The R6 looks like it has some super clean ISO images even up to 25,600 from what I have seen. I still wish someone, anyone would post up some info on how this camera performs with a big white adapted.
LoCA seems very well corrected and the rendering looks good. In fact LoCA control looks better than the EF 85/1.4L IS.
I was a bit worried it might be an RF version of the EF 85/1.8, but this is very promising.
Sure, I'd love internal focusing and USM focusing, but considering the price point, we'll have to see whether these factors come into play in actual use.
The 600 & 800 don't look to be at an 'L' super-tele level, but still very good. I think the 800mm deer photo has some subject movement sharpness degradation. You can see a sensor dust speck in the monkey photo at the left side.
IMO all of the photos show NR qualities typical of SOOC Jpegs.
LoCA seems very well corrected and the rendering looks good. In fact LoCA control looks better than the EF 85/1.4L IS.
I was a bit worried it might be an RF version of the EF 85/1.8, but this is very promising.
Sure, I'd love internal focusing and USM focusing, but considering the price point, we'll have to see whether these factors come into play in actual use.
The 600 & 800 don't look to be at an 'L' super-tele level, but still very good. I think the 800mm deer photo has some subject movement sharpness degradation. You can see a sensor dust speck in the monkey photo at the left side.
IMO all of the photos show NR qualities typical of SOOC Jpegs. ...Show more →
Hard to tell from the strange shutter speeds and ultra-shallow DOF and poor focus placement to get a definitive idea of what these lenses can do. I swear Canon has a whole team of full-time people tasked with making sure all sample images they put out for every product are as bad as possible.
Yeah, I thought the 'duck' looked good, though the Jpeg smoothing adds a layer of uncertainty. I think the 800mm shots are what is to be expected for the shutter speeds used and likely the high ISOs, particularly the monkey. The rendering of the fur in that image is what I'd expect from an L super tele with 2x TC that's slightly misfocused. Mind you my experience with super tele primes ends with the v1 IS models and the v2 TCs.
If anything, at least these images are 'realistic' with their flaws and don't raise expectations to an unrealistic level.
I wonder how much effect the in-camera diffraction/lens optimization software has had on these images?
The 100-500 looks fantastic. Glad I pre-ordered one along with my R5 and R6. What's really exciting to me is how clean the snowy owl photo looked since it was shot on an R5 at 1600 ISO. I have been concerned about high-iso with 42 megapixels. I was able to ask Robert Marc Lehmann (He was the German Marine Biologist in the launch videos) about the high ISO and he told me that he shot at 12400 with no issues. Seems too good to be true, but if I can get 3200 or 6400 relatively clean with the R5 it will be a game changer.
JohanEickmeyer wrote:
Hard to tell from the strange shutter speeds and ultra-shallow DOF and poor focus placement to get a definitive idea of what these lenses can do. I swear Canon has a whole team of full-time people tasked with making sure all sample images they put out for every product are as bad as possible.
In my head, they hand these new products off to the marketing intern (who has only used P&S before) and tell them to get a few snaps. Like any budding photog, they come back blown away at the cool snaps they have. "Check out this cool shot of the monkey!"
JohanEickmeyer wrote:
Hard to tell from the strange shutter speeds and ultra-shallow DOF and poor focus placement to get a definitive idea of what these lenses can do. I swear Canon has a whole team of full-time people tasked with making sure all sample images they put out for every product are as bad as possible.
That seems to be a universal camera manufacturer thing...maybe they all contract out to the same "photographer(s)"
JohanEickmeyer wrote:
I swear Canon has a whole team of full-time people tasked with making sure all sample images they put out for every product are as bad as possible.
It's all about GGTP.
They present these types of "challenged" images so that when we finally get our hands on the camera and see our first shots we'll be blown away.
Thus our conclusion will be that we are all GGTP from that moment on. (Gods Gift To Photographers)
The idea is that the sample photos should be at a level that a typical buyer can expect to achieve with the product. It makes no sense to show results from a professional photographer when illustrating a lens intended for beginners.
Tell any Sales and Marketing team to be realistic and honest! Their job is to sell as many copies as possible as their career depends on it, so there is a natural tendency to exaggerate and over-promise. Besides, showing photos that can be achieved by pro photographers is not lying anyway. It's just the half-truth i.e. pros can do it ... amateurs, not so much!
ilkka_nissila wrote:
The idea is that the sample photos should be at a level that a typical buyer can expect to achieve with the product. It makes no sense to show results from a professional photographer when illustrating a lens intended for beginners.
Very cool! Can't believe I missed this post until now.
These look really good – comparable to GFX IQ for all but the f/11 shots.
RF 24-105 is the weakest (not counting f/11s) – reminds of the GF 23 on the GFX 50S/R, which is very sharp at 1:1 but falls apart at 2:1 zoom.
RF 85 f/2 reminds me of the RF 50 on my R. Wow.
RF 70-200 is insane. This bodes well for the 28-70 and f/1.2 primes.
RF 100-500 looks as good or better than the GFX 250 + 1.4x on the 50S/R.
But honestly all the f/11 prime shots look like subject motion blur. Once those things are on the R5/6 with the IS and IBIS exchanging information, and with animal eye-AF at work, that's going to make a big difference.
But on the f/11 shots, just look at the bokeh on that monkey. If I couldn't view it at 1:1, it would be hard to tell it was shot on a sub-$1000 lens instead of a big white stopped down some.
JohanEickmeyer wrote:
Thanks to Canon's nicely categorized permalinks, I did a quick URL alteration to find sample image pages from the new products. The bird shot with the 600 looks killer, while the 800 is a bit more dull (maybe due to slower shutter speeds). ISO 102400 on the R6 looks impressive considering the outrageous ISO setting. The 100-500 at 500 f7.1 on the R5 also looks pretty sharp. When paired with a sharp lens, the R5 provides some impressive image quality. I couldn't find any samples from the teleconverters though. Some of the samples look out of focus, which might be true considering Canon is notorious for providing the industry's worst sample shots.
For me, the standout is the 100-500 mounted to the R5. Seems the whole focal range is insanely sharp. The high price might be justified in this case.
Also keep in mind that some of the new lenses are sampled on the camera body pages.
bobbytan wrote:
Looking good. Resolution is higher than the EF 100-400L except at the 500mm end which is lower than the EF lens at 400mm.
Agree that it looks good. Interesting that it is better at 100mm. The 100-400 II has the sweet spot at 300mm.
At the long end, in the center, the difference between the 100-400 at 400 and 100-500 at 500 is exactly the theoretical difference due to diffraction at apertures f/5.6 and f/7.1.
The slight fall off towards the edges at 500 mm is something that could be visible for compressed landscape use, hope it improves a bit by stopping down to f/8 - f/11. Even so, the 100-500 is now a hotter candidate for me than the 800. Might try to sell the 100-400, but not sure if the 100-500 is worth the extra cost still.
