DRones vs. anti-DRones: how to resolve the controversy

[RLPhoto]

I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.

Careful. I get flamed every time I make a similar observation. According to some of the most vocal DR "advocates," most people seeking more DR do indeed produce stunning images.......it's just that they keep those images top secret, and no one is allowed to see them.

I think you mistake that I want to be correct on that statement. I really hope that I'm wrong and a Droner can prove me wrong. IE: dilbert.

I'm probably just like everyone else where probably less than 3% of my images are what I'd call "postcard" quality.

That sounds like you have a lot of work on and DR would be the least of those things.

Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.

And I'm sure DR is only a miniscule part of making those photos.

No but it helps.

Not as much as a proper ball head.

You know that if one person says it does not matter at all and the next says it is all important they become opposites.
In this case both are wrong.

One says that you make poor pictures because you do not have a body with more DR.
The other says you focus to much on DR and your pics are crap.

I read the arguments and think both of those individual's pics are probably lacking because neither concedes any ground and say that it is the combination of all things that make great pics.

There are work arounds for not having a good ball head, there are work arounds for DR.

The difference is does the person work around them. In dilbert case, not so much and why I said DR is the least of the problems others and I have observed with his photos. Which in kinda like ignoring the gaping hole in the wall to work on a miniscule paint chip.

But I'm sure he'll get a high DR body and his photos will still continue to be what they are. That's the real tragedy here.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

It's amazing how many electrons can be expended discussing/fighting-over minutia. Just because an observer can find a difference between Sony and Canon sensors doesn't mean that the difference plays any meaningful role in serious image production.

I'm with you on this, RLPhoto. Any perceived/imagined DR "problem" is all too easy to work around.

To me, it's as if DRones use this small (yes, observable, but only under test conditions) difference as an excuse for being _unable_ to make a great image. It's as if they're saying "... if only I had [fill in the blank] I'd be able to make great images. But because I don't have, I can't and won't."

Balder-dash!

... The difference is does the person work around them. In dilbert case, not so much and why I said DR is the least of the problems others and I have observed with his photos. Which in kinda like ignoring the gaping hole in the wall to work on a miniscule paint chip.

But I'm sure he'll get a high DR body and his photos will still continue to be what they are. That's the real tragedy here.

 

[Marsu42]

I'm with you on this, RLPhoto. Any perceived/imagined DR "problem" is all too easy to work around.

Oh my, we're going full circle, aren't we? Just as I thought even the fiercest dr antagonists seem to conclude that for some applications (think "noon beach volleyball") 11ev or 14ev dr might make a real difference, it's back to square one with everything "easy to work around"

 

[DominoDude]

LOL. I'm assuming you guys are just joking around, because "sin datos" basically means "without data". I guess that's the Spanish term for the "other" piece of the pie that covers the range of other and supposedly uninteresting camera models.

Yes, joking. That should be the ones that didn't reveal their origin, and it could possibly be anything from home built systems to camera obscuras made of shoe boxes. Could also be that the pie charts data comes from the EXIF digested from photos and some stripped them out. I haven't bothered to examine the truthfulness of the data because I lack enough knowledge of Spanish, but I assume it has some bearing and that it's not totally biased.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

If you disagree with someone, you can just call them a "DRone" and label them as talentless geeks who shoot lens caps all day.

Which most are.

It has been demonstrated time and time and time again that most of the "problems" these trolls ascribe to inadequate sensors, actually come from their own incompetent conversion and post processing decisions; or from a deliberate attempt to fake the "proof" that a problem exists.

It won't be resolved.

It could be though - if they'd just STFU and accept that their opinion isn't the only valid one here.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It's amazing how many electrons can be expended discussing/fighting-over minutia. Just because an observer can find a difference between Sony and Canon sensors doesn't mean that the difference plays any meaningful role in serious image production.

I'm with you on this, RLPhoto. Any perceived/imagined DR "problem" is all too easy to work around.

See that is the problem, if Canon is not the very best at something, then the problem can never, in any circumstance, ever, be real for anyone and the actual real world difference is always trivial and can, in all, cases, be not just worked around, but easily worked around. In the case of low ISO DR that is simply not true.

And yet every time people say oh the DR crowd just goes on about nothing because nobody ever claims that the DR isn't better or that it can't matter at times, well as you see yet again, that is not true, again and again, there are those who insist anything from a sensor with more DR is worse to there is no real world problem ever and then these latter groups tend to start up with the personal insults and say that it's only poor or incompetent photographer who might remotely have an issue or that maybe the issue is real but it doesn't matter since anyone who cares would for some reason be a guarateed to be such a terrible photographer that it would be irrelevant anyway since a technical better stinking photo still stinks or stuff about lens cap shooting dweebs or whatnot.

How about instead of trashing that guys photography and coming up with all sorts of whatever that is entirely besides the point you just stick to the facts.

If with what and how you shoot, it is at all times, trivial to get around DR, then awesome for you, but that doesn't mean that is the case for every single person. And ironically again, the DR side gets bashed for supposdely being the ones who make the grand sweeping statements and insisting that everyone needs to have their real world experiences. It seems to me it is the opposite.

To me, it's as if DRones use this small (yes, observable, but only under test conditions) difference as an excuse for being _unable_ to make a great image. It's as if they're saying "... if only I had [fill in the blank] I'd be able to make great images. But because I don't have, I can't and won't."

Balder-dash!

Balder-dash indeed!

I dare you to find posts where those wanting Canon to improve DR go around blaiming lack of DR or whatever for a supposedly inability to ever make a great photo. Who has said that?

And once again, if it's difference only observable under lab conditions then how come the only reason people ever got into the 'lab' to investigate these things was because they first saw issues with their real world shooting? And what of the real world examples where the difference shows up?

... The difference is does the person work around them. In dilbert case, not so much and why I said DR is the least of the problems others and I have observed with his photos. Which in kinda like ignoring the gaping hole in the wall to work on a miniscule paint chip.

But I'm sure he'll get a high DR body and his photos will still continue to be what they are. That's the real tragedy here.

And above is another example for V8Beast who claims nobody every goes down the first path of personally trashing someone's photography. Of course if someone dares point out that a few of those who insult others work personally (in many cases without ever having even seen any of it) have sometimes had nothing but a few OOF cat shots, then suddenly it's oh see the DR crowd just goes around and picks and insults people. NO! They were just pushed to the point of pointing out some hypocrisy.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

I'm curious to know how many people who say that DR is mostly just hype have actually played with enough Exmor-based RAW files to really understand the differences.

Well I Have - at great length; and yes, I do understand the differences.

And - guess what? - Unlike the DR whiners, I've taken that experience, and that knowledge, and I've used it as a baseline against which to judge how best to get excellent results out of my Canon files.

In other words, I've looked at the differences and worked out how to make them go away.

That's what grown-ups do, isn't it? See a "problem" (the quotation marks are used intentionally and advisedly) and work out how to deal with it?

What they don't do is subvert every single discussion on every single subject, into a platform for their inability to add address what is, when all's said and done, their problem.

As has been pointed out before, any photographer who routinely needs to dig multiple stops into the shadows, needs lessons on how to use a camera, not a different sensor.

But we all know that in fact photographers do not need to recover shadow detail all the time - nor "a lot of the time" nor even "enough times to make it pretty important". The DRoning isn't really about what they actually need in order to raise their photographic game (supposedly, judging by the sheer amount of noise about it, to some stratospheric new height which Canon couldn't possibly achieve), it's about a piddly little non-issue that they've allowed to become an all-consuming obsession.

What it is, is unhealthy. And a clear indication that they're happier to blame someone/something else for their shortcomings. rather than to figure out for themselves how to address them.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

label them as talentless geeks who shoot lens caps all day.

Which most are.

It has been demonstrated time and time and time again that most of the "problems" these trolls ascribe to inadequate sensors, actually come from their own incompetent conversion and post processing decisions; or from a deliberate attempt to fake the "proof" that a problem exists.

Haha, ah yes and once again, V8Beast are you still going to claim that NOBODY says that DR never makes any difference and that it's not the other side that constantly starts taking it personal and constantly subtly, or in this case, very much not, tries to imply or directly state that anyone who might ever have a use for more DR are just dweebs, trolls, incompetent morons?

It won't be resolved.

It could be though - if they'd just STFU and accept that their opinion isn't the only valid one here.

Wow, that is rich Keith. Really rich to write that just after YOU wrote that nobody could ever have any reasonable need for more DR unless they are an incompetent, talentless troll geeks. Do you not see the irony and utter hypocrisy? Everyone who thinks there could ever be a realistic need for more DR is an incompetent troll of a dweeb who just needs to STFU and accept that their opinion is not the only one? : ;D

Meanwhile I will readily admit that not everyone will be bother by the lack of DR other than in rare cases and that one can take billions of shots where it makes not practicable difference at all. (although once again that doesn't mean that some don't regularly come across scenarios where it would help them to have more DR, in realistic, reasonable scenarios)

Do you see us going around saying that anyone who doesn't ever have a need for more DR is a talentless moron? I haven't seen that a single time ever.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Strange, I don't recall ever making any such vow.

Just as well, really - because it's simply not possible, is it?

Not outside of the ridiculously contrived "proofs" we see on here every so often...

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

As has been pointed out before, any photographer who routinely needs to dig multiple stops into the shadows, needs lessons on how to use a camera, not a different sensor.

But we all know that in fact photographers do not need to recover shadow detail all the time - nor "a lot of the time" nor even "enough times to make it pretty important".

Ah yes, once again it's Keith Reeder keeping the open mind and not daring to proclaim that his style of photography is the only kind. He'd never, ever believe that his own point of view is the only one. : ;D ;D ;D ;D

Only the geeks and freaks and talentless morons go around 'insisting' things and decided that everyone has to have their same exact needs as they go around saying things like not everyone will care about the DR issue .

 

[dtaylor]

Oh my, we're going full circle, aren't we? Just as I thought even the fiercest dr antagonists seem to conclude that for some applications (think "noon beach volleyball") 11ev or 14ev dr might make a real difference, it's back to square one with everything "easy to work around"

Have you ever shot beach volleyball? You don't need 14 or even 11 stops. I used to shoot it with a Canon 10D in JPEG. 8 stops was more then enough. Everything is bright.

You should have said surfing. Sunlit water foam vs. black wetsuit and often shaded face. That could be a real challenge on the old 10D, 20D...since the 7D I haven't had any DR issues. JPEG+HTP could be a bit noisy back in the beginning, but with the firmware buffer update (now I only shoot RAW) and newer versions of ACR and the various plugins I use...there's nothing to improve upon as far as DR is concerned.

Landscapes and interiors are the last challenging subjects. Landscapes easily exceed any sensor, but they're still so HDR/GND. Same for interiors. Again I'll say that jrista's interior room test scene was better then most I've seen, but while it proved Exmor has less read noise (no shock), it also proved how little this really matters. The highlights were still blown to preserve the shadows. A real shot for a magazine would either A) go ahead and completely blow out the shuttered windows in a pleasing fashion, or B) use HDR.

If this was 8 stops vs. 14 the "DRoners" would have a point, and I would probably be shooting Nikon. But it's more like 12.5 (5D3) vs. 13.5, or 13 vs. 13 (APS-C), with a shadow latitude difference of +2.5 vs. +5. You're not capturing that much more, if any, tonal range...you can just reposition the shadow tones higher on the scale without read noise interfering.

Yeah, I see it. Yeah, it might occasionally be an important difference. No, it's not worth all this discussion.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

.those who know what it is, care about it, but do not think it's the most important factor in camera performance or even in image quality.

It's like you've been reading my private correspondence..!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

.those who know what it is, care about it, but do not think it's the most important factor in camera performance or even in image quality.

It's like you've been reading my private correspondence..!

Until a Canon, one day, comes out 0.21 stops higher DR across the board than any other maker and then that 0.21 extra tops will just be absolutely critical! That will be the amount that finally just happens to push things over to the edge to where it can make a real world difference and not just some times but ALL times. :

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Interestingly, one of those low-level customer service jobs was at Toshiba when Masaya Maeda was running the show

Oh yeah - Toshiba, the company that makes the sensor in the Nikon D7100, which is significantly more prone to low ISO banding and noise than the sensor in my 70D (and at high ISOs too, for that matter).

What's that? A Canon with better DR than than a comparable Nikon?

Funny how the Nikon fanboys on here are always so quiet about this...

Kinda proves that buying-in isn't always a guarantee of success; and that maybe Canon's tech isn't as far behind as the whiners like to assert - I mean: Toshiba must be using more state-of-the-art fab than Canon, right?

Or maybe that doesn't matter as much as the DRones think it does...

 

[Skulker]

.those who know what it is, care about it, but do not think it's the most important factor in camera performance or even in image quality.

If only a few more people on here would take a balanced view, like this, there would be a lot less stupid posts.

 

[dtaylor]

See that is the problem, if Canon is not the very best at something, then the problem can never, in any circumstance, ever, be real for anyone and the actual real world difference is always trivial and can, in all, cases, be not just worked around, but easily worked around.

LOLWUT?

Canon does not have a well supported mirrorless system, or a FF mirrorless. I love my M, but if you want a complete MILC kit, or a FF body for adapted rangefinder glass, the problem is not trivial and cannot be worked around.

There. Canon is not best at everything

In the case of low ISO DR that is simply not true.

So when I'm hiking and I lift my DSLR up and hand hold AEB 3 frames that I blend later...that's not an easy work around?

What is the situation, exactly, where the shadow latitude difference is both large and not easily worked around?

I dare you to find posts where those wanting Canon to improve DR go around blaiming lack of DR or whatever for a supposedly inability to ever make a great photo. Who has said that?

At one point (sorry jrista) the forum was being pointed towards Nikon HDR shots on Flickr with the claim that A) they were not HDR, and B) Canon could not produce the same at all even though Flickr is loaded with the same types of shots from Canon bodies.

You see this same kind of confirmation bias from certain online reviewers.

* Reviewer sees some small difference in a lab test where A is better then B.
* Reviewer takes and shoots only A in the field.
* Reviewer loves the results and writes about how only A could do it.
* Reviewer fails to test B in the field, and fails to look at the body of work from others using B.

Classic example is the recently released D750 review where the reviewer shot some junk in a corner at -5ev which the 5D3 could not match, then proceeded to glow about D750 wedding shots that the 5D3 (or even a 7D) could have easily matched. It was practically a bait and switch.

For most people, once you've psychologically convinced yourself that XYZ is better, then everything produced by XYZ automatically becomes evidence of how wonderful it is without any critical consideration of the question: could ABC have done the same thing? Is XYZ really making a difference in all these examples? Psychologically many will continue to insist that XYZ is far better even if you swap labels and they are praising ABC by accident! (The human mind is a strange thing )

This isn't limited to DR. You will see the same nonsense in lens comparisons (for example). Heck, you'll see it in scientific fields were people are supposed to be aware of it and trained to avoid it.

 

[dtaylor]

What part of the world do you live in? Because by the sounds of it, wherever you do live, the wind don't blow there and the earth doesn't rotate either.

You can't HDR an interior because of the wind or the rotation of the Earth? ???

As for landscapes...neither GND nor manual blends have any issue with movement as long as there's not a large moving section that crosses the line or mask. You're not going to HDR a sprinter, but wind is seldom an issue in a landscape. I can hand hold a 3 frame bracket for crying out loud. Just how hard is this wind blowing that things radically change in <0.5s?

HDR tools also have features to compensate for motion.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Funny how the Nikon fanboys on here are always so quiet about this...

Funny how most of the 'Nikon fanboys' here have used Canon longer than you have.

 

[Marsu42]

HDR tools also have features to compensate for motion.

... that is like in *unidirectional* motion esp. from camera shake, or otherwise I'm not up to date and the latest hdr assembly softwares have managed to de-blur moving clouds, grass or leaves in the wind :-\

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

So when I'm hiking and I lift my DSLR up and hand hold AEB 3 frames that I blend later...that's not an easy work around?

Not when that doesn't blend well because of shake or motion or when the shadow exposure at 3 stops lower becomes too slow to handhold at lower ISO at f/6.3-f/13.

I dare you to find posts where those wanting Canon to improve DR go around blaiming lack of DR or whatever for a supposedly inability to ever make a great photo. Who has said that?

At one point (sorry jrista) the forum was being pointed towards Nikon HDR shots on Flickr with the claim that A) they were not HDR, and B) Canon could not produce the same at all even though Flickr is loaded with the same types of shots from Canon bodies.

How do you get that from that???
Where did he say that meant nobody could get a great photo out of a Canons sensor?

For most people, once you've psychologically convinced yourself that XYZ is better, then everything produced by XYZ automatically becomes evidence of how wonderful it is without any critical consideration of the question: could ABC have done the same thing? Is XYZ really making a difference in all these examples? Psychologically many will continue to insist that XYZ is far better even if you swap labels and they are praising ABC by accident! (The human mind is a strange thing )

But the thing is most people who complain about banding and DR, noticed it in their real world work before every reading anything about it or about other cameras so....

And there is also the psychology of some not be able to handle that something they bought is not the best at every single thing or that their team, I mean brand of use, can't win all games.