I would also love a RF 24-240 f4L, but if it gets too big & heavy then I would rather have a 24-200 f4L if that's what it took to get high L quality with such a wide zoom range. Either of these would be wonderful if they weren't "too big & heavy" (which for me would be anything bigger/heavier than the 100-500L).
I've traveled with the 24-240mm for several years now and as "Dragon" points out, the distortion at the 24mm end requires using Photoshop or - horrors and headaches - Canon's own weird DPP. There's the occasional weird linear distortion as well, but all are easily corrected running the RAW converting in PS or DPP (which is what I always do regardless of lens used.) IQ is quite good otherwise and I haven't had an image that I felt "Darn, I wish I took this with an "L" lens..." As for the imagined dynamics, I don't think a lens the size and weight of the 100-500 is practical for my travel needs. That's not just something you carry around with you all day long in your backpack. If that's what Canon comes up with, I'll pass. It needs to be more towards in the 70-200 size and weight end not the 100-500. Maybe it can't be an ƒ4 then. OK, I can very easily live with that.
I'll have to contradict you! Sorry!
I find DxO to be better than LR or DPP for distortion correction, at least with the RF 14-35/4L.
if we do see an RF L series superzoom, I highly doubt that it would have a constant aperture. I suspect getting L quality from the lens will mean it must be larger – it would have to have either noticeably better IQ or wider apertures than the current 24-240 (or both) to justify the (probably significantly) higher price.
A good camera backpack is a given. I did some spreadsheet calculations based on what you wrote above and the weights given on the manufacturers pages and, good for you, but that would total up, including the necessary other accessories (batteries, filters, flash, gps, etc.) to at least 15 1/2 pounds dead weight (which is actually the limit for carryon roll-aboards for international flights, btw!) plus of course what one carries around during the day (jacket? hat? water bottle? first aid kit? snacks? etc....)I'll have to contradict you! Sorry!
I just cannot imagine the 100-500 too heavy to carry in a backpack. That's what I often do, plus a second body and 5-6 additional lenses.
What matters is the quality of the backpack, its adjustability, the padding of the straps etc...
And I am no longer 20, or 30, or 40, or 50...with a bad knee.
My backpack with the R5 + RF 100-500mm and R7 + RF 100-400mm, which is of official size to fit under an airline seat - and gets taken on board as carry on along with the standard size cabin bag. A MacBook Air slips into it as well.A good camera backpack is a given. I did some spreadsheet calculations based on what you wrote above and the weights given on the manufacturers pages and, good for you, but that would total up, including the necessary other accessories (batteries, filters, flash, gps, etc.) to at least 15 1/2 pounds dead weight (which is actually the limit for carryon roll-aboards for international flights, btw!) plus of course what one carries around during the day (jacket? hat? water bottle? first aid kit? snacks? etc....)
No matter how "comfortable" anyone claims their backpack is, carrying 15 -16 pounds plus plus around on your back all day, walking around town, standing in line, standing in museums, hiking up hills (let along mountain trails), trying to get in an out of transportation, walking, standing, walking, standing, etc., all day, every day for weeks on end and find it perfectly carefree, comfortable and not a burden, well, good for those people. Personally, I can't think of anyone I know that would find that a comfortable, strain-free way to travel. (Did a mini-survey during Christmas visits, btw. ) So, what really matters is not the backpack, but if you have a porter to carry your bags for you. (I did that in Nepal and India many years ago. Worked great, and after two months of traveling like that, my back was just fine!)
And given the huge size of a backpack required for all that equipment to carry around all day, well, "blending in" or at least not standing out as a gringo with $20,000 worth of stuff on their back will be difficult, especially when you stop to open up your camera store on the pavement someplace for all to see... In remote / primitive areas, one would need to carry a lot more "stuff" (like water, food, medical supplies, etc. etc.) so that pack becomes much heavier upwards of 22 -25 pounds at that point easy, and space at a premium as a result. (Grand Canyon hike is a great example. Every lens could be a bottle of water or food... And as the saying goes, "ounces add up to pounds and pounds add up to exhaustion"...) And in Japan/Korea for example, a backpack that size just won't fit in most places (esp. public transportation.)
So, my hat's off to those who pack the the camera kitchen sink, but I just can't see where it would work for very long... without porters, that is.
I'm just curious - Why do you have the (fairly similar) 100-400 (& R7) setup as the 2nd choice (assuming theses are the only 2 choices)? Is your wife using the 2nd one while you're birding? I'd probably have something like a 24-70 f2.8L or 28-70 f2L with a 2nd R5m2 as my 2nd choice, but then my wife only uses her cell phone and usually isn't taking photos when I am.
My wife indeed uses the R7 +RF 100-400mm, birding at the same time as me. It shows how small and convenient the RF 100-500 is.
Yes, a perfect combintion! The increased pixel density of the R7 acts like a 1.6x TC for the center of the FF view, so you'd get ~160-~640mm (at higher f#) without the weight/size/IQ loss of a TC and bigger lens. I think your wife might have got the better choice of the two!
Actually, when you compare the pixel density of the R7 to the R5, the effect is almost exactly a 1.4 TC equivalent if you are counting pixels on the bird. Still a very useful gain. I use the 200-800 on the R7 for one stop gain over the R5 with a 1.4 TC and the result is almost identical in just about every way (since the R5 has about 1 stop better DR at a given ISO), but the package is lighter and smaller.Yes, a perfect combintion! The increased pixel density of the R7 acts like a 1.6x TC for the center of the FF view, so you'd get ~160-~640mm (at higher f#) without the weight/size/IQ loss of a TC and bigger lens. I think your wife might have got the better choice of the two!
The fun part of DXO is that it lets you reach farther into the corners of WA lenses that don't fully illuminate the sensor. On a Nikon P1000, it will get almost to a 20mm equivalent, making the lens a 150:1 zoom rather than 125:1. There is some gain with the RF14-35L and even more with the RF24-240.
And, if you turn off the ‘maintain aspect ratio’ option, you gain a little extra width (because more distortion correction is applied to the long axis).
Yes, that is necessary to get the almost 20mm reach out of the P1000, but that is a 4:3 sensor, so not really much loss of image. PL is not the fastest program around, but it is very useful at the extremes for NR (especially color recovery) and things like distortion correction. Having Viewpoint right in the PL program is also handy in many instances.
I thought that when exporting RAWs on my 2019 16” Core i9 MBP, but it’s quite fast on my new 16” M4 Pro MBP.
That looks like 2 lenses and 2 cameras to me... but that wasn't what was described earlier. Depending on where I'm going and what I'm shooting, I also bring longer, heavier lenses (like for birds and wildlife, such as in Kenya or other wild life preserves.) But walking around the streets of Paris? Hiking the Camino de Santiago? Traveling in Japan? I believe the original issue, however, was a statement about carrying around 2 cameras and 5-6 lenses (and all the required accoutrements of course) all day, everyday for however long while traveling... Making a day outing to shoot birds is one thing - I do the same, and usually am not carrying it except when we get to where we're going and have to hike for a bit. Are you taking all of this (and don't forget all the other required camera gear) out in the wilderness for a week or so hiking everyday, stopping to take a shot along the way? If so, my hat's off to you. I am guessing not, however. I also guess then the definition of "traveling" is required here as it's subject to interpretation and variations. My camera carryon, for example, often weighs nearly 22+ pounds with everything included. I just don't strap that to my back all day long for weeks at a time (without porters
.) That was my point. Coming up going to Greenland and Iceland, with abundant wildlife shooting opportunities, I will be sure to pack my 100-500, of course, plus filters, tripod, flash and all the accessories and a backup camera... But I'll not be hiking out in the wilderness for all day shooting polar bears carrying it on my back all day. (And once again weight restrictions being what they are for small planes, you can't bring the kitchen sink anyway...)I run Windows with a 13900k and a 4070 TI which is a pretty fast combo. With that, PL is reasonably fast from a processing perspective, but it doesn't touch a candle to LR for organizational speed and convenience. The consequence is that I use LR for import and file management and both Topaz and PL for processing specific images. The file management features of LR are hard to beat. I currently have 71k images in the library and and can almost instantly sort in many ways, including by lens, or by camera type. That appeals to my inner geek.
I wouldn’t dream of using DxO for an image library…that’s more of a nightmare. I use fastrawviewer for image triage, it really lives up to its name. For my inner geek, I use Photostatistica to quantitatively analyze my EXIF data.
In terms of actual number of pixels, you are absolutely correct. In terms of gain of resolution, it's closer to only 15-20% more at low iso because of the much harsher low pass filter on the R7. The 1.4x on the RF 100-500 on the RF increase sresolution by only about the same amount (I've posted about this in the past, tested with 3 copies of the extender). So your observations that the R7 approximately = R5 + 1.4x is consistent with this.
I have actually posted a thread on the RF 200-800mm on the R7 and R5, showing my images of charts. You can see clearly that this relatively narrow lens that is not the sharpest gives no more resolution on the R7 than on the R5 but just puts twice the number of pixels on target at 800mm f/9. Adding the 1.4x RF TC doesn't improve the resolution of the R5 but again doubles the number of pixels.
Summary of my RF 200-800mm testing
I have now taken a couple of thousand images with charts and birds in the wild to test the RF 200-800mm on the R5 and some on the R7. This was both from sheer interest and for me to decide whether to keep the lens and if so which lens to use in various circumstances. Much has been posted in two...www.canonrumors.com
I've dug through my other tests and here are two charts, from slightly further away (19m vs 16.7m). The wider aperture and very sharp RF 100-500mm + 1.4xTC on the R5 at 700mm outresolves the bare lens on the R7. Your results may differ, and wider apertures and light intensity will have effects. But, I do not find the R7 outresolves the R5 with the same lens plus 1.4xTC.
View attachment 221412View attachment 221413
You misunderstood my post!That looks like 2 lenses and 2 cameras to me... but that wasn't what was described earlier. Depending on where I'm going and what I'm shooting, I also bring longer, heavier lenses (like for birds and wildlife, such as in Kenya or other wild life preserves.) But walking around the streets of Paris? Hiking the Camino de Santiago? Traveling in Japan? I believe the original issue, however, was a statement about carrying around 2 cameras and 5-6 lenses (and all the required accoutrements of course) all day, everyday for however long while traveling... Making a day outing to shoot birds is one thing - I do the same, and usually am not carrying it except when we get to where we're going and have to hike for a bit. Are you taking all of this (and don't forget all the other required camera gear) out in the wilderness for a week or so hiking everyday, stopping to take a shot along the way? If so, my hat's off to you. I am guessing not, however. I also guess then the definition of "traveling" is required here as it's subject to interpretation and variations. My camera carryon, for example, often weighs nearly 22+ pounds with everything included. I just don't strap that to my back all day long for weeks at a time (without porters
Ditto to @Del Paso's post. As replied later to @usern4cr, I was just illustrating the convenience of the size of the RF 100-500mm for packing. I don't go hiking with a backpack for the camera but have it on a Blackrapid strap for instant use. I've been on very basic Safaris across Africa with internal bush flights, paddling up tributaries of the Amazon, zodiacing to Galapgos Islands and in the wilds of Borneo, and I always travel very light without a tripod and with the minimum of gear. I would undoubtedly have got more and some better shots with bigger and longer lenses but am content with the ones I did.That looks like 2 lenses and 2 cameras to me... but that wasn't what was described earlier. Depending on where I'm going and what I'm shooting, I also bring longer, heavier lenses (like for birds and wildlife, such as in Kenya or other wild life preserves.) But walking around the streets of Paris? Hiking the Camino de Santiago? Traveling in Japan? I believe the original issue, however, was a statement about carrying around 2 cameras and 5-6 lenses (and all the required accoutrements of course) all day, everyday for however long while traveling... Making a day outing to shoot birds is one thing - I do the same, and usually am not carrying it except when we get to where we're going and have to hike for a bit. Are you taking all of this (and don't forget all the other required camera gear) out in the wilderness for a week or so hiking everyday, stopping to take a shot along the way? If so, my hat's off to you. I am guessing not, however. I also guess then the definition of "traveling" is required here as it's subject to interpretation and variations. My camera carryon, for example, often weighs nearly 22+ pounds with everything included. I just don't strap that to my back all day long for weeks at a time (without porters
