Preorder: Canon EOS RP camera and kits

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,476
952
In the film days various speeds and grains were debated hotly (not unlike DR and sensors) but mostly by those who didn't self develop. Those who did generally offered more advice to help their fellow photographer than bash.

How can we aspire to that level of craft in this age?
I was thinking the other day how during the 2000's I felt like I was reading and discussing craft much more than now. I still read and talked about the tech. But there were so many articles by Michael Reichmann and others that focused on photography, not silicon.

Now I feel like it's an onslaught of "Canon sux Sony rulz DSLRs ded buy new mirrorless camera!"

In another thread someone mentioned how toxic DPR has become, and that used to be a great hangout. I don't know...maybe it's time to push away from the monitor and read a few old photography books.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,265
1,256
Alberta, Canada
The whole DR conversation makes me shake my head (again).

Assume an off-chip ADC sensor. (Could be Canon, older Sony/Nikon, or even the Nikon D5 which shows not all current sensors have on-chip ADCs in other brands.) Assume "good exposure" = ETTR without blowing highlights.

Portraits
* You have plenty of DR to brighten the subject in a portrait or wedding scenario with good exposure.
* You have enough DR to recover a mildly underexposed shot with dark tones in the scene.
* You will not have enough DR to recover a grossly underexposed (-3ev or more) shot with dark tones in the scene. Classic example would be a wedding shot with a black tux and a flash misfire.
* Modern Canon meters, flashes, and AE algorithms aren't going to leave you grossly underexposed unless there's an actual breakdown or you overheat your flash.
* A sensor with on-chip ADCs could recover more (not all) examples of grossly underexposed shots and still make an acceptable print.

Landscapes
* You have plenty of DR to deal with most landscape scenes with good exposure.
* Scenes with the sun in the frame unattenuated by haze or clouds and a very dark foreground will require blending two exposures.
* Some...not all...of those "sun in the frame" shots could be done with one exposure using a sensor with on-chip ADCs. However, even with the best of those sensors you are sacrificing shadow IQ if you push too hard. So if you love sun-in-the-frame landscapes and are serious about IQ for large print sizes you will still be using HDR techniques or GND filters, just not as often.

Interior Real Estate
* You are generally not going to have enough DR for midday shots on a sunny day, assuming no indoor strobes to assist. These shots will require blending 2 or more exposures.
* An on-chip ADC sensor will help the most here. But there are still going to be plenty of shots that require blending 2 or more exposures.
* Most pro real estate photographers use strobes and often shoot during magic hour both to manage scene DR and for the quality of light.

Out of these scenarios interior real estate is the one niche where I would really care about on-chip vs. off-chip ADCs and shadow recovery. If extended DR lets me avoid setting up strobes and/or blending exposures for just one room it's worth the time. These photos are harder to blend than landscapes because of hard window edges and 'light beams' through the room. For the same reason you can't use a GND filter. If I did professional interior real estate shots for a living I would have a 5D IV.

Now, here's a screenshot I used to post in DR debates on DPReview and other sites. This is from a 7D. The original 7D. With less DR than a 6D2. The file holds up to critical viewing at 16x24" print size. Is that as good as the best possible recovery from a 5D IV or D8x0? No. But it's still a lot of room to maneuver. Our choices are not between good and bad or good and terrible. They're between good and really good.

The settings equate to +2.5ev shadow recovery and -0.5ev highlight recovery. And I used L35 / C50 NR on the shadows.
I appreciate actual examples rather than DR blah blah blah.(y)

Jack
 

Chuckmet

EOS M50
Jan 18, 2019
25
16
ok... so I'm at a crowded bar taking pictures in low light of my band friends..... I'm too lazy to set up reflectors and its ok to annoy everyone with flash? interesting.
Well fortunately for you this sensor handles high ISO's really well! Shoot for the highlights let the shadows fall, it'll look great!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky
Mar 14, 2012
2,329
207
Canon , Inc. HQ recently switched to one ply in all the restrooms as well.

Meanwhile, you guys are stirring the DR hornets nest? Do you actually think you'll 'get anywhere'? It's like politics, just don't.
What do my comments have anything to do with DR?
 

snappy604

EOS RP
Jan 25, 2017
271
150
Well fortunately for you this sensor handles high ISO's really well! Shoot for the highlights let the shadows fall, it'll look great!

Yeah was quite impressed with the samples that showed the EOS R at 10000 ISO.. just saying that the ability to pull shadows is useful, you can't always control your environment
 

snappy604

EOS RP
Jan 25, 2017
271
150
Then you're at ISO 3200? 6400? And your DR is the same as everyone else. DR differences due to on vs off chip ADCs occur at low ISOs.

on my 80D try to be around 1600 ISO if I can, but often have to resort to 3200 and yep did notice that its harder to pull shadows (wish I could). However I am impressed how well it manages if you get your balances more or less correct. Just saying it'd be nice to have that lee-way and its useful when you can't control your environment (my comments were more about the reflector comment)... I agree, they definitely seem to handle high ISO well now.. just need a few more FPS and I'd be happy!
 

jeanluc

EOS 80D
Oct 29, 2012
163
78
My primary body is 5DIV (not for landscapes only btw), so from a secondary landscape camera I expect DR performance on par with 5DIV. I don't have 6DII, but I've seen the reviews, DR measurement charts and played with the sample raw files - working with them would be a bit disappointing for me.

Clean images at base ISO isn't something exceptional, latest Canon's crop sensor from 80D also has clean base ISO and better DR than 6DII.
I too shoot mainly landscapes with a 5d4 and use my old 5d3 as a backup. I think the RP would make a great landscape backup given its price. It’s got a better sensor than the 5d3, it’s smaller, has a tilt screen and gets you into RF glass while you wait for the High end R to come out in the next year or so. The IQ is inferior to the 5d4 or the R, but it’s a grand cheaper! Having used the R, I would not recommend replacing a 5d4 with it, but the RP actually augments it IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quarkcharmed

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,514
2,270
Irving, Texas
I too shoot mainly landscapes with a 5d4 and use my old 5d3 as a backup. I think the RP would make a great landscape backup given its price. It’s got a better sensor than the 5d3, it’s smaller, has a tilt screen and gets you into RF glass while you wait for the High end R to come out in the next year or so. The IQ is inferior to the 5d4 or the R, but it’s a grand cheaper! Having used the R, I would not recommend replacing a 5d4 with it, but the RP actually augments it IMHO.
That's what I'm thinking. I shoot with a 5D Mark III and the RP must have a better sensor. I have no complaint at all about the 5D Mark III. IQ from the RP must be better, I assume. Even if just equal, I'd be very happy. $1,299? Pfffttt! Paid far more for my 5D Mark III and it is a fine machine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
779
623
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Landscapes
* You have plenty of DR to deal with most landscape scenes with good exposure.
Hmm... Plenty of DR on which camera exactly?
The thing is, 11-stop DR means you can capture some details in a scene with 11-stop contrast. But in order to process it, you actually need more room. I prefer to have more room for editing not because I can't set proper exposure, but because it allows me to cover wider range of scenes.

* Scenes with the sun in the frame unattenuated by haze or clouds and a very dark foreground will require blending two exposures.
* Some...not all...of those "sun in the frame" shots could be done with one exposure using a sensor with on-chip ADCs. However, even with the best of those sensors you are sacrificing shadow IQ if you push too hard. So if you love sun-in-the-frame landscapes and are serious about IQ for large print sizes you will still be using HDR techniques or GND filters, just not as often.
I'm not actually fond of sun-in-the-frame shots. Unless the sun is behind the clouds or very low down to the horizon. Higher DR in those conditions means less of the sky is blown out. Also when shooting seascapes or waterfalls, you get very bright spots on the water. almost as bright as the sun sometimes. Higher DR often means a difference between a keeper and a throw-away shot, no matter how good your skills are and what filters you use.

We see there's a lot of wonderful shots taken with low-DR cameras. That's fine. What we don't see is failed and discarded shots taken with low-DR cameras.

Now, here's a screenshot I used to post in DR debates on DPReview and other sites. This is from a 7D. The original 7D. With less DR than a 6D2. The file holds up to critical viewing at 16x24" print size. Is that as good as the best possible recovery from a 5D IV or D8x0? No. But it's still a lot of room to maneuver. Our choices are not between good and bad or good and terrible. They're between good and really good.

The settings equate to +2.5ev shadow recovery and -0.5ev highlight recovery. And I used L35 / C50 NR on the shadows.
On my (calibrated) monitor the unedited shot doesn't look hugely contrasty in the first place. It looks like it wasn't very dark in that canyon as I can see all the details in the shadows in the left (unedited) image. With 5DIV, I'm able to recover completely dark (visually) areas without much noise.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
779
623
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
I too shoot mainly landscapes with a 5d4 and use my old 5d3 as a backup. I think the RP would make a great landscape backup given its price. It’s got a better sensor than the 5d3, it’s smaller, has a tilt screen and gets you into RF glass while you wait for the High end R to come out in the next year or so. The IQ is inferior to the 5d4 or the R, but it’s a grand cheaper! Having used the R, I would not recommend replacing a 5d4 with it, but the RP actually augments it IMHO.
If RP fits your needs as a landscape camera - that's fine. With what I shoot, I feel I'll be struggling. That is, I'd better take a heavier 5DIV on a hike than lighter but less capable camera.
However I'm looking forward to seeing that proposed RF 15-35 f2.8. It must be something exceptional for astrophotography. But again it'd need a better sensor to be mounted on. Waiting for a high-res R body.
 

M_S

EOS 80D
Jul 31, 2013
158
10
The proven facts are that Canon started falling behind their competitors in low ISO DR in 2009 and since then they’ve gained ILC market share (not a huge gain, but certainly not a loss). Perhaps you would interpret that to mean that DR is critical to most ILC buyers, and if so you can speak for yourself...after all, everyone has the right to make themselves look foolish if they choose.
I doubt that you have information about buying decisions or did a poll about buying decisions for a specific camera model. So there goes your assumption about customers buying what and why and why not in general. Pure speculation as ILC market share says something about a type not a make or model. A 1DX II and a Mark IV are in the same boat as a 80D, 6D II, Rebel etc. What does that say about the RP or R in that matter? Nothing right? Choosing one thing over the other feature wise doesn't mean it's not important per se, it might just lost importance against other features that are needed more by that person. A global argument, which you did, doesn't remotely feature this. Lets face it, the argument you did was done only to discredit the guys opinion, because surely enough he didn't come up with the general topic what R buyers could think and what they thought in respect to DR, that was your take on it. He just pointed at one thing of the camera, and surely some people value this, as the following discussion showed. Is it the majority? Who knows..Last you flavour it with people looking foolish and for a good laugh, making it therefor a personal insult.. Some could argue that these are the reasons for heating up discussions: move topic on market share, forget about the details and make it global-》therefore argument must be wrong, insult at the end, done with the guy. Its always the same scheme in this forum and its a annoying trend here, in politics, youtube comments etc.
 
Last edited:

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
779
623
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,059
333
Vancouver, BC
I was thinking the other day how during the 2000's I felt like I was reading and discussing craft much more than now. I still read and talked about the tech. But there were so many articles by Michael Reichmann and others that focused on photography, not silicon.

Now I feel like it's an onslaught of "Canon sux Sony rulz DSLRs ded buy new mirrorless camera!"

In another thread someone mentioned how toxic DPR has become, and that used to be a great hangout. I don't know...maybe it's time to push away from the monitor and read a few old photography books.
I couldn't agree more. I think photography is much more about craft than tech, and as the technology plateaus (matures), hobbyists will once more care more about craft than tech. I have always been fascinated by books that demonstrate new techniques to me, like how to help direct your subject to yield more flattering photographs or what types of light to use to achieve a particular effect.

Camera bodies are the piece that I get most excited about buying, but in reality, a new body has generally been the least impactful of significant spending items, for me.
 

Kit.

EOR R
Apr 25, 2011
1,614
959
I'm surprised when photographers dismiss dynamic range as being unimportant in a camera.
Maybe they didn't experience earlier cameras.
Lee Filters, Kase, Hitech etc are all making money from balancing high contrast scenes.
It would be much easier if it could be done without filters and I'm sure it will be possible in the future with computational photography.
First, that's a straw man. It's not "dynamic range" that is unimportant (a camera with just one stop of DR would be of little use to most photographers). It is those minuscule differences in the testing results that are. They are not enough to be relied upon in the vast majority of real-life scenarios.

Second, I find the result of the use of neutral gradient filters to be ugly much more often than not. Maybe they are OK for people who have never seen similar scenes with their own eyes.

Third, the filters were typically used not because of the shallow dynamic range of the film, but because of the shallow density range of the paper. Slides on the projector look much better without the filters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
215
137
However I'm looking forward to seeing that proposed RF 15-35 f2.8. It must be something exceptional for astrophotography. But again it'd need a better sensor to be mounted on.
Canon's wide zooms have never been much better than 'average' for coma. I don't think an RF version will change that much, it's just not a priority for them.

The Tamron 15-30 G2 is available now and is highly recommended for astrophotography. It's also a hell of a lot cheaper than the L glass will be. Just get one, or even an original model, and get shooting.

Stop putting faith in Canon that they'll do it your way *next time*. How many chances will you give them? They don't care about your requirements, they''ll sell truckloads of whatever lens they release solely by brand-name, whereas Tamron and Sigma have to actually address market demands.
 
Last edited:

Equinox

I'm New Here
Jun 29, 2017
19
39
I was thinking the other day how during the 2000's I felt like I was reading and discussing craft much more than now. I still read and talked about the tech. But there were so many articles by Michael Reichmann and others that focused on photography, not silicon.

Now I feel like it's an onslaught of "Canon sux Sony rulz DSLRs ded buy new mirrorless camera!"

In another thread someone mentioned how toxic DPR has become, and that used to be a great hangout. I don't know...maybe it's time to push away from the monitor and read a few old photography books.
+1 - All about this. I miss reading articles about the 'craft'.

I personally have recently broken my 5D4 and have had to resort to my old 7D until i can afford repair. I shoot landscapes, I do really miss my 5D4 DR but having to use my 7D again has rekindled my enthusiasm for nailing the shot perfectly in camera with good use of GND, NDs and CPLs, i think it's making me a better photographer. crafting the image is part of the excitement of photography for me

The EOS RP with its 'old' 6D2 sensor will be perfectly good tool for producing professional quality results in many situations!. The old 'its not the camera, its you' comes to mind.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
779
623
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Tamron is good but a bit expensive for astrophotography alone. I'm not doing a lot of astro. But it doesn't look like a general wide landscape photography lens. I've already got EF 16-35 f4 for it. Tamron can't replace it purely because of logistics. It has issues with the filter mount.

As to the future Canon releases, I'm not putting any faith in them, it's all about my budget for photo gear and my current gear. If I get reasonable benefits for reasonable money from migrating to say Sony or Fuji, I'll migrate without hesitation, but currently benefits are too small and the migration cost is too high.

Canon's wide zooms have never been much better than 'average' for coma. I don't think an RF version will change that much, it's just not a priority for them.

The Tamron 15-30 G2 is available now and is highly recommended for astrophotography. It's also a hell of a lot cheaper than the L glass will be. Just get one, or even an original model, and get shooting.

Stop putting faith in Canon that they'll do it your way *next time*. How many chances will you give them? They don't care about your requirements, they''ll sell truckloads of whatever lens they release solely by brand-name, whereas Tamron and Sigma have to actually address market demands.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,635
2,142
I doubt that you have information about buying decisions or did a poll about buying decisions for a specific camera model. So there goes your assumption about customers buying what and why and why not in general. Pure speculation as ILC market share says something about a type not a make or model. A 1DX II and a Mark IV are in the same boat as a 80D, 6D II, Rebel etc. What does that say about the RP or R in that matter? Nothing right? Choosing one thing over the other feature wise doesn't mean it's not important per se, it might just lost importance against other features that are needed more by that person. A global argument, which you did, doesn't remotely feature this. Lets face it, the argument you did was done only to discredit the guys opinion, because surely enough he didn't come up with the general topic what R buyers could think and what they thought in respect to DR, that was your take on it. He just pointed at one thing of the camera, and surely some people value this, as the following discussion showed. Is it the majority? Who knows..Last you flavour it with people looking foolish and for a good laugh, making it therefor a personal insult.. Some could argue that these are the reasons for heating up discussions: move topic on market share, forget about the details and make it global-》therefore argument must be wrong, insult at the end, done with the guy. Its always the same scheme in this forum and its a annoying trend here, in politics, youtube comments etc.
In spite of your aggressive over-interpretation of my statements, you clearly support the general conclusion that DR is not a critical factor in most ILC buyers’ purchase decisions...and that is exactly my point.