17mm f4L TS-E and 5DIII
The tonal quality in the foreground is exceptional ! How many exposures was this ?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
17mm f4L TS-E and 5DIII
I've updated the original post with a set of example images from this weekend. One of the few sets that actually were not blurred by camera shake on the A7r. I don't know if I'll get another chance to use the A7r in any kind of DR-limited situation...weather moved in, it's been raining a lot, so there simply isn't any high contrast. I could do more interior shots...but we all know how that would probably go down.
In my experience the Dig!c 4 cameras do have more FPN that both the earlier and later versions but it is buried so deep that it is just irrelevant 99.9% of the time to 99.9% of people.
Yes, it is irrelevant to most people simply because not everyone underexposes their photos massively needing to push their photos by 5 stops to make them "usable".
I don't know anyone who goes around and purposely tries to underexpose by 5 stops so that they have to lift shadows and make a mess. It's about scenes that have a lot of DR so that when you expose properly some important parts of the scene end up in the lower parts of the signal.
I know, it isn't about both sides or not. I KNOW both sides go at it. But it's an issue, DR is an issue with Canon cameras. It's THE issue with Canon cameras for many people. It's a topic of discussion. DIS-CUS-SION. We CAN be civil about this issue. It's a choice we have to make. It's a difficult choice to make, though, when the anti-DR crowd regularly insults the pro-DR crowd. It's usually the anti-DR crowd who throws the first insult, or gets mocking and derogatory, or what have you...that's where the discussion always takes a really bad turn. That's where it gets personal, dirty, mean...that's where it becomes a war rather than a discussion.
This is an issue. It's an issue that people who don't think it's an issue are just going to accept. Some of us want more DR in Canon cameras. We have VERY good reasons for wanting CANON to do it, rather than someone else (and having used the A7r myself now for a few days, absolutely LOVING the IQ, I want Canon to do it even more now.) Having to worry about being insulted or starting the same old never-ending DEBATE every time I want to say something about DR is really shitty. I'm a Canon fan, just like everyone else here. I shouldn't have to worry that five specific members here are going to get excessively irate over the mere mention of a camera feature.
However, as long as no one puts any effort into trying to change their reaction to this particular topic, this particular issue...it really is never going to change. I made an active choice to reevaluate my stance, my reactions, to this topic about a month ago, when we had a nasty spat between a long-time member and a new member who just decided to go at each others throats. It's possible to change...even if you don't change your opinion, it's possible to change your reactions.
No one likes the DR debate, but it's not necessarily because they don't care about DR. It's because they don't like how the discussion turns into a hatefest. (I know this for a fact, as since posting my thread sharing RAWs from the 5D III and A7r, I've received a lot of thank you PMs, most of which mentioned that specifically...that they like to know the facts about DR, but don't like how the discussions on these forums go when DR is brought up.) The tone of the conversation here has to change. The insults need to stop. This IS an issue that some people care about. It doesn't matter if they are the majority or not, for some people it matters. For a lot of those people, they have specific reasons for staying with Canon, which only emphasizes their reasons why they want Canon to improve DR, and their frustrations in reaction to how Canon has not improved DR for so many years. Those people, including myself, have the right to discuss the topic without having our throats ripped out. You don't like that? Well...you can always ignore the discussion...or just ignore the members, then you'll never see their posts again.
Let's just be civil, okay?
You expect much.
These DR arguments end up with both sides pissing in the wind.
With that attitude, these discussions will never be civil. I tried to start a thread dedicated to DR discussion, didn't push any kind of agenda, and the thread was still derailed...primarily by the anti-DR crowd. So long as no one tries to react differently to the DR discussion (which is not going to go away...it's the only real issue Canon cameras have, so OF COURSE people are going to bring the subject up), then nothing will ever BE different.
I posted that particular picture for two reasons, first because of the composition being so similar to yours, the second because I knew you would do the "oh but the 1Ds MkIII is the only Canon camera that could do that" so it is from a 2002 1D.
HAHA! I see you like messin' with us.
BUT - I could boot up my old 40D and it would also fare quite well with a deep shadow lift.
The challenge is to rework a shot like that on a Digic 4 or Digic 5 body. Digic 3 and older didn't generally have as much of an FPN problem, even if they still had plenty of noise.
I really screwed up my knee, and weather is blowing in rather fiercely now. I can hardly walk, so hiking up to my landscape spots (Long Lake is a great one, but it's a decent hike up past Brainard Lake, which is a nice area...and I can't take any hikes like that now. ).
I'll see what I can do about getting some more demonstration shots. Given the tone of this thread, I don't think it will matter much...same old stuff, same old retorts, same old nastiness. I simply set out to demonstrate the differences, as best as possible...which required an extreme situation. It doesn't matter if you always do a 5-stop push, even with a one or two stop push, the differences can be realized.
I'm pretty dismayed at some of the insults being thrown, not even at myself, it's just not necessary (Sporgon!) We can be civil about this issue.
I never get noise or banding in images taken with the 5DII, not in blue skies, dark shadow - nowhere. Either you had a real dud of a camera or a real dud of a brain. Maybe both, I'm being generous.
If you've never once seen noise or banding in 5D2 shadows then you never push it or use DPP which now apparently mushes shadows to nothing, maybe not much banding or noise, but raw mush, no details at all either.
I mean come on, you can say it doesn't matter for what and how you shoot, but to try to imply that nobody ever sees banding or noise in 5D2 low ISO shadows unless they have a defective copy, come on man.
download this image at its largest original file (it's taken @ 6400 ISO),https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotoblogia/15255455365/in/set-72157647629974871when viewed at 33% in Photoshop it already starts to show high noise, at 50% is bad I KNOW is a crop camera and it as an improvement over the 7D, but after so many years?
it was already mentioned that DPP is better at develop cr2 raw expecially in the shadows, from this point your examples of the blue boat is very interesting even more with no noise reduction ...
it would be very useful if you would post your version of the 5D3 jrista file developed with your workflow so we have a direct comparision (i think jrista used lightroom since is similar to my results). In some way the windows area could be the clouds and the furniture the dark beach ... so even it is not intended to be an artistic shot i think it is informative.
I think it is probable that your DPP conversion would be better and i'm curios to see how much ...
In the end if not better sensor Canon could realise a better/powerful software or why not help Adobe improve the CR2 raw converter Their DPP is free, they do not need to protect sales in this regard, maybe it is the opposite, there are many adobe customers that could get more out of canon so no need to search elsewhere.