Is the Canon EOS R7 the next camera to be announced? [CR2]

[AlanF]

I need to get my hands on an R3 for a bit just to see what the newest EVF is like. I normally get to play with lots of stuff thanks to friends, but nobody I know IRL has grabbed that one yet. I've said before that EVFs are better in low light until they aren't, until they fail completely on things that you can still see with an OVF and a fast lens. An example would be composing the Milky Way though a 24mm f/1.4. But perhaps the R3 is to the point that you can do this? Something I saw in a review video made me think the A7s III was there.

I'm definitely in the OVF camp, and probably will be until EVFs provide the same IQ as current high DPI/Retina screens. That phrasing implies resolution though the bigger problems seem to be color, contrast, DR, and potential lag. (Again, have not played with an R3 so I cannot say how much it has improved on any of those, other than I imagine lag is gone even under continuous shooting?) That said if one of the R5's features crossed the line, for me personally, from "nice" to "need" or even "really, really want" the EVF wouldn't stop me. And as you point out, EVFs can be very convenient. Having shutter, aperture, and ISO on three dials and setting exposure manually via EVF/LiveView is both fast and intuitive.

I used to be a confirmed OVF user who didn't want to go over to an EVF. But, since the R5 and R6, it's no longer an issue for me. There are pros and cons for each and I am happy to use either. The choice of EVF or OVF is, in my opinion, not a deal breaker. By the way, there is no lag when in the fast refresh mode and I use it for fast BIF shots with no problems.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Point taken. I will try very hard not to take part in these discussions in the future. Every point has been make hundreds of times before and no one ever convinces anyone else.

You could also consider refraining from making statements that are clearly incorrect and/or show your lack of comprehension of a concept. For example, your claim that, "Depth of field resides solely within the lens and distance to subject. Since depth of field is sensor independent...," is simply false, and shows that you are unaware of all the factors affecting DoF, or if you prefer a topical play on words, you are trapped within the circle of confusion.

Actually, better than refraining from making incorrect statements would be to learn and understand the relevant concepts. If you're not going to do that, perhaps follow the advice I gave another poster and just stick to pressing the shutter button and taking pictures and stay away from discussions of the technical aspects of photography.

 

[koenkooi]

I used to be a confirmed OVF user who didn't want to go over to an EVF. But, since the R5 and R6, it's no longer an issue for me. There are pros and cons for each and I am happy to use either. The choice of EVF or OVF is, in my opinion, not a deal breaker. By the way, there is no lag when in the fast refresh mode and I use it for fast BIF shots with no problems.

I wonder if the EVF lag is really gone nowadays or if the decreased shutter lag cancels out the increased viewfinder lag. It's the end result that counts, but I would like to know

 

[unfocused]

You could also consider refraining from making statements that are clearly incorrect and/or show your lack of comprehension of a concept. For example, your claim that, "Depth of field resides solely within the lens and distance to subject. Since depth of field is sensor independent...," is simply false, and shows that you are unaware of all the factors affecting DoF, or if you prefer a topical play on words, you are trapped within the circle of confusion.

Actually, better than refraining from making incorrect statements would be to learn and understand the relevant concepts. If you're not going to do that, perhaps follow the advice I gave another poster and just stick to pressing the shutter button and taking pictures and stay away from discussions of the technical aspects of photography.

Perhaps you missed the second part of my statement.

This would be a much better place if everyone would model their behavior after @sanj. A talented and successful professional who is always respectful and humble.

Try it sometime.

 

[unfocused]

I need to get my hands on an R3 for a bit just to see what the newest EVF is like. I normally get to play with lots of stuff thanks to friends, but nobody I know IRL has grabbed that one yet. I've said before that EVFs are better in low light until they aren't, until they fail completely on things that you can still see with an OVF and a fast lens. An example would be composing the Milky Way though a 24mm f/1.4. But perhaps the R3 is to the point that you can do this? Something I saw in a review video made me think the A7s III was there.

I'm definitely in the OVF camp, and probably will be until EVFs provide the same IQ as current high DPI/Retina screens. That phrasing implies resolution though the bigger problems seem to be color, contrast, DR, and potential lag. (Again, have not played with an R3 so I cannot say how much it has improved on any of those, other than I imagine lag is gone even under continuous shooting?) That said if one of the R5's features crossed the line, for me personally, from "nice" to "need" or even "really, really want" the EVF wouldn't stop me. And as you point out, EVFs can be very convenient. Having shutter, aperture, and ISO on three dials and setting exposure manually via EVF/LiveView is both fast and intuitive.

I haven't paid all that much attention, but I can't say that I notice any difference between the EVF of the R3 and the R5. Both are very good in my opinion.

However, my use cases generally aren't the type that are affected by subtle differences in the EVF. (Sports for pay, birds for fun.) For me, it's all about getting the subject in focus which doesn't lend itself to detailed analysis in the viewfinder. I used to shoot a fair number of college concerts and plays, but COVID has played havoc with those. When I was using a R and a 5DIV I did find the EVF of the R a bit annoying as it tended to blow out the highlights and clip the shadows. On the plus side, the actual images always had a lot more range and subtlety than the EVF showed, since the sensors for both cameras are essentially the same.

You are probably more discerning than I am in regards to the EVF image, so my experience may be irrelevant to you.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Perhaps you missed the second part of my statement.

Here are the final two paragraphs of your post that I quoted:

Depth of field is not sensor dependent. It only appears to be so, because you must change either your shooting position or, in the example you are using, the focal length of the lens, in order to get the same cropping in the final image.

Depth of field resides solely within the lens and distance to subject. Since depth of field is sensor independent, I don't like to use the term equivalence for depth of field, because people think it has something to do with the sensor, which it does not.

You stated several times that DoF is independent of the sensor. That is wrong.

What did I miss, except you saying that you don’t want to discuss the concept of equivalence as it’s defined, because people think DoF has something to do with the sensor?

People think DoF has something to do with the sensor because it does. Specifically, with the size of the sensor, which determines the amount of enlargement needed for output. Have you ever used an online DoF calculator? Do you think there’s a drop-down menu to choose your camera on them for no reason?

Seriously, the way you keep doubling down on your incorrect statements is embarrassing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

@unfocused
Probably a lost cause and this will fall on blind eyes but:



Explanatory text below the calculator:
In order to calculate the depth of field, one needs to first decide on what will be considered acceptably sharp. More specifically, this is called the maximum circle of confusion (CoC), and is based on the camera sensor size (camera type), viewing distance and print size.

You can go on thinking that DoF is independent of sensor size, or that the Earth is flat, or whatever other nonsense you choose to believe. You are welcome to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

Actually, better than refraining from making incorrect statements would be to learn and understand the relevant concepts.

Try it sometime.

 

[unfocused]

What did I miss...

You missed this:

This would be a much better place if everyone would model their behavior after @sanj. A talented and successful professional who is always respectful and humble. I can't guarantee I will succeed, but I will resolve to try.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You missed this:

No, I didn’t. But @sanj often admits when he’s wrong and tries to learn when concepts he doesn’t understand are explained. Perhaps you should consider that as you attempt to model your behavior after his.

 

[unfocused]

I wonder if the EVF lag is really gone nowadays or if the decreased shutter lag cancels out the increased viewfinder lag. It's the end result that counts, but I would like to know

I still find lag to be a problem, although no where nearly as bad as it was with the original R.

Here is an example of where it can be particularly challenging.



This was shot with the R5. Catching the ball in mid air means having to hit the shutter well before it leaves her hand. It took five or six tries to get it right and in none of the tries was the actual location of the ball visible. I hit the shutter when, in the viewfinder, the ball was still in her hand. In other words, it's pretty much guesswork. Of course this is a specialized case, but it is an example of the challenge that an electronic viewfinder presents. Of course, with a 5D4 there was still a delay due to the fact that my reflexes aren't instantaneous, but the lag time was not nearly as great.

Unless you are shooting studio shots like this, you probably won't notice the lag out in the field, Shooting birds for example. In the field, or on a court shooting sports, the rapid frames per second pretty much obscures any lag time. It's only in the studio, when I have to shoot single shot (because my strobes don't recycle fast enough) that I notice this.

 

[dtaylor]

According to the Digital Picture site, the DLA for the 5DS and 5DSR is f/6.7. According to your calculations, the DLA for the 5DSR measured by MTF50 would be f/22. It doesn't have an AA-filter, but at the worst using your factor of 1.5x for the Nyquist it would be f/15, and comparing the measured resolutions of the 5DSR vs 5DS would be f/18. I am an experimental scientist so I look for evidence. A few years back I actually plotted the values of MTF50 on the 5DSR with increasing f-number from data from ePhotozine and photozone (opticallimits) sites (I looked at the sharpest wide aperture lenses). You can below see that the MTF50 drops off linearly above about f/5, which is what you would expect for a DLA about f/6.7. A DLA of f/18 would drop off at a much higher value. What has my simple science got wrong?

Your graph isn't wrong per se, but it doesn't sufficiently model the issue at hand.

The first issue is that people tend to interpret DLA as a hard and fast limit. Which means they think a higher resolution sensor and a lower resolution sensor will be limited to the same resolution beyond the DLA limit. In other words, they think a 5DsR and a 6D will show the same detail at f/8 because the 5DsR has crossed the DLA line. But this is observably false. Higher resolution sensors continue to resolve more detail past the DLA. Not forever of course. But at f/16 a 5Ds can still separate lines that have long since blurred to gray on a 6D. (I chose the 5Ds because the 6D has an AA filter and someone might otherwise say the difference is due to AA.) In fact, if you leave the 5Ds at f/16 and switch the 6D to f/2, you'll see that while the 6D can resolve more at f/2 than it could at f/16, it still can't resolve as much as the 5Ds at f/16. This is the opposite of what most people would assume based on how DLA is typically described.

Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Your graph by itself doesn't tell someone if DLA is hard and fast, or a steadily increasing factor. It would need to be compared to graphs of other sensors of varying pixel densities.

The second issue is that people tend to think of "resolution" as how many blades of grass can be separated and seen, not how sharp the separation is. They will just say "sharpness" when they mean the latter. MTF50 does not measure "resolution" in the way that photographers typically use the term. An MTF50 graph is an indicator of perceived sharpness. Traditionally "resolution" tests, meaning extinction resolution, were performed at MTF10. In theory you could see convergence on a pair of MTF50 graphs and think 'ah hah! DLA limits the sensors to the same resolution right here.' But if you looked at MTF10 graphs, or at a lens comparison like the one above, you would see the higher resolution sensor resolving line pairs the lower one cannot at much more narrow apertures than might be indicated by MTF50.

Diffraction starts to become a factor in sharpness at the traditionally quoted DLA values, as is clearly shown by your graph. But it does not equalize the resolved detail of higher and lower resolution sensors until much higher values. The distinction is especially important in the digital age because you can, to a point, restore lost sharpness with a mouse click. You cannot restore missing detail. (Though AI is getting better at faking it.) 'Limit' was a terrible word choice for this phenomenon by whoever first coined the phrase. It should be something else, perhaps Diffraction Impacted Aperture.

I have done neither the research nor the testing to know if Lee Jay's inputs are correct for evaluating the point at which DLA truly limits resolved detail. The only one I can credibly critique is a value of 3 for Nyquist. You should not need a value that high, though he is absolutely correct that you need a value >2. But he is right to point out that DLA is not a simple, hard line in the sand. It's a fuzzy range because airy disks are literally fuzzy, meaning they are not the same contrast/strength at the edge as in the center.

Kudos to him for exploring the issue more deeply and trying to measure it, regardless of whether or not he nailed every last number.

 

[dtaylor]

We are all talking about the point at which diffraction begins to affect an image. You seem to be talking about the point at which diffraction maximally affects an image, i.e. beyond which a narrower aperture has no additional softening effect.

IMO, the former is far more relevant to photography. The latter is not meaningless, but there's a reason we commonly say 'stop down the lens' (from wide open) and not 'stop up the lens' (from fully closed).

In his defense, it's common for people to treat DLA as a hard and fast limit on resolved detail. Bryan doesn't screw that up in his description at TDP, but it's a common screw up. As to which is more relevant, in the film age the point at which diffraction begins to impact an image was. Today, with post processing? IMHO it's more important to know the point where DLA means you're losing resolved detail and/or cannot sharpen away the effect.

 

[neuroanatomist]

In his defense, it's common for people to treat DLA as a hard and fast limit on resolved detail. Bryan doesn't screw that up in his description at TDP, but it's a common screw up. As to which is more relevant, in the film age the point at which diffraction begins to impact an image was. Today, with post processing? IMHO it's more important to know the point where DLA means you're losing resolved detail and/or cannot sharpen away the effect.

As I stated earlier in this thread, except that I disagreed with the relative importance of the onset versus the end of diffraction limited aperture range. Modern sharpening algorithms are good at counteracting the effects of diffraction, but not perfect. Personally, I would rather know when my settings start to introduce a deleterious optical effect so I can avoid it if possible rather than relying on the imperfect ability to correct it in post.

Having said that, knowing the final extinction limit is useful in handheld macro photography, where use of very narrow apertures is much more common.

 

[dtaylor]

As I stated earlier in this thread, except that I disagreed with the relative importance of the onset versus the end of diffraction limited aperture range.

The thread got ahead of me so if I needlessly rehashed something covered in an earlier post by you, that's on me.

 

[AlanF]

In his defense, it's common for people to treat DLA as a hard and fast limit on resolved detail. Bryan doesn't screw that up in his description at TDP, but it's a common screw up. As to which is more relevant, in the film age the point at which diffraction begins to impact an image was. Today, with post processing? IMHO it's more important to know the point where DLA means you're losing resolved detail and/or cannot sharpen away the effect.

For simplicity, you can divide the loss of resolution into two phases. There is a cut-off frequency, the Nyquist frequency, above which higher frequencies cannot be resolved. Then, as you go to lower frequencies, they progressively get resolved better and better until they are fully resolved at much lower frequencies. For a digital sensor as Lee Jay posted, the Nyquist frequency is 1/(2xpixel pitch) if there are no complicating factors. Diffraction also behaves qualitatively the same way, though it is squishier. The first radius of the diffraction disk (Airy disk) is the key number. There is a point where higher frequencies can't be resolved which is approximately where the maximum of one disk is at the radius of an adjoining one (which is where some squishiness comes in as the disk doesn't have a hard edge). As the disks become further separated, frequencies become progressively better resolved until fully resolved. The radius of the Airy disk is directly proportional to the f-number. The DLA calculated by the Digital Picture and other sites is the f-number at which the radius of the Airy disk is the same as the pixel pitch. It also gets a bit messy because the red end of the spectrum has a bigger radius than the blue.

So, there are cut-offs, albeit a bit messy, and in addition a lead up to the cut-off that has a progressive phase where resolution is more slowly lost up to the full loss at the cut-off.

 

[Czardoom]

No, I didn’t. But @sanj often admits when he’s wrong and tries to learn when concepts he doesn’t understand are explained. Perhaps you should consider that as you attempt to model your behavior after his.

It's one thing when you harass, use ridicule and sarcasm, to put down trolls or rude people who make the forum an unfriendly place.

It's quite another when you do the same to someone who is relatively polite and courteous. Do it enough and you come across as nothing but an a-hole.

On another forum I used to work for, we had a sort of unwritten rule that after a person makes their point in 3 posts, then they should move on. Repeating the same thing over and over is annoying and makes the person start to come across as nothing but an a-hole.

It's good thing to teach, but not a good thing to lecture. It's a good thing to pass along knowledge, but not so good to insist that those that are misinformed admit that they are wrong - or essentially to bow down and kiss your feet because you are superior. When you do that, well, I think you are smart enough to figure out what that makes you come across as...

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's one thing when you harass, use ridicule and sarcasm, to put down trolls or rude people who make the forum an unfriendly place.

It's quite another when you do the same to someone who is relatively polite and courteous. Do it enough and you come across as nothing but an a-hole.

On another forum I used to work for, we had a sort of unwritten rule that after a person makes their point in 3 posts, then they should move on. Repeating the same thing over and over is annoying and makes the person start to come across as nothing but an a-hole.

It's good thing to teach, but not a good thing to lecture. It's a good thing to pass along knowledge, but not so good to insist that those that are misinformed admit that they are wrong - or essentially to bow down and kiss your feet because you are superior. When you do that, well, I think you are smart enough to figure out what that makes you come across as...

It seems another recap is warranted. A member (who has not posted again in this discussion), posted incorrect information. I replied with a correction, suggesting the possibility that I misunderstood his post.

@unfocused chose to reply to my factually accurate correction with misinformation, claiming that a larger sensor does not gather more light.

…I do question one statement (or at least want to clarify it)….
I think this is worth clarifying because some of the "experts" on this forum make fuzzy statements that can easily imply that the mere size of the sensor means more light gathering.

He replies again with:

1) I have no interest or desire to go down that equivalence rabbit hole.

…then proceeds to present his incomplete understanding of equivalence.

Then we have:

I really don't want to get into this, but since you asked. …

Depth of field resides solely within the lens and distance to subject. Since depth of field is sensor independent…

He ‘doesn’t want to get into this’, but then he does and presents still more incorrect information.

@Czardoom it’s your choice to leap to the defense of someone repeatedly making false statements (protesting all the while he doesn’t want to reply). It’s your choice to blame the person who didn’t open the can of worms.

It could be worse, you could be leaping to the defense of someone claiming that vaccines contain nanotrackers or that foreign space lasers caused wildfires in California. I’m sure if you look, you can find other forums to defend some polite and courteous people spouting more egregious misinformation than @unfocused is spouting here. In the meantime, your implication that I’m being an asshole is not going to deter me from correcting false information.

@unfocused is an adult. If he lacks the willpower not to hit Post Reply after saying he ’doesn’t want to get into this’, that’s not my problem. Nor should you make it yours.

 

[Blue Zurich]

so... how about that R7 huh?

 

[unfocused]

It's one thing when you harass, use ridicule and sarcasm, to put down trolls or rude people who make the forum an unfriendly place.

It's quite another when you do the same to someone who is relatively polite and courteous. Do it enough and you come across as nothing but an a-hole.

On another forum I used to work for, we had a sort of unwritten rule that after a person makes their point in 3 posts, then they should move on. Repeating the same thing over and over is annoying and makes the person start to come across as nothing but an a-hole.

It's good thing to teach, but not a good thing to lecture. It's a good thing to pass along knowledge, but not so good to insist that those that are misinformed admit that they are wrong - or essentially to bow down and kiss your feet because you are superior. When you do that, well, I think you are smart enough to figure out what that makes you come across as...

A very thoughtful post and one we can all learn from.

I think what I find most frustrating is that we have lost some very talented contributors over the years due to bullying. One in particular was a huge loss to this forum. He was an obviously successful Hollywood portrait photographer (I specifically recall a portrait of Mila Kunas that he posted on the forum). When a successful professional finds this forum and decides to join in, he or she deserves a little respect and people need to cut them some slack. Unfortunately he was treated with disrespect and abuse and dropped off the forum. That's one reason why I try to show a little appreciation for @sanj. If anyone takes the time to check him out, they can see that he is an accomplished cinematographer who has better things to do than spend time on this forum.

I frequently and often vehemently disagree with @GoldWing's opinions, but lately I've tried to understand where he is coming from and can see that he actually has legitimate points.

But, it really goes beyond just professionals. There have been many, many contributors who got on the wrong side of someone and were badgered and abused at every turn. Troll can be a very subjective term and some of these people were deemed "trolls" simply because they expressed opinions that were contrary to others.

I'm a longtime contributor. I should probably quit wasting my time here, but I find it to be an entertaining break at times. I do learn some things on this forum, but it is not from those who fancy themselves to be experts. I learn more from those who post honest questions and wish to engage in genuine exchanges of viewpoint, versus those who enter every conversation as though there is some prize for "winning."

 

[neuroanatomist]

@unfocused do you feel bullied because I dont allow your false statements and misinformation stand without challenge? Because I refute your false information with facts supported by multiple external references? Have you provided even a single reference to support your statements?

I enjoy your contributions to this forum on non-technical matters. Images, experience, opinions on which lens is better or the pros and cons of EVFs vs OVFs. In a nutshell, subjective topics.

However, it’s abundantly clear that your understanding of some of the technical aspects of photography is lacking. Those are objective topics governed mainly by the principles of optics and physics. Any opinion you may have about the relationship between force, mass and acceleration is irrelevant. Force equals mass times acceleration. You cannot decline to discuss acceleration when considering force, since acceleration is one of the variables that determine force.

I can’t stop you from stating your ‘opinion’ on objective concepts like what determines DoF or how sensor size affects total light gathered, any more than I can stop you from sharing your ‘opinion’ on the roughly spherical shape of the Earth. But when your personal viewpoint differs from established fact and published literature, I’m not going to refrain from pointing out that you’re wrong to spare your feelings.