Out of Camera jpg. - settings as came with the camera. Canon EOS R + 24-105mm f/4 RF Zoom.
My conversion from raw in Photoshop. Canon EOS R + 24-105mm f/4 RF Zoom.
Above is a comparison between a jpg. file straight out of the Canon EOS R and my conversion from raw. The jpg. has the wrong colour balance, it simply didn't look like that as it's far too warm. This image was taken yesterday when there was a clear blue sky.
There are three things that influence image quality:-
- The lens used
- Sensor and processing engine
- Post Production software
And while a raw file isn't usually a complete 'blank canvas' since manufacturers now put all sorts of 'hidden corrections' in their files, there is (usually) enough latitude to either get a file to look 'right' or allow an 'interpretation'. So it doesn't make that much sense for review sites to make definitive statements concerning some kind of standard for any given raw file. Since raw files can be edited in different, often quite dramatic ways, to assert that there is some kind of baseline from which raw file quality can be assessed is somewhat of a pointless endeavour.
But going back to the EOS R files there are some things that can be judged, even though these are usually in the realm of optional possibilities. Let me explain.
- Every raw file has a basic sharpness level However like virtually every other raw file I've come across with slider levels set at 0 or neutral the EOS R files need some sharpening to bring out the highest level of resolution / detail.
- The adding of sharpening is necessary for both print and electronic reproduction.
- For me the quality of a file in terms of sharpness is defined by how much sharpening can be added to a file, without adding either noise or artefacts, so that the viewer perceives the image as sharp, clear and with well defined detail. This is Acutance. 'In photography, the term "acutance" describes a subjective perception of sharpness that is related to the edge contrast of an image.'
- The EOS R files perform very well in this respect. When viewed at 100% the EOS R images, after post processing in Photoshop, are incredibly well defined with a high degree of perceived sharpness.
- Since I use virtually the same settings on all the files I process from all my digital cameras, I can therefore come to a conclusion as to where any given camera output fits into a comparative assessment.
- Colour is a personal thing. Apparently we all see colours in a different way. However it's generally true that for colour travel / landscape photography which I specialise in, rich, saturated colour that is not that far from reality is the most successful in terms of sales and regarded by most viewers as being 'good to look at'.
- The EOS R again succeeds in this. For me it creates images with 'punchy' colour that draws attention without being 'distorted' or 'off''. If you look at the two images at the top of the page again you will see in my Photoshop edit the greens are far less yellow than the in camera jpg. version. therefore they look more realistic. And the 'warming up' of images isn't just a Canon thing, these days all cameras seem to produce this. The manufacturers must think we like it.
- The lens is the third element in this sharpness equation. Again the sharpness of lenses that can be significantly different in terms of cost, can be made to produce similar results with a very slight increase in post production sharpening.
- However, a 'good' lens should be consistent in it's sharpness across the frames, edges and corners.
- This can be difficult to achieve with ultra wide-angle lenses, since they are seriously distorting reality. My Voigtlander 10mm can literally 'see round corners'. But the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 has no such issues. It is sharp across the frame, even wide open and for a zoom lens this is an excellent finding.
- Like many lenses however the 24mm end is sharper than the 105mm end. It's not by much but the difference is there. I therefore slightly increase the sharpening for shots taken towards the telephoto end of the lens.
- Is it as good as my Leica Vario-Elmar-SL 24-90mm f/2.8-4.0 ASPH? Well I would suspect that if both lenses were compared under lab conditions the Leica would be the 'best' but in a real world situation it is very difficult to see the difference, though a direct comparison is obviously impossible currently.
Now I've seen some reviews that say this sensor is almost identical to the one in the Canon EOS 5D Mk IV. Now I can't speak to that since I have never used that camera. However, as I've indicated image quality is a complex combination of a number of things and any attempt to provide any kind of definitive conclusion has to be, of necessity a subjective conclusion. All I can say here is that I am able to get some incredibly sharp and detailed images from my EOS R + RF 24-105mm combination. I'm so pleased with the results that I see no reason to keep either my Leica SL + 24-90mm combination or my m4/3 cameras. I have really enjoyed using both cameras, but I hoped I would like the EOS R since the Leica combination is brutally heavy and much as I like m4/3 there is a limit to which I can push files from those cameras in terms of size. m4/3 does give better image quality than it's often given credit for and it's not always the case that a larger sensor means better image quality, but here 30MP on the Canon EOS R FF sensor most certainly is.
So how does this leave the upcoming Panasonic FF camera in my thinking? Well the simple answer is who knows? A dummy prototype with no specs. and no price is hardly enough to make decisions about. I doubt anything will appear on dealers shelves for at least another 4-5 months anyway. When I see what Panasonic have come up with, then I can decide. All I would say is that the Canon EOS R is doing a fine job at the moment and in terms of stills, which is always my primary concern, it's going to take a hell of a camera to beat what I'm getting currently.
