In-body image stabilisation

[bwana]

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.

Which rf lenses and bodies do you own?

 

[airborne]

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.

You carry on as if you know what you are talking about but don't realise that while being convenient image stabilisation is hardly imperative to being able to take a great photo and there's far less need for IS on wide lenses than telephotos lenses. For most of photography's history no one had IS lenses and they still managed to create stunning images.

Some of Canons most revered lenses that have stood the test of time in professional hands have no IS, very weird.

 

[Swa]

Which rf lenses and bodies do you own?

None. I'm looking.

You carry on as if you know what you are talking about but don't realise that while being convenient image stabilisation is hardly imperative to being able to take a great photo and there's far less need for IS on wide lenses than telephotos lenses. For most of photography's history no one had IS lenses and they still managed to create stunning images.

Some of Canons most revered lenses that have stood the test of time in professional hands have no IS, very weird.

It's a useful feature that does save you in some situations when doing handheld. The old methods of tucking your hips and standing against a wall only gets you so far. You're comparing situations where tripods were mostly used and yes, I can notice an overall difference in quality or missed shots when using cameras with IS vs those without.

 

[airborne]

None. I'm looking.


It's a useful feature that does save you in some situations when doing handheld. The old methods of tucking your hips and standing against a wall only gets you so far. You're comparing situations where tripods were mostly used and yes, I can notice an overall difference in quality or missed shots when using cameras with IS vs those without.

That's all it is.

I'm not referring to situations where tripods are used, handheld where shutter speed and technique does the bulk of the work, even more so on modern bodies with great high ISO performance, not having IS on a lens is hardly a deal breaker, it's just a nice to have. IS may be widely available on lenses these days but even on many of the latest high end Canon RF lenses it is often still missing and is not a default feature as you ignorantly claim. The current RF L-series 5.2*28-70*35*50*85mm lenses have no IS.

 

[Swa]

That's all it is.

I'm not referring to situations where tripods are used, handheld where shutter speed and technique does the bulk of the work, even more so on modern bodies with great high ISO performance, not having IS on a lens is hardly a deal breaker, it's just a nice to have. IS may be widely available on lenses these days but even on many of the latest high end Canon RF lenses it is often still missing and is not a default feature as you ignorantly claim. The current RF L-series 5.2*28-70*35*50*85mm lenses have no IS.

It gives more versatility to shooting in low light and slower shutter speeds. Not everyone's cup of tea but there are such situations. The RF lenses that don't have it are mostly the ones you'll be using a tripod in any case but it has kind of become a default.

 

[airborne]

It gives more versatility to shooting in low light and slower shutter speeds. Not everyone's cup of tea but there are such situations. The RF lenses that don't have it are mostly the ones you'll be using a tripod in any case but it has kind of become a default.

Yassis you talk sht

 

[Strange]

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.

Nope.

1. It depends. For a sufficiently high resolution sensor like the one on the A7RV, you get 26 megapixels in APS-C crop.
2. Nope. The full frame advantage is total noise per image, not per pixel. Simple photon counting statistics. There is nothing magical about full-frame vs APS-C vs medium format at single pixel level. Not sure why the corners would matter. Noisy corners are usually a result of lens vignetting.
3. Doesn't matter. F/2 on full frame is equivalent to F/1.4 on APS-C (ignoring the rounding errors) and the lenses are usually the same size in terms of equivalent FOV, DOF en the resulting per image noise. DOF is a function of aperture / focal length / subject distance. Has nothing to do with the sensor size itself.

 

[Swa]

Yassis you talk sht

You do you and I'll do me.

 

[Swa]

Nope.

1. It depends. For a sufficiently high resolution sensor like the one on the A7RV, you get 26 megapixels in APS-C crop.
2. Nope. The full frame advantage is total noise per image, not per pixel. Simple photon counting statistics. There is nothing magical about full-frame vs APS-C vs medium format at single pixel level. Not sure why the corners would matter. Noisy corners are usually a result of lens vignetting.
3. Doesn't matter. F/2 on full frame is equivalent to F/1.4 on APS-C (ignoring the rounding errors) and the lenses are usually the same size in terms of equivalent FOV, DOF en the resulting per image noise. DOF is a function of aperture / focal length / subject distance. Has nothing to do with the sensor size itself.

1. Yes but few sensors are. For 24MP equivalent you need 61.44MP.
2. As I understand it the quality is a result of the readout circuitry. An image crop 'should' give better results. For the same equivalent pixels a crop sensor should have the same pixel size but as we know pixel size doesn't necessarily determine noise and the circuitry and sensor in a crop could be better or worse. Better to compare a camera's crop results to that of a true crop sensor.
3. According to Sony not, and it makes sense. A crop sensor just decreases your field of view but your actual aperture and focal length stays the same, why lenses are still stated in FF lengths. You'll get exactly the same effects with a crop sensor vs full frame with the same lens. In short you do not get a F1.25 lens from a F2 lens with a crop sensor.

 

[Strange]

1. Yes but few sensors are. For 24MP equivalent you need 61.44MP.
2. As I understand it the quality is a result of the readout circuitry. An image crop 'should' give better results. For the same equivalent pixels a crop sensor should have the same pixel size but as we know pixel size doesn't necessarily determine noise and the circuitry and sensor in a crop could be better or worse. Better to compare a camera's crop results to that of a true crop sensor.
3. According to Sony not, and it makes sense. A crop sensor just decreases your field of view but your actual aperture and focal length stays the same, why lenses are still stated in FF lengths. You'll get exactly the same effects with a crop sensor vs full frame with the same lens. In short you do not get a F1.25 lens from a F2 lens with a crop sensor.

1. Sure, but there is an option you can buy on the market with that resolution.
2. ?
3. A crop, if digital or a physically smaller sensor, is literally just ignoring a the outer regions of the lens. So yes, aperture and focal length are functions of the lens itself. It has nothing to do with a sensor. What matters though is how the FOV impacts the usage of the lens, which changes the distance you use the lens at. Which in turn affects the DOF. There is nothing magical about FF. Or medium format. Or any format that makes it the "absolute truth".

 

[Swa]

1. Sure, but there is an option you can buy on the market with that resolution.
2. ?
3. A crop, if digital or a physically smaller sensor, is literally just ignoring a the outer regions of the lens. So yes, aperture and focal length are functions of the lens itself. It has nothing to do with a sensor. What matters though is how the FOV impacts the usage of the lens, which changes the distance you use the lens at. Which in turn affects the DOF. There is nothing magical about FF. Or medium format. Or any format that makes it the "absolute truth".

1. Yes but not a lot. Most crops is now 24-32MP. For 32 you'd need 82MP.
2. Not sure what the question is for. Basically in theory a crop of the image would give a better result but it doesn't work that way. A crop sensor with fewer pixels can have them optimised more. With higher pixel count FF optimisation is more expensive but it doesn't quite matter as the image has more pixels. But if you crop the image you lose some of that quality and in many cases now APS-C outperforms a higher pixel count FF.
3. Well yes and no. At an 1.6x crop 100mm is the same as 160mm on a full frame so wanting to use 100mm you can use 62.5mm instead which theoretically will affect the aperture you can use it at, but with a F2 lens you aren't now going to get F1.25 out of it as the lens is only capable of F2.

 

[Swa]

So it does appear to be the R7 MKII and not the R10 and it's all but announced at this point. If the rumours are true Bwana will be very happy with it having a stacked sensor.

 

[bwana]

So it does appear to be the R7 MKII and not the R10 and it's all but announced at this point. If the rumours are true Bwana will be very happy with it having a stacked sensor.

That's good news all around, right?

 

[Swa]

That's good news all around, right?

Unless they raise the price substantially yes. But don't think there's much room for that with the R8 just a few k more.

A stacked sensor not only all but eliminates the rolling shutter but doesn't have the trade-offs of a global shutter and in fact has better image quality as well.

 

[Seongsan]

Speaking as someone who does a lot of natural light portraiture, in cities, often at night, it's nice to have IS built into the lens, working in unison with the camera bodies IBIS. But it's not a necessity. I have a Sony 70-200mm f2.8 with lens IS, and I often use it set at 70mm instead of my 24-70mm f2.8 that doesn't have built in IS.

 

[bwana]

Speaking as someone who does a lot of natural light portraiture, in cities, often at night, it's nice to have IS built into the lens, working in unison with the camera bodies IBIS. But it's not a necessity. I have a Sony 70-200mm f2.8 with lens IS, and I often use it set at 70mm instead of my 24-70mm f2.8 that doesn't have built in IS.

In body is nice to have. I seem to use it more with non-IS lenses than those with IS.

 

[Swa]

So not confirmed yet but the rumours have it Canon is doing away with mechanical shutter in the R7 MK2.

 

[bwana]

So not confirmed yet but the rumours have it Canon is doing away with mechanical shutter in the R7 MK2.

It's only important if their sensor has a slow read speed. Sort that out and it's not necessary. Screw it up and not have the fallback of a mechanical shutter and they're screwed.

 

[Swa]

It's only important if their sensor has a slow read speed. Sort that out and it's not necessary. Screw it up and not have the fallback of a mechanical shutter and they're screwed.

Indeed, and we don't know yet if it will. Read speed has to be much faster than capture rate.

 

[Swa]

I've decided to try my first Nikon