# Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III Sample Images



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 16, 2017)

```
PhotographyBlog has posted some sample images from a beta version of the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III.</p>

<p>They have provided plenty of JPG (resized to 90% of original size, as requested by Canon) and RAW files, along with a sample video. <a href="http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/canon_powershot_g1_x_mark_iii_photos">Check out the samples here</a>.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Talys (Oct 16, 2017)

Some of those are really terrible photographs =X

And if it's the built-in flash, I guess it's a pretty good way to sell flashes that go on the shoe


----------



## BasXcanon (Oct 16, 2017)

Those pictures are not made by real photographers.

They just invited some famous UK vloggers that have promoted the G7xM2 in the past.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 16, 2017)

Those images are useless.
The only thing that they show is that the photographer missed the point of creating sample images.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 17, 2017)

> (resized to 90% of original size, as requested by Canon) 

Guess they aren't that confident about their test samples yet


----------



## CosminD (Oct 17, 2017)

1. no bright lens
2. no 4k = NO SALE !
3. useless battery 
4. huge price

Waiting for the LX 200 now


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 17, 2017)

Normalnorm said:


> Those images are useless.
> The only thing that they show is that the photographer missed the point of creating sample images.



That always seems to happen on camera launches. Given that they allow professionals to pressure-test the camera before release, you would have thought they would be able to find some good images to showcase it.


----------



## dhaas (Oct 17, 2017)

Will add my 2 cents here........

First, while I use a SLR for paying jobs I rent these days. For all personal shooting I've given up hauling big cameras, lenses, flashes etc. For two years now it's been a Canon G7X and now Mark II plus my iPhone 6s Plus.

The G1X III camera having an APS-C sensor in a G5X body is pretty amazing in my book. If you've held a G5X you know how small it is which means you might actually take it with you. Anything larger I just can't bear to haul and an iPhone (or Samsung) with even one App, Snapseed will make photos you'll be thrilled with.

As to the gripes about no 4K and a slow limited range lens......I don't own a 4K TV and that spec requires more data storage, etc. It's meaningless at least to me. The lens f-stops don't mean anything either as software can de-focus backgrounds, etc.

The weather proofing IS a big deal to me. Being an underwater photographer and dealer for Fantasea compact and Ikelite underwater housings means any camera to be used around water having seals is a huge plus.

Finally, the price.....While not wanting to be an early adopter paying top $$$$$ I weigh the benefit of getting a new easily transportable and usable tool versus the new images I'll be able to capture with it over years I keep equipment.

Believe I'm not awash in $$$$ but since going to rehab for GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome  many years ago having less has worked for me.....I'd rather maximize the capability of one tool and simply enjoy photography.

I'll bet many will buy this camera for the small size and larger sensor. Hopefully the 3X zoom lens and features delivers great photos and full reviews will tell.

To each his own!


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 17, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> > (resized to 90% of original size, as requested by Canon)
> 
> Guess they aren't that confident about their test samples yet



or it's like any other canon releases, and websites aren't allowed to publish full sized examples until it's available.

but good on you wearing a tin foil hat :


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 17, 2017)

CosminD said:


> 1. no bright lens
> 2. no 4k = NO SALE !
> 3. useless battery
> 4. huge price
> ...



do we care?


----------



## stevelee (Oct 17, 2017)

dhaas said:


> First, while I use a SLR for paying jobs I rent these days. For all personal shooting I've given up hauling big cameras, lenses, flashes etc. For two years now it's been a Canon G7X and now Mark II plus my iPhone 6s Plus. . . .
> 
> The weather proofing IS a big deal to me. Being an underwater photographer and dealer for Fantasea compact and Ikelite underwater housings means any camera to be used around water having seals is a huge plus.
> . . .
> To each his own!



I don't have paying gigs, but have just bought a 6D2 for fun and recreation. I will still use the G7X II as my travel camera, and will always have my iPhone 6S (not plus sized) with me. The G1 X III is of interest to me, but I think the G7X II is about as big as I want to handle in traveling. It won't fit in my shirt pocket like the S120 did, but does OK in pants or jacket pocket. Weather proofing is not an issue with me, in that if the weather is bad, I'm not going to be out in it myself, much less the camera. Same for under water, other than I signed up for a submarine ride in Hawaii.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 17, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > > (resized to 90% of original size, as requested by Canon)
> ...



Good on you both for not noticing that Canon also provided the RAW .CR2 files for download. Therefore, the minor size reduction of the jpgs is completely irrelevant. So if you want to accuse Canon of making a silly request, that's a fair accusation. But blathering on about lack of confidence in test images and not publishing full sized examples just makes you both look even sillier than Canon...


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 17, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



canon didn't provide anything here. these were posted from an eval camera (obviously) and were not canon supplied images and it's been canon's policy since the dawn of time that you can't post full sized images. perhaps RAWs are a way around that, but it certainly has nothing to do with the quality.


----------



## danfaz (Oct 17, 2017)

dhaas said:


> Will add my 2 cents here........
> 
> First, while I use a SLR for paying jobs I rent these days. For all personal shooting I've given up hauling big cameras, lenses, flashes etc. For two years now it's been a Canon G7X and now Mark II plus my iPhone 6s Plus.
> 
> ...



Nice post, and I agree with it. This camera is starting to interest me more and more. Also, the "Touch and Drag AF" feature seems really cool!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 17, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Your point was that Canon supposedly doesn't allow websites to publish full sized images, but RAW files are (obviously) full sized images, because they're, well...RAW files. So either Canon told PhotographyBlog not to publish full sized images and they did so anyway (in which case they'll likely never receive another evaluation unit), or Canon allowed the publication of full size images.


----------



## gmon750 (Oct 17, 2017)

dhaas said:


> Will add my 2 cents here........
> 
> First, while I use a SLR for paying jobs I rent these days. For all personal shooting I've given up hauling big cameras, lenses, flashes etc. For two years now it's been a Canon G7X and now Mark II plus my iPhone 6s Plus.
> 
> ...



Well said.. I'm in a similar position. After the shock of its asking price and cooling down a bit, I am eyeing this camera to replace my old Powershot S100 that I use for casual underwater photography. My 5DM3 and huge aquatica housing is becoming more burdensome to travel with as airlines are becoming more restrictive with electronics. My S100 and Ikelite case were so easy to pack along in my backpack.

The gripes of people here and in other threads have become such a bore, the funniest being the cosmetic look at the camera itself, like I really care how it looks.

I think it's going to be a very popular camera now. I think Canon may be on to something here as well and that others will follow with a big sensor in a point-click camera. 

I realize that the big piece of silicon for the sensor is what makes the camera so expensive. Can't get around economics I suppose and I think once people accept that, it'll be easier to understand the pricing of this camera.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 17, 2017)

I'm a FF user who bought an M3 and all the lenses to have a smaller travel kit, but I also have a G1X. After a year or so I ended up selling the M because if I used it with the adapter and better lenses I began to think 'why didn't I just take the 5D', and if I had just a standard zoom I'd be thinking 'why don't I just take the G1X'. 

OK, it would be nice if this aps-c G1XIII had an f/2-4 lens but no doubt Canon are saving this for the G1XIV. But the reality is that this camera will have huge scope in general photography without sacrificing any quality, especially if the lens is stellar, and I'm hoping that given the asking price it will be. 

This is bringing us into a time where a landscape photographer could go out with a 'point and shoot' fixed lens pocket camera and produce images through stitching three vertical frames together that would be pretty well indistinguishable from someone with a £10,000 DMF kit. Scary !


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 17, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> This is bringing us into a time where a landscape photographer could go out with a 'point and shoot' fixed lens pocket camera and produce images through stitching three vertical frames together that would be pretty well indistinguishable from someone with a £10,000 DMF kit. Scary !



There was the article on Luminous Landscape a few years ago where Michael Reichmann took the same image using a Haselblad and the G9 (I think it was) and in most cases at 'sensible' print sizes his friends were unable to tell the difference with any reliability without really close examination. 
So I fully imagine this new model with its larger sensor to carry on that tradition.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 17, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> CosminD said:
> 
> 
> > 1. no bright lens
> ...



Don't make him upset, let's pretend we do.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 17, 2017)

I feel the camera got great potential, but IMO they could get *much* better samples while shooting outdoors, especially this time of year. Glad no cat pics though.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 18, 2017)

Only some? Holly Batman... These pics were taken with a $1300 camera. right!




Talys said:


> Some of those are really terrible photographs =X
> 
> And if it's the built-in flash, I guess it's a pretty good way to sell flashes that go on the shoe


----------



## deleteme (Oct 18, 2017)

There are three salient features here for me.

APS-C sensor -Big enough to deliver excellent IQ at higher ISO as compared to a 1 inch sensor.

Short zoom- 24-70 is all I am looking for in this camera because it has.....

A LEAF SHUTTER!.

I use flash fill ALL the time on paying jobs. 
On images I know are web-use I use my Panasonic FZ-1000. It is a sterling performer with a very sharp lens, IS, 15fps (not with flash), nearly silent with mechanical shutter, perfectly so with e-shutter.
But it allows brilliant fill in bright sun with a manual flash set to 1/4 power and throwing fill as much as 25 feet.

I just returned from a shoot for a magazine cover (lifestyle) where the subjects were facing away from bright sun. I had to shoot at f11 at 1/200 with ISO at 100. Flash shooting in a large umbrella to cover 4 people needs to be very powerful.( was using two 600 ws units as opposed to my usual very compact 360 ws units) With the G1 X mk3 I could have used f7.1 at 1/500 thus using far less powerful flash and still maintaining decent DOF.

I have looked at other LS cameras but they all fall short. The Fuji X-100 is a fixed 23mm lens, great camera but little flexibility in framing.
The Sony Rx-1 has the same issue of a fixed (but superb) FL.
The Leica Vario X has a superb lens but slower than this one, no EVF and slow AF.

So for all the carping, this one really has potential for me. The price is very fair as it really has no competition in the LS space except smaller sensor cameras.

Sure you can any number cameras that shoot 4K but as I shoot no video it is a non-issue for me.
Everything it does have makes me happy.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 18, 2017)

your example shooting at 1/200s: you do not need to use HSS mode when shooting at 1/200s unless you are a Canon 6D user. Thus you do NOT loose any flash power. If F11 was too narrow for you, then you may have consider using decent ND2 (1 stop) filter to slow down the aperture by a 1 stop and shoot at F8 instead. Yes, this will result in a somewhat higher flash output, but you loose very substantial 2.5+ stops of flash power as soon as you crossed out of the X-Sync territory. Hence ND2 is a lesser of two evils. slight colour cast is very easy to compensate for in post.




Normalnorm said:


> I just returned from a shoot for a magazine cover (lifestyle) where the subjects were facing away from bright sun. *I had to shoot at f11 at 1/200 with ISO at 100*. Flash shooting in a large umbrella to cover 4 people needs to be very powerful. ( was using two 600 ws units as opposed to my usual very compact 360 ws units) With the G1 X mk3 *I could have used f7.1 at 1/500 thus using far less powerful flash and still maintaining decent DOF. *


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 18, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> your example shooting at 1/200s: you do not need to use HSS mode when shooting at 1/200s unless you are a Canon 6D user. Thus you do NOT loose any flash power. If F11 was too narrow for you, then you may have consider using decent ND2 (1 stop) filter to slow down the aperture by a 1 stop and shoot at F8 instead. Yes, this will result in a somewhat higher flash output, but you loose very substantial 2.5+ stops of flash power as soon as you crossed out of the X-Sync territory. Hence ND2 is a lesser of two evils. slight colour cast is very easy to compensate for in post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He didn't say he went into HSS so your comparison of ND2 1 stop loss vs HSS 2.5 stop loss is irrelevant. At 1/200 he didn't go into HSS so he lost none of his 1200Ws flash power. The point is the ambient required f11 at 1/200 at 100 iso, he couldn't give the ambient less because to do so would either push the camera into HSS or affect the flash exposure. The flash exposure required 1200Ws at f11 at 100 iso. The only way to beat the equations and lower the flash power while maintaining ambient exposure level is to raise the shutter speed and have a faster sync speed.

Mind you flash duration times are pretty long at higher powers so once you go over 1/350 sec the shutter starts to limit your flash exposure power anyway. People who thing a leaf shutter or global shutter will give them full power flash at high shutter speeds really are missing the concept of flash duration.


----------



## CanonGuy (Oct 18, 2017)

my iphone 6 plus probably takes better/similar pics compared to these in such low light. 

well done hitting on your foot canon


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 18, 2017)

Given a choice, I'd at least prefer trolls with _some_ intelligence. Alas.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 18, 2017)

PBD,


OP said that he had to shoot at 1/200 and F11 and he HAD to use a much more powerful strobes to compensate for power loss:


> ... was using *two 600 ws units as opposed to my usual very compact 360 ws units*..


.
please note OP logic: had to shoot with higher power strobes than usual.

Now, I said exactly what you said: I pointed out that he did not go into HSS and therefore he lost NO power. hence no need using more powerful 600 Ws strobes instead of usual 360 Ws Op used.

In the second part of my comment I pointed out that if OP would rather shoot at F8 rather than F11 aperture he used to avoid HSS territory, there is a simple solution to open up aperture by 1 stop and loose relatively small amount of flash power.

OP had to use F11 at 1/200s, ISO 100 instead of F7.3 at 1/500s, ISO - these are identical exposures.

repeat:

no loss of flash power at 1/200s
if F8 was required instead of F11, then ND2 application will allow to open aperture up to F8 at 1/200s but strobes will have to be cranked up by 1 stop



> .. Mind you flash duration times are pretty long at higher powers so once you go over 1/350 sec the shutter starts to limit your flash exposure power anyway..



Correct, GODOX AD360 II flash duration at full power is 1/300s. GODOX AD600B flash duration at full power is even longer: 1/220s.






privatebydesign said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > your example shooting at 1/200s: you do not need to use HSS mode when shooting at 1/200s unless you are a Canon 6D user. Thus you do NOT loose any flash power. If F11 was too narrow for you, then you may have consider using decent ND2 (1 stop) filter to slow down the aperture by a 1 stop and shoot at F8 instead. Yes, this will result in a somewhat higher flash output, but you loose very substantial 2.5+ stops of flash power as soon as you crossed out of the X-Sync territory. Hence ND2 is a lesser of two evils. slight colour cast is very easy to compensate for in post.
> ...


----------



## deleteme (Oct 19, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> PBD,
> 
> 
> OP said that he had to shoot at 1/200 and F11 and he HAD to use a much more powerful strobes to compensate for power loss:
> ...



The entire point of a leaf shutter is to avoid having to use small apertures and concomitant large flashes. DOF has nothing to do with it.
An ND filter just pushes my SS lower with still the same power demand from the flash.

With my Panasonic I can shoot at f5 or 5.6 and use a manual speedlight and throw light 20+ feet in bright sun.
FP with HSS is a power sapping strategy also.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 20, 2017)

Please see my comments in blue below.



Normalnorm said:


> The entire point of a leaf shutter is to avoid having to use small apertures and concomitant large flashes. DOF has nothing to do with it.
> A.M.: As PBD pointed out, flash duration at close to full power is quite long. (1/300s to 1/200s) see the numbers above. therefore, if your shutter is faster than flash recycle time, then your flash would not have enough time to deliver full discharge while the shutter still open.
> 
> secondly: your comment regarding avoiding usage of small apertures. If that has nothing to do with DOF, what it has to do with then? is that about DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture)? if so, then in your example stopping down from F7.3 to F11 won't change much in terms of sharpness in practical terms.
> ...


----------



## merefield (Oct 21, 2017)

dhaas said:


> Will add my 2 cents here........
> 
> First, while I use a SLR for paying jobs I rent these days. For all personal shooting I've given up hauling big cameras, lenses, flashes etc. For two years now it's been a Canon G7X and now Mark II plus my iPhone 6s Plus.
> 
> ...



What is the point of a larger sensor if you cripple it with a slow lens?!

Will it get you good low-light performance? - NO

Will it give you a creative feature unavailable on cheaper compacts, ie Bokeh? NO!

If you can't get this camera to offer decent Bokeh and/or low light performance its pointless spending more.

You say IQ, what do you mean by that? A camera less than half this price can give you decent IQ but what you need from a more expensive camera is more tools to make shots you couldn't on the smaller camera. If you cripple it so you limit this flexibility so its the same as the smaller camera there is absolutely no point in buying it and wasting your money.

What's the point of decent IQ if all your pictures are cluttered with background objects you cannot isolate your subject from?


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 21, 2017)

merefield said:


> dhaas said:
> 
> 
> > Will add my 2 cents here........
> ...


----------



## merefield (Oct 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Bullshit. Someone who concentrates heavily on landscape or portraits or wildlife may not need 'flexibility'
> 
> What's the point of decent IQ if all your pictures are cluttered with background objects you cannot isolate your subject from? Wanting a shallow DOF is a relatively modern phenomenon - the problem used ot be you could not get enough! I had better tell the Ansel Adams estate to scrap all his photos with their worthless deep DOF



OK, let's look at this - landscape - this 24mm lens is using a crop sensor, so its equivalent to a crop of a 36mm lens on a FF - ballpark landscape lens, so ok there. Ansel might complain about the sensor size though! Ansel Adams is not the perfect comparison because he used large (read MASSIVE) format cameras. On balance, a pass though, I admit.

Portraits - for a serious normal portrait you'd want this zoomed all the way in - this is about a 105mm equivalent - that's ok but with these F stops - 2 stops worse than FF and at the narrowest max aperture because you are zoomed right in so equivalent to F11!! ... sorry but its not going to cut it. Portrait photographers are going to run away, even part time ones. I can't see that given any isolation to the subjects face at all, so they better be standing quite a distance from their background! Bokeh addicts definitely need not apply.

Wildlife - you'd again want this zoomed in and at high shutter speeds - better hope for a bright day because you will be at best F11 and getting no closer than a 105mm will get you.

So ok, it might make a good travel camera, but I'm not convinced on flexibility.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2017)

merefield said:


> OK, let's look at this - landscape - this 24mm lens is using a crop sensor, so its equivalent to a crop of a 36mm lens on a FF - don't know about you but that's not very wide and its a restricted FOV. Ansel might complain! But sure you might get a nice picture, just not very much of the landscape. That might not be a problem, or it could be if you can't get far enough away. Ansel Adams is not a brilliant comparison because he used MASSIVE format cameras.



First off, you seem confused. The G1X III has a 15-45mm lens, so approximately 24-70mm FF equivalent FoV. Incidentally, simple math can be used to convert focal lengths from lenses used on 'massive' format cameras to their 35mm FoV equivalents (although the view camera movements don't translate, even with TS lenses). FWIW, Ansel Adams typically shot with 35mm FoV equivalents of 28-77mm, i.e. pretty much the exact FoV range of the G1X III. 



merefield said:


> Wildlife - you'd again want this zoomed in and at high shutter speeds - better hope for a bright day because you will be *at best F11* and getting no closer than a 105mm will get you.



You seem even more confused here...the 'crop factor' does not affect exposure (and while it does affect image noise, those differences are minimally perceived at lower ISOs).


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 22, 2017)

merefield said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit. Someone who concentrates heavily on landscape or portraits or wildlife may not need 'flexibility'
> ...



I am not doubting the flexibilty issue - just your blanket comment "What is the point of a larger sensor if you cripple it with a slow lens?!" 
Flexibility is there only to maximise its use to the maximum number of people and the maximum number of situations. If you don't use the tools that make it 'flexible' then those tools do not make it 'more flexible' for you. And if a compact camera is all you can (or want to) carry at that time, then a bigger sensor give you more flexibility than a smaller sensor.


----------



## merefield (Oct 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> merefield said:
> 
> 
> > OK, let's look at this - landscape - this 24mm lens is using a crop sensor, so its equivalent to a crop of a 36mm lens on a FF
> ...





neuroanatomist said:


> merefield said:
> 
> 
> > Wildlife - you'd again want this zoomed in and at high shutter speeds - better hope for a bright day because you will be *at best F11* and getting no closer than a 105mm will get you.
> ...



I didn't realise Canon has quoted FF equivalent focal lengths here? I had assumed they hadn't scaled the F numbers.

On F numbers are you saying that this lens is F2.8 at 20mm equivalent - ie lets as much light in as a FF 20mm lens @ F2.8? That just doesn't sound right, especially as DoF will not be the same.

Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=255&v=f5zN6NVx-hY

Thank you


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2017)

merefield said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > merefield said:
> ...



Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more.

The lens is 15-45mm f/2.8-5.6. It's printed right on the front.







Those numbers describe physical properties of the lens, e.g. at 15mm and f/2.8, the iris diaphragm diameter is 5.35mm. That determines the amount of light that passes through the lens. I don't know the variable aperture progression of the G1X III, so I can't say for sure that at 20mm it will still be f/2.8. But at 16mm, it is almost certainly still f/2.8, and that will let in the same amount of light per unit area as the 16-35mm f/2.8L III at 16mm f/2.8. Light per unit are is what determines exposure. Sure, the FF lens will let in more _total_ light, because it has a bigger image circle (total light = light per unit area x area of image circle or sensor). But it's the light per unit area that determines exposure. Total light captured is inversely proportional to image noise (a bigger sensor captures more total light, so the noise at a given ISO is less). 

An example: say you meter a scene on the G1X III at 16mm f/2.8 at ISO 100 get 1/500 s. If you meter the same scene with the 16-35/2.8L at 16mm f/2.8 on either an EOS M, a 7DII, or a 5DIV at ISO 100, you'll get 1/500 s. 

The 'crop factor' effect on DoF occurs if you match the framing to a FF sensor – on the smaller sensor, you either need to use a wider focal length or move further from the subject, and either will give deeper DoF. If you don't match framing (i.e. shoot at the same distance, focal length, and aperture setting) on crop and FF, the crop sensor will actually yield slightly _shallower_ DoF (and a narrower FoV)...that's due the different circle of confusion, but it's probably best to not enter that circle at this point.  

So, to properly state the FF equivalent of the G1X III lens, one would state 24-72mm and f/4.5-9 _in terms of DoF for the same framing._ But the lens is still f/2.8-5.6, that's physics. 

I will admit that closed the clip you linked as soon as I saw who created it. Going to Tony Northrup for technical information is like going to a gas station mini-mart for sushi: even if you find some there, the quality is low and consuming it is a bad idea.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Going to Tony Northrup for technical information is like going to a gas station mini-mart for sushi: even if you find some there, the quality is low and consuming it is a bad idea.



That was the BEST analogy EVER  +10000000000


----------



## merefield (Oct 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, to properly state the FF equivalent of the G1X III lens, one would state 24-72mm and f/4.5-9 _in terms of DoF for the same framing._ But the lens is still f/2.8-5.6, that's physics.
> 
> I will admit that closed the clip you linked as soon as I saw who created it. Going to Tony Northrup for technical information is like going to a gas station mini-mart for sushi: even if you find some there, the quality is low and consuming it is a bad idea.



Thanks for the explanation, and to be fair Mr. Northrup gave the same explanation.

I guess it comes down to this - the wider FOV of FF allows you to get in closer for same framing, leading to shallower DoF at same aperture? To reach this shallower DoF further back with a APS-C you'd need to open the aperture further. Unfortunately there is an upper limit.

Cheers!


----------



## deleteme (Nov 1, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> PBD,
> 
> 
> OP said that he had to shoot at 1/200 and F11 and he HAD to use a much more powerful strobes to compensate for power loss:
> ...



The ENTIRE point of a leaf shutter is that you can use a lower power flash and open up your aperture and still balance the exposure by boosting your shutter speed to 1/500 or even higher.
I have been using leaf shutter cameras since the early 70's and can tell you that they exceed FP shutters when it comes to flash ALL THE TIME.
Hasselblad LS lenses had a tab that you set to the EV. Once set, the aperture and SS were linked and changing one parameter changed the other. Thus you never changed exposure, only the Fstop/SS combination. It was brilliant for fill flash.

ND filters are an annoying kludge that has become popular because of the infatuation with shallow DOF. You still need mad flash power which means you have to bring heavier gear which is a big pain in the butt.

I regularly shoot a leaf shutter camera with ISO 125 at f4 and 1/640 sec and can have a small speedlight throw great fill 15 feet at half power. This cannot be done with a DSLR and a speedlight.


----------

