Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[neuroanatomist]

If you remove "Other" which might include unable to know from the Exif, then ISO 100 would be about 48% and let's not forget that some cameras start at ISO 200 (.

In other words, the statement, "Most photos are not taken at base ISO," is supported by those data. Based on the way they report the other stats, it would seem that 'unable to know from EXIF' is excluded from the count.

My suspicion is that "other" is 160, 320, 640, etc, etc.... all the results that were not 100

Indeed. 'Other' is everything other than the top 5. If you look at the aperture data, f/5.6 is not among the top 5, and therefore is classified as 'other'. Bill's suggestion that one should exclude the other category because it 'might include unable to know from the Exif' and thus ISO 100 accounts for 48% of the images is, to be polite, silly.

 

[Aglet]

The data is simple physics. ISO 100 is inadequate to get sufficient shutter speed and sufficient f-stop for all but the brightest, sunny days. I don't think automatic mode has much to do with it.

Uhhmmmm... on Mars?..
You must be thinking of action and sports and long focal lengths
Cuz ISO 100 allows plenty of practical shutter and aperture range outdoors as long as the sun is up and even when it's below the horizon.
HANDHELD. Optically stabilized lenses have greatly increased the practicality of using base ISO for static scenes even in low light.
I did once shoot a particular landscape type of shot at iso 3200, handheld, 1/4 second or so with my 70-200mm. (Nikon of course) and processed it into a very impressive 5 ft print. I was too lazy to dig out a tripod. Took a few tries to get a really crisp shot but it was a lot quicker than messing around with a tripod on the side of a road in the (near) dark.

 

[scyrene]

The data is simple physics. ISO 100 is inadequate to get sufficient shutter speed and sufficient f-stop for all but the brightest, sunny days.

For every photo taken outside, I try to stay at ISO 100.
And most of these photos need/require shadow lifting.

So, overall, unless most of your photos are indoors, then dynamic range (DR) at base ISO is quite important.

That's not necessarily the best way to shoot. It's all very well bashing Canon sensors as some have done here and elsewhere, but different equipment demans different techniques, and "shoot at base ISO - lift shadows" is just one way of getting the result you may want (one might call it the Sony/Nikon way; with all but the most recent Canon cameras, ETTR then pulling the exposure down can produce better results, as we know). A one-size-fits-all policy is one of the reasons some people incorrectly believe Canon sensors can't handle most real world situations, when they clearly can.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A one-size-fits-all policy is one of the reasons some people incorrectly believe Canon sensors can't handle most real world situations, when they clearly can.

They clearly can, in capable hands. Some hands are just less capable, see the post before yours for an example of such hands.

 

[scyrene]

A one-size-fits-all policy is one of the reasons some people incorrectly believe Canon sensors can't handle most real world situations, when they clearly can.

They clearly can, in capable hands. Some hands are just less capable, see the post before yours for an example of such hands.

The less said about *that*, the better

 

[snoke]

For the original assertion, "Most photos are not taken at base ISO," would data pulled from the EXIF information of over 19 million online images suffice to adequately demonstrate the truth of the statement? Or would you prefer to argue the point further?

Good. Someone find real data. No more stupid "most people use ISO1600." Now just argue what data means. Better than arguing about assumptions and guesses.

What data saying?

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Thread moved past lies, damned lies, now at statistics. Good progress.

From data, > 50% photos at ISO 400 and less. What more popular: high ISO or low ISO? Data tell it to not be high ISO. Is ISO 400 low or high? Argue now about that one.

There something else to know here.

High ISO performance never be same as low ISO. Not possible due to physics. See "Ideal" line at photonstophotos. Pentax K1 best example. If Pentax want next camera with better high ISO, how they do it? Best way is to move entire line higher. Better high ISO come with better low ISO - and vice versa. This even true for old Canon design.

If football team will win, pray for everyone to be good, not one player. Think ISO like this. All ISO values on same team. When all better, team is big better. When just one better, team only little better.

 

[Jack Douglas]

There is too much generalization relative to that chart.

Would it be safe to say if the subject being shot is birds or wildlife for example then there is no way base ISO is being used most of the time.

For 4 years I've lived around ISO1250 and wished I could get better IQ at say double that. Of course I haven't been doing much landscape or portraits and almost always cropped.

Also it's seemed to me that if the full uncropped frame is used then unless you're talking poster size, the noise performance at around ISO 800 or lower with the 6D was good. Guess I'm not fussy enough or need to be exposed to more illustrations of why it isn't. That's why I pay attention to these threads; to learn.

Jack

 

[scyrene]

High ISO performance never be same as low ISO. Not possible due to physics. See "Ideal" line at photonstophotos. Pentax K1 best example. If Pentax want next camera with better high ISO, how they do it? Best way is to move entire line higher. Better high ISO come with better low ISO - and vice versa. This even true for old Canon design.

So you disagree with those like Dpreview who claim that the D5 trades low ISO DR for high ISO performance?

Also it's seemed to me that if the full uncropped frame is used then unless you're talking poster size, the noise performance at around ISO 800 or lower with the 6D was good. Guess I'm not fussy enough or need to be exposed to more illustrations of why it isn't. That's why I pay attention to these threads; to learn.

And even a generalisation like 'up to ISO 800' is good (even ignoring subjective differences about how much noise is acceptable) - because if you ETTR at a given ISO and lower the brightness later, the noise will be different compared to a shot exposed 'correctly' at the same ISO speed, and different again to a shot underexposed at that ISO and then brightened later - which is one good reason why shadow lifting is so contentious round here.

 

[snoke]

High ISO performance never be same as low ISO. Not possible due to physics. See "Ideal" line at photonstophotos. Pentax K1 best example. If Pentax want next camera with better high ISO, how they do it? Best way is to move entire line higher. Better high ISO come with better low ISO - and vice versa. This even true for old Canon design.

So you disagree with those like Dpreview who claim that the D5 trades low ISO DR for high ISO performance?

No. But I disagree that best path for Nikon. Look at photostophotos graph. Stairs. Compare with D4. 1 stop DR @ISO200 trade for .5 stop DR @ISO3200. Gain less than lose.

 

[LonelyBoy]

High ISO performance never be same as low ISO. Not possible due to physics. See "Ideal" line at photonstophotos. Pentax K1 best example. If Pentax want next camera with better high ISO, how they do it? Best way is to move entire line higher. Better high ISO come with better low ISO - and vice versa. This even true for old Canon design.

So you disagree with those like Dpreview who claim that the D5 trades low ISO DR for high ISO performance?

No. But I disagree that best path for Nikon. Look at photostophotos graph. Stairs. Compare with D4. 1 stop DR @ISO200 trade for .5 stop DR @ISO3200. Gain less than lose.

So where's the outrage at Nikon?

 

[snoke]

High ISO performance never be same as low ISO. Not possible due to physics. See "Ideal" line at photonstophotos. Pentax K1 best example. If Pentax want next camera with better high ISO, how they do it? Best way is to move entire line higher. Better high ISO come with better low ISO - and vice versa. This even true for old Canon design.

So you disagree with those like Dpreview who claim that the D5 trades low ISO DR for high ISO performance?

No. But I disagree that best path for Nikon. Look at photostophotos graph. Stairs. Compare with D4. 1 stop DR @ISO200 trade for .5 stop DR @ISO3200. Gain less than lose.

So where's the outrage at Nikon?

Ask wrong person.

Think differently. Data show high ISO not most common. Therefore D5 not for most common photo. Mistake make all camera like D5 because not best for most common requirement. D5 not sales leader.

 

[Mikehit]

Think differently. Data show high ISO not most common. Therefore D5 not for most common photo. Mistake make all camera like D5 because not best for most common requirement. D5 not sales leader.

Because the D5 is a specialist tool and as such is not for the most common photographer. Have you considered that?
Probably not.

 

[Don Haines]

Think differently. Data show high ISO not most common. Therefore D5 not for most common photo. Mistake make all camera like D5 because not best for most common requirement. D5 not sales leader.

Because the D5 is a specialist tool and as such is not for the most common photographer. Have you considered that?
Probably not.

You mean that people who buy a camera for action in low light will use it for action in low light? Inconceivable!

 

[Jack Douglas]

Think differently. Data show high ISO not most common. Therefore D5 not for most common photo. Mistake make all camera like D5 because not best for most common requirement. D5 not sales leader.

Because the D5 is a specialist tool and as such is not for the most common photographer. Have you considered that?
Probably not.

I detect a "one track mind", here.

Sports and wildlife, D5, is Nikon's response to Canon and they are not dummies. And there was no huge outcry but hey we've suspected this bias now for years of debate with Rishi.

Jack

 

[Aglet]

High ISO performance never be same as low ISO. Not possible due to physics. See "Ideal" line at photonstophotos. Pentax K1 best example. If Pentax want next camera with better high ISO, how they do it? Best way is to move entire line higher. Better high ISO come with better low ISO - and vice versa. This even true for old Canon design.

So you disagree with those like Dpreview who claim that the D5 trades low ISO DR for high ISO performance?

Also it's seemed to me that if the full uncropped frame is used then unless you're talking poster size, the noise performance at around ISO 800 or lower with the 6D was good. Guess I'm not fussy enough or need to be exposed to more illustrations of why it isn't. That's why I pay attention to these threads; to learn.

And even a generalisation like 'up to ISO 800' is good (even ignoring subjective differences about how much noise is acceptable) - because if you ETTR at a given ISO and lower the brightness later, the noise will be different compared to a shot exposed 'correctly' at the same ISO speed, and different again to a shot underexposed at that ISO and then brightened later - which is one good reason why shadow lifting is so contentious round here.

shadow lifting is likely only contentious around here because, for the longest time, Canon files quickly fell apart when doing so. with the 6d2, they still do. shoot 5d4 or 80d and push as much as you likely need.

 

[Aglet]

Think differently. Data show high ISO not most common. Therefore D5 not for most common photo. Mistake make all camera like D5 because not best for most common requirement. D5 not sales leader.

Because the D5 is a specialist tool and as such is not for the most common photographer. Have you considered that?
Probably not.

It looks like you missed the point, Mike. You're actually in agreement.

 

[Gnocchi]

This dynamic range talk reminds me of the old days when nikon released there D5, or was that only recently!

 

[scyrene]

Also it's seemed to me that if the full uncropped frame is used then unless you're talking poster size, the noise performance at around ISO 800 or lower with the 6D was good. Guess I'm not fussy enough or need to be exposed to more illustrations of why it isn't. That's why I pay attention to these threads; to learn.

And even a generalisation like 'up to ISO 800' is good (even ignoring subjective differences about how much noise is acceptable) - because if you ETTR at a given ISO and lower the brightness later, the noise will be different compared to a shot exposed 'correctly' at the same ISO speed, and different again to a shot underexposed at that ISO and then brightened later - which is one good reason why shadow lifting is so contentious round here.

shadow lifting is likely only contentious around here because, for the longest time, Canon files quickly fell apart when doing so. with the 6d2, they still do. shoot 5d4 or 80d and push as much as you likely need.

You've missed my point (but of course) - in many situations, an output image can be produced with a Canon camera that's the same as a Nikon, Sony, etc, but the technique differs - so instead of, e.g. shooting at ISO 100 and raising shadows five stops, you shoot at ISO 400 and pull the exposure down and maybe shadow lift 1-2 stops (ETTR). In many situations, you have highlight headroom* and ETTR means the shadows are cleaner. Neither technique is perfect; the Sony sensor allows for a bit more flexibility in some ways, I don't think that's in dispute. But it's possible to produce images that are equivalent with modern cameras from every manufacturer, if you know what you're doing (*and as an aside, as many here have pointed out, in most situations where there's too much DR for a single Canon exposure, there's likely to be too much for a Sony sensor too - the difference is only a stop and a bit at most either way isn't it?).

Or to put it another way, people like you only love shadow lifting and go on about it so much because it's what Canon is least good at, and you like to stir the pot. Most people just want to produce the best images they can, and that means learning how best to use their gear, whoever it's made by.

 

[Jack Douglas]

"Or to put it another way, people like you only love shadow lifting and go on about it so much because it's what Canon is least good at, and you like to stir the pot. Most people just want to produce the best images they can, and that means learning how best to use their gear, whoever it's made by."

Exactly!

Work-arounds can be simple but they require some skill/mental capability. Most of this excess focus on DR is simply bragging rights. Any time I am making pontifications, I should have to back it up with excellent photo examples that illustrate my expertise/competence - how's that? Too many arm-chair quarterbacks.

Jack

 

[Talys]

Most of this excess focus on DR is simply bragging rights.

At popular birding spots, once in a while, I will see people who hang around the parking lot for a while with a big camera and a big lens, and show off 10+fps by holding down the shutter for 5 seconds to hear the mirror whir, all the while pointing at pavement or blue sky. There have been times when I want to point out that it might be more convincing if they took the lens cap off, but bite my tongue out of politeness. They usually laugh and yap a bit, then head off, without ever having taken a picture of an real bird.

I suspect the bragging rights crew often falls in this category.