You just never know with some folksI hope it was evident enough that it was assumed.
Yes! In fact, after I pre-ordered the RP, I bought a used 40mm pancake on eBay for the expressed purpose of fitting it to the adapter on the RP. I once owned that lens, and it was a beautiful thing - image quality I mean. The size was great on my SL1, sure, but the quality was never quite appreciated as much as it should have been. It was really L quality in retrospect. I sold it to justify some other purchase later, and always regretted it. I'm curious now to see how big it'll be with the adapter. Suspect it'll still be smaller than the 35 1.8.
A native R pancake would be amazing, although I don't think we can expect the magic quality of the 40mm to be likely.
Really hope that Canon makes it 24mm for RF.Yes, that 40mm is such a fantastic lens for the price. If you can live with the f/2.8, you get at super sharp and nice image quality. Love it. And less than half the price for a Fujinon 27mm f/2.8 pancake. Really hope that Canon will make a RF version of that lens!
Love my 40, it has a semi permanent home on my film body.Yes, that 40mm is such a fantastic lens for the price. If you can live with the f/2.8, you get at super sharp and nice image quality. Love it. And less than half the price for a Fujinon 27mm f/2.8 pancake. Really hope that Canon will make a RF version of that lens! But it will like not happen in near future....
Any camera made since the Canon D30. Literally. Unless you have bright sky versus deep canyon shadow or sun-in-the-frame, you have enough DR. You had enough DR on E6 Provia (8ev).
That's not how it works. A DxO reported DR of 11 stops doesn't mean there's a cliff on the shadow end of the sensor. DxO looks for a noise threshold and stops counting once they hit that. That doesn't mean the image stops.
That's not being contested. It's also trivial to handle with two frames, a GND filter, or if the exposure is long enough, a 3x5 card moved over the top of the frame at the right moment.
Beyond that...water in sunlight with no specular highlights at all looks fake as can be. You don't want large blown out areas of white. But the sun glistening off the water is what our eyes see, and our eyes have more DR than any Sony sensor.
We also don't see the failed and discarded shots taken with high-DR cameras. Sony fans act as if Canon (off-chip ADC) sensors have less DR than Velvia while their DR is unlimited. Both parts are completely false.
To give one example: there is a 2.3 stop difference between a 5Ds and a D8x0. That's 19%.
You cannot see 'all the details' in the left side. What you can see are shapes of things. The darkest parts are flat black, while a lot of it is just shy of flat black.
The point wasn't to say an original 7D could match an on-chip ADC sensor. The point was that when people act as if Canon's older architecture is horrible on DR they are wrong. Our choices are between good and very good.
Actually, you can and you should. The shadows on the rocks at the left side are ugly, while not that hard to fix with HDR.I use HDR and stacking in certain cases, but I prefer to get everything in one shot where possible. You just can't do two frames for the images like this
https://500px.com/photo/290893861/bombo-quarry-splash-2-by-michael-borisenko
Actually, you can and you should. The shadows on the rocks at the left side are ugly, while not that hard to fix with HDR.
As I said, I don't normally use HDR for such a mundane topic (splashing waves in a harsh daylight). I'll try to arrange something today, but I am not sure I could find splashing waves around here.Do you have examples of your HDR shots of breaking waves and splashes? I'd be very interested to see.
Take 2 pictures, then use transparency mask to blend in the darker regions from the longer exposed picture into the shorter exposed picture. Your stones don't move, don't they?Especially with 0.5sec exposure. Honestly I didn't know I could do HDR with relatively long exposure and on rapidly changing objects.
As I said, I don't normally use HDR for such a mundane topic (splashing waves in a harsh daylight). I'll try to arrange something today, but I am not sure I could find splashing waves around here.
Take 2 pictures, then use transparency mask to blend in the darker regions from the longer exposed picture into the shorter exposed picture. Your stones don't move, don't they?
I'm not saying that there are no scenes where such a technique wouldn't work, but yours is not one of them.
I'm also not saying that there are no scenes where you could avoid such blending by having a slightly higher DR in your camera, but again, yours is not one of them.
Because it's daylight and it's harsh. Just look at the shadows. Some haze on the sky wouldn't hurt.That was taken about 15-20 minutes after sunrise, I'm not sure what made you think it was a harsh daylight.
That's what HDR does.The stones don't move, but what you've described is not HDR. It's exposure blending.
They are not "black". They are distracting. I would have dodged them to save the image. If you cannot do it because of the noise, you would still need to shoot with several exposures and then combine the results.It's not one of them because it's an example where all or almost all usable range was used from the camera and where old Canon cameras mentioned above wouldn't cope. The shadows on the left you mentioned, keep all the detail and it can be seen on the print, that's the exact case where no special technique is needed, such as HDR or exposure blending. If the rocks on the middle left are black to you, you might want to check your monitor calibration, brightness and/or contrast.
Because it's daylight and it's harsh. Just look at the shadows. Some haze on the sky wouldn't hurt.
That's what HDR does.
They are not "black". They are distracting. I would have dodged them to save the image. If you cannot do it because of the noise, you would still need to shoot with several exposures and then combine the results.
Well, it does. If the final image was what you had planned, then I don't see how a lower-DR sensor like the one in 5D2 would not be able to produce the same result.I believe it's the proper (golden hour) light for that scene as it emphasises the relief and naturally harsh rocks, but it doesn't actually matter for this conversation.
Well, it does. If the final image was what you had planned, then I don't see how a lower-DR sensor like the one in 5D2 would not be able to produce the same result.
While I am sure that there were the sensors that would not be able to handle such a scene with such a result (basically, everything mainstream before EOS 1Ds), I don't see how it would disqualify any of today's mainstream FF sensors.
The frequency with which ~1 extra stop of sensor DR makes a meaningful difference in output is very low.If the final image was what you had planned, then I don't see how a lower-DR sensor like the one in 5D2 would not be able to produce the same result.
I don't think so. I think it's a jpeg artifact.
This is a photo of similar contrast shot with 5D2:
View attachment 183163
The details in the shadows of the dark rocks are still there. They will be noisy if you push them for 2 extra stops, but they will still be there.
Edit: this is a 100% crop:
View attachment 183164
If you try to push the image you provided, you will see that the details are "lost".What is the jpeg artifact exactly?..
I don't understand what you mean by "recoverable" in this case. If you don't like where the shadows currently are, you can play with the attached 100% crop image.In your example I don't think the shadows are recoverable to an acceptable state. Can you try and show us the result of the 2-stop shadow recovery in that image?