thank you

Thank you very much, I could not find it on my R7.

the highest resolution media off all time is also the oldest the Daguerreotype!

Nice tutorial. May I ask what were the focal ranges you used on those photos? Thx!

What will 'Purge cache" do? Will you still have access to all your photos and where will they be?

Fuji Velveia 50 iso film will support an 84 megapixel equivalent digital full frame sensor. That is published technical data provided by Fujifilm.

Mine don’t say enhance I’m using Lightroom 3

I prefer film over digital photography.

IMAX, which is the highest quality you can get in film making still uses chemical film today. That says it all. Chemical is superior in almost every sense but the practicality of digital filming is unbeatable.

Posseggo il DS e sono super felice di questa lente! Ho anche il Sigma 105 mm. f. 1,4 ART che è molto nitido e superlativo nella sua resa, ma il Canon 85 mm f. 1,2 DS possiede quella resa nella sfocatura, unica al mondo e che fa si che le altre differenze che tu rilevi siano del tutto ininfluenti. Buona giornata.

Don't buy cheap screens with no calibrating options

BOUGHT***

It's not fair to compare this to a prime lens for sharpness. Would you rather have several prime lenses in your kit, and the hassel of changing lenses? Or would you rather carry one lens that is good for the whole gamut of ranges from 24-70mm? I guess it's just a matter of priorities. No photographers needs are the same as everybody else. I have exactly 2 prime lenses in my inventory; a 50 mm and an 85mm (both f1.8) and those are pulled out once in a blue moon. I use the 24-70 for everything from stuido work to weddings to shooting bands in bars to taking shots on holiday. The sub f2.8 and below that most prime lenses have is not enough for me to even consider buying for my kit. The sharpness of a prime lense to me (and to my clients) is negligeable. I'm not going to pull out a sharpness sheet and my client is never going to ask for one. To me, the 24-70 is a no brainer.

this is shit !!!!!!. thank you for wasting my time asshole!!!!!!!

as someone who worked for years on printing machines, Id say about 6mp of detail there, the rest is wishful thinking :D yea there is good slide etc but good luck finding velvia from the fridge and a place that can process e6 with fresh chemistry

A Gem of perfection in portraits, wedding, I nevver will miss! Greets

Fortunately, they come together in a package deal so its not an either/or situation.

@11:47 suggest alternatives please.

ZY Chengs video is greeting xD

He is right. The EKTAR 100 in an Asahi Pentax with 1.4/50 reaches that, or surpasses it. Ideal light conditions. I measured it. The lens does 120-150 lines /mm on the negative. Measured it also.

Really well explained. Thanks!

Excellent Explanation Man :D never had considered the Luminance like a whites and blacks adjusted of a given HUE 0.0

In short: -How many megapixels is 35mm film? -No.

The EF 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4 tele will get to 280mm at f4...1 stop better than this 70-300.

Great stuff mate

Has the newer generations forgotten what Analog is? There is no equivalent pixel count for 35mm film. As digital resolution increases, we just get closer to the digital sample rate that is able to deliver the detail that we can perceive from an Analog film medium. But, at the end of the day, a digital image will always be made up of a finite number of samples of the original purely analog scene.

haven't even noticed that little section o.O Thanks a lot =)

Am a wildlife photographer and have this lens for 2 years now! This has never let me down in any lighting condition..! Only thing to crib about is the weight 😂

I think 24mm + 50mm + 135 mm. Also a good combination of primes. It also should cover all possible scenarios.

mine is always inaccurate sometimes no generated image even i did a very specific promt

If they were internal zooms theb you’d have no reason to drop another grand on the mkii version in a few years

I only buy Canon or Zeiss. I once tried a Sigma 100-400 zoom, when the AF failed there were no parts available to repair it. And I thought Sigma's attitude stank. Longevity matters. I own the Canon 35mm f1.4 L II and think it's truly excellent. You forgot to mention that the Canon has blue-spectrum diffractive optics, as does the Canon RF 85mm f1.2 L. Here's what Roger Cicala (CEO of Lens Rentals) had to say: 'The new second generation Canon 35mm f/1.4 II lens is a massive upgrade over the original version. (And the original version was an outstanding lens.) It’s sharper, particularly at the edges and corners, wide open. It’s built to an amazing level of over-engineering. It really is, simply, as good as it gets. That being said, if you aren’t going to shoot at f/1.4, the Canon 35mm f/2 IS lens is nearly as good optically, has image stabilization, is a lot smaller, and a lot less expensive.'

The fill is greyed out for me

Unbelieveablly unhelpful. If you have a new computer, you want to move your hungreds or thousands of images under dozens of names, wedding, trips, portraits family etc. who transports just one folder to a newe computer. Don't you have to load lightgroom on the new computer??

Thanks for sharing.

In film photography the film developing process also affects the resolution, different chemicals and developing times affects the grain size thus the final resolution.

cheapest full frame mirrorless is sony A7ii not RP.

My dumbass laptop could never

LOL. Who's turning out photos at an image scale of 400%? The Canon RF 50mm F/1.8 is great.

hi! i would like to get the 35mm f1.4 sigma lense you presented but i have a canon eos R50. What ring should i get to mount it please ? Thanks a lot !

Thanks for telling EVERYONE!

BIG THUMBS UP ON THIS VIDEO! And thanks for taking us back to basics...

Iused to shoot transparency film. We estimated a 5 stop dynamic range 2 stops over, two under. Therefore you had to work to compress the range on the film, often using fill flash and or netural density graduated filters. I used and still do a minolta 5400dpi scanner. What are my results like? If there is a a mix of sun and shade, if you expose for the brights, your shadows witll be black. If you expose for the shadows,your highlights will be blown out, similar to what you get with a jpeg image. There is no way I can get the dynamic range out of the film that I can with a digital sensor. If my transparency is within that 5 stop range, you can get an exellent scan; you might be able to get a bit more. This is with multisampling the scan. Compare that with a digital image. where I can get detail in the shadows and detail in the highlights with the same exposure. Have I thrown out the thousands of 35mm slides I have? No however there i really no comparison between what i get from a digital sensor and the film camera. I can count the number of rolls of film I have shot since 2003 on the fingers of one hand.

The RF 14-35mm F/4 was my first L series lens and I still use it today. I took it with me on a month trip to Japan and took the most amazing photos with it. I took it in the scorching heat, rain and all different weather conditions and help up like a tank. I did however updated the firmware and I felt like it lost a bit of “sharpness or clarity” I can’t really explain it, but I’m probably just pixel peeping. In the real world it did not matter. Lighting conditions were amazing. I did had to do get up around 4am to beat the crowds and wish I had a F1.2 or F1.4 lens as a bit of photos I took early in the morning are unusable to an extent. I paid $1199.00 for the F/4 last year as it was sale. I think the price was right and couldn’t justify paying $2300 for the F2.8 version at the time. Now it’s $2099. You can pick up a near mint EF 16-35 F/2.8 II for around $500 on eBay from a few well reputable Japanese camera shops. The mark III cost about the same as RF version. I’ll probably buy the EF mark III when it gets discounted heavily.

I have the 14-45, bought for city trip /architecture in old European cities where you can't always step back far. Went to Barcelona with it recently and the shots look great, though I havent done the post on many yet.....I don't miss the extra stop of aperture for this use at all (generally f8 or so) but I massively value the lower weight and size, especially now all the airlines are being very stingy on carry on size! In fact, my carry on was stuffed with this lens +24-105f4 + 35mm prime RF. If I had the larger 15-35 I'd have had to leave the 35 mm at home, and while i have that focal length on the zoom, I use the 35mm at night to get the f 1.8 and a very small camera (on the original EOS R)...definitely prefer to have the prime than the slightly better but heavier of these two for me.

In the comment section I see people talking about using digital image correction to insert data that is not originally captured in the sensor. That is not acceptable for comparison purposes because these added or interpolated data are not captured by the sensor itself. When comparing things there has to be a solid boundary to define what are we actually comparing. Similarly digitally woven images (which consist of several exposures) cannot be compared to a single film image which is captured with a single exposure. Let us be strict about what we compare. An untouched-up film image can only be compared to the digital data directly and instantaneously captured by the digital sensor. That would be a more valid comparison between sensor and film. 😅

I'm thinking I will be shooting with canon 5D mark iv with 30 L lens and canon r6 mark 11 with 2.8 70-200 L lens. First time in a church. I have done several in the outdoors

Simple easy amazing

The prices you mentioned just dont fit at all. When looking at the used market the 200-400 is more like 4000. You can get some fore 3000 or less but these have many beauty marks or technical problems

EXCELLENT!! Thank you very much. very good explanation, the best in years, indeed.