My week with the EOS R

[BJL]

If by any means Sony's mount is a limitation to lens design, how the hell did Nikon manage to design a single good F lens?

One place I can see that a narrower mount might be an impediment is forcing low f-stop lenses to have a lower exit pupil and thus having some light reaching the edges or corners of the frame too off-perpendicular. That was not a problem for film cameras (see Leica M in particular). Then again, innovations in microlenss, BSI and such might be making that less important with electronic sensors than it used to be. And it does not rule out fast lenses (which in this context is maybe f/1.4 or faster, not f/2.8), it just hampers some design choices and edge performance.

[Manoli]

...  it just hampers some design choices and edge performance.

The point being that it may have 'hampered' it, but it didn't prevent it.

[BJL]

The point being that it may have 'hampered' it, but it didn't prevent it.

I think we agree that there is little or no evidence so far that FE mount suffers for its narrower throat, but ...

By “hampered” I meant that some very bright (low f-stop) lens designs _might_ have to be bulkier or more expensive to get the same quality as Z- or R-mount lenses, or even have unavoidably worse edge performance due to either low exit pupil or vignetting by the lens mount.

What are the brightest lenses for FE mount, and how do they compare to R, Z, or even EF lenses at the same low f-stop and focal length? Sony lenses seem not to go below f/1.4, but I am not up on all the third party options.

P. S. I see there is a Cosina-Voigtländer 40/1.2 manual focus lens for FE mount; does anyone know how well it performs near the edges?

[faberryman]

By “hampered” I meant that some very bright (low f-stop) lens designs _might_ have to be bulkier or more expensive to get the same quality as Z- or R-mount lenses, or even have unavoidably worse edge performance due to either low exit pupil or vignetting by the lens mount.

Do you have training in optics or are you just regurgitating Nikon's marketing?

[BJL]

Do you have training in optics or are you just regurgitating Nikon's marketing?

It’s simple ray tracing based on exit pupil height and the fact that the incoming light cone to a point in the focal plane has a height to width ratio equal to the aperture ratio. I could produce formulas and diagrams if you are genuinely curious.

Since you asked, I am by profession an applied mathematician with work involving some publications on nonlinear optics, but this is just undergraduate level stuff. My comments have nothing to do with any reading of marketing materials.

[Telecaster]

I do know the M mount version of the Voigt 40/1.2 is smaller, both in length and diameter, than the FE version. Dunno how they compare optically. The M version (I've used one, don't own it) performs quite well in the corners at wider apertures.

Compared to the M mount the E/FE mount is a little larger in diameter and sits closer to the image plane.

-Dave-

[chez]

I think we agree that there is little or no evidence so far that FE mount suffers for its narrower throat, but ...

By “hampered” I meant that some very bright (low f-stop) lens designs _might_ have to be bulkier or more expensive to get the same quality as Z- or R-mount lenses, or even have unavoidably worse edge performance due to either low exit pupil or vignetting by the lens mount.

What are the brightest lenses for FE mount, and how do they compare to R, Z, or even EF lenses at the same low f-stop and focal length? Sony lenses seem not to go below f/1.4, but I am not up on all the third party options.

P. S. I see there is a Cosina-Voigtländer 40/1.2 manual focus lens for FE mount; does anyone know how well it performs near the edges?

If the new Nikon 58mm manual focus is what one considers cheap and light...then have at it. The Sony 24 1.4 is cheapish, light and delivers great images...a lens one might actually purchase and use.

[BJL]

If the new Nikon 58mm manual focus is what one considers cheap and light...then have at it. The Sony 24 1.4 is cheapish, light and delivers great images...a lens one might actually purchase and use.

Agreed! If the benefits of the new wide and shallow mounts are only for extreme edge cases like f/0.95 lenses, or f/1.4 wide zooms (as recently patented by Canon) then Sony FE could be a completely practical choice for almost all photographers’ needs, and allowing for slightly more compact bodies and allowing many more mainstream walk-around lenses to be a bit slimmer. Likewise for the L mount of Leica-Panasonic-Sigma.

[Rado]

... skipping the last page of bitching about sony vs nikon mounts and lenses - I'm so grateful that you guys spend your time to search for every thread on lula that has not yet been infected with such or similar discussion, regardless of that the original topic is.

The EVF, for some reason, darkens if you put a transmitter on top.

Now that you mention it I've noticed it too and it's a really bizarre. I wonder if we can get someone from Canon to explain this behavior, because I can't think of anything.

My main beef with the R in the studio is the slow tethering speed and I may have accidentally stumbled upon a workaround - when you go to the menu or the picture preview (basically anything that turns off the live view) after you shoot a series of images they will transfer to the computer much faster (at a speed comparable with a DSLR). It seems that the R doesn't have enough processing power to handle the sensor readout and usb transfer at full speed at the same time.

[nemophoto]

Yeh the parrots love to chatter whatever they read on the net. And if a certain mount can produce an f0.95 lens...who the hell cares. Are they willing to lay down $6,000 for it and carry that 4lb beast? Is that lens going to make someone's lack lustre photos into gems?

I'm sorry...but if someone cannot make a great image with a 50 1.4 lens...they don't have a hope in hell with a 50 0.95 lens.

The lens mount size does not mean Sony can't have a fast lens. It DOES, however, mean that the lens of similar speed will be quite a bit larger. It's a matter of physics of light and design. So, as large as Canon's 24-70/2 is, a Sony version would be even larger.

[nemophoto]

My main beef with the R in the studio is the slow tethering speed and I may have accidentally stumbled upon a workaround - when you go to the menu or the picture preview (basically anything that turns off the live view) after you shoot a series of images they will transfer to the computer much faster (at a speed comparable with a DSLR). It seems that the R doesn't have enough processing power to handle the sensor readout and usb transfer at full speed at the same time.

What software are you using to tether? I discovered C1 was exceptionally slow and when I wrote support, they acknowledged that it was because Canon changed some things. However, Phase One had just released an incremental version of C1 12 which was on par with tether speed of the 5D4. As for shooting, in general I found I turned off any live view in back and went with either a black screen or the screen with the settings. If you tether with Lightroom, Adobe supposedly reworked tether capture speed back in December and it's improved. (I wouldn't know since I gave up trying to tether with LR because it was so bad. Maybe I'll try it again.)

[hogloff]

The lens mount size does not mean Sony can't have a fast lens. It DOES, however, mean that the lens of similar speed will be quite a bit larger. It's a matter of physics of light and design. So, as large as Canon's 24-70/2 is, a Sony version would be even larger.

I haven't seen evidence of this. The Sony 24 1.4 is pretty small with great image quality. The 12-24 is tiny compared to the Canon 11-24 with basically the same image quality.

There's lot of speculation floating around but just no concrete evidence to show for it.

[Rado]

What software are you using to tether? I discovered C1 was exceptionally slow and when I wrote support, they acknowledged that it was because Canon changed some things. However, Phase One had just released an incremental version of C1 12 which was on par with tether speed of the 5D4. As for shooting, in general I found I turned off any live view in back and went with either a black screen or the screen with the settings. If you tether with Lightroom, Adobe supposedly reworked tether capture speed back in December and it's improved. (I wouldn't know since I gave up trying to tether with LR because it was so bad. Maybe I'll try it again.)

Hm interesting. I do use C1. I'll have to check my studio computer if it runs the latest update and compare the speeds.

[nemophoto]

Definitely contact Phase One. The update wasn’t on the website (though I’m sure it must be by now). The difference in tether speed was enormous. It went from almost 5 seconds an image for me to a bit more than a second. The one weird thing, though, is in reviewing the images on screen, C1 would not render the last captured image at full res UNLESS I went to a previous image and then back. Very odd. It could be platform related. I use a Dell XPS since I’m normally in the studio as part of a location shoot. I only tether in the studio.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rado]

I've updated my studio machine to the latest version of C1 and tethering is indeed faster. Hooray! The problem you're describing with not being able to see the last capture properly I get from time to time as well (and my studio machine is a macbook so it's not the platform).

I've also figured out the EVF darkening with flash. When you turn on a flash or a trigger, the camera disables exposure simulation (if it's on)! It happens with TTL capable flashes/triggers - so for example Elinchrom's Skyport Pro for Canon will turn exp sim off while the dumb 1-pin Elinchrom trigger will have no effect. WTF Canon? Why is this not a choice/setting? Sometimes you just want to use some fill flash while keeping the overall exposure the same.

[Guillermo Luijk]

More on Sony's mount "limitations":

https://photorumors.com/2019/03/10/sony-claim-that-theoretically-they-can-make-an-f-0-63-e-mount-lens/#more-107783

Regards


Enviado desde mi PRA-LX1 mediante Tapatalk

[BJL]

More on Sony's mount "limitations":

https://photorumors.com/2019/03/10/sony-claim-that-theoretically-they-can-make-an-f-0-63-e-mount-lens/#more-107783

Sony is dancing around the real issue (which I agree might only apply to some very extreme lenses): it is not what f-stops are _possible_ (look at what is possible with Leica M mount) but limitations on performance if the exit pupil then has to be very low to avoid vignetting (low exit pupil being far more of a problem than with film), or if the bulk of such lenses has to be significantly greater.

For example, the Nikon 58/0.95 design would not work on E-mount, because its rear element sits right at the mount (about 16mm from the sensor) and occupies almost the full width of the mount there.
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/4416633505/NikonNoct_01.jpeg

But to repeat, I don’t think is a big deal in practice:
- probably only extremes like 58/0.95 are much hampered, and
- there is far more flexibility gained from the new, shallower mirrorless mounts than is lost to being narrower. I predict that all mirrorless systems will eventually have some lenses that outperform what was possible with the old SLR mounts wiyh that pesky mirror box getting in the way!

[BernardLanguillier]

More on Sony's mount "limitations":

https://photorumors.com/2019/03/10/sony-claim-that-theoretically-they-can-make-an-f-0-63-e-mount-lens/#more-107783

Com'on Guillermo, you know full well that the topic is corner image quality, not the achievable max aperture.

I am not sure why this subject is so emotional.

A larger mount obviously is valuable, Sony is still obviously able to design great lenses with the E mount. I have never written anything different.

I totally agree that Nikon has been able to design great lenses with the F mount (never wrote the contrary although you implied I did), but also that the EOS mount has been a significant advantage for Canon due to its larger size.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Guillermo Luijk]

The point is if the differences in size among the four different FF mirrorless formats appeared so far will mean or not any real advantage in practice.

So far no one can confirm or deny this, but so far some users seem strangely interested in spreading the doubt. This would be logical from a brand point of view (if I detect a flaw in my competition I have a chance to promote my sales), but a user with the same attitude sounds to me like the childish fanboyism of someone who needs the system he chose to prevail over the rest.

Regards

[BernardLanguillier]

The point is if the differences in size among the four different FF mirrorless formats appeared so far will mean or not any real advantage in practice.

So far no one can confirm or deny this, but so far some users seem strangely interested in spreading the doubt. This would be logical from a brand point of view (if I detect a flaw in my competition I have a chance to promote my sales), but a user with the same attitude sounds to me like the childish fanboyism of someone who needs the system he chose to prevail over the rest.

I would argue just the opposite.

Very basic physics tell us that a mount 10mm larger is bound to make it easier to design lenses with better corner performance. This isn’t something anybody has debated for years in the DSLRs world when comparing the F and EOS mount.

Attempts to deny this obvious fact can be interpreted as a fan boy attempt to minimize one factual advantage of another camera system than his own... sorry I mean of all the other camera system since Sony is the only one with a mount this small at this point.

The best evidence at this stage of this possible advantage lies in the specs of the lenses announced by the Canon/Nikon compared to Sony. I haven't seen any f1.2 lens proposed by Sony so far and the third party one are not that great in corners. We can debate about the usefulness of f1.2 lenses, but that's another story.

Don't get me wrong, I find the Sony system to be great and ton offer some unique values. I am just surprised at the epidermic reaction when a very reasonable fact is put forward that questions one aspect of its superiority. Fanboys rarely belongs to the side of common sense...

Cheers,
Bernard