jwolfe wrote:
It’s another episode of… Canon releases a product with a lot of potential and mucks it all up with lazy design.
Great idea, terrible execution. The spread of apertures is worse than a 150-600/200-600/180-600. No internal zooming. No removable foot. No arca swiss built in. Lazy all around. Compare Canon and Nikon and it’s astounding. 400 4.5, 600 6.3, 800 6.3, 180-600. I just don’t get Canon anymore. What am I gonna do with f9 at dusk? They could have used DO tech and made it f6.3 on the long end. That would have been crazy cool.
I would not have been interested in this lens at all if it were internal zoom. Too big to pack easily in the typical backpack. 600 would not have been long enough to interest me. Can already get there with the 100-400 plus TC. And its less money than a number of those lenses you list, most of which are primes. And only about 2/3 stop slower than the Nikon zoom at 600, (no 800 on the Nikon, and the Canon would be faster than the Nikon plus TC).
F/9 at dusk is ok for soccer on an unlighted field. I will go down to 1/1250 and hit ISOs around 25k, which is no issue on the current sensors and with a good raw NR program (I use DXO). But that's the tradeoff for not paying big white prices for this lens. Removable foot would have been nice. Or at least like the 100-500 where you can unbolt the foot part.
Was it ever confirmed if there is a DO element in this like the f/11s? Now that they don't green ring them anymore, its harder to tell.
jwolfe wrote:
What am I gonna do with f9 at dusk? They could have used DO tech and made it f6.3 on the long end. That would have been crazy cool.
Seems like the point just whizzed right over your head.
What 800mm alternatives in a similar price and size class would you suggest? Even the options with crop cameras end up back around f9 effective.
It's either this, the Nikon f6.3 PF at $6500, or some crazy $10k+ super L. And how would a DO zoom be even in the same ballpark when Nikon's prime with similar tech is much bigger and pricier?
Shooting 800mm at dusk is ultra niche specialist category. What options for doing that even exist at any price? How much more time does f5.6 or f6.3 buy you over f9 when the sun starts dropping. 10 minutes until it is too dark for both?
tkbslc wrote:
Seems like the point just whizzed right over your head.
What 800mm alternatives in a similar price and size class would you suggest? Even the options with crop cameras end up back around f9 effective.
Equivalence is for angle of view and *maybe* DoF. Not exposure. An Olympus 150-400 has as much reach and either a faster shutter speed or lower needed ISO. Same with the consumer 100-400 (6.3). Which negates some/most/all of the noise advantages of the larger sensors.
Using the Sony 200-600 on a crop body still gives an exposure of 6.3 so you with the same shutter speed you'll get a lower ISO than on the Canon, negating the noise advantage of the larger sensor. Apparent DoF would actually be less with an a6700 and 200-600 than a Canon R5 and the 200-800. And it'd have more reach as well. Noise might be better as well because of the lower ISO used.
I'm not against the 200-800. It looks like it'll be a cool lens. Just not doing anything more than other brands already offer.
Faster lenses on a smaller image format do allow use of lower ISO, but the smaller pixel sites dictated by the density required to hit a certain MP number of smaller imaging formats means each pixel collects less light than the same MP count in a larger sensor. So it's all a wash still. ISO 1600 vs 6400 on m43 vs FF and 400/4.5 vs. 800/9. It's basically the same in the end.
jedibrain wrote:
Was it ever confirmed if there is a DO element in this like the f/11s? Now that they don't green ring them anymore, its harder to tell.
Here's the block diagram from the Canon Japan site:
flash wrote:
Equivalence is for angle of view and *maybe* DoF. Not exposure. An Olympus 150-400 has as much reach and either a faster shutter speed or lower needed ISO. Same with the consumer 100-400 (6.3). Which negates some/most/all of the noise advantages of the larger sensors.
Not sure why we need to have this argument every time. No it doesn't work that way because m4/3 is much noisier at high ISO, so you reach the ceiling of light at the same time as a FF sensor at f9.
I say this as someone who used m4/3 for a long time. My 24-105mm f4 on FF takes the same pictures in the same light that I used to use ~f2 primes on m4/3 for.
flash wrote:
Equivalence is for angle of view and *maybe* DoF. Not exposure. An Olympus 150-400 has as much reach and either a faster shutter speed or lower needed ISO. Same with the consumer 100-400 (6.3). Which negates some/most/all of the noise advantages of the larger sensors.
Using the Sony 200-600 on a crop body still gives an exposure of 6.3 so you with the same shutter speed you'll get a lower ISO than on the Canon, negating the noise advantage of the larger sensor. Apparent DoF would actually be less with an a6700 and 200-600 than a Canon R5 and the 200-800. And it'd have more reach as well. Noise might be better as well because of the lower ISO used.
I'm not against the 200-800. It looks like it'll be a cool lens. Just not doing anything more than other brands already offer.
Gordon...Show more →
It is true that it doesn't do anything that the other brands do, if you find a suitable body and know what you are doing.
What is exceptional with the 200-800, is that you can do it on a full frame camera. For whatever reason that might be important. And that it really is 800 mm if you want to use it on a crop camera.
You obviously are not a bird shooter because the difference in bokeh and light transmission between f6.3 and 9 are enormous. And set that aside for a second. I bought my 200-600 and then in five minutes swapped the foot so now I can slide it right onto a mourning plate. I mean common that’s just basic stuff.
I’d rather shoot with the Nikon 600 6.3 and crop than that thing. The files are gonna be terrible in anything other than perfect light. And it’s gonna struggle with AF and tracking since Canon has thus far not offered a stacked sensor in larger mp.
I’d say Nikon had the best lenses and Sony the best bodies. Canon at this point is way way in third place with the Z8 out now. It’s just really surprising to me because for decades Canon was the leader and an innovator. They haven’t put out anything remotely class-leading in a long time for sports and wildlife. I mean look at the A9iii compared to the R3.
tkbslc wrote:
Seems like the point just whizzed right over your head.
What 800mm alternatives in a similar price and size class would you suggest? Even the options with crop cameras end up back around f9 effective.
It's either this, the Nikon f6.3 PF at $6500, or some crazy $10k+ super L. And how would a DO zoom be even in the same ballpark when Nikon's prime with similar tech is much bigger and pricier?
Shooting 800mm at dusk is ultra niche specialist category. What options for doing that even exist at any price? How much more time does f5.6 or f6.3 buy you over f9 when the sun starts dropping. 10 minutes until it is too dark for both?...Show more →
coppertop wrote:
The R6 has more settings and adjustments than any other camera I have owned. I began shooting 36 years ago when manual focus was the only game in town and it's hard to imagine we kept pace with college football/basketball games, birds in flight and other moving subjects. If I am the root cause of this issue, it is due to a lack of experience with the settings, not the camera.
Hence the statement that I may be missing something. Again, I'll research the settings and see what I can find that might improve AF performance with the 100-500mm when I'm using the 1.4x TC. Just thought I'd toss it out here to see if anyone had any insight.
And shooting from boats is very challenging. Fun trying to time everything with the wave action....Show more →
I know exactly what you mean. The new cameras are so full of complex in part intertwined settings and AF is perhaps the most enigmatic of them. I started with a used Canon AT-1 in 1979. It still works! Got some nice Razors on Kodachrome 200
I had two total lock ups this summer, my brain that is. I had made such specific settings for the BIF spring season and after a few slower weeks when summer came (June here around) I just could not remember how to get the %#€$!! camera to do what I wanted, in that short moment. The main reason was that I had tweaked the R5 and R7 the same. But they have different button layouts and probably differing menus too, and then the RP. Yes it is a mess, I have a hate/love relation to all the "features". I should prepare myself better but who RTFM At least not twice.
I was greatly disappointed by my keeper rate of Razorbills and Caspian terns with the new stuff, R5 and 100-500 as I have very nice captures with the 5D4 and 100-400LIS2x1.4III. Became annoyed enough to do an analysis and found out the problem. Yes, it was sh!t behind the camera! I got those nice Razors and screaming Caspians on mirror sea conditions. So... at mirror conditions I took my R7 and 100-500 and got marvelous series of sharp Razors (is there a pun there somewhere?) but infested with the all too obvious pumping rubbery slow readout results of the R7. Sold it yesterday, because C is making me a 200-800 for Christmas, the darkest birdlessets part of the year... Awaiting the return of Light!
As everything in the cameras are programmed, there should be an option to hide the sections you never need. Hide Flash stuff, Hide Video stuff, Hide Bluetooth WiFi stuff. Oh, perhaps there is!?!!
jwolfe wrote:
I’d say Nikon had the best lenses and Sony the best bodies. Canon at this point is way way in third place with the Z8 out now. It’s just really surprising to me because for decades Canon was the leader and an innovator. They haven’t put out anything remotely class-leading in a long time for sports and wildlife. I mean look at the A9iii compared to the R3.
Just to get a better understanding, with which camera models and lenses do you have recent hands-on experience?
jwolfe wrote:
You obviously are not a bird shooter because the difference in bokeh and light transmission between f6.3 and 9 are enormous. And set that aside for a second. I bought my 200-600 and then in five minutes swapped the foot so now I can slide it right onto a mourning plate. I mean common that’s just basic stuff.
I’d rather shoot with the Nikon 600 6.3 and crop than that thing. The files are gonna be terrible in anything other than perfect light. And it’s gonna struggle with AF and tracking since Canon has thus far not offered a stacked sensor in larger mp.
I’d say Nikon had the best lenses and Sony the best bodies. Canon at this point is way way in third place with the Z8 out now. It’s just really surprising to me because for decades Canon was the leader and an innovator. They haven’t put out anything remotely class-leading in a long time for sports and wildlife. I mean look at the A9iii compared to the R3. ...Show more →
You appear to live in a world of infinite financial resources. Congrats?! Not all of us are limited to unhappiness by infinite resources. For the money I get the R5 and 200-800 from Canon, what can Nikon or Sony bring to the table? "I mean common that’s just basic stuff."
Me? I’ve shot the Z9, I own the A1. I’ve tried the R3, R6 and R7. I just switched from Nikon to Sony this year. I have not handled the 180-600 or the 600 6.3. I have shot a ton of Canon long lenses and I owned the Nikon 500 pf. I own a large number of Sony lenses including the 200-600. I have about 30 years of experience with long glass in general.
rscheffler wrote:
^ Yes, it's a hidden feature you seek.
Just to get a better understanding, with which camera models and lenses do you have recent hands-on experience?
Because I bought a $100 lens foot? Canon used to put replaceable lens foots on every long lens! Mounting on a tripod should be a given with any long lens.
Z250SA wrote:
You appear to live in a world of infinite financial resources. Congrats?! Not all of us are limited to unhappiness by infinite resources. "I mean common that’s just basic stuff."
jwolfe wrote:
It’s another episode of… Canon releases a product with a lot of potential and mucks it all up with lazy design.
Great idea, terrible execution. The spread of apertures is worse than a 150-600/200-600/180-600. No internal zooming. No removable foot. No arca swiss built in. Lazy all around. Compare Canon and Nikon and it’s astounding. 400 4.5, 600 6.3, 800 6.3, 180-600. I just don’t get Canon anymore. What am I gonna do with f9 at dusk? They could have used DO tech and made it f6.3 on the long end. That would have been crazy cool.
If you have a hard time, I can easily tell you how to use f/9 in the forest, for one. Not that hard.
It's f/9 but at 800mm it's going to get rid of a lot of bg. Pribably more than 600mm 6.3, pretty close anyway
jwolfe wrote:
Who said anything about a tc? And I run the latest noise software. ISO 25,000 on feathers does not clean up well. Bad inputs equal bad outputs.
Well, actually, you did, in the past.
Sorry you're having a hard time cleaning up high iso. maybe you should post to one of the boards and get help
You used tc on your 500pf to get to 700/8. No tc needed on the 200-800
Umm that’s quite rude. Why should I have to? I don’t need to shoot at f9 or f11. I’ve got better gear than that. The problem is Canon doesn’t make anything to compete.
AmbientMike wrote:
Well, actually, you did, in the past.
Sorry you're having a hard time cleaning up high iso. maybe you should post to one of the boards and get help
tkbslc wrote:
Not sure why we need to have this argument every time. No it doesn't work that way because m4/3 is much noisier at high ISO, so you reach the ceiling of light at the same time as a FF sensor at f9.
I say this as someone who used m4/3 for a long time. My 24-105mm f4 on FF takes the same pictures in the same light that I used to use ~f2 primes on m4/3 for.
Physics??
Assuming the same sensor tech (and for arguments sake the same MP count).
1. Exposure remains constant regardless of sensor size. Exposure is not a function of the size of the sensor. Exposure is expressed as a point measurement or average of a set of point measurements.
2. Aperture is the relationship between focal length and the light gathering area of a lens. At f1 on a 50mm lens a disk of 50mm wide is gathering light. At f1.4 it's half that surface area (1.4x the diameter). This function is independent of the size of the sensor.
3. *Image Circle* is the part of the lens that projects light over a larger or smaller surface area but this doesn't affect exposure either. Because you get more points of light and not more light at each point. So, while a 24x36mm sensor get approximately 4x more light (2x factor linear) than a m43 sensor, exposure remains unchanged. It does lower the noise floor as the wells will be bigger (wider).
So, if in your example, you use f4 on your Canon and f2 on your m4/3 you'll either have to halve the ISO (same shutter speed) or double the shutter speed (same ISO) to maintain the same *exposure*. Exposure remains constant regardless of imager (sensor) size. If you halve the ISO to maintain a constant exposure, then you see less *apparent* (because noise is always present just not always visible) noise in the m43 image. Therefore, the noise levels at the same output size will appear similar, assuming the m4/3 lens is two stops faster than the 24x36mm equivalent. If both lenses were shot at the exact same exposure then the larger sensor would have a noise advantage (less enlargement) and an apparently shallow DoF.
Grab any two cameras and set them up side by side. Exposure should be the same as long as they measure exposure the same way (no bodged ISO's, etc). Sensor size is irrelevant.
Where the advantage of larger sensors comes in is where exposure parameters are the same. If there's no faster aperture alternative for the smaller sensor. For example the 1.2 primes available for 24x36mm sensors would need an f0.9 (approx.) lens for APSC to get similar noise performance. This is also why current miniMF cameras don't have shallower DoF than 24x36mm cameras. Not as many fast lenses at equivalent focal lengths. Physics....
In the case of the Canon 200-800mm f9 there are faster alternatives for the smaller formats. Some a little and some a lot. There's no way for smaller formats to match the Canon super tele primes or the 200-400 f4. But there is for the 200-800. In the Case of the Olympus 150-400 f4.5 it is twice as fast (two stops) so noise and apparent DoF would be the very similar. Of course the Olympus is 2.5x as expensive, so there's that. The consumer 100-400 f6.3 is one stop faster than the Cano and the sensor has a two stop advantage so the Olympus would be around a stop behind the Canon here.... A Sony a6700 would be around the same as the Canon.....
I say this as someone who currently uses m43 and 24x36 and medium format and APSC systems in most brands currently available. I have been a working photographer and photographic instructor for 35 years. But what would I know......
jwolfe wrote:
Umm that’s quite rude. Why should I have to? I don’t need to shoot at f9 or f11. I’ve got better gear than that. The problem is Canon doesn’t make anything to compete.
Oh, I'm rude. I see.
You said you had trouble, did you not?
You used to use your 500pf + tc to get to 700/8. or so you said, anyway. The 200-800 doesn't need a tc.
At least not twice.