[Brightcolours]

Nope, check other cameras.
For some reason, it seems quite difficult for you to admit the sensor in the RP is crap.

It appears dpreview agrees with these finding as well. From their RP review:
"The exposure latitude test, where we lift the shadows in images shot at progressively lower exposures shows that the EOS RP's performance is behind that of the Sony a7 II, and looks to be behind the EOS M50, despite the latter's smaller sensor."

But I suppose these sources are wrong. How can Canon possibly produce a subpar sensor?

Did you actually take a look at what I wrote? Or are you just trolling along, here?


  Screenshot 2020-06-18 at 16.12.52.png (Size: 124.16 KB / Downloads: 5)

And then you go on blah blahing about base ISO again.

I suppose you don't care what the sources actually are about?

I have never said that the RP has a great sensor. If I have said something in relation to it, it is about how guys like you for some odd reason place way too much emphasis on the importance of a very high DR at base ISO.
Guys like you often come with fake examples of how they are able to lift shadows 3 stops and get great images that way without ever showing great images, and going past the fact that lifting shadows with a 7.5EV tonal curve to start with means at most 10.5EV in the image. That and that lifted shadows look weird/fake/distasteful almost always anyhow.

So, no, the RP does not have the best sensor in the world. And no, I never claimed anything resembling that. I just claim that the nonsensical hammering on high DR is just that, nonsensical. 

Can I lift shadows with ISO100 RAW files from my EOS 6D? Yes of course I can. Using the DXO standard of DR, I still have 4.5 stops of DR past the standard tonal curve. Do I want to? No, lifting shadows is a strange hobby that is not one of mine.

Nor have I claimed that the EOS RP is a nice camera. I have often expressed my dislike for it for one main reason: the lack of full mechanical shutter, which DOES impact short exposure time images (it messes up bokeh, just like other cameras using electronic 1st shutter curtain. So I'd pass on the RP for that specific reason. But I would not pass on the EOS 6D mk II for its sensor, it does fine.

[thxbb12]

Maybe you could use your own advice before complaining I don't read what you wrote.
Did you actually read what I wrote a few posts back?
Here it goes:

"Sometimes you may have a large difference in brightness between say the foreground and the sky.
A solution is to use a tripod and shoot multiple shots at different exposures and merge them.
Another solution is to use a graduated filter, but it only works if you the 2 areas are perfectly separated (well close to), e.g. with a line.
A last solution is to take a single shot and post-process. Not perfect, but you can get descent results if the sensor doesn't introduce too much noise after post-processing (typically pulling dark areas)."

So yes, having better DR at base ISO is useful. And the RP sucks in this regard. I was giving the comparison with MFT because it shows well that Canon tech is behind given it doesn't do better than the best of MFT sensors (which is 4x smaller).

[Brightcolours]

Maybe you could use your own advice before complaining I don't read what you wrote.
Did you actually read what I wrote a few posts back?
Here it goes:

"Sometimes you may have a large difference in brightness between say the foreground and the sky.
A solution is to use a tripod and shoot multiple shots at different exposures and merge them.
Another solution is to use a graduated filter, but it only works if you the 2 areas are perfectly separated (well close to), e.g. with a line.
A last solution is to take a single shot and post-process. Not perfect, but you can get descent results if the sensor doesn't introduce too much noise after post-processing (typically pulling dark areas)."

So yes, having better DR at base ISO is useful. And the RP sucks in this regard. I was giving the comparison with MFT because it shows well that Canon tech is behind given it doesn't do better than the best of MFT sensors (which is 4x smaller).

I did read that and I did respond to a post of you here when I misread your post. I did start to write a "Sorry, I misread your post" a few days ago, but decided it was not worthwhile/helpful.

I explained in my post above that I disagree with that you get worthwhile images with that shadow pulling nonsense. If you want good landscape images, take images when the light is attractive and you actually will get nice results. Just a tip. 

But if shadow pulling fake looking images is your thing, by all means, swallow the high DR is a must pill. 

[toni-a]

You are arguing about EOSRP fine, here's an advice from an actual owner.
I don't believe in a do it all camera, and I prefer having more than one camera.
If you shoot JPG EOSRP is at least as good as the competition and in my subjective opinion superior, the color rendition is very well studied, if you shoot RAW and come from a traditional school or you are an ex film shooter, EOSRP won't disappoint you.
Now if you shoot RAW and want to do extremes like puling shadows 3 f stops and more EOSRP is not the camera for you, just look elewhere.

BTW do you know that EOSRP has cRAW which is a lossy RAW compression where most losses are actually in dynamic range and plenty of EOSRP users actually use cRAW ?
I rarely use EOSRP at base ISO, at middle to high ISO, the dynamic range vs competitors is almost the same, and since I am an old school guy who tries to get things right straight out of the camera and hates computer sitting, I just do minor adjustments on RAW files, so I have nothing to complain about

[thxbb12]

Maybe you could use your own advice before complaining I don't read what you wrote.
Did you actually read what I wrote a few posts back?
Here it goes:

"Sometimes you may have a large difference in brightness between say the foreground and the sky.
A solution is to use a tripod and shoot multiple shots at different exposures and merge them.
Another solution is to use a graduated filter, but it only works if you the 2 areas are perfectly separated (well close to), e.g. with a line.
A last solution is to take a single shot and post-process. Not perfect, but you can get descent results if the sensor doesn't introduce too much noise after post-processing (typically pulling dark areas)."

So yes, having better DR at base ISO is useful. And the RP sucks in this regard. I was giving the comparison with MFT because it shows well that Canon tech is behind given it doesn't do better than the best of MFT sensors (which is 4x smaller).

I did read that and I did respond to a post of you here when I misread your post. I did start to write a "Sorry, I misread your post" a few days ago, but decided it was not worthwhile/helpful.

I explained in my post above that I disagree with that you get worthwhile images with that shadow pulling nonsense. If you want good landscape images, take images when the light is attractive and you actually will get nice results. Just a tip. 

But if shadow pulling fake looking images is your thing, by all means, swallow the high DR is a must pill. 

I love this one: "take images when the light is attractive": I'm glad you told me this tip BC, because this never occured to me before ?
AHAHHAHAHA!
Here is a tip for you: anyone with a wife and kids will tell you this is pure fantasy

A few samples to illustrate why the more DR, the merrier (for each pair of image, the first is the unedited one):

[toni-a]

[quote='Brightcolours' pid='51335' dateline='1592496712']
[quote='thxbb12' pid='51334' dateline='1592491802']

For such a shot , I wouldn't even bother getting it in one shot using RP

[Brightcolours]

You are proving my point. The 1st you made into a fantasy landscape, straight out of fantasy movies. The 2nd looks unnatural, making the viewer wonder what exactly is reflecting that light on the back of the people sitting on that bench, light should not be that omni directional, with our brain telling us there can't be that back light combines with the odd software illumination of the subject. And why you think this is out of the realm of the RP sensor is a mystery to me, anyhow.
The 3rd, also strange light that does not really work, but the best of the three and fine for a family album, ofcourse. But not a great image, due to the light conditions and/or choices in post processing.

In many cases it is almost the opposite: for attractive images, in respect to DR, "the less" the merrier.






To recap: The images you posted and what you did with them of course can be made with a Canon EOS RP. The results are less than attractive, with odd, flat light that puzzles your brain (due to unexplained omni directional light effects). As photographer you should embrace light, which includes shadows. No reason to be afraid of shadows, and indeed, the dark.

You do not make a great case for "the need" for very high DR.

[toni-a]

for those shots I can easily have the same result using RP, however I would have exposed a little more to the right without burning out highlights to avoid noise in shadow areas.
shooting to the right then decreasing exposure to taste is always a valid approach

[mst]

The point here is not: do the images look natural or fake (I like them, btw). It is simply a matter of personal taste how much pulling of shadows (or highlights) one still finds attractive or considers HDR overkill. There is no right or wrong.

The point is: does the camera's sensor provide enough information to offer some buffer for this kind of post processing or not.

---

for those shots I can easily have the same result using RP, however I would  have exposed a little more to the right without burning out highlights to avoid noise in shadow areas.
shooting to the right then decreasing exposure to taste is always a valid approach

As you can see in the lower shot, there is already some clipping in the bright spots of the clouds. So, moving exposure further to the right probably would have caused trouble.

[toni-a]

You are proving my point. The 1st you made into a fantasy landscape, straight out of fantasy movies. The 2nd looks unnatural, making the viewer wonder what exactly is reflecting that light on the back of the people sitting on that bench, light should not be that omni directional, with our brain telling us there can't be that back light combines with the odd software illumination of the subject. And why you think this is out of the realm of the RP sensor is a mystery to me, anyhow.
The 3rd, also strange light that does not really work, but the best of the three and fine for a family album, of course. But not a great image, due to the light conditions and/or choices in post processing.

In many cases it is almost the opposite: for attractive images, in respect to DR, "the less" the merrier.

Sorry BC, but first photo is very nice on screen at low resolution can't say about shadow noise at higher resolution on prints
for picture 2 already the original is slightly underexposed.
As for picture 3, end result is just fine, ideally a reflector or off camera flash would have been perfect, but I know how things go with kids..... when it's one kid, wife would happily help you with reflector, but with two kids, being able to hold your camera and snap a few photos is already a struggle