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

[scrappydog]

All 11.2 is usable. I would argue that for prints (not pixel peeping) you can dig a little deeper into the shadows and use 12 or even 12.5 stops.

I can maybe push a little more out of my 60D, but I'm not sure about my 5D Mark II.  I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but the muddiness of the darks with the 5DII is striking.  I'm still testing it out to see how I can get the most out of it.

[pdirestajr]

It's called using a DSLR people.  No, DR will not be infinite and superb, on any DSLR camera.

There is nothing magical about a medium format or other sytems with higher then common DR.  There is no mechanical reason why a DSLR can not have a high DR sensor, it is just a matter of economics.  There are machine vision sensors that meet or exceed human DR, and in another 5-10 years the common DLSR (or mirrorless, depending on how the market goes) this will be likely be available to regular photographers.

Once the DR technology is perfected, and high ISO noise is completely eliminated, and all cameras are 60 mega pixies... What excuse will all the spec-sheet-pixel-peepin-chart-reading-camera-testers complain about as the reason their photos aren't good enough? I'm so excited for these future point-and-shoots!

[birdman]

There's so many examples of excellent 5d2 and 5d3 landscape shots out there that DR limitations are not as prevalent as reading this forum would suggest IMHO.

It's as simple as a higher MP competing FF body that came along and bested Canon's top MP in a couple of technical specs....according to DXO mark. The D800 is a great camera. The 5d2/5d3 are great cameras. What would sway me to the D800 (if I strictly did landscape photog) is more about Resolution, IQ, and Nikon's slightly better wide angle offerings.

I say slightly better because 1) I am a Canon owner and 2) I don't want to feel the wrath of hate if I claim this is better than that. This camera crap is only a hobby for me; an obsessive compulsive hobby, but still a hobby. Pardon the reference, but I see it as a D!ck measuring contest. "Mine is bigger than yours." Happy Father's Day folks. Time for some shut eye. GNite. 

[scrappydog]

What would sway me to the D800 (if I strictly did landscape photog) is more about Resolution, IQ, and Nikon's slightly better wide angle offerings.

I just tested out my new TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, and I'm not sure how much sharper Nikon could make any lens compared to that one (when it is shot properly).  It is amazing.

[briansquibb]

What would sway me to the D800 (if I strictly did landscape photog) is more about Resolution, IQ, and Nikon's slightly better wide angle offerings.

I just tested out my new TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, and I'm not sure how much sharper Nikon could make any lens compared to that one (when it is shot properly).  It is amazing.

I agree

The 200 f/2 is not far behind either ...

[Marsu42]

A crop is fine, but the entire frame is horrid.

Did you recover the highlights (in Lightroom) from the raw? And in this case, you could just have taken 2 bracketing shots because the bright scene is static and exposure fused them with no hdr blur.

The problem w/ too little dr only matters when shooting lots of shots w/o the time for exposure fusion/hdr or when the high dr scene itsself isn't static like a black and white animal or moving leaves and such.

[Albi86]

I guess most people still don't realize the big difference in terms of DR, MPs, etc.

If you are an event photographer you need to use a flash, and this determines most of your IQ and shooting style. You don't even need a FF camera for that. I've been shooting events with a Rebel and my pics put to shame those taken with a 5D2, because I was shooting ISO 800 f/4 and knew how to use my speedlite while most of people with a FF relied on their bigger sensor and fast primes to to the job without freezing the action with a flash. Result? A disaster (for them). But the point is: such celebrative pictures do not need a high DR because the point usually is to lit subject and bg evenly. Also, no one is going to print  posters from such pics, so even 10MP would be more than enough. So I would say it's basically a tie, with a slight advantage for the 5D3.

If you are a studio-based or fashion pro, you will plan your set in advance and again, you will not need a high DR or more MP than the 5D3 has. You decide if you want soft or contrasty shadows, and you can take your time to frame your subject. Again I would say it's a tie, with a slight advantage for the D800 if you change your mind during post processing. D800 clear winner if you really print big.

If you are into sports or wildlife, none of these cameras is suitable due to low fps and buffer. Again though, having to choose, D800's higher MP and DR would be my choice. Its crop modes might also be useful in such situations.

If you are into landscape photography D800 is the clear winner. More pixels, more DR, more colore depth. Can't find one reason why one should prefer the 5D3 here.

If you are a PRO, both the D800 and the 5D3 would suite your needs equally well in most situations. This doesn't change the fact though that the D800 is an overall better and more versatile camera, and it's embarassing that it's considerably cheaper than the 5D3. So yes, this makes the 5D3 look very overpriced from a market perspective.

The interesting difference is if you're not a PRO. It makes a lot of difference when you can't plan your shots to have more DR and more pixels to crop. The D800 is the clear winner here, and I don't see how any amateur should prefer to buy a even more expensive 5D3.

[torger]

Don't forget that the DR advantage is there at base ISO, at higher ISOs there's not much of a difference. For wildlife I think the Canon *system* is a winner thanks to the excellent super-telephoto lenses and great teleconverters.

The D800 can compete with some medium format systems thanks to the resolution and excellent base ISO DR, this is very clear at MF forums where the D800 is discussed a lot, some have dropped out of MF and uses a D800E instead. The 5Dmk3 is not discussed at all - it is not an alternative to MF. For typical DSLR type of photography though the 5Dmk3 sensor is good enough so it is other things that people care about, like how it feels in the hand, ruggedness, autofocus performance, speed etc.

[scrappydog]

Did you recover the highlights (in Lightroom) from the raw? And in this case, you could just have taken 2 bracketing shots because the bright scene is static and exposure fused them with no hdr blur.

No, the highlights were blown.  I could have tried to bracket the shot.  However, I was being rushed, it was really hard to get the single shot, and it was hand held, which would have made bracketing a difficult proposition.  If I did not have these issues, I would have tried to take a bracketed shot.  I would need ~3 stops to recover the blown out portion.

[Marsu42]

and it was hand held, which would have made bracketing a difficult proposition.

... this is one of the few things why I think IS makes sense in wider angle lenses - taking handheld bracketing shots w/o too much differences between them. But Photomatrix does a good job assembling different pictures, it's just that the overlapping smaller part gets smaller.

[Jason Beiko]

Good (landscape) photography is about reading the light, not about the dynamic range of your camera.

Jim Brandenburg would disagree with you...both are important.   

[motorhead]

I use a 5D2 now. When it was new to me I spent a couple of days with a pro landscape 'tog who used the same camera. We discussed the DR and came to an agreement that 5 stops was about it. The 11 point something quoted by Canon is completely artificial. Look at the actual DR graph and it has around the 5 stops in the centre, then long, almost horizontal tails top and bottom. These tails achieve nothing except artificially push the quotable DR sky high.

[Marsu42]

I use a 5D2 now. When it was new to me I spent a couple of days with a pro landscape 'tog who used the same camera. We discussed the DR and came to an agreement that 5 stops was about it.

That's very interesting, because (well, on my 60d) a theoretical higher dr capability isn't backed up by my experiences of how large bracketing steps have to be so the exposures just overlap a little.

I have indeed often wondered myself where the high dr is hidden, because exactly as you say according to the graphs you should/could squeeze more dr out (at least in postprocessing), but the resolution of these highlights/shadows is very low. Do you have any other sources on this?

[Neeneko]

Once the DR technology is perfected, and high ISO noise is completely eliminated, and all cameras are 60 mega pixies... What excuse will all the spec-sheet-pixel-peepin-chart-reading-camera-testers complain about as the reason their photos aren't good enough? I'm so excited for these future point-and-shoots!

*shrug* people often look towards what is better then what they currently have.  New equipment with new capabilities that lets you push the limits of what already exists can be exciting.

Digital cameras have been 'good enough' for years.  Outside large format they have pretty much completely eclipsed film when it comes to capability, and film spent its entire lifespan improving every year.  We are all on this site because we want to know what is next and because there is some element of photography that we hope will be improved over what we are currently using.

I am always perplexed as to why people feel the need to degrade or diminish others when they are hoping for improvements in domains that the speaker is not interested in, with this 'you are just pixel peepers' derailing being a common one.

[NormanBates]

I'm not complaining that the 5D3 is not good enough. I'm complaining that its price is out of line with the D800: it should be clearly cheaper, not massively more expensive.