For me, the 12-bit isn't an issue, the strobe one is an annoyance from time to time. I also hope for a stacked or global shutter in smaller bodies!...that downgrades (at least on my cameras) your raw file to 12bit, and doesn't allow (at least on my cameras) the use of strobes.
We'll see when any camera, starting from consumer levels, will handle ES as the R3
Nor for me, I've only shot my R8 in EFCS (except one test with ES to confirm it could be set to long exposures, after learning that the R5 is limited to 0.5 s for ES). The main reason I use EFCS is for the full bit depth. The ability to have full bit depth and use flash with ES is very convent, though.
Interesting; I think I have seen that film in the dim and distant past, but you’ve got me interested in watching it again to see how ultra shallow depth of field was overcome in the candle lit scenes.Maybe something differnt but I have to think of Stanley Kubrick who used a 50mm f/0.7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lyndon#Cinematography
Yep fair point, however....it's hard to equate the one instance of custom made primes and the singular genius of Krubrick to that of the average web vlogger.Maybe something differnt but I have to think of Stanley Kubrick who used a 50mm f/0.7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lyndon#Cinematography
When using the 100mm macro @f2.8 underwater, bursts are the only way to get acceptable focus and even then only by using center point AF. The rocking back and forth happens naturally there
Certain amount of "impress" is needed to justify upgrading from EF to RF and they have done so in most instances.
That is all true but Canon used to go above and beyond.
I prefer not to use a light or flash because I want things to be as natural as possible, but if I had to use something, I would want it as far away from the lens's angle as possible unless I was photographing something two dimensional and matt.
Well, in an SLR the focus sensor isn't the same as the photo capturing sensor, is it? So if they're even nanometers off in distance, what the focus sensor sees as focused won't be necessarily in focus on the taking sensor. My understanding is that the R bodies use the same sensor, so if it's in focus for focusing by definition it's in focus for taking? Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're correct on the physics, but the way Canons AF algorithm works makes it more error prone. Thanks to DPAF the sensor can estimate the subject distance very accurately, and the algorithm will instruct the lens to focus at that distance. The algo then completely trusts the lens when it says "Done, focussed at the distance you just told me!". It doesn't check if it's actually in focus at that point. So if your lens lies about the distance, as the RF70-200 f/2.8L did before its firmware update, you'll get misfocused pictures.
It's interesting, because with older EF lenses using PDAF Canon did that same open-loop AF that they're doing now with DPAF, but in 2010-2012 they changed to a closed-loop AF for PDAF. Roger Cicala did testing and a blog post showing more accurate AF with 2012 and later bodies paired with 2012+ lenses (and with the 70-300L, IIRC).
I suspect it’s a performance tweak for full-sensor DPAF and slow sensor readouts, maybe the R1 will get a faster digic as well as a faster sensor and go closed loop again.
