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

randy98mtu wrote in post #18757229
I want a 100L Macro and the 135L again. Both great lenses. I just feel bad when I don't use different lenses enough.

really ...Man I'm normally stuck with the one 100-400LII for years at a time... Maybe that why I liked the R so much..... It made me want to open some doors.

surprised these red pole images came out as well as they did

aladyforty wrote in post #18757204
what I got out of that video was just how good the new Fuji camera is, as a lover of fuji and canon Id be torn between the two although common sense would say get the canon because of the lenses I own

One thing that alters the comparison, if even slightly, was the magnification of the sizes side by side. The Fuji images on the right were smaller. If the EOS R side were reduced to reduce to the same visual scale, the appearance should change a small amount.

The Fuji did look good too. I used to shoot with crop, but tend to favor Full Frame these days.

Pondrader wrote in post #18757227
Missing around with the files I have. Just trying a little processing like I would do with any image. The file seems easy to work with.. .CR3 in lightroomCC

Just a normal workup about the same as what I would do with a 7DII file.

Hosted photo: posted by Pondrader in
./showthread.php?p=187​57227&i=i114495218
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Was that handheld at 400mm? That is impressively sharp...

randy98mtu wrote in post #18757229
I want a 100L Macro and the 135L again. Both great lenses. I just feel bad when I don't use different lenses enough.

The 135L is my favourite lens, especially on my full frame, nothing beats it, well at least out of what I own, the 200F2L would be one Id love to own

Nismode wrote in post #18757286
Was that handheld at 400mm? That is impressively sharp...

Yes hand held.. All of the images I have posted using the eosr are hand held...

Nismode wrote in post #18757286
Was that handheld at 400mm? That is impressively sharp...

How can you tell? That's about 0.5MP (and quite aliased) embedded in the post, and 1.44MP when you click on the spectacles and zoom in to 100%. It could have started out fairly dull at 30MP and 100%. Unless someone tells you that they are giving 100% crops, or the ratio that they used to resample, sharp may mean nothing in a small image, except how the image does as a small one, which is not very challenging if the subject is close to focus and the composition uses much of the frame.

I am very perplexed at how so many people celebrate sharpness when there is no evidence of it at any special level. Many of the images that I delete because of softness when I chimp can be downsized to an aliased 0.5MP image.

... and people wonder why I trust controlled tests over arbitrary user images with no context of scale or explanation.

Of course, with a sharp lens, the R is capable of sharp 100% views limited mainly by the AA filter, with good technique and/or shutter speed, and successful focus. A small aliased image is not an indication of that, though.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18757387
How can you tell? That's about 0.5MP (and quite aliased) embedded in the post, and 1.44MP when you click on the spectacles and zoom in to 100%. It could have started out fairly dull at 30MP and 100%. Unless someone tells you that they are giving 100% crops, or the ratio that they used to resample, sharp may mean nothing in a small image, except how the image does as a small one, which is not very challenging if the subject is close to focus and the composition uses much of the frame.

I am very perplexed at how so many people celebrate sharpness when there is no evidence of it at any special level. Many of the images that I delete because of softness when I chimp can be downsized to an aliased 0.5MP image.

... and people wonder why I trust controlled tests over arbitrary user images with no context of scale or explanation.

Of course, with a sharp lens, the R is capable of sharp 100% views limited mainly by the AA filter, with good technique and/or shutter speed, and successful focus. A small aliased image is not an indication of that, though.

I can not argue camera tech with you because your lightyears ahead of me. But looking at that picture handheld at at ss 320 @400mm that looks sharp to me no matter the post work. Grant it I'm shooting a 80D and this has been my best camera but the 80D would not have made that shot at that quality . From what info I've been taking in is, this camera at this price range does a damn fine job of upping the bar for Photography. From what I have been gathering it's the 6D in the line of mirroreless cameras. So for it to be as close as it is to the higher end models is impressive. this new line looks like it's trying to up the game in ease of use so it's faster to change settings and the flip screen is fanatastic. I know the on on the 80D and i won't buy a camera without one now, that's why I'm not even thinking of the 5DIV.

Just my 2 cents on the matter
Cheers,
Joe

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.

russbecker wrote in post #18757447
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.

Even an entry-level 75-300mm zoom, if you're using the whole frame and then making a small web image from it.

A/B comparisons are not "real world usage". "Real world usage" requires mysterious missing information or lack of normalization, apparently.

Almost any image that looks like an acuity-less blur displayed at a 4 foot diagonal can become a gem of sharpness with downsampling to a 0.5MP 8-inch web image, and maybe even a 1.44MP 14-inch web image.

Nearest Neighbor makes images the sharpest (with lots of potential aliasing, which works as a proxy for detail for many people), but increases image-level noise the most, especially in the bokeh. Binning (2x2, 3x3, etc) is the second sharpest (weaker aliasing), and doesn't increase image-level noise.

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 couldn't tell you that much about all this technical stuff. I know in other threads, people post a shot like that and everyone proclaims how sharp it is. So not sure why in this thread it is met with doubt. The Sony thread is much nicer, but it's the new kid on the block. And they all own Sony bodies. This thread is still 75% people who don't own, let alone have any experience with, an EOS R. Meanwhile, I'm just enjoying the camera. Here is another shot with the RF 35. I know it's downsized for the web, but at 1:1 on my laptop screen I can count eye lashes and see the texture in the skin under my son's eyes. I'm extremely happy.

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.

russbecker wrote in post #18757477
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
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.

russbecker wrote in post #18757447
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.