Real World Dual Pixel RAW in 5D MkIV? Not so useful...

[pwp]

Regardless of your opinion of Tony Northrup, his assessment of the usefulness of Dual Pixel RAW is fairly compelling, with results that kind of confirm what I expected after the initial 5D Mk IV hype calmed down.

The first two minutes of this should do you...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0S8shTk94E

-pw

 

[privatebydesign]

Regardless of your opinion of Tony Northrup, his assessment of the usefulness of Dual Pixel RAW is fairly compelling, with results that kind of confirm what I expected after the initial 5D Mk IV hype calmed down.

The first two minutes of this should do you...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0S8shTk94E

-pw

I'm not so sure. I think some people will get something useful out of it.mi also believe in time we will be able to go back to these dual pixel raw files and get more out of them.

This tester seemed to get a much more interesting result so I think focal length subject distance and aperture will all play into the results.

http://www.kamerabild.se/tester/vi-har-provat-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv?nodePage=3

 

[Mancubus]

I found this image at a german website. I couldn't understand anything but they were definitely talking about the 5d4. I can't tell if the image was actually from a 5d4 or just a simulation showing what the dual pixel raw "can do".

 

[Mancubus]

I found this image at a german website. I couldn't understand anything but they were definitely talking about the 5d4. I can't tell if the image was actually from a 5d4 or just a simulation showing what the dual pixel raw "can do".

The difference between this one and Tony's (from the video) would be the lighting. This one used studio light (which is basically guaranteed to give a sharp image) and Tony apparently just used the available light.

 

[tpatana]

If you give me a link to the site, I can go read what they say.

 

[tpatana]

The difference between this one and Tony's (from the video) would be the lighting. This one used studio light (which is basically guaranteed to give a sharp image) and Tony apparently just used the available light.

The Swedish one is ambient light, and some reason he moves focus by plenty.

And studio lights don't guarantee sharp images, there's still ton of reasons why it could fail. Usually better chances for sure, but not guaranteed.

 

[Sabaki]

Focal length plays a big part in this feature, the shorter the focal length, the more one can recover. This was shown in a video I saw on Monday evening.

But this is a very new feature and I prefer to rely on the hands on experiences that other normal photographers share. Being an early adopter of the 7Dii, I no longer trust the 'pro' reviews and site like Tony's and DigitalRev I find somewhat inconsistent.

My expectation of this feature is that it will show us its potential but will probably need a few more generations before we start seeing the benefits it can bring.

 

[mb66energy]

Canon gives clear hints where the DP RAW micro adjustments give the strongest effect:

• focal length above 50mm // f/5.6 or wider // ISO equal or below 1600 and
• focal length - distance of the object/subject combinations
  50mm - 1-10m
  100mm - 2-20m
  200mm - 4-40m

(source: http://www.canon-europe.com/cameras/eos-5d-mark-iv/dual-pixel-raw/ EDIT: Last section at and of page!)

Maybe Tony Northrup's samples weren't in these ranges - perhaps the information from Canon was published after he produced his video.

 

[9VIII]

DPRAW works on available Depth of Field.

The more you start with, the more adjustment you get.

Thus far basically everyone has been doing their tests with next to zero DOF.
The guy shooting with a 35mm lens is seeing significant results because he used a wide angle lens and the subject wasn't at minimum focusing distance.
He took a picture with wide Depth of Field, and got lots of adjustment range.

 

[arthurbikemad]

I think it reads quite clear, given that both pixels sit on the same plane it's more about shift than focus. I.e bokeh, like anything in photography the situations can be so dynamic one may see and advantage where another will not, guess the results of people's shoots will determine if the new feature is a hit.

 

[sebasan]

Do you trust this guy?

 

[old-pr-pix]

In the TN video he states he asked Canon to help identify better examples for larger effect, so far nothing. His portraits were done using 70-200, at 200mm, 2.8 and show trivial effect. The DPR examples shot with 35mm show more focus shift effect; however, to me it appears when focus is shifted by maximum amount the point of sharpest focus does move but the overall image is not as sharp as the unshifted image. The same appeared to occur with the TN examples.

 

[Mancubus]

If you give me a link to the site, I can go read what they say.

http://www.dforum.net/entry.php?6-Dual-Pixel-RAW-in-der-neuen-EOS-5D-Mark-IV

 

[testthewest]

Is it just me, or do these pics look strange?
It says: Shift to the front, but to me shifted picture just looks like it has an overall bigger depth of field. I mean: If it is shifted to the front, shouldn't the back get more blurry? Instead it is sharper everywhere...

 

[Sabaki]

I found this image at a german website. I couldn't understand anything but they were definitely talking about the 5d4. I can't tell if the image was actually from a 5d4 or just a simulation showing what the dual pixel raw "can do".

Im probably wrong but...

If the woman's eye and lips are soft in the 1st image, how is it they're both far sharper in the second? Almost seems as if there's blur applied to the sharp version

 

[9VIII]

Do you trust this guy?

You can trust Tony to say a lot of things and show you some pictures.
Practical value not guaranteed.
Really every reviewer should be approached with the same skepticism.
(Especially in this case since none of the reviewers so far have demonstrated an understanding of DPRAW.)