Nice work! I love your About Me page, I also am a hobbyist photographer and I appreciated reading that.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I made the test
2 shots using same ISO (200), speed and f stop
Except they weren't the same ISO, because your camera lied.im pretty sure it does sweet FA in raw but i might be wrong.
It just applies a different process to the raw file than it normally would
check the manual
It's not so much that HTP affects the RAW data per se, but it does affect the RAW metadata in a way that's not handled properly by anything but DPP.
What HTP does is deliberately underexpose by one stop, and 'misrecord' the ISO in the metadata - that's why ISO 100 isn't available when you turn on HTP, i.e. you set ISO 200, it shoots at ISO 100 but records 200, or you set ISO 800, it shoots at 400 and records 800. If shooting JPG, it processes the underexposed image to brighten everything except the highlights (meaning it applies a tone curve). If shooting RAW, it sets a metadata flag so DPP can apply that tone curve.
If you open that RAW file in a 3rd party converter, results vary. Some ignore the flag and you just get an underexposed image. Others compensate by just boosting the total exposure by one stop - I think ACR (LR/CS) does that. Of course, that just re-blows your highlights and adds shadow noise. AFAIK, no 3rd party converter tries to replicate the tone curve to preserve highlights.
So, if you shoot RAW and use a converter other than DPP, I'd leave HTP off so your reported ISO reflects the actual ISO used to take the shot, and just expose properly to preserve highlights. You can apply your own tone curve, not limited to the one full stop forced by HTP.
I'd love to have a 120mp APS-H that can do 9.5fps...I really wonder why they haven't stuffed that wonder into an actual DSLR and just trounced all the competition.
Its a wonder for Photographers who need much MP.
I want a camera with extremely lowlight performance (like or better than Sony a7s). A 120 MP Sensor hasn't it
Pixel size doesn't matter for low light performance.
The notion that pixel size affects noise is largely a myth.
The MTF's do look very good! I'm also pleasantly surprised by the initial pricing, after reading the introduction I was guessing $1,600 and $350. For a landscape photographer they look like terrific options. I'll be waiting for the hands-on reviews, but the 16-35 immediately goes on my list of most wanted lenses.
Also, I understand that one thing that's pretty hard to miss is that it polarizes the sky unevenly. Is this too conspicuous that IQ is compromised?!
Slight change of country: F/A18C's of the Swiss Airforce at the Axalp demo(and this one you have to climb to 7,000-feet for):
One more question. Could someone please check on his 70-200 II lens, if he also notice a bit of movement on focus ring (up/down, left/right). On mine, there is bit of play before the focus ring really grabs. Because if I compare it to the zoom ring, that one is solid with no play in any direction. Thanks
A P51 and a friendLove both of these, not sure which I like better, the Spitfire is one awe-inspiring aircraft!
A new-and-improved 100-400?
This lens is loooong overdue and would likely sell like hotcakes, as did the current version. I was recently looking at Nikon and they have a new improved version of their 80-400 and the reviews are off-the-charts positive. The improved Canon would need zoom ring instead of push pull and preferably start at 80mm instead of 100mm to match Sigma and Nikon.