Dynamic Range - Try it for yourself, conclude for yourself: 5D III vs. A7r
- Thread starter jrista
- Start date
AcutancePhotography said:zlatko said:
FYI
That is an example of both an "argument from authority" and "bandwagoning" both of which are logical fallacies.
Simply observing that a large number of succcessful photographers use a specific brand does not indicate that the specific brand is better or worse than any other brand -- unless a relationship of causation between camera brands and succcess as a photographer can be established.
Which will be difficult to establish since we like to proclaim that it is the photographer not the equipment that makes the good picture.
There are many reasons why one would consider a specific camera brand to be better. The fact that a bunch of famous successful people use a particular brand should not be one of them.
Not really, this is a common mistake. An argument from authority from a logic perspective says it _must_ be true, which is rather different from the idea that some opinions on topics that involve judgment are more valuable than others - I ask a doctor what to do when I break my leg, not anonymous people on the internet, even though it is still possible they make an incorrect diagnosis. While the photographer may be most important, theres a reason not too many are using kodak brownies any more.
Otara
Upvote
0
Otara said:AcutancePhotography said:zlatko said:
FYI
That is an example of both an "argument from authority" and "bandwagoning" both of which are logical fallacies.
Simply observing that a large number of succcessful photographers use a specific brand does not indicate that the specific brand is better or worse than any other brand -- unless a relationship of causation between camera brands and succcess as a photographer can be established.
Which will be difficult to establish since we like to proclaim that it is the photographer not the equipment that makes the good picture.
There are many reasons why one would consider a specific camera brand to be better. The fact that a bunch of famous successful people use a particular brand should not be one of them.
Not really, this is a common mistake. An argument from authority from a logic perspective says it _must_ be true, which is rather different from the idea that some opinions on topics that involve judgment are more valuable than others - I ask a doctor what to do when I break my leg, not anonymous people on the internet, even though it is still possible they make an incorrect diagnosis. While the photographer may be most important, theres a reason not too many are using kodak brownies any more.
Otara
That makes sense, thank you. I would add that AcutancePhotography is arguing with a different argument from authority, not the one I actually made. My argument from authority is not about which brand is better or worse, as clearly there are excellent photographers using various brands. My actual argument from authority is in Reply #195 above and relates to Canon already meeting the image quality standards of renowned excellent photographers, notwithstanding complaints by mostly anonymous people with dubious claims to having higher image quality standards.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
ya, my web site sucks, I should spend half as much time on it as I do here.
Would you like to look after the farm for me for a while so I can attend to that?
but I choose 1 of 2 options to protect images from infringement.
- watermark it in a very distracting way
- compress the tonality of it so you can't even make a small print but retain a semblance of the content
you can figure out which one and why
Meanwhile, would you like to order a 48x32" print?... It was shot with a 5d2, you like those.
I totally rocks on canvas where the texture helps to hide the residual noise that even DxO Pro couldn't quite eliminate.
Upvote
0
zlatko said:
Dude, I'm yankin' your chain because you're arguing silliness!
What the heck does who I am vs your gaggle of celebrities have to do with anything?!?
If I'm loading a roll of 24 or larger into my printer, there's better be some damn good image quality or it's gonna start to show.
Sorry for pickin' on you Keith, but you posted a good example for my argument back on page 1 of this thread.
If you take that otherwise lovely shot of photographers capturing the sweet lines of that backlit P-51 against a colorful sky, and try to print it much bigger than 12 inches wide, you're going to be treated to a bunch of ugly Canon-brand shadow noise that will be visible. (see my post on the next page) To ME that detracts from the image, therefore it does not meet MY standards of image quality. It was apparently shot with a 5d3, I don't know how it was processed. If you're only printing "little pictures" or posting online then it's fine, the downsampling hides the problem.
I DO KNOW that if he'd shot that with any other brand at the moment, those shadows would be a lot cleaner and the image would stand up better to close scrutiny when printing it huge.
Do you now understand what I mean when I say I have higher image quality standards?
no?...
It means I would not use a noisy Canon for such a shot. I've learned that by experience, not by listening to fanboys.
That doesn't mean you can't use that same noisy Canon for plenty of other shots and still get good results where shadow noise will not be a problem; it would then likely meet my high standards for IQ.
So if your precious gaggle of high ranking professional photographers is satisfied with using Canon gear then they're going to run into the same limitations Keith did if they try a shot like that.
So, how would you like to summarize that?.. (hopefully not by take some personal shots at Keith's abilities)
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:I'll give it a shot
(argument from boredom
1) What is, in your professional opinion, the camera body which produces the best quality images?
2) What are, in your professional opinion, the lenses for that body which produce the best quality images for the variety of scenes you frame?
Do you exclusively use 1 & 2?
If so, I concur that you have higher standards than [whomever].
If not, I assert that, while you may have high desires for image quality, you don't have higher standards.
both 1 & 2 vary, depending on the task/shoot.
HAHA! It would be a lot cheaper if I did restrict myself to that. ;D
I usually use the best practical hardware for the shot that gives me the results I want.
Sometimes I have to use what I've got available.
Upvote
0
moocowe said:
He has deliberately drastically under exposed to try to prove his theory.
Just because some people think what he is doing is invalid or just daft dose not make them a bully or a fanboy. Two derogatory comments that do you no credit what so ever. jrista makes what could quite reasonably be considered provocative posts it is hardly a surprise when people are provoked.
Upvote
0
Skulker said:
The images are NOT underexposed if the goal is to preserve the view outside the windows. In fact, some of the pixels from the windows are blown out in the raw data.
Now, if you don't mind all-white windows, then the images are underexposed.
Upvote
0
Lee Jay said:
I don't think anyone is arguing that the Exmor isn't better in this rather niche circumstance, if you are happy with the, let's face it, unacceptable result to most.
I asked the OP to shoot some realistic landscapes in challenging light. He failed to do so, claiming the weather was too poor, yet in his rock comparison picture both the image and the histogram suggest there was some bright light - unless of course both these cameras have a dynamic range of about four EV.
However mnm has kindly made available some A7r raws which were shot in a realistic but challenging landscape EV situation. I'm currently working on those with interest.
Upvote
0
Lee Jay said:
He has chosen to take a picture concentrating on the highlights, by your version. Then concentrates on the rest of the image that has been drastically under exposed. Wriggle all you like, split all the hairs you like. The end result is that many people will not think much of the images or the results. To then angle an accusation of bullying or a loaded angled accusation of "fanboyisum" at them is not reasonable. Some people might call it bullying or anti-fanboyisum.
Do you really believe the goal was to "preserve the view out of the window". To be honest its not much of a view. If that's the standard of images he's after he has plenty more to worry about than the sensor. But I think the goal may well have been to produce an image with large areas of under exposure that could then be used to try to prove Jrista's point of view. Then you try to imply that I am some how at fault for not minding "all white windows".
If the goal was to take an image with un-blown highlights view out of the window there are plenty of examples on the internet of how to do it much better.
You have chosen to only quote part of my post. As such you have missed the point entirely. My point was that Moocowe is making what might be considered inappropriate accusations.
Upvote
0
The first post clearly states that the purpose was to expose for the highlights and see how much shadow detail can be recovered. Jrista even went as far as to say the results were not realistic and were just to show the potential of each sensor. Yet people still continue to criticise the exposure of the photos and question the abilities and quality standards of others.
There is no question that the 5D3 sensor is good enough, or that bracketing would give better results for either camera, but that is not the subject being discussed here. The conclusion of this particular subject is that the A7R files handles shadow recovery better than the 5D3 files at the ISO used. This is a fact, not a theory, no matter what the subject or conditions.
...or, I could just jump on the bandwagon and criticise the composition of his living room, or the quality of his decor.
There is no question that the 5D3 sensor is good enough, or that bracketing would give better results for either camera, but that is not the subject being discussed here. The conclusion of this particular subject is that the A7R files handles shadow recovery better than the 5D3 files at the ISO used. This is a fact, not a theory, no matter what the subject or conditions.
...or, I could just jump on the bandwagon and criticise the composition of his living room, or the quality of his decor.
Upvote
0
Lee Jay said:
Which would be fine if he had done that. But on what planet is this crop of the widow view considered "preserving the view out of the window"? It is unmitigated garbage.
As shot both images are completely unusable in any real context, the DR was too extreme for either sensor to get a usable image in one shot let alone preserve the view out of the window, nothing was demonstrated very well other than what has been said and agreed so many times, when an image is severely underexposed the Exmor sensor will give less shadow noise. We all know and agree with that. We now also know that when the DR exceeds both sensors capabilities the results are equally unusable.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Similar threads
