johnctharp wrote:
Kind of interesting that we're trading DR for sensor readout speed - something I agree with, because we really do have enough DR for most shooting and have had for over a decade (DR doesn't hold my 6D back at all, it's the AF).
For a long time now, we have also had short enough readout times and enough pixels for most shooting.
We all have different needs and Canon cannot make everybody happy.
Mike_5D wrote:
Fro said the R6/R62 standard battery grip works on the Mk3? Anyone else seen that? That would be a big plus.
Both the BG-R20, released with the R5II, and the older BG-R10 work, but the latter will result in some feature restrictions. The R6III spec sheet is not clear on what those limitations are, but one will probably be no pre-capture (this is the case with the R5II).
The new version of the grip with ethernet, released with the R5II, does not support use of the ethernet port, unfortunately (for those wire shooters who might have considered this camera).
You can also use the older NH and N batteries, but again with feature restrictions.
johnctharp wrote:
Kind of interesting that we're trading DR for sensor readout speed - something I agree with, because we really do have enough DR for most shooting and have had for over a decade (DR doesn't hold my 6D back at all, it's the AF).
But the increase in cost to do so makes it an awkward tradeoff, because small gains on cameras not pining for really fast action or being video-centric are probably not worth it.
That's the problem for Canon. A huge proportion of 6-series users do not need or want stacked sensor readout speed in this price range. But for some like me, the R5II is more resolution than I usually need and priced higher than I would prefer for that body class.
Given this is Canon's best selling FF camera, there could an argument that splitting the 6 series in two with a 'regular' and a 'higher performance' version would have the necessary volume. Those wanting higher resolution and performance can still get it from the R5II.
Actually, 33MP (stacked, ~3ms) in an R1 would get me to reconsider it even though I could buy two R6IIIs for that price. The R1 is a dream of a camera to use for action. At least the best I've ever used.
rscheffler wrote:
Both the BG-R20, released with the R5II, and the older BG-R10 work, but the latter will result in some feature restrictions. The R6III spec sheet is not clear on what those limitations are, but one will probably be no pre-capture (this is the case with the R5II).
The new version of the grip with ethernet, released with the R5II, does not support use of the ethernet port, unfortunately (for those wire shooters who might have considered this camera).
You can also use the older NH and N batteries, but again with feature restrictions.
That's the problem for Canon. A huge proportion of 6-series users do not need or want stacked sensor readout speed in this price range. But for some like me, the R5II is more resolution than I usually need and priced higher than I would prefer for that body class.
Given this is Canon's best selling FF camera, there could an argument that splitting the 6 series in two with a 'regular' and a 'higher performance' version would have the necessary volume. Those wanting higher resolution and performance can still get it from the R5II.
Actually, 33MP (stacked, ~3ms) in an R1 would get me to reconsider it even though I could buy two R6IIIs for that price. The R1 is a dream of a camera to use for action. At least the best I've ever used....Show more →
Jman13 wrote:
In stills, it is still almost certainly using 12 bit RAW in electronic shutter, vs 14 bit RAW and no difference between electronic and mechanical for the partially stacked Z6 III. Still impressive though.
14 bit ES is precisely one of the main reasons I’m keeping two R5ii bodies for now. I got a second one for the same price as the R6iii new, so I would’ve only considered a swap out if there was something really compelling about it over the R5ii.
In all honesty, a stacked 33mp sensor, shared EVF with R5ii, and a rear screen like the Sony A7RV/A1ii would’ve had me way sold even at over 3k retail.
The lens is, how do I say this politely, um, well, it's not so amazing, any way you cut it. The RF 50 / 1.8 is so much better, stop-for-stop, all the way down. In fact, the f/1.2 gives you nothing that f/1.8 wouldn't with excessive NR. Wait -- I take that back -- the RF at 50 / 1.8 at f/1.8 would give you better results at f/1.8 with excessive NR than the 45 / 1.2 at f/1.2, whether that be resolution or bokeh. Nikon's Z 50 / 1.4 looks much nicer:
Just my opinion, though, based on those few results I've seen. Truly, I think all the positive videos I've seen are either people seeing what they want to see or people being paid. Gordan Laing's video review:
seems to say what I'm saying, albeit more diplomatically. Anyway, just saying that the pricing makes sense -- maybe even a bit high.
I had a look at DPR's 45/1.2 gallery and it's actually better than I expected. Yeah, it has LoCA and bokeh fringing, but that's to be expected with a fast lens without any fancy glass types. From the front it even looks like a slightly smaller version of the EF 50/1.2L with the way the front element moves inside the housing.
I have the RF 50/1.8 and wide open it has really busy/nervous background bokeh that I'm not seeing (yet) from the 45. It's also somewhat nervous, but in a different, less annoying way.
Where I really liked the EF 50/1.2 was around f/2-2.5 where it calmed down but was still 'creamy' feeling. But this was also where focus shift started to creep in. Given the spherical aberrations of the 45 wide open, I'd expect this design also has focus shift, and it can be seen in some of TDP's samples, which he also notes, but hopefully it can be compensated for by focusing at the taking aperture rather than wide open.
If you compare the RF 45mm 1.2 to the older EF 50 F1.4, it's fairly similar in performance. What's odd to me about TDP's test is the midframe is the sharpest part of the lens on the RF, and the center remains soft. If you could AFMA the lens I think most people would see that and adjust accordingly. Time will tell if that was a design choice or if that copy is just off.
This is likely explained by focus shift, which Bryan stated in his review is strongest at f/2.8, combined with field curvature.
These chart tests are done at quite close focusing distances and most lenses are designed/optimized for infinity. When you consider this and combine it with the 45's relatively high spherical aberration at wider apertures, you get a lens that is softer at closer distances. Additionally, if the camera was focusing wide open for all taking aperture values (which I believe Canon R cameras do unless it's very bright), you get focus shift that is noticeable in a certain aperture range somewhat stopped down.
Another potential factor is field curvature. I don't see this discussed very often on the Canon board, but it's certainly a possible explanation for why sharpness across the image is uneven. Field curvature is another characteristic that can change depending on focus distance. And again, with the relatively near focusing distance for the test chart images, it's arguable that field curvature may have worsened compared to infinity. By the look of it from the test photos, if the center is soft due to focus shift (which in these cases always shifts focus behind the intended point of focus) and the midfield is sharp, field curvature is bending towards the camera as one moves towards the image periphery. One could argue that this actually may be an intentional 'feature' by Canon's designers because this type of field curvature will result in stronger background blur towards the image periphery. And considering that this lens is likely aimed at half-length and closer people photography, it will help enhance subject to background separation at wide apertures. If there has to be field curvature, then IMO this is the better direction of curvature. If it bent away from the camera towards the edges, you would see a reduction in background separation. There can be compositions where the effect is strong enough that it causes noticeable reduction in background blur towards the corners, to the point where corners look in focus whereas the central background area is well defocused. This was actually demonstrated a while back in a RF 35/1.4L thread where this effect was clearly noticeable. And IMO makes the RF 35/1.4L somewhat less desirable.
Given that a lot of people photos with this lens will probably be single person half-length and closer, with use of face/eye detection focus, the point of focus will be where the photographer intends it and whatever field curvature is present, will likely be unnoticeable when the subject is separated from the background.
From a technical perspective, none of this is desirable if one is pursuing high optical performance. But given these 'defects' exist, it also presents an opportunity to exploit them for creative effect. Understanding how this lens behaves across a range of camera to subject to background distances and at different aperture values will be more important for best exploiting these weaknesses. In this respect, I could see this being a fun lens due to the challenges this presents when compared to a predictable, well corrected, well behaved lens that offers no surprises.
Field curvature*Focus shift is one thing that seems like a solvable problem - and will be infuriating if it isn't.
My top five reasons for not picking up an EF 50/1.2L are... well they're all field curvature. It's like having a no-go region of the lens where I'd be likely to use it regularly, and a softer lens is better than a lens that misses focus at the shooting aperture.
Really useful video here with far more sample images than I've seen in the others (including a test chart); also a direct comparison to RF 50/1.2 [in French, but auto-dubbed - clunky but comprehensible]:
johnctharp wrote:
Field curvature is one thing that seems like a solvable problem - and will be infuriating if it isn't.
My top five reasons for not picking up an EF 50/1.2L are... well they're all field curvature. It's like having a no-go region of the lens where I'd be likely to use it regularly, and a softer lens is better than a lens that misses focus at the shooting aperture.
Field curvature or spherical aberrations?
The EF had heaps of SA but I don't recall it's FC characteristics.
If the 45's sharpness is decent across the central half to 2/3 of the plane of focus, even if it has curvature, for single person portraiture where focus will be on the eyes, it won't be a huge issue, IMO.
Field curvature is definitely annoying when you're trying to get good sharpness of a flat scene across most of the image. But this is the wrong lens for such an application. As was the EF 50/1.2L based on my many years of ownership. The EF also never really sharpened up much when stopped down and was relatively muted compared to other 50s I own (from other brands). I kind of see a similar muted quality from the 45 in some images.
SA is fixable, at a cost (aspherical surfaces, better glass quality). With this lens being positioned as a 'character' lens, it's an ideal excuse to leave the SA relatively under corrected and keep costs down.
So far based on what I've seen and read (DPR, TDP), the 45 really does seem like a somewhat updated RF version of the EF 50/1.2: a character, non-technical lens. At least its price point is much more appropriate than the EF's and there is already an excellent 50/1.4L available, which never exited in EF. And I think that is the lens you want.
EB-1 wrote:
Look at that horrific spherochromatism in the TDP samples.
If there is not heavy SA I don't know what.
EBH
SA is supposed to be a bad thing? I really like having a lot of SA. It makes for beautiful rendering. One of my favorite lenses on the E mount is the Sigma 45mm f2.8. If this Canon renders similarly, then that's great. And this lens is even cheaper than the Sigma, while being several stops faster too.
jaygould wrote:
SA is supposed to be a bad thing? I really like having a lot of SA. It makes for beautiful rendering. One of my favorite lenses on the E mount is the Sigma 45mm f2.8. If this Canon renders similarly, then that's great. And this lens is even cheaper than the Sigma, while being several stops faster too.
This is my take also, especially with that Sigma for comparison. There are plenty modern lenses out there, this is for the crowd who want the 'look' and here it is in a cheap and very fast lens. No need to adapt old glass, no need for manual focus only anymore. I'd buy a canon body just for this lens if the AF accuracy is good despite the SA (achilles heel of the Sigma or AF adaptors with old glass). Thumbs up to Canon for recognising this growing segment of the market.
More like, didn't bother to bring it up a notch or two by adding corrective elements (which would've resulted in a more expensive lens that would also be cannibalizing some of the RF 50mm f/1.2L sales, and I guess they want to avoid that at all costs).
I guess this can be called the Cripple hammer of inaction.
The R6Miii looks like a very nice camera. I will be sticking with my Mii though. The only thing I feel I am missing is the ability to shoot baseball or tennis in electronic shutter, and the Miii can't do that either.
The R1 is a dream of a camera to use for action. At least the best I've ever used.
What you think about it, and / or do with it, is another thing.