Foveon sensors sample RGB at every pixel site. Their color detail reproduction is only slightly better than a Bayer sensor of the same physical resolution. When I say "slightly" it's something you can pick up in some areas while pixel peeping, but which is meaningless in print. A 100mp Bayer image will absolutely look better in print than a 25mp Foveon image, assuming a print size large enough to tell the difference (since 25mp can saturate many common print sizes).
The other problem with this idea is that the CFA is fixed so you can't go into a 25mp mode where every pixel samples RGB. A pixel covered by a green filter still only sees green. (Though that is a gross simplification, per Michael Clark's posts. He is correct that there is bandwidth overlap of the three filters.)
Your understanding is based on the false assumption that only "green" light (or light between, say, 480-580 nanometers) gets p [...]
It's also based on the false assumption that our color reproduction systems use the same three colors as the colors of a Bayer filter array as primaries. [...]
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.
Actually, postprocessing has nothing to do with the topic. It does not increase the DR of the sensor. It plays a different role: to compress the dynamic range of the captured image into a very shallow range of densities of the output medium (paper) without losing "natural" local contrast.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.
It may leave an impression that a low DR improves patience and compositional skills.
I'm not sure which shortcomings exactly you can overcome with the higher DR, apart from inability to capture high contrast sceneries. I'm confident you can't overcome the lack of compositional skills or lack of patience and effort. If you're willing to make fake skies or fake light, high or low DR won't stop you from doing that. And on the other hand, having a high DR won't make you less skillful, as well as low DR won't give you any additional skills.
Actually, postprocessing has nothing to do with the topic. It does not increase the DR of the sensor. It plays a different role: to compress the dynamic range of the captured image into a very shallow range of densities of the output medium (paper) without losing "natural" local contrast.
Then why did you bring it in?
The claim in that post was, as I understand it, that higher DR makes it easier to produce an image of what never existed in the first place. Not a reproduction of what an eye can see in the natural settings, but a kind of photocollage, with collage techniques trying to mask deficiencies in photographic ("drawing with light") skills.Postprocessing? I didn't. I was responding to this post https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...ecifications-images.36678/page-28#post-763821 and the statement that good old photographers relied on skill, and nowadays they do photoshopping. Even then nobody claimed that postprocessing increases DR.
Having high DR will allow ypu to shoot in ppor light and even the exposure out in post while retaining acceptable quality.Far far more than in days gone by. Then adding all the BS can be achieved more effectively. You no longer have to wait for the light. Now like I said. DR is great. The more the better for certain applications. But it has allowed less skilled and dedicated photographers to get results. Again. That is fine but like I said those who are obsessed with it are likely the ones to abuse it. I guess it would be my opinion that rhe more the technology advances the less photographers seem to understand what they are doing. Because they don't need to. Knowing and understanding light is not as important as it used to be. Composition of course is not being affected but that is about all.
The claim in that post was, as I understand it, that higher DR makes it easier to produce an image of what never existed in the first place. Not a reproduction of what an eye can see in the natural settings, but a kind of photocollage, with collage techniques trying to mask deficiencies in photographic ("drawing with light") skills.
Burning and dodging were actually "prepress" (lab technician) skills, not photographic skills. You did not need to do burning and dodging for a slide projector.
Yes, they can make the lenses more compact, but not an order of magnitude as I read it through your lines (just quick interpretation, don‘t take this too serious).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:
So that would be my German rule-of-thumb.
I wonder... if I create a Photoshop plugin that automatically makes masks for daylight shadow areas, will it sell well?But again, even then it wasn't a claim that postprocessing increases DR. Vice versa, it's the higher DR that increases the room for post. I'd agree with that. But it doesn't compensate the need of good composition and light.
Have you actually tried it in practice?About the DR and postprocessing posts:
The human eye has a DR of about 20 stops including sensor mods (in the retina according to light level), iris and sensor cell DR.
If you look at a scenery the iris might regulate 3 stops (6 ... 2 mm diameter) for an adult - younger people have more DR by iris diameter adaption.
Changes between night- and day-vision might add another 3 stops but this is a slow process where the cells in the retina change their positions.
So there is a DR of roughly 17 stops what we can see in a single scene.
I wonder... if I create a Photoshop plugin that automatically makes masks for daylight shadow areas, will it sell well?
To me there is not a prettier camera ever made than the M7 with the 50 Lux on, now that is gorgeous. Second favorite is the M4 black.I am German, in fact I live in Hesse, the German state where Leitz/ Leica is located, so I am allowed to write such a comment about the Leica M3 . I didn't say that the M3 was no good camera, in fact it offered the best rangefinder technology of its time when it hit the market. Such a bright and precise rangefinder was a revolution for 35mm cameras. But Leica needed a few more years to move to such a clean design like the Canon P already had in the late 50s - in fact, the M6 has it and for me it is the most beautiful and ageless Leica ever made. But that's a matter of personal preferences. A well working M3 is of course a gem, no question.
That said, I have and use two Canon 7 rangefinders when I shoot film. They are not such beauties, but the Seven was the most capable rangefinder ever made for the old Leica M39 thread.
Luminosity masks are totally not what I am talking about. I am talking about recognizing the shadows (and creating the masks for them) as the objects in the picture, like my team at work does with cars and pedestrians.there are plugins already for creating luminosity masks, you can make masks for highlights or shadows or even mid-range. Luminosity masking is a powerful tool but by no means it creates non-existent light.
I was not refering to such lenses. I know optical physics and I know that it can not be bended.Yes, they can make the lenses more compact, but not an order of magnitude as I read it through your lines (just quick interpretation, don‘t take this too serious).
Look at the 28-70 f/2, it‘s a huge lens and it makes compromises at the lower focal length as compared to a 24-70 f/2.8 EF counterpart.
THIS!!! Especially if those are WA or UWA primes. And exactly this was what I was refering to in my original post, that you've quoted.Where mirrorless FF shines is with compact primes.
Now let's go for some native small primes