In-body image stabilisation

[bwana]

Now you can buy an A1 mk 2. You can thank me later

Thanks, but I already have enough full frame cameras. The R7 is APS-C.

 

[Harmonic]

Thanks, but I already have enough full frame cameras. The R7 is APS-C.

Scratching my head

 

[bwana]

Scratching my head

APS-C is aka crop sensor. Makes my 400 believe it's a 640mm.

 

[Harmonic]

APS-C is aka crop sensor. Makes my 400 believe it's a 640mm.

Meh. A high resolution sensor does the same thing

 

[bwana]

Meh. A high resolution sensor does the same thing

No, it really doesn't.

 

[agentrfr]

Anyone tried the alpha 1 ii yet? Haven't played myself but apparently it is borderline flawless

 

[Harmonic]

No, it really doesn't.

How not?

 

[Swa]

How not?

Editing?

 

[Swa]

I took a look recently. EF lenses are mostly without IS where RF lenses have IS. To use IS you need to always have a high end camera and even the R8 FF doesn't have it. Nah, I'll stick to RF.

 

[Tongs of Destiny]

How not?

No, zooming in on a full-frame image doesn't give the same resolution and quality as using an APS-C camera. Here’s why:

1. Resolution Difference: Full-frame sensors are typically larger than APS-C sensors, so they capture more detail. When you crop into a full-frame image to match the field of view of an APS-C sensor, you're reducing the resolution, because you're only using a portion of the image. For example, a 24 MP full-frame sensor cropped to APS-C size (around 1.5x crop factor) would give you roughly 10 MP of effective resolution.
2. Image Quality: While the crop from a full-frame sensor may give you a similar field of view to an APS-C sensor, the full-frame sensor typically has advantages like better low-light performance and less noise, especially in the corners. These benefits are lost when you crop the image to APS-C size.
3. Depth of Field: Full-frame sensors usually have a shallower depth of field compared to APS-C sensors at the same aperture, which can affect how the subject looks in terms of isolation and background blur.

In summary, zooming in on a full-frame sensor’s image reduces the resolution and eliminates some of the sensor’s advantages over an APS-C sensor. The APS-C sensor will still have its native resolution, which may offer better clarity in that crop region.

 

[airborne]

No, zooming in on a full-frame image doesn't give the same resolution and quality as using an APS-C camera. Here’s why:

1. Resolution Difference: Full-frame sensors are typically larger than APS-C sensors, so they capture more detail. When you crop into a full-frame image to match the field of view of an APS-C sensor, you're reducing the resolution, because you're only using a portion of the image. For example, a 24 MP full-frame sensor cropped to APS-C size (around 1.5x crop factor) would give you roughly 10 MP of effective resolution.
2. Image Quality: While the crop from a full-frame sensor may give you a similar field of view to an APS-C sensor, the full-frame sensor typically has advantages like better low-light performance and less noise, especially in the corners. These benefits are lost when you crop the image to APS-C size.
3. Depth of Field: Full-frame sensors usually have a shallower depth of field compared to APS-C sensors at the same aperture, which can affect how the subject looks in terms of isolation and background blur.

In summary, zooming in on a full-frame sensor’s image reduces the resolution and eliminates some of the sensor’s advantages over an APS-C sensor. The APS-C sensor will still have its native resolution, which may offer better clarity in that crop region.

He did say high res sensor which negates most of that, the depth of field won't be affected unless the shooter is standing closer to the subject when using the FF camera which shouldn't be necessary because they are cropping in post production to get that same shot. But perhaps there are other aspects to consider

 

[airborne]

alpha 1 ii

Holy smokes those bodies are R160k+ alone, ultra high performance though, what is their niche use that makes them good value?

 

[Swa]

Holy smokes those bodies are R160k+ alone, ultra high performance though, what is their niche use that makes them good value?

No rolling shutter.

 

[bwana]

How not?

If you want to use the Sony A1 as an example once you switch over to APS-C mode, which is what you're advocating, your megapixel count drops from 50.1mp down to 21mp. That's 10mp fewer than my APS-C camera.

I took a look recently. EF lenses are mostly without IS where RF lenses have IS. To use IS you need to always have a high end camera and even the R8 FF doesn't have it. Nah, I'll stick to RF.

There are at least 20 EF lenses with IS, covering 16mm to 600mm, and for those lenses that don't, IBIS works just fine.

 

[Swa]

There are at least 20 EF lenses with IS, covering 16mm to 600mm, and for those lenses that don't, IBIS works just fine.

There's no 16-35mm F2.8. There is an F4. Likewise for 24-70mm. There is a 70-200mm F2.8 but it's more expensive at retail. Going for F4 or more expensive lenses or lenses outside these ranges loses the cost savings. The recommendation of going for EF lenses makes no sense and looks more like a retaliation or boycott of Canon.

Only the more expensive cameras have IBIS. You go through more cameras than lenses, even at the same time, and not having to worry which ones have it is a plus for RF lenses. I can understand EF for third party lenses that aren't otherwise available but for anything else for someone starting new in the Canon system RF lenses make more sense and have more options.

 

[agentrfr]

Holy smokes those bodies are R160k+ alone, ultra high performance though, what is their niche use that makes them good value?

Full frame global shutter, 8 stops of active image stablizer, 15 stops in image sensitivity. It is for things like extreme sports photography, low light professional shoots, insane zoom lenses that are still usable handheld etc. You point and click and it takes the picture even in the most extreme situations with fast glass

 

[bwana]

The recommendation of going for EF lenses makes no sense and looks more like a retaliation or boycott of Canon.

Actually if you look back I've been advocating USED EF lenses over RF because of their pricing, availability, and quality. The faster you can pay off your gear the more money you've got in the bank. Nobody can tell the difference between an image taken with a RF lens or its EF equivalent.

 

[Swa]

Actually if you look back I've been advocating USED EF lenses over RF because of their pricing, availability, and quality. The faster you can pay off your gear the more money you've got in the bank. Nobody can tell the difference between an image taken with a RF lens or its EF equivalent.

Not comparing apples to apples. And why? RF lenses have options and features not available on the old EF and come with IS by default. How do I get IS with an 16-35mm F2.8 EF without continuing to pay more for a camera?

EF certainly has its place as a bridge and I've never said otherwise. But if someone can afford RF it makes more sense to go with it and as I've been saying there's even now lenses that would allow you to avoid purchasing some lenses initially by just adopting a different shooting style. Once you go outside the mainstream the cost or RF over even used EF starts to diminish and EF may then become a liability.

 

[bwana]

Not comparing apples to apples. And why? RF lenses have options and features not available on the old EF and come with IS by default. How do I get IS with an 16-35mm F2.8 EF without continuing to pay more for a camera?

EF certainly has its place as a bridge and I've never said otherwise. But if someone can afford RF it makes more sense to go with it and as I've been saying there's even now lenses that would allow you to avoid purchasing some lenses initially by just adopting a different shooting style. Once you go outside the mainstream the cost or RF over even used EF starts to diminish and EF may then become a liability.

Ignoring the fact that not all RF lenses have IS, and so we can compare apples with apples, which ones do you own? And which body?

 

[Swa]

Ignoring the fact that not all RF lenses have IS, and so we can compare apples with apples, which ones do you own? And which body?

Only these.

https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_rf_16_2p8_stm&products=canon_rf_24_1p4_l_vcm&products=canon_rf_28-70_2l_usm&products=canon_28_2p8_stm&products=canon_35_1p4_l_vcm&products=canon_rf_50_1p2l_usm&products=canon_rf_50_1p4_l_vcm&products=canon_rf_50_1p8_stm&products=canon_rf_85_1p2l_usm&products=canon_rf_85_1p2l_usm_ds&products=canon_rfs_3p9mm_3p5_dual_fisheye&products=canon_rfs_7p8_4_stm_dual

I don't know of them being used outside of a studio setting with a tripod and probably a high end camera with IBIS.

These are my calculations

EOS R10 + RF-S 18-150mm R23,889
RF 15-35mm f2.8L R38,089
RF 24-70mm f2.8L R36,189
RF 70-200mm f2.8 R43,789
R141,956

or

EOS R10 + RF-S 18-150mm currently R23,889 at Fotodiscountworld
RF 15-35mm f2.8L R38,089
RF 24-105mm f/2.8 R71,389
R133,367

EOS R7 + RF 18-150mm R31,489
Mount Adapter EF-EOS R R1,995 (Orms)
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM R18,995 (Orms)
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM R10,999 (Lucky Tech)
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM R18,995 (Cameraworld)
R82,473

Doesn't look too cheap for used gear and then possibly ending with a lucky packet. If it's R100k you can probably make sure it's decent. There's some used RF lenses floating around as well and probably newer than the EF ones.