Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[privatebydesign]

100% agree. Now you can even simulate shallow DoF in PP, so no need to use fast lenses anymore The only problem - it takes a lot of time to process the image correctly otherwise it'll look like cheap fake

Not true, just look at some of the tutorials on the link I provided. A ND Grad is a sledgehammer, great if you take pictures of railroad spikes, far too limited for much else.

I guess people like Joe Cornish are idiots then taking all those landscape shots with ND grads and making thousands of dollars doing so. One person perfume is another person poison and arrogance about one method over another is one of the stupidities of forums. Lets judge the image not the method.

Duh, Joe Cornish is sponsored by Lee Filters! I'd say nice things about anyone that paid me to say them if it didn't go against my morals. Besides he shot film long before he shot digital and there is a certain functionality difference between filter use when working on film or digital.

There are countless top grade landscape shooters nowadays who have never owned a filter, and that was my point. For a modern digital workflow filters with a lint through them are limiting from a compositional and subject standpoint that blending multiple exposures and blending does not have.

 

[IglooEater]

You are correct Lonelyboy. I'd never pre-order anything that expensive. "Last week my camera was fine, but next week I just have to have the newest."

I'll never understand that. More money than sense, I guess.

I think it's more like, "I've increasingly been wanting to upgrade for 4 years; now I'd really enjoy having it in time to get used to it before going on my bi-annual trip in August." Which would be more my case. Incidentally, no I have not preordered it. Yet.

Right. So you have time to, literally, spend a couple hours over a couple of days reading the reviews to evaluate the purchase before (maybe) going to BB or wherever and buying it? That's what I'd do in that position. Then we'll have some actual information, and all of this chatter will be meaningless. As if it's not already.

It's not like it's going to be sold out.

Fair enough. Frankly I don't break my head over these things. If it says Canon on the front of it, it'll just work. Seriously. If something is blatantly wrong with it for me, the only way for me to know for certain is to try it out myself. No internet review is seriously going to make the decision final for me. If it doesn't cut it, I'll return it. Point à la ligne. I've not returned anything yet. How complicated do we have to make the decision? There are only two choices for me: 5D III or 6D II. There are ups and downs for both, but I seriously doubt it's possible to go wrong either way. I guess I'm just not picky enough.

Well now, you're probably right; these last few years have been less bad. Major Canon releases used to sometimes get B/O for months. Heck, even the 1DX II took a while to find its way on to shelves. That was just a year ago.

 

[IglooEater]

Preordering something like this just seems strange to me for all these reasons -

Clearly, you're missing the main reason people preorder the 6DII, or any new Canon product...so they can be the one to start the CR Forum topic, "Post your shots with the _________ product."

;D

;D ;D ;D

 

[LonelyBoy]

Preordering something like this just seems strange to me for all these reasons -

Clearly, you're missing the main reason people preorder the 6DII, or any new Canon product...so they can be the one to start the CR Forum topic, "Post your shots with the _________ product."

;D

Yeah... whereas I got my 5D3 maybe 18 months ago and might get to a 5D4 one of these months. Maybe. The shadow recovery would actually be handy for shots of people under shade tents in Texas sunlight. On the other hand, as of yet everyone loves those pics, even when the shadow slider is maxed out, so maybe not.

 

[Aglet]

I have said this before. I have seen big prints in galleries that have clearly been taken with Canon cameras and have been pushed so far in post I wouldn't show at a local camera club. However on enquiring it turned out it was the photographers best selling shot.

So who is the fool?

similarly, but at a low end art sale a few years ago, someone had various aurora photos that had obviously been pushed enough to reveal characteristic pattern noise in the images they were selling.

So I said to the young couple trying to sell them, "So you shoot with a Canon, eh?"

"Yes, how did you know?"

"By all this banding pattern noise in your images. If this is a favorite subject you may want to consider a Nikon or Pentax instead."

They were dumbstruck for a moment and looked at each other before one responding, "You mean those other cameras don't do that?!?"

"That's right.
Nice images, otherwise."

Even if I have to educate them one - at - a - time.

it was a lot quicker than telling them all the workarounds to get better IQ with the same Canon gear for those shots.

 

[Aglet]

...because this will be hot seller no matter what and if that DR come to be false or some error than it would sell like very hot and I would have to wait for it even longer

Honestly, a bit more or less DR, ADC on-sensor or off-sensor, neither of them are going to significantly impact sales either way.

CRguy posted that his sources indicated that supply (in North America, at least) would be generally sufficeint to meet preorders. So, keep your place in the queue or drop out, likely you'll be able to pick one up soon if you want it.

used, open-box, discounted returns, deals to be had!...

 

[Aglet]

Sure. No such thing as too much IQ. Yes, enough is never enough, so what's the point? To live continually dissatisfied or to be happy with what you've got. I'd rather be contented.

Jack

Well, it's good to be Happy, Jack, that's a good motto to go by in life, in general.
But this here forum has a lot of us gear-heads who like to push the boundaries of technology and look forward to the next iteration of improved product from mfrs.

https://youtu.be/52cQeFBU2Kw

 

[Otara]

From the point of whether the decisions made were 'wrong' or 'right', we'll never know, in that it may have made 5 million sales with one and 4.5 or 4.9 .or 5 million with the other. They're highly unlikely to be so wrong that it is an actual failure in the market place. I think the internet does have some impact on sales, but not in a 'they're listening to this forum' kind of way.

So all we can ever do is decide what we would recommend to others on the basis of the priorities we value. In my view the market is at a point where older models have more and more to offer vs new models. Obviously others think differently.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Boundaries of technology but not the boundaries of composition and creativity? Obviously, I'm not young whipper-snapper. It reminds me of these nature/bird photos that are photo-shopped to look like some Hollywood model. The technology is there to do it but the result has a subtle unnaturalness to it. I'm not against technology but it's often overblown.

I don't mind people doing whatever they prefer and if that's their pleasure in life great. It's the push to influence/force others with incessant illogical/biased arguments that gets to me. While I believe in free speech sometimes wisdom would dictate not speaking.

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

From the point of whether the decisions made were 'wrong' or 'right', we'll never know, in that it may have made 5 million sales with one and 4.5 or 4.9 .or 5 million with the other. They're highly unlikely to be so wrong that it is an actual failure in the market place. I think the internet does have some impact on sales, but not in a 'they're listening to this forum' kind of way.

So all we can ever do is decide what we would recommend to others on the basis of the priorities we value. In my view the market is at a point where older models have more and more to offer vs new models. Obviously others think differently.

As others have said all the modern upscale cameras are so good we should be jumping for joy not whining. To be able to pick up an excellent used camera for a great price is wonderful and those who wont upgrade from a 6D if their needs are being met are wise. I happen to value the features that have been added to the 6D2 and will probably get it by next spring. I love my latest glass, the 400DO MarkII and I don't see that available from Sony.

Jack

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Preordering something like this just seems strange to me for all these reasons -

Clearly, you're missing the main reason people preorder the 6DII, or any new Canon product...so they can be the one to start the CR Forum topic, "Post your shots with the _________ product."

;D

I recall some cameras were not available in retail stores for months, the only way to get one was to pre-order. The 5D MK II, MK III, Nikon D800 / D800E come to mind. Of course, after the initial rush, supply was good, and in 6 or 7 months, the price had dropped. I bought my 5D III from Adorama for $2750 around 7 months after the first ones shipped. There was no MAP policy then. After the surplus was sold off, prices went back up.

 

[CanonCams]

I keep seeing this ; "In terms of image quality, the sensor in the EOS 6D Mark II is from the same generation as the EOS 5D Mark IV, rather than EOS 5D Mark III, so the image quality will be similar to the EOS 5D Mark IV" and it boggles the mind.

 

[Mikehit]

Why?

 

[Aglet]

where?

 

[Mikehit]

what?

 

[jeffa4444]

100% agree. Now you can even simulate shallow DoF in PP, so no need to use fast lenses anymore The only problem - it takes a lot of time to process the image correctly otherwise it'll look like cheap fake

Not true, just look at some of the tutorials on the link I provided. A ND Grad is a sledgehammer, great if you take pictures of railroad spikes, far too limited for much else.

I guess people like Joe Cornish are idiots then taking all those landscape shots with ND grads and making thousands of dollars doing so. One person perfume is another person poison and arrogance about one method over another is one of the stupidities of forums. Lets judge the image not the method.

Duh, Joe Cornish is sponsored by Lee Filters! I'd say nice things about anyone that paid me to say them if it didn't go against my morals. Besides he shot film long before he shot digital and there is a certain functionality difference between filter use when working on film or digital.

There are countless top grade landscape shooters nowadays who have never owned a filter, and that was my point. For a modern digital workflow filters with a lint through them are limiting from a compositional and subject standpoint that blending multiple exposures and blending does not have.

Ignoring Joe Cornish my main point was different strokes for different folks just because you prefer blending doesn't mean other means like filters are wrong that's your opinion period.
I use both methods and like to have that choice.

 

[privatebydesign]

100% agree. Now you can even simulate shallow DoF in PP, so no need to use fast lenses anymore The only problem - it takes a lot of time to process the image correctly otherwise it'll look like cheap fake

Not true, just look at some of the tutorials on the link I provided. A ND Grad is a sledgehammer, great if you take pictures of railroad spikes, far too limited for much else.

I guess people like Joe Cornish are idiots then taking all those landscape shots with ND grads and making thousands of dollars doing so. One person perfume is another person poison and arrogance about one method over another is one of the stupidities of forums. Lets judge the image not the method.

Duh, Joe Cornish is sponsored by Lee Filters! I'd say nice things about anyone that paid me to say them if it didn't go against my morals. Besides he shot film long before he shot digital and there is a certain functionality difference between filter use when working on film or digital.

There are countless top grade landscape shooters nowadays who have never owned a filter, and that was my point. For a modern digital workflow filters with a lint through them are limiting from a compositional and subject standpoint that blending multiple exposures and blending does not have.

Ignoring Joe Cornish my main point was different strokes for different folks just because you prefer blending doesn't mean other means like filters are wrong that's your opinion period.
I use both methods and like to have that choice.

You keep ignoring my point. I don't prefer to blend, I am results driven and blending gives better results unless you are limiting yourself to very simple compositions. Yes there are rare occasions when blending isn't practical, but there are vastly more occasions when dividing the image with a straight line is, as I first pointed out, dumb.

So on average if somebody is looking to improve their landscape images they are better off spending $30-40 on a blending plugin than a lot more than that on a range of Grad ND's.

I realize there is a lot of personal antagonism on here but my original points, grads are compositionally limiting and in general better results can be achieved for less with a blending plugin, have not been disputed. I never said don't buy grad ND's, I said it is a step on the way and if you want to skip it here is the next step.

 

[Khalai]

You keep ignoring my point. I don't prefer to blend, I am results driven and blending gives better results unless you are limiting yourself to very simple compositions. Yes there are rare occasions when blending isn't practical, but there are vastly more occasions when dividing the image with a straight line is, as I first pointed out, dumb.

So on average if somebody is looking to improve their landscape images they are better off spending $30-40 on a blending plugin than a lot more than that on a range of Grad ND's.

I realize there is a lot of personal antagonism on here but my original points, grads are compositionally limiting and in general better results can be achieved for less with a blending plugin, have not been disputed. I never said don't buy grad ND's, I said it is a step on the way and if you want to skip it here is the next step.

I see your point and I quite agree. But GNDs are fun for some (me for example) and I like to use them, even having Easy Panel from Jimmy McIntyre as well. I usually use GND in combination with coloured grad and CPol filter. It's more fun doing it in the field than sitting behind a computer, at least for me.

You are correct about GNDs being compositionally limited, but soft GNDs look rather natural, even with crooked horizons or mountain ranges and I have a number of photos, where I've used GND with such composition and you can't really tell on the first glance.

So while I agree with your point, that exposure blending is superior technique for better images, using resin or glass filters in the field is on the other hand more enjoyable and that's the point. Having fun taking images. To each his own I guess

 

[Mikehit]

Also don't forget a professional works on cost-benefit. If quickly applying an ND grad gives an image 'good enough' for its purposes why spend time on the computer? A newbie will probably spend ages experimenting with the correct density to use but a pro will probably get it pretty close very quickly.
And I am sure they are fully aware when grads are limited (for example a lighthouse projecting above the horizon) and the trade-offs of using a ND grad and adjusting in post, and when to rely on post processing.

To imply it is 'either/or' is too simplistic.

 

[privatebydesign]

You keep ignoring my point. I don't prefer to blend, I am results driven and blending gives better results unless you are limiting yourself to very simple compositions. Yes there are rare occasions when blending isn't practical, but there are vastly more occasions when dividing the image with a straight line is, as I first pointed out, dumb.

So on average if somebody is looking to improve their landscape images they are better off spending $30-40 on a blending plugin than a lot more than that on a range of Grad ND's.

I realize there is a lot of personal antagonism on here but my original points, grads are compositionally limiting and in general better results can be achieved for less with a blending plugin, have not been disputed. I never said don't buy grad ND's, I said it is a step on the way and if you want to skip it here is the next step.

I see your point and I quite agree. But GNDs are fun for some (me for example) and I like to use them, even having Easy Panel from Jimmy McIntyre as well. I usually use GND in combination with coloured grad and CPol filter. It's more fun doing it in the field than sitting behind a computer, at least for me.

You are correct about GNDs being compositionally limited, but soft GNDs look rather natural, even with crooked horizons or mountain ranges and I have a number of photos, where I've used GND with such composition and you can't really tell on the first glance.

So while I agree with your point, that exposure blending is superior technique for better images, using resin or glass filters in the field is on the other hand more enjoyable and that's the point. Having fun taking images. To each his own I guess

Yes, and I never said anything different, remember I said shoot what you want how you want for whatever reason you want! I well understand for many it is the process, but once you have taken the time and trouble to get to that vantage point, taken the images and got home with those precious raw files most people want the best results you can get, so I was pointing that out.

I was in Hawaii recently and went to the point where the lava flows into the sea, I wasn't taking pictures as I was on vacation. So the composition was a simple one that lent itself to a hard or soft grad, trouble was the one guy I saw using filters also had a PL on and kept both on well after dark when the DR was down around the 5 stops mark, if that. I can't imagine how much post processing he would have had to do to get some contrast back in his images!