Examples of DR photos and why this is important to landscape shooters

[birdman]

Can anyone provide me with example(s) of pictures that needed high DR to expose/bring out shadows/clip highlights, etc.? I am trying to evaluate how important it is to my shooting.

With the 17-40L, I do need to upgrade in the future to get the most out of this 5d2 sensor. I am including 5d3 users in this conversation as well, since at low ISO these cameras are nearly identical. I think I have seen a few examples where my camera could use more DR, especially when pulling shadows and banding that occur (in these situations).

I just started using LR 4.0 so I have spent tons of time in post, but I do use DPP quite regularly. So, if you can provide some samples would be greatly appreciated.

[iso79]

Check out this guy's work:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmtoh/

He shoots with the 5D Mark III and Mark II previously. When people say these cameras have poor dynamic range just point them to this guy's work 

[poias]

Check out this guy's work:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmtoh/

He shoots with the 5D Mark III and Mark II previously. When people say these cameras have poor dynamic range just point them to this guy's work 

Nobody is saying 5D Mark II has low dynamic range. Its DR was fine, similar to its competition 4 YEARS AGO!

Now, the new 5D Mark III has much lower DR than its competition. Good photographers can somewhat compensate using HDR techniques, but the facts don't change that 5D Mark III has much lower DR than the competition.

If you are a landscape shooter and are not married to Canon, then you will get much, much more bang for the buck if you use D800/E. OF course, the ultimate for landscape shooters is the MF backs, but that is beyond the scope of the DSLRs.

[Albi86]

Try to take a good picture of a magpie in sunlight and you'll have an idea

[iso79]

Check out this guy's work:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmtoh/

He shoots with the 5D Mark III and Mark II previously. When people say these cameras have poor dynamic range just point them to this guy's work 

Nobody is saying 5D Mark II has low dynamic range. Its DR was fine, similar to its competition 4 YEARS AGO!

Now, the new 5D Mark III has much lower DR than its competition. Good photographers can somewhat compensate using HDR techniques, but the facts don't change that 5D Mark III has much lower DR than the competition.

If you are a landscape shooter and are not married to Canon, then you will get much, much more bang for the buck if you use D800/E. OF course, the ultimate for landscape shooters is the MF backs, but that is beyond the scope of the DSLRs.

Too bad there aren't any good Nikon lenses that will utilize the full DR potential of the 800/E.

[poias]

Check out this guy's work:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmtoh/

He shoots with the 5D Mark III and Mark II previously. When people say these cameras have poor dynamic range just point them to this guy's work 

Nobody is saying 5D Mark II has low dynamic range. Its DR was fine, similar to its competition 4 YEARS AGO!

Now, the new 5D Mark III has much lower DR than its competition. Good photographers can somewhat compensate using HDR techniques, but the facts don't change that 5D Mark III has much lower DR than the competition.

If you are a landscape shooter and are not married to Canon, then you will get much, much more bang for the buck if you use D800/E. OF course, the ultimate for landscape shooters is the MF backs, but that is beyond the scope of the DSLRs.

Too bad there aren't any good Nikon lenses that will utilize the full DR potential of the 800/E.

No FF lens can utilize a 36mpx sensor to its "full DR potential". But that does not mean they come close... coming close to the full potential yields far greater IQ than whatever inferior sensor Canon is stuck on, at least for landscape photography. I guess my point is that D800/E IQ will exceed Canon's in landscape photography, so a landscape shooter(like the OP) would definitely benefit right away.

[aznable]

Too bad there aren't any good Nikon lenses that will utilize the full DR potential of the 800/E.

nikkon 14-24 is a very good lens for LS photography

[Albi86]

Nobody is saying 5D Mark II has low dynamic range. Its DR was fine, similar to its competition 4 YEARS AGO!

Exactly. Canon has been producing sensors with around 11.5 EVs of DR for 3 generations now. To make it clear, it's the same DR the 500D/T2i has.

The difference is of course related to noise, newer cameras and especially FFs let you pull out more details in PP without producing as much noise. But it's not the same thing.

There is plainly something wrong with this.

[revup67]

If you are a landscape shooter and are not married to Canon, then you will get much, much more bang for the buck if you use D800/E.

The D800 has its shortcomings as well.  Seems no one can can the proper color right on this camera. The AWB in comparison to the Canon fails miserably where as the 5D Mark III out of the box appears spot on.  Also trying to use the D800 custom WB settings still does not reflect the right colors or shifting.

See for yourself > http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=11652

To resolve any concerns about shadow recovery there is a good tip on how to resolve this as found on the Fred Miranda site:  "...there is a workaround if you shoot RAW. Start by overexposing (up to 1 stop) above the correct exposure before taking your shot and then normalize the exposure later in software. This gives you the correct exposure but the shadow detail is much cleaner, just in case you need to push it a stop or two. Alternatively you could use ISO L (50) for low contrast situations whenever lighting and wind conditions allow. However, make sure that there is no clipping in the highlights (blinkies) because essentially when you are using ISO 50, you are already compromising highlight detail by about one stop. I've used this workaround for many years and have been happy with the results. 

[Albi86]

If you are a landscape shooter and are not married to Canon, then you will get much, much more bang for the buck if you use D800/E.

The D800 has its shortcomings as well.  Seems no one can can the proper color right on this camera. The AWB in comparison to the Canon fails miserably where as the 5D Mark III out of the box appears spot on.  Also trying to use the D800 custom WB settings still does not reflect the right colors or shifting.

See for yourself > http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=11652

Very amusing.

The video was posted on Cinema5D, so guess who was the winner?

They tested the 5D3 with the 50mm f/1.4 USM while they put the old Nikkor f/1.4 D on the D800. Why not the G lens? How can you compare autofocus when Canon is mounting an USM lens and the Nikon an old micromotor one? Why the dear Dave didn't see fit to mention it?

He pointed out Canon's better performance in low light - which is something plainly known - but it was very unfair. It's very apparent, when you compare those hi-ISO pics (minute 2:40 on) that Nikon's images look 1/3 or even 1/2 stops brighter. Why the dear Dave didn't point it out, when comparing noise levels?

One other very amusing part was the one about continuous shoot. Instead of praising Nikon's higher fps and buffer in spite of the file size, he urged to stress how slow the Nikon was on writing those files on what? On a Class 6 sd card!!! Jesus, you're spending several thousands bucks on a camera, and then you're niggard with cards??? Do this test with a hi-performance CF card and then you can have a sound and concrete opinion. Of course, being D800's files much bigger, using a slow card creates a terrible bottleneck, much more than with the 5D3. Even if you spend 200 bucks on cards, you're still getting a better bargain than the 5D3. So again, complaining on what?

And then yes, dulcis in fundo, the AWB problem. I mean, seriously, it's about moving 2 slides. T W O. Calibrate your camera with LR and you have to do it just once. Unless he's saying that D800's files are greenish - and it would be quite a novelty - he's really complaining on nothing.

[dswatson83]

What I would give to have the 5D mark III as my workhorse camera and the Nikon D800 as my dynamic photo shooter. I shoot weddings and the mark III is the jack of all trades with great low light, fast shooting, awesome video, more convenient file sizes with more than enough resolution, great screen, 3 custom modes, and just overall awesome pictures. However, there is no denying that in scenes that have great lighting with plenty of DR, with a style that looks good super sharp, paired with a great lens, and shooting at lower ISO speeds, the D800 will yield a noticeably better photo when placed side by side. During portrait sessions, I do shoot some photos under those conditions that would make for some really stunning pictures using the D800. However, all of that comes with many weaknesses such as huge file sizes, not quite as wonderful (but still good) low light results, and slow speeds that keep me from wanting it as my primary shooter.

[birdman]

Would this be an example of DR? I took with 5d2 and edited some in LR 4.1.

Loving some Lightroom 4!!!!!!

[bdunbar79]

Nice shot.

[Astro]

They tested the 5D3 with the 50mm f/1.4 USM while they put the old Nikkor f/1.4 D on the D800.

speaking about "old" the EF 50 f1.4 design is 20 years old too.

[Policar]

It's not that important unless you're in a rush and can't wait on light.

The best landscape photography is still shot on Velvia, which has four or five stops of DR.  If need be you can always use grad filters or multiple exposures, anyway.