p.8 #1RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
I posted earlier:
FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II 24.5 (695)
RF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM 31.8 (900)
RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM 29.7 (840)
FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II Lens 19.3 (547)
Canon 1.74 kg
Sony 1.24 kg
Yes, that is much.
I realised when I did post that earlier that these lenses did not fit the OP's wants, but he did specifically mention them.
2 or 3 primes would seem a much better choice, particularly MF options, but again, OP stated good tracking as a want.
rscheffler wrote:
Does Sony really have that much of a weight advantage? Sure the a7 series is small and light but generally the equivalent lenses across systems with the same or similar focal length and aperture specs are very similar in size and weight. Where Sony may have an advantage for casual travel photography is the variety of super zoom options. Which is great if you want a single camera-lens combo and which might be exactly what the OP needs.
But is the Sony 70-200/4 smaller and lighter than the Canon 70-200/4, for example? Or the 28-70/2.8 options? Or in and around 16-28/2.8? While going with these gives up single-lens convenience and versatility, one also gains one to two stops where one can better exploit some aspects of FF, such as shallower DOF work, when desired. Or better light gathering capability vs. slow lenses and/or smaller formats.
I agree though that Canon hasn't really given small and light FF bodies much consideration beyond the RP/R8 bodies, which aren't exactly competing at the higher end, though the R8's guts are solidly mid-range and in some performance metrics outperform the Sony a7 non-R series. An R5II equivalent 'rangefinder' body style would be very interesting with a top left corner EVF.
In hindsight I think the OP would have benefitted from spending one of his shopping days in Japan at Yodobashi simply comparing every system under the sun for his carry requirements. And base his system decision first on which is most comfortable to carry with the lens(es) he most uses, regardless of sensor format. Point being that if a FF system is ultimately too heavy and will be left behind in the hotel during the latter stages of a trip, then it provides no benefit. OP might as well just use a phone in that case. So his decision to use the m43 system when the Canon became too heavy, seems to point to the solution given he's not printing or exhibiting large images and primarily shooting for personal satisfaction....Show more →
p.8 #2RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
rscheffler wrote:
Does Sony really have that much of a weight advantage? Sure the a7 series is small and light but generally the equivalent lenses across systems with the same or similar focal length and aperture specs are very similar in size and weight. Where Sony may have an advantage for casual travel photography is the variety of super zoom options. Which is great if you want a single camera-lens combo and which might be exactly what the OP needs.
But is the Sony 70-200/4 smaller and lighter than the Canon 70-200/4, for example? Or the 28-70/2.8 options? Or in and around 16-28/2.8? While going with these gives up single-lens convenience and versatility, one also gains one to two stops where one can better exploit some aspects of FF, such as shallower DOF work, when desired. Or better light gathering capability vs. slow lenses and/or smaller formats.
I agree though that Canon hasn't really given small and light FF bodies much consideration beyond the RP/R8 bodies, which aren't exactly competing at the higher end, though the R8's guts are solidly mid-range and in some performance metrics outperform the Sony a7 non-R series. An R5II equivalent 'rangefinder' body style would be very interesting with a top left corner EVF.
In hindsight I think the OP would have benefitted from spending one of his shopping days in Japan at Yodobashi simply comparing every system under the sun for his carry requirements. And base his system decision first on which is most comfortable to carry with the lens(es) he most uses, regardless of sensor format. Point being that if a FF system is ultimately too heavy and will be left behind in the hotel during the latter stages of a trip, then it provides no benefit. OP might as well just use a phone in that case. So his decision to use the m43 system when the Canon became too heavy, seems to point to the solution given he's not printing or exhibiting large images and primarily shooting for personal satisfaction....Show more →
Sony's weight advantage, if any, depends on which lenses are important to you.
For example the RF 28-70 is much heavier
R1 (1,115g)
A9iii (702g)
RF 28-70/2L (1,430g)
FE 28-70/2 GM (918g)
RF 24-70/2.8L (900g)
FE 24-70/2.8 GM II (695g)
RF 50/1.2L (950g)
FE 50/1.2 GM (778g)
RF 35/1.4L VCM (555g)
FE 35/1.4 GM "VCM" (524g)
RF 70-200/2.8L (1,200g) w tripod mount
FE 70-200/2.8 GM II (1,125g) w tripod mount
These lenses are not exactly equivalent.
RF 24-105/4-7.1 IS STM (395g)
RF 24-50/4.5-6.3 IS STM (210g)
FE 28-60/4-5.6 "VCM" (167g)
RF 24-105/4L IS USM (700g)
FE 24-105/4 G OSS "VCM" (663g) <- needs a refresh
FE 20-70/4 G "VCM" (488g)
RF 28-70/2.8 IS STM (495g)
FE 24-50/2.8 G "VCM" (440g)
You forgot to include the battery grip and extra battery for the A9 III - those Sony bodies are two small and awkward to use without a grip attached...
p.8 #4RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Or rather than using ISO 12,800 on the OM-5 he can use a lens that has a two stop faster aperture, which is often available and have the same depth of field and have 2 stops better DR than the 1D. Yeah you pick up an extra stop of DR with the A7C cameras, but that isn't the same as this three stops worse DR shot that you linked. Nothing even close to that. Yes, the 1D with light that low has really bad DR, but even 2 stops more helps a lot with the shadows.
Note I am not advocating for the OM-5, I was just pointing out that DR is not at all about blowing the highlights like you discussed in the post I quoted. Not blowing the highlights that one cares about, is about getting the exposure right. DR is about the quality of the shadows when you get the exposure right. For some types of shooting that can matter, but even in your example any modern camera, as opposed to the 1D, would do pretty well with the shadows if the exposure is right. Of course good post-processing can help too. ...Show more →
Steve Spencer wrote:
Or rather than using ISO 12,800 on the OM-5 he can use a lens that has a two stop faster aperture, which is often available and have the same depth of field and have 2 stops better DR than the 1D.
You’re moving the goalposts by comparing lenses when we are talking sensors. A 1D can use the EF 50mm f/1.0L USM. On an OM-5, there’s no autofocus-capable 25mm f/0.5 equivalent; the fastest is the 25mm f/1.2. If we’re comparing the fastest available AF lenses, EF has the advantage.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I was just pointing out that DR is not at all about blowing the highlights like you discussed in the post I quoted. Not blowing the highlights that one cares about, is about getting the exposure right. DR is about the quality of the shadows when you get the exposure right.
Disagree. Dynamic range is the range between the brightest reproducible highlight and the darkest usable shadow. So highlight clipping is not separate from DR. Together with shadow quality, they are the two ends of the same dynamic range.
By your definition, the “right” exposure means exposing so that the highlights you care about are not clipped.
I care about ALL the highlights. All else being equal, the image is always going to be better if we have a hypothetical 30-stop sensor and can capture everything without clipping. That is also why I use exposure stacking whenever the subject allows for it, since it can effectively emulate a much higher-DR sensor.
Sony, like most other manufacturers, even has a “Highlight” metering mode designed specifically to protect highlights. The problem is that blindly protecting the brightest highlights can leave the midtones and shadows so severely underexposed that they cannot be adequately recovered in post.
So simply avoiding highlight clipping does not necessarily produce the “correct” exposure. The correct exposure is ultimately a compromise between choosing which highlights to clip AND maintaining sufficient quality in the darker parts of the image, and that compromise is dictated by the camera’s available dynamic range.
That is precisely why more dynamic range helps. If preserving the highlights forces everything else down, then the quality of those lower tones depends on how much usable range the sensor has below the highlights. Highlight retention and shadow quality are therefore not competing definitions of DR. They are the two boundaries that define it.
The sample images should clearly show everyone how the image improves as DR increases.
Even if I under-exposed the 1D shot by 2-3 stops and then pulled the exposure in POST, as Steve Spencer suggests, its not going to be as effective as simply using a camera body with more DR. In fact the shot would probably be technically worse than how I captured it because mid-tone and shadow quality would be degraded
I chose these shots because the 1D at ISO 3200 should have roughly similar dynamic range to the OM-5 at ISO 12,800, making it suitable for comparison with the A7iii shot at ISO 12,800.
I’m not advocating for or against the OM-5, in fact in my first post I do not suggest selling it:
This is because the OM5 definitely holds the weight advantage, especially with the two pancake lenses OP has. However the weight advantage is in a sense paid for in dynamic range. Win some lose some
p.8 #5RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Cliff L. wrote:
You forgot to include the battery grip and extra battery for the A9 III - those Sony bodies are two small and awkward to use without a grip attached...
OP’s camera list did not include grips, so he’s probably like me in the “grips make the camera worse” camp.
Although it is true that some of the older RF lenses were heavier, in general newer ones have been very close to Sony lenses in weight.
Here are some examples:Let's look at the trinity of ultra wide to wide, wide to short tele, and short tele to long tele at both f/2.8 and f/4
Ultra wide to wide:
at f/2.8
RF 15-35 f/2.8L IS - 840g
RF 16-28 f/2.8 IS STM - 445g
FE 12-24 f/2.8 GM - 847g
FE 16-35 f/2.8 II GM - 547g
FE 16-24 f/2.8 G - 409g
at f/4
RF 14-35 f/4L IS - 540g
FE 12-24 f/4 G - 565g
FE 16-35 f/4 G PZ - 353g.
Wide to short tele:
at f/2.8
RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS - 900g
RF 24-105 f/2.8L IS Z - 1,330g
RF 28-70 f/2.8 IS STM - 495g
FE 24-70 f/2.8 II GM - 695g
FE 24-50 f/2.8 G - 440g
at f/4
RF 20-50 f/4L Z - 420g
RF 24-105 f/4L IS -700g
FE 20-70 f/4 G - 488g
FE 24-105 f/4L OSS G - 663g
Short tele to longer tele
at f/2.8
RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS without tripod ring - 1,070g
RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS Z without tripod ring - 1,107g
RF 100-300 f/2.8L IS with tripod ring - 2,650g
FE 70-200 f/2.8 II IS GM - 1,045g
at f4 and f/4.5 at widest aperture
RF 70-200 f/4L IS - 695g
RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS without tripod ring - 1,365g
FE 70-200 f/4 II IS Macro GM without tripod ring - 794g
FE 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS GM- without tripod ring - 1,395g
FE 100-400 f/4.5 IS GM - with tripod ring - 1,840g
Now it is clear that Canon makes some f/2.8 lenses (15-35; 24-70; 100-300) that do not seem to be designed for low weight. You can still get a pretty low weight 16-28 f/2.8 IS STM, 28-70 f/2.8 IS STM, and 70-200 f/2.8L IS combo that cover 16-200 at f/2.8 and weighs 2,010g. A trinity of f/2.8 lenses that fully covers 16-200 at f/2.8 for Sony would weigh more at 2,287g and the Canon kit would have IS with both the wider lenses, but the Sony would have better build quality with those two wider lenses. You could also get a lighter kit with Sony if you leave a gap between 50 and 70, then you could go with the 16-25 f/2.8 G, the 24-50 f/2.8 G, and the 70-200 f/2.8 II GM. That would weigh just 1,894g or 116g lighter than the lightest Canon trinity, but the Canon trinity again has IS at both the wider lenses. All in all, it isn't clear to me that Sony really has much of an advantage at f/2.8 if you want light weight at least with first party lenses.
Now let's look at f/4. The lightest Canon kit that fully covers 16-200 would be the RF 14-35 f/4L IS, the RF 24-105 f/4L IS, and the RF 70-200 f/4L IS that together weigh 1,935g, but if you leave a gap between 50 and 70 and swap in the RF 20-50 f/4L IS Z the 3 lenses would weigh 1,655g. The lightest Sony trinity that covers 16-200 at f/4 is the 16-35 f/4 G PZ, the 20-70 f/4 G, and the 70-200 f/4 II G Macro, which weighs 1,635g and again the wider two lenses do not have OSS. So the Sony kit is lighter, but only by 20g if you can live with a gap between 50 and 70. What if we want to cover at least 400mm on the long end. With Canon that kit would look like the 14-35 f/4L IS, the 24-105 f/4L IS, and the 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS, which together weigh 2,605g. The most similar Sony kit to that is 12-24 f/4 G, the 24-105 f/4 OSS G, and the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM, which together weigh a very similar 2.623g.
When I put these trinities together. I don't see much in the weight difference between brands. That weight difference seems to be just a few lenses 15-35 f/2.8L IS, 24-70 f/2.8L IS, and 28-70 f/2, which either Canon did not try to make that small and/or for which they need new models, and Canon does have light options for these lenses for people who want to minimize weight. Overall, however, I am struck by how similar the weights are for the similar lenses.
I think there is a similar story for primes. I will return to that with another post tomorrow, but now I am going to bed.
TLDR: there isn't much to the weight difference between brands, IMO, and especially if you want to put together the lightest kit possible.
p.8 #10RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Jack Flesher wrote:
Allow me to make this patently easy for both of you. The primary decision YOU have to make for YOURSELF is system size and weight limits for travel and street vs say landscape, sports, wildlife, or lifestyle. Once you have that cemented, here's my view after years of shooting travel, street, lifestyle and landscape with a multitude of systems from M43 through medium format digital.
M43. You'll make nice "postcard" style images in good light with this system. It won't do shallow DoF or lower light evening outdoors or travel indoors like old churches and such. And why this became a non-option for me.
APSC. You'll again make wonderful postcard style travel images, and fare a bit better in lower light, but still not really great at really low light or shallow DoF looks or styles if that's what you're after. Size is nice compared to Canon and Nikon top tier FF, but this advantage is reduced significantly when Sony FF enters the discussion.
MF. Wonderful files, wonderful ability to render DoF styles, arguably the best landscape files you could wish for *as long as you're willing to accept the obvious at 100% diffraction that has crept in after f9.* Not so great at higher ISO, superwide glass, super long glass or faster action needs.
FF. The dreamland of options for everything from super wide to super long, to low light, to wide aperture, shallow DoF, to sweeping, extended DoF landscapes, to fast action and wildlife across all focal lengths. For travel can be heavyish and/or largish compared to APSC.
BUT here Sony has some options Canon and Nikon* don't... IF I couldn't take the weight of a Sony A7R5/6 and smaller f4 zooms and f1.8 primes for travel, I would get an A7CR or A7Cii. The last two with a few f4 zooms are essentially the same size and weight as the Fuji XT5/XH2 cams with their f2.8 zooms. And in the case of superwide, the Tamron FF 12-20/2.8 is a bit smaller and lighter than the Fuji 8-16/2.8 zoom; Sony's f4 70-200 OSS ii is about the same size and weight as the Fuji 50-150/2.8 zoom; and finally the Sony 20-70/4 is about the same size as the newer 16-55/2.8 Fuji zoom; so for the most part this becomes a net sum game where the difference is FF vs APSC. And for me, FF wins 8 days a week.
(*To be fair, Nikon has the Z7ii at about the same weight as the Sony A7R6, but the lenses are all significantly larger. In Nikon's corner however is the outstanding 24-105 zoom, so with that lens alone, it could be a worthy competitor to my Sony choice for travel -- assuming one is willing to put aside several camera function shortfalls compared to the Sony A7R6.)
In my case, the Sony A7R6 with battery and media is 198 gm heavier than the A7Cii. While not trivial, I carried both over my shoulder with the same lenses in the bag for a few extended days of shooting. The weight difference was not really all that noticeable, though surprisingly the size difference was more so; not hugely but there, and more importantly in the end for me, not enough for me to want to give up the newer cameras EVF, exquisite files and enhanced battery life. Add in dual card support and redundancy, and it was an easy decision for me to sell off the A7Cii.
There you have it in a nutshell. Yes, I am claiming FF in general for the broadest flexibility. Moreover, I am claiming Sony FF size and performance superiority for travel in the A7Cxx line; and if you can handle the extra bit of size and weight, I will go on record stating the A7R6 may as close to the ideal "all-around" camera body I have ever owned period...
And yeah, I know some of you won't like me being so utterly direct and decisive here, so flame-suit donned
EDIT: I'm going to go one step further for the OP. Sell EVERYTHING you now have except the Sony Tamron zooms. Buy an A7R6 and an A7CR. Use them with your Tammy zooms and decide what if anything you want to expand on OR eliminate and do it. You should have plenty of cash left over to add a couple GM zooms and good primes and you will literally own the best of all worlds to cover YOUR stated desires. You'll have great lens range, a great body for travel, a great body for landscape, sports and wildlife AND a good backup body to the A7R6 in case you need it.
- you can easily print A3 with MFT. Postcard size images is way off. OP doesn’t print anyway.
- the Canon R8 and next week R8II is a surprisingly small and lightweight FF camera that’s much better ergonomically than the Sony A7c cameras.
p.8 #11RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Although it is true that some of the older RF lenses were heavier, in general newer ones have been very close to Sony lenses in weight.
Here are some examples:Let's look at the trinity of ultra wide to wide, wide to short tele, and short tele to long tele at both f/2.8 and f/4
Ultra wide to wide:
at f/2.8
RF 15-35 f/2.8L IS - 840g
RF 16-28 f/2.8 IS STM - 445g
FE 12-24 f/2.8 GM - 847g
FE 16-35 f/2.8 II GM - 547g
FE 16-24 f/2.8 G - 409g
at f/4
RF 14-35 f/4L IS - 540g
FE 12-24 f/4 G - 565g
FE 16-35 f/4 G PZ - 353g.
Wide to short tele:
at f/2.8
RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS - 900g
RF 24-105 f/2.8L IS Z - 1,330g
RF 28-70 f/2.8 IS STM - 495g
FE 24-70 f/2.8 II GM - 695g
FE 24-50 f/2.8 G - 440g
at f/4
RF 20-50 f/4L Z - 420g
RF 24-105 f/4L IS -700g
FE 20-70 f/4 G - 488g
FE 24-105 f/4L OSS G - 663g
Short tele to longer tele
at f/2.8
RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS without tripod ring - 1,070g
RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS Z without tripod ring - 1,107g
RF 100-300 f/2.8L IS with tripod ring - 2,650g
FE 70-200 f/2.8 II IS GM - 1,045g
at f4 and f/4.5 at widest aperture
RF 70-200 f/4L IS - 695g
RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS without tripod ring - 1,365g
FE 70-200 f/4 II IS Macro GM without tripod ring - 794g
FE 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS GM- without tripod ring - 1,395g
FE 100-400 f/4.5 IS GM - with tripod ring - 1,840g
Now it is clear that Canon makes some f/2.8 lenses (15-35; 24-70; 100-300) that do not seem to be designed for low weight. You can still get a pretty low weight 16-28 f/2.8 IS STM, 28-70 f/2.8 IS STM, and 70-200 f/2.8L IS combo that cover 16-200 at f/2.8 and weighs 2,010g. A trinity of f/2.8 lenses that fully covers 16-200 at f/2.8 for Sony would weigh more at 2,287g and the Canon kit would have IS with both the wider lenses, but the Sony would have better build quality with those two wider lenses. You could also get a lighter kit with Sony if you leave a gap between 50 and 70, then you could go with the 16-25 f/2.8 G, the 24-50 f/2.8 G, and the 70-200 f/2.8 II GM. That would weigh just 1,894g or 116g lighter than the lightest Canon trinity, but the Canon trinity again has IS at both the wider lenses. All in all, it isn't clear to me that Sony really has much of an advantage at f/2.8 if you want light weight at least with first party lenses.
Now let's look at f/4. The lightest Canon kit that fully covers 16-200 would be the RF 14-35 f/4L IS, the RF 24-105 f/4L IS, and the RF 70-200 f/4L IS that together weigh 1,935g, but if you leave a gap between 50 and 70 and swap in the RF 20-50 f/4L IS Z the 3 lenses would weigh 1,655g. The lightest Sony trinity that covers 16-200 at f/4 is the 16-35 f/4 G PZ, the 20-70 f/4 G, and the 70-200 f/4 II G Macro, which weighs 1,635g and again the wider two lenses do not have OSS. So the Sony kit is lighter, but only by 20g if you can live with a gap between 50 and 70. What if we want to cover at least 400mm on the long end. With Canon that kit would look like the 14-35 f/4L IS, the 24-105 f/4L IS, and the 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS, which together weigh 2,605g. The most similar Sony kit to that is 12-24 f/4 G, the 24-105 f/4 OSS G, and the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM, which together weigh a very similar 2.623g.
When I put these trinities together. I don't see much in the weight difference between brands. That weight difference seems to be just a few lenses 15-35 f/2.8L IS, 24-70 f/2.8L IS, and 28-70 f/2, which either Canon did not try to make that small and/or for which they need new models, and Canon does have light options for these lenses for people who want to minimize weight. Overall, however, I am struck by how similar the weights are for the similar lenses.
I think there is a similar story for primes. I will return to that with another post tomorrow, but now I am going to bed.
TLDR: there isn't much to the weight difference between brands, IMO, and especially if you want to put together the lightest kit possible.
Just a nitpick- you can go lighter on the Sonys with the Sigma 16-28/2.8 and 28-70/2.8, which they don't make for Canon. There's little separating them optically, so they should count for something, even if it's coming from a third party.
p.8 #12RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
freaklikeme wrote:
Just a nitpick- you can go lighter on the Sonys with the Sigma 16-28/2.8 and 28-70/2.8, which they don't make for Canon. There's little separating them optically, so they should count for something, even if it's coming from a third party.
OK, but you don't need those for Canon because of Canon's own versions that are extremely similar in size, weight and price. Yes, Canon has pretty much excluded third party AF lenses from RF mount, but at least offers models such as these that are price competitive with third party options for other systems.
I agree with Steve's point that for the most part, there is not much size and weight difference for lenses of the same focal length, aperture and age range across systems. Everyone is putting their lenses on plastic composite diets to bring weight down as much as possible. Even Nikon with their new 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, though I'm not a fan of the latter having the zoom ring at the front of the lens.
I think bottom line is that every system is quite evenly matched, as much as some may not want to admit this, when it comes to core capabilities and options. Therefore brand has less relevance and OP should just focus on what feels best for him, hands-on.
p.8 #13RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
freaklikeme wrote:
Just a nitpick- you can go lighter on the Sonys with the Sigma 16-28/2.8 and 28-70/2.8, which they don't make for Canon. There's little separating them optically, so they should count for something, even if it's coming from a third party.
Hi Brad,
I alluded to that when I said, "at least with first party lenses," but I don't think things change much if you add the Sigma lenses to the Sony set. The Canon 16-28 f/2.8 IS STM, 28-70 f/2.8 IS STM, and the RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS weigh 2,010 as a trio. The Sigma FE 16-28 f/2.8, Sigma FE 28-70 f/2.8, and the Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 OSS II GM together weigh 1,965g, for that Sony trio and the two Sigma lenses don't have OSS or can shoot at the max fps. I think the existence of those lenses just makes my point that there really isn't anything to the weight differences outside of a couple of big first generation RF lenses that could use a refresh or which Canon does not care to make smaller because they have smaller alternatives.
p.8 #14RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
aCuria wrote:
You’re moving the goalposts by comparing lenses when we are talking sensors. A 1D can use the EF 50mm f/1.0L USM. On an OM-5, there’s no autofocus-capable 25mm f/0.5 equivalent; the fastest is the 25mm f/1.2. If we’re comparing the fastest available AF lenses, EF has the advantage.
Disagree. Dynamic range is the range between the brightest reproducible highlight and the darkest usable shadow. So highlight clipping is not separate from DR. Together with shadow quality, they are the two ends of the same dynamic range.
By your definition, the “right” exposure means exposing so that the highlights you care about are not clipped.
I care about ALL the highlights. All else being equal, the image is always going to be better if we have a hypothetical 30-stop sensor and can capture everything without clipping. That is also why I use exposure stacking whenever the subject allows for it, since it can effectively emulate a much higher-DR sensor.
Sony, like most other manufacturers, even has a “Highlight” metering mode designed specifically to protect highlights. The problem is that blindly protecting the brightest highlights can leave the midtones and shadows so severely underexposed that they cannot be adequately recovered in post.
So simply avoiding highlight clipping does not necessarily produce the “correct” exposure. The correct exposure is ultimately a compromise between choosing which highlights to clip AND maintaining sufficient quality in the darker parts of the image, and that compromise is dictated by the camera’s available dynamic range.
That is precisely why more dynamic range helps. If preserving the highlights forces everything else down, then the quality of those lower tones depends on how much usable range the sensor has below the highlights. Highlight retention and shadow quality are therefore not competing definitions of DR. They are the two boundaries that define it.
The sample images should clearly show everyone how the image improves as DR increases.
Even if I under-exposed the 1D shot by 2-3 stops and then pulled the exposure in POST, as Steve Spencer suggests, its not going to be as effective as simply using a camera body with more DR. In fact the shot would probably be technically worse than how I captured it because mid-tone and shadow quality would be degraded
I chose these shots because the 1D at ISO 3200 should have roughly similar dynamic range to the OM-5 at ISO 12,800, making it suitable for comparison with the A7iii shot at ISO 12,800.
I’m not advocating for or against the OM-5, in fact in my first post I do not suggest selling it:
This is because the OM5 definitely holds the weight advantage, especially with the two pancake lenses OP has. However the weight advantage is in a sense paid for in dynamic range. Win some lose some ...Show more →
"I chose these shots because the 1D at ISO 3200 should have roughly similar dynamic range to the OM-5 at ISO 12,800, making it suitable for comparison with the A7iii shot at ISO 12,800."
This is confusing. You make these claims, yet don't mention any numbers.
More important is that you seem to believe that the dynamic range at high ISO is a characteristics of a camera! The DR is a ratio of signal to noise. Assuming that modern cameras have similar read noise, the DR is decided by the signal, that is by the amount of light projected onto their sensors. Given the same amount of light, at high ISO, the dynamic range of any modern camera is practically the same, regardless of the sensor size. If there is a small difference in DR, this is going to be due to lower or higher read noise but the real-life DR differences are typically small (see photonstophotos).
It is wrong, meaningless and misleading to compare the DR at the same ISO when the sensors are of different sizes because this means that these sensors have not been exposed to the same amount of light. The more light is projected, the better should be the DR!
The only correct way to compare two cameras with sensors of different sizes is under photographically equivalent conditions becase this ensures that the sensors are exposed to the same amounts of light. Recall that equivalent ISO values are related by the crop factor squared. For example, at ISO 12,800 on the A7III, the equivalent ISO is 12,800/4 = 3,200 on the OM-5.
At (auto) ISO 12,800, the sensor of a full-frame camera is given the same amount of light as a micro-four-thirds sensor at ISO 3,200.
The bottom line, a discussion of the dynamic range is meaningful ONLY under the conditions of photographic equivalence, that is when we know that there has been no "cheating" by shining more light onto one sensor vs. another, because if there has been, the sensor that received more light should have the better DR (for no other reason!).
Thank you for sharing the experience of successfully using 2s long exposures on the A9iii. I didn't know that this was possible with this camera.
p.8 #15RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
rscheffler wrote:
OK, but you don't need those for Canon because of Canon's own versions that are extremely similar in size, weight and price. Yes, Canon has pretty much excluded third party AF lenses from RF mount, but at least offers models such as these that are price competitive with third party options for other systems.
I agree with Steve's point that for the most part, there is not much size and weight difference for lenses of the same focal length, aperture and age range across systems. Everyone is putting their lenses on plastic composite diets to bring weight down as much as possible. Even Nikon with their new 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, though I'm not a fan of the latter having the zoom ring at the front of the lens.
I think bottom line is that every system is quite evenly matched, as much as some may not want to admit this, when it comes to core capabilities and options. Therefore brand has less relevance and OP should just focus on what feels best for him, hands-on....Show more →
You do need them because Canon botched the autofocus motors implementation on quite a handful of their RF glass
Having used STM for a long time with my EF cameras, I never loved Canon’s inconsistent STM implementations.
Sometimes Canon’s STM implementations are incompetent. 85/2 STM is super slow, 18-45 is noisy and whines and so on.
Sometimes STM is ok, like the 28-70 STM. It’s not quite as fast as 24-70 nano USM but at least it’s not noisy. However if nano USM and VCM is faster, it begs the question why Canon as a first party uses the stm motor at all.
It’s not like VCM motors are expensive, even the $299 Viltrox AF 26/2.8 uses them.
Nano USM and VCM are consistently faster focusing, more quiet or both. I just wish Canon would make all their lenses using the best possible focus motor for the lens and not cut any corners for any lens at any price
It feels like some of these decisions were made by the marketing department rather than the engineers at Canon.
As it stands, I would prefer third-party lenses with VCM motors over some of Canon’s STM glass
p.8 #16RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
snegron7 wrote:
Welcome to my world. 😀
In my case choosing what 'standard' kit to bring depends on whether I want to shoot with the 24mm or the 105mm more: R6MKII + vertical grip + RF 24-70/2.8 L IS + Canon El-5 or A7V + vertical grip + Sigma 28-105/2.8 DG DN ART + Godox V100S? I haven't weighed them but they feel about the same weight to me in my backpack.
p.8 #17RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
aCuria wrote:
Having used STM for a long time with my EF cameras, I never loved Canon’s inconsistent STM implementations.
Sometimes Canon’s STM implementations are incompetent. 85/2 STM is super slow, 18-45 is noisy and whines and so on.
Sometimes STM is ok, like the 28-70 STM. It’s not quite as fast as 24-70 nano USM but at least it’s not noisy. However if nano USM and VCM is faster, it begs the question why Canon as a first party uses the stm motor at all.
It’s not like VCM motors are expensive, even the $299 Viltrox AF 26/2.8 uses them.
Nano USM and VCM are consistently faster focusing, more quiet or both. I just wish Canon would make all their lenses using the best possible focus motor for the lens and not cut any corners for any lens at any price
It feels like some of these decisions were made by the marketing department rather than the engineers at Canon.
As it stands, I would prefer third-party lenses with VCM motors over some of Canon’s STM glass ...Show more →
As I have argued a bunch of times over the years, it is not the technology in the motor that matters it is the implementation of the technology and how that interacts with the lens design. STM correctly implemented with the lens design can work very well as you acknowledge with the 28-70. Personally, I find the 85 f/2 STM to work fine as well as long as you recognize it is a quasi-macro lens with a really long focus range and set the focus limiter for your intended use. VCM can be a great choice but so can STM, both can be a bad choice if not implemented well, however. Personally, I would much rather have an STM that is capable of the the full fps on my camera than a VCM that can only shoot at 15 fps (i.e., third party on Sony), but that is just me and my preferences.
p.8 #18RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
So far, I haven't found any non-L series Canon RF lenses worth owning. The cheaper lenses are generally unpleasant to use, and most of them suffer from significant amounts of chromatic aberration.
Sony has a few really cheap, crappy lenses too, but the bulk of their lineup is pretty decent (barring the odd misaligned zoom lens).
p.8 #19RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
The 100-400 and 200-800 are excellent. I also really love the 45/1.2, though it definitely shows plenty of CA - but optically it’s roughly the same as the EF 50/1.2L, which many people still use today.
p.8 #20RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Steve Spencer wrote:
As I have argued a bunch of times over the years, it is not the technology in the motor that matters it is the implementation of the technology and how that interacts with the lens design. STM correctly implemented with the lens design can work very well as you acknowledge with the 28-70. Personally, I find the 85 f/2 STM to work fine as well as long as you recognize it is a quasi-macro lens with a really long focus range and set the focus limiter for your intended use. VCM can be a great choice but so can STM, both can be a bad choice if not implemented well, however. Personally, I would much rather have an STM that is capable of the the full fps on my camera than a VCM that can only shoot at 15 fps (i.e., third party on Sony), but that is just me and my preferences....Show more →
I agree that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I don't really care what focus motor technology Canon uses, as long as they use whatever implementation delivers the best performance for that lens.
However they obviously dropped the ball with the RF85/2.
You blame the RF85/2's slow focus on its so called "long focus throw", yet lenses with much longer focus throw like Canon's own RF100/2.8L Macro can focus silently and plenty fast.
At $600+, I think the RF 85/2 is daylight robbery. the AF implementation is horrendous, and it doesn't even do 1:1 macro. The Tamron 90/2.8 VXD Macro costs around the same, gives you a true 1:1 macro, and has dramatically faster AF. This makes the Tamron the obvious choice for a budget macro lens.
Yes, the 15 fps third-party limitation on Sony sucks, but hey there is no such limitation on the Nikon Z mount version!
The RF 85/2 also becomes pretty useless when you have a videographer shooting next to you, or when genuinely quiet operation is mandatory. Its focusing mechanism makes enough noise that it can be picked up by nearby microphones. Silent electronic shutter doesn't help much if the lens itself is making so much noise every time it focuses.
