I really like the dark background. Nicely done, Noreaster.

Sporgon said:

I’ve only looked on my phone at the picture on which you didn’t like the highlights on the faces; assuming you shoot in raw have you had a look at the raw file with no tonal response applied ? If so you might be surprised at where the highlights actually sit, and it’s the applied tonal curve in the highlights that you don’t like. Just a thought !

Click to expand...

I had indeed try to edit it and ended up not liking the results and left the jpeg as is. This is screen grab from ACR flat and other sliders just to give an hint of the data available. It's not only that there are unrecoverable patches of white, but even the data that is recoverable is structured in a way that doesn't make it very useful for me.

At the end of it multiple people liked the photo as is, for the big burn of light as well. It's just me who would prefer to have full readability always. But I do think that Canon is feeling the competition from Sony and will probably do something about it in the future.

Noreaster said:

They for south for the winter.

Click to expand...

Oh, OK: you are safe!

Coconut Rhinoceros (Oryctes rhinoceros).

ISv said:

Depends on the magnification. What about Tyrannosaurus ?

Click to expand...

They for south for the winter.

Jethro said:

And presumably the processing power requirements would increase proportionally on higher MP sensors - meaning that DGO would be more appropriately used on lower MP sensors? I seem to recall that even on the Canon C cameras, DGO was only available at lower FPS - ie there was a limit even on a 35mm crop.

Click to expand...

Yes. Low pixel count is needed with lower fps. Also rolling shutter artefacts aren’t as disturbing in video.

Noreaster said:

Not really a portrait but I am pretty sure an Ostrich was hereView attachment 227362

Click to expand...

Depends on the magnification. What about Tyrannosaurus ?

And presumably the processing power requirements would increase proportionally on higher MP sensors - meaning that DGO would be more appropriately used on lower MP sensors? I seem to recall that even on the Canon C cameras, DGO was only available at lower FPS - ie there was a limit even on a 35mm crop.

Jethro said:

This is because the camera needs to read teach pixel twice - at low and high gain - and then blend them into a single image?

Click to expand...

Yes, apparently it is a time and power consuming process. Anyway, I learned a bit about noise at very low photon flux. There is a changeover from photon shot noise when decreasing below about 10 photons per pixel exposure to electronic shot noise. The DGO lowers the photon floor to down to 1 photon when electron shot noise in the circuit takes over.

AlanF said:

to make it work you would need to give up:

• burst rate,
• readout speed,
• power envelope,
• thermal envelope,
• AF responsiveness,
• electronic shutter usability.

That is a commercial non-starter for stills cameras.

Click to expand...

This is because the camera needs to read each pixel twice - at low and high gain - and then blend them into a single image?

Winter is not too exciting

Not really a portrait but I am pretty sure an Ostrich was here

The one with the chocolate (?) Dripping from the spoon is a great concept.
My two favorites are the second set's third photo and the third set's final photo.
Well done thanks for sharing!

I do hope that when Canon finally releases the RF300-600mm lens it has a built-in 1.4 teleconverter. This would make it ideal for bird and wildlife photography.

Exploreshootshare said:

Oohhhh, that sounds great!!! Enjoy it and have some fun. And maybe, just maybe, post a nice wintery pic here

Click to expand...

Here they are

Last ones

More

Sorry, i maybe missed it in review, but was the issue with IBIS wobble on wide angle fixed? Or what was meant is that it is only fixable by digital IS, which is not possible to use without IBIS? Is it the same on R5?

GirlsAreBeautiful said:

I am afraid of this as well. Do you think DGO will simply not be able to be implemented as I wish because the speed will not be enough?

Click to expand...

I have how had a massive tutorial session with ChatGPT to answer this. The conclusion is: "Canon DGO is restricted to Cine EOS because it is architecturally incompatible with high-speed, high-resolution stills capture. It is not a feature being withheld; it is a feature whose physics conflict directly with the performance envelope stills cameras must satisfy."
And:

Why no manufacturer ships DGO in stills bodies​

It is not that it “does not work”.


It is that to make it work you would need to give up:

• burst rate,
• readout speed,
• power envelope,
• thermal envelope,
• AF responsiveness,
• electronic shutter usability.

That is a commercial non-starter for stills cameras.

Jowe-79 said:

I have the R7 and I'm happy with it... But here there are opinions that it is crap that at ISO 800 is unusable that if rolling shutter... Let's see rolling shutter for very fast objects fine, but I take photos with electronics and no ghosts or deformations come out...

Is the R7 so bad?? Let's see if you compare it with the r5 mark ii because I'm not surprised... it's logical it's worth 5 times more...

Click to expand...

As always, it depends what you use it for. I am primarily a macro photography. For that it is an excellent camera. I bought it three years ago, did a lot of research, and it was clearly the best camera for me at that time. And I have been very happy with it. But the quality and features of cameras are improving at a fast pace. At this moment I would probably not buy the R7 anymore. But there is a good chance that the R7 mark ii will again be the best camera for my type of photography. (And with all the lenses I bought, switching brands is not really an option at this stage anyhow.)

GirlsAreBeautiful said:

Well sure, I could underexpose sunny pictures by 3 stops, or use that option for highlights that Canon has, I would prefer an improvement in technology that sacrifices other features like burst rate though, that's the point I was trying to make which is obviously personal

Click to expand...

I’ve only looked on my phone at the picture on which you didn’t like the highlights on the faces; assuming you shoot in raw have you had a look at the raw file with no tonal response applied ? If so you might be surprised at where the highlights actually sit, and it’s the applied tonal curve in the highlights that you don’t like. Just a thought !

Sporgon said:

To be honest if you are having concerns over the dynamic range of these latest FF cameras I would suggest you reevaluate your technique !
The modern sensors can typically hold highlight detail about 3.2 stops over mid tone, which is a lot more than people think, and when you then consider the extensive latitude in the lowlights of the modern sensors you have a huge range to work with if you maximise highlights in the exposure.

Click to expand...

Well sure, I could underexpose sunny pictures by 3 stops, or use that option for highlights that Canon has, I would prefer an improvement in technology that sacrifices other features like burst rate though, that's the point I was trying to make which is obviously personal

To be honest if you are having concerns over the dynamic range of these latest FF cameras I would suggest you reevaluate your technique !
The modern sensors can typically hold highlight detail about 3.2 stops over mid tone, which is a lot more than people think, and when you then consider the extensive latitude in the lowlights of the modern sensors you have a huge range to work with if you maximise highlights in the exposure.