bicycle snap shooter: how do you get a 24mm focal length from a 14-42mm (gov = 28-84mm) lens?
The metadata is pulled from the camera, so it isn't taking equivalence in to account. It was taken @ the lens's 24mm position, which means this is a roughly 50mm equiv shot.
Grigou: The focus is on the car's nose, not on the pilot ... is it the AF choice or the photographer's choice ?
For those asking why the high f/stop, I was walking from one area where I could see the track to another and just happened to see this happening on my way. I didn't think to change camera settings, I just lifted the camera up and shot real quick.
armandino: Is this a real world example? to me this is badly underexposed. Still headroom for highlights.
I didn't have a live histogram up, but this shot is below clipping. The next shot/series is right when it clips, and the series after that is exposed more for the shadows. I wasn't being very scientific in my exposures here, I just did a quick above and below clipping.
The purpose of including this OOC JPEG is to show the starting point for the ACR conversion (which is the next frame). It was exposed to preserve the highlights, and to see how much detail can be pulled from the shadows.
Alex Armani: This 18 MB Jpeg conversion is not the full resolution, quality not more than 5D3, I would like to see RAW files.
In the data section of this page where it says "Available sizes:" click "Original" and you will see a full-resolution either JPEG or ACR conversion (ACR settings are in the caption). There are a selection of RAW files available for download on the news story page seen here: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6322834928/canon-eos-5ds-r-real-world-sample-gallery-posted
abe4652: Why would the exposure compensation be -1 here?
The camera wanted to expose for the dark tones of the truck and car and blow out the sky, I dialed in negative comp to keep them down in the shadows and to prevent the whites from blowing out excessively.
Martin Crombie Photography: Not a single human being? No ones going to be interested in skin tones then
Take a second look, just added a couple quick studio portraits (more to come soon).
Robert Eckerlin: This jpeg photo file is quite underexposed; despite the Exposure compensation of +0.30. However the ACR Photo version that is also included in the provided samples, is wonderfully exposed.
Why is this jpeg Foto file so poorly exposed? Has it been shot with the camera determined aperture/exposure time? If that would be the case, this would mean to me (a non-specialist) that the camera was quite poor in determining the right exposure or in the jpeg creation process.
Do i miss something?
It was deliberately exposed for the highlights with the intent of lifting the shadows in Raw (the next image in this series).
Lan: Surprisingly high levels of noise, and worse still there's quite a lot of noise reduction at base ISO here too. For a camera with professional pretentions this is not looking good at all...
This is a processed, adjusted Raw file.
shademaster: It would have been nice to have seen what the in-camera "Smart Range" Dynamic Range optimizer could have done. Are the tone curves adjustable in-camera?
Smart Range has a pretty subtle effect, honestly in our experience. Certainly nothing like as much effect as this shot (exposed for the highlights) would have required.
Karroly: Obviously, it is still hard to get a nice blurred background at wide angle end...
To be fair, everything in this image is pretty close to being at infinity.
Couscousdelight: Where are the details ? It's all overexposed...Why using a +1 exposure compensation ?
Because it's a white rose shot under harsh, direct light.
Eric Calabros: Well.. We have a DR disaster here
Exposure is actually pretty well-balanced between subject (dark) and background (bright). The camera's metering system did it's job here. AWB didn't though - it's too blue.
macky patalinghug: They're okay. Thanks for the samples.
You are very welcome.
M Jesper: Was this taken with the TCL by any chance ?
J. Gysenbergs: Bit confused here: EXIF data says this picture was taken January 3, 2014 12:34:07AM but you can see people walking towards the Dom lightly dressed and in broad daylight.
The camera is a pre-production unit. Date/time was evidently zero'd.
it's volunteer park in Seattle
JABB66: What went wrong here?
gbvalli: Very faded colours, methinks .
yup. It's what Leica thinks is 'natural'