# Preorder: Canon EOS RP camera and kits



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 14, 2019)

> You can now preorder the brand new Canon EOS RP and various kits from our exclusive affiliate partner Adorama. Ordering through Adorama helps us immensely, and costs you nothing.
> 
> Canon EOS RP Body w/EG-E1 Extension Grip & Canon Mount Adapter $1299
> Canon EOS RP w/EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, EG-E1 Extension Grip & Canon Mount Adapter $1699
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## sanj (Feb 14, 2019)

This is going to be fantastic for my second camera needs. I am pre ordering. This and the 24-7- f2 will be in my bag always. 
NOTE to Canon Guy: It says above it comes with Extension Grip. But the link does not show that. What am I missing? Thx


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 14, 2019)

sanj said:


> This is going to be fantastic for my second camera needs. I am pre ordering. This and the 24-7- f2 will be in my bag always.
> NOTE to Canon Guy: It says above it comes with Extension Grip. But the link does not show that. What am I missing? Thx



It does below the Canon Mount Adapter on the product page, you have to pick your colour.


----------



## sanj (Feb 14, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> It does below the Canon Mount Adapter on the product page, you have to pick your colour.
> View attachment 183122


Thank you kind sir. This camera will sell like mad I believe! A light full frame camera with superb lens choices. Well done Canon.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 14, 2019)

sanj said:


> This is going to be fantastic for my second camera needs. I am pre ordering. This and the 24-7- f2 will be in my bag always.
> NOTE to Canon Guy: It says above it comes with Extension Grip. But the link does not show that. What am I missing? Thx





sanj said:


> Thank you kind sir. This camera will sell like mad I believe! A light full frame camera with superb lens choices. Well done Canon.


Wow! Grip extension and adapter for free. Enjoy!


----------



## The Fat Fish (Feb 14, 2019)

Let’s wait for the DR tests before getting too excited. Also at £1399 in the U.K. ($1800) it far less of a deal.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 14, 2019)

The Fat Fish said:


> Let’s wait for the DR tests before getting too excited. Also at £1399 in the U.K. ($1800) it far less of a deal.


Plus your 20% vat?


----------



## delta0 (Feb 14, 2019)

UK prices include VAT and US always shows pre-tax price.

Amazon did have it at £1300 yesterday before it disappeared from the shop. I’m waiting to see the 24-70 RF before I commit.


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 14, 2019)

23% Vat for me. It keeps my GAS in line.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2019)

The Fat Fish said:


> Let’s wait for the DR tests before getting too excited.


You can wait. DR tests have no impact on my excitement or lack thereof...nor probably for most potential buyers of the EOS RP.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Feb 14, 2019)

The biggest surprise is that this is much less stripped down than I expected. UHSII, mic/headphone jacks, 4K, Eye-AF CAF... In fact, it really is fully featured for its price point especially given how conservative Canon has been in the last few years. Although I'm not looking for an entry level body at this point, this bodes very well for the R flagship this year, especially with confirmation of IBIS around the corner.


----------



## M_S (Feb 14, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...nor probably for most potential buyers of the EOS RP.


Says who? Unproven alternative facts? Just let us speak for ourselfs and be done with it. Everybodys mileage may vary.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Feb 14, 2019)

Do we know if the grip and adapter are a limited release run or will be included for the lifecycle of the camera?


----------



## Jdbuzz (Feb 14, 2019)

fluter said:


> This! I will be selling my Sony a7III (whaaaat?!) to use an EOS RP instead. The Sony has been great, but it's overkill as a second camera, particularly because I don't shoot video, plus I'm way too used to Canon's intuitive UI. It looks like the EOS RP will be extremely compact, which is what I need for my street photography needs. Can't wait! I've never pre-ordered anything before, so hope the initial reviews won't contain anything egregious


How much for your a7iii? Lbs


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 14, 2019)

M_S said:


> Says who? Unproven alternative facts? Just let us speak for ourselfs and be done with it. Everybodys mileage may vary.



Most of the target market for this body don't hang out in the DPR forums...


----------



## bryston (Feb 14, 2019)

The Fat Fish said:


> Let’s wait for the DR tests before getting too excited. Also at £1399 in the U.K. ($1800) it far less of a deal.


Who gives a rats ass about DR on a $1300 FF? This is a perfect camera for my needs.


----------



## slclick (Feb 14, 2019)

I like that red trim on the base


----------



## bryston (Feb 14, 2019)

slclick said:


> I like that red trim on the base


Yes, that's the one I pre-ordered.


----------



## JP1 (Feb 14, 2019)

Will 3rd party lenses with a canon mount work with the adapter?


----------



## Kit. (Feb 14, 2019)

JP1 said:


> Will 3rd party lenses with a canon mount work with the adapter?


If these lenses are not fully manual, some of them may require a firmware update (or turning off in-camera lens correction).


----------



## JBSF (Feb 14, 2019)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Most of the target market for this body don't hang out in the DPR forums...



You've got that right. Nobody with high blood pressure should ever read comments on DPR.


----------



## flip314 (Feb 14, 2019)

jayphotoworks said:


> The biggest surprise is that this is much less stripped down than I expected. UHSII, mic/headphone jacks, 4K, Eye-AF CAF... In fact, it really is fully featured for its price point especially given how conservative Canon has been in the last few years. Although I'm not looking for an entry level body at this point, this bodes very well for the R flagship this year, especially with confirmation of IBIS around the corner.



I wasn't looking for an entry-level body either, but for the price difference from the R (and the small feature differnce), I'm really tempted to get an RP to tide me over until there's a flagship R. Originally I was going to keep my 80D and get a FF second body, but at the price of the RP I'm tempted to fully move to FF over the next year or two.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 14, 2019)

I've missed the projected delivery date. Anyone seen that? 

It's fear, like when a fox is backed into a corner, that often provokes attacks. The more the attacks the more you can discern the fear. Of course I could be wrong! Don't misinterpret; I'd hate to see any companies going under.

Jack


----------



## cellomaster27 (Feb 14, 2019)

M_S said:


> Says who? Unproven alternative facts? Just let us speak for ourselfs and be done with it. Everybodys mileage may vary.



You say mileage, I say results may vary. I'm not saying that I'm a very good photographer by any means, but I see more people with great cameras that just can't take a photo worth looking at. Regardless of good DR or not. If I need to push a photo to get the results in post and it starts looking like Swiss cheese, I dump it. I got the settings wrong. Before the specs wear you out, let the camera wear you out.


----------



## 1Zach1 (Feb 14, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> I've missed the projected delivery date. Anyone seen that?
> 
> It's fear, like when a fox is backed into a corner, that often provokes attacks. The more the attacks the more you can discern the fear. Of course I could be wrong! Don't misinterpret; I'd hate to see any companies going under.
> 
> Jack


I’m seeing 2/27 as the ship date of pre-orders.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 14, 2019)

M_S said:


> Says who? Unproven alternative facts?



The DR drum has been beaten for nearly a decade now yet Canon marketshare has gone up. That's a pretty good indicator.


----------



## Talys (Feb 14, 2019)

cellomaster27 said:


> You say mileage, I say results may vary. I'm not saying that I'm a very good photographer by any means, but I see more people with great cameras that just can't take a photo worth looking at. Regardless of good DR or not. If I need to push a photo to get the results in post and it starts looking like Swiss cheese, I dump it. I got the settings wrong. Before the specs wear you out, let the camera wear you out.



More DR is great when it let's you capture more detail, like whites that might require stopping down, or more subtle color changes like during blue hour. DR is an enabler of bad photography when used as a crutch because the photographer is too unmotivated to make proper exposures our learn to use a flash.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Feb 14, 2019)

Talys said:


> More DR is great when it let's you capture more detail, like whites that might require stopping down, or more subtle color changes like during blue hour. DR is an enabler of bad photography when used as a crutch because the photographer is too unmotivated to make proper exposures our learn to use a flash.



I think one use case of more DR is insurance when you have no choice but to push the photo into oblivion. Sometimes we make mistakes and in changing conditions, fail to anticipate those conditions. Perhaps it was a backlit bride/groom walking down the aisle or a podium speaker in a position partially shaded by a tarp in windy conditions or simply in situations you don't have full control over. If it allows the shooter to salvage the image, I think its worthwhile to have. I don't normally push any of my images +4ev even as a Sony shooter to somehow satisfy my masochistic nature. It's simply another tool in the toolbox when you need it.


----------



## AlanWill (Feb 14, 2019)

I just love it, but here's a big BUT! As a design engineer I keep the key elements of a new product in focus at all times. One of those key elements in the newish mirrorless cameras is that because of the lack of a prism you have to rely upon the rear LED screen or the electronic view finder for setting up the shot. This needs power -a lot more than a DSLR, which means you are going to run out of power far sooner than than your trusty DSLR ever would. YET, the mirrorless designers are more concerned about size and weight than functionality, and I absolutely cringe when I see a new potentially great mirrorless launched and it has a crappy little battery that can take 250 images! Because the new PR is so small you can fit an extender to make it more comfortable to hold!!!!! Why the hell did the design engineers not rather build a larger grip with an oversized battery that will help us all out in the field?


----------



## ethanz (Feb 14, 2019)

The Fat Fish said:


> Let’s wait for the DR tests before getting too excited. Also at £1399 in the U.K. ($1800) it far less of a deal.



I really don't think we need to wait for the DR tests. It is the same sensor as the 6D2 and same processor as the R. So I think the DR will be somewhere between there.


----------



## snappy604 (Feb 14, 2019)

Talys said:


> More DR is great when it let's you capture more detail, like whites that might require stopping down, or more subtle color changes like during blue hour. DR is an enabler of bad photography when used as a crutch because the photographer is too unmotivated to make proper exposures our learn to use a flash.




Sometimes you don't have control over those things


----------



## slclick (Feb 14, 2019)

There will be a flood of M5 and M50's on the Ebay starting yesterday...glad I dumped mine before the pricing got cutthroat. Now to wait patiently for the Top Shelf R.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 14, 2019)

Probably not important to many but why Canon has changed the packaging of the R and RP to include 2 huge plastic trays? 
Why did they not choose something like cardboard when the world is already choking in plastic?


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 14, 2019)

jayphotoworks said:


> I think one use case of more DR is insurance when you have no choice but to push the photo into oblivion. Sometimes we make mistakes and in changing conditions, fail to anticipate those conditions. Perhaps it was a backlit bride/groom walking down the aisle or a podium speaker in a position partially shaded by a tarp in windy conditions or simply in situations you don't have full control over. If it allows the shooter to salvage the image, I think its worthwhile to have. I don't normally push any of my images +4ev even as a Sony shooter to somehow satisfy my masochistic nature. It's simply another tool in the toolbox when you need it.



It's true one doesn't always have as much control of the light as one might want.

But I've seen it time and time again: In a situation like the windy tarp you describe, the pro often finds a better shooting position with more favorable light angles, while the wanna' bees keep standing in the worst possible spot and complain about the light while hoping their camera's DR will save them.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 14, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> Sometimes you don't have control over those things



Sometimes you do, but are just too lazy to set up a proper reflector.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 14, 2019)

Talys said:


> More DR is great when it let's you capture more detail, like whites that might require stopping down, or more subtle color changes like during blue hour. DR is an enabler of bad photography when used as a crutch because the photographer is too unmotivated to make proper exposures our learn to use a flash.


I always carry a studio flash with me in my canoe 

Seriously though, sometimes you don't have the proper gear with you, and in the case of flashes, often you are not allowed to use one in the venue. And often you are confined to shooting from a set position and the lighting of the scene is something that you have no control over. I can't tell you how many times I had a flash sitting in my bag and was not allowed to use it


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 14, 2019)

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.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 14, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Probably not important to many but why Canon has changed the packaging of the R and RP to include 2 huge plastic trays?
> Why did they not choose something like cardboard when the world is already choking in plastic?



Most likely it's cheaper. The RF 24-105 that came in the kit didn't even have the "white box." Likewise, the RF 35 came bundled in paper and not with the traditional upper and lower styrofoam caps.


----------



## slclick (Feb 14, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> Most likely it's cheaper. The RF 24-105 that came in the kit didn't even have the "white box." Likewise, the RF 35 came bundled in paper and not with the traditional upper and lower styrofoam caps.


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.


----------



## snappy604 (Feb 14, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Sometimes you do, but are just too lazy to set up a proper reflector.




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.


----------



## snappy604 (Feb 14, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I always carry a studio flash with me in my canoe
> 
> Seriously though, sometimes you don't have the proper gear with you, and in the case of flashes, often you are not allowed to use one in the venue. And often you are confined to shooting from a set position and the lighting of the scene is something that you have no control over. I can't tell you how many times I had a flash sitting in my bag and was not allowed to use it



you should time your entire canoe trip to the golden hours and carry an entire studio you insensitive clod! ;-)... hehe kidding aside yeah its weird that people don't get there are many use case scenarios where you cannot control things and while not everything, a high DR helps. 

oh and don't forget to put a reflector against the birds in flight  it will help tremendously!


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 14, 2019)

I do care about the DR. It's now been confirmed it's the same sensor as in 6DII, so this little beautiful beast won't work for me as a secondary body for landscapes. It'll probably sell very well though, so indirectly I'm happy for Canon, maybe they'll have R&D budged for a camera with the specs that suit *me*.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Feb 14, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> 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.



Good point. But do you know the reason for those expensive filters? You can't "make" a single image with a 30 second timer without a proper filter. If you want it at a certain ISO/aperture, you need filters. What if you're taking a photograph of a waterfall and you want that at 4 second timer at F8 ISO 100, it's in the middle of the day and above the waterfall, the sun is blazing the sky. You stack an ND filter (probably 10 stop), polarizer to take the glare off the water, then a hard edge ND grad to balance out the light. Don't tell me "usable" DR is going to make your image what the above would do. No way.
This is now going into the realm of just a black box, isn't it. I'm talking about pushing DR. When an image is shot, that is the time and scene according to the user of the camera to capture what's in front of them. If you say that it's all computational, then what is photography versus "made" images? I'll say it now, but it's basically impossible to create something with just the information that is received on the sensor. You'll need a fancy algorithm that is hopefully as creative and smart as the human eye/brain/senses that makes the image. I would hate to take photos without much thought, then come home to create what I think is beautiful. Most of the enjoyment of taking photos is being in the moment. Is it just me?


----------



## slclick (Feb 14, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I do care about the DR. It's now been confirmed it's the same sensor as in 6DII, so this little beautiful beast won't work for me as a secondary body for landscapes. It'll probably sell very well though, so indirectly I'm happy for Canon, maybe they'll have R&D budged for a camera with the specs that suit *me*.


The 6D was known as a gem for landscapes due to it's very clean iso 100, was the Mk2 that different? This is the opposite of every owner of the 6D series I have met, heard of and read about.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 14, 2019)

slclick said:


> The 6D was known as a gem for landscapes due to it's very clean iso 100, was the Mk2 that different? This is the opposite of every owner of the 6D series I have met, heard of and read about.



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.


----------



## yungfat (Feb 14, 2019)

When the camera comes out with at hardly to argue $1,299, people may start to argue for the 1 ~ 2 stops of DR on ISO100.

My personal opinion, if DR is the only important things to you, just go to opposite camp as they offer much more better specs camera. 

Many people here stick to Canon not because of the camera, but the Canon EOS system which only body, but lens, ergonomic, menu system, many of us like the colour too. 

Yes, I agreed, everybody may have different mileage. 

My 2 cents.


----------



## jjesp (Feb 14, 2019)

Would be so nice to have a pancake lens for this system! A 35 or 40mm. Or a tiny 28mm f/2.8. Would be so great for street and travel. If it ever happens, I would consider to go back to Canon from Fuji.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 14, 2019)

why are we fixated (yet again) on DR?

This is a freaking fantastic camera for the price! Do you really expect to get a 1DX2 killer at this Price? The real story here is that the cost of entry into FF has been slashed and what does this mean to the 80D line?


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 14, 2019)

cellomaster27 said:


> Good point. But do you know the reason for those expensive filters? You can't "make" a single image with a 30 second timer without a proper filter. If you want it at a certain ISO/aperture, you need filters. What if you're taking a photograph of a waterfall and you want that at 4 second timer at F8 ISO 100, it's in the middle of the day and above the waterfall, the sun is blazing the sky. You stack an ND filter (probably 10 stop), polarizer to take the glare off the water, then a hard edge ND grad to balance out the light. Don't tell me "usable" DR is going to make your image what the above would do. No way.
> This is now going into the realm of just a black box, isn't it. I'm talking about pushing DR. When an image is shot, that is the time and scene according to the user of the camera to capture what's in front of them. If you say that it's all computational, then what is photography versus "made" images? I'll say it now, but it's basically impossible to create something with just the information that is received on the sensor. You'll need a fancy algorithm that is hopefully as creative and smart as the human eye/brain/senses that makes the image. I would hate to take photos without much thought, then come home to create what I think is beautiful. Most of the enjoyment of taking photos is being in the moment. Is it just me?


You obviously haven't used a graduated filter on a high contrast day


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 14, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> why are we fixated (yet again) on DR?
> 
> This is a freaking fantastic camera for the price! Do you really expect to get a 1DX2 killer at this Price? The real story here is that the cost of entry into FF has been slashed and what does this mean to the 80D line?



It is a fantastic camera in principle. I do care, however, about DR because it's important to _me_. I don't _expect_ this camera to be anything. I just look at the price and specs and decide whether or not I want to buy it. Just me, not the whole world.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 14, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It is a fantastic camera in principle. I do care, however, about DR because it's important to _me_. I don't _expect_ this camera to be anything. I just look at the price and specs and decide whether or not I want to buy it. Just me, not the whole world.


Same here.

There is no way I would buy this camera because for me, what it adds as capabilities to what I have, just is not worth it. That said, I think that this will be the big seller of the R line and will move lots of people from crop to FF..... just not for me!

I really want to see what happens with the rumoured high end R. My bet is that it will be two cameras, one speced like the 5D series, and a 1 like monster with an insane amount of computing power to handle AI autofocus and crazy frame rates.......


----------



## slclick (Feb 15, 2019)

It will be awesome to many people,...none of us may or may not be any of those folks. I still hope and anticipate they sell a grundle of them. My landscape body? 5D3, I know, sucks on DR but hey, better than a pinhole with Tri-X.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2019)

M_S said:


> Says who? Unproven alternative facts? Just let us speak for ourselfs and be done with it. Everybodys mileage may vary.


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.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 15, 2019)

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.


----------



## bluediablo (Feb 15, 2019)

To each his own.

Think I'm gonna bite on this one...

Time for a new office camera and let the little original M retire.
That little M unloved and cast out in a fire sale with the 22 went right to work for me, saving countless hours and thousands of dollars, he was always there tucked into the work bag when I needed him, clicking images of precious information. My daughter always wanted him and now he is hers and can be appreciated.
Damn fine little tool for my needs.

To each his own.

DR
First world problems, jeez


----------



## cellomaster27 (Feb 15, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> You obviously haven't used a graduated filter on a high contrast day



since you didn't ask me whether I did or not but rather assumed, I'll just ask.. what's your point?


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 15, 2019)

bluediablo said:


> Time for a new office camera and let the little original M retire.
> That little M unloved and cast out in a fire sale with the 22 went right to work for me, saving countless hours and thousands of dollars, he was always there tucked into the work bag when I needed him, clicking images of precious information. My daughter always wanted him and now he is hers and can be appreciated.
> Damn fine little tool for my needs.



I bought the M during the fire sale on the reputation of the 22mm f/2. I honestly thought I would send it back because of all the negative reviews and comments online. It turned out to be one of the most fun and productive cameras I've owned. Both the 22mm f/2 and the 18-55 kit lens (which I bought later on eBay) have proven to be excellent. Even got a little tilt flash, bag, and spare cards/batteries for it. It's my serious imaging kit when I don't want to carry the weight of a serious imaging kit.

I feel like there was a "jump" in Canon color science somewhere between the 7D and the M. Nothing came out bad on that camera. I barely touched the RAWs in terms of color.

The reviewers couldn't have been more wrong about the M.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> The reviewers couldn't have been more wrong about the M.


It had such poor DR.


----------



## slclick (Feb 15, 2019)

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?


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 15, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> It had such poor DR.



_Triggering intensifies._

Funny thing about that: DxO gave the M worse DR and low light scores than the 7D. I've put thousands of frames on both and the M has always done better on both counts. On high ISO I always felt iffy about 3200 on the 7D but 3200 comes out well on the M.

When you factor in how easy it is to ETTR on the M (full manual with exp preview and turn a dial) then 3200 comes out great.

But I should probably just trash it over the DxO scores and DR and...my God...it has a sensor that's literally over 6 years old! Someone help me order a Sony fast!


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 15, 2019)

slclick said:


> 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 (Feb 15, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



I appreciate actual examples rather than DR blah blah blah.

Jack


----------



## Chuckmet (Feb 15, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> 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!


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 15, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 15, 2019)

slclick said:


> 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 (Feb 15, 2019)

Chuckmet said:


> 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 (Feb 15, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> 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!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 15, 2019)

Come on now, few of us are ever completely happy with gear other wise why would we frequent these threads!

Jack


----------



## jeanluc (Feb 15, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> 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.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 15, 2019)

jeanluc said:


> 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.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 15, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> 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.



dtaylor said:


> * 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.



dtaylor said:


> 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 (Feb 15, 2019)

jeanluc said:


> 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 (Feb 15, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 15, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> 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.



According to this test, no, not better. DR is basically the same across all ISO range.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Char...non EOS 6D,Canon EOS 6D Mark II,Canon EOS 80D

But more megapixels, yes.


----------



## Talys (Feb 15, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> 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. (Feb 15, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> 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.


----------



## degos (Feb 15, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> 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.


----------



## Equinox (Feb 15, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> 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 (Feb 15, 2019)

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.



degos said:


> 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 (Feb 15, 2019)

M_S said:


> 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.


----------



## M_S (Feb 15, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.


Total misinterpretation of my point.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 15, 2019)

jjesp said:


> Would be so nice to have a pancake lens for this system! A 35 or 40mm. Or a tiny 28mm f/2.8. Would be so great for street and travel. If it ever happens, I would consider to go back to Canon from Fuji.



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.


----------



## Chavim (Feb 15, 2019)

Thank you @Canon Rumors Guy, I ordered through your links. Have been a long time reader but haven't updated by camera in over 8 years (5D II).

My main priority is a good quality camera that I can take on my multi-day mountain biking trips. If it wasn't for your tips, I would have gotten the EOS R. But I waited for a even smaller and lighter body (and cheaper).

I almost bought a Fuji X-T3 but I can't believe I got a full frame camera that is almost the same size.

Full frame just works better for my style of photography and it will be a nice update from my 5D II.

Couldn't care less about dynamic range, fps, and all this crap. I really just need a lighter camera that will allow me to carry more water into the backcountry. Really, 400g is 400ml of water, which means I can go a few more hours on my bike without having to find water resupply

Cheers!


----------



## Nelu (Feb 15, 2019)

Chavim said:


> Thank you @Canon Rumors Guy, I ordered through your links. Have been a long time reader but haven't updated by camera in over 8 years (5D II).
> 
> My main priority is a good quality camera that I can take on my multi-day mountain biking trips. If it wasn't for your tips, I would have gotten the EOS R. But I waited for a even smaller and lighter body (and cheaper).
> 
> ...


That's a great point! 
Measure a camera not by DR stops but by the number of extra kilometers and the extra possibly awesome pictures you can get while at it. This is something that really matter for me as well
There's no fun in hiking or back-country biking with a back pain...
Thanks,
Nelu


----------



## slclick (Feb 15, 2019)

Focus stacking! Very cool feature in the RP and since I shoot macro I look forward to seeing it in which ever body I buy to replace my 5D3 one day.


----------



## Trey T (Feb 15, 2019)

What’s the resolution cropped to when I use my EF-S lenses?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 15, 2019)

M_S said:


> 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.



With all due respect I don't see insult in the original statement. I also suspect that some folk simple don't have the ability to use logic. While there are sometimes condescending remarks made on CR, and really there shouldn't be, quite often they are in reply to pretty illogical arguments. Why should statements that are not supported by reasonable evidence or common sense simply go unchallenged. If you say the sky is always orange because you happen to see it only at sunset should I simply accept that or suggest that there is proof that it usually appears blue or is it just my opinion against yours, both equally valid?

I suspect that if it were not for troll like idiotic comments all of the discourse on CR would be much more polite and ultimately_ more useful _to all of us. The only solution I see is to_ not reply_ to at least the lamest of statements that 99% of us know are nonsense but unfortunately many have trouble restraining themselves when they hear Trump-like nonsense statements. That's my opinion.

Jack


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 15, 2019)

Chavim said:


> Thank you @Canon Rumors Guy, I ordered through your links. Have been a long time reader but haven't updated by camera in over 8 years (5D II).
> 
> My main priority is a good quality camera that I can take on my multi-day mountain biking trips. If it wasn't for your tips, I would have gotten the EOS R. But I waited for a even smaller and lighter body (and cheaper).
> 
> ...


And the Canon it lighter than the Fuji! Can't wait to see some pics.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 15, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Hmm... Plenty of DR on which camera exactly?



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).



> 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.



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. This is why I'll make the comment that a 1 stop DR difference between sensors amounts to a few ticks on the NR slider. If you wrote an algorithm to NR the RAW file while leaving it RAW, then fed that file to DxO's software, the software would spit out a higher DR for the same sensor.

Naturally that won't work for 2, 3, 4, 1,000 stops. NR can only do so much. The point is that a DxO reported DR is not a cliff past which all data ceases to exist.



> 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.



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.



> 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.



HDR handles this without issue. For that matter, the water is generally bright and part of the highlight half of the scene which means so do filters. 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 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.



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%. That's a fairly narrow band. When you start getting into contrasty scenes it means a D8x0 might capture the scene in one frame where the 5Ds could not, but often _neither_ can do it successfully in one.

Sony fans also like to point to pictures where they pushed shadows 1ev and say "Canon can't do that" when a D30 could do it.



> 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.



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. E6 film could not have handled that scene. Portra would have struggled, though I imagine MF Portra scanned on a high end scanner could have handled it. The right B&W film and developer could have handled it, though dodging and burning it into place in the darkroom (versus a scan edited in PS) wouldn't have been fun.

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._


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 15, 2019)

M_S said:


> I doubt that you have information about buying decisions or did a poll about buying decisions for a specific camera model.



He didn't claim to.



> 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.



That was the point. DR is nice to have. It's not THE single measure of sensor IQ or camera quality.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 15, 2019)

Chavim said:


> Thank you @Canon Rumors Guy, I ordered through your links. Have been a long time reader but haven't updated by camera in over 8 years (5D II).
> 
> My main priority is a good quality camera that I can take on my multi-day mountain biking trips. If it wasn't for your tips, I would have gotten the EOS R. But I waited for a even smaller and lighter body (and cheaper).
> 
> ...


I’m thinking that the RP and the 24-240 lens might be a great combo for hikers. I wonder how long before A teleconverter shows up, and how well iterforms at F8?


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 15, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> 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.



It doesn't match the wide end of the Tamron, but the Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 is highly regarded for astro and faster still. I picked one up but I've only been able to do a few frames on it. Impressed so far. Just make sure you get a good copy.


----------



## snappy604 (Feb 15, 2019)

slclick said:


> Focus stacking! Very cool feature in the RP and since I shoot macro I look forward to seeing it in which ever body I buy to replace my 5D3 one day.



fun/useful feature, interesting to see them offer it finally. Its been around on some older canons, depending if they were supported by Magic Lantern. I think they should just outright hire the guy from Magic Lantern and pay him a bucket of money.. Imagine what he could do with a salary and more importantly without having to reverse engineer everything!


----------



## 1Zach1 (Feb 15, 2019)

Trey T said:


> What’s the resolution cropped to when I use my EF-S lenses?


3888x2592, 10.1MP


----------



## padam (Feb 15, 2019)

No matter how absurdly crippled this camera is for video, <sigh> the footage within those narrow limits is still very pleasing <sigh> (pros and cons in the description)


----------



## ethanz (Feb 15, 2019)

padam said:


> No matter how absurdly crippled this camera is for video, <sigh> the footage within those narrow limits is still very pleasing <sigh> (pros and cons in the description)



That looks pretty good, especially with no sharpening added PP.


----------



## padam (Feb 15, 2019)

Yes, pretty similar look to the 6DII actually (probably better than an M50, but especially in low light), without the 1080p softness but with a ton of rolling shutter.





If that wasn't so crystal-clear until now: Canon could make a stills camera, with video that could easily be mistaken for a Cinema camera.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 15, 2019)

The weird thing is that these were _the first_ 4k videos I was looking at on my 4k screen.


----------



## ethanz (Feb 15, 2019)

Kit. said:


> The weird thing is that these were _the first_ 4k videos I was looking at on my 4k screen.



But 4K has been around for a decade, where have you been? The whole world watches in 4K and will start switching en masse to 8K this year.


----------



## slclick (Feb 15, 2019)

ethanz said:


> But 4K has been around for a decade, where have you been? The whole world watches in 4K and will start switching en masse to 8K this year.


you forgot the /s


----------



## ethanz (Feb 15, 2019)

slclick said:


> you forgot the /s



I hope it was evident enough that it was assumed.


----------



## slclick (Feb 15, 2019)

ethanz said:


> I hope it was evident enough that it was assumed.


You just never know with some folks


----------



## jjesp (Feb 15, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> 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.



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....


----------



## Kit. (Feb 16, 2019)

jjesp said:


> 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!


Really hope that Canon makes it 24mm for RF.

I can live with f/2.8, but not without 24 (or shorter).


----------



## slclick (Feb 16, 2019)

jjesp said:


> 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....


Love my 40, it has a semi permanent home on my film body.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 16, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> 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).



My first DSLR was 550D, then I changed a few models before getting from amateur to more serious photography with 5DIV.
550D fails in simple scenes with no sky at all, just highlights and shadows. The shadows could only be recovered to a very moderate degree before producing a regular grid of banding not reducible with noise reduction.
70D worked better still having very noisy shadows.
5DIV would have worked just fine in many cases.



dtaylor said:


> 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.



I don't care about DXO much (well I do, but with a solid grain of salt), I have a collection of my own old raw files since 550D and I can see huge difference between then and now with 5DIV.



dtaylor said:


> 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.



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

Note the detail in the brightest parts of the splash is _almost _lost, it's on the edge, yet I have not noisy shadows with all the details.
550D or 70D would have just failed there, unfortunately. Proper exposure with those cameras would have meant much darker shadows and not so interesting image.



dtaylor said:


> 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.



For that I use CIR-PL which helps to some extent. I normally want to remove specular highlights on the water, they won't look any close to the reality anyway, just pure white spots that don't look sparkling at all.



dtaylor said:


> 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.



Damn I'm not a Sony fan at all, I've been using Canon cameras and Canon-only glass for many years.  And likely will be. I'm a 5DIV fan, however, so again, from a secondary camera or a replacement I expect a similar performance. A secondary can be a bit worse but not too much. I'm a pixel-peeper and easily get frustrated, I don't wan't to be frustrated with the DR of my camera. 



dtaylor said:


> To give one example: there is a 2.3 stop difference between a 5Ds and a D8x0. That's 19%.



It's not linear though. It's not 19% at all. 2.3 stop difference is big, it's 2^2.3 = 4.9 times more light!



dtaylor said:


> 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.



Errrm no, I can really see a lot of detail in the left image. There's only a couple of totally dark, but small spots for me. Just a couple of weeks ago had my monitor calibrated btw.



dtaylor said:


> 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._



Compared to 5DIV - not hugely horrible but disappointing and limiting. I may be spoiled but I just don't want to go back.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 16, 2019)

We do get spoiled. For example, I have my spot focus point linked to exposure and I'd hate to give that up, especially since I prefer to shoot in manual exposure mode ... wonder how the RP will do in that area? Oops, I forgot it's a $1299 USD camera.  

Spoiled is am understatement.

Jack


----------



## Kit. (Feb 16, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> 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.

But personally, I would prefer to re-shoot it with more favorable lighting.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 16, 2019)

Kit. said:


> 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.



Do you have examples of your HDR shots of breaking waves and splashes? I'd be very interested to see. Especially with 0.5sec exposure. Honestly I didn't know I could do HDR with relatively long exposure and on rapidly changing objects.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 16, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Do you have examples of your HDR shots of breaking waves and splashes? I'd be very interested to see.


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.



Quarkcharmed said:


> Especially with 0.5sec exposure. Honestly I didn't know I could do HDR with relatively long exposure and on rapidly changing objects.


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.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 16, 2019)

Kit. said:


> 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.



That was taken about 15-20 minutes after sunrise, I'm not sure what made you think it was a harsh daylight. Before sunrise or with overcast sky, the rocks look flat and not so interesting.



Kit. said:


> 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?



The stones don't move, but what you've described is not HDR. It's exposure blending.



Kit. said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 16, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That was taken about 15-20 minutes after sunrise, I'm not sure what made you think it was a harsh daylight.


Because it's daylight and it's harsh. Just look at the shadows. Some haze on the sky wouldn't hurt.



Quarkcharmed said:


> The stones don't move, but what you've described is not HDR. It's exposure blending.


That's what HDR does.



Quarkcharmed said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 16, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Because it's daylight and it's harsh. Just look at the shadows. Some haze on the sky wouldn't hurt.



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.



Kit. said:


> That's what HDR does.



It's not what HDR does. HDR and exposure blending are different techniques, although they both use multiple shots with different exposures. Anyway normally you will struggle to either blend or do HDR in those conditions, the swell in such places may be 1-2m and more and the waterline on the rocks will also change drastically within a fraction of a second - there's no easy way to blend. There's too much movement.



Kit. said:


> 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.



I can lift the shadows more with no noise, just don't think it's needed. Thanks for the tips on how to save the image though.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 16, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> 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.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 16, 2019)

Kit. said:


> 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 don't think so simply because of the histogram of the original unedited image (pls see a crop + histogram below). 2 stops less than 5DIV - and I'd lose either shadows or the subject (the splash). Because the splash here is more important, I'd have to sacrifice the shadows.
As you can see, there's lots of important information in the shadows and the brightest parts of the splash are blown out and don't look good. After the recovery, I have both shadows and detail in the splash. From the histogram you can see the exposure was just right for the scene and it allowed to use all DR the camera has.






Kit. said:


> 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 new RP is 2 stops worse, so it'll most likely struggle here. That's why I took this image as an example.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 16, 2019)

I don't think so. I think it's a jpeg artifact.

This is a photo of similar contrast shot with 5D2:




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:_


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2019)

Kit. said:


> 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.


The frequency with which ~1 extra stop of sensor DR makes a meaningful difference in output is very low.

The frequency with which the molehill of that 1-stop difference becomes a mountain on the Internet is very high.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 16, 2019)

What is the jpeg artifact exactly?..

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?



Kit. said:


> I don't think so. I think it's a jpeg artifact.
> 
> This is a photo of similar contrast shot with 5D2:
> 
> ...


----------



## Kit. (Feb 16, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> What is the jpeg artifact exactly?..


If you try to push the image you provided, you will see that the details are "lost".



Quarkcharmed said:


> 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?


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.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 16, 2019)

Or will you prefer this view for a 100% crop?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 16, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The frequency with which ~1 extra stop of sensor DR makes a meaningful difference in output is very low.
> 
> The frequency with which the molehill of that 1-stop difference becomes a mountain on the Internet is very high.



The difference between 5DIV and PR is about 2 stops, if I get it right. The frequency with which it'll make a meaningful difference in output hugely depends on your individual typical shooting scenarios. I'm scratching the limits of my 5DIV quite often. That's me and i don't claim everyone needs a huge DR. But claiming that low DR is fine and even makes you a better photographer also sounds strange to me.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 16, 2019)

I provided both edited with lifted shadows and unedited. With edited, I can push the shadows further without getting noise - using the original raw CR2, of course.

You provided just one image and it's a jpeg. 100% cropped fragment doesn't make it a new image. Lifting shadows in it causes an awful result, but you have, I assume, the original raw file and you can lift the shadows on your side and show us the result.



Kit. said:


> If you try to push the image you provided, you will see that the details are "lost".
> 
> 
> 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.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 16, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Or will you prefer this view for a 100% crop?
> View attachment 183173



Is it with the lifted shadows on a raw file? Not much of a lift and quite noisy, to be honest.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 16, 2019)

I am not a pro and I am not presently engaged in this degree of shadow lifting etc. I do however have a sense of what's appealing and I can say that for my taste I get this impression. I know what looks natural when I walk around in nature and I see deep shadows with no detail and likewise highlights that my eye can't discern information within. When a photo has this detail in it, my brain goes into, "there is something wrong here, this is not natural", mode. In other words I don't find it appealing.

Now maybe the issue is seeing HDR that has not been well done. One scene that an unnamed person was praising had so much detail it was even confusing why the sun was illuminating areas that it would never reach. I could say the similar thing about portraits with all the blemishes removed. I guess it depends on what final outcome a person wants or thinks others want.

I suspect that my interests being mainly in wildlife places me in a different category than those that want the maximum DR. For me, I need/want high ISO IQ. Just my thoughts.

Jack


----------



## Kit. (Feb 16, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Is it with the lifted shadows on a raw file? Not much of a lift and quite noisy, to be honest.


What did you expect me to do, turn a dark wet stone into a _white_ one? It is as noisy as a 100% crop is... surprisingly, the "lifted shadows" area in _your_ picture doesn't show more details than this one (it wasn't a 100% crop, wasn't it?) and still suffers from color noise.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> The difference between 5DIV and PR is about 2 stops, if I get it right. The frequency with which it'll make a meaningful difference in output hugely depends on your individual typical shooting scenarios. I'm scratchin the limits of my 5DIV quite often. That's me and i don't claim everyone needs a huge DR. But claiming that low DR is fine and even makes you a better photographer also sounds strange to me.


It’s ~1.6 stops per DxO. I think you’re missing the point, although the way you phrase it is a commonly employed strawman. It’s not that ‘low DR is fine’ - more DR is always better. But it’s rare that scenes have a DR that exceeds 11 stops but does not exceed 12.6 stops. Not impossible, but rare. More commonly, scenes have DR that either fits comfortably below either sensors’ capability or exceeds both, and in the latter case something additional is required if you want a high-quality image representing the scene’s DR (merging multiple exposures by various methods, GNDs, etc.).


----------



## jjesp (Feb 16, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Really hope that Canon makes it 24mm for RF.
> 
> I can live with f/2.8, but not without 24 (or shorter).


I don't think it is possible to make a pancake lens in 24mm full frame. As I heard it can only be made around 35-40mm view.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 16, 2019)

jjesp said:


> I don't think it is possible to make a pancake lens in 24mm full frame. As I heard it can only be made around 35-40mm view.


There is a "body cap" Perar 24 lens for Leica M (27.8 mm flange distance), but it is f/4. RF is 20mm flange distance, so maybe... although it won't be easy, because of the sensor microlenses.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 17, 2019)

Kit. said:


> What did you expect me to do, turn a dark wet stone into a _white_ one? It is as noisy as a 100% crop is... surprisingly, the "lifted shadows" area in _your_ picture doesn't show more details than this one (it wasn't a 100% crop, wasn't it?) and still suffers from color noise.



That's absolutely not true, if I lift shadows more on my original raw file, there's virtually no noise (check below). It's simply a different league from your 100% crop https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...s-rp-camera-and-kits.36718/page-6#post-765521
Your 100% crop with the recovered shadows is simply not usable.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That's absolutely not true, if I lift shadows more on my original raw file, there's virtually no noise (check below).


But I see noise there, and I absolutely don't like it.

The same with mushy underexposed overpushed Sony sensor images that people use to "prove" Sony's "superior" dynamic range. They may have less color noise, but they still look bad.



Quarkcharmed said:


> Your 100% crop with the recovered shadows is simply not usable.


Both are usable if they are _the shadows_. Both are unusable if they are the main subject. Both after "recovering shadows" show clear signs of underexposure.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 17, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s ~1.6 stops per DxO.



According to this measurement, it's almost 2 stops, although apparently they use different methods:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Char... II,Canon EOS 5D Mark IV,Canon EOS 6D Mark II

Note 5DII and 6DII perform almost the same and we've seen the noisy shadows from 5DII in the 100% crops above.



neuroanatomist said:


> I think you’re missing the point, although the way you phrase it is a commonly employed strawman. It’s not that ‘low DR is fine’ - more DR is always better. But it’s rare that scenes have a DR that exceeds 11 stops but does not exceed 12.6 stops. Not impossible, but rare.



Rare for whom and for which shooting scenarios? With controlled strobe/flash light, it's almost never. For concerts/sports, it becomes more significant. For nature/landscapes, I'm pushing the limits of my 5DIV very often. I do use grad ND sometimes and still feel I'd like to have a bit more of DR. With 6DII sensor, I'd have used blending much more often, and many shots would have not been possible.

I've already given this shot https://500px.com/photo/290893861/bombo-quarry-splash-2-by-michael-borisenko as an example where HDR is impossible and successful blending is highly improbable, and the shot uses all available DR.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 17, 2019)

Kit. said:


> But I see noise there, and I absolutely don't like it.



Sorry this conversation gets ridiculous. There's no noise, full stop. Everyone can see it form the 100% crop I provided. There's grainy rock texture, same as on the highlighted parts, but it's not the noise. There's darker smooth wet rock texture at the bottom and you can clearly see there's no noise on it. Also noise reduction slider was at 0.
When I push exposure further by ~2 stops, only then the shadow starts showing some subtle noise.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> According to this measurement, it's almost 2 stops, although apparently they use different methods:
> http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 5D Mark II,Canon EOS 5D Mark IV,Canon EOS 6D Mark II


From Bill Claff’s data that you link, it’s 1.7-stops at ISO 100, and slightly less than 1.6-stops at the maximum DR of which the 5DIV and 6DII are capable (which isn’t ISO 100 for the 6DII). ‘Eyeballing’ photographic composition works well, but that’s not the way to read and interpret quantitative data. 



Quarkcharmed said:


> Sorry this conversation gets ridiculous.


Yes, even if your statement of ‘almost 2 stops’ was correct, please realize that you’re quibbling over less than half a stop. That absolutely qualifies as getting ridiculous.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 17, 2019)

This thread has got .


----------



## ethanz (Feb 17, 2019)




----------



## M_S (Feb 18, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> He didn't claim to.


He answered: "...nor probably for most potential buyers of the EOS RP." He used that sentence to support his argument about the importance of DR. In doing so he suggests that this statement is true, or at least for the most part, otherwise that part would have been useless to write. He suggests that he has the knowledge or a good insight that the other person doesn't have. It's short before writing "shut up". Hence my rant about this, as this can produce negative vibes. Would he have written "since I have the feeling that" or "looking at the sales numbers of the R or RP in relation to..." the argument would have been more self-reflective and substantial. Anyhow, I am done with this conversation, I have better things to do.


----------



## runbei (Feb 18, 2019)

Adorama told me RP is selling like crazy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 18, 2019)

M_S said:


> He answered: "...nor probably for most potential buyers of the EOS RP." He used that sentence to support his argument about the importance of DR. In doing so he suggests that this statement is true, or at least for the most part, otherwise that part would have been useless to write. He suggests that he has the knowledge or a good insight that the other person doesn't have. It's short before writing "shut up". Hence my rant about this, as this can produce negative vibes. Would he have written "since I have the feeling that" or "looking at the sales numbers of the R or RP in relation to..." the argument would have been more self-reflective and substantial. Anyhow, I am done with this conversation, I have better things to do.


If you cannot comprehend facts and make a logical deduction based upon those facts, then yes...I am ‘suggesting that I have knowledge or a good insight that you don’t have’. Canon’s competitors have delivered better low ISO DR for a decade. Canon has not lost market share to those competitors. Canon is also the top seller of FF ILCs. Therefore, low ISO DR is not a critical factor in the purchasing decisions for the majority of ILC buyers. Facts and a logical deduction. Simple.

Enjoy doing those ‘better things’, hopefully they don’t require logic or deductive reasoning.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2019)

runbei said:


> Adorama told me RP is selling like crazy.


How can that be? It’s almost like price is more important to the masses than DR at low ISO! Low ISO DR is the holy grail! I could have used more of it yesterday when I was shooting with my 6D2 at ISO 5000!


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 19, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> 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.



Key word in my previous comment: _Sometimes._

But as one who does a lot of band photos in low light bars, sometimes you have more control than you think. Asking whoever handles the lights for the bar to turn up the green LEDs (when they use those nasty magenta/green/blue LED spots on stage) if only the magenta and blue LEDs are on, for instance, can make a huge difference in your results.

It's the difference between this:



(5D Mark III + EF 50mm f/1.4. ISO 5000, f/2.2, 1/50)

(Which looked like this with auto WB before a lot of work with CT/WB adjustment as well as with the HSL tool)



And this (from the same stage):



(5D Mark III + EF 135mm f/2. ISO 3200, f/2.2, 1/100)


So can moving around a bit to use the light you do have to an advantage. Sometimes you do have to resort to post-processing wizardry. But even then, my (according to some) "pitiful" and "outdated" Canon 5D Mark II and 5D Mark III sensors with "horrible" low ISO DR do okay.

This place doesn't even have a real "stage", much less any stage lighting, unless you count those strip lights.



(5D Mark II + EF 50mm f/1.4. ISO 6400, f/2.2, 1/80. Lots of color correction.)

But there are some spots where you can get decent light angles from the TVs high on the wall above the mirrors behind the bar.



(5D Mark III + EF 135mm f/2. ISO 6400, f/2.2, 1/100. Pushed 1/3 stop in post.)

Another band in the same place after the strip lights had been removed:



(5D Mark II + EF 50mm f/1.4. ISO 5000, f/2.2, 1/125 and pushed 2/3 stop in post. Contrast and highlights reduced a bit and shadows pushed a bit more, and a lot of color correction.)

Sometimes instead of getting the shot you want (shadow on the face the entire night):



(5D Mark III + EF 135mm f/2. ISO 5000, f/2.2, 1/100. Contrast reduced, highlights pulled a bit and shadows pushed a bit more.)

You have to take the shots the light will give you:



(5D Mark III, EF 135mm f/2. ISO 5000, f/2.2, 1/100, Contrast reduced, highlights pulled a bit and shadows pushed a bit more.)



(5D Mark III, EF 135mm f/2. ISO 5000, f/2.2, 1/80. Pushed 1/2 stop and a green filter applied.)


----------



## M_S (Feb 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you cannot comprehend facts and make a logical deduction based upon those facts, then yes...I am ‘suggesting that I have knowledge or a good insight that you don’t have’. Canon’s competitors have delivered better low ISO DR for a decade. Canon has not lost market share to those competitors. Canon is also the top seller of FF ILCs. Therefore, low ISO DR is not a critical factor in the purchasing decisions for the majority of ILC buyers. Facts and a logical deduction. Simple.
> 
> Enjoy doing those ‘better things’, hopefully they don’t require logic or deductive reasoning.


I rest my case as this is exactly the tone I am referring to!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2019)

M_S said:


> I rest my case as this is exactly the tone I am referring to!


LOL. You have to actually make some sort of case before you can rest it. As for tone, let’s revisit where the combative tone entered into the discussion, shall we?


M_S said:


> Says who? Unproven alternative facts? Just let us speak for ourselfs and be done with it. Everybodys mileage may vary.



I replied with the facts that support my statement, but it seems you found them unpalatable or chose to ignore them...a regrettably common reaction for some when their statements are challenged by data.


Oh, and obviously you were wrong about this, too:


M_S said:


> Anyhow, I am done with this conversation, I have better things to do.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 19, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> 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.



Have you ever shot with Pan-X, Tri-X, or HP5? How about Kodachrome 64 or Velvia 50/100? In medium or large format? One still needed filters for many types of scenes that exceeded the 14 stops of DR of the best B&W film stocks.



dtaylor said:


> 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.



BINGO!!!



Quarkcharmed said:


> The stones don't move, but what you've described is not HDR. It's exposure blending.



It's all HDR imaging.

The only difference is how broadly or narrowly you decide to define the term _High Dynamic Range Imaging (HDR)_. Do you use the broader term as it has been historically used for over 150 years to reference techniques used to display details in a scene with higher dynamic range than the dynamic range of the display medium? Or do you insist on a very narrow definition that uses techniques that have only been around a couple of decades to argue that the only legitimate definition of _HDR_ is an 8-bit tone-mapped version of a 32-bit floating point light map created by combining multiple bracketed exposures? That's pretty much it.

_HDR_ as the term is commonly used today is only one form of _High Dynamic Range Imaging (HDRI)_ that has been going on since at least the 1850s.

Gustave Le Gray took multiple exposures at different exposure values to create seascapes that used the bright sky from one glass plate negative and the darker sea and shore from another.

The _zone system_ when shooting and developing and _tone mapping_ performed in the darkroom in the mid-20th century was raised to an art form by Ansel Adams and others as they used developing times of film and dodging and burning of prints to lower the total dynamic range of a scene to what the photo papers they were using were capable of displaying. That's a form of HDR imaging.

In the realm of digital photography there are multiple techniques used to depict a scene with a _High Dynamic Range_ using a medium, such as a computer monitor or print, that is not capable of as great a contrast between the brightest and darkest parts of a scene as the scene itself contains. The narrow understanding that many people mean when they say HDR is only one such technique among many that can all legitimately be considered _High Dynamic Range Imaging_.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> It's all HDR imaging.
> 
> The only difference is how broadly or narrowly you decide to define the term _High Dynamic Range Imaging (HDR)_. Do you use the broader term as it has been historically used for over 150 years to reference techniques used to display details in a scene with higher dynamic range than the dynamic range of the display medium? Or do you insist on a very narrow definition that uses techniques that have only been around a couple of decades to argue that the only legitimate definition of _HDR_ is an 8-bit tone-mapped version of a 32-bit floating point light map created by combining multiple bracketed exposures? That's pretty much it.
> 
> ...


No. Or more appropriately, 01001110 01101111 (which is ‘no’ in binary for the Luddites out there). Get with the program. This is the digital age.

HDR is a menu choice on an image processing program. More than that, it really only counts as HDR if you use the options dialog to select grunge or painterly.

I don’t know what all that other stuff is, but I do know it’s not HDR (well, I do know that dodging is something children play with a ball, and if something is burning you need to call the fire department).

Anyone who thinks all of that other mumbo-jumbo is actually HDR has clearly been spending too much time memorizing the answers to the yellow questions of Trivial Pursuit: Photography Edition.

Well, enough chitchat…a friend just rang me up on the party line, I’m off to do some portrait photography, just need to pick up my cable release and a tin of flash powder.


----------



## snappy604 (Feb 20, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Key word in my previous comment: _Sometimes._
> 
> But as one who does a lot of band photos in low light bars, sometimes you have more control than you think. Asking whoever handles the lights for the bar to turn up the green LEDs (when they use those nasty magenta/green/blue LED spots on stage) if only the magenta and blue LEDs are on, for instance, can make a huge difference in your results.
> 
> (5D Mark III, EF 135mm f/2. ISO 5000, f/2.2, 1/80. Pushed 1/2 stop and a green filter applied.)



I was addressing this "Sometimes you do, but are just too lazy to set up a proper reflector. " which was a BS answer. I had already said 'sometimes' as well, so yes I agree sometimes people can just move around or use things to control their lighting, but there are MANY valid reasons you can't and having additional capabilities helps.

Try putting reflectors in most bars and you'll be booted out. Too much flash and same. Glad you do take band pics, and while interesting it's a fairly different venue/style than I usually get access to.

You have options to move around and of a 2nd floor.. I'm often jostling with the fans. I hear you on the color correction and lighting, but most venues ignore you and you don't have a choice, especially ones that mix 'dance EDM' lighting with live bands. Too much colour correction and it doesn't look like the vibe of the venue either.

What I did find interesting is just how much better you can push your ISOs with a full frame. I can't realistically go above 3200 on a crop without major noise. FF does seem to give you up to 6400 (and maybe 10k now) as a usable option. 

Animals don't take to reflectors as they fly off. Sports in an arena don't either. High ISO, High aperture, high shutter, able to pull shadows.. that helps.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 20, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> I was addressing this "Sometimes you do, but are just too lazy to set up a proper reflector. " which was a BS answer. I had already said 'sometimes' as well, so yes I agree sometimes people can just move around or use things to control their lighting, but there are MANY valid reasons you can't and having additional capabilities helps.
> 
> Try putting reflectors in most bars and you'll be booted out. Too much flash and same. Glad you do take band pics, and while interesting it's a fairly different venue/style than I usually get access to.
> 
> ...



Ehhh, I can go ISO 5000/6400 with the 7D Mark II when I have to as well, but the FF sensors do handle it better. The highlights blow quicker, but if you pull exposure to save the highlights, the shadows look worse when you push them back up. Websized images at 960 px on the long side do cover a lot of noise compared to full resolution.

Just because the images don't show it doesn't mean I wasn't getting beer spilled on me when some of those were taken, LOL. Sometimes the places I shoot can be packed. Sometimes I'm standing on chairs just to see the stage. But you are right, I don't shoot much in "dance" clubs. Sometimes bands I shoot use multi-colored stage lighting that flashes on/off rapidly. Sometimes you just have to set exposure for one combination and then sit on it already pre-focused until the lights come back to the combo you're waiting on.

The only time I use flash in a bar is if I've been hired to shoot an event that's being held there (class reunion, charity fundraiser, etc.). I'm pretty sure I didn't even have a flash on me for any of the images I posted here. As far as reflectors, you don't need your own in a lot of bars. I've never set one of mine up in a bar that was open at the time. There are mirrors or coolers with glass doors or large plate windows or something (even TV screens are reflective) already there. It's just up to you to find a spot where those things are reflecting some of the brighter light sources in the room on your intended subjects.

I've only shot in that place with the balcony two or three times. It is not in my immediate area. I just used it because my "main lights" in those images were the TVs over the bar! The brightest thing in the image below, from the last time I shot there, are the lights inside one of the coolers. That's what is reflecting off the singer's face and giving nice separation from the background. That was after the place started emptying out a little. The balcony was even worse earlier in the evening. It was like a mosh pit just trying to walk through. It's full width, if you call about 25 feet wide and 125 feet long "full" width, in the very front upstairs (there's a second bar across the front of the second floor) and near the back, but it's only about 4 feet wide above the bar on the left wall on the main floor below. This shot was taken from the stairs leading up to the balcony. I had to grab it and keep moving to keep from getting trampled by drunk patrons. (By the way, the name of the band is The Lamont Landers Band. They were on 'Showtime at the Apollo' last Spring and Montel Williams liked them so much he flew them out to L.A. to be on his talk show last Fall. Look them up on Spotify or iTunes if you like old style funk/R&B. I've know the leader since he was in high school - the same one I attended 25-30 years earlier. Ol' red can sing.)


----------



## snappy604 (Feb 20, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Ehhh, I can go ISO 5000/6400 with the 7D Mark II when I have to as well, but the FF sensors do handle it better. The highlights blow quicker, but if you pull exposure to save the highlights, the shadows look worse when you push them back up. Websized images at 960 px on the long side do cover a lot of noise compared to full resolution.



oh yeah I do a fair bit of what you describe and it's a pleasure that someone else gets it, but I what I was rebutting the answer about not knowing or caring about controlling your environment. Meh I think point has been hammered to death. 

this is the kinds of shots I try to take, FF really might help.. Trying to freeze motion in low light is... challenging. now to see if I can convince wife n kids to allow me to plonk $3-4k on my non-paying hobby.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 23, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> oh yeah I do a fair bit of what you describe and it's a pleasure that someone else gets it, but I what I was rebutting the answer about not knowing or caring about controlling your environment. Meh I think point has been hammered to death.
> 
> this is the kinds of shots I try to take, FF really might help.. Trying to freeze motion in low light is... challenging. now to see if I can convince wife n kids to allow me to plonk $3-4k on my non-paying hobby.
> 
> ...



Timing is everything. If you can catch them at the apex of the jump, there's that split second between when they are going up and coming back down...

Ditto for convincing the SO/kids: timing is everything!


----------

