70D and Dxomark....

[zlatko]

Another one of those images "underexposed by 4 stops and pushed back". The highlights are already blown and the shadows are noisy as hell. Click on the image below.

Perhaps a case of unrealistic expectations. Those aren't just highlights. They are direct light sources. When I photograph people in a dark setting at night, I don't expect to hold nice detail in the lightbulbs that light the scene.

Limited dynamic range has been a fact of life since the invention of photography. Photographers have acted accordingly, depending on their priorities for the image. For example, architecture/interior photographers deal with dark interiors and bright exteriors in the same frame by adding light to the interior, by shooting at a time of day when the exterior is darker, or by blending exposures.

Or take for example Ansel Adams' portrait titled "Martha Porter, Pioneer Woman" (in his book "Examples") with its blown highlights --
http://ccp.uair.arizona.edu/system/files/imagecache/large_watermark/adams/76083056_p.JPG
Adams' blown highlights weren't even a direct light source at night, just reflected sunlight in the day.

Adams prioritized the exposure for the subject's face and the white pillar, not the sunspot on her shoulder. He wrote, "The tonal qualities of the woman's face please me, but I am not able to print through the blank sunlit area of her shoulder without getting a flat, textureless value, since the film is severely blocked in that area."

Did the great photographer blame Kodak for limited DR in Plus-X film? Nope. He wrote: "Experience and practice usually recognize such value control problems, yet I admit I have failed on many occasions chiefly because I accepted the visual, rather than anticipating the film's response to values and colors."

 

[Jim O]

Did the great photographer blame Kodak for limited DR in Plus-X film? Nope. He wrote: "Experience and practice usually recognize such value control problems, yet I admit I have failed on many occasions chiefly because I accepted the visual, rather than anticipating the film's response to values and colors."

And neither did we mere mortals complain when we shot with Velvia in the 1990's. It was what it was.

 

[Loswr]

Did the great photographer blame Kodak for limited DR in Plus-X film? Nope. He wrote: "Experience and practice usually recognize such value control problems, yet I admit I have failed on many occasions chiefly because I accepted the visual, rather than anticipating the film's response to values and colors."

And neither did we mere mortals complain when we shot with Velvia in the 1990's. It was what it was.

Even then, there were some films with more DR than others. Did everyone always pick the film with the greatest DR, because it was 'the best'? :

 

[Pi]

What ISO were these outdoor crowd shots taken at?

ISO 100.
[quote author=zlatko]
Perhaps a case of unrealistic expectations. Those aren't just highlights. They are direct light sources. When I photograph people in a dark setting at night, I don't expect to hold nice detail in the lightbulbs that light the scene.
[/quote]
It is not about highlights. It is about the DR starting from the clip point to the noise floor. The Sony sensors can detect marginally more photons (on a log scale). For all practical purposes, more or less the same. The difference comes from the noise floor. Having lower noise allows you to expose for the highlights and still have decent shadows. The shadows here, pulled in pp, are plain ugly. Vertical banding is everywhere, plus random noise. There is nothing unrealistic about expecting no visible vertical banding, at least. The 70D seems to be free of it but still has the strong random read noise. Oh, I almost forgot - every other brand has about 2 stops lower read noise.

[quote author=Jim O]
And neither did we mere mortals complain when we shot with Velvia in the 1990's. It was what it was.
[/quote]

The Fuji shooters do not complain about the DR of the Fuji cameras today either, which is what it is - much higher than Canon.

 

[Jim O]

Did the great photographer blame Kodak for limited DR in Plus-X film? Nope. He wrote: "Experience and practice usually recognize such value control problems, yet I admit I have failed on many occasions chiefly because I accepted the visual, rather than anticipating the film's response to values and colors."

And neither did we mere mortals complain when we shot with Velvia in the 1990's. It was what it was.

Even then, there were some films with more DR than others. Did everyone always pick the film with the greatest DR, because it was 'the best'? :

Haha. My point exactly! It was about the best film for what you wanted to achieve. When I wanted the saturated colors of Velvia, I gave up DR. It was "the best" for certain things. I have some great images of the mountains in Ireland on Velvia from my honeymoon. They still look pretty good after 20 years too. No bit rot.

 

[Loswr]

The Fuji shooters do not complain about the DR of the Fuji cameras today either, which is what it is - much higher than Canon.

Nope - they just complain about orbs.

It's fine to have something to complain about, as long as it's not taken to extremes. But I guess it's too late for that. Just wipe the horsehair and little pieces of horseflesh off the bat when you're done, okay? :

 

[zim]

What ISO were these outdoor crowd shots taken at?

ISO 100.

Why?

Photographically (is there such a word!) no matter what camera I was using I wouldn’t have used 100 for that type of picture, what’s the advantage?

 

[Pi]

What ISO were these outdoor crowd shots taken at?

ISO 100.

Why?

Photographically (is there such a word!) no matter what camera I was using I wouldn’t have used 100 for that type of picture, what’s the advantage?

How about more light for less shot noise; all that needed for the strong pp I expected. You really think that higher ISO (more precisely, a lower exposure) would have reduced the noise?

I did not mind the slight motion blur in the crowd.

 

[Pi]

The Fuji shooters do not complain about the DR of the Fuji cameras today either, which is what it is - much higher than Canon.

Nope - they just complain about orbs.

They should also complain about the ugly aliasing artifacts that the "moire free" sensor generates. But fanboyism runs in all families, not just Canon.

It's fine to have something to complain about, as long as it's not taken to extremes.

It is rather extreme to deny the obvious and keep repeating the 4 stop nonsense.

 

[zlatko]

What ISO were these outdoor crowd shots taken at?

ISO 100.
[quote author=zlatko]
Perhaps a case of unrealistic expectations. Those aren't just highlights. They are direct light sources. When I photograph people in a dark setting at night, I don't expect to hold nice detail in the lightbulbs that light the scene.

It is not about highlights. It is about the DR starting from the clip point to the noise floor. The Sony sensors can detect marginally more photons (on a log scale). For all practical purposes, more or less the same. The difference comes from the noise floor. Having lower noise allows you to expose for the highlights and still have decent shadows. The shadows here, pulled in pp, are plain ugly. Vertical banding is everywhere, plus random noise. There is nothing unrealistic about expecting no visible vertical banding, at least. The 70D seems to be free of it but still has the strong random read noise. Oh, I almost forgot - every other brand has about 2 stops lower read noise. [/quote]

It's not about the highlights? Of course it is ... and the shadows too. The highlights and shadows are two ends of the same ruler. If you expose for one, you lose the other. If you expose for both, you get a sub-optimal exposure for both. So you got noisy shadows and blown highlights. Ansel Adams had the same issue in the Martha Porter portrait; he chose to expose for the shadows and totally blew the highlights. He didn't blame Kodak for their limited DR film (or for his own lack of a reflector or flash).

Adams faced a similar DR problem with "Moonrise, Hernandez", perhaps his most famous photo --
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/adamslargemoonrise.jpg
With the sun going down he had to wing the exposure. He couldn't find his light meter! He wanted to bracket the exposure but had time for only one exposure. So he exposed for the moon in the sky, using its known luminance value, and had no idea where the shadows in the foreground would fall. He wished he had given the image a half-stop more exposure. He was so worried about "mottling" in the underexposed sky that he used ten developer-water cycles to minimize "the possibility of uneven sky". Years later, he chemically "intensified" the underexposed foreground, i.e. raised the shadows. He repeated that about twelve times until it looked right. Even with these extreme measures, the negative was a challenge to print. Again, he didn't blame Kodak for their limited DR film. Instead, he had realistic expectations and made a great image using the tools at hand.

 

[Jim O]

[quote author=Jim O]
And neither did we mere mortals complain when we shot with Velvia in the 1990's. It was what it was.

The Fuji shooters do not complain about the DR of the Fuji cameras today either, which is what it is - much higher than Canon.
[/quote]

And this has what to do with my point which was that DR is not everything? That was my point. It had nothing to do with Fuji sensors. How did you tangent off from Fuji color reversal film from the 1990's and onto Fuji sensors of today? I know why I brought up Velvia; again, it was to make the point that making beautiful images can be done with the rather narrow DR of color reversal film.

BTW, and apropos of nothing, I love my Fuji X100S, but if I had to choose between it and one of my Canon dSLR's, I know which I'd choose. That doesn't mean I don't like the images from the Fuji. They're quite wonderful. I'm leaving shortly with no real destination in mind, and I'm taking the Fuji. It's so easy to carry, takes sharp images, and it's light on my shoulder.

If you're so upset by this issue, why not change systems? You've said that you didn't upgrade this last cycle because it wasn't enough of a change for you. You didn't say it was because you didn't have the money. Sell your Canon gear and switch. You'll get more DR, but maybe you'll find the glass more expensive and/or less to your liking. There are always trade offs.

Now here's some information that I found informative. I found a post or a review somewhere else on this forum about Reuters "Top 100 Photos of 2012". I went to the Reuters site at http://blogs.reuters.com/fullfocus/2012/11/30/best-photos-of-the-year-2012/#a=1, clicked on "View All Images" and did a "quick and dirty" search. If I'm correct, all had the camera make/model listed. Nikon was listed six times. Fuji just once. Sony also once. Canon? Canon was listed 92 times! Now you may not do photojournalism, but these are professionals putting their cameras through the rigors of heavy use, often in tough locations. It seems most of them, at least most who took the best shots, chose Canon and lived with the reduced DR and shadow banding, etc. Perhaps they found it the best "compromise" of sensor, features, glass, reliability, etc. Food for thought?

 

[Pi]

It's not about the highlights? Of course it is ... and the shadows too.

So you actually agree.

Again, he didn't blame Kodak for their limited DR film. Instead, he had realistic expectations and made a great image using the tools at hand.

I m not sure why you keep repeating this. He did not have better tool at hand, but if he did - he would not have used them? His realistic expectations were based on what was technically possible then. Mine are based on what is possible today. I do not have unrealistic expectations for 20 stop DR. I have the realistic expectations to get the DR range that every other brand can get with their 35mm or APS-C sensors.

Yes, I can apply NR to the bottom of the image, etc., I could have taken a second shot and blend the top, etc. Or, I could just had a modern sensor.

@ Jim O

And this has what to do with my point which was that DR is not everything?

It was meant to show you, among the rest, that your point the DR is not everything is off topic. It was discussed before, and everybody agreed that DR is not everything.

 

[Jim O]

@ Jim O

And this has what to do with my point which was that DR is not everything?

It was meant to show you, among the rest, that your point the DR is not everything is off topic. It was discussed before, and everybody agreed that DR is not everything.

You're the one who keeps harping on it. Hahaha. Pot, kettle, black. Now put them in a sentence.

And then consider a response to my off topic observation about the 92 to 6 to 1 to 1.

 

[zlatko]

I have the realistic expectations to get the DR range that every other brand can get with their 35mm or APS-C sensors.

Then it seems you should be using "every other brand" -- i.e. any brand but Canon if, as you claim, every other brand has solved this problem. And yet you use Canon. I don't get that. With eBay, Craigslist, etc., it's easier than ever to change brands.

I mentioned Ansel Adams because he offers vivid examples of how photographers used to deal with the same problems. Not by blaming manufacturers of film, but by taking responsibility for every part of the image. He used a variety of films, not always the film with the greatest DR. He used a variety of formats, not always the largest format with the greatest image detail. He didn't always have the "best" tool on hand. And for his most famous image, he didn't even have a light meter on hand.

 

[Don Haines]

@ Jim O

And this has what to do with my point which was that DR is not everything?

It was meant to show you, among the rest, that your point the DR is not everything is off topic. It was discussed before, and everybody agreed that DR is not everything.

You're the one who keeps harping on it. Hahaha. Pot, kettle, black. Now put them in a sentence.

And then consider a response to my off topic observation about the 92 to 6 to 1 to 1.

I like to do astrophotography and I have noticed a lack of shadow detail in pictures of black holes Perhaps that's where this entire thread should end up.....

 

[9VIII]

So I was looking at some resolution charts for lenses yesterday.

Man the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR 2 sucks, like, those corners are terrible. To think that Nikon shooters have been wasting their lives with glass like that for so many years, almost half a decade now, sheesh, and it's so obvious too. It's like they've all got their head in the sand or something. I mean, obviously whatever talent you have is being severely limited if you use that system.

 

[Pi]

 

[horshack]

So I was looking at some resolution charts for lenses yesterday.

Man the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR 2 sucks, like, those corners are terrible. To think that Nikon shooters have been wasting their lives with glass like that for so many years, almost half a decade now, sheesh, and it's so obvious too. It's like they've all got their head in the sand or something. I mean, obviously whatever talent you have is being severely limited if you use that system.

hehe, I know your post is in jest but in actuality for nearly every focal length where the two systems go head-to-head in glass (for the same generation design) Canon completely wipes the floor with better designs/IQ. The only notable exception I can think of is the Nikon 14-24mm. I own both the Canon 70-200 II and Nikon 70-200 VR2 and the Canon is what I reach for most of the time, esp. when I want to do off-center composition at 200mm. It's a spectacular lens.

 

[Famateur]

I like to do astrophotography and I have noticed a lack of shadow detail in pictures of black holes Perhaps that's where this entire thread should end up.....

LOL...I think you're onto something!

 

[Famateur]

LOL...seriously? That's your conclusion to people who see the futility of this silly argument?

You still haven't responded (unless I lost it in the ever-growing volume of pages to this thread -- or was it the other thread?) to my comment and others' comments acknowledging the DR and noise superiority at certain ISO levels of Sony/Nikon sensors. Does your continual ignoring of the fact that for many (most?) photographers DR and noise at certain ISO levels isn't their highest priority mean your head is in the sand?

Sorry, but displaying an image of beating a dead horse in a thread that continues on, unresolved, for 24 pages is a comment about a topic. Implying that those who disagree with you have their heads in the sand is a personal attack. Is that really where you're going to take this? Then again, maybe I got it all wrong. Maybe you weren't accusing but rather admitting? In which case, I apologize.

Let it go already...