I have a Canon SL2 (DSLR). Just did a quick test and could tell absolutely no difference between using LV or AF thru the VF with my 55-250 IS STM. I also tried an older USM type lens and could detect no difference. Even my ancient 50 1.8 with whatever crude AF motor it has is amazingly fast for adapting a 30 year old lens. Can't find it right now to do a comparison, but I doubt there is any difference.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
With my Canon SL2 I can detect no difference between LV or PDAF thru the VF. Now it certainly has a crude PDAF system, but I would say the R with adapted lenses is probably as fast at AF as any common DSLR. I am sure high end cameras like the 1Dx that have very specific electronics to speed up focus would be better. Just a guess but the 5D4 probably falls somewhere between the R and the 1Dx.
No. The R is a great camera that happens to have additional benefits to those who already have canon glass. Good for anyone and everyone.
J
JJoyce4699
Guest
m4/3 marketing still has many people brainwashed.
The promise of mirroless is not size, it is less complexity and new technology that cannot be done with a DSLR.
m4/3 can be really small because of the sensor size, not just because they are mirrorless. Same reason I shoot and will keep shooting my Nikon 1 along side my DSLR gear. Nikon 1 lenses are tiny because of the senor size.
The promise of mirroless is not size, it is less complexity and new technology that cannot be done with a DSLR.
m4/3 can be really small because of the sensor size, not just because they are mirrorless. Same reason I shoot and will keep shooting my Nikon 1 along side my DSLR gear. Nikon 1 lenses are tiny because of the senor size.
gary0319
Forum Pro
Maybe you are right. But with no real world evidence to support such claims it is just speculation at this point.....
And I'll take your word for the non-differential between the PDAF or LV focusing. but we're not talking about a $600 APS-C Rebel that shoots at a max 5 or 6 frames per second here . The SL2 is most likely a great small inexpensive camera, but hardly a reasonable performance benchmark for a $2,000+, full frame, keynote model.
Last edited:
If you are shooting pro sports for a living, then a 1Dx is what you need. For any amateur use the R will do fine.
The R is not positioned as a high end sports model. For the uses of 99% of people it will do everything thy need. I am sure one day Canon will have a R model aimed specifically at high speed continuous AF, but the first model out of the gate is not going to be the one. They have that market well covered with the 1Dx.
gary0319
Forum Pro
You are absolutely right and I'm not disputing the AF prowess of the 5D or 1D models. But until I see some real world comparisons about how well the AF compares between the native R lenses and a similar EF /adapter combo on the R body, I'll still be skeptical that there is "no difference".
I think the correct claim is that the EOS R will focus the lenses as well (or better) than any other Canon DSLR in LV, which is a known quantity. It might be true that the DPAF system has some evolution to do until it is good enough for sports cameras, but I don't think there is any doubt that the basic AF functionality of the EF lenses will be good and very similar to native lenses.
Hey you two. People are watching ...
All of this discussion pertaining to M43 vs FF is based on sensor size, smaller lenses, weight of camera and lenses vs FF Mirrorless cameras is really pointless as one very important ingredient seems to be missing from all this discussion. Did some of us not buy M43 cameras because they also gave a 2X factor? an all important reason for people who do wildlife and sports ? Would the rather expensive 300mm F4 be a rarity or choice for M43 users if it did not act as a 600mm Lens? If this makes sense, then why on earth are you confusing the issue? They simple are a different format, and one or the other will appeal to some and not to others. There is no discussion necessary.. you either stay with M43 or change, and then the size of lenses is moot, Period.
Last edited:
bobn2
Forum Pro
Yeah, but that's an SL2. The difference in a simple test is unlikely to be noticeable. If you place a focus point over the thing you want to focus on, press the focus button, any AF system worth it's salt should be able to find focus as fast as the lens motor will drive it. The problem is when you have many focus points, and are trying to do acquisition of quickly moving subjects and then tracking them across the frame as they move irregularly across the field of focus points. Your SL2 can't do that in the first place, so really there isn't a lot to compare.
mostlyboringphotog
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,475
- Reaction score
- 4,003
All kind of cameras were used for all kind of "great" photos...
Graflex 4x5 was good enough to cover the war even.
Fair use invoked...
BTW, I think I am agreeing with you ;-)
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
I hate when my kids say that to my wife and I. ;-)
bobn2
Forum Pro
The electrical interface is quite different (it has 12 pins rather than 8), and there are very good reasons not to use the legacy EF mount interface. Though it was a groundbreaking interface, the later ones have developed some advantages and if you were designing a new mount for another 40 years, I can see very good reasons for not sticking to the EF mount, especially as the new lenses will not ever have to mount on old EF mount cameras. The cost and complexity of a chip in the adapter is trivial, especially if you know inside out the protocols on either side and have designed the new one to easily accommodate the needs of the old. Further, putting a chip in the adapter makes it harder for third parties to copy. If I was a Canon engineer, designing the new lens mount, I would definitely take the opportunity to correct the known shortcomings of EF and take advantage of some of the subsequent developments, but maybe I'm incredibly stupid.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Really? It's eminently sensible to me. I mean, given that all the EF lenses will work on the R just as well as they work on EF DSLRs is a *huge* plus. Who's gonna stop using their EF lenses when they still work as well as ever?
I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that if Canon has an issue to overcome, it most certainly is not the *outstanding* RF lenses that were announced with the R, but their sensor tech.
Well, the MTF chart below shows its performance wide open -- f/0.9 mFT equivalent. It does not show its stopped down performance. Based on the 17 / 1.2 MTF that someone else posted, I think it's a fair assumption that at the same DOF, the $500 35 / 1.8 IS 1:2 macro will have even more even frame performance than the 17 / 1.2.
But, assuming that the frame performance is not as even, the way it will almost definitely go is that the corners of the RF 35 will be at least as good as the corners of the 17 / 1.2 at the same DOF, but the center will be better.
I'm saying that if the RF 35 does that well at f/0.9 mFT equivalent, it's gonna be doing a lot better at f/1.2 mFT equivalent, so I am saying that if you are calling its performance "mediocre", then what does that say of the 17 / 1.2?Again, why the fictitious lens comparison? Do you need to prop up Canons lens with a made up lens?
I'm thinking that a 17 / 0.9 on mFT wouldn't look quite so good at 20 lp/mm and 60 lp/mm wide open.
Here's the MTF for the 17 / 1.2 wide open:
No where does it perform better than the RF 35 at f/0.9 equivalent. At f/2.5 (f/1.2 mFT equivalent), the RF 35 MTF will most certainly flatten out and be even higher still. Your cirteria of "wide open flatness" as being the sole reason to call the RF 35 a "mediocre" lens is more than a little bizarre.
Fortunately, the RF 35 has 5 stop ILIS.The Ibis is a crutch for me now, without question it has made me a lazier photographer... The sensor though I think is fine.Canon's problem is not the lenses -- it's their sensor and lack of IBIS.One is very practical, the other a statement. We will see who gets the markets approval.That's also a simply amazing performer. In any case, as I said, I think both companies did a stellar job with their initial lens offerings; they simply differed in their philosophies....then a beast of an f1.2 prime
$500 for a 17.5 / 0.9 IS 1:2 macro mFT equivalent? Seems like a successful strategy to me, especially considering that the EF 35 / 2 IS is one of the more highly regarded EF lenses.
Last edited:
gary0319
Forum Pro
Better......
gary0319
Forum Pro
As I brought up in another thread.....where does this claim come from? Has this been confirmed and present in public forum by Canon? Then, has it been born out by independent field tests for Continuous AF, focusing speed, etc. I think not. But if there has been such definitive documentation, I'll be more than happy to eat my words. Until that time this is not anything more than wild speculation, IMO.
Who's gonna stop using their EF lenses when they still work as well as ever?
I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that if Canon has an issue to overcome, it most certainly is not the *outstanding* RF lenses that were announced with the R, but their sensor tech.
Well, the MTF chart below shows its performance wide open -- f/0.9 mFT equivalent. It does not show its stopped down performance. Based on the 17 / 1.2 MTF that someone else posted, I think it's a fair assumption that at the same DOF, the $500 35 / 1.8 IS 1:2 macro will have even more even frame performance than the 17 / 1.2.
But, assuming that the frame performance is not as even, the way it will almost definitely go is that the corners of the RF 35 will be at least as good as the corners of the 17 / 1.2 at the same DOF, but the center will be better.
I'm saying that if the RF 35 does that well at f/0.9 mFT equivalent, it's gonna be doing a lot better at f/1.2 mFT equivalent, so I am saying that if you are calling its performance "mediocre", then what does that say of the 17 / 1.2?Again, why the fictitious lens comparison? Do you need to prop up Canons lens with a made up lens?
I'm thinking that a 17 / 0.9 on mFT wouldn't look quite so good at 20 lp/mm and 60 lp/mm wide open.
Here's the MTF for the 17 / 1.2 wide open:
No where does it perform better than the RF 35 at f/0.9 equivalent. At f/2.5 (f/1.2 mFT equivalent), the RF 35 MTF will most certainly flatten out and be even higher still. Your cirteria of "wide open flatness" as being the sole reason to call the RF 35 a "mediocre" lens is more than a little bizarre.
Fortunately, the RF 35 has 5 stop ILIS.The Ibis is a crutch for me now, without question it has made me a lazier photographer... The sensor though I think is fine.Canon's problem is not the lenses -- it's their sensor and lack of IBIS.One is very practical, the other a statement. We will see who gets the markets approval.That's also a simply amazing performer. In any case, as I said, I think both companies did a stellar job with their initial lens offerings; they simply differed in their philosophies....then a beast of an f1.2 prime
$500 for a 17.5 / 0.9 IS 1:2 macro mFT equivalent? Seems like a successful strategy to me, especially considering that the EF 35 / 2 IS is one of the more highly regarded EF lenses.
You are arguing that an USB 2.0 to USB-C cable needs a translation chip because it's a different interface. Those are just pins, they do whatever you want them to do. I am pretty sure backwards compatibility was the most basic thing they implemented. The camera detects an EF lens -> it uses the EF protocol. It detects an RF lens -> it uses the RF protocol.
Last edited:
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
*Every* review I've seen of the R has said that there is no decrease in performance with EF lenses. For example:
Why? Do you think they intentionally crippled their newest camera to perform worse? No, the EOS R will most certainly focus the EF lenses as well or better than their DSLRs in LV.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum