# Dynamic range comparison between the EOS RP, EOS 6D Mark II and EOS R



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 19, 2019)

> The most complained about specification in cameras is currently “dynamic range”. It seems to be the current still photography performance metric people are most passionate about when it comes to image sensors.
> Jared AKA FroKnowsPhoto has decided to a quick and dirty comparison between the Canon EOS RP, Canon EOS 6D Mark II and Canon EOS R. He was unable to do this until the RAW converter for the EOS RP became available.
> 
> The EOS RP has the same sensor as the EOS 6D Mark II, the only difference between the two sensors is the microlens adjustment required for the short flange distance of the RF mount lenses. The EOS RP also has a DIGIC 8 processor, while the EOS 6D Mark II...



Continue reading...


----------



## keithcooper (Feb 19, 2019)

Any precis for those of us who can't be ****d to watch videos or might find the presenter somewhat irksome ;-) ?


----------



## Aussie shooter (Feb 19, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> Any precis for those of us who can't be ****d to watch videos or might find the presenter somewhat irksome ;-) ?


Slight improvement in DR at base ISO for the rp over the r. High ISO bout the same.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2019)

The difference in colors is down to the way Adobe create their profiles. The R is a fraction worse than the 5D MkIV so I’d expect the RP to be a fraction worse than the 6D MkII, I’d expect that to be down to the more challenging micro lens angles as Digic 8 doesn’t really impact RAW processing as I understand it.


----------



## dsut4392 (Feb 19, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> Slight improvement in DR at base ISO for the rp over the r. High ISO bout the same.


 Thank you.


----------



## dsut4392 (Feb 19, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> Any precis for those of us who can't be ****d to watch videos or might find the presenter somewhat irksome ;-) ?


 Aye aye. The trend towards videos is so tedious.


----------



## digitalride (Feb 19, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> Slight improvement in DR at base ISO for the rp over the r. High ISO bout the same.



Are you sure about that? I took away that the RP is maybe slightly just a touch better than the 6Dii. The R is noticeably better than the RP. However I didn't watch the whole thing but tried to skip to the relevant sections.


----------



## Tom W (Feb 19, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> Slight improvement in DR at base ISO for the rp over the r. High ISO bout the same.



I think you might have that reversed - the R was definitely able to pull cleaner shadows up when raised 5 stops, compared to the RF. Granted, 5 stops is a lot, but it is a torture test.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 20, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> Any precis for those of us who can't be ****d to watch videos or might find the presenter somewhat irksome ;-) ?



R handled a +5ev push fairly well (as expected). RP did not (as expected). Fro will slap you across the face if your exposure is off by -5ev (unexpected).

I don't have a fro but I'll throw in my 2 cents. Having played with 5D4 and 6D2 RAWs I would say that with a little post work you can push +5ev from the 5D4/R and +3ev from the 6D2/RP. (I'm judging the R and RP based on their sensor heritage and what I've seen online.) I can push the 5Ds +4ev. With post work you can push the Sony A7 gen 3's and the D8x0 series +6ev. (My frame of reference is landscape shots printable to at least 16x24 without seeing an IQ loss in the shadows.)


----------



## Tom W (Feb 20, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> R handled a +5ev push fairly well (as expected). RP did not (as expected). Fro will slap you across the face if your exposure is off by -5ev (unexpected).
> 
> I don't have a fro but I'll throw in my 2 cents. Having played with 5D4 and 6D2 RAWs I would say that with a little post work you can push +5ev from the 5D4/R and +3ev from the 6D2/RP. (I'm judging the R and RP based on their sensor heritage and what I've seen online.) I can push the 5Ds +4ev. With post work you can push the Sony A7 gen 3's and the D8x0 series +6ev. (My frame of reference is landscape shots printable to at least 16x24 without seeing an IQ loss in the shadows.)



Kind of "as expected", given the R sensor matches the 5D4 and the RP sensor matches the 6D2. I concur about the amount you can push shadows, though I seldom push more than 2 stops in practice, and only in exceptional scenes.

I'm a 5D4 shooter - love that camera. It's awesome. Still, I pre-ordered an RP just to get a taste of the FF mirrorless world. I won't be selling off my 5D4 any time soon, of course.

Also, I just ordered the 24-105 RF lens, after hemming and hawing a few days. Hard to go with such a small camera and then add a ton of lens and adapter just for a "regular" zoom lens. I know that lens will hold its value. And it's the smallest lens to fit the new package, outside of the 35/1.8.


----------



## tmroper (Feb 20, 2019)

I like how he still has a link to buy the RP at the bottom. Always be closing!


----------



## Kharan (Feb 20, 2019)

Tom W said:


> I concur about the amount you can push shadows, though I seldom push more than 2 stops in practice, and only in exceptional scenes.



Well, that would prove the RP wholly inadequate with the 50mm f/1.2, for example - it has over 4 stops of vignetting in the sides and corners, which would make a simple correction already onerous with the 26 MP chip. And if you are shooting a scene that isn't flat or perfectly lit, or miss your exposure by a couple of stops, forget it - you'll either have to live with the vignetting or the noise.


----------



## Tom W (Feb 20, 2019)

Well, in portraiture situations, when you want shallow DOF and the subject dominates center frame, vignetting really isn't much of an issue. Landscape, you're probably stopped down anyway so it won't be an issue. Even by f/2.8, it isn't an issue from what I've read. Haven't tried it yet, obviously, since I don't have the RP yet. I do have the EF 50/1.2 though.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 20, 2019)

Kharan said:


> Well, that would prove the RP wholly inadequate with the 50mm f/1.2, for example - it has over 4 stops of vignetting in the sides and corners, which would make a simple correction already onerous with the 26 MP chip.



IF the vignetting covers deep shadows and IF you want to correct them.



> And if you are shooting a scene that isn't flat or perfectly lit, or miss your exposure by a couple of stops, forget it - you'll either have to live with the vignetting or the noise.



IF there are deep shadows in the scene. We're talking about pushing stuff that would appear to be Zone 0 or 1 before the push in a correct exposure. If your scene doesn't have any of that then you have more room to move.

Pretty much any sensor in the 2000's had DR similar to the 6D2. I do recall needing to blend exposures for landscape scenes. And I remember doing some selective NR on tuxedos in some frames. But I don't recall being unable to correct vignetting or a 1-2 stop underexposure. 

Surely we can construct a test scene where your concerns are validated, but does it occur with any frequency in the real world?


----------



## Kharan (Feb 20, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> IF the vignetting covers deep shadows and IF you want to correct them.
> 
> IF there are deep shadows in the scene. We're talking about pushing stuff that would appear to be Zone 0 or 1 before the push in a correct exposure. If your scene doesn't have any of that then you have more room to move.
> 
> ...



Erm, anything covered by 4 stops of vignetting, unless you're shooting in a studio with a white background or a salt flat, is basically in shadows. If anything outside the center also happens to be darker than the middle, then there's no way to recover those areas to any reasonable degree. I assume one doesn't want to blow the lighter parts of the image, of course.
I often shoot scenes with broad DR. With my 1" camera, which has a similar DR to the 6D, I usually just bracket. I don't like it, but damn it's a convenient camera otherwise. However, I expect more from such a large sensor, especially because the look of native wide DR images tends to be nicer to my eye than that achieved by bracketing and merging exposures.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 20, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Pretty much any sensor in the 2000's had DR similar to the 6D2.


The 6D sensor is fine...its just exactly what you said, years behind pretty much every other company. Its closer to matching a m4/3 sensor than what Sony is producing.

If I'm shooting outdoors, in shifting clouds, I might miss an exposure by a bit. Or on a bright day against an open background, the camera might miss the exposure some. Being able to shoot to save the higlights and push the shadows gives me a lot of room. And having the flexibility to work longer windows at sunrise/sunset without bracketing...especially on days without a lot of clouds. All scenarios where Sony saves me a lot of time post-processing. That's less time I spend in my hotel room processing and more time I have to explore the city I'm in.

Though Im far more annoyed with the battery life decision and the weird video crippling than I am with keeping the 6DII sensor


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 20, 2019)

Kharan said:


> Erm, anything covered by 4 stops of vignetting, unless you're shooting in a studio with a white background or a salt flat, is basically in shadows.



What's covered by the vignette would have to be a fairly dark shadow before any vignetting to give you any trouble.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Feb 20, 2019)

digitalride said:


> Are you sure about that? I took away that the RP is maybe slightly just a touch better than the 6Dii. The R is noticeably better than the RP. However I didn't watch the whole thing but tried to skip to the relevant sections.



Oops. Typo. O meant the rp was slightly better than the 6d2. Not the r.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 20, 2019)

Kharan said:


> Well, that would prove the RP wholly inadequate with the 50mm f/1.2, for example - it has over 4 stops of vignetting in the sides and corners, which would make a simple correction already onerous with the 26 MP chip. And if you are shooting a scene that isn't flat or perfectly lit, or miss your exposure by a couple of stops, forget it - you'll either have to live with the vignetting or the noise.


Yeah, this not true... It MIGHT have 4 stops in a lab test, and I asked the kind guys at TDP who posted that “4 stop vignetting” test how they got that results, because I was seeing about two stops, also I was about skip that lens because of it They explained that it’s a torture test and you probably never see four stops in any real life shot. And that’s true, vignetting with the RF50 is a none issue. You can notice it, but it’s nothing, absolutely nothing to worry about. And as for correction, also no issue even at higher iso’s.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 20, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Yeah, this not true... It MIGHT have 4 stops in a lab test, and I asked the kind guys at TDP who posted that “4 stop vignetting” test how they got that results, because I was seeing about two stops, also I was about skip that lens because of it They explained that it’s a torture test and you probably never see four stops in any real life shot. And that’s true, vignetting with the RF50 is a none issue. You can notice it, but it’s nothing, absolutely nothing to worry about. And as for correction, also no issue even at higher iso’s.



Optical limits found 3.24 ev at f/1.2: "Ultra-high speed lenses produce quite some vignetting on full format sensors and the RF 50mm f/1.2 USM L is no exception to the rule here. At f/1.2 the vignetting exceeds 3EV (f-stops) which is, of course, easily visible. For some this may be an issue whereas others may actually prefer such an effect. Stopping down to f/1.6 and, more so, to f/2 reduces the issue substantially albeit there's still some light falloff visible. Traces remain at f/4 and beyond." https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1055-canonrf50f12?start=1

I can't see any real problem either.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 20, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Optical limits found 3.24 ev at f/1.2: "Ultra-high speed lenses produce quite some vignetting on full format sensors and the RF 50mm f/1.2 USM L is no exception to the rule here. At f/1.2 the vignetting exceeds 3EV (f-stops) which is, of course, easily visible. For some this may be an issue whereas others may actually prefer such an effect. Stopping down to f/1.6 and, more so, to f/2 reduces the issue substantially albeit there's still some light falloff visible. Traces remain at f/4 and beyond." https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1055-canonrf50f12?start=1
> 
> I can't see any real problem either.


Perhaps I can upload a couple of examples later


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 20, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Perhaps I can upload a couple of examples later


I can't see this is an issue either...it's a simple matter of physics. Personally I love the vignetting on my 85mm f1.2 L II wide open...for portraits...it's like a photoshop preset that I don't have to apply. 
It takes a special kind of obsessive who says...I want to shoot a 50mm at f1.2 and I want it pin sharp across the frame with no vignetting....for real???
A stop here or there in low light DR...it's really not that high on my shooting requirements.


----------



## Tom W (Feb 20, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Optical limits found 3.24 ev at f/1.2: "Ultra-high speed lenses produce quite some vignetting on full format sensors and the RF 50mm f/1.2 USM L is no exception to the rule here. At f/1.2 the vignetting exceeds 3EV (f-stops) which is, of course, easily visible. For some this may be an issue whereas others may actually prefer such an effect. Stopping down to f/1.6 and, more so, to f/2 reduces the issue substantially albeit there's still some light falloff visible. Traces remain at f/4 and beyond." https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1055-canonrf50f12?start=1
> 
> I can't see any real problem either.



That's pretty much the rule for lenses with extremely large apertures. The EF 50/1.2 also has significant vignetting at f/1.2, which drops precipitously as you stop down. Pull up any fast prime on the opticallimits.com web page and you'll see a similar pattern, although the RF 50 seems to have a bit more than most.


----------



## John MARK (Feb 20, 2019)

*Oh please Canon, make my dream come true* : a new sensor that can be "pushed" far enough in post to see what was behiind the lens cap I forgot to remove last time I shot a wedding in that badly lit church !!


----------



## digitalride (Feb 20, 2019)

Kharan said:


> it has over 4 stops of vignetting in the sides and corners, which would make a simple correction already onerous with the 26 MP chip.



Does anybody remember anyone complaining about being unable to correct vignetting 10 years ago with the "horrible" dynamic range of digital sensors at that time? Why is it suddenly an issue now?

In general I don't like "it was fine for us back then, it should be good enough for you now" arguments but I am legitimately perplexed by this comment.


----------



## Adelino (Feb 20, 2019)

John MARK said:


> *Oh please Canon, make my dream come true* : a new sensor that can be "pushed" far enough in post to see what was behiind the lens cap I forgot to remove last time I shot a wedding in that badly lit church !!



Use an UV filter as a lens cap ;-)


----------



## smozes (Feb 20, 2019)

Not looking to pull 5 stops, but I've been frustrated with blown out skies with all my Canon cameras. This is disappointing.


----------



## padam (Feb 20, 2019)

preppyak said:


> The 6D sensor is fine...its just exactly what you said, years behind pretty much every other company. Its closer to matching a m4/3 sensor than what Sony is producing.
> 
> If I'm shooting outdoors, in shifting clouds, I might miss an exposure by a bit. Or on a bright day against an open background, the camera might miss the exposure some. Being able to shoot to save the higlights and push the shadows gives me a lot of room. And having the flexibility to work longer windows at sunrise/sunset without bracketing...especially on days without a lot of clouds. All scenarios where Sony saves me a lot of time post-processing. That's less time I spend in my hotel room processing and more time I have to explore the city I'm in.
> 
> Though Im far more annoyed with the battery life decision and the weird video crippling than I am with keeping the 6DII sensor



As fair as 'real-life' image quality is concerned, I really don't think the 6D is years behind (the improvements in recent years have slowed down considerably), and certainly ahead of any crop sensor camera for almost all uses (of course if DR is the most important thing, there are alternatives). Just because it is not up-to-date as a hybrid camera, it is still an excellent stills camera (could very well be the best in terms of cost vs IQ).

I don't think missing exposure is a big problem if the result is already previewed in the EVF and easily correctable.
That being said, the 6D Mark II metering - improved from the 6D - seems to do a fine job as well, so I think the WYSIWYG is a little overrated.

As for saving time in post processing - I spend much less time with Canon images, because of the color being better.


I do agree about the RP battery being the biggest bugbear (for them, it was quite simple, lower price = more raised eyebrows and more sales)


----------



## Tom W (Feb 21, 2019)

Agree on the battery. I'm fortunate - I have an M5 and since it also eats batteries if you stare at the LCD too long, I have an extra battery for it already. Same battery. Would have been nice to have something with a little more life, but with bigger batteries come bigger cameras.


----------



## Kharan (Feb 21, 2019)

digitalride said:


> Does anybody remember anyone complaining about being unable to correct vignetting 10 years ago with the "horrible" dynamic range of digital sensors at that time? Why is it suddenly an issue now?
> 
> In general I don't like "it was fine for us back then, it should be good enough for you now" arguments but I am legitimately perplexed by this comment.



Because some of us have gotten accustomed to better results in the meantime? No, it's not the end of the world, and it can be worked around, but for $4,300 combined (RP + 50mm f/1.2) I expect better. That's not chump change.


----------



## Jethro (Feb 21, 2019)

How often is this sort of vignetting not fixable via a single click in Lightroom?


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 21, 2019)

smozes said:


> Not looking to pull 5 stops, but I've been frustrated with blown out skies with all my Canon cameras. This is disappointing.



All digital sensors are in the same boat here. It's the nature of the way the individual pixels record light. On digital you can push shadows but do not blow your highlights.


----------



## digitalride (Feb 21, 2019)

Kharan said:


> Because some of us have gotten accustomed to better results in the meantime? No, it's not the end of the world, and it can be worked around, but for $4,300 combined (RP + 50mm f/1.2) I expect better. That's not chump change.



What camera+lens have you gotten used to in the meantime? Do you have some examples of the RP + 50mm f/1.2 that show the problem? If you need better shadow pushing capabilities maybe the cheapest canon bodies aren't for you, but I have never looked at a photo shot with a 6Dii or older bodies and said - look at all that ugly noise due to vignetting correction! Maybe the cheapest canon full frame camera is not the most perfect match for a $2000 lens. 

And I don't understand your math, RP for $1300 + RF 50mm f/1.2 for $2000 = $3300, not $4,300. You could spend $5500 on a 5Dsr and 70-200 2.8 and complain it doesn't focus fast enough or have enough reach for birds in flight - that's not chump change but you have to use some sense and buy the right tool for the job. The A7r iii doesn't focus as fast as the A9, the A9 doesn't have the resolution of the A7r iii. Some day maybe there'll be a "best of everything" camera but it's not going to cost $1300 anytime soon. 

Has anyone who actually shoots with a 6D ii or another camera that can only push shadows 4 stops complained about being unable to correct vignetting adequately? Is inadequate vignetting correction a new talking point being pushed by other manufacturers?


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 21, 2019)

I do not like the fact to have reduced DR with the EOS RP - but Canon offers at the moment two options. Which are both well suited for those who like to have a system which works fluently with e.g. existing EF lenses.

I am torn between R and RP:
The R has better video modes I intend to use from time to time and 1...2 stops more DR for those high contrast scenes while shooting against the sun. It's 1500 EUR with the "boring" adapter I do not need. So I had to spent 1700 EUR with the control ring adapter.
The RP is lighter, maybe not so attractive for thieves and has the better mode dial. It's 2000 EUR from Hong Kong with 3 year worldwide warranty extension + 2200 EUR

If I needed the full functionality of the R NOW I would chose the R - 500 EUR more isn't that much more compared to the 1700 bucks.

If I could get the RP for 1100 EUR + 200 EUR for the control ring adapter maybe in 6 months I would buy it just for diving into FF incl. some video for having the fun at 900 EUR less compared to the EOS R. EDIT: And reuse the FD lenses on a FF body like 4.0 17, 1.4 50 S.S.C., both 2.5 and 3.5 135 S.C.

Until I have to make such a decision I will have a lot of fun with the entry level stuff from Canon which IMO does a lot of things right and is IQ wise in APS-C land on the same level like the much "higher level" stuff!


----------



## degos (Feb 21, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Also, I just ordered the 24-105 RF lens ... I know that lens will hold its value.



That's optimistic; the EF 24-105 L II loses 30%+ just by taking it out of the box, at least in the UK. List price £1,015 / street price £949 / common resale around £600.

The era of L lenses holding their value has long since passed, except for rarities like the 11-24 or 17 TSE.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 21, 2019)

Kharan said:


> Because some of us have gotten accustomed to better results in the meantime? No, it's not the end of the world, and it can be worked around, but for $4,300 combined (RP + 50mm f/1.2) I expect better. That's not chump change.



What do you really expect buying a top of the range lens to put on an entry level body?


----------



## maico (Feb 21, 2019)

degos said:


> That's optimistic; the EF 24-105 L II loses 30%+ just by taking it out of the box, at least in the UK. List price £1,015 / street price £949 / common resale around £600.
> 
> The era of L lenses holding their value has long since passed, except for rarities like the 11-24 or 17 TSE.



New gray market EF 24-105 L are well under £600, for example https://www.e-infin.com/uk/item/3270/canon_ef_24-105mm_f/4l_is_ii_usm_lens_mark_2_(white_box)

Doing some number crunching on the RP, list is circa 43% less than the R, so in due course the gray market will be under £800 gbp


----------



## Tom W (Feb 21, 2019)

degos said:


> That's optimistic; the EF 24-105 L II loses 30%+ just by taking it out of the box, at least in the UK. List price £1,015 / street price £949 / common resale around £600.
> 
> The era of L lenses holding their value has long since passed, except for rarities like the 11-24 or 17 TSE.



The "L" lenses generally do well on the Buy and Sell forum on Fred Miranda's site. I've bought and sold a couple of dozen lenses of various types there over the years. I'm in the US - maybe a different market here.
The EF 24-105 I and II are going to lose value a little faster than most L lenses simply because there are so many out there. Supply and demand. Still, a pretty solid lens. There are no stellar 4X zoom lenses.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 21, 2019)

I have the 6D, 6D MKII, 5DS & the EOS R. These kinds of tests are frankly stupid. As Jared said "get your exposure correct, sure there are times that the dynamic range is tested between the brightest part and the darkest part of a scene but if your working within your histogram 99% of the time the shots will be fine. 

I shoot low key portraits with the 5DS, a camera that was slammed at launch for poor dynamic range and rarely have issues even when cropping shots. The 6D & now 6D MKII is my go to camera for landscape and Ive never been concerned with dynamic range issues. Ive yet to shoot in anger with the EOS R but I doubt dynamic range will be my biggest concern. 

If dynamic range is the No.1 concern switch to Sony. We have Sony cameras in our rental fleet they have far lower utilisation than the Nikon & Canon cameras and we are servicing some of the top still photographers in London covering fashion and food advertising on big bucks campaigns.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 21, 2019)

Ok, if I shoot a serious low light landscape...by that I mean...I use a really sturdy tripod, i'm very careful with my metering and exposures and often I take 2 images. One for highlights, one for low lights...then I merge them in Lightroom to create a raw / dng file that contains all the dynamic range of the 2 images. Or I pop them in photoshop and layer them down. Either way...I get eye popping detail...pixel sharpness...and a colour and contrast range at 100iso with super noise free files. You won't get that type of file from pulling even 3 stops....the files just don't compare. So for me, the ex stream DR of the sensor is relatively unimportant. 
I'm sure there are the odd occasions where I was shooting hand held on the fly and I couldn't get the DR that I'd have liked...but that's a very very rare occurrence...and I don't blame my camera for those results.


----------



## photonius (Feb 22, 2019)

dsut4392 said:


> Aye aye. The trend towards videos is so tedious.



Yes, indeed. One has to boycott this. It's slower than reading text, it uses more bandwidth, and uses more energy.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 22, 2019)

Kharan said:


> Well, that would prove the RP wholly inadequate with the 50mm f/1.2, for example - it has over 4 stops of vignetting in the sides and corners, which would make a simple correction already onerous with the 26 MP chip. And if you are shooting a scene that isn't flat or perfectly lit, or miss your exposure by a couple of stops, forget it - you'll either have to live with the vignetting or the noise.


Are you also mounting Michelin Pilot Sport tyres on a Tata Nano?


----------



## Kharan (Feb 23, 2019)

AlanF said:


> What do you really expect buying a top of the range lens to put on an entry level body?


I don’t know with Canon, but with other manufacturers I expect this stuff to work right out of the box. I don’t expect automatic lens corrections to eat all the available DR from the get go, even with a basic body. Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm, Pentax and Panasonic all give you competitive DR even with their entry-level stuff. If Canon can’t provide that, the least I would expect is for them to leverage their oh-so-amazing throat diameter in RF to reduce vignetting to a manageable level.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 23, 2019)

Kharan said:


> I don’t know with Canon, but with other manufacturers I expect this stuff to work right out of the box. I don’t expect automatic lens corrections to eat all the available DR from the get go, even with a basic body. Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm, Pentax and Panasonic all give you competitive DR even with their entry-level stuff. If Canon can’t provide that, the least I would expect is for them to leverage their oh-so-amazing throat diameter in RF to reduce vignetting to a manageable level.



The throat diameter in RF is the same as in EF, so it is hardly "oh-so amazing".


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 23, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Optical limits found 3.24 ev at f/1.2: "Ultra-high speed lenses produce quite some vignetting on full format sensors and the RF 50mm f/1.2 USM L is no exception to the rule here. At f/1.2 the vignetting exceeds 3EV (f-stops) which is, of course, easily visible. For some this may be an issue whereas others may actually prefer such an effect. Stopping down to f/1.6 and, more so, to f/2 reduces the issue substantially albeit there's still some light falloff visible. Traces remain at f/4 and beyond." https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1055-canonrf50f12?start=1
> 
> I can't see any real problem either.



On my RF 50L I see some vignetting at f1.2, but I cannot imagine it being 4 stops. The vignetting is also very smooth and I prefer having it there. Actually, I have opted not to do vignetting correction in any of my RF 50L photos, because I prefer it being there. And yes, I have tried clicking the correction box in Lightroom several times, and undo it because it didn’t make the photo any better.


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 23, 2019)

Kharan said:


> I don’t know with Canon, but with other manufacturers I expect this stuff to work right out of the box. I don’t expect automatic lens corrections to eat all the available DR from the get go, even with a basic body. Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm, Pentax and Panasonic all give you competitive DR even with their entry-level stuff. If Canon can’t provide that, the least I would expect is for them to leverage their oh-so-amazing throat diameter in RF to reduce vignetting to a manageable level.


What planet did you fall off from? Are you not aware that Sony, Fujifilm and Panasonic use lens corrections to correct the horrible distortion and vignetting most of their lenses have?

Which RF lens has unmanageable vignetting? I can tell you that the RF50L does not.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 23, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> On my RF 50L I see some vignetting at f1.2, but I cannot imagine it being 4 stops. The vignetting is also very smooth and I prefer having it there. Actually, I have opted not to do vignetting correction in any of my RF 50L photos, because I prefer it being there. And yes, I have tried clicking the correction box in Lightroom several times, and undo it because it didn’t make the photo any better.


Wait, what, “clicking the correction box” ? Last I checked Adobe still doesn’t have a profile for the RF50, no?


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 24, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Wait, what, “clicking the correction box” ? Last I checked Adobe still doesn’t have a profile for the RF50, no?



Hmm.. I must have mixed it up with another lens. Sorry! However, two days ago I turned on the JPG engine in the R, shooting RAw+JPG, because my father is interested in the R and he doesn’t want to use raw. All corrections were on in camera. Yesterday I edited the raws switching between the raw and the in camera produces JPG, and for one, I didn’t see anything near a three or four stop difference. Second, I preferred the files without vignetting correction.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 24, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> Hmm.. I must have mixed it up with another lens. Sorry! However, two days ago I turned on the JPG engine in the R, shooting RAw+JPG, because my father is interested in the R and he doesn’t want to use raw. All corrections were on in camera. Yesterday I edited the raws switching between the raw and the in camera produces JPG, and for one, I didn’t see anything near a three or four stop difference. Second, I preferred the files without vignetting correction.


I agree! The four stops is only at infinity focus and worst case scenario set up in studio. I also correct manually, then pull back because I preferred it’s vignetting


----------



## dtgphoto (Feb 24, 2019)

smozes said:


> Not looking to pull 5 stops, but I've been frustrated with blown out skies with all my Canon cameras. This is disappointing.


Do you not use the histogram? Shoot in manual ideally and never an issue.. Shoot in AV and adjust the eV to make the histogram right and its not an issue either. Shoot in AV or auto modes and you are going to get unpredictable results.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 24, 2019)

dtgphoto said:


> Do you not use the histogram? Shoot in manual ideally and never an issue.. Shoot in AV and adjust the eV to make the histogram right and its not an issue either. Shoot in AV or auto modes and you are going to get unpredictable results.


Exactly, expose correctly to get the best possible starting point for editing, ETTR and I seriously don’t get how to get it wrong.

With the R and having the RGB histogram in the VF makes it impossible not to get the optimal exposure always. Fast’n easy..


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2019)

Kharan said:


> I don’t know with Canon, but with other manufacturers I expect this stuff to work right out of the box. I don’t expect automatic lens corrections to eat all the available DR from the get go, even with a basic body. Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm, Pentax and Panasonic all give you competitive DR even with their entry-level stuff. If Canon can’t provide that, the least I would expect is for them to leverage their oh-so-amazing throat diameter in RF to reduce vignetting to a manageable level.


By the way, the Sony 24-105 f/4 has 5.4ev of vignetting https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1034-sony24105f4goss?start=1 compared with 2.6ev for the Canon 24-105mm RF https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1056-canonrf24105f4is?start=1 ("it's not excessive and it's much better than on the Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS. says opticalimits). 5.4ev eats up rather a lot of DR, if DR concerns you!


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 24, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Exactly, expose correctly to get the best possible starting point for editing, ETTR and I seriously don’t get how to get it wrong.
> 
> With the R and having the RGB histogram in the VF makes it impossible not to get the optimal exposure always. Fast’n easy..



In older Canon cameras the histogram was created from jpeg data and hence not showing the full DR, is that still the case? Has anyone compared the EVF/LV histogram with the resulting raw image histogram?


----------



## Viggo (Feb 24, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> In older Canon cameras the histogram was created from jpeg data and hence not showing the full DR, is that still the case? Has anyone compared the EVF/LV histogram with the resulting raw image histogram?


Not many cameras do raw histogram, Leica Mono is the only one I know of.

I always use a very flat jpeg Picture Style and know how much the raw can take compared to the preview, it’s not hard to learn.


----------



## Equinox (Feb 25, 2019)

smozes said:


> Not looking to pull 5 stops, but I've been frustrated with blown out skies with all my Canon cameras. This is disappointing.



There's alot of techniques that you can use to ensure you don't blow out the skies using all of the cameras you state you own. I recommend always using a tripod.

1) Use graduated ND filters, this allows for an even exposure across the whole sensor. Meaning your sky and ground will be correctly exposed. 
2) bracket your exposure, ie take multiple shots and blend them in LR/PS. For example -3 stops, 0 and +3 stops. this will drastically increase the dynamic range you are able to capture.
3) Expose for the sky and raise the shadows / exposure of the ground in LR/PS.

Employing these techniques will allow you to capture the detail in the sky you want.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 25, 2019)

Equinox said:


> There's alot of techniques that you can use to ensure you don't blow out the skies using all of the cameras you state you own. I recommend always using a tripod.
> 
> 1) Use graduated ND filters, this allows for an even exposure across the whole sensor. Meaning your sky and ground will be correctly exposed.
> 2) bracket your exposure, ie take multiple shots and blend them in LR/PS. For example -3 stops, 0 and +3 stops. this will drastically increase the dynamic range you are able to capture.
> ...


but I don't want to have skill! I want the camera to do the impossible instead!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 25, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> but I don't want to have skill! I want the camera to do the impossible instead!


But, many people prefer a do your own rather than have software do it for you based on a aogorithm that does a goof job or a average job or even a poor job depending on the image. As processing gets better, we get better results from the processing algorithms, but they can still produce some really ugly exposures.

At some point, the number of errors will be so low that the automated approach will be preferred.

Because of the improved auto tone algorithy in Photoshop, I now apply it automatically to incoming photos, only about 10-15% end up looking bad and must be fixed manually by clicking reset anf doing your own post processing.


----------



## nemophoto (Feb 27, 2019)

Honestly, most of the "dynamic range" BS is just that -- BS. Shooting professionally since 1976, digitally since 2000, I can safely say that DR in Canons are significantly better than, say, the 1Ds. But in the past 5 years, at least, I've never had an issue on a shoot where I said to myself, "Gee, I wish my Canon xxx had more dynamic range!". I have never had an issue where a shot was "lesser" because of a perceived lack of DR. It's a non-issue.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 27, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> But, many people prefer a do your own rather than have software do it for you based on a aogorithm that does a goof job or a average job or even a poor job depending on the image. As processing gets better, we get better results from the processing algorithms, but they can still produce some really ugly exposures.
> 
> At some point, the number of errors will be so low that the automated approach will be preferred.
> 
> Because of the improved auto tone algorithy in Photoshop, I now apply it automatically to incoming photos, only about 10-15% end up looking bad and must be fixed manually by clicking reset anf doing your own post processing.


Your sarcasm detector may have glitched


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 3, 2019)

I thought DR didn't matter anymore since Nikon introduced the D5 ?


----------

