# Canon is thinking about more lenses like the RF 600mm f/11 STM and RF 800mm f/11 STM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 30, 2020)

> Canon’s Kengo Iezuka suggested recently in an interview with Mynavi News that Canon is considering more lenses like the RF 600mm f/11 STM and RF 800mm f/11 STM super-telephoto lenses. He notes that these types of lenses weren’t possible on DSLRs because of the autofocus technological differences between a mirrorless and a DSLR.
> “This lens has a darker F11 opening value, but it can be said that it was born because of the EOS R, which can use high-speed and high-precision AF even at such an opening value.”
> Mr. Iezuka was asked specifically about the possibility of an RF 400mm f/8 STM to complete a trilogy of super small super-telephoto lenses. It sounded like something he wanted to see by saying “It would be nice to have it completed”.
> I think the sales numbers of the RF 600 f/11 STM and RF 800 f/11 STM will determine if Canon continues with these lenses, as they did take a bit of a gamble investing development dollars into...



Continue reading...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 30, 2020)

Maybe a RF500mm F8...


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 30, 2020)

No doubt a 400mm F/8 could be a super affordable $500 option for parents photographing their kid's soccer/football games during daylight. Same with a 500mm F/8.

My only hope is that Canon waits until they drop their set of high-end RF-mount supertelephoto lenses around the same time, so that gearheads can maybe zip it for once about not wanting these lenses. These really, truly have a great place in the line-up that most other companies don't come close to having. It's really excellent to see Canon do this so quickly after diving into mirrorless, just imagine what they have in store on the high-end!

From what I can tell, the 600 and 800mm F/11 have sold like hotcakes, there's already dozens of customer reviews out there already on the big consumer sites, which seems to me to indicate they're selling pretty well on an actual consumer level. Think of all the people who buy the superzoom digicams, like the G3X, and how much they would benefit from full frame 600mm, even at F/11.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 30, 2020)

500mm F16 or 100-400 F8-F11?


----------



## efmshark (Nov 30, 2020)

There's no need for an RF 400mm f/8. EF 400mm f/5.6L is relatively light and low cost, an is an excellent option especially with IBIS making its way to R series cameras. An updated RF 400mm f/5.6 IS wouldn't necessarily be much larger/heavier than a f/8 version.

An RF 500mm f/8 or an RF600mm f/8 would be much more interesting.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 30, 2020)

efmshark said:


> There's no need for an RF 400mm f/8. EF 400mm f/5.6L is relatively light and low cost, an is an excellent option especially with IBIS making its way to R series cameras. An updated RF 400mm f/5.6 IS wouldn't necessarily be much larger/heavier than a f/8 version.
> 
> An RF 500mm f/8 or an RF600mm f/8 would be much more interesting.


And the EF 400mm f/5.6L has been discontinued. Obviously, Canon has identified a need.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 30, 2020)

efmshark said:


> There's no need for an RF 400mm f/8. EF 400mm f/5.6L is relatively light and low cost, an is an excellent option especially with IBIS making its way to R series cameras. An updated RF 400mm f/5.6 IS wouldn't necessarily be much larger/heavier than a f/8 version.
> 
> An RF 500mm f/8 or an RF600mm f/8 would be much more interesting.



An 500 5.6 would be interesting.


----------



## mbike999 (Nov 30, 2020)

I realize these are targeted towards a different market, but a fresnel 500 F/5.6 (like Nikon's PF lens) or 600 F/5.6 would be far more interesting to me.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 30, 2020)

How about 400-800/5.6-11 zoom?


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 30, 2020)

I don´t think there is room for another 400mm lense since according the rumored the 100-400mm with F7.1 at the far end is coming. The difference from F7.1 to F8 would be too small. The price probably as well, if the 100-400mm is indeed a follow-up to the EF 70-300mm and priced competitively. 

I`m sure another kind of these lense will be coming (but I have no idea what focal length) since according to this forum and some other reports they are selling really well. Imagine how they'll sell when traveling - like before the pandemic - starts again (sadly probably more like in 2022). So many Safari tourist who'll opt for these lenses. A new cashcow  

I thought these lense were great innovative ideas, but I feared that they would not be successful cause of the pandemic. Obviously and thankfully I was wrong about that


----------



## tron (Nov 30, 2020)

A 500 5.6 DO would be interesting.
A 600 5.6 DO would be interesting.
A 800 8 DO would be interesting.
A 1000 8 DO would be interesting.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 30, 2020)

tron said:


> A 500 5.6 DO would be interesting.
> A 600 5.6 DO would be interesting.
> A 800 8 DO would be interesting.
> A 1000 8 DO would be interesting.



DO tell why.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Nov 30, 2020)

1200 f/32 please, $300. Sold.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Nov 30, 2020)

tron said:


> A 500 5.6 DO would be interesting.
> A 600 5.6 DO would be interesting.
> A 800 8 DO would be interesting.
> A 1000 8 DO would be interesting.



600 f/5.6 yes,
1000 f/8 yes.

Rather the 600 f/5.6 than 800 f/8 since I can make an 840 f/8 anyway and have a stop more light when needed.


----------



## HAWKS61 (Nov 30, 2020)

What about thinking about EF-M customers. Or is that line dead now with no mention of anything for months


----------



## xanbarksdale (Nov 30, 2020)

These lenses do absolutely nothing for me...

I'm sure that some people will definitely want the discount telephoto lenses, but I wish Canon would focus on releasing more high quality L glass. I'm still patiently waiting for the RF 24mm...


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 30, 2020)

I've been very happy with the DO 800 f11 (which I like to call my "pirate lens" due to its' long collapsible design).
I think a similar DO 1200 f16 would probably sell quite well.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 30, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I've been very happy with the DO 800 f11 (which I like to call my "pirate lens" due to its' long collapsible design).
> I think a similar DO 1200 f16 would probably sell quite well.


The f/16 on the R5 would be getting so far into diffraction limitation it would have hardly any more resolution than the 800/11 and getting very dark. At the other extreme, the 400/4 DO is performing really well on the R5, but it’s neither cheap nor very small.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 30, 2020)

HAWKS61 said:


> What about thinking about EF-M customers. Or is that line dead now with no mention of anything for months



Pretty much dead. No lens for over a year and one firmware update in form of M50 Mark 2


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 1, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...




They sure are capable of coming up with these obscure lens designs but was never able to update the EF 50. Our friendly neighborhood photography writers/journalists/posters have never even bothered to ask this question to Canon in a meaningful way much less get any meaningful answers. I haven't seen this topic questioned by any photo site in many years and the EF 1.4 50 was already 20-year-old design, still selling at 350.00 to this day.

And there is no non-L 50mmR on the roadmap besides the cheapo. Just RIDICULOUS. I will bet that they don't have confidence that non-L 50mm 1.4 wouldn't bury the lavish L version in sales. I mean there's got to be some decent explanation of this scenario that's carrying itself over into mirrorless.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 1, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The f/16 on the R5 would be getting so far into diffraction limitation it would have hardly any more resolution than the 800/11 and getting very dark. At the other extreme, the 400/4 DO is performing really well on the R5, but it’s neither cheap nor very small.


How would you compare the 800 f11 to a 1200 f16? Would you use a 1.4x TC to make it 1320 f15.4? That's still not 1400 and basically f16 and you have all those extra TC elements to muddy up the image further. If you instead crop the 800 f11 by 1.5x then you have a 1200 f16.5 with only 44% of the pixels used, so you have to use software upsampling with its artifacts to get the same MP. Either way I think you would have an appreciably worse image than the 1200 f16.


----------



## rontele7 (Dec 1, 2020)

Meanwhile Sony has the incredible 200-600 f/6.3, and Nikon the excellent 500mm f/5.6.
Why is Canon resistant to making actual useful lenses, and is instead focusing energy on these low quality novelties?


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 1, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> How would you compare the 800 f11 to a 1200 f16? Would you use a 1.4x TC to make it 1320 f15.4? That's still not 1400 and basically f16 and you have all those extra TC elements to muddy up the image further. If you instead crop the 800 f11 by 1.5x then you have a 1200 f16.5 with only 44% of the pixels used, so you have to use software upsampling with its artifacts to get the same MP. Either way I think you would have an appreciably worse image than the 1200 f16.


But 800mm f/11 is still f/11 when you crop it (not f/15.4). Not the same as adding a TC at all. Let's not get into "bokeh equivalency" arguments on this one. You don't lose any stops of light when you crop. At that focal length, background blur isn't a problem if that is what one is looking for. I'm with you. I don't think I would even attempt a TC on one of these lenses.


----------



## Danglin52 (Dec 1, 2020)

I had the RF 800mm on launch, but returned it to B&H. The lens had decent IQ and IS, but the f11 was too slow for shooting wildlife shortly after sunrise / before sunset. I also found the bokeh a little disappointing. I think these are great lenses that provide a good telephoto solutions for those who can't or choose not to purchase the f4's. Canon is basically giving us a low end solution in the $600-$800 range or professional quality in the $9,000-$13,000 range. I wish they would provide EF 400 f4 IS DO II type lenses in the middle. I would happily pay $5k - $7k for a 500/600 f4 IS DO with good image quality and bokeh. If they can do it for EF, they should be able to do it for RF. Seems like a missed market opportunity. I would also shell out good bucks for a RF 200-600 f4-f5.6 w/integrated TC to replace the EF 200-400 f4 L IS as long as it was 6.5lbs or less.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 1, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> But 800mm f/11 is still f/11 when you crop it. Not the same as adding a TC at all. Let's not get into "bokeh equivalency" arguments on this one. You don't lose any stops of light when you crop. At that focal length, background blur isn't a problem if that is what one is looking for.


OK, I guess we can all just crop our telephoto shots out the waazoo and get any super long mm range and claim the original f# of our modest tele lens. Thanks - we can all do that now! Woo-hoo!


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 1, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> OK, I guess we can all just crop our telephoto shots out the wawzoo and get any super long mm range and claim the original f# of our modest tele lens. Thanks - we can all do that now! Woo-hoo!


That wasn't the point. The point is that cropping does not change the f/stop. It just doesn't. Adding a TC does. If I have an EF 400mm f/5.6L it does not matter whether or not I am using a FF or crop sensor... it is still f/5.6. So the "claim" is true. Says so in the EXIF too.


----------



## Tony Bennett (Dec 1, 2020)

I'm happy with my 800 f/11. We took it on vacation in October and we were able to photograph things we'd never been able to before. I'd consider picking up another focal length like a 400 f/8 if it were available.

Here are two photos of an elk in Rocky Mountain National Park in October 2020. One was at 70mm the other with the 800. I'm estimating the elk was about 250 yards or 750 feet away. The 800 is exactly what I wanted it to be. A telephoto lens that allowed my wife and I to get up close to everything we wanted without the expense of high end glass. I've never owned anything longer than the 70-200 because I don't earn a living with longer glass and I couldn't justify buying anything longer then the 70-200.


----------



## magarity (Dec 1, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> 1200 f/32 please, $300. Sold.


"Opteka" already makes one of those. You don't want it.


----------



## LeBlobe (Dec 1, 2020)

im all for new designs , what about some funky macro lenses !


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 1, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> But 800mm f/11 is still f/11 when you crop it (not f/15.4). Not the same as adding a TC at all. Let's not get into "bokeh equivalency" arguments on this one. You don't lose any stops of light when you crop. At that focal length, background blur isn't a problem if that is what one is looking for. I'm with you. I don't think I would even attempt a TC on one of these lenses.





CanonFanBoy said:


> That wasn't the point. The point is that cropping does not change the f/stop. It just doesn't. Adding a TC does. If I have an EF 400mm f/5.6L it does not matter whether or not I am using a FF or crop sensor... it is still f/5.6. So the "claim" is true. Says so in the EXIF too.


Well, if it has the noise, dof, and subject movement of a full frame capture at f15.4 is it true to say “the aperture doesn’t change”? Sure the number in EXIF stays the same but by any visual measure cropping changes the aperture, as defined by area of acceptable focus, or light gathering power, or, indeed, the classic apparent focal length divided by apparent entrance pupil size.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 1, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Well, if it has the noise, dof, and subject movement of a full frame capture at f15.4 is it true to say “the aperture doesn’t change”? Sure the number in EXIF stays the same but by any visual measure cropping changes the aperture, as defined by area of acceptable focus, or light gathering power, or, indeed, the classic apparent focal length divided by apparent entrance pupil size.


Doesn't the exposure triangle stay the same? By that I mean ISO, shutter speed, and f/stop? Cropping may well change the "bokeh", but doesn't change the aperture or the exposure. Other than that, I got nothing.  As far as noise, I almost never go above ISO 400 anyway, though I am sure others go way beyond that. So maybe I'd be better off saying, "for me."


----------



## illadvisedhammer (Dec 1, 2020)

HAWKS61 said:


> What about thinking about EF-M customers. Or is that line dead now with no mention of anything for months





HAWKS61 said:


> What about thinking about EF-M customers. Or is that line dead now with no mention of anything for months


I’m always thinking about this. The m6ii is our densest sensor, so a great tele tool. I’m pretty happy adapting a 300 4 IS with a 1.4 X teleconverter, so a 400 f8 wouldn’t increase range, especially as it negates the TC, but it might be so much smaller it gets used more often. Could it be as small as the 55-250 EF-S?


----------



## Tony Bennett (Dec 1, 2020)

Here's another photo I took on vacation. Hand-held 1/800 iso 320. This is car wreckage on the Salt River in Arizona. The distance is 1.15 miles. The 800 f/11 enabled me to get this photo and be able to zoom in in Lightroom.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 1, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Doesn't the exposure triangle stay the same? By that I mean ISO, shutter speed, and f/stop? Cropping may well change the "bokeh", but doesn't change the aperture or the exposure. Other than that, I got nothing.  As far as noise, I almost never go above ISO 400 anyway, though I am sure others go way beyond that. So maybe I'd be better off saying, "for me."


Well it depends what you refer to in the context of aperture really. If you are using it to define the settings the camera used, then yes they are the same. However if you are using it to describe the image you will see then cropping very much changes the aperture and 'equivalence' very much comes into the equation.

As soon as people crop and talk about _'an effective focal length'_ they open a can of worms

So when people say something like _"shot on a ff camera @ 800mm, f8, 1/800 sec, at iso 400 and then cropped to 1/4 the size for an effective focal length of 1600mm"_ though they normally leave out the crop amount that is so important for context, they could just have accurately said _"shot with a ff equivalent 1600mm, f16, 1/800, 1600iso". _It really becomes a matter of context. You and I could stand on a large chess board and I could state quite correctly I am standing on white but around me is all black (to the left right forward and back) where you could be standing on a black square and say I had it all wrong!

I think photography is a visual medium so when we start to describe what we are doing/using it is fair to think of that in respect to the end visual result, in that context I believe it is very relevant and accurate to say cropping changes aperture, because in an actual image it 100% does.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Dec 1, 2020)

An affordable 1200mm would be lovely.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 1, 2020)

Put in context of Tony's picture and crop.

First image:- FF, 800mm, f11, iso 320.
Second image:- FF, 800mm, f11, iso 320, but cropped to 1/12 the size (a crop factor of 3.5) so ff equivalent of 2,800mm, f38.5, iso 1,120.

I believe that is more honest than just saying equivalent 2,800mm, f11. After all, if Canon said they'd make a 2,800mm f40 everyone would laugh, but Tony's picture proves it is actually usable.


----------



## danfaz (Dec 1, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> And there is no non-L 50mmR on the roadmap besides the cheapo. Just RIDICULOUS.


My question would be why bother? Honestly, you have the premium 1.2 and the budget 1.8. I know there were 3 EF 50s, but that doesn't mean there has to be 3 RF 50s.


----------



## AJ (Dec 1, 2020)

Tony Bennett said:


> Here's another photo I took on vacation. Hand-held 1/800 iso 320. This is car wreckage on the Salt River in Arizona. The distance is 1.15 miles. The 800 f/11 enabled me to get this photo and be able to zoom in in Lightroom.


Sheesh, that sounds like a rough vacation. Glad to hear you walked away from that.


----------



## Rocksthaman (Dec 1, 2020)

Smaller lenses in general would be nice. The cameras have ibis.

Smaller &lighter 15-35 , 24-70 and 1.4/1.8 primes without IS would be awesome. The E Mount has been killing this lane.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 1, 2020)

I would like a f/4 200mm STM or nano-USM lens with good IS, e.g. 1:3 or 1:4 closeup and maybe 100 ... 120mm total length ...
This should be uncritical to produce and I would pay 600 EUR for it if it has very good IQ from f/4 on.
might replace my 70-200 f/4 lens which I like very much but which is used mostly on the 200mm side.


----------



## Joules (Dec 1, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Doesn't the exposure triangle stay the same? By that I mean ISO, shutter speed, and f/stop? Cropping may well change the "bokeh", but doesn't change the aperture or the exposure. Other than that, I got nothing.  As far as noise, I almost never go above ISO 400 anyway, though I am sure others go way beyond that. So maybe I'd be better off saying, "for me."


Well, I think that's a big part of the issue. f-number (not the same as actual aperture), shutter speed and ISO all affect the brightness of an image. So it is fair to think of them as some triangle where they all play an equal role in a sense.

But f-number and shutter speed control the amount of light that contributes to your exposure. ISO is different than the other two - it merely amplifies what the other two determine. Therefore, thinking about it as equally important as the other two can lead to confusion.

For example, people associate ISO with noise, when in reality, the noise in your image is almost entirely determined by f-number and shutter speed, or the signal in your image. ISO just needs to get higher when the others are to low to achieve the desired brightness. But it is not responsible for the noise. In fact, higher ISOs show less noise if you keep the other two settings identical and adjust the brightness in post to match between different ISO values.

So it doesn't really matter if you stay at or below ISO 400 all the time. If you push the brightnes of your image in post, that is the same or worse than shooting at a higher ISO.

And as cropping discards light from the edges of the frame, any noise in the image will become more apparent. Doing the crop in hardware through a TC and adjusting brightness via ISO or editing delivers a very, very similar image. So, the only difference between TC and crop comes down to resolution. You lose some quality due to extra glass in a TC. And you lose a bunch of pixels when cropping. Depending on the resolution of your sensor, one will be better than the other.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Dec 1, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> Canon is basically giving us a low end solution in the $600-$800 range or professional quality in the $9,000-$13,000 range.


I doubt this price for the big whities....
All RF lenses were more or less 1,5x of the EF original price (not street price), so I would say 15-18k each....


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 1, 2020)

Collapsible tele lenses are certainly an interesting concept.
Yet, why limit it to "lower" quality, low aperture lenses?
I'd appreciate a super-compact RF 5,6/400 L or, even better, an RF 5,6/500 L, with extender compatibiliy (lens extended...).


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 1, 2020)

Other lenses like those RF are surely welcome.
Funny that Canon left this "low cost super tele" market so long to third party manufacturers.


----------



## Charlie_B (Dec 1, 2020)

I think Canon should go the other way, maybe a 200-600mm f4 . Not enough light available for me most of the year, I'm struggling with my 100- 500mm f4.5- f7.1 so don't use it just now


----------



## dolina (Dec 1, 2020)

It would be smart of Canon to eat into the market of Rokinon, Samyang, Sigma, Tamron & Tokina if they want to grow or at least maintain yearly units shipped or revenue.

2020 is the worst year yet in a 10 year decline since 2010(?).

To be honest I wish never got into a buying spree from 2008.

Money and time I spent on photography would have been spent on MBA, wife and kids.

I would have never met those birding losers.

*Edit: *If anyone white knights I am referring to those in the Philippines.


----------



## Canfan (Dec 1, 2020)

The image quality from an F11 lens in anything other than very bright light or perfect conditions isn't all that great, particularly on the R5. At f11 diffraction is already showing.
I know the high ISO capability to the R5 is better but a crop frame camera like the 90D or M6 MKII will give better image quality with a brighter lens.

Don't get me wrong these lens have their use but for birding or wildlife in forested areas or trails the use is quite limited. The weight is a huge plus for the f11 and reason why the heavy monster 800mm f5.6 doesn't get much use in comparison, if i buy this it would probably get limited use as well because of the f11.

I think 90% of photographers live between f4-f8.so canon should focus on that. Maybe the third party guys will force them to do that or come out with something more suitable to the masses. Social media influencer disguised paid ads and the youtube tend to overstate the utility of this lens, which I believe once the novelty wears off will sit somewhere in your home collecting dust.


----------



## Joules (Dec 1, 2020)

Canfan said:


> The image quality from an F11 lens in anything other than very bright light or perfect conditions isn't all that great, particularly on the R5. At f11 diffraction is already showing.
> I know the high ISO capability to the R5 is better but a crop frame camera like the 90D or M6 MKII will give better image quality with a brighter lens.
> 
> Don't get me wrong these lens have their use but for birding or wildlife in forested areas or trails the use is quite limited. The weight is a huge plus for the f11 and reason why the heavy monster 800mm f5.6 doesn't get much use in comparison, if i buy this it would probably get limited use as well because of the f11.
> ...


A 90D / M6 II with a 500 f/6.8 will produce the same image quality as the 800 mm f/11 on the R5. No such lens that I am aware of currently exits in EF mount. Plenty of lenses with 600 mm 6.3 on the long end exist and that is better in both reach and light - But comes at a price of weight and size. The EF 100-400 mm 4.5-5.6 L is also comparable, but much, much more expensive.

If you look just at the f/11 without factoring in the reach, you can't make an accurate judgement on the value provided by the 800 mm f/11. I don't believe the notion that that lens will end up collecting dust as long as it is used on FF bodies which match its price segment (RP, R6, ...). If you can afford an R5 and are serious about wildlife, there are of course much more suitable options out there and they will become more plentiful in the future - but the key here is the affordability.


----------



## tapanit (Dec 1, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> But 800mm f/11 is still f/11 when you crop it (not f/15.4). Not the same as adding a TC at all. Let's not get into "bokeh equivalency" arguments on this one. You don't lose any stops of light when you crop.


When you crop you lose light by the crop factor, or more precisely, by the censor area used - you are literally discarding all photons that fall outside it. 

While f/11 remains f/11 regardless of the crop factor, saying that you don't lose "any stops of light" is misleading. "Stop" is not a useful measure for light when comparing different censor areas.

In terms of light gathering, as in how many photons are captured to make the picture, cropping has the same effect as TCs do (apart from the marginal difference in light transmission due to extra optical elements).

The difference is that TCs discard light at the exit pupil of the lens, spreading what remains to fill the censor, whereas cropping discards it at the censor, resulting in fewer pixels in the recorded image. Whether the loss of pixels is worse than the effect of the extra optical elements in the TC, depends on the quality of the TC and the lens and the censor, and even on the intended use of the image.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 1, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> But 800mm f/11 is still f/11 when you crop it (not f/15.4). Not the same as adding a TC at all.


The same. 800mm f/11 is still 800mm f/11, no matter if you crop it with a teleconverter or with a sensor.



CanonFanBoy said:


> Let's not get into "bokeh equivalency" arguments on this one. You don't lose any stops of light when you crop.


Actually, you lose all the light from the areas you discard when cropping. Again, no matter if you crop it with a teleconverter or with a sensor.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 1, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I don´t think there is room for another 400mm lense since according the rumored the 100-400mm with F7.1 at the far end is coming. The difference from F7.1 to F8 would be too small.



If a 400 f/8 takes the place of the old 400 f/5.6, it wouldn't be overcrowding the lineup, imo. 400mm has always been over-represented. Presumably the prime would be smaller/cheaper than even the lower-end zoom.

As for the people here talking about a 500 f/5.6, that's clearly not part of this range - it would be substantially larger and more expensive. Not that it wouldn't be a compelling, maybe popular lens. But this is not the place for that, let alone talking about EOS-M and general wish lists. People always love to shoe-horn in their pet desires whether or not it's relevant to the topic at hand.


----------



## slclick (Dec 1, 2020)

The segue from the EF 400 5.6L Unicorn version ll to a rumored RF 400 is complete. Let the 117 pages of RF 400 glass commence!


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 1, 2020)

Kit. said:


> The same. 800mm f/11 is still 800mm f/11, no matter if you crop it with a teleconverter or with a sensor.
> 
> 
> Actually, you lose all the light from the areas you discard when cropping. Again, no matter if you crop it with a teleconverter or with a sensor.


Well, not exactly true. With a TC the exposure triangle changes. Cropping, either by sensor size or in post, doesn't change the triangle at all. A TC adds more glass elements to the mix and less light gets through to the sensor. So yeah, an f/11 lens is still an f/11 lens, but when in combo with a TC... the f/stop is different for the combo than the primary lens by itself. When I crop an image, I don't lose light on my subject. I do with a TC. That's the difference. Using a TC and cropping are not the same thing.


----------



## Joules (Dec 1, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Using a TC and cropping are not the same thing.


No, but they produce virtually the same image quality if the resolution you get after cropping is sufficient for your display / print size.

If image quality is the primary criterion for what is considered equivalent, cropping and TC are just two sides of the same coin. In other words, if by just looking at the image instead of the exif or processing steps, you can't tell the difference between a cropped and a TC shot, we call them equivalent.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 1, 2020)

Joules said:


> No, but they produce virtually the same image quality if the resolution you get after cropping is sufficient for your display / print size.
> 
> If image quality is the primary criterion for what is considered equivalent, cropping and TC are just two sides of the same coin. In other words, if by just looking at the image instead of the exif or processing steps, you can't tell the difference between a cropped and a TC shot, we call them equivalent.


Actually, "equivalence" is exactly the argument I was avoiding in my OP. The original point was about losing or not losing light when cropping vs TC. F/11 vs f/16. How we think the final image looks is irrelevant to the argument. Would you rather take an image at f/11 and crop it? Or take the same image with a TC f/16 and no crop? I'll take the f/11 with a crop. Something tells me defraction at f/16 would make the image worse anyway. Not to mention the IQ hit a TC already gives on its own. Now, f/4 vs f/5.6 is a different situation, right?


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 1, 2020)

HAWKS61 said:


> What about thinking about EF-M customers. Or is that line dead now with no mention of anything for months


The EOS M system is not marketed for those interested in large lenses. It is aimed at people who want a compact, lightweight, and affordable camera with compact, lightweight, and affordable lenses. None of these lenses would be 61mm in diameter, which every current lens is.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 1, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Pretty much dead. No lens for over a year and one firmware update in form of M50 Mark 2


Not dead, just mature for its intended market. If you want lenses larger than 62mm in diameter, then EOS M is not intended for you.


----------



## degos (Dec 1, 2020)

Joules said:


> But it is not responsible for the noise. In fact, higher ISOs show less noise if you keep the other two settings identical and adjust the brightness in post to match between different ISO values.



You can't really say that as a rule because each camera has different ISO amplification quirks. Sometimes the hardware amp in the camera is better / lower noise than trying the same amplification in post-proc software for a given ISO. Consider that the manufacturer can tune the amp for given ISO equivalent values for a specific sensor, whereas software is generic and sensor-agnostic.

Shutter and aperture don't introduce any noise. How can they? They are purely mechanical functions. Noise arises from quantum and thermal effects in the sensor plus downstream processing.


----------



## Joules (Dec 1, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Actually, "equivalence" is exactly the argument I was avoiding in my OP. The original point was about losing or not losing light when cropping vs TC. F/11 vs f/16. How we think the final image looks is irrelevant to the argument. Would you rather take an image at f/11 and crop it? Or take the same image with a TC f/16 and no crop? I'll take the f/11 with a crop. Something tells me defraction at f/16 would make the image worse anyway.


Losing light is maybe a problematic way to phrase the issue. Let's say it this way: A TC spreads out light from a center section of the lens image circle over the whole image. And cropping discards all the light but that coming from this center section. So in the end, both methods yield the same amount of light. Now, the TC image will be darker, since brightness is a function of light density - hence the need to boost ISO / brightness in post. As I understand, that's why you argue that the exposure is not the same. Which I agree with - but it does not matter to me, since I care about the image more than the settings.

I'll put something with pictures togehter later, hopefully. That may make things clearer.

I also would prefer to use cropping over a TC but not for IQ reasons. I simply don't want to spend more money and carry more weight due to a TC - especially as you are right that diffraction limits how much detail there is to be gained using a TC anyway (I'm using a 150-600mm 5.0-6.3 C primarily).


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 1, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> They sure are capable of coming up with these obscure lens designs but was never able to update the EF 50. Our friendly neighborhood photography writers/journalists/posters have never even bothered to ask this question to Canon in a meaningful way much less get any meaningful answers. I haven't seen this topic questioned by any photo site in many years and the EF 1.4 50 was already 20-year-old design, still selling at 350.00 to this day.
> 
> And there is no non-L 50mmR on the roadmap besides the cheapo. Just RIDICULOUS. I will bet that they don't have confidence that non-L 50mm 1.4 wouldn't bury the lavish L version in sales. I mean there's got to be some decent explanation of this scenario that's carrying itself over into mirrorless.


From f/1.8 up, there's very little optical performance difference between the EF 50mm f/1.4 and the EF 50mm f/ 2.8 STM. Why would they replicate both in the RF mount?


----------



## Joules (Dec 1, 2020)

degos said:


> You can't really say that as a rule because each camera has different ISO amplification quirks. Sometimes the hardware amp in the camera is better / lower noise than trying the same amplification in post-proc software for a given ISO.


That's what I was saying here. You usually are better off using a higher ISO to avoid a noisy image, rather than using a lower one and raising the brightness in post. In other words, a high ISO value is usually adding less noise than a lower one.



degos said:


> Shutter and aperture don't introduce any noise. How can they? They are purely mechanical functions. Noise arises from quantum and thermal effects in the sensor plus downstream processing.


The main source of noise in images shot with modern sensor is photon shot noise, which is a property of light itself and has absolutely nothing to do with the sensor. It purely depends on the amount of photons you gather - which is determined by the f/number and shutter speed. Read noise (what the camera introduces) plays a part, but it is not as significant anymore. That's why we don't see huge improvements between sensor generations anymore. The shot noise is a physical limit to how good it can get, and as the distance to the theoretical perfection shrinks, it gets harder and harder to push forward.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 1, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Actually, "equivalence" is exactly the argument I was avoiding in my OP. The original point was about losing or not losing light when cropping vs TC. F/11 vs f/16. How we think the final image looks is irrelevant to the argument. Would you rather take an image at f/11 and crop it? Or take the same image with a TC f/16 and no crop? I'll take the f/11 with a crop. Something tells me defraction at f/16 would make the image worse anyway. Not to mention the IQ hit a TC already gives on its own. Now, f/4 vs f/5.6 is a different situation, right?


But that is where you are missing the point, if the cropped image and the ff image are equivalent then they are identical from a visual perspective, light captured is the same, diffraction is the same, dof is the same, etc etc.

Now there can be practical differences, time to put on a TC might not be available, indeed you might not have a TC, focus speed might be affected, etc, but that doesn’t change the fact that when comparing uncropped images with a longer slower lens/tc against a cropped lens image you can’t separate or avoid equivalence.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 1, 2020)

degos said:


> You can't really say that as a rule because each camera has different ISO amplification quirks. Sometimes the hardware amp in the camera is better / lower noise than trying the same amplification in post-proc software for a given ISO. Consider that the manufacturer can tune the amp for given ISO equivalent values for a specific sensor, whereas software is generic and sensor-agnostic.
> 
> Shutter and aperture don't introduce any noise. How can they? They are purely mechanical functions. Noise arises from quantum and thermal effects in the sensor plus downstream processing.


Noise also results from the random distribution of photons from a light source. The dimmer the light source, the more random the distribution. The basic source of noise in most photographs is the lack of enough light, not read noise.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 1, 2020)

First, I'd like to thank MichaelClark and PrivateByDesign for their carefully explained posts regarding equivalence.
And thanks, AlanF, for correcting me that lack of noise is mainly proportional to sqrt(total #photons captured).
Also, my example with a 200mm f4 is just to simplify what I'm trying to say, rather than focusing on a specific lens I want or use.

I'd like to give my opinions on how these 3 things compare for the same FF camera & ideal FF sensor, with the viewed "images" at the same size & brightness (where "ideal" just means 100% sensor quantum efficiency or 100% lens transmittance to simplify the discussion):
#1: Using an ideal FF 200mm f4 lens, with a 2x crop
#2: Using an ideal FF 200mm f4 lens, with an ideal 2x TC
#3: Using an ideal FF 400mm f8 lens
* All will produce the same image regarding the same angle of view, DOF, and OOF blur.
* All will capture the *same rate of total photons per unit time* for the image.
The differences between them are:
* #1 has the image on just 25% of the sensor area, while #2 and #3 have the image on 100% of the sensor area.
* Thus #2 and #3 have 4x the full-well capacity for the image as #1 and thus can capture 4x the total amount of light for it.
* If you stop your exposure at time T (when #1 reaches full-well for the brightest area) then #1 reaches "full exposure" while #2 and #3 are only 25% exposed but use a 4x ISO amplification to reach full exposure, and thus all three will produce the same image brightness from the same total # of photons, and thus with the same level of noise, assuming lack of noise is mainly due to sqrt(total #photons captured).
* If you allow the exposure in #2 and #3 to continue to be four times longer (4*T) then they will reach full exposure with 4x the total photons and thus sqrt(4) = 2x less noise than #1 (but 4x longer exposure can have 4x more subject motion blur, if any).
* #1 will have less pixels displayed in the image (vs #2 and #3) and thus will have less resolution with rougher edges, but using good upsizing interpolation can start to look somewhat close to the others.
* #1 and #3 will use (typically) a similar number of lens elements, while #2 adds a significant # of extra lens elements with a slight transmission loss but a significant contrast and resolution loss.
* Since #1 uses 25% of the sensor area for the image, the remaining 75% around it is still recorded (assuming you told the camera to do so). That allows you to more easily track fast moving subjects that might move out of view, and the ability in post to shift your image somewhat for a subject that moved off-center, or to zoom out to get a wider image (which is very useful, but not the point of this discussion).

All in all, my preference (if limited to just these 3 choices) is to use:
#3 for the best quality image, assuming the subject is not moving too fast to follow, and I can afford an additional lens and be willing to carry it around.
#1 would be my 2nd choice (if #3 isn't chosen).
#2 would not be my choice, as I'd prefer #1 over it mainly for the extra 75% area coverage around the image which I could use for the 3 reasons mentioned above.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 1, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> But that is where you are missing the point, if the cropped image and the ff image are equivalent then they are identical from a visual perspective, light captured is the same, diffraction is the same, dof is the same, etc etc.
> 
> Now there can be practical differences, time to put on a TC might not be available, indeed you might not have a TC, focus speed might be affected, etc, but that doesn’t change the fact that when comparing uncropped images with a longer slower lens/tc against a cropped lens image you can’t separate or avoid equivalence.


Actually, I used to have the Canon EF 2x III. I was always happier (much) with the cropped images from my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II than the images with the TC. Always. I was birding in those days. Might have been a different story with the 1.4x TC. Never happy with the 2x. There was a definite difference and no equivalence in IQ to my eyes. 2x on my old EF 400mm f/5.6L? Forget it. I always wished I’d bought the 1.4x instead.


----------



## Danglin52 (Dec 1, 2020)

davidcl0nel said:


> I doubt this price for the big whities....
> All RF lenses were more or less 1,5x of the EF original price (not street price), so I would say 15-18k each....


I don't think Canon will price that high on the big whites. Unless there is a significant jump in quality or unique features, photographers would stick with their already great EF glass. They won't be the same price, but I don't see them carrying that premium.


----------



## jeanluc (Dec 1, 2020)

I think they need to focus on basics...like figuring out how to produce what they have already “released”. My bitterness will improve in parallel to R5 availability...


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 1, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Actually, I used to have the Canon EF 2x III. I was always happier (much) with the cropped images from my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II than the images with the TC. Always. I was birding in those days. Might have been a different story with the 1.4x TC. Never happy with the 2x. There was a definite difference and no equivalence in IQ to my eyes. 2x on my old EF 400mm f/5.6L? Forget it. I always wished I’d bought the 1.4x instead.


Regarding that particular lens, I had what seemed a stellar copy, but it was poor with the 1.4x TC that worked fine on my long gone 100-400mm. Not a good combo for me at all.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 1, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Actually, I used to have the Canon EF 2x III. I was always happier (much) with the cropped images from my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II than the images with the TC. Always. I was birding in those days. Might have been a different story with the 1.4x TC. Never happy with the 2x. There was a definite difference and no equivalence in IQ to my eyes. 2x on my old EF 400mm f/5.6L? Forget it. I always wished I’d bought the 1.4x instead.


And that goes into the specifics of what is available and practical, like I pointed out af speed and time to fit, or even if you have one to use, and usern4cr pointed out light transmission etc, but there are still more, cost, size, weight and on and on.

There is the theoretical, and the actual practical, but when doing calculations for equivalence it becomes too complicated to factor in every single variable, the important bit is understanding the image characteristics like diffraction, dof, light gathering, subject motion etc are theoretically all equivalent/identical. You then have to work out the best practical solution given the available options for your specific situation, and even then different occasions might very well call for different solutions for the same person.

One very important aspect in all this is to understand that what is the right solution for one user might very well not be the best solution for another, we rarely seem to grasp this in our posts almost always thinking that because we use one setup that should work as well for others when it often won’t.

I’d agree my 70-200 f2.8 with a 2xTC was always a disappointment, on the other hand I know a guy in Australia who shoots pro swimming with that combination when he could have just about anything, and he very much knows what he is doing and fully understands gear and the physics behind it all. I also know my TS-E 50 with my 2xTC II is sharper than my 100 L even at close focus distances, but it becomes an f5.6, but it has tilt and shift etc etc etc.


----------



## BirdDudeJosh (Dec 1, 2020)

I have the RF 800 and 600 along with both the RF 2x and 1.4X TCs and the 100-500. I havent used the RF 600 much cause the RF 800 is so good. I also have the 400 DO II and both TC IIIs. IQ wise the bare RF800 against the DO II with the 2X TC are about the same but the RF has better/faster AF and much better stabilization. I have found being limited to the center zone for AF actually works just fine for tracking BIF. When you can easily get away hand holding at 1/400th or less it helps to make up for the light loss I can't get away with that kind of shutter speed on the 400 DO II. Lets be honest am I getting the RF 800 to shot peregrine falcons in flight, no the 100-500 will be for that. I am so happy with all the new RF lenses though.

I think there are too many people with too many strong opinions that haven't used any of these RF lenses and don't know what they are talking about. They also have some preconceived notion of diffraction being overwhelming without any idea of what the end results can be. The RF 800 f11 with 2x TC is amazing and so much fun to shoot with. 1600mm f22 offers an amazing perspective and in the right conditions is amazing to me. Are you going to crop much, of course not. If you can't fill the frame and compose your shot at 1600mm than it's not the right setup for you. For me though 1600mm f22 is so much better than I could have ever imagined and along with the subject detection and AF system of the RF I am so happy right now. 

Another use for this is someone who maybe isn't as serious in to photography but wants to get ID quality photos. 

I have a lot of stuff I have shared that has been shot with the R5 and the RF 800mm f11 and the TC's on my IG birddudejosh


----------



## AlanF (Dec 1, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> How would you compare the 800 f11 to a 1200 f16? Would you use a 1.4x TC to make it 1320 f15.4? That's still not 1400 and basically f16 and you have all those extra TC elements to muddy up the image further. If you instead crop the 800 f11 by 1.5x then you have a 1200 f16.5 with only 44% of the pixels used, so you have to use software upsampling with its artifacts to get the same MP. Either way I think you would have an appreciably worse image than the 1200 f16.


1200mm is for wimps. Real men use 2400mm https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/moon-at-2400mm-on-r5.39709/


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 1, 2020)

BirdDudeJosh said:


> I have the RF 800 and 600 along with both the RF 2x and 1.4X TCs and the 100-500. I havent used the RF 600 much cause the RF 800 is so good. I also have the 400 DO II and both TC IIIs. IQ wise the bare RF800 against the DO II with the 2X TC are about the same but the RF has better/faster AF and much better stabilization. I have found being limited to the center zone for AF actually works just fine for tracking BIF. When you can easily get away hand holding at 1/400th or less it helps to make up for the light loss I can't get away with that kind of shutter speed on the 400 DO II. Lets be honest am I getting the RF 800 to shot peregrine falcons in flight, no the 100-500 will be for that. I am so happy with all the new RF lenses though.
> 
> I think there are too many people with too many strong opinions that haven't used any of these RF lenses and don't know what they are talking about. They also have some preconceived notion of diffraction being overwhelming without any idea of what the end results can be. The RF 800 f11 with 2x TC is amazing and so much fun to shoot with. 1600mm f22 offers an amazing perspective and in the right conditions is amazing to me. Are you going to crop much, of course not. If you can't fill the frame and compose your shot at 1600mm than it's not the right setup for you. For me though 1600mm f22 is so much better than I could have ever imagined and along with the subject detection and AF system of the RF I am so happy right now.
> 
> ...


It's good to hear that you're so happy with the RF 800 f11, even with all the other choices you have. And it's good to hear that you like to add the RF 2x TC with it as well. I'm probably going to just crop with it for now for further reach. But one day Canon will come out with more RF long teles (either longer, faster, or both) and eventually I'll get one for even further reach or maybe similar reach with wider aperture.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 1, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Well, not exactly true. With a TC the exposure triangle changes.


Are you shooting film? If not, why would you care? Just crank up the "ISO".



CanonFanBoy said:


> When I crop an image, I don't lose light on my subject. I do with a TC.


No, you don't lose light on your subject with a TC. You just spread the same light over a larger sensor area.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 1, 2020)

A big reason that I got into Micro 4/3 is that I can get more reach out of lighter, and cheaper lenses.
Tony Northrup has long argued that much of the same could be accomplished in full-frame by having lower apertures.
However, Micro 4/3 will still be smaller.
Canon will never do Micro 4/3 but 1-inch or Super 16 ILC with RF or EF-M would be nice.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 1, 2020)

BirdDudeJosh said:


> I have the RF 800 and 600 along with both the RF 2x and 1.4X TCs and the 100-500. I havent used the RF 600 much cause the RF 800 is so good. I also have the 400 DO II and both TC IIIs. IQ wise the bare RF800 against the DO II with the 2X TC are about the same but the RF has better/faster AF and much better stabilization. I have found being limited to the center zone for AF actually works just fine for tracking BIF. When you can easily get away hand holding at 1/400th or less it helps to make up for the light loss I can't get away with that kind of shutter speed on the 400 DO II. Lets be honest am I getting the RF 800 to shot peregrine falcons in flight, no the 100-500 will be for that. I am so happy with all the new RF lenses though.
> 
> I think there are too many people with too many strong opinions that haven't used any of these RF lenses and don't know what they are talking about. They also have some preconceived notion of diffraction being overwhelming without any idea of what the end results can be. The RF 800 f11 with 2x TC is amazing and so much fun to shoot with. 1600mm f22 offers an amazing perspective and in the right conditions is amazing to me. Are you going to crop much, of course not. If you can't fill the frame and compose your shot at 1600mm than it's not the right setup for you. For me though 1600mm f22 is so much better than I could have ever imagined and along with the subject detection and AF system of the RF I am so happy right now.
> 
> ...


If, as you write quite correctly, you fill the frame, then you will get a decent image because high resolution really doesn't come in to it as the image size is so large compared with the diffraction blur. And that's how those lenses should be used. However, you will get just about as well-resolved images by using those narrow lenses without a TC on a high resolution sensor and cropping. I have posted the effects of TCs on their MTF-values in a thread https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...of-f-5-6-f-7-1-and-f-11-lenses-and-tcs.39118/

The TCs are more useful on a lower resolution like that on the R6. I find it much easier to locate small birds against a background using a shorter lens and then cropping, similarly for BIF. It was rather difficult even finding the moon when I shot it at 2400mm.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 1, 2020)

EOS 4 Life said:


> A big reason that I got into Micro 4/3 is that I can get more reach out of lighter, and cheaper lenses.
> Tony Northrup has long argued that much of the same could be accomplished in full-frame by having lower apertures.
> However, Micro 4/3 will still be smaller.
> Canon will never do Micro 4/3 but 1-inch or Super 16 ILC with RF or EF-M would be nice.


Nikon lost a fortune producing a rather good 1" ILC - the now discontinued 1-series - because not enough sold.


----------



## Canfan (Dec 1, 2020)

It is an apples to apples comparison. The MP density on the 90D and M6 MKii is much higher technically than the R5. 

Have tried out the 800mm. It isn't a bad lens for the price. You get similar performance from a 400mm 5.6 with a 2x convertor.






Joules said:


> A 90D / M6 II with a 500 f/6.8 will produce the same image quality as the 800 mm f/11 on the R5. No such lens that I am aware of currently exits in EF mount. Plenty of lenses with 600 mm 6.3 on the long end exist and that is better in both reach and light - But comes at a price of weight and size. The EF 100-400 mm 4.5-5.6 L is also comparable, but much, much more expensive.
> 
> If you look just at the f/11 without factoring in the reach, you can't make an accurate judgement on the value provided by the 800 mm f/11. I don't believe the notion that that lens will end up collecting dust as long as it is used on FF bodies which match its price segment (RP, R6, ...). If you can afford an R5 and are serious about wildlife, there are of course much more suitable options out there and they will become more plentiful in the future - but the key here is the affordability.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 1, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Noise also results from the random distribution of photons from a light source. The dimmer the light source, the more random the distribution. The basic source of noise in most photographs is the lack of enough light, not read noise.


I'm not sure how the randomness of the distribution can be measured. 
There's actually less shot noise in the shadows. What matters for the final image is not the noise but signal-to-noise ratio in the signal range that gets converted to the viewable image. The noise is lower in the shadows. The SNR is higher.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 2, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I'm not sure how the randomness of the distribution can be measured.


Usually by its standard deviation.



Quarkcharmed said:


> There's actually less shot noise in the shadows. What matters for the final image is not the noise but signal-to-noise ratio in the signal range that gets converted to the viewable image. The noise is lower in the shadows. The SNR is higher.


The shot noise magnitude is about the square root of the magnitude of the signal. So, while the absolute magnitude of the shot noise is lower in the shadows, the SNR in the shadows is lower, too.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 2, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Usually by its standard deviation.



I'd have guessed it was entropy not deviation, but I thought it was unlikely Michael Clack meant entropy.



Kit. said:


> The shot noise magnitude is about the square root of the magnitude of the signal. So, while the absolute magnitude of the shot noise is lower in the shadows, the SNR in the shadows is lower, too.



Sorry, of course. The SNR is *lower* in the shadows, and that leads to higher visible noise *if *the shadows are mapped to the resulting image. If they're not mapped or appear very dark and black, then there's little visible noise. If the shadows are lifted, that is mapped to mid-tones or even highlights in the resulting image, there will be more visible noise.

That is, it's actually ISO setting, when applied to the resulting image, creates *visible* noise. But we used the higher ISO because the image was too dark (the information was in the raw shadows with low SNR). So it's like chicken and egg problem.


----------



## Joules (Dec 2, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That is, it's actually ISO setting, when applied to the resulting image, creates *visible* noise. But we used the higher ISO because the image was too dark (the information was in the raw shadows with low SNR). So it's like chicken and egg problem.


The noise is not created by the ISO setting. Neither does it lower the Signal to Noise ratio. So not really chicken and egg.

Increasing the brightness of an image will however make noise more apparent in regions with poor SnR, as you say. Raising this brightness in post is not superior to doing it through ISO though if noise is the primary concern.

I'll post some pictures I took yesterday later.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 2, 2020)

Joules said:


> The noise is not created by the ISO setting. Neither does it lower the Signal to Noise ratio. So not really chicken and egg.



I never said ISO setting lowers the SNR. The higher ISO causes the camera or processing software to use lower range of the signal for producing the resulting image. Note you don't see the noise in the sensor or in the raw file. You can only see the noise in the processed image, you don't see it in the raw file. It is your interpretation of what is as a meaningful signal in the raw file.



Joules said:


> Increasing the brightness of an image will however make noise more apparent in regions with poor SnR, as you say. Raising this brightness in post is not superior to doing it through ISO though if noise is the primary concern.



I'm not saying it's superior or inferior. My point is simply it's a bit misleading to say that higher ISO doesn't increase the visible noise. It's an observable fact that higher-ISO images have more noise.
From the practical standpoint, if the image quality is your priority, you should minimise the ISO value - in general. But there are caveats say with the R5 where ISO 400 is cleaner than ISO 320 and has greater dynamic range.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 2, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> First, I'd like to thank MichaelClark and PrivateByDesign for their carefully explained posts regarding equivalence, which I do agree with.
> 
> I'd like to give my opinions on how these 3 things compare for the same FF camera & ideal FF sensor, with the viewed "images" at the same size & brightness (where "ideal" just means 100% sensor quantum efficiency or 100% lens transmittance):
> #1: Using an ideal FF 200mm f4 lens, with a 2x crop
> ...


Most of what you write is spot on, but a couple of points. A minor one is that photon noise varies as the square root of the number of photons. What is important to consider as well is the MTF or resolution of the sensor. For a low resolution sensor, increasing focal length is important as long as the f-number is not too far above the diffraction limit. At the other extreme, where the sensor resolution is really high, resolution is limited mainly by the diameter of the lens (entrance pupil) and not the focal length of the lens or the f-number. For example, with an extremely high resolution sensor, double the focal length of the lens with a 2xTC and you will increase the separation of two close points in the image by a factor of two but you will double the size of the diffraction disk around each and so leave the resolution unimproved. With a low resolution sensor, the distance separation doubles but the increase in size of the diffraction disk is less important as it is the size of the pixels that is more limiting.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 2, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> The SNR is *lower* in the shadows, and that leads to higher visible noise *if *the shadows are mapped to the resulting image. If they're not mapped or appear very dark and black, then there's little visible noise. If the shadows are lifted, that is mapped to mid-tones or even highlights in the resulting image, there will be more visible noise.


Human perception of the visual contrast is logarithmic, so as long as the SNR _itself_ is not changed by a non-linear mapping, the visibility of the noise should be about the same. If the shadows are non-linearly mapped _because the output media has less dynamic range than the sensor_, then the noise in the shadows can be less visible, but the signal itself will be lost in the shadows, too.



Quarkcharmed said:


> That is, it's actually ISO setting, when applied to the resulting image, creates *visible* noise. But we used the higher ISO because the image was too dark (the information was in the raw shadows with low SNR). So it's like chicken and egg problem.


The visible noise is created by having not "enough" of (luminous) exposure in the first place. If you want to minimize the noise, the exposure should be achieved as high as practically possible and the ISO should be set for the optimal pre-ADC amplifier gain.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 2, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Human perception of the visual contrast is logarithmic, so as long as the SNR _itself_ is not changed by a non-linear mapping, the visibility of the noise should be about the same. If the shadows are non-linearly mapped _because the output media has less dynamic range than the sensor_, then the noise in the shadows can be less visible, but the signal itself will be lost in the shadows, too.
> 
> 
> The visible noise is created by having not "enough" of (luminous) exposure in the first place. If you want to minimize the noise, the exposure should be achieved as high as practically possible and the ISO should be set for the optimal pre-ADC amplifier gain.



It's all true, and my point above is more about practical implications.
Generally if you're at a base ISO, you can get a cleaner image with a higher dynamic range. Setting a high ISO speed will limit you in DR and increase the noise.
Yes it's because there's less light and less information. But setting a higher ISO speed puts an upper limit on the amount of light you can capture.

In practice that means you better use base ISO plus longer exposure, than higher ISO and shorter exposure, if the image quality is important.

PS. The noise in the shadows at say ISO 100 is low and indistinguishable. When you heavily lift the shadows or push exposure slider (similar to higher ISO effect), you literally start seeing more noise. The image may become unusable, but this process quite literally creates _visible_ noise.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 2, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Most of what you write is spot on, but a couple of points. A minor one is that photon noise varies as the square root of the number of photons. What is important to consider as well is the MTF or resolution of the sensor. For a low resolution sensor, increasing focal length is important as long as the f-number is not too far above the diffraction limit. At the other extreme, where the sensor resolution is really high, resolution is limited mainly by the diameter of the lens (entrance pupil) and not the focal length of the lens or the f-number. For example, with an extremely high resolution sensor, double the focal length of the lens with a 2xTC and you will increase the separation of two close points in the image by a factor of two but you will double the size of the diffraction disk around each and so leave the resolution unimproved. With a low resolution sensor, the distance separation doubles but the increase in size of the diffraction disk is less important as it is the size of the pixels that is more limiting.


Thanks, Alanf. I was thinking that the noise might be the square root instead of 1/x (it's been a long time since I've been to university), and your post reminds me to go back and correct what I posted.

And I do agree that diffraction comes into play as the iris (1/f#) gets really small, and as the pixel size gets really small then you approach a limit of resolution. The basic rule of thumb that using a 2x TC or a 2x crop or just an equivalent longer lens (2x focal length & 2x f#) will give you the equivalent image still seems to hold for me since (I think) all of them will suffer this effect to a similar degree. Of course, you always have a difference between the three since one has the deleterious effects of more lens elements and one relies on the intelligence (or lack of it) in the software used to up-res the #pixels in post, and one uses a different lens of possibly different optcal quality.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 4, 2020)

efmshark said:


> There's no need for an RF 400mm f/8. EF 400mm f/5.6L is relatively light and low cost, an is an excellent option especially with IBIS making its way to R series cameras. An updated RF 400mm f/5.6 IS wouldn't necessarily be much larger/heavier than a f/8 version.
> 
> An RF 500mm f/8 or an RF600mm f/8 would be much more interesting.


 but the cost could be a bit more affordable, like $500


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 4, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> but the cost could be a bit more affordable, like $500





blackcoffee17 said:


> 500mm F16 or 100-400 F8-F11?


 F16!!!


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 4, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> 500mm F16 or 100-400 F8-F11?


 especially for a 500mm


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 4, 2020)

200mm f5.6 $399 sold


Mr Majestyk said:


> 1200 f/32 please, $300. Sold.



200mm f5.6 
600mm f16 $300 each, sold


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 4, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> 1200 f/32 please, $300. Sold.



120-400mm f4 sold
i think its possible


----------



## Joules (Dec 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I'm not saying it's superior or inferior. My point is simply it's a bit misleading to say that higher ISO doesn't increase the visible noise. It's an observable fact that higher-ISO images have more noise.
> From the practical standpoint, if the image quality is your priority, you should minimise the ISO value - in general. But there are caveats say with the R5 where ISO 400 is cleaner than ISO 320 and has greater dynamic range.



As promised, I put together images to illustrate what I was talking about when saying you should not be afraid of high ISO values:





__





Equivalency - Now with pictures!


Introduction An image says more than a thousand words! Alright, so show, don't tell! ;) What's up with all this talk about equivalency that seemingly derails every thread around here? I'll be showing you actual images that illustrate what I am basing my post on, when I participate in these...




www.canonrumors.com





@CanonFanBoy
As your's was one of the posts pushing me to finally take some pictures on the matter, I'd just like to point out that I did just that and posted them in that thread:





__





Equivalency - Now with pictures!


Introduction An image says more than a thousand words! Alright, so show, don't tell! ;) What's up with all this talk about equivalency that seemingly derails every thread around here? I'll be showing you actual images that illustrate what I am basing my post on, when I participate in these...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## HAWKS61 (Dec 8, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Not dead, just mature for its intended market. If you want lenses larger than 62mm in diameter, then EOS M is not intended for you.


So dead then, because they are certainly no indication of any new lenses, an early rumour, March 2020 I think talked of a 70-300 for the system I think that would have been a terrific addition. RIP EF-m we will miss you...


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 12, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I'd have guessed it was entropy not deviation, but I thought it was unlikely Michael Clack meant entropy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Shot noise can be modelled very accurately using Poisson distribution.

ISO settings do *not* create noise. The noise is caused by the lack of light. If you take an image of the same scene at the same illumination level and use ISO 100 for one and ISO 1600 for the other while using the same Tv and Av that do not result in highlight clipping at ISO 1600, then amplify the ISO 100 image by four stops in post to equal the final brightness of the ISO 1600 image, the ISO 100 image will be noisier.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 12, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I never said ISO setting lowers the SNR. The higher ISO causes the camera or processing software to use lower range of the signal for producing the resulting image. Note you don't see the noise in the sensor or in the raw file. You can only see the noise in the processed image, you don't see it in the raw file. It is your interpretation of what is as a meaningful signal in the raw file.



You don't see anything in a raw file until it has been processed. What you see then is only one of a near infinite number of possible interpretations legitimately derived from the information in the raw file. There's no such thing as an unprocessed or unedited raw file displayed on a screen. If you're not selecting how the raw data is being converted to a viewable image, then whoever wrote the default development profile has decided it for you.



Quarkcharmed said:


> I'm not saying it's superior or inferior. My point is simply it's a bit misleading to say that higher ISO doesn't increase the visible noise. It's an observable fact that higher-ISO images have more noise.
> From the practical standpoint, if the image quality is your priority, you should minimise the ISO value - in general. But there are caveats say with the R5 where ISO 400 is cleaner than ISO 320 and has greater dynamic range.



To maximize image quality, one should maximize the amount of light falling on the sensor until just before the highlights begin to clip. If it isn't possible to do that at ISO 100 (because, for example, the subject is moving and the light is dim), then the best image quality for a given amount of light entering the camera is the *highest* ISO that doesn't allow clipping! You'll get better image quality shooting at ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/1000 in the high school stadium in which I shoot often than you will using ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/1000, and pushing the entire image five stops in post.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 12, 2020)

HAWKS61 said:


> So dead then, because they are certainly no indication of any new lenses, an early rumour, March 2020 I think talked of a 70-300 for the system I think that would have been a terrific addition. RIP EF-m we will miss you...



The cameras and lenses in the EOS M system are still selling rather nicely, thank you very much. They've all but replaced Rebels/xx00D models everywhere but North America and Western Europe. They're not for gear hounds who need a new, improved lens twice every year. They're for folks who want a small, light, and affordable camera (not cameras, camera) and a lens or three that will last them for several years without any thought of "upgrading" every time another hot rumor hits the inter-webs.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 12, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Shot noise can be modelled very accurately using Poisson distribution.
> 
> ISO settings do *not* create noise. The noise is caused by the lack of light. If you take an image of the same scene at the same illumination level and use ISO 100 for one and ISO 1600 for the other while using the same Tv and Av that do not result in highlight clipping at ISO 1600, then amplify the ISO 100 image by four stops in post to equal the final brightness of the ISO 1600 image, the ISO 100 image will be noisier.


*EDIT* - I'm trying to get clarification on this issue (thanks Joules), so what I've mentioned below may not be correct (well, that wouldn't be the first time  ! )

I'm not following you here. Using the same speed and f# for both (which does not cause highlight clipping) will capture the same #photons for both images. If you shoot RAW, the ISO while viewing later (or in post) will show the ISO 100 picture darker, but adding +4 EV in post will get the same brightness. For non-clipped images in RAW, changing in post ISO(if possible) and EV offset have the same effect and they're just software values.

Now, if you shoot jpg then the encoding of the image in camera memory will be a cause of difference due to the ISO 100 encoding with 4 fewer bits (hence a darker image). But that's not caused by the ISO setting itself, but by improper encoding range of the jpg image which drops the low 4 bits of the image instead of saving it.

So the ISO is not inherently causing noise. Jpg (but not RAW) encoding is causing noise.
If I'm not understanding something, please "illuminate" me!


----------



## Joules (Dec 12, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> If you shoot RAW, the ISO while viewing later (or in post) will show the ISO 100 picture darker, but adding +4 EV in post will get the same brightness. For non-clipped images in RAW, changing in post ISO(if possible) and EV offset have the same effect and they're just software values.
> [...]
> So the ISO is not inherently causing noise. Jpg (but not RAW) encoding is causing noise.
> If I'm not understanding something, please "illuminate" me!


As far as I can tell, all the talk of noise and such here was concerning RAW, not JPEG. Lossy compression introduces many artifacts that have nothing to do with the noise being talked about here.

The ISO setting in the camera is different from raising the image brightness digitally in post. ISO is amplification of the electrical signal _before_ it is converted to digital. What that means is that the noise in the image is also amplified, but any noise that is added through the electronics in the remaining steps leading up to a digital image is not amplified. If you do all your brightness increase in software, even the noise introduced by the electronics involved in the ADC get's 'amplified' (digitially). Especially with older sensors (anything older than the M6 II, 90D, 1DX III, R6 or R5), this will lead to an image looking siginficantly worse if shot at a low ISO and raised in post rather than just shot with a high ISO in the first place.

Feel free to run the experiment yourself, if image quality at high ISO is a topic of interest to you. I have also done exactly that a little while back and tried to share the results and my understanding of the theory behind it in this post here:





__





Equivalency - Now with pictures!


Introduction An image says more than a thousand words! Alright, so show, don't tell! ;) What's up with all this talk about equivalency that seemingly derails every thread around here? I'll be showing you actual images that illustrate what I am basing my post on, when I participate in these...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 12, 2020)

Joules said:


> As far as I can tell, all the talk of noise and such here was concerning RAW, not JPEG. Lossy compression introduces many artifacts that have nothing to do with the noise being talked about here.
> 
> The ISO setting in the camera is different from raising the image brightness digitally in post. ISO is amplification of the electrical signal _before_ it is converted to digital. What that means is that the noise in the image is also amplified, but any noise that is added through the electronics in the remaining steps leading up to a digital image is not amplified. If you do all your brightness increase in software, even the noise introduced by the electronics involved in the ADC get's 'amplified' (digitially). Especially with older sensors (anything older than the M6 II, 90D, 1DX III, R6 or R5), this will lead to an image looking siginficantly worse if shot at a low ISO and raised in post rather than just shot with a high ISO in the first place.
> 
> ...


OK, I wasn't aware that each ISO level had a different amount of amplification of the pixel signal before ADC. I've seen graphs of IQ (SNR or DR, I don't recall) that show a clear relation to ISO but with a single big "improved jog" at ISO 400 (relative to lower ISOs). - I thought that was because at ISO 400 (and above) it increased the amplification before ADC, which would mean (to me) that it doesn't change amplification before ADC at all the other ISOs. Can you explain what this jog is, if indeed each ISO level has its own different amplification before ADC conversion?


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 12, 2020)

Joules said:


> As far as I can tell, all the talk of noise and such here was concerning RAW, not JPEG. Lossy compression introduces many artifacts that have nothing to do with the noise being talked about here.
> 
> The ISO setting in the camera is different from raising the image brightness digitally in post. ISO is amplification of the electrical signal _before_ it is converted to digital. What that means is that the noise in the image is also amplified, but any noise that is added through the electronics in the remaining steps leading up to a digital image is not amplified. If you do all your brightness increase in software, even the noise introduced by the electronics involved in the ADC get's 'amplified' (digitially). Especially with older sensors (anything older than the M6 II, 90D, 1DX III, R6 or R5), this will lead to an image looking siginficantly worse if shot at a low ISO and raised in post rather than just shot with a high ISO in the first place.
> 
> ...


OK - I've read (& re-read) your detailed "Equivalency - now with pictures" post. It didn't mention whether images were stored as raw or not, but I'll assume they were stored as uncompressed raw (as I think you implied in your above reply). Of course, higher ISO values will require that the final image has more amplification applied to the #photons sensed. But there are many steps to be done before you see the image, which are: ADC conversion, storage in raw format to the in-camera file, de-bayer-interpolation, and export to the user for either post processing/printing/or viewing in EVF. The ISO amplification could conceivably be done before any of these 4 steps. Your article doesn't mention whether this amplification is before the ADC, or sometime after it. You mentioned in your above reply that the amplification is done before ADC - I don't doubt you (as I am no expert here), but is that something that is mentioned in some technical document for the latest Canon sensors? I'd be interested in the details, and what would explain the unexpectedly large increase in IQ when the ISO is increased from below IS0 400 to ISO 400.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 13, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> You don't see anything in a raw file until it has been processed. What you see then is only one of a near infinite number of possible interpretations legitimately derived from the information in the raw file. There's no such thing as an unprocessed or unedited raw file displayed on a screen. If you're not selecting how the raw data is being converted to a viewable image, then whoever wrote the default development profile has decided it for you.



That's basically exactly what I said, but it feels like you disagree or misinterpreted my message?



Michael Clark said:


> To maximize image quality, one should maximize the amount of light falling on the sensor until just before the highlights begin to clip.


To maximise image quality one should maximise the information in raw file, and maximising the exposure is one of the tools.


Michael Clark said:


> If it isn't possible to do that at ISO 100 (because, for example, the subject is moving and the light is dim), then the best image quality for a given amount of light entering the camera is the *highest* ISO that doesn't allow clipping!



Generally it's best to use ISO values where the camera uses the analog gain. For Canon R5 it's ISO 100 (base) and 400.
It's not practical for action/sports though.


----------



## Joules (Dec 13, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> You mentioned in your above reply that the amplification is done before ADC - I don't doubt you (as I am no expert here), but is that something that is mentioned in some technical document for the latest Canon sensors?


As stated in the equivalency thread, what I wrote there is based on my understanding and not a statement of fact. That understanding is based on various sources of information found on the internet and also my own experience and experiments. Therefore I am glad to be confronted with a different and perhaps better explanation for the effects I see in these experiences and experiments.

I unfortunately can't point you to a technical document that states as a fact that Canon sensors apply analog amplification to the image. You certainly can find information supporting this hypothesis, though. Here is an abstract technical view of a sensor clearly showing this and here is a stack exchange post compiling a few more in depth links on the subject.

If no form of analogue amplification took place and it all was handled digitally, I don't see how these two facts could be explained: a) A high ISO image has less dynamic range and b) you can't replicate the image quality in a high ISO image by taking a low ISO image from my 80D and brightening it in post.

Let's say we have a sensor with 2 pixels, and an analogue to digital converter with 8 bit depth, so the numbers we can represent are integers between 0 and 255. Let's say our pixels are sized so that when they are fully saturated, they create a voltage of 255 and 0 when they are completely free of charge. That means we don't have to bother with units or math, there's just a 1:1 relation between the physical signal that we are measuring and the digital scale that we are measuring it on. Let's say we image a scene with one medium half and a dark half, so that out pixel voltages are 8 and 128.

If ISO is just a digital multiplikation, our ADC spits out (8, 128) as output - Now, in order to explain the loss of dynamic range, the multiplication would have to be applied before saving these numbers as RAW file. Let's say we want the dark section of out image to look like a midtone, so we need to multiply by 16 (raise by 4 stops). If ISO 100 is our base ISO where multiplication is 1, we are now at ISO 1600 and our image values are (8*16, 128*16) = (128, 2048), but due to out 8-bit depth, we can't represent numbers larger than 255 and the bright part get's clipped so that our image is actually (128, 255). That would explain the loss of DR then, but not why it is necessary. Why actually apply this digital multiplication? If it is a RAW file anyway, why not simply store the ISO setting (multiplier) as an EXIF and allow it to be changed in post without throwing away any data during capture, just like white balance for example? After all, just because high ISO shots throw away highlight data they don't save any drive space, right? So what's the benefit of doing it this way? Also - Where is the noise I'm seeing coming from? Your multiplication hardware (or algorithm) is seriously broken, if it introduces noise in integer multiplications.

What I believe to be the case is that there's circuitry infront or in the ADC step, that handles the ISO multiplication in hardware on the actual voltage, rather than digitally after the fact. In that sense, you could argue that if our example was a bit less lucky and the pixel output a range from 0 to ~16 and we convert that to numbers ranging from 0 to 255, that would be amplification. More likely, I believe the ADCs in use can't sample as low an input voltage as small pixels provide accurately, and therefore the amplification is applied before or during the sampling. That's just what makes sense to me, so if somebody can dispute it, go right ahead please!

As for the jerk you see in sensors with "dual native ISOs", I understand that to be the result of using to different amplifier circuits - one that can sample high voltages coming from the pixels really well by only slightly amplifying them (low gain), and one amplifier circuit better for dealing with low pixel voltages that can handle greater amplifications better (high gain). You use the low gain one for smaller ISOs and the high gain one for higher ISOs. At the point where there is the jerk, the switch happens. I understand that you can't expect to get the same level of quality with just one circuit because the real world components don't behave as perfectly linear and consistent as would be required.

This is mainly how I explain myself the effect in Bill Claffs read noise chart. From his notes:
"The shape of the curve can tell you something about the *amplifier circuitry* of the camera.
[...]
Curved curves [...] show evidence of being dominated by ADC read noise.
Curves with a sharp drop in the analog range [...] show evidence of the use of dual conversion gain.
Quite a few cameras stop analog gain before reaching the "Hi" ISO values"
(emphasis and shortening by me)

I interpret the charts and comments like this: If no noise was added through the analog gain, the curve would look perfectly linear, as a higher ISO only multiplies the read noise already coming from the pixel readout circuit. This is not the case for the older Canon sensors, as there is noise added to the amplified signal in the amplification process, and the amount of this noise is not lineary related to the ISO value. As the chart shows, Canon has made improvements in this aspect of the noise between generations, but with the R5, the simply use to different circuits that can both be used only in the range where they behave linearly and the noise they add is small compared to other sources of noise.

Unfortunately, the material I have read about this either goes into such technical depth that with my time and background I can't read it properly currently, or is so surface level (and partially wrong), that I don't regard it as proper material to be quoted in support of or against my understanding.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 13, 2020)

Joules said:


> As stated in the equivalency thread, what I wrote there is based on my understanding and not a statement of fact. That understanding is based on various sources of information found on the internet and also my own experience and experiments. Therefore I am glad to be confronted with a different and perhaps better explanation for the effects I see in these experiences and experiments.
> 
> I unfortunately can't point you to a technical document that states as a fact that Canon sensors apply analog amplification to the image. You certainly can find information supporting this hypothesis, though. Here is an abstract technical view of a sensor clearly showing this and here is a stack exchange post compiling a few more in depth links on the subject.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Joules. I guess only the engineers inside Canon or other inside professionals will know exactly what's going on. But your insights into what the charts show does make sense. I'll assume that the dual circuitry (below/above ISO 400) is chosen and with those circuits there is an amplification based on ISO before the ADC, which is before each single color pixel element is stored to the raw file. This would make the most sense.

I normally like to make a quick guess as to how to choose settings for a shot, so I'll usually do this:
* First choose my f# for desired DOF (often wide open) and ISO 100 and let the camera set the exposure speed,
* If that speed is too slow (which enables visible subject motion), up the ISO to 400. If still too slow I'll up the ISO accordingly and stop when the speed is acceptable.
* If it's so bright that the speed wants to be faster than the camera (R5) can do (1/8000") then don't use ISO L (50), but rather increase the aperture from wide open (eg f1.2) to f1.4 or 1.8 etc as needed to get back down to max speed.

I'll try to refrain from saying what "does" or "doesn't" happen with the R5 sensor exposure details, as I'm just making an educated guess based on the limited (and insufficient) data available.

Thanks again for your detailed post!


----------



## dolina (Jan 2, 2021)

Having seen the $2699 Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM Lens makes me wonder if these lenses would be made for less than $699

RF 500mm f/11
RF 400mm f/11
RF 300mm f/11

Or better yet how about a 150-600mm f/6.3 with better superior everything over a Sigma or Tamron.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> *EDIT* - I'm trying to get clarification on this issue (thanks Joules), so what I've mentioned below may not be correct (well, that wouldn't be the first time  ! )
> 
> I'm not following you here. Using the same speed and f# for both (which does not cause highlight clipping) will capture the same #photons for both images. If you shoot RAW, the ISO while viewing later (or in post) will show the ISO 100 picture darker, but adding +4 EV in post will get the same brightness. For non-clipped images in RAW, changing in post ISO(if possible) and EV offset have the same effect and they're just software values.
> 
> ...



The difference is that when the amplification is done at the sensor, the noise added by the path between the amplifier and the ADC is not also amplified. When you wait and multiply the digital numbers, you also amplify that additional noise added between the analog amplifier and the ADC. 

You also lose the smaller steps between each value. If you multiply the numbers derived from the ADC when shot at ISO 100 amplification by four stops to ISO 800, that's a multiplication factor of 8X, so all of your new digital values will be [(multiples of 8) -1], or eight steps apart. You'll have no 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, ... 16366, 16368, 16369, 16370, 16371, 16372, 16373, 16374, 16376, 16377, 16378, 16379, 16380, 16381, or 16382. Your tonal gradations will be much rougher, equivalent to 11-bit ADC instead of 14-bit ADC.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 5, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The difference is that when the amplification is done at the sensor, the noise added by the path between the amplifier and the ADC is not also amplified. When you wait and multiply the digital numbers, you also amplify that additional noise added between the analog amplifier and the ADC.
> 
> You also lose the smaller steps between each value. If you multiply the numbers derived from the ADC when shot at ISO 100 amplification by four stops to ISO 800, that's a multiplication factor of 8X, so all of your new digital values will be [(multiples of 8) -1], or eight steps apart. You'll have no 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, ... 16366, 16368, 16369, 16370, 16371, 16372, 16373, 16374, 16376, 16377, 16378, 16379, 16380, 16381, or 16382. Your tonal gradations will be much rougher, equivalent to 11-bit ADC instead of 14-bit ADC.


I would have to see the actual raw data to know that what you said (about 8x resulting in stored data exactly 8 steps apart throughout the entire range) is true or not. If I had to guess (which is why I'm here  ) I would not expect that to be the case. I would expect a 14-bit ADC to have slop in its reading (no matter what the manufacturer might claim) and I would expect to see almost a continuous range of values with a bell shaped peak at each of the steps you mention. If you don't amplify the signal before the ADC, this slop will distort the values stored and amplification afterwards in display/post would then amplify that slop, whereas amplification before the ADC would allow the ADC slop to not be amplified and thus be as accurate a signal as the electronics allow. I'm also guessing that what I'm suggesting is probably the very reason they chose to amplify the signal before the ADC.

Again, I'm guessing that's how it works. I've never seen the actual raw data from a photo of a proper test pattern at different exposures. In fact, has anyone ever published the exact format that the sensor stores the uncompressed .CR3 dual pixel element data so that a programmer (which I am) could write code to decode the picture themselves and thus run an actual test for it?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> I would have to see the actual raw data to know that what you said (about 8x resulting in exactly 8 steps apart throughout the entire range) is true or not. If I had to guess (which is why I'm here  ) I would not expect that to be the case. I would expect a 14-bit ADC to have slop in its reading (no matter what the manufacturer might claim) and I would expect to see almost a continuous range of values with a bell shaped peak at each of the steps you mention. If you don't amplify the signal before the ADC, this slop will distort the values stored and amplification afterwards in display/post would then amplify that slop, whereas amplification before the ADC would allow the ADC slop to not be amplified and thus be as accurate a signal as the electronics allow.
> 
> Again, I'm guessing that's how it works. I've never seen the actual raw data from a photo of a proper test pattern at different exposures. In fact, has anyone ever published the exact format that the sensor stores the dual pixel element data so that a programmer (which I am) could write code to decode the picture themselves and thus run an actual test for it?



Digital is digital. There are no fractional steps. Multiplying a string of integers by 8 results in integers that are all at least 8 steps apart.

Analog is continuous, there are no steps (larger than the charge created by a single electron) at all until it is digitized.

Though I do not have time right now to go hunt it down, I have seen such numbers. There is definitely the "stairstep" effect. Keep in mind that pretty much all raw data has curves applied to it before exporting as a viewable image at lower bit depth. Even if the end product is 8-bit, stretching 11-bit equivalent steps between values will cause more banding than stretching 14-bit steps before converting to an 8-bit format for output.

Your guess is wrong.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 5, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Digital is digital. There are no fractional steps. Multiplying a string of integers by 8 results in integers that are all at least 8 steps apart.
> 
> Analog is continuous, there are no steps (larger than the charge created by a single electron) at all until it is digitized.
> 
> ...


I invite you to provide proof from the manufacturer that they do, or do not, provide the amplification before the ADC and storage to the .CR3 uncompressed file. Until then, we're both guessing.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> I invite you to provide proof from the manufacturer that they do, or do not, provide the amplification before the ADC and storage to the .CR3 uncompressed file. Until then, we're both guessing.



The reason it is called _analog_ amplification is because it is done prior to the Analog-to-Digital Convertor. There are tens of thousands of sources on the internet for you to peruse that all talk about this. Try googling "digital camera analog amplification?"


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 5, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The reason it is called _analog_ amplification is because it is done prior to the Analog-to-Digital Convertor. There are tens of thousands of sources on the internet for you to peruse that all talk about this. Try googling "digital camera analog amplification?"


It doesn't matter to me what they do, I'm just curious what the manufacture officially claims they actually do. If you can get an answer from the manufacturer on this subject then I'd love to hear it. I'm done posting on this issue.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 6, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The difference is that when the amplification is done at the sensor, the noise added by the path between the amplifier and the ADC is not also amplified. When you wait and multiply the digital numbers, you also amplify that additional noise added between the analog amplifier and the ADC.
> 
> You also lose the smaller steps between each value. If you multiply the numbers derived from the ADC when shot at ISO 100 amplification by four stops to ISO 800, that's a multiplication factor of 8X, so all of your new digital values will be [(multiples of 8) -1], or eight steps apart. You'll have no 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, ... 16366, 16368, 16369, 16370, 16371, 16372, 16373, 16374, 16376, 16377, 16378, 16379, 16380, 16381, or 16382. Your tonal gradations will be much rougher, equivalent to 11-bit ADC instead of 14-bit ADC.


It is not as simple as that digital signal amplification can be done intelligently.
It often leads to better looking results than analog amplification.
It also often leads to worse looking results.
Digital processing does not need to be done in-camera so a lot of us prefer to do it ourselves when we have more control.
This one of the reasons I hate when people compare the noise level between cameras.
I especially hate when they do that with RAW.
The real comparison should be how much can be fixed and the time and effort to fix it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 10, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> It is not as simple as that digital signal amplification can be done intelligently.
> It often leads to better looking results than analog amplification.
> It also often leads to worse looking results.
> Digital processing does not need to be done in-camera so a lot of us prefer to do it ourselves when we have more control.
> ...



You can't take the same values and somehow miraculously recover which ones were slightly higher or lower before they were all digitized to the exact same number. That information was lost at the ADC and no longer exists unless it was recorded elsewhere in a higher bit encoding scheme.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Jan 15, 2021)

RF 400mm f5.6
rf 300mm f4
rf 100-400mm f8

any thoughts on the idea?


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 15, 2021)

Lucas Tingley said:


> RF 400mm f5.6
> rf 300mm f4
> rf 100-400mm f8
> 
> any thoughts on the idea?


I think the primes would be wonderful lenses! And much needed as the 75mm entrance pupil for the primes would be ideal, and much smaller than big whites, but they would still be sizeable lenses. I'd hope they had L quality and a large max. magnification (0.25x or higher) which would make them ideal for close ups of flowers (etc) with massive background blur. The Olympus 300mm f4 pro was a truly magnificent (M43) lens, and if Canon could match that build & close-up quality then it would be wonderful.

A 100-400 f8 would be appreciably smaller & lighter than the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 which would have value for those wanting smaller, lighter, & less expensive options. Maybe they'd make this a non-L version?


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Jan 15, 2021)

I have small amounts of money, so i need these.

they could make them cheaper with a stepping motor instead of an ultrasonic motor


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 15, 2021)

Lucas Tingley said:


> I have small amounts of money, so i need these.
> 
> they could make them cheaper with a stepping motor instead of an ultrasonic motor


Yes, a non-L version would be cheaper. I guess they could make 75mm entrance pupil versions affordable in that, at least by Canon standards that is!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 15, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Yes, a non-L version would be cheaper. I guess they could make 75mm entrance pupil versions affordable in that, at least by Canon standards that is!


Back in the FD days Canon made 600 f4 L and non L versions.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Back in the FD days Canon made 600 f4 L and non L versions.


More choices would be nice. It's remarkable that in these very difficult times for conventional camera makers that Canon can come out with so many new lenses & bodies.


----------



## slclick (Jan 19, 2022)

My 600 recently arrived. First thing that came to mind (besides looking like Nikon glass) was how it's so similar in size to my 100-400L ii. But the weight! In a few days we'll have clear skies and I'll have some fun with Luna waning.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 27, 2022)

Patiently waiting for the 1200mm f/18.

But seriously, I'd love to have one of those 800mm. Lots of songbirds here. I have an old and cheap 400mm with an 18' minimum focus distance. Yuck.


----------

