I have not mentioned specifically Canon and I think that the modern sensors of all companies are more or less comparable in usable DR. One stop does not help in critical situations therefore I mentioned the 16-20 stops. Which no camera company delivers for the standard consumer/pro photography market as far as I know.Every time. Every single time a wide DR scene is shot on a Canon someone comes back with "...it's not THAT wide a scene." Like clock work. No examples of their own...but the Canon example just isn't good enough. DxO and DPReview said so!
I would prefer to increase the full well capacity to 1 000 000 photoelectrons - I think this is the way to have data for all light levels. And it also helps to get a more precise image due to lower statistical errors. As physicist I always like to have the best data I can get.Or if your camera was turned off. At the risk of derailing your pedantry, the point of the question was under what practical circumstances would the sun not be blown out. A 13-stop ND (e.g. solar eclipse filter) would result in the sun not blowing out, but of course everything in the image that wasn't the sun would be pitch black.
If you do not saturate the photosites of your sensor. With enough DR you could map the tones to that result - or if you have the right display medium. OLED might be one step in the right direction if the OS of your computer delivers precise data to represent the brightness levels ... or micro LEDs (sub-mm anorganic LEDs) which are non-organic and burn-in-proof but expensive (now). They are state-of-the-art in cinema displays.
A LEDs photon flux can be changed between 10 photons per second up to 10^12 photons per second should be possible resulting in a DR of roughly ridculous 25 stops ... theoretically.
EDIT: 10^12 = 1 000 000 000 000 is a rough estimate
Landscape, include sun, don't blow highlights, maintain realistic detail in shadows without helpful reflecting surface? Done.
Done, I might add, with a 2008 Canon DSLR with a single shot and no clever processing or masks or filters of any kind.
Now I am the first to admit I can find the limits of the DR of my camera, but I believe I could do that with any camera because they are all comparable. What I can also do is mitigate any perceived 'limitations' it has to get the shot I want regardless of the scene DR. I shoot real estate that no on the shelf camera can retain the scene DR in one shot, none, no Sony or Nikon or anything else, if I need more DR than I can capture in one shot I take more than one shot!
Great shot! I don't expect to see anything comparable from the DRoners.
So, which still camera in regular use will give you 16-20 stops?He said landscape work with the sun in the image - in that case you would like to have 16-20 stops of DR. And IMO he is right.
What's fun, is so is the sun in Michael Mavin's shots.....the sun is blown out.
Fail. Sorry, but the sun itself in your image is clearly blown out. Obviously, you need to be able to see sunspots on the surface of the sun and complete detail in the deepest shadows of the landscape, and in your case since you mentioned reflections you really should’ve used a circular polarizer to enable imaging of the underwater depths, where you should be able to distinguish the flounder from the sand after pushing the unlit ocean floor to daytime brightness. Face it, if you can’t do that then your image sucks. Just sucks.Landscape, include sun, don't blow highlights, maintain realistic detail in shadows without helpful reflecting surface? Done.
Discarding autofocus pixels is how Sony sensors work, not how Canon DPAF sensors work. So that isn't an explanation for banding on the 5D4/R.[..]
Somewhere it was mentioned that the problem might be that some whole lines of pixels have to be used for auto focus. For me that does not sound like a good idea at all. I do not want whole lines skipped and interpolated by software. Each pixel should be used to capture light that actually appears on the final photo. Unfortunately even modern DSLRs to that to maintain auto focus for video and live view. That is very concerning for me. Rather than losing pixels on the sensor I would get rid of video and live view.
Unlikely. That's only 20 stops of DR.I would prefer to increase the full well capacity to 1 000 000 photoelectrons - I think this is the way to have data for all light levels.
You are right - that is NOT all light levels but I think the DR of the eye-brain-system is something like 16...18 stops with the same setting (retina sensitivity/sensors and iris aperture setting). By the way it is less than 20 stops due to noise floor.Unlikely. That's only 20 stops of DR.
I am shure full well capacity doesn't mean to shoot always at ISO 5 - it helps to conserve very high highlights (high contrast scenes, e.g. macro in contra light, deep forest in contralight) at ISO 100 which are always overexposed if you use a photographically correct exposure of the main subject. And ISO 5 would be helpful as an option to (1) open the aperture or (2) increase exposure time without additional devices (ND filters).Another factor contributing to DR and often forgotten is that shooting at ISO 5 and below is rarely feasible.
He answered this @ 2:06 in his video: He updated the camera with the older FW to the current version and the banding issue was resolved.So the guy compared two cameras with different firmware rather than comparing the SAME camera before and after (NOTE: I can't watch the whole video right now so maybe he did later, in which case it's all good).
That doesn't prove anything on its own if the issue is to do with quality control on the EOS R sensor.