We shot Fujifilm's new Acros II black and white film in both 35mm and 120 medium format, developing it ourselves. We also tried pushing a roll to ISO 400. But wait, there's more! We even compared it to Fujifilm's Acros film simulation.
The verdict? We like this film! Make sure to check out the sample gallery below, which includes many Raw files from the digitizing process.
Make sure to check out our Film Photography forum – it's a great place to talk about Acros II with your fellow photographers!
I have many old Nikon and Pentax film bodies, and even tho' I enjoyed and miss the chemical photography era, I'm hard-pressed to shoot film anymore. Digital is just too good, convenient and economical. I enjoy black and white, but shooting film, developing and scanning it just to end up with a digital image anyway seems a waste of time to me now. I still have Pentax 645 (sold the Pentax 67), and way too much 35mm equipment.
One day Dpreview staff will actually stop cheating! I know its inconvenient, but your samples are digital. You did not do prints a la Analog using diluted dev, stop and fix baths to produce prints from film as doubtless is the INTENTION of the manufacturer!
What you post here in no way represents what film quality is like, and I am certain that simply using the available digital Acros setting on a digital camera's files in post would result in less noise and greater contrast and dynamic range. The nikon copier is good, but it is not intended for film now. It is intended for those of us who wish to digitize existing negatives made in the days before you were even allowed to destroy the good reputation of film in this way, because digitization adds artifacts to negs that are not present in the originals at all. Shame!!
if you digitally reproduce an original high quality analog print, by photographing it digitally instead of scanning its negative and then reproducing the digital scan, the degradation digitally scanning a negative of exactly the same picture creates is completely avoided. This is because you are photographing a flat plane surface digitally: that of the PRINT. When you scan a negative the scanning process sees in 3D as it moves across the negative, increasing grain artifacts etc. When you photograph a real print from the same negative, there is no transparently 3D grain pattern there to reproduce. Because its a flat reflective print, you halve rather than double the errors scanning produces. They just did this to get you interested in the nonetheless very useful copier Nikon produce. Please do not reply until you have made a state of the art test yourself. Thankyou for your attention.
I don't understand how what we are seeing can be assumed to be any kind of objective "Acros." What we are seeing depends on how the negatives were digitized (equipment, settings, etc.). There is no objective standard like printing on a certain type of paper with a certain brand of chemicals at a standard temperature for a standard time.
Thus I have no idea whether the "Acros" film simulation is anything like the "Acros" that was printed many years ago.
Acros uses 'T'-grain technology. Never been a fan of the flat greys nor the grain-style that that you get with t-grain. For B&W I'd always go traditional with Ilford, Kodak or Foma.
Having said that, I agree with others here, that the film was under-exposed and that RO9, lovely and enjoyable as it is, simply does not work for all emulsions. You don't need the high acutance that RO9 brings to it with this fine-grained film. I'd go for a softer developer like HC110, and reduce the cold technical feel the film has.
There are people out there who know what they are doing with film, who would have chosen a good dev, exposed it right and shown the film at its best. Watching a digital camera expert bashfully apologising for not doing things the best way simply covers up the fact that he did not do this very well at some quite basic levels, never mind the lack of wetting agent – a red herring considering the other factors. (Use a drop of detergent.)
Uninspiring washed out photos., I've seen better film photos in the past. Not sure though if it is the film to blame or the DSLR that was used to scan negatives.
Shooting film and checking results through a default film emulation applied by DSLR or ACR? Seriously?
Dale, raw to grayscale(i.e. b&w) conversion goes through the following steps.
1. Raw to color 2. Color to grayscale
While the second step is pretty standard and likely to be the same for most of rgb->grayscale converters, the first step is still camera dependent. Even if you use a standard camera profile, you still get that Sony, Fuji, Nikon, Canon, etc. "color science", i.e. color twisting, toning, contrast applied to your photos before the bw conversion. That's why you get different colors from different cameras raws even though they still use the same sensor inside.
Good film scanners are normally calibrated with IT8 ISO 12461 standard compliant profiles (reflective or transmissive). The camera DPR used to "scan" the images is not. Hence the results are inconclusive to say the least.
In a perfect world we would have scanned the images using a high-end commercial scanner. In a world of closed businesses and social distancing we're doing the best we can with limited access to resources. Hopefully, you can forgive us :)
Chris, I enjoyed this, I develop film in much the same way you do.. I have been using DD-X for quite a while, as a one shot developer, it works great with all the Kodak and Ilford films I use. Otherwise, I use the same stop and fix shown here.
Nice to know the ACROS II is more contrasty, I found the older film to be like you mentioned, low contrast.
I guess if I ever got to doing more film, I would maybe mix my own developer from powder, but I like the convenience of one shot developers. FWIW
Thanks for this wonderful video. One suggestion though, almost every video I see comparing film with digital involves comparing scanned film with digital. I'm hoping one day to see a comparison between a print from digital using current technology with a print from a scanned film and then a print produced from the same film using a full analogue print process using and enlarger. In all cases pushing each technology to its limit to attain the best print available with each process. Given the difficulty in showing the results, a detailed attempt at an objective analysis maybe some sort of blind test would also be interesting!
@verybiglrbowski- do you mean because the results would be shared to us via video? If that's the case I agree its not possible to ever really see the results as its all digitised in the end. I agree it would be a good idea to show a gallery of the results even though those too would be scanned versions. Personally I would like to hear the opinion of those that see the results in the flesh.
Yes, video is just lower-res digital imagery. I thought about a real-world photo gallery, not the virtual one. That would be the only way to compare differences fairly. But if the intention of the images were for printing purpose, then the book will give the best results. If the idea is to compare the different media on-line, then a virtual gallery should suffice. The key question is thus a personnel relevance of such a comparison - how do we present our images.
Thanks for this wonderful video. One suggestion though, almost every video I see comparing film with digital involves comparing scanned film with digital. I'm hoping one day to see a comparison between a print from digital using current technology with a print from a scanned film and then a print produced from the same film using a full analogue print process using an enlarger. In all cases pushing each technology to its limit to attain the best print available with each process. Given the difficulty in showing the results, a detailed attempt at an objective analysis maybe some sort of blind test would also be interesting!
Ι LMHO with most comments. Cause SLRs don't have IS (and most people can't distinguish out of focus compared with this tiny motion blur), grain has to do with particles and not electrical charges (oh really?), cause films can be developed in a lot of different ways (is that so?), there are of lot of scanners/scanning methods (oh my!) and finally cause our bloody monitors do not have ...this slot to deliver in our own hands the printed photo so to check it out and put it back in for the next guy to see, and even if they had there would also be comments on printing method/style/fluids/papers/enlargers etc...
FWIW, if you use late model Canon or Nikon film camera, they support IS/VR lenses, so, yes, my old manual focus Canon's have no IS, but that is not an across the board situation. In fact every lens I have for my D610 works on my N80 as well as my flash, so there is no reason not to apply some modern tech to film.
Good to see the DPRTV guys doing something like this (and DPR being much more pro-film recently) as it acknowledges where film photography is in the world today. I'm sure they will have plenty of other things to do but I would like to see more content like this - there are plenty more films out there to look at. As a couple of ideas which pop into my head as things that could be done and bring film to a wider audience through DPR:
- comparison across 400-speed B&W films - comparison of scanning options (drum, flatbed, DSLR/mirrorless)
As soon as I saw him hold up the negatives I thought they were a little “thin”. Using Rodinal is fine, but you have to underrate the film by a stop or more or you will get blocky shadows and flat mid tones. The shadows are mostly lost, but the mid tones can be corrected in Lightroom using curves.
I downloaded a raw file and the lenses are not the issue, just the contrast as rendered.
Yep, i always had to push the Rodinol a bit and if your exposure is a bit on the low side the blacks are gone. Also a very grainy Developer the high actuance is great. Can't see myself going to back to the darkroom though :-)
I mean... great, you shot on film, processed yourself and all but... You are posting these pictures in the article that is supposed to be a review of the Acros film and these are supposed to be representative of what the film is ????
Pretty much every one taken on film. Some are claimed to have been taken with a medium format camera which means they should be bitingly sharp, especially on 100 ASA emulsion. Terrible, terrible scanning too.
Here are some examples. Each one not focused correctly, badly processed (HUGE grain) and terribly scanned.
Agree. If this article is supposed to demonsrate something wonderful about returning to film, it's failed. Those samples demonstrate any possible combination of (rightly or wrongly): a) Modern film has big lumpy grain. b) Photographer couldn't focus. c) If you use film, don't bother trying to digitize it. d) If you do digitize it, don't try it at home. e) We are all accustomed to razor sharp images from DSLRs, so perhaps avoid film altogether.
What's more, in the title shot for this article, are those solid black areas in her shoulders supposed to be artistic? My mind wanders back to the Olympus OM4's Shadow button.
Black and White film is so subjective, so many variables i cannot see anybody pleasing everybody. Where i live is so hot it was impossible to maintain effective controls especially pre airconditioners. I would start processing film at 20 C and by the end, it was over 30 C had to try dial back the dev times, in Canada he probably had the opposite
I tend to agree that the sample pics are....terrible. Some do appear to be out of focus, others have motion blur, and none of them have as much resolution as a crappy smartphone. I bought a Nikon F2 and have been playing around with it but...sheesh, it's tough to make the case for it.
Reactive, modern film does not have big, lumpy grain. Their choice of developer is a poor one when trying to review a super fine grain film. Rodinal enhances edge sharpness, but also grain. As to focus and motion blur, yes, quite a few of these are botched and should not have been included here.
The only softness issues I saw were with the 120 film pics, but the 35mm looked fine.
Frankly, I quit scanning film and use a lightbox and a piece of glass to do what Chris is doing with the ES-2 adapter. I get perfect focus, the glass keeps the negative FLAT and I have a RAW file to work with.
I wish someone would try one of those film cameras with one of the sharpest modern lenses available just to see what kind of detail the film is capable of under ideal conditions.
That is something I have never seen anyone do before, as they tend to feel that they must use vintage lenses when using film.
It is more of curiosity, it is so common to see film shots where it looks like the focus was missed a little, but I have also seen some using the same or similar film that was sharper. This all makes me wonder about what is the limit of the film resolving capabilities.
Film's resolving capabilities aren't a mystery, they're usually found in the data sheet and expressed as lines per mm. Fuji gives a range of 60-200 lines per mm for ACROS II. A 35mm film frame is 36x24mm, so that means (assuming 1 line = 1 pixel) you have an effective resolution of around 2160x1440 at the very lowest (3 megapixels) to 7200x4800 (34.5 megapixels). Obviously your result will depend heavily on subject matter, lens sharpness, shutter speed/camera stability and developer, and this assumes perfect digitisation that doesn't lose any resolution.
That is the issue, the wide range and other general variations makes it hard to visualize what kind of results you would get from a spec sheet. Other than that, it is just a curiosity since no one ever tries to use film and a modern lens, instead it is always a old soft lens, thus you get a blur that is not due to the film's lack of fidelity.
Shooting a roll of BW film and then reviewing by digitising via a Nikon DSLR is the most ridiculous thing Ive heard all year and DPReview should be absolutely ashamed of itself and someone should get a jolly good telling off (or possibly the sack). At the very least the negs should have been scanned (using a quality scanner). The sample images look awful.. probably an indication of the lack of knowledge when it comes too shooting real film.
In case you're living in a different COVID free universe, they maybe under ideal circumstances would have used the best scanners out there, but in isolation times I'm just glad and amazed they're making any content. For free. The sack? Far out. Happy Easter.
The images from the review were poor and Im not even talking about the aesthetics of the images. The idea of using a DSLR to digitise a negative is also wrong especially for a review (unless the review is about the DSLR's ability to digitise a neg). Even a basic Epson/Canon flatbed would have done a better job. It was an error and the content created was well below the standards Ive come to expect from DPReview. Perhaps not the sack but I think a cold shower instead!
'wrong'? If done correctly, scanning with a DSLR/mirrorless and macro lens will outresolve even the best Canon and Epson flatbeds, and even some dedicated 35mm scanning machines. 'it's wrong because I say so' is not a valid argument.
But those users spent a staggering $0.00, and when so much money is spent, there is an obligation to cater the content to their specific taste. The people making the video must use their telepathic ability to fully analyze what those users want. $0.00 is a lot of money and we cannot allow their investment to go to waste.
Is it irony to look at a screen to see film? Isn’t it only analog if you are looking at a print directly with your eyes? We are seeing a digital interpretation of film.
Blak and white film simulations are compltely arbitrary . When you simulate a color slide film, Velvia, Provia, tou know what you are speaking about. A color slide is the original film stock, developed in an absolutely standard chemestry. So it is clearly stablished what colors, saturation, contrast, etc. we are aiming at. Color negatives, when processed comercially, recieved an standard development and printing so their digital simulations could be call legit. But there was never an standard developing and printing of black and white negatives. Some people will develope it using D76 or Rodinal or Dektol, or whatever concoction they liked. Printing will also have hundreds of alternatives. So to what specific conbination is the across simulation aimed?
Actually, while there were many developer combination for any film, there was a standard that B&W film was processed to. That is part of the ISO criteria that had a specific exposure and then developed to a target contrast. The standard paper was grade 2. However, photographer were either not very skilled or like to experiment with the process and so other papers grades are/were available.
That was not typically done with color films simply because playing with developing times and condition could lead to processing problems like cross-curves, where the color layers did not develop at the same rates giving some color layers different contrasts resulting in color shifts between shadows and highlights. And that was true for both color negative and positive film.
You seem to like Fuji's diffusion lens simulation look built into the film(a.k.a. "the artsy look") "chucking". Of course you can get the same look by using a diffusion lens or filter. Lens fanatics on this forum might consider your aesthetics to be sacrilege.
I really don't care about *lens fanatics.* I hate the clinical look of some modern lenses. I'm a Canon shooter who hardly ever uses L lenses—the exception is BIG Whites (for sports).
My favorite diffusion is Tiffen's Double Fogs. White Pro Mist is another favorite. Mitchell made a stippled glass filter, much like the Zeiss Softars, that was a hot rental in the 1970s . A piece of silk-stocking over the back-element of a lens also works—and is inexpensive.
@cdembrey - I have nothing against the clinical look for the right kind of subject. In the 1970's and 1980's some photographers shot thru silk in front of the lens. I tried shooting thru mylar with sporadic success. I still have several Canon FD lenses and a Canon A-1. Digital Photo Pro magazine had an article about a pro that swapt out the FD mounts on those lenses for EF mounts for stills and cinema on FF to get the "classical look".
In my limited experience the "film simulation" modes in cameras and in processing software such as DxO Film Pack don't even come close to their real life counterparts. Some of them are nice in their own right, but look nothing like the original film.
This was very cool. Thanks. One question… I have never developed film, ever. How did you get the film out of the film holder (that goes into the camera) and on the spools?
If your talking about out of the film canister, we usually used a bottle cap opener to pry/ pop one end off... but you do this in the dark, obviously. Your gonna want to get a roll to sacrifice (a unexposed roll, don’t do it with something you shot on) and do it in the daylight to practice and while your at it, learn to thread the ‘exposed’ roll on to a steel (or patterson) reel... that takes some practice and feel. Good luck!
Rather than opening the canister with an opener, when you manually rewind the film in the camera, you can put your ear up to the camera while doing this and hear the film disconnect from the winding spool. At this point you can open the camera and the lead of the film has not gone into the canister. it's then possible to load the film onto the tank spiral without having to open the canister in the dark, so no errant finger marks on the film. Changing bags work but you need to be quick, they get humid quickly and once you start to sweat it makes it a lot harder to load the spiral, the humidity in the bag tends to make the film get stuck before its fully loaded on the spiral. A large walk in robe at night is easier to use!
Leichhardt - Yes I agree, you can judge when the film disconnects, by the sound, and by the relaxation in tension on the rewind lever. But it does take a bit of experience, so it's *safer* to fully rewind and then pop the end off the canister.
By far the most comfortable way to load a spiral is to do it on a table, in a pitch-black room, but you really need proper black-out curtains, because even the tiniest amount of light can fog the film.
This reminds me of how sometimes B&W is more appropriate and gives a unique look. The S1H did very well too. I like the more contrasting look of the film simulation, but those ISO 400 pushed images looked appealing too.
I commented earlier that I appreciate DPReview doinga a video on this subject. This is more about videos in general, caused by some of the negative comments. I think it is a wise decision on DPReviews part, doing videos as a supplement to the articles. I spend more and more time at Youtube in my sofa, watching videos on subjects I am interested in. Cameras, photography, videography, electric guitars, vintage audio equipment, history, etc. Its a new media channel that cant be neglected. For those that dont like videos - why do you comment here? Read an article or the forums instead. There are plenty of those. DPReviews videos in general are very well made, so skip the sour grapes.
Film negatives were meant to be printed on photographic paper. A good negative was supposed to retain as much details as possible in shadows and highligths, thus a low contrast negative. Whatever contrast or "punchiness" you liked in the final image was the result of an appropiate selection of paper grade and/or paper developer. Different paper developers will give you a great variety of contrast and tonalities using the exactly same paper. If you scan your negatives you ought to work on the scanned image to get whatever contrast you like. Remember that all scanners are different so post processing is a must. I work a lot with scanned negatives and clearly the direct scanning is not the final image. Adjusting levels, curves, contrast, highligts, etc will get you whatever final result you like. But if the details are lost in the original negative, very contrasty negative, no post processing will recover them.
Sure, that was the way to minimized grain and to preserve the highlights. But my point is that the comparison with the Across simulation is pointless. The simulation is a final image, the negative is not, even if scanned. The negative will always hold a lot more details than the print. What does the across simulation simulates? What combination of film developer, printing paper, paper developer, tonig, etc. is being considered? A Velvia slide is a final image and so comparable to a Velvia simulation. But in this case we are comparing apples and oranges.
I used Acros mainly on my GA645Zi. It is a good film but I preferred Neopan 400 in very dilute Rodinal, much more punchy. I haven’t forgiven Fujifilm for killing Neopan. Damn you Fujifilm.
My thoughts exactly! I miss Neopan 400 so much! I also loved Neopan 1600 pulled to 640. I get that the market won't sustain it -possibly- but the faster Neopans were pure magic in Rodinal.
Neopan 400 was an excellent. I once had some 120 Neopan and Acros in my bag. I had to change rolls. I intended to load Acros but had a brain fart and loaded Neopan 400. The ISO was set to 100 and I shot at 100. I was using my Mamiya 645 at the time. I developed as I would Acros. So I have Neopan pulled two stops over developed. It was actually quite nice. Neopan 400 reminds me a lot of the old Agfa 400 - a very versatile film. As far as Rodinal - a magic elixir. You can use it so many different ways.
I never used Neopan 1600, but I would often shoot Neopan 400 at EI200 to EI6400 on the same roll. Semi-stand for 1hr in dilute Orcs Blood (my 1L bottle of Rodinal was black by the time I neared the end of it), water stop, fix, still yielded good results. Sadly missed film. If I could only choose one film then Neopan 400 it would be.
By the time I started using it I had left Rodinal far behind and had switched to XTOL completely. Eternal shelf life as powder, about a year in the bottle, super smooth gradients, MUCH shorter development times, fine but distinct grain with both traditional and t-crystal type emulsions .. magic sauce and with Neopan 400 even more so.
Hi, probably a good video for fluent english speaking people.
But DPR is spreading worldwide and it is not so easy to ear/understand english than to read/understand it... at least for non native english fellow (maybe 75% of the planet ?) So please keep WRITING articles, use video for entertainment purposes (if I want video I go straight to "ioutioubeu")
@Vit : The automatic generation of subtitles is a catatroph: the words follow each other without punctuation, no periods or commas, no correct line break. Subtitling seems to be subcontracted in China, sometimes it doesn't make sense ... And then at certain times it goes too fast to be read and at others you have to wait during the musical illustration. You will understand that I find it a pity that these important articles are only on video. Please give us a text transcript of the video, it's also a better way to archive
I'm not a native speaker either. Understanding Chris and Jordan clearly though. Much better than for instance actors in US films. If you are interested in the content, why not taking the videos as an opportunity to improve your English?
Making a video to actually show...how a camera can record videos is OK. But just to talk and/or show still pictures, it is a waste of server storage space, internet bandwith and reader's time who could get the same info faster by reading an illustrated text, IMHO.
"Welcome to the digital world" Videos are not more digital than text and still images displayed in an internet browser... :-) I would say that shooting a video with an expensive camera, rather than typing text on a $10 keyboard to write an article, is more "geeky"...
Text and still images in an Internet browser are just like paper in a journal. Just the delivery changed. You can hardly print a video with audio on paper though, i.e. it is something fundamentally new. I'm even appreciating this technology in times when direct contacts with others are that much limited.
... the next technological advancement might become a holo of Chris and Jordan in my living room ... or maybe next but one :-)
"Text and still images in an Internet browser are just like paper in a journal. Just the delivery changed" But videos require more efforts and more expensive gear to be produced, stored, transmitted, displayed and, in the end, more time to be "digested". When modernity and fun do not rhyme with efficiency... ;-)
DxO has just released PureRaw, a simple, standalone program that can automatically apply its high-quality lens corrections and impressive noise-reduction algorithms to your Raw files, and then pass those Raw files off to your favorite editing app. We're pretty impressed by it – find out why in our review.
The Fujifilm Fujinon XF 70-300mm F4-5.6 R LM OIS WR is a very versatile, compact telephoto zoom lens. But how does it perform? Read our review to find out.
The X-E4 is going to make a lot of photographers happy, especially those craving a near-pocket-size X-mount body with Fujifilm's latest IQ performance.
In our latest software shootout, we pit Adobe's Camera Raw against Capture One Express Fujifilm, included for free with every Fujifilm camera. Can you get all you need with the free option? For a lot of people, it looks like the answer could be yes.
The Pentax K-3 Mark III is that rarest of things: a completely new DSLR. We've got hands-on with the camera to find out just what's changed in the six years since the Mark II. The answer is: almost everything.
Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with friends or loved-ones in better quality than your phone can manage. We've selected a group of cameras that are easy to keep with you, and that can adapt to take photos wherever and whenever something memorable happens.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that might be a bit older but still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
Whether you make a living out of taking professional portraits, or are the weekend warrior who knows their way around flashes and reflectors, you'll want a camera with high resolution, exceptional autofocus and a good selection of portrait prime lenses. Click through to see our picks.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
Micro Four Thirds users can now enjoy the Speedmaster 35mm F0.95 Mark II manual lens that was previously limited to Canon EF-M, Fujifilm X and Sony E mount camera systems.
Hasselblad Masters contest opens to professional photographers, with a dozen medium format mirrorless cameras up for grabs. And you don't need to shoot on a 'blad to enter!
Fujifilm's latest prime, the XF 18mm F1.4 R LM WR, is a solidly built lens that we've really enjoyed shooting with. It's also a big departure from Fujifilm's previous 18mm F2 prime lens – get a sense of how it handles right here.
The new Fujifilm XF 18mm F1.4 R LM WR provides a 27mm-equivalent focal length for Fujifilm's X-mount cameras. Find out why Chris and Jordan like this fast, sharp 18mm lens.
We've been shooting with a pre-production copy of Fujifilm's new XF 18mm F1.4 R LM WR lens for a few days, which offers a 27mm full-frame equivalent field of view, and optically, we're impressed.
Fujifilm has announced its lightweight (370g/13oz) XF 18mm F1.4 R LM WR wide-angle prime. This 27mm-equivalent lens offers numerous special elements and a linear focus motor, and is also weather-sealed.
DxO has just released PureRaw, a simple, standalone program that can automatically apply its high-quality lens corrections and impressive noise-reduction algorithms to your Raw files, and then pass those Raw files off to your favorite editing app. We're pretty impressed by it – find out why in our review.
Canon has just announced a native RF-mount contemporary to its popular EF 100mm F2.8L Macro lens. The RF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM is an all-new design, and we've been digging into its feature set. Click through to learn more.
Sony's Xperia 1 and 5 Mark III smartphones introduce a variable 70-105mm telephoto optic, 120Hz OLED displays, and are the first cameras ever to shoot 20 fps with temporal noise reduction. Read on for an in-depth look.
Canon has just announced the development of what will be the highest-speed RF-mount camera yet, the EOS R3. It looks like a really interesting camera, but the R3 also points toward something else coming in the future; something even more capable. Here's what we know.
In today's episode of DPReview TV, Chris and Jordan answer the question everyone is asking: what do they think about Canon's EOS R3 development announcement?
Canon's new RF 100mm F2.8L IS USM offers a minimum focus distance of 26cm (10"), up to 8 stops of shake reduction, and the ability to adjust bokeh and softness by turning its 'spherical aberration' dial.
Canon has announced two new super-telephoto primes for RF-mount: the 400mm F2.8L IS USM and 600mm F4L IS USM. Both lenses share the same optics as their EF-mount counterparts, and will arrive in July priced at $12,000 and $13,000, respectively.
Canon has announced that it is developing the EOS R3, a high-end full-frame mirrorless camera. It will feature a Stacked CMOS Dual Pixel sensor and be able to shoot at up to 30 fps.
Adobe's latest addition to Camera Raw is a Super Resolution feature, which quadruples the pixel count of your Raw files and, in theory, doubles their linear resolution. Does that mean that you really don't need more than 12 or 16 megapixels anymore? We've put it to the test.
Tokina's atx-m 33mm F1.4 X is an affordable fast prime for Fujifilm's X-mount cameras that offers autofocus and solid image quality. Check out what it can do and our impressions of its image quality right here.
Following complaints in the U.K. and oversight from the Advertising Standards Authority, Apple has adjusted its Pro Display XDR marketing material in the UK, removing a claim about HDR performance and adjusting its materials regarding color space.
The three-axis pocket camera can record 4K video at up to 60 frames per second and features a 2.45" articulating screen for composing and reviewing images.
In a wide-ranging interview, Aki Murata of OM Digital Solutions updated us on the transition from Olympus to 'OMDS', the future of the Olympus brand and why he believes Four Thirds still has advantages over other sensor formats.
We recently took delivery of Leica's new APO-Summicron-M 35mm F2 ASPH, and in the short time between its arrival and when it had to be sent back, we prepared a preliminary sample gallery in and around sunny Seattle.
Tokina's 23mm F1.4 is one of two of the company's new primes available for Fujifilm X-mount shooters. With a 35mm full-frame equivalent focal length, this lens is perfect for casual, candid, and street photography, even in low light.
Panasonic has given its DC-S1 and DC-S1H full-frame mirrorless cameras some big improvements via recent firmware updates. Chris and Jordan take a look at what's been added and how the two cameras compare in 2021.
Comments