 21:24 |  #5022

OK, burned myself out today :) Mixed results on sharpness. Sometimes I get the RF sharper! So I think just too tired to think it all through and will make it tomorrow's project. One other note on the two 24-105's - the RF focuses so much faster!

So, this part to be continued and my come down to shutter speeds where I can hand hold one and not the other at the same speeds. More testing to come....

Now, GForce: Thanks for the offers. Much appreciated. I will shoot something to send. One thing to note, its not just the conversion to DNG, but also what LR 6 does with it. It looks better unedited in Windows than LR 6. Neither as good as CR3 and JPG in DPP, not JPG in LR 6. But then, as I tested today everything improved a bit. SO will try for a set or two tomorrow to shows the issues.


I'm Bob and I'm an L-coholic
1DX - EOS R - 6D - G5 X
16-35
L - RF24-105 L - 24-105 L - 24-70 II L - 50 1.2 L
70-200 2.8 L - 70-300 L - 100 2.8 L Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rebop
Senior Member
519 posts
Likes: 34
Joined May 2005
     
Jul 18, 2019 21:25 |  #5023

Page is freezing up for me. Back later....


I'm Bob and I'm an L-coholic
1DX - EOS R - 6D - G5 X
16-35
L - RF24-105 L - 24-105 L - 24-70 II L - 50 1.2 L
70-200 2.8 L - 70-300 L - 100 2.8 L Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rebop
Senior Member
519 posts
Likes: 34
Joined May 2005
     
Jul 19, 2019 17:20 |  #5024

TheGForce wrote in post #18896103 (external link)
Hey Rebop, send me your CR3, JPG and DNG and I'll take a look to see what I make of it, will see if anything wrong with the DNG, and will try to get it to match the JPG - or establish if there's a problem.

I'm using DNG's fine with the EOS R and Lightroom 6. Certainly no imagine quality problems, and am not missing the use of the Canon color schemes/profiles built into LR6.

Few other thoughts:
- Have you installed Adobe Camera Raw 11.0?
- When installing DPP, did it give you an option to install a Windows plug-in CODEC for .cr3 files? If so this would give you the ability to view CR3 files using Windows Picture viewer - so you could check both the DNG and CR3 side by side using the same viewer. Faststone, DPP and LR6 will all vary slightly in their interpretation of the CR3 files
- Do you always get "soft and noisy" raw files with both your RF and EF lenses, even at low ISO's? Have you done a comparison of similar picture at ISO 100 on different lenses, and are the results consistent?
- You mentioned you get darkening in your corners on your 24-105 - that's really strange, as I get absolutely none at all. Given you mentioned your EF seems sharper, I'm wondering if there's a fault somewhere
- In the DNG, the raw information is unchanged from the CR3 - it's "raw", it's the bitmap of pixels from the sensor - this is not 'converted' or processed by the converter in anyway.

Happy to send you a CR3, DNG, JPG set of an image set I have if you want to take a look.

Camera Raw 10.1 is the last useable by LR 6 and Photoshop CS6.

Have never seen a place to have DPP install a windows codec. Please give me more details on that! I'd love it. I have updated DPP, not a fresh install if that is the difference.

EF has always been sharp as a tack, especially at ISO 100. RF too new to tell. Evaluating. The CR2 from 1D X or 6D and 24-105 EF as stellar. No issues. And none with my other 6 lenses.

Darkening is real. I have a really poor example in the zip folder I will mention. Peripheral Illumination on may be the reason you do not see it. Try shooting something with light corners with it on and off.

And I have a decent example of RF vs EF sharpness in the zip.

And do check the histogram of DNG vs JPG in Lightroom. Big difference.

The file I have contains:

Images 369 / 376 Differences between EF and RF lenses - I prefer the EF version. Small differences. Everything else stayed the same.
371 / 374 Same. Look at the sharpness of EF vs RF
383 JPG vs DNG. See noise when zoomed and look at the changes in histogram!
378 / 379 Peripheral Illumination Off and ON. Poor test, but....

I have NOT compared CR3's with JPGS and DNG's on these today. Not enough time

So, I have gone through every setting on the camera again. I think that helped. Nothing as dramatic as I was seeing, but these were a quick test and I may get images with DNG noisier and software again as I play with shooting settings. I might be too critical on these, but I always like to know my gear and limitations. Seems shots from a few days ago exhibited more issues, but were not as controlled.So interested in opinions. Send me a PM and I will send a link for a 145MB zip file with above.

~Bob


I'm Bob and I'm an L-coholic
1DX - EOS R - 6D - G5 X
16-35
L - RF24-105 L - 24-105 L - 24-70 II L - 50 1.2 L
70-200 2.8 L - 70-300 L - 100 2.8 L Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rebop
Senior Member
519 posts
Likes: 34
Joined May 2005
     
Jul 19, 2019 17:23 |  #5025

TheGForce wrote in post #18896106 (external link)
Think on RF lenses "Lens Correction" is automatically applied to the image, which negates the need to click the box in Lightroom.
Whilst I can't click the box to check differences in LR6, I have not noticed any issues with the image. I don't have 'distortion' correction enabled in the camera (I'm thinking I'm going to enable it) but generally haven't noticed any significant distortion issues, or felt the need to "correct". Maybe some barrel type distortion on a few close up shots at 24mm.

Check page 114 of the PDF manual.

Try the distortion correction (I have top two enabled) You will see a noticeable difference between the RAW and JPG.


I'm Bob and I'm an L-coholic
1DX - EOS R - 6D - G5 X
16-35
L - RF24-105 L - 24-105 L - 24-70 II L - 50 1.2 L
70-200 2.8 L - 70-300 L - 100 2.8 L Macro

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

634,929 views & 11,157 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 morris scott
1896 guests, 251 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.