In praise of the RF 35 and high ISO on the R

I was sitting at my desk a couple of days ago, when my cat jumped up into my lap and looked up at me. On impulse, I picked up my R, which was on a table next to me, with the RF 35 mounted, turned it on and took off the lens cap as I lifted it to my eye. By the time I got it to my eye it was ready to shoot, so I took a couple quickly. It was in tracking mode, with initial point set at the center, so I just positioned that on his eye and fired off a couple of shots before he looked away. I didn't have time to check the settings. It was in Av, with F2.8 and a minimum shutter speed of 1/250 (I've forgotten what I was shooting previously) in auto ISO, which gave an ISO of 16000 at 1/320. I was amazed by how well it came out, considering the ISO. I then switched the aperture to F1.8 and set the minimum speed to 1/125, and got a couple of other shots. Here are the two:

Not only am I impressed by the high ISO performance of the R, but also by the performance of the RF35. I used to own the EF 35 F2 IS, which I sold when I bought my R, and replaced with the RF version (I stopped using the EF 35 on my M cameras when I got the superb EF-M 32). The EF 35 was a fine lens, but it couldn't have taken these shots. That's because of the close focusing ability of the RF lens. The EF lens wouldn't have been able to focus this close. Not only did the RF lens focus this close, but it also focused really fast, which is unusual for close distances.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

I was sitting at my desk a couple of days ago, when my cat jumped up into my lap and looked up at me. On impulse, I picked up my R, which was on a table next to me, with the RF 35 mounted, turned it on and took off the lens cap as I lifted it to my eye. By the time I got it to my eye it was ready to shoot, so I took a couple quickly. It was in tracking mode, with initial point set at the center, so I just positioned that on his eye and fired off a couple of shots before he looked away. I didn't have time to check the settings. It was in Av, with F2.8 and a minimum shutter speed of 1/250 (I've forgotten what I was shooting previously) in auto ISO, which gave an ISO of 16000 at 1/320. I was amazed by how well it came out, considering the ISO. I then switched the aperture to F1.8 and set the minimum speed to 1/125, and got a couple of other shots. Here are the two:

Not only am I impressed by the high ISO performance of the R, but also by the performance of the RF35. I used to own the EF 35 F2 IS, which I sold when I bought my R, and replaced with the RF version (I stopped using the EF 35 on my M cameras when I got the superb EF-M 32). The EF 35 was a fine lens, but it couldn't have taken these shots. That's because of the close focusing ability of the RF lens. The EF lens wouldn't have been able to focus this close. Not only did the RF lens focus this close, but it also focused really fast, which is unusual for close distances.

Wow that is really cool.  I have the RP and when I shoot with the RF 35 1.8, I usually shoot manual, with a slow shutter speed and high Av to bring out detail.  Works pretty good, for sleeping dogs, anyway.

Below is one I shot at 1/125 of a second, F2, ISO 12800, and one shot at 1/13 of a sec, f7.1, ISO 10000.

Where is my treat?

It is exhausting being a dog.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

The EF 35 was a fine lens, but it couldn't have taken these shots. That's because of the close focusing ability of the RF lens. The EF lens wouldn't have been able to focus this close. Not only did the RF lens focus this close, but it also focused really fast, which is unusual for close distances.

The EF 35 has a MFD of 9.45" (24cm) and the RF 35 has a MFD of 6.69" (17cm) so while the RF is an improvement, the EF 35 f/2 was pretty good to begin with.  In any case, glad you are enjoying the lens.  I'm enjoying mine.

Occams Razor wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

The EF 35 was a fine lens, but it couldn't have taken these shots. That's because of the close focusing ability of the RF lens. The EF lens wouldn't have been able to focus this close. Not only did the RF lens focus this close, but it also focused really fast, which is unusual for close distances.

The EF 35 has a MFD of 9.45" (24cm) and the RF 35 has a MFD of 6.69" (17cm) so while the RF is an improvement, the EF 35 f/2 was pretty good to begin with. In any case, glad you are enjoying the lens. I'm enjoying mine.

Yes, I know it’s only about 3 inches closer, but when the cat is on your lap, that 3 inches makes all the difference.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Occams Razor wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

The EF 35 was a fine lens, but it couldn't have taken these shots. That's because of the close focusing ability of the RF lens. The EF lens wouldn't have been able to focus this close. Not only did the RF lens focus this close, but it also focused really fast, which is unusual for close distances.

The EF 35 has a MFD of 9.45" (24cm) and the RF 35 has a MFD of 6.69" (17cm) so while the RF is an improvement, the EF 35 f/2 was pretty good to begin with. In any case, glad you are enjoying the lens. I'm enjoying mine.

Yes, I know it’s only about 3 inches closer, but when the cat is on your lap, that 3 inches makes all the difference.

I also like the close focus of the RF 35 and the excellent IS performance of that lens. With that said I usually default with RF24-240mm lens on R and use the RF35 on my R5 more.

The RF 35 obviously is more versatile indoors though.

Yes, I know it’s only about 3 inches closer, but when the cat is on your lap, that 3 inches makes all the difference.

Yeah, the three inches is a big deal when shooting pictures of dogs or cats.  The nose is in focus.  Sort of.

I am ready for my close-up!

Acceptable results at higher ISO is the full frame advantage. With my M50 I had to work really hard sometimes to get a good exposure. With the R I'm getting lazy.  There's 1/8000th and a drop in ND-filter on one side of the spectrum, and ISO 1250 on the other. That's a huge margin in AV-mode, and on top of that there's a minimum shutter speed to save your butt  if you forget watching the shutter speed.

Full frame is for amateurs, it's aps-c requiring a skilled photographer. 

thunder storm wrote:

Acceptable results at higher ISO is the full frame advantage. With my M50 I had to work really hard sometimes to get a good exposure. With the R I'm getting lazy. There's 1/8000th and a drop in ND-filter on one side of the spectrum, and ISO 1250 on the other. That's a huge margin in AV-mode, and on top of that there's a minimum shutter speed to save your butt if you forget watching the shutter speed.

Full frame is for amateurs, it's aps-c requiring a skilled photographer.

LOL. But now you have the M6II, you have a couple of those things on APS-C too. The M6II auto ISO has the same minimum shutter speed implementation as the R (and the 7DII). And you can actually use a faster shutter speed on the M6II with e-shutter than on the R. I have used 1/12800 a couple of times to allow me to shoot at F1.4 in bright light. I was surprised to discover that the R tops out at 1/8000 in e-shutter.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Acceptable results at higher ISO is the full frame advantage. With my M50 I had to work really hard sometimes to get a good exposure. With the R I'm getting lazy. There's 1/8000th and a drop in ND-filter on one side of the spectrum, and ISO 1250 on the other. That's a huge margin in AV-mode, and on top of that there's a minimum shutter speed to save your butt if you forget watching the shutter speed.

Full frame is for amateurs, it's aps-c requiring a skilled photographer.

LOL. But now you have the M6II, you have a couple of those things on APS-C too. The M6II auto ISO has the same minimum shutter speed implementation as the R (and the 7DII). And you can actually use a faster shutter speed on the M6II with e-shutter than on the R. I have used 1/12800 a couple of times to allow me to shoot at F1.4 in bright light.

Oh yeah, that's great. I totally forgot about that. That's great with the 32mm, but with my f/1.8 glass it's very usable too.

Are there any downsides for e-shutter?

I was surprised to discover that the R tops out at 1/8000 in e-shutter.

The 32Mp aps-c sensor is newer tech.

thunder storm wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Acceptable results at higher ISO is the full frame advantage. With my M50 I had to work really hard sometimes to get a good exposure. With the R I'm getting lazy. There's 1/8000th and a drop in ND-filter on one side of the spectrum, and ISO 1250 on the other. That's a huge margin in AV-mode, and on top of that there's a minimum shutter speed to save your butt if you forget watching the shutter speed.

Full frame is for amateurs, it's aps-c requiring a skilled photographer.

LOL. But now you have the M6II, you have a couple of those things on APS-C too. The M6II auto ISO has the same minimum shutter speed implementation as the R (and the 7DII). And you can actually use a faster shutter speed on the M6II with e-shutter than on the R. I have used 1/12800 a couple of times to allow me to shoot at F1.4 in bright light.

Oh yeah, that's great. I totally forgot about that. That's great with the 32mm, but with my f/1.8 glass it's very usable too.

Are there any downsides for e-shutter?

You can only use it in single shot drive mode, or RAW burst mode, which is cropped to 18MP and needs DPP to extract the images, I think (I still haven't tried it, but keep meaning to). I don't think you can use flash with it. It can result in banding in some artificial lighting, so you need to test that first. I have used it indoors quite a lot, but there are some rooms where the lighting causes banding. Still, I find it very useful, and use it a lot. It's great for candid shooting using the screen tilted up. I also find I can shoot quite fast with it, even though it's only one shot at a time. At least 2fps with successive shutter presses. It probably has some rolling shutter too, but I've never used it in conditions where this would show up.

I was surprised to discover that the R tops out at 1/8000 in e-shutter.

The 32Mp aps-c sensor is newer tech.

That's true. I hadn't thought of that as the reason.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Acceptable results at higher ISO is the full frame advantage. With my M50 I had to work really hard sometimes to get a good exposure. With the R I'm getting lazy. There's 1/8000th and a drop in ND-filter on one side of the spectrum, and ISO 1250 on the other. That's a huge margin in AV-mode, and on top of that there's a minimum shutter speed to save your butt if you forget watching the shutter speed.

Full frame is for amateurs, it's aps-c requiring a skilled photographer.

LOL. But now you have the M6II, you have a couple of those things on APS-C too. The M6II auto ISO has the same minimum shutter speed implementation as the R (and the 7DII). And you can actually use a faster shutter speed on the M6II with e-shutter than on the R. I have used 1/12800 a couple of times to allow me to shoot at F1.4 in bright light.

Oh yeah, that's great. I totally forgot about that. That's great with the 32mm, but with my f/1.8 glass it's very usable too.

Are there any downsides for e-shutter?

You can only use it in single shot drive mode,

That's fine. I almost never shoot burst mode. Did that with my 70D and I'm done with it. When le moment décisif needs to be chosen in post you need to many pictures. 

or RAW burst mode, which is cropped to 18MP and needs DPP to extract the images, I think (I still haven't tried it, but keep meaning to). I don't think you can use flash with it.

I'm not really interested in using flash and 1/12800th of a second at the same time. I will also use the R when I need a flash. But thanks for mentioning it anyway.

It can result in banding in some artificial lighting, so you need to test that first. I have used it indoors quite a lot, but there are some rooms where the lighting causes banding. Still, I find it very useful, and use it a lot. It's great for candid shooting using the screen tilted up. I also find I can shoot quite fast with it, even though it's only one shot at a time. At least 2fps with successive shutter presses. It probably has some rolling shutter too, but I've never used it in conditions where this would show up.

I'm thinking about a C mode for low light and a C mode for lots of light. Sounds to me like silent mode is good enough in lots of light situations.

I was surprised to discover that the R tops out at 1/8000 in e-shutter.

The 32Mp aps-c sensor is newer tech.

That's true. I hadn't thought of that as the reason.