Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM sample gallery

To be honest, why bother? Because you can never mount RF lens on EF mount. I believe the IQ will be similar provided you expose it correctly. I have used 6D II extensively and it's great as long as you know the tolerance limit of PP. Take test shot or understand the metering very well to get the right exposure. But aside that, due to larger pixel pitch size, the older lower megapixel cameras appear sharper and have renders better micro-contrast on edges, my favorite being the decade+ old 5D!

2 months ago*permalink

igzy

I wish Nikon came out with an AF-capable equivalent. Good job Canon!
.
And to DPR staff: thank you for the nice photos! Sadly, most were taken in good light. Would have been great to see some low light samples so we can tell how it performs when 1.2 is really needed...

3 months ago*permalink

Imagine those who own EF 50 f1. They'll be thrilled to use it on EOS R with no AF issue.

2 months agopermalink

Kesava

because if razor thin DOF = professional.

3 months agopermalink

entoman

Horrible elliptical bokeh on the woodland scenes.

3 months agopermalink

Zvonimir Tosic

Yep. And is swirly too. Lots of swirly lemons in the bokeh.

3 months agopermalink

kodakrome

Okay, Canon. You want me to spend $4,600 on this lens and body combo? Then show me. Exactly how much difference would there be between these shots, and the same shots taken with a 6D and a 50mm 1.8 STM?
There wouldn't really be all that much difference, and some of those 1.2 shots would've looked better at 1.8 anyway.

3 months agopermalink

blackcoffee17

You pay for the wide aperture, build quality, AF performance, etc. What do expect Canon to do? To sell it for $100 like the plastic 1.8?
I'm sure this lens is better in every single way than the 50 1.8. Overpriced? Maybe!

3 months agopermalink

kodakrome

Of course the build quality and speed of the lens make it more expensive. My comment was not about that. My comment was about how much difference there would be between images taken with the two lenses.

3 months ago*permalink

Emadn13

same behavior as old canon lenses,bad bokeh as always

3 months agopermalink

Paul B Jones

You know what? It's going to be okay. Just don't worry so much about things that don't concern you.

3 months agopermalink

PDD

Winner is Pentax DFA 50mm f1.4!!!

3 months agopermalink

ffking

Closely followed by the Tokina Opera 50mm f/1.4 :)

3 months agopermalink

Wye Photography

Meh! Not as good as my KamLam 50mm f/1.1 and at a fraction of the price too! /s

3 months agopermalink

Can you point me to some samples?

3 months agopermalink

Buy the EOS R and use all the old MF lenses. The Manual Focus guide feature, taken from C300 II, C700 Etc will make it a breeze to focus with precision. If you haven't seen it, google it. You can even position the focus box anywhere you want, unlike the centrally fixed old Micro prism focus screen or that in the rangefinder.

2 months agopermalink

Zvonimir Tosic

Nasty bokeh, Canon, lots of swirly lemons; colour (skintones) too could be better. Of all recent 50mm lenses, Pentax HD DFA 50/1.4 delivers overall best aesthetics of the image, and finest colours too.

3 months agopermalink

Better get your monitor calibrated.... and read up on bokeh - a very misunderstood term. How is the performance of your Pentax lens at f1.2?

3 months agopermalink

Zvonimir Tosic

Lowering the aperture does not improve Canon's lens performance. And that is the gain you pay for buying into the f1.2 – in Canon's case, you gain nothing but bigger swirly lemons and you pay double for them.

3 months agopermalink

naththo

I agreed that skintone looks fine. My Sony can be oversaturated on skintone sometimes that most people don't like about. It should be natural that Canon is able to produce well. Even Canon is pretty good at grey skies rather than Sony produce blue clouds in grey skies. Thats why Canon WB is pretty good at it.

3 months agopermalink

Going from 1.4 to 1.2 gives you half a stop more light. Also gives you about 5-10cm less DOF at normal subject distance. This is what you pay for. As for your 'swirly lemons' - you seem to be the only one seeing them in these images so my advise is: stay away from the kool aid man...
BTW the only way to compare bokeh between lenses is to take the same image on same size sensors and compare. And even then it is highly subjective.

3 months agopermalink

Aroart

Wow if I buy this lens I bet I'll be a better photo maker... Feel bad for people that can't afford it and lust for it thinking it would take them to a new level of sharpness and blurry overrated backgrounds..

3 months agopermalink

Wye Photography

Any time you buy a more expensive lens or camera it will ALWAYS make you a better photographer. The more you spend the better you become.

2 months agopermalink

Michael Ma

These photos remind me of Zeiss lenses. Cold and lifeless. Come at me bro.

3 months agopermalink

Wye Photography

That's why I use a KamLan 50mm f/1.1

3 months agopermalink

Lol, not coming at anyone here bro :D

3 months agopermalink

And that's why I shoot Canon. Quality glass.
I shut up right here.

3 months agopermalink

bovverwonder

Sigma beats a lot of Canon L glass. But....whatever makes you sleep at night.

3 months agopermalink

Nothing against Sigma. They make some great glass also. However, I can't think of one bad L lens from Canon ever.

3 months agopermalink

entoman

Canon 17-40mm F4 L.
Soft corners even at F8.
Sold mine and replaced with the far superior 16-35mm F4L.

3 months agopermalink

Well yeah. The 16-35 is at least 10 years younger than the 17-40. You'd hope Canon did some improvements in 10+ years.

3 months agopermalink

With EOS R, the Sigmas are going to be even better with AF issue no longer going to be an issue. I have always wanted Sigma, but the inconsistent and unpredictability kept me off. Better to avoid frustration while on the job. But, EOS R changed all those.

2 months agopermalink

KLO82

Interestingly, people are liking the photo number 9's green-yellowish tone a lot (due to setting the WB to "daylight"). I think this imperfect color has given certain "character" to that image.

3 months agopermalink

new boyz

Good job Canon. This is a helluva lens.

3 months agopermalink

Michael B 66

What a pity that this lens doesn't work on the EF-M mount. I am more and more convinced that it would be a very good 80mm equiv lens on these cameras too.

3 months agopermalink

supersargas

isn't the lens the same size as two or perhaps three of the biggest Ms? what is your idea for holding such a setup? lol

3 months agopermalink

Michael B 66

@supersargas:
I use the f/4 70-200 with adapter which has similar weight and a much more extreme balance so I think the more compact 50mm lens would work well on the M50 which has an excellent grip for such a small camera - and no, I have medium sized hands.

And if you look at the data the M50 and the RF 50mm have similar overall size but the lens' weight is 2.5 times that of the camera!

3 months agopermalink

DPR - some more samples pleeeeease :-D Can't wait...

3 months agopermalink

kobakokh

I again saw this photos in my comp - very good job from Canon! But overpriced, as usual...

3 months agopermalink

agrek

Great bokeh... almost as good as on my iPhone Plus 👍

3 months agopermalink

ChicagoRob

I didn't know you were a comedian.

3 months agopermalink

I don't shoot 50mm but this gallery really convince me to give it a try with this lens.

3 months agopermalink

Now why would anyone say "I don't shoot 50mm" ?
What had 50mm done to you? :D

3 months agopermalink

Canon released 50 1.2, 28-70 2.8. They have 70-130 F2 patent and 3 lens pending release (24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 16-35 2.8), I think this mean a professional FF mirrorless camera is coming soon.

3 months agopermalink

kobakokh

28-70 is F2, not F2.8...

3 months agopermalink

you are right. my bad.

3 months agopermalink

rjp85

I can't help but think Canon will be releasing an RF 35mm 1.2L and 85mm 1.2L to go along with the 50mm. I think this will be a great system, especially with a new 5DSR type mirrorless in the future.

3 months agopermalink

I hope they release a 105 1.4 with IS.

3 months agopermalink

dmartin92

Okay. If I win the lottery, I buy the lens. I will get the body too, because it will only work on that. Otherwise, no lottery winnings, I wait a bit.

3 months agopermalink

3 weeks later: Or...I can make paymens

3 months agopermalink

William King

Hi Dan.
Could you spare a few moments to comment on the keeper rate wide open. I remember an old 5dii with the ef 1.2 50 being very hit and miss with the emphasis on miss 🙂. In theory dpaf etc should improve things greatly comparitively but how does this work out in practice. Especially hand held. Do you feel it’s an improvement over old mirror non dpaf systems or is subject / photographer movement still a large factor in hit rates?
Best.
Will

3 months agopermalink

Vintagecamera1930

Makes sense that more would miss. If your distance to subject was about 6-8 feet your DAF is only about 3 to 5 inches. Due to the shortened distance to the sensor that miss won't happen as much.

Not to mention out of all the Ef 50's MTF wise this is easily the sharpest.

3 months agopermalink

Carey Rose

I can't speak to Dan's keeper rate, but in my time with the camera, it's been very good, even at F1.2 - definitely an improvement over using a DSLR at this aperture, though as you note, if you're using Single AF and not Servo, that movement will continue to be an issue.

3 months agopermalink

Michael B 66

I lately found out that AF tracking is very useful for macro photography where f/2.8 is awfully wide open but gives me often the look I want especially with APS-C.

While tracking worked with DSLRs I was always bound to - in my case - 9 or so AF points which crowded the center and were seldomly I wanted them.

DPAF with tracking is another world for handheld macro under mildly windy conditions because it nails the shot usually - never had this experience with DSLRs or old fashioned EOS M camera.

The M50 advantage is the EVF and I think the EOS R is a pleasure to use in such cases (wide open macro or ultra wide open close up) too!

3 months agopermalink

Michael Ma

I can only imagine the AF to be near flawless wide open. Even with my 5D4, the keeper rate at 1.2 or 1.4 for any L lens has been for me nearly 100% when using DPAF. That includes the 50mm 1.2 L and the 24mm 1.4 II which has pretty shoddy AF through the OVF, but perfect every time through DPAF. Since the EOS R uses DPAF all the time, unless Canon rigged it to not work as well as the 5D4, which is entirely possible, I would say autofocus accuracy wide open is a non-issue for the EOS R.

3 months agopermalink

stevo23

Enjoying these images - I really like shallow depth of field stuff when it's done right. I can't wait to see the Nikon .95.

3 months agopermalink

grandmasterphill

Hi Dan Bracaglia. Can you please post more sample from this lens? Thanks

3 months agopermalink

Agree

3 months agopermalink

retr01976

Looking at these samples I'll take Canon's poor image quality over Sony's superior image quality any day of the week ;) I mean am I in the minority or has everyone been blinded by DXO over the years ? I just don't get it.

3 months agopermalink

srados

Um, there is something called realistic colors. Canon never punched up and pushed saturation in their sensors like Nikon and Sony, Pentax, in some extent Fuji as well (not much lately they are making their own) creating unrealistic colors to please screen viewing. And this is all coming from sensors manufactured by Sony. I would rather in my editing pushed up saturation, than reduce it. Also increased punched up color(Sony Nikon etc) increase noise in those photos. So image quality (DXO rating) is subjective. If you like punchy colors get that Sony or Nikon...it is same sensor anyway(different processing algorithm). If you want more neutral "Canon" colors, go with Canon.Look at those straight out of camera Nikon Z images.They are all yellowish, with pushed reds.

3 months agopermalink

stevo23

@srados - punches up colors in sensors? That's hogwash.

3 months agopermalink

srados

Stevo is in love with me.I love you too brother.

3 months agopermalink

stevo23

@srados - you flatter yourself.

3 months agopermalink

Deliverator

Nikon's colours are more neutral than Canon's. In general, Sony's aren't more punchy, but to me they usually seem... off. Too cold.

3 months agopermalink

Will Sukmiof

Being a Sony fanboy I am blown away by the quality of the images. I have a hard time dealing with the cognitive dissonance right now. Please help!

3 months agopermalink

Frank_BR

Strange times we are living. A few years ago cameras were big and heavy, and 50mm F1.2 lenses were small and light. Now cameras are small and light, and 50mm F1.2 lenses are large and heavy. If the trend continues, in a few years a mirrorless camera will weigh 350 grams, and a 50mm F1.2 lens will weigh 2000 grams, be the size of a melon and cost $10,000.

3 months agopermalink

NZ Scott

We're already there with camera bodies - my Panasonic GM5 weighs just 280g.

3 months agopermalink

retr01976

Frank, I agree. When I pick up my Fuji XT2 it's nice and compact, but once a heavy lens is added it becomes front heavy and awkard to hold. My Canon DSLR feels superb in hand. The weight savings and size of mirrorless isn't quite what it used to be. The DSLR might be seen as outdated, but the style was designed specially to be comfortable to hold, balanced with larger lenses and ergonomically sound. Now we have retro styled boxy bodies with limited grips that we have to add grips to for added cost if we want the body to feel almost as good as an SLR. Makes no sense. We seem to take a few steps forward and a few steps backwards. Would rather see mirrorless tech in an SLR styled body myself instead of everyone building tiny bodies to fool people into thinking "compact", you can't change the physics of lenses.

3 months ago*permalink

broncofloods

Canon 6d2 size: 144.0 x 110.5 x 74.8 mm Weight: 765
Canon r size: 135.8 x 98.3 x 84.4mm Weight: 660

My 6d2 isn't much bigger than the r but adding the new r lenses to the r body blows it all out of the water, I for one would like to see canon make smaller FF mirrorless cameras and lenses but with this company I know what it is to want...

3 months ago*permalink

kobakokh

Nothing is strange there - companies doing more and more money, make products are not final aim, aim is make profit, products are just a middle items. Olympus M1 with 4/3 sensor cost more then Nikon D610 with FF sensor!!!

3 months agopermalink

AlexisH

I would find these samples more helpful if no processing was applied to them. Set camera settings to as little corrections as possible (no sharpening, no s-curve), shoot RAW+JPG, and share those JPGs. I know you're sharing the RAW files, but that doesn't allow me to see the output of the in-camera RAW processing.

3 months agopermalink

Viggo

To me, posting flat raws, makes no sense because never will one do nothing with the raw file. I agree filters and grading and ND grads etc shouldn’t be a part of a gallery for a lens, but normal raw converting makes sense.

3 months agopermalink

Thoughts R Us

Beautiful lens...the rendering and colors look fabulous.

It's funny to read the critics who have never used this lens, whereas the people who have used the lens really love it!

It will be great to see what Nikon does with a 50 f1.2.

The next few years should be fun as Canon and Nikon compete with some crazy fantastic wide aperture lenses because they now both have lens mounts large enough to accommodate.

3 months agopermalink

zxaar

Not everyone likes everything. For example take yourself. You spend half of your life telling how you don't like sony mirrorless and all.

If thats all fine then all the others who dislike anything is fine too.

As far as my personal opinion goes, looks like great lens but too expensive and too heavy for me to even consider.

Your likings could be different.

3 months ago*permalink

Thoughts R Us

Undoubtedly we all have our own opinions and are different.

The only reason why I go off on Sony is because of all of the Sony trolls who bother to come over to Canon and Nikon forums to insult the product. And please don't deny that hasn't happened.

I actually respect Sony and like a lot of what they've achieved; I still trust Canon and Nikon more, but again, if not for the annoying Sony trolls I wouldn't be so vehemently anti-Sony.

But as the Samuel L Jackson character said in the great movie Pulp Fiction, I'm tryin' real hard.

3 months agopermalink

StephanSchmidt

Yeah yeah, "I only do it because they do it" ... "But he started it mom" .... "I'm only a Sony troll because Thoughts R Us is trolling the Sony forums" ....

Grow up.

3 months agopermalink

MILC man

@stephanschmidt - "Thoughts R Us is trolling the Sony forums"

no, dpr comment section is not the sony forums, and no, trolls r us doesn't troll the sony forums with that fake account, he has lots of other fake accounts that he tries to use on the sony forum.

grow up yourself, and stop posting misinformation.

3 months ago*permalink

Calaverasgrande

I'd like to see how this lens/camera do when the Iris isn't 1.2. That the point of a variable aperture. You can choose how wide.

3 months agopermalink

well it becomes even sharper, and its so sharp at 1.2 that there is already nothing missing in my opinion.

3 months agopermalink

Calaverasgrande

It is sharp within the very shallow DOF. But the transition to the out of focus is very abrupt. I'd like to see how the drop off to out of focus areas looks at F2 and f5.6. Does it start getting nervous bokeh?

3 months agopermalink

Can anyone comment on what this camera and lens will be like for portraiture. I personally wouldn't want to be photographed with it. An MTF approaching 1.0 is the last thing most people would want. I once read somewhere that a lot of old porn stars had to retire recently because the new cameras made them look like...old porn stars. Will 'Vaseline' become the hottest new Photoshop add-on for wedding photographers?

3 months agopermalink

Chayagrahak

haha

3 months agopermalink

TheClueless

For me, starting with the best possible result means I can do whatever I want to it later. If portraits need "beautifying", that's a matter for post. And I'd always rather have sharper to start with than self-justifying a vaselinefest like a Fuji.

That said, I'm not sure I'd love this lens. Now let's see what the Nikon anchor will be like, heh

3 months ago*permalink

AlexisH

I never understood this concern about portraiture. You can always make details disappear, but if you cannot capture them in the first place...

3 months agopermalink

NZ Scott

One very easy way to smooth out detail is just to apply a bunch of noise reduction.

3 months ago*permalink

https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/50mm-f12.htm

you can put a bit of noise reduction onto it and skintones will look like made with a fuji (not meant to diss fuji btw) - no problem. better to start out with the best possible option and, if needed, turn it down later.

3 months agopermalink

Dexter75

It will be magical for portraits. Really what this camera and the 50 f/1.2 was built for looks like. Look up the reviews from the pro portrait shooters who have used the lens. They have done nothing but drool and fawn over it saying its the greatest lens ever made.

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/09/06/special-report-the-canon-eos-r-is-winning-my-heart-as-a-portrait-photographer/

https://www.helenbartlett.co.uk/canon-ambassador/canon-eos-r-first-impressions/

3 months ago*permalink

dlg521

Great lens, but is there such a thing as too much Bokeh? If so, it seems like in some of the pics, it was a little too pronounced for my taste. IMHO

3 months agopermalink

kodachromeguy

There is such a thing as too much infatuation with the entire topic of bokeh here in Dpreview fantasy land. How does bokeh affect any ordinary photographer? Why did almost no one worry about it 15 years ago? It seems to have minimal effect on film imaging.

3 months agopermalink

Chayagrahak

I see too much vignette :) not sure about bokeh

3 months agopermalink

Abu Mahendra

The best bokeh is the one you don't need. Lots of images dumbed down by the obliteration of the background. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

3 months agopermalink

cShaRperThanU

@kodachromeguy "Why did almost no one worry about it 15 years ago?"
Well, maybe because 15 years old lenses simply showed a nice bokeh since they have been differently designed?

3 months agopermalink

Bokeh has to do with the nature of the OOF areas in your image not the amount of OOF elements - the way to judge it is in the 'roundness' of the OOF circles and a subjective assessment of the 'pleasantness' of the blurry parts. I think what you are referring to as 'too much bokeh' can be ascribed as a busy background - nothing to do with bokeh. Any 50mm lens taking the same shot would have the same 'busy background' (which is not a lens issue) but if you zoom in on the OOF parts and subjectively assess whether you like it or not is when you get to the 'bokeh'

3 months agopermalink

So, it is about 23 times better than the 50mm f1.8. That's amazing.

3 months agopermalink

dmartin92

Everything with camera equipment, It is « decreasing marginal improvements ». The best deals around are the 400 Dollar cameras. The 800 Dollar cameras are not twice better than the 400 Dollar ones.

3 months agopermalink

Hautedawg

True, but that's true of everything. A $100 bottle of whiskey isn't 3 times better than a bottle of Jack.

3 months agopermalink

Nice analogy. I once was talking with a wine waiter from a very well respected local restaurant. He asked me if I knew the difference between a $20 bottle of wine and a $40 bottle of wine. I knew where he was going, but said 'No' anyway. His reply: '$20'. I wonder if he now works in Marketing at Canon.

3 months agopermalink

It looks very nice for a $5,000 camera and lens. Now we just need a few cat pictures to see how good it really is.

3 months agopermalink

Dog picutres too ;-)

3 months agopermalink

Thoughts R Us

This is now probably the best 50 lens in existence. And it's a statement by Canon about what they can do with their new RF lens mount.

Great times ahead for those who love optics.

3 months agopermalink

Bhima78

Best 50mm AF lens very likely. Doubtful its better than the Otus.

3 months agopermalink

IdM photography

Bokeh is too harsh... This lens isn't the best 50mm around... Let's hope the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 will be better...

3 months agopermalink

Endgame Trigger

A new lens in a sect's world, where esoteric 'menues', 'skintones' and 'weather sealing' arguments have become the last remaining bastions in fanboy wars long time ago!

A new calculated lens, not just one of their occasionally relabeled 90ies oldies, which have even been beaten by Sigma a few years ago! O.O! Just wow! Now they are going to reactive their fourth argument, that a lens is more important than a sensor in three, two, one...

But this is not so bad as the esoteric 'colourscience' b******t, which - by three discrete digital colour channels - soon became more of a declaration of the editors technology understanding and mastering bankruptcy.

And how happy is Sony! No more 'battery life', EVF bashing and 'limited lens selection' killerphrases anymore!

3 months ago*permalink

So what do you wan't to say?
I already struggeled with all of the issues you mentioned. And yes, there is more than numbers and figures that defines the quality of a lens or the overall system. Just because it cannot be easily measured it is neither esotheric nor BS.

3 months ago*permalink

What?

3 months agopermalink

Paul B Jones

Glad you got that off your chest. You seem pretty upset. Any thoughts on the RF 50mm F1.2L?

3 months agopermalink

Matei H

That semed pretty esoteric. Any thoughts of the lens and then we can lit more scented candles?

3 months agopermalink

biggercountry

Shirley, I’m not the only one seeing the vignetting in every shot?

3 months agopermalink

Austin Garland

Surely*

3 months agopermalink

pjsalty

Surely you can't be serious?
I am serious...and don't call me Shirley
(Airplane, the movie)

3 months agopermalink

dmartin92

Just thinking, could vignetting be an expected downside of a f/1.2 lens, et f/1.2 ?

It would almost make sense. Or rather, it would make sense.

3 months agopermalink

I like vignetting lenses. Perfect lenses are boring. Also if i need uniform light level across the frame like for studio work, usually i stop down the lens and the vignetting disappears.

3 months agopermalink

it is a 1.2 lens at 1.2...surely it does vignette. how shouldnt it?

3 months agopermalink

Vignetting could be reduced by using larger diameter lens elements in the front part of the lens. But even like this, the lens is huge.

3 months agopermalink

raminm

The lens is a good performer; maybe as good as the Sony 55mm Sonnar or the 50mm Planar.

3 months ago*permalink

David Bo

The Bokeh on the Sony's is not comparable to this Canon 50. They are simply much better. This lens looks busy in the bokeh and have a swirly/circular looking bokeh. Very distracting!!

3 months agopermalink

"The Bokeh on the Sony's is not comparable to this Canon 50."
I agree. The Canon is way better....

3 months agopermalink

PaulSnowcat

Frankly speaking this lens seems to be less interesting then Nikon Nikkor 58/1.4 (F mount lens)...

3 months agopermalink

just someone

The Nikon 58mm is a sublime lens!
Probably the most underated lens of all time.

3 months agopermalink

rhlpetrus

True. This lens shows pretty nervous bokeh and flare issues.

3 months agopermalink

I agree that the bokeh looks nervous.

3 months agopermalink

Herb

Some people have their magnifying glasses out and because it’s new and better they must find something wrong. The photos look great! Now can I get the same results? If I can I will get this lens!

3 months agopermalink

arbux

Why not? Your results depend only from yourself.

3 months agopermalink

Herb, do you think the photos look great? Well, I think the bokeh shows 'room for improvement', doesn't it?

3 months agopermalink

Ecajoe

Hmmm. These pics seem to have some heavy vignetting. Is that post or out of camera. When showing a lens please don't add post editing. That's just dumb. If it is out of camera that's not good either.

3 months agopermalink

out of camera for sure... its 1.2, what do you expect? Its nice for portraits though, and reminds me of the EF 50mm 1.2 L .. great lens the new one, sharp at 1.2 and similar bokeh than the old 1.2 ... too bads is much bigger and eavier and no IBIS to back it up ;-)

3 months agopermalink

Snapper2013

Looking at the first image I wouldn't call that "heavy vignetting". There are photos in this collection (#18 for one) where vignetting clears up nicely at f1.6.

3 months ago*permalink

@wasTF, do you shoot static subjects in dark places only? In my experience, I at least shoot above 1/125 for anything moving, or at worst, 1/60. Missing IBIS or IS for that focal length to shoot at the general 1/125 is no problem. If you talk about video, that's something else, but again, amateurs don't buy this lens to shoot video, and pro will turn off IBIS/IS anyway and use a gymbal/glidecame/tripod etc anyway. What's your complain about?

3 months agopermalink

Carey Rose

//When showing a lens please don't add post editing. That's just dumb.//

That is correct, and is why we don't add vignetting to sample gallery images. Ever.

3 months agopermalink

@Jack Lian: You need IBIS to prevent micro shakes, otherwise you have to do 1/(focal lengh*5) to be save.. hence 1/250 sec for 50mm. And no, not every picture is blurry, but some will be at 100%. Maybe this is a personal thing, not everybody is the same. But the old formula "1/focal lengh" for longest shutter for a shake free image does not apply anymore with 20+ MP.

But hey, feel free to tell yourself what features you dont need in the canon R. That mentality you have to be very good at with Canon lately. Cant wait for my Z6 ;-)

3 months agopermalink

UncoyDP

@wasTF You make a good point that high resolution digital photography requires new multipliers. In controlled circumstances I could not get better than 1/10 sharp with 135mm and 1/60th second on an 24 MP APS-C sensor. With the Fuji X-H1 IBIS, that went up to 7/10 sharp. Still the 5x multiplier implies someone with shaking issues. I'd say taking the old formula and doubling it would be useful, i.e. 2 x focal length.

3 months agopermalink

@UncoyDP: I was talking about real world, taking wedding photography, always in a hurry, always on the move. Multiplier 5 ensures sharp images, unless you really are moving too much. And that was with 22mp. I can take a sharp image with 1/50 at 50mm, but it may or may not work every time. I dont like taking a gable on it though. It's not so good to shoot people at slower speeds than 1/60 anyways. I even like 1/125 or a bit faster, sometimes sudden movements can blur just a bit which can be nice but with 1/60 it may be too severe.

3 months agopermalink

UncoyDP

Yes, people shots below 1/90 are always a gamble if you don't want motion, as people are almost always moving a little bit or even blinking. If you're shooting weddings and have a DSLR, I can see why you don't want to pop off two extra shots for insurance (extra disturbance).

The X-H1 is so quiet even with mechanical shutter, I'd just pop off a few more shots for people motion.

3 months agopermalink

@UncoyDP: Its not even about disturbance, sometimes is purely about the moment, things happen so fast! With modern cameras like G9 you could just go 12 fps or even 20 fps and get just everything... but it will be painful to go through all the files later.. you better get the shot right in the first place .. 3-4 fps is more than enough to get the right moments. Even better must be the canon 1d or nikon d3/4/5 series.. They have a destinct advantage: lower time from shutter press to picture taken ! It is something that is rarely talked about i feel, but makes a great difference if you are a attentive photographer.
I dont know how the Nikon Z7 times are, but it felt much faster than my d610.. no wonder, no mirror to move and the AF is quite snappy too. Not every mirrorless is quite this snappy though...

I have not used a fuji, apart from a very brief hands on with a x100f.. quite the beast :-)

3 months agopermalink

UncoyDP

I agree about the moment and too many photos. Bad photographers way overshoot these days. I've been to live performances where they just clacked away a pair of them with Nikons like barking dogs. Totally ruined the long multiple performance show. I had more high quality photographs out of about 50 exposures for the whole show (I was shooting even less than normal at it was not a dress rehearsal but a live performance as there were only two evenings).

You might enjoy an outing with an X-H1. It's literally zero disturbance (apart from visually looking a lot like a DSLR, it's only a little smaller than my 5D III). Silent mechanical shutter has been the holy grail since the demise of the affordable leaf shutter.

I'm looking forward to working with my Z6 when it ships in November.

3 months agopermalink

xgoldman

I don't like these images. They're flat-no air, no presence. Too sharp? Too much contrast? I dislike them the same way I dislike Samsumg S9 images. They leave me longing for film to heal my eyes. I prefer Canon pro full frame DSLR in every way. I'm sure I'm a minority with this take. I'm also sure I'm gonna need a whole lot of convincing to buy into this system.

3 months agopermalink

kodachromeguy

Go back to using film. There are plenty of amazing black and white emulsions still available. And there are plenty of awesome classic lenses that work perfectly with film.

3 months agopermalink

Is it the weather in Seattle or the camera, its lens and the PP? Colors look somehow muted and rather cool. Although the light looks soft on many images, they are full of contrast. I think they serve current viewing habits of tech forum members. Well maybe changing camera or PP settings fixes some of these issues.

3 months agopermalink

David Bo

Many photos show a swirly or circular bokeh. Arrgh. :-(

3 months agopermalink

those photos are really though on lenses since the distances is higher.. believe me these results are pretty good compared to every thing else on the market.. looking forward to the Z-Mount Version

3 months agopermalink

It is very difficult - rather impossible - to compare the bokeh of different lenses by images of different scenes. DPR should add some bokeh comparison. AFAIR they already published such stuff.

3 months agopermalink

I LOVE swirly bokeh 💞

3 months agopermalink

always strikes me how people want to compare and judge a lens with pictures that are made in totaly different places with different light etc. - i can show you a couple of images form my 85 1.2 L that have such a rubbish bokeh that you want to drive over that lens with a truck. and again in reverse. and then light it with fire.

but we all know how beautiful that thing can render in most other situations.

btw: love swirly bokeh.

3 months ago*permalink

@emfor: i know its difficult, and you have no reason to believe me. But i can manage, having shot years of weddings full time with the EF 50 1.2 L

3 months agopermalink

Arun H

This was the more exciting introduction than the camera.

3 months agopermalink

The lens price really hits my excitement on the head.. the camera too. bummer.

3 months agopermalink

aris14

Well it may be my impression, but these pics seems to diminish the over sharpened looks of other top Canon's lenses I've seen so far. It may be my sense but the images look more photographic, more solid to me. I don't know if this is a result of mirrorless body or the lens itself or both, but the result is just fine to me.

3 months agopermalink

samfan

Exactly. In the last 10 years everyone (not only Canon) has been running just for sharpness and lots of lenses thus provide this fake, plasticy look.

This one, while not exactly Leica style, has more of the old school feel, yet still provides great results from the technical perspective.

3 months agopermalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvDWQz0Z1lw

I really love Canon, but I can't stop laughing at the video below, go watch and thank me later...the creativity is worth the laugh!

3 months agopermalink

joel22484

I sincerely thank you :)

3 months agopermalink

just someone

LOL

3 months agopermalink

I want to see some JPEGS straight out of the camera with DLO turned on.
I am not interested in your PP skills.

3 months ago*permalink

A Girard

You want to use 3500.00 worth of gear and you're worried about OOC jpgs?

3 months agopermalink

Girard, if a 3500 gear saves time by not requiring to PP, then it is definitely worth it.

3 months agopermalink

A Girard

You do know you can adjust in-camera parameters in accordance to your preferences right? And the internet is starting to catch on,.

3 months agopermalink

Postprocessing was always part of photography

3 months agopermalink

I can not open the CR3 files with DPP 4.9 so they are not R CR3 files anymore.
They are Adobe CR3 modified files with the Exif info removed.

The JPEG files are also stripped of Exif info.

Use the Canon software so we can see the real Canon colors and Exif info.

3 months ago*permalink

That's interesting. Works for me...

3 months agopermalink

I am seeing some of the raw files with DPP.

3 months agopermalink

which ones don't work?

3 months agopermalink