Canon EOS RP Specifications & Images

[dtaylor]

Yes. And that video included that.

Because evaluating DSLR still image characteristics is best done by shooting random house and street shots under uncontrolled conditions, then viewing the results cropped and compressed/encoded for video on YouTube.

You will find comparable or even slightly better 6D2 noise characteristics, versus the 6D, in controlled, repeatable, studio tests performed by IR, DPR, TDP, and DxO.

I have no issue being critical of DxO when studio tests from DPReview, Imaging Resource, or The Digital Picture contradict them because DxO does have a 'black box' testing methodology and they are often observably off. But when all four are in agreement it's going to take a little more than an fstoppers clickbait video with casual amateur tests to prove them wrong.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Yeah that really looks like three stops at typical low light ISO settings. By ISO 800 the difference is barely one and one-third stops. You do realize 1 Ev = 1 stop?

View attachment 183055

Oh, but let's talk about noise, shall we?

View attachment 183056

1.3 stops is a lot. 3 stops difference at base ISO is huge. 3 stops = 8 times more light. Absolutely crucial for landscapes and many other sutuations.

 

[Michael Clark]

My concern was that the post you quoted asserted that no DSLR can focus at a max apperture of f11and your response seemed to accept that assertion. I had already knocked that down previously and you brought it back up again. I tried to address it tactfully but may have fallen short of the mark in that regard.

You are paying for a DPAF sensor in all of Canon's current DSLR's and one of the benefits is that you can, in fact, focus at max apertures well beyond f5.6 on all of them using DPAF. The fact that those bodies also have PDAF isn't the point. I thought it was a valuable tip to those readers who use DPAF DSLR's who often assume that they can't use f8 or f11 lens rigs when in fact they can.

In addition, based on my experience with DPAF and my brief demo's of the EOS R I haven't seen anything to convince me that the DPAF in the R is meaningfully different from my 5D4. It is certainly slower than the 1DX2 but as you say that is probably a voltage issue. Given that the r/5D4 probably share a sensor I suspect the difference may be significantly smaller than many people assume although I have no hard data to back that up. DPAF/LiveView is a powerful and often underutilized tool DSLR's users should take advantage of. After all, they paid for it.

FYI, for those of use in Dark Mode the colors, especially the black, make your posts a little difficult to read.

I said no such thing.

I made no such assertion, implied or explicit.

I merely pointed out that there were several top models that went beyond the stated limits in the comment to which I was directly responding. I then also pointed out that when using imaging sensor based AF, the limiting factors were not the same.

 

[Michael Clark]

1.3 stops is a lot. 3 stops difference at base ISO is huge. 3 stops = 8 times more light. Absolutely crucial for landscapes and many other sutuations.

ISO 100 also has absolutely nothing to do with "low light/high ISO" performance, which is what the comment was addressing. ISO 800 hasn't really been considered "high ISO" for at least a decade or more. Most of us shooting moving subjects in low light start at ISO3200 and go up from there. No one was talking about landscapes.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

ISO 100 also has absolutely nothing to do with "low light/high ISO" performance, which is what the comment was addressing. ISO 800 hasn't really been considered "high ISO" for at least a decade or more. Most of us shooting moving subjects in low light start at ISO3200 and go up from there. No one was talking about landscapes.

1.3 stop difference in low light means you can go from say 1/100s to 1/250s which is also crucial for indoor sports, concerts etc.

 

[dtaylor]

1.3 stops is a lot. 3 stops difference at base ISO is huge. 3 stops = 8 times more light. Absolutely crucial for landscapes and many other sutuations.

Funny how many of the world's great landscape shots were made on E6 slide films which had 6-8ev of total DR and virtually no ability to push or lift shadow detail.

 

[Michael Clark]

Honestly, these are next to useless. In real-life examples the 6D is indeed better, there is another article on fstoppers as well. Ultimately, the difference is pretty small and the tradeoff is worth it.

Who processes raw files from different cameras with different sensors and different low pass filters with the exact same raw conversion settings?

One could optimize the settings, particularly color processing settings, for the 6D at the expense of the 6D II and 80D, or one could optimize the settings for the 6D II at the expense of the 6D and 80D. Every camera has slight color differences, different noise characteristics, low pass filters, etc. A true comparison would allow the images from each camera to be edited in a way that optimizes the results for each camera.

The entire premise of the "lamp test" is to see which camera can compensate best for a photographer who has absolutely no idea how to control light before taking a shot. I guess he thinks all of those dark scenes in the Alien film series were actually filmed in light that dark by Ridley Scott, James Cameron, et. al. Or compare the earliest prints of "Moonrise, Hernandez, NM" made in the 1940s with Adams' definitive prints produced in the 1960s. Just because a masterpiece looks like it was shot in a very dark environment does not mean it was actually underexposed by 5-6 stops when captured. The true professional would know to replace the bulb with a much dimmer one that looks to the camera to be the same difference in brightness as the actual scene does to human eyes so the rest of the scene could be more properly exposed.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Funny how many of the world's great landscape shots were made on E6 slide films which had 6-8ev of total DR and virtually no ability to push or lift shadow detail.

yeah it's also funny how people where using horse carriages, a lot of great people, even kings and queens used carriages quite successfully. Why use modern cars at all?

The film btw behaves quite differently from digital, 4ex negative film is very tolerant to overexposure. Digital just captures 255,255,255 and there's no recovery.

 

[Michael Clark]

1.3 stop difference in low light means you can go from say 1/100s to 1/250s which is also crucial for indoor sports, concerts etc.

You don't have a clue if you think ISO 800 at 1/100 to 1/250 with an f/2.8 lens is either fast enough or bright enough for indoor sports or theater. It is neither (unless you're shooting so wide from so far that subject motion is not visible in your images).

 

[dtaylor]

yeah it's also funny how people where using horse carriages, a lot of great people, even kings and queens used carriages quite successfully. Why use modern cars at all?

Because the difference between an E6 slide shot and a DSLR shot is clearly as great as the difference between a literal horse and a Ford Mustang

The film btw behaves quite differently from digital, 4ex negative film is very tolerant to overexposure.

E6 slide films are not tolerant of overexposure. Even neg films which are generally have less total DR than a 6D2.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

You don't have a clue if you think ISO 800 at 1/100 to 1/250 with an f/2.8 lens is either fast enough or bright enough for indoor sports or theater. It is neither (unless you're shooting so wide from so far that subject motion is not visible in your images).

I have no clue because the light may differ drastically. I have a lot of successful dancing shots of jumps at 1/250 and 30-70mm. 1/100 will almost certainly be blurry. 1/320 and faster will be even better, of course. ISO will depend on light.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

E6 slide films are not tolerant of overexposure. Even neg films which are generally have less total DR than a 6D2.

Can/could you capture great landscapes using old film cameras? - yes.
Could you capture sceneries in the same conditions as we capture landscapes with modern digital cameras? - no. If old cameras had better DR, we would have seen more great photos from good old days. We just don't see all failed blown out our underexposed shots.
Limited DR means limited number of situations you can shoot in. 3-stop difference is a huge limiting factor.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Can/could you capture great landscapes using old film cameras? - yes.
Could you capture sceneries in the same conditions as we capture landscapes with modern digital cameras? - no. If old cameras had better DR, we would have seen more great photos from good old days. We just don't see all failed blown out our underexposed shots.
Limited DR means limited number of situations you can shoot in. 3-stop difference is a huge limiting factor.

That's true. In the god ol days photographers had to rely on skill, patience and persistence to overcome any shortcomings. Now photographers jist rely on DR and photoshop to create an image that never existed in the first place.

 

[Pape]

With very good DR you got danger overdo photograph too . Its not photograph if more DR what eyes got .More like photographic art .
Just my opinion i know i am probably wrong

 

[Quarkcharmed]

That's true. In the god ol days photographers had to rely on skill, patience and persistence to overcome any shortcomings.

In the good old days they were just limited technically, compared to digital era. However they used very heavy postprocessing, dodging and burning, chemicals to increase contrast etc. Some of most famous landscapes were made with heavy processing.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

With very good DR you got danger overdo photograph too . Its not photograph if more DR what eyes got .More like photographic art .
Just my opinion i know i am probably wrong

Yeah, as in my analogy above, ride a horse carriage, or you can get over the speed limit in a car.

 

[Aussie shooter]

In the good old days they were just limited technically, compared to digital era. However they used very heavy postprocessing, dodging and burning, chemicals to increase contrast etc. Some of most famous landscapes were made with heavy processing.

Massive processing. Ansell was a master inthe darkroom. But he also had skill. And patience. And determination. Ansell would wait hours or even days for that perfect moment of light and then enhance what he got in the darkroom. Now we have photographers who want 234.2stops of DR so they can drive to a location in any conditions, take one image and then spend an hour in photoshop to put in all the bits that weren't there. Light included. Don't get me wrong. I love DR. I shoot wildlife so for me more would be better but i do get the feeling that those who harp on about it the most tend to want it to make up for shortcomings in the things that Ansell had in spades.

 

[Etienne]

That was back when B&H was still selling gray market lenses imported from Hong Kong taking advantage of the highly fluctuating exchange rate between the USD and yen, wasn't it? In your case, though, it was probably used, wasn't it?

You're comparing apple to oranges. The same thing with "instant rebates" during Canon promotions. Instant rebates for limited periods do not change the official MSRP to which the price returns when the promotion is over.

No, my lens was full US warranty, not grey market. You're just wrong, plain and simple.

 

[Maximilian]

The lenses will be larger. Or the smaller lens will negate the FF improvement regarding depth of focus and ISO („pi times thumb“ as we say in Germany)

Hi Yasko!

Sorry, but your arguments have already been disproved:

When you take a look at the recent Canon RF patents you can see that even tele zooms can be made a little bit smaller, although this was not expected.
When you think about standard FL, WA, and UWA here we had a lot of discussions in this forum that those lenses could be built smaller than their EF equivalent because of the smaller backfocus distance possible.
Of course, if Canon decides to make a more complex optical formula ir if they add macro functionality like at the RF 35 this could make a bigger again.

And if you compare this Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro STM with the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM you can find this:
size (diameter x length):
74,4 x 62,8 mm vs. 77,9 x 62,6

So the RF lens has the same length and slightly smaller diameter ALTHOUGH macro feature was included AND the aperture got slightly wider.
So shallower DOF and less ISO in the same package.

Ans as icing on top the IQ / sharpnes and CA have been improved over the already very good EF lens:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...4&Sample=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

So that would be my German rule-of-thumb.

 

[-pekr-]

It doesn't, although the 50D did. That's one reason those other bodies I listed are a "significant improvement." The 70D also includes AFMA, but I did not list it because, in that case, the sensor performance was not really improved at all over the 60D. The 80D sensor was a significant improvement over the 60D and 70D. Perhaps I should have included the 70D. It also included the 7D's 19 pt. AF system over the 60D's 9 pt. AF, as well as AFMA.

60D was a hybrid I hate to this date. Canon misstepped with this one. To that date, I considered xxD being a (semi)professinal line. 70D was a big improvement, a nice and consistent camera and imo it is not true, that it did not provide a sensor performance update. I remember something like 1/3 of stop at least, as well as 70D was the first camera ever, providing DPAF, so by all means, it as a new sensor.