gdanmitchell said:When in doubt, doubt.
I love this.
Upvote
0
gdanmitchell said:When in doubt, doubt.
gdanmitchell said:lycan said:Check this article that is somewhat a response to those "tests" (if it should be considered tests....) Tim Parkin did
http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2015/08/04/photographic-myths-and-platitudes-that-noise-is-awful
Ah, you found my article. Thanks...
thepancakeman said:But I'm also somewhat of a novice, so maybe there is another way to do this? Also: I was at f1.8 and ISO 3200 on my 7D, which was already way too high IMHO. And yes, I realize going to a 5D III would help a fair amount, but even then I can see it coming up short.
kraats said:Who is going to lift shadows 6 stops in real life. This had nothing to do with the image quality the 5dsr can deliver.
Botts said:kraats said:Who is going to lift shadows 6 stops in real life. This had nothing to do with the image quality the 5dsr can deliver.
You'd think it's absurd, but on the Sony forums and Fred Miranda the comparisons are occurring at 7 stops. They're also arguing about the 12/14 bit raw voodoo that occurs in bulb or electronic shutter mode.
I don't think I've pushed anything in my library more than 3 stops. If I am missing by 7 stops, something crazy happened.
I'm actually impressed with the 5DsR's performance considering how many words were spilled on the Sony vs Canon DR debate.
thepancakeman said:So, would this count as a real world example? (Unfortunately, no photo to go with...)
I was tasked with shooting a talent show at night in a dimly lit church with no flash allowed. One of the people put on a karate demonstration. The only way I could get even close to stopping the motion was to severely underexpose (I think I used about 3 stops) the image and try to recover it in post.
But I'm also somewhat of a novice, so maybe there is another way to do this? Also: I was at f1.8 and ISO 3200 on my 7D, which was already way too high IMHO. And yes, I realize going to a 5D III would help a fair amount, but even then I can see it coming up short.
neuroanatomist said:[/sarcasm]thepancakeman said:So, would this count as a real world example? (Unfortunately, no photo to go with...)
Maximilian said:[sarc mode] Yeah! Keep pushing [/sarc mode]
thepancakeman said:neuroanatomist said:[/sarcasm]thepancakeman said:So, would this count as a real world example? (Unfortunately, no photo to go with...)
I was not trying to say that the Sony (or anything else) would be better or worse, I was suggesting and honestly asking if there was any solution to this other than an extreme push, which is what I did (but not enough) and was still unhappy with the results. (Too noisy of an ISO, still too much motion blur, too thin DOF.)
neuroanatomist said:thepancakeman said:neuroanatomist said:[/sarcasm]thepancakeman said:So, would this count as a real world example? (Unfortunately, no photo to go with...)
I was not trying to say that the Sony (or anything else) would be better or worse, I was suggesting and honestly asking if there was any solution to this other than an extreme push, which is what I did (but not enough) and was still unhappy with the results. (Too noisy of an ISO, still too much motion blur, too thin DOF.)
As you already stated, a FF camera (ideally with good AF) would help. You could get lower noise or deeper DoF. Else, sounds like you did the best you could with your gear.
traveller said:It may not matter to you, but it does impact upon a lot of people's photography.
neuroanatomist said:traveller said:It may not matter to you, but it does impact upon a lot of people's photography.
Indeed, it impacts every photographer who is critically dependent on the need to severely underexpose their images then drastically push them in post. So...about 50 people who post excessively on the Internet. Wait...I forgot Mikael, that makes 51.
thepancakeman said:So, would this count as a real world example? (Unfortunately, no photo to go with...)
I was tasked with shooting a talent show at night in a dimly lit church with no flash allowed. One of the people put on a karate demonstration. The only way I could get even close to stopping the motion was to severely underexpose (I think I used about 3 stops) the image and try to recover it in post.
But I'm also somewhat of a novice, so maybe there is another way to do this? Also: I was at f1.8 and ISO 3200 on my 7D, which was already way too high IMHO. And yes, I realize going to a 5D III would help a fair amount, but even then I can see it coming up short.
unfocused said:Too often I run into situations where I do have to deliberately underexpose because the light simply isn't sufficient. My paid work requires me to shoot many private meetings and presentations. Invariably, these are held in dimly lit rooms. Too often, a speaker will turn off most of the lights in a room so the audience can see their presentation better.
When a group that has hired me has a 15 minute opportunity to meet with the Governor and the meeting takes place in his office, which is lit like a cave, you don't have a lot of options. You can't be flashing a strobe every five seconds so you do what you can.
That's somewhat comparable to the "real world" situation mentioned above.
I agree that some people benefit from EXMOR in ISO100, and then lift the shadows.neuroanatomist said:unfocused said:Too often I run into situations where I do have to deliberately underexpose because the light simply isn't sufficient. My paid work requires me to shoot many private meetings and presentations. Invariably, these are held in dimly lit rooms. Too often, a speaker will turn off most of the lights in a room so the audience can see their presentation better.
When a group that has hired me has a 15 minute opportunity to meet with the Governor and the meeting takes place in his office, which is lit like a cave, you don't have a lot of options. You can't be flashing a strobe every five seconds so you do what you can.
That's somewhat comparable to the "real world" situation mentioned above.
A question for you – in the real world situations you describe above, do you select an ISO in the range of 100 to 400 when you deliberately underexpose due to lack of available light?
NancyP said:Best part of the "on landscape" review: "If you are too drunk to get the exposure right, grab the Sony". ;D
unfocused said:Too often I run into situations where I do have to deliberately underexpose because the light simply isn't sufficient. My paid work requires me to shoot many private meetings and presentations. Invariably, these are held in dimly lit rooms. Too often, a speaker will turn off most of the lights in a room so the audience can see their presentation better.
When a group that has hired me has a 15 minute opportunity to meet with the Governor and the meeting takes place in his office, which is lit like a cave, you don't have a lot of options. You can't be flashing a strobe every five seconds so you do what you can.
That's somewhat comparable to the "real world" situation mentioned above.
neuroanatomist said:A question for you – in the real world situations you describe above, do you select an ISO in the range of 100 to 400 when you deliberately underexpose due to lack of available light?
ajfotofilmagem said:I agree that some people benefit from EXMOR in ISO100, and then lift the shadows.
But ... in ISO1600 and above this, the EXMOR advantage disappears. If anyone can prove me wrong, then post images with controlled lighting, where EXMOR allows better recovery of shadows on ISO6400.
Someone?