Leaked: Canon EOS M50 Image & Specifications

[rrcphoto]

Not really wanting to see this thread dive into another dr debate but I don't understand what you mean by this? I'm not sure I see how having an iso invariant sensor could be a downside, no matter the way it's used? Not meaning that in a pointed way, I'm just not aware of where it would be bad

if you boost shadows to the midtone via an ISO invariant sensor you effectively move the ISO up one 1EV with each 1EV of movement between shadow to midtone. each 1EV of ISO essentially loses you one bit of color depth and also less micro contrast then if you left the ISO alone.

when you bracket, use grad filters, etc - you leave the ISO alone, which keeps those areas you want in the midtones at a higher bit depth and a higher level of microcontrast.

 

[rrcphoto]

Canon's 5DMarkIv is greatly improved in DR. I do not understand why many forum members behave as if it does not exist!

where does anyone say it doesn't exist?

 

[dak723]

Canon's 5DMarkIv is greatly improved in DR. I do not understand why many forum members behave as if it does not exist!

where does anyone say it doesn't exist?

What? You missed all the dozens (or hundreds) of posts that mention how Canon is way behind Sony and Nikon in DR?

 

[dak723]

The presumed target consumer of every camera is dominated by people who couldn't care less about 3 or more stop shadow lifting. Only the DR "enthusiasts" who dominate forums such as this one care. Real photographers who take real pictures and know how to set the exposure are the target consumer and it is time for them to dictate the conversation about what is and what is not important in a new camera.

You you've ever really worked with high contrast scenes (that mostly applies to landscapes, but non-studio portraits, concert photography etc. are also in this category) you wouldn't have said that. DR is a very important metric and "proper exposure" doesn't help if the scene requires say 15 ev range and your camera is only 10 ev.
You can deal with 10-stop-DR-camera too but it doesn't mean professionals don't need greater DR.

Quite the contrary. I shoot primarily landscapes and have done so for almost 40 years. I have never had to underexpose - or then to push shadows more than 3 stops - usually far less is all that is necessary. I see a lot of photos where people are pushing shadows far more than I would consider necessary, to the point where there is almost no differentiation between light and shadow. If that is what they want to do - by all means - they should do it. What they shouldn't do is assume that that is the way it should be done and that other photographers should do it that way, too, and that Camera companies that fail to meet the demand of those few are somehow negligent.

 

[Don Haines]

But I want to be able to lift the shadows by 5 or 6 stops..... How else am I supposed to display random noise?

To tell the truth, that's the case where proper exposure could help, it looks like your moon was underexposed from the very beginning. It's wasn't a good exposure if the moon was the only subject.

We have a winner!

Technology is not the answer to bad photography......

 

[crashpc]

Problem solved :

 

[ritholtz]

Problem solved :

Looks like some kind of Jelly fish under water.

 

[crashpc]

If that´s what images with pulled shadows from Canon camera look like, then be it. :-D

 

[zim]

The presumed target consumer of every camera is dominated by people who couldn't care less about 3 or more stop shadow lifting. Only the DR "enthusiasts" who dominate forums such as this one care. Real photographers who take real pictures and know how to set the exposure are the target consumer and it is time for them to dictate the conversation about what is and what is not important in a new camera.

You you've ever really worked with high contrast scenes (that mostly applies to landscapes, but non-studio portraits, concert photography etc. are also in this category) you wouldn't have said that. DR is a very important metric and "proper exposure" doesn't help if the scene requires say 15 ev range and your camera is only 10 ev.
You can deal with 10-stop-DR-camera too but it doesn't mean professionals don't need greater DR.

Quite the contrary. I shoot primarily landscapes and have done so for almost 40 years. I have never had to underexpose - or then to push shadows more than 3 stops - usually far less is all that is necessary. I see a lot of photos where people are pushing shadows far more than I would consider necessary, to the point where there is almost no differentiation between light and shadow. If that is what they want to do - by all means - they should do it. What they shouldn't do is assume that that is the way it should be done and that other photographers should do it that way, too, and that Camera companies that fail to meet the demand of those few are somehow negligent.

+1

 

[Quarkcharmed]

The presumed target consumer of every camera is dominated by people who couldn't care less about 3 or more stop shadow lifting. Only the DR "enthusiasts" who dominate forums such as this one care. Real photographers who take real pictures and know how to set the exposure are the target consumer and it is time for them to dictate the conversation about what is and what is not important in a new camera.

You you've ever really worked with high contrast scenes (that mostly applies to landscapes, but non-studio portraits, concert photography etc. are also in this category) you wouldn't have said that. DR is a very important metric and "proper exposure" doesn't help if the scene requires say 15 ev range and your camera is only 10 ev.
You can deal with 10-stop-DR-camera too but it doesn't mean professionals don't need greater DR.

Quite the contrary. I shoot primarily landscapes and have done so for almost 40 years. I have never had to underexpose - or then to push shadows more than 3 stops - usually far less is all that is necessary. I see a lot of photos where people are pushing shadows far more than I would consider necessary, to the point where there is almost no differentiation between light and shadow. If that is what they want to do - by all means - they should do it. What they shouldn't do is assume that that is the way it should be done and that other photographers should do it that way, too, and that Camera companies that fail to meet the demand of those few are somehow negligent.

High DR isn't only about ability to push shadows. If you've been shooting for 40 years, you'd remember the film does better when overexposed as opposed to digital.

In digital photography, the higher DR is needed exactly to *not* push shadows or highlights, we need high DR to minimise pushing.

Most of the scenes that include sky have DR of more than 12-13 EVs (and sunsets/sunrises need even more). But it doesn't mean a 12-stop sensor will cope. You need more than 12 so that you do less pushing. The data from the top and the bottom of the range is very limited to manipulation. Increasing darkest shadows by +3ev will produce noise even on the best Sony sensors.

 

[privatebydesign]

The presumed target consumer of every camera is dominated by people who couldn't care less about 3 or more stop shadow lifting. Only the DR "enthusiasts" who dominate forums such as this one care. Real photographers who take real pictures and know how to set the exposure are the target consumer and it is time for them to dictate the conversation about what is and what is not important in a new camera.

You you've ever really worked with high contrast scenes (that mostly applies to landscapes, but non-studio portraits, concert photography etc. are also in this category) you wouldn't have said that. DR is a very important metric and "proper exposure" doesn't help if the scene requires say 15 ev range and your camera is only 10 ev.
You can deal with 10-stop-DR-camera too but it doesn't mean professionals don't need greater DR.

Quite the contrary. I shoot primarily landscapes and have done so for almost 40 years. I have never had to underexpose - or then to push shadows more than 3 stops - usually far less is all that is necessary. I see a lot of photos where people are pushing shadows far more than I would consider necessary, to the point where there is almost no differentiation between light and shadow. If that is what they want to do - by all means - they should do it. What they shouldn't do is assume that that is the way it should be done and that other photographers should do it that way, too, and that Camera companies that fail to meet the demand of those few are somehow negligent.

High DR isn't only about ability to push shadows. If you've been shooting for 40 years, you'd remember the film does better when overexposed as opposed to digital.

In digital photography, the higher DR is needed exactly to *not* push shadows or highlights, we need high DR to minimise pushing.

Most of the scenes that include sky have DR of more than 12-13 EVs (and sunsets/sunrises need even more). But it doesn't mean a 12-stop sensor will cope. You need more than 12 so that you do less pushing. The data from the top and the bottom of the range is very limited to manipulation. Increasing darkest shadows by +3ev will produce noise even on the best Sony sensors.

Only negative film, slide film needed to be erred to the side of underexposure to achieve maximum DR capabilities, you could dig into the shadows on slide film with a longer print exposure, but once highlights were over exposed there was no detail left on the film. Oh that sounds just like digital...

We have been capturing natural scenes with way lower dr than we currently have in even the most modest DSLR’s for generations. Base iso DR simply is not an issue, of the pro photographers I know, and I know a few, none of them could give you an accurate definition of DR and if you explained to them what it was they’d say they want more of it at higher iso for things like school sports shooting under crappy light or candid reception work, the difference between a players helmet and their face in the shade of that helmet easily beats the DR we have at 6400 iso, nobody gives a damn about landscapes and 100 iso capabilities, that is easy.

Ansel Adams would turn in his grave listening to the bleeding hearts of the DRone crowd and how the capabilities we have now are not good enough, it’s laughable. The DR and camera tech we have vastly outstrips all but a very few photographers yet everybody is an expert and ‘needs’ more.

 

[Deleted member 379512]

Not really wanting to see this thread dive into another dr debate but I don't understand what you mean by this? I'm not sure I see how having an iso invariant sensor could be a downside, no matter the way it's used? Not meaning that in a pointed way, I'm just not aware of where it would be bad

if you boost shadows to the midtone via an ISO invariant sensor you effectively move the ISO up one 1EV with each 1EV of movement between shadow to midtone. each 1EV of ISO essentially loses you one bit of color depth and also less micro contrast then if you left the ISO alone.

when you bracket, use grad filters, etc - you leave the ISO alone, which keeps those areas you want in the midtones at a higher bit depth and a higher level of microcontrast.

Ah, I thought you were referring to an issue with iso invariant sensors in particular, rather than just the downsides of pushing exposure overall. That's the part I wasn't sure of.

Obviously getting the exposure right on with filters, or bracketing where possible will give better results than a single image that is pushed. No debate there. I'd still have an iso invariant sensor for the times I can't bracket and get a usable shot, but being slack with exposure isn't the aim

 

[Quarkcharmed]

We have been capturing natural scenes with way lower dr than we currently have in even the most modest DSLR’s for generations. Base iso DR simply is not an issue, of the pro photographers I know, and I know a few, none of them could give you an accurate definition of DR and if you explained to them what it was they’d say they want more of it at higher iso for things like school sports shooting under crappy light or candid reception work, the difference between a players helmet and their face in the shade of that helmet easily beats the DR we have at 6400 iso, nobody gives a damn about landscapes and 100 iso capabilities, that is easy.

As I mentioned above I'm shooting performances from time to time and yes, that's the case where I also want more DR. Even on 5DMkIV the DR becomes narrow at high ISO, it does great compared to other cameras, but why wouldn't I want more?
And why wouldn't I need more DR at the base ISO 100 when I shoot landscapes and I often hit the conditions where 5DMkIV doesn't cope and I have to do exposure bracketing and blending?

Turning back to the topic, I do have my own requirements in mind when I think about a secondary camera (M50 potentially). I want the camera to be lightweight and have a good sensor, high DR and low noise included.

Ansel Adams would turn in his grave listening to the bleeding hearts of the DRone crowd and how the capabilities we have now are not good enough, it’s laughable. The DR and camera tech we have vastly outstrips all but a very few photographers yet everybody is an expert and ‘needs’ more.

There's two types of experts, one type tells others need more, the other type tells others they don't need more... I'm talking about myself and the conditions I shoot. Yes I do care about DR, megapixels, number of bits and ISO performance. Those are the primary specs that affect the IQ, given we use the same lens for sensor comparison.

And I wouldn't dare to guess what Ansel Adams would have wanted from modern cameras. He was great at image manipulation, and when you manipulate, you always want more information in the original negative.

 

[Talys]

People on forums often conflate different issues.

First of all, if all things were equal, would a photographer accept gear with more DR, more megapixels, and a better SNR curve? Of course! But obviously, the supposition is pointless, because things aren't ever equal and it's all about making the right compromise for the individual.

Now, when some people (like me) talk about how DR isn't an issue and such, it's from a totally different perspective. The way I improve my photography is that I look at photos I think are amazing, try to understand how they're technically achieved, and then try to apply that to my own photography. It's often a combination of viewing other people's work, reading, experimentation, and then making it my own.

Most often, photos that I see that's just AMAZING, where they share what equipment was used, is quite often pretty old stuff that doesn't come close to what we can get in sensor tech today. When I go try to take great photos like that, I often fall (far) short -- but the shortfall is never "gee, if only I had 2 more steps of DR, I could have done it". And most certainly, it is never, "if only I had 50 megapixels, my shot would be freaking awesome".

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't like 50 megapixels (because, hey, I'm a nerd too, and I appreciate nice technology); but it does mean that it really would make me feel happier a whole lot more than it would improve my photography.

I see it frequently stated that great photography requires mastery of light and composition, and the capturing of a moment. I firmly believe that if you have all three of those elements, it hardly matters whether you have a 5DII or a A7RIII; you'll have a great photo.

So speaking only for myself, when I say that sensor tech isn't an issue, I mean that it really doesn't help me with light, composition, or moment, and for those rare photographs where I have managed to capture all three of those just right, I love my photos from my t2i -- or even Minolta Maxxum 7000i -- just as much as any camera body I've owned since.

My hobby of photography (and hence, interest in gear) isn't to have progressively easier ways to diarize my life and share that with others. It's to improve art in order to achieve images that are of the sort and quality of the work I admire -- and for that things like base ISO DR, given where we're at today with enthusiast cameras, just isn't an issue anymore.

 

[Deleted member 380306]

The price and specs look good, my only concern is the battery life is pretty low, however I thought my sony and old fuji x-pro were going to be issues but that was never the case so it could be nothing too concerning...

So I can order now, but does anyone know the release date here in the UK? And I did ask before about the price being much lower than the m5 which seem to me to be the lesser camera on paper, am I missing something here?

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/product-comparison/?awc=2298_1519731752_c018e46e06cce4da800326752830fb08&utm_source=aw

 

[Quarkcharmed]

People on forums often conflate different issues.

First of all, if all things were equal, would a photographer accept gear with more DR, more megapixels, and a better SNR curve? Of course! But obviously, the supposition is pointless, because things aren't ever equal and it's all about making the right compromise for the individual.

Now, when some people (like me) talk about how DR isn't an issue and such, it's from a totally different perspective. The way I improve my photography is that I look at photos I think are amazing, try to understand how they're technically achieved, and then try to apply that to my own photography. It's often a combination of viewing other people's work, reading, experimentation, and then making it my own.

Most often, photos that I see that's just AMAZING, where they share what equipment was used, is quite often pretty old stuff that doesn't come close to what we can get in sensor tech today. When I go try to take great photos like that, I often fall (far) short -- but the shortfall is never "gee, if only I had 2 more steps of DR, I could have done it". And most certainly, it is never, "if only I had 50 megapixels, my shot would be freaking awesome".

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't like 50 megapixels (because, hey, I'm a nerd too, and I appreciate nice technology); but it does mean that it really would make me feel happier a whole lot more than it would improve my photography.

I see it frequently stated that great photography requires mastery of light and composition, and the capturing of a moment. I firmly believe that if you have all three of those elements, it hardly matters whether you have a 5DII or a A7RIII; you'll have a great photo.

So speaking only for myself, when I say that sensor tech isn't an issue, I mean that it really doesn't help me with light, composition, or moment, and for those rare photographs where I have managed to capture all three of those just right, I love my photos from my t2i -- or even Minolta Maxxum 7000i -- just as much as any camera body I've owned since.

My hobby of photography (and hence, interest in gear) isn't to have progressively easier ways to diarize my life and share that with others. It's to improve art in order to achieve images that are of the sort and quality of the work I admire -- and for that things like base ISO DR, given where we're at today with enthusiast cameras, just isn't an issue anymore.

I'd agree to the most of your points, although when you take 5DMkII and A7RIII as an example, both cameras produce great quality images to start with. However because Sony has greater DR and more resolutin in the sensor, it'll give you more freedom and will probably save some landscape shots where 5DMkII would struggle.

And if we go deeper in the past and take some old PowerShot cameras, old A540 or similar, you won't get anything good with those 5-6Mpix and extreme noise. The same applies to the mobile phones. The most recent top models have better sensors but not nearly good enough for serious landscaping or portraiture.

Can you get a good interesting image with the phone? - yes. Can you get decent shots from a phone in all conditions where you can get decent shots with 5DMkIV? - absolutely not.

 

[Don Haines]

OK......

Here is what you could do with a 2.1 Megapixel P/S camera with 8 stops of DR in 2001.....

I firmly believe that the major limitation with ALL cameras is the person using them.

All cameras today are better..... but people remain the same.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

OK......

Here is what you could do with a 2.1 Megapixel P/S camera with 8 stops of DR in 2001.....

I firmly believe that the major limitation with ALL cameras is the person using them.

All cameras today are better..... but people remain the same.

It looks good small sized. I appreciate your skill, it's a nice picture, colours and composition - no problem.

Opened full size 1600x1200 - sorry, the image quality is below mediocre. First of all it's not sharp... looks ok at 800x600 maybe. Also there's two blown out patches in the sky (thanks to low DR).

So it's good enough as an Instagram post, but not really usable if you want to print it or view on a big screen. Taken with a better modern camera, it could've been so much better/usable.

 

[Tugela]

Those old cameras were only good for old style snap shots, and then only barely. Anything larger than that and they look pretty terrible. So you would not be able to view them on any monitor and still look decent for example. Besides having low resolution, other issues were compression artefacts and debeyering (which reduces effective resolution)

The minimum for decent shots is about 8 megapixels.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The minimum for decent shots is about 8 megapixels.

That explains why this silverback looks pissed off, I was only using a 4 MP camera and he knew that in twelve years someone would think the shot wasn't decent.