I do not understand this. The same third party software is able to extract better shadow details from different cameras. I feel it starts with what the sensor can do.
Haha, I’m not even a Sony shooter, but the R5 and other hybrid R’s DR for video is lagging behind the rest of the pack. Take a look at the Cined ranking if you can take a minute from scoffing at anyone daring to shed shade on Canon. I have zero brand loyalty, only ecosystems I get locked into and the performance of my cameras directly impacts my income.
It might have helped if you had specifically mentioned VIDEO in your original post. For stills, the Canon and Sony cameras are essentially identical when it comes to dynamic range according to the photons to photos website charts.
If you think this is silly, you haven't seen truly silly arguments on the Internet
I have no idea of how or why Scotsmen got involved into the "moving the goalposts" argument fallacy. Probably the same way that Vikings got horn on their helmets - through Hollywood movies.
You introduced it.If you think this is silly, you haven't seen truly silly arguments on the Internet
But amendment accepted.
I have no idea of how or why Scotsmen got involved into the "moving the goalposts" argument fallacy. Probably the same way that Vikings got horn on their helmets - through Hollywood movies.
'What sensor can do' is the dynamic range of the camera system as I explained above. It's basically constant at any given fixed ISO setting. You may define it in different ways but it will be well defined and measurable.
I'm seldomly using a tripod or have static images. I often shoot wildlife and other moving subjects. What the R5 does not do well, is AF-locked spot measuring, which is why I learned split second exposure changes. I often find that the AE does not capture the mood as it either tries to make the scene to bright or to dark. Medium format cameras are just too slow, large and heavy for my use case. Try lugging around a super tele for medium formats...
In this thread, yes. But the "moving the goalposts after argument is being refuted by counter-example" is generally called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in argumentation. The origins why it's called that, I do not know.
it doesn't do that at all, it's a feature Canon reserves for the 1 series only. Even the R3 lacks it.
The origins are described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
For anyone who has issue with what he originally wrote It is a given that any pro photographer assigned any prototype Canon hardware would sign an NDA to prevent unplanned leaks.
He may be confusing this with, or meaning, highlight headroom - the ability of the sensor to see difference in the tones at highest levels, and then the ubiquitous “dynamic range” of heavy shadow lifting. But even so, I’d be surprised if there was that difference between the brands.
I don't shoot video and you didn't mention it. I have shot most brands at so e point and for my part the DR of newer canon cameras is equal to anything on the market. So I suggest perhaps that you be specific in your whinging because if you are not then you may be wrong
'Highlight recovery' is typically explained as the ability to recover blown out (clipped) highlight after exporting a raw image into Lightroom or other raw processor. I.e. the highlights will look clipped with the default rendering but pulling the 'highlights' slider back will recover them.
I'm not sure what 'dynamic range of heavy shadow lifting' means. Shadow lifting doesn't have a dynamic range as a property.
We get improved dynamic range when sensor manufacturers improve/reduce so called read noise. What you're talking about is so called well capacity of the pixels. I don't know if it can be increased drastically, but it will require higher bitness of the sensor ADC (e.g. 14->16 bit) which increases readout time.
Yes, of course. Maybe my birds are smaller or my foliage more attractive, I dunno. I've had two R5 bodies; same issue. Eye-based AF usually works, but not always.
