Good morning DPR, Several of us have noticed that ACR conversions of 5Ds/R RAWs are more noisy than those converted with DPP 4. Will you investigate?
Once those who opt for Adobe CC try some of the features not found in CS6, the pain will subside.
I like this photo. Why is this stupid thing counting the number of edits? --->Now I am just messing with it.
Very nice. The images will Wow! you if viewed on Mr. Santos' website (larger images).
Rick Knepper: This author used the Pentax 645z as an example of great latitude since it has the same sensor as the camera he is reviewing. Valid approach IMO. I own a 645z and it produces the best IQ of any camera I own or have owned so if the IQ250 has the same sensor, that's a good thing.
However, one would be well advised to expose properly regardless of the perceived latitude.
1.) The processed 645z image on the left viewed at 100% demonstrates significant noise in the lifted shadow area. Presumably, the image would simply be downsized (most of the time) and that noise 'disappears' but if significant cropping from this area is desired, noise would be detrimental to the image.
2.) The sky in the unprocessed image is realistic. Turning the sky red makes me think the processor is a U2 fan. A GND, if one was not used, could have helped keep this image's exposure more realistic. Admittedly, I wasn't there so what do I know?
Could a GND have helped? If the sun was turning the sky white, probably not. The sky in the unprocessed image is reminiscent of the sun at or below the horizon so not knowing where the sun was, I thought it looked realistic.
Having visited LV more times than I count, as it can be used as a central hub to the many national parks within a 5-6 hour radius plus being a convention town, once in a lifetime is an understatement. I can only remember once since 1990 that it rained while I was there.
Additionally, this is a unique view of LV few if any tourists get to see (outside of knowing the photographer personally).
This author used the Pentax 645z as an example of great latitude since it has the same sensor as the camera he is reviewing. Valid approach IMO. I own a 645z and it produces the best IQ of any camera I own or have owned so if the IQ250 has the same sensor, that's a good thing.
RichRMA: Even if you prefer the Canon f/1.2's "look" as far as optical quality goes, the OTUS walks all over it. Which means, if you want your Canon to provide the very best quality shots, you have to spend $4500 on the OTUS. I've never seen a lens that actually doesn't degrade visibly at 100% on a screen until now.
Every Canon lens has this. Well, every one I would be interested in buying. My early take on this was Canon didn't want a flood of lenses coming into their service center needing calibration to a hard stop at the infinity mark so they made infinity 'variable' like adding micro-adjustments has probably cut down on the number of lenses sent to the service centers for calibration, but, heat issues seem to be the more righter answer.
Got it, Richie. I read that incorrectly. The Otus line-up is certainly almost aberration free. I rented the Otus 55 for Thanksgiving (USA) and applied to it landscape photography in Big Bend NP. I was able to get sharp corners at f1.4 (it's hard finding an infinity composition at 55mm where this can be tested without climbing high).
Zeiss designed this lens to focus past the infinity mark. Don't know when they began do this or it was just done for the Otus line but I prefer the hard stop at the infinity mark. That was a deal killer for me.
Horshack: Here's a full-sized sample I took with the 50mm f/1.8 STM @ f/7.1, LR capture sharpening 32/0.8/25 and PS USM 300/0.5/0:
The link wasn't active on my computer so I tried copy/pasting it to my browser. nada. still nada. What gallery or album is the image in?
Mr. Horshack. I was unable to raise the website with this link. I backed-spaced to .com and got your website but I am not certain which photo you refer to.
That's a whole vine full of hyperbole Richie. Actually, an image is at its best at 100%. Perhaps what you are seeing most of the time are other flaws related to vibration, missed DoF, CA, moire and the lens' own aberrations.
I am missing my infinity landscape shots at varying apertures in the samples gallery.
The use of the terms counterfeit, knock-off and fake all have different meanings to me and to Websters.
Relative to this particular subject matter:
A counterfeit item is designed to fool experts. Criminal.
A knock-off is designed to fool knuckleheads buying on impulse. May or may not be criminal depending on the description of the item as implied or explicit or if the item carries the Canon/Nikon/whoever's name.
A fake is a complete falsehood and criminal. Edit: Why even produce the fakes? Sell the customer 'air' and disappear. Also, one wonders why Canon, Nikon et al don't sue eBay for helping to perpetrate these crimes?
One wonders why a scammer would go to the trouble of putting Canon's name on an item if it actually works? The mark-up isn't that much.
Rick Knepper: Dear Mr. Maki. Please hear this [potential] customer. I was looking forward to my first light-weight, mirror-less, high-resolution FF camera. 42 MP isn't enough resolution. I see from your comments that 42 MPs work out well for video shooters but there are still some of us who shoot stills. I'd take 4k video with slightly less quality.
Two brands have surpassed you in sensor resolution, one with your own sensor and hopefully, Nikon will follow too. Also, I would have thought that 6-7 fps would have been doable in a 42 MP camera by now.
I am looking forward to the A7r SP (still picture).
By the way, I am eager to use your camera with native lenses.
Speaking of passive-aggressive. Insulting me so, nice. You seem to understand that I own multiple brands of camera, and I am sure by now you have checked my profile. Try to take your understanding of me and my experience to the next level. I don't buy Sony's marketing riff nor the fanboys' defense. My experience tells me this upgrade could have been much better. In Canon-land, an 8 MP and 1 fps upgrade would been denigrated as 'incremental' at best.
Read my original post. Only a fanboy could get angry about that post - which they, of course, did. I aggressively (dictionary definition) stated my opinion. It wasn't until said fanboys' aggression towards me was manifested, that I responded with like aggression.
There's always Nikon. They are at the threshold for 50+ MP and have 5 fps at 36 MP already. On the Nikon forum, the next high rez camera has been dubbed the D900. I am hoping a D900 trims weight from that of the D8xx series.
After writing this, I realized I needed to look at the original A7r specs, and I see that the specs indicate 4 fps for the A7r. To Sony users, this may seem like an upgrade. I am a multiple brand user. This is a middle of the pack spec. I expect all of the brands to leap-frog each with every release. :)
Yes, I will have to wait on Sony to clear a couple of hurdles. I was poised to buy the A900 back in the day (in order to use the Zeiss 24-70) but it's lack of LV killed the enthusiasm (and eventually I became aware of that lens' less than stellar edge/corner performance). Next generation brought SLT and I said no thanks!. Then the A7s were released with the associated problems and I waited patiently. Now the A7r II. So, I have some practice waiting on Sony. :)
mr_landscape: CaNikon say bye-bye to most of your trusty fanatics;)
Also, you also seem to be denying the impact of varying amounts of sensor resolution on an image at capture.
"Take it to it's logical extreme - downsize the image to a 640x480 image - you think you'll still see the difference between a 50MP vs. 36MP camera when viewed at 640x480?"
Of course not. That's a logical extreme that is also a ridiculous extreme.
You seem to be laboring under the false impression that I do not understand digital imaging. I do. I wonder if you do but I give you the benefit of the doubt. The crux of the matter is when 'detail' "disappears" for you vs. when it "disappears" for me. That's variable, subjective and not math dependent. Diminishing Return means just that, diminishing return, not 'No Return'. Here's a new thread on the Canon forum regarding monitors and 50 MP you may be interested in:
...as you said, it's my own personal preference, one that I am entitled to, without harassment from the fanboys.