Dynamic Range - Try it for yourself, conclude for yourself: 5D III vs. A7r
- Thread starter jrista
- Start date
Orangutan said:
Personally I'd just like to see real world images from regular shooting scenarios where the differences in DR make an appreciable difference to the output image quality.
We all agree there is a difference in shadow lifting capability between the Exmor and Canon, what the DRoners seem incapable of doing is posting simple real world images illustrating this making an actual noticeable impact on image quality.
It is always contrived tests that normally fall flat, seriously do you think either room shot is worth a damn?
To be sure, there are times when that 2, or whatever number of stops difference it is, will make a difference, but it seems to me, and many others, those occasions are actually very few and far between, which raises the common sense question 'how useful a feature is it?' Don't get me wrong, when I get I will be happy, but I am not seriously limited by not having it and I have seen very few images to convince me otherwise.
Upvote
0
What gets boring about this discussion is that those who attack the 'high DR advocates' are invariably coming from one of the following flawed perspectives:
1. It does not matter to me, so it should not matter to you. Sorry, around whom does the universe spin?
2. You do not understand how to expose correctly. Condescending and ignorant view point.
3. If Canon pros can make great photos, then you must think you are better than them. This ignores entirely the plethora of factors that lead to some people shooting Canon versus other brands. It also has no bearing whatsoever on the facts being discussed here. What's more it is about as logical as saying 'Mr X, the Formula 1 racer uses a BMW 535D as his daily driver so I cannot see why its not good enough for YOU.... without recognising that you might live on a remote farm in Scotland, accessed via a track passable only to 4x4s!
4. When buying a camera, DR is only one consideration. You should look at the whole camera! Yes, but it may be that amazing AF and live view matters not to a given person, whereas high DR is actually more important for specific applications. Some people don't want to 'work around' the issue when they don't have to, or own multiple systems just to cover those high SBR moments that a Canon will struggle with... and carry both 'just in case'.
5. Show me the paper or monitor that has 14 stops of range - there are none that are close so this 'data' is wasted! Sorry, but this shows a total lack of technical understanding of the issue. You need to learn about the relationships between subject brightness ranges, capture and output. This is basic stuff and its sad to hear how many people get their teeth stuck in while showing their ignorance on this one.
6. A five stop push is unrealistic and therefore shows us nothing about real life application! Sure, 5 stops is extreme, but you try even 2 stops when those shadows are on the floor and the Canon still falls apart, especially if you want to make large prints. And yes, you can encounter these scenarios every single outing if you happen to shoot the sort of subject matter that will require you to expose to include hot highlights and then lift deep shadow. Sony sensors are dramatically better here and its visible in an 8x10, never mind a 30"
7. Shadows are supposed to be shadows you fools! They aren't supposed to be lifted that much. Once again, you don't understand the basics of exposure and tonal placement in relation to the exposure latitude of the materials you are working with. Put in crude and simple terms, the photographer decides what is shadows and if the exposure means they fall darker than desired, its better if the photographer has recourse. There was the same issue in the darkroom, when you did your best with exposure and development, but due to various factors were left with heavy dodging in the darkroom....
8. All cameras are compromises. You are getting all upset because Canon is not perfect, but neither is Nikon. Sure, this is true, but as everyone's needs differ and as the compromises differ from one manufacturer to the other, this is a non-point. We can still prefer one compromise over the other. Besides, now that Nikon has sorted LOTS of issues out with the D810 and D750, if Canon does not nail the DR and banding issue, its going to be difficult to show a strong reason to be selected. Besides, none of this diminishes the frustration that far smaller companies with much lower budgets produce much cheaper cameras with much smaller sensors with much more dynamic range! Canon has ZERO high DR options. None at ANY price.
There are a lot of people commenting here like they are real pros, who are clueless on the issues about which they are commenting. Then there are those who just think that anyone whose needs differ from their own are delusional. Either way, its really boring hearing the same tired old counter-arguments from people you'd think are having their identities attacked.
....So I would be interested to know if there is anyone out there who will disagree with the following statement. If not, there is not a lot more to say:
"Sony sensors do have measurably higher DR than existing Canon sensors. They have measurably and visibly lower read noise and banding too. The lower DR of Canons and the appearance of banding can be a factor in some photos and significantly reduce the quality of the end file. While this may not be important to most people most of the time - and here the Canons are just great - it is hugely important to some people a lot of the time because of how they use their cameras and what they use them for."
So?
1. It does not matter to me, so it should not matter to you. Sorry, around whom does the universe spin?
2. You do not understand how to expose correctly. Condescending and ignorant view point.
3. If Canon pros can make great photos, then you must think you are better than them. This ignores entirely the plethora of factors that lead to some people shooting Canon versus other brands. It also has no bearing whatsoever on the facts being discussed here. What's more it is about as logical as saying 'Mr X, the Formula 1 racer uses a BMW 535D as his daily driver so I cannot see why its not good enough for YOU.... without recognising that you might live on a remote farm in Scotland, accessed via a track passable only to 4x4s!
4. When buying a camera, DR is only one consideration. You should look at the whole camera! Yes, but it may be that amazing AF and live view matters not to a given person, whereas high DR is actually more important for specific applications. Some people don't want to 'work around' the issue when they don't have to, or own multiple systems just to cover those high SBR moments that a Canon will struggle with... and carry both 'just in case'.
5. Show me the paper or monitor that has 14 stops of range - there are none that are close so this 'data' is wasted! Sorry, but this shows a total lack of technical understanding of the issue. You need to learn about the relationships between subject brightness ranges, capture and output. This is basic stuff and its sad to hear how many people get their teeth stuck in while showing their ignorance on this one.
6. A five stop push is unrealistic and therefore shows us nothing about real life application! Sure, 5 stops is extreme, but you try even 2 stops when those shadows are on the floor and the Canon still falls apart, especially if you want to make large prints. And yes, you can encounter these scenarios every single outing if you happen to shoot the sort of subject matter that will require you to expose to include hot highlights and then lift deep shadow. Sony sensors are dramatically better here and its visible in an 8x10, never mind a 30"
7. Shadows are supposed to be shadows you fools! They aren't supposed to be lifted that much. Once again, you don't understand the basics of exposure and tonal placement in relation to the exposure latitude of the materials you are working with. Put in crude and simple terms, the photographer decides what is shadows and if the exposure means they fall darker than desired, its better if the photographer has recourse. There was the same issue in the darkroom, when you did your best with exposure and development, but due to various factors were left with heavy dodging in the darkroom....
8. All cameras are compromises. You are getting all upset because Canon is not perfect, but neither is Nikon. Sure, this is true, but as everyone's needs differ and as the compromises differ from one manufacturer to the other, this is a non-point. We can still prefer one compromise over the other. Besides, now that Nikon has sorted LOTS of issues out with the D810 and D750, if Canon does not nail the DR and banding issue, its going to be difficult to show a strong reason to be selected. Besides, none of this diminishes the frustration that far smaller companies with much lower budgets produce much cheaper cameras with much smaller sensors with much more dynamic range! Canon has ZERO high DR options. None at ANY price.
There are a lot of people commenting here like they are real pros, who are clueless on the issues about which they are commenting. Then there are those who just think that anyone whose needs differ from their own are delusional. Either way, its really boring hearing the same tired old counter-arguments from people you'd think are having their identities attacked.
....So I would be interested to know if there is anyone out there who will disagree with the following statement. If not, there is not a lot more to say:
"Sony sensors do have measurably higher DR than existing Canon sensors. They have measurably and visibly lower read noise and banding too. The lower DR of Canons and the appearance of banding can be a factor in some photos and significantly reduce the quality of the end file. While this may not be important to most people most of the time - and here the Canons are just great - it is hugely important to some people a lot of the time because of how they use their cameras and what they use them for."
So?
Upvote
0
turtle said:
The first seven points are self indulgent fluff that have been debated ad nauseum, you choose to take the Exmor "high ground" and ignore the extensive rebuttals that have been put forwards to your oversimplifications, that is your choice.
Your closing statement, like many of these comments, has broad support from both sides, but the devil is in the detail, "huge" we disagree on, two stops is two stops, most pros can deal with two stops in a variety of ways, and I can only speak from the point of view of a professional photographer. We also disagree on "a lot of the time", if that were true we'd have people posting lots of images where that difference made a difference, and we don't.
Change "huge" to small, and change "a lot of the time" to rarely or sometimes, and you might be in with a shot.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Ah, I see you've missed one of jrista's major points. My reading is that he agrees with you that, in all but a few cases, you can get indistinguishable results from a Canon sensor. What he further asserts (and I'd love to see tested in some reasonable way) is that there is a significantly larger number of cases where it's easier and much less work to achieve the desired result with a sony sensor than with a Canon sensor. That has the potential to be much more important. If, for example, you can achieve your desired look in 5 minutes of PP on a sony sensor, and that same (or indistinguishable) look would take 30 minutes on a Canon sensor, isn't that also important?
Again, I'd like to see this tested properly, but it requires a well-designed test to account for the variability of PP skills.
Upvote
0
Here is a link to a guy who uses Sony, including the a7 and the a7s (Yosemite Sunrise). These look to be single exposure pictures and many are really lovely, but you can see the EV range limitations with one exposure even here.
https://500px.com/burkardphoto
@ orangutan: jrista has backpeddled when stating "in many cases there is no difference" and he has done this since trying the a7r for himself. Prior to this he was saying Canon had fundamental issues with image quality, and it is statements like that which create the arguments.
The a7s, the D810s, they are all capable of fantastic quality - just like Canon.
https://500px.com/burkardphoto
@ orangutan: jrista has backpeddled when stating "in many cases there is no difference" and he has done this since trying the a7r for himself. Prior to this he was saying Canon had fundamental issues with image quality, and it is statements like that which create the arguments.
The a7s, the D810s, they are all capable of fantastic quality - just like Canon.
Upvote
0
Orangutan said:
Over the course of his rantings, diatribes and lectures he has made many many claims, some of which are quite outlandish. I can't be bothered to cherry pick them, but many of them are just absurd, and that is the main reason for this ridiculous overrun on the subject.
Getting back to the actual interesting bit here is a simple example of how much it really matters. I shoot a lot of interiors with window detail like the first post, severe DR scenes, I follow many pros who do similar work and when you get to the above real estate listings shooters the vast majority of the notable shooters are shooting Canon, why when the DR is always on our minds and often a pain in the butt? Lenses. It turns out that the differences in the 17TS-E and the Nikon? and the 24 TS-E MkII and the Nikon PC-E24mm make more of a difference to full time pros than the differences in post processing.
I would be the perfect candidate for the previously mentioned "huge" and "a lot of the time", but it just isn't true.
It is yet another one of those overinflated features, the small differences between makes and models that some people seem to get so passionate about. The Nikon D750 threads are tearing up the forums with their "not a D700 successor" comments over PC sockets etc.
It won't end and we each have to make our own choices, what jrista and the DRoners seem to refuse to accept is that many of us who own Canon cameras, and use them to good effect, made our choice from the standpoint of an intelligent and educated position, all systems are compromises, I choose to compromise DR/shadow lifting capabilities because it has less of an impact on my shooting than lens availability.
Upvote
0
Galileo already did that long ago in Italy.neuroanatomist said:
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity states that there is no real gravity as a force but it is the apparent effect of the warping of space-time by matter.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
I understand that this is an area of your expertise, so I mean this as a proposal for discussion, not as a statement of fact. I think there is a difference between photographing such a space as a pro and as an amateur. I'm an amateur, and I've encountered the bright window problem. If you're a pro, you'll try to schedule your shoot when light is favorable, or perhaps you'll bring in some of your own lighting to balance the windows and the existing fixtures and lamps. As an amateur I don't do that: I stumble upon a scene I like and whip out my camera. It goes without saying that I shouldn't expect the same quality a pro would get with a properly set-up shot; however, I still want the best I can get with the 2lbs of metal and glass I happen to be carrying. If brand x sensor is better for that than brand y, then I'd like to know that so I can work it into my decision making at my next purchase.
Would you agree that the pro vs. amateur perspectives on this room are different?
Upvote
0
serendipidy said:
Yeah, but the real question is how does that all relate to Quantum Mechanics ;D?
Upvote
0
Please rebut the 'fluff' point by point, because I must have missed the intelligent and informed rebuttals somewhere in the mix.
As for my closing point, it is based on my own experience as an owner of both a 5D III (which I still love) and the A7 and A7R, as well as plenty of other cameras. As for your modification to my statement, I'm sorry but it does not fit as far as I am concerned. You are doing precisely what I suggested in my first few points, which is imposing your perception as fact and implying mine to be delusion or, at best, inaccurate or a distortion.
The DR issue as I shoot weddings is 'rarely' - I have already said that Canon sensors are often just great - but when I shoot city night scenes, it is 'all the bloody time', hence buying into the Sony A7 series and, before that, Nik Dfine. I did not do this for fun. At most print sizes, the detail differential of 36MP is 'not much', but the DR and lack of banding, well.... that's such a pleasure. If I shot daylight wildlife, I would not care less. If I were shooting motor sport, I would not care less.... but I don't. I never shoot these things. Unfortunately, I shoot a lot of the stuff that shows up the Canon sensors and there is no getting around that. Unfortunately, you and those like you, cannot get your heads around that, but I suspect that is because you spend too much time looking at cameras and your own photography than other peoples.
You are being vague. Please be specific, so its clear what you are actually arguing about. Are you too shooting city night scenes and finding that you could ask no more of your Canon sensors? What do you do that leaves you asking for nothing more. Can we be clear, are you asking for nothing more in terms of DR and banding? Would it be of no benefit to you? Maybe you are suggesting that I should not be shooting what I shoot instead, thus preventing the DR issue from rearing its inconvenient head in the first place?
It does not matter how you cook it: you are saying one of the following:
a. The significant differences in DR and banding are NOT a fact.
b. They may be a fact but they cannot possibly be important to me (not you), regardless of my assertions to the contrary.
Which is it? Is there another explanation that you can actually explain?
As for my closing point, it is based on my own experience as an owner of both a 5D III (which I still love) and the A7 and A7R, as well as plenty of other cameras. As for your modification to my statement, I'm sorry but it does not fit as far as I am concerned. You are doing precisely what I suggested in my first few points, which is imposing your perception as fact and implying mine to be delusion or, at best, inaccurate or a distortion.
The DR issue as I shoot weddings is 'rarely' - I have already said that Canon sensors are often just great - but when I shoot city night scenes, it is 'all the bloody time', hence buying into the Sony A7 series and, before that, Nik Dfine. I did not do this for fun. At most print sizes, the detail differential of 36MP is 'not much', but the DR and lack of banding, well.... that's such a pleasure. If I shot daylight wildlife, I would not care less. If I were shooting motor sport, I would not care less.... but I don't. I never shoot these things. Unfortunately, I shoot a lot of the stuff that shows up the Canon sensors and there is no getting around that. Unfortunately, you and those like you, cannot get your heads around that, but I suspect that is because you spend too much time looking at cameras and your own photography than other peoples.
You are being vague. Please be specific, so its clear what you are actually arguing about. Are you too shooting city night scenes and finding that you could ask no more of your Canon sensors? What do you do that leaves you asking for nothing more. Can we be clear, are you asking for nothing more in terms of DR and banding? Would it be of no benefit to you? Maybe you are suggesting that I should not be shooting what I shoot instead, thus preventing the DR issue from rearing its inconvenient head in the first place?
It does not matter how you cook it: you are saying one of the following:
a. The significant differences in DR and banding are NOT a fact.
b. They may be a fact but they cannot possibly be important to me (not you), regardless of my assertions to the contrary.
Which is it? Is there another explanation that you can actually explain?
privatebydesign said:
Upvote
0
Orangutan said:
I'd agree that anybody thinking either are acceptable shots is a whole world away from a paying client above real estate listings, yes.
But as an enthusiastic amateur I would say you would get vastly better images in that scenario with either camera choosing the window/exterior view, or the interior as the key point for a single shot, or take the time and trouble to make two shots, even hand held, that can be used together to make a good image that will do the job much better.
I accept that lighting, time of day etc, is often beyond even pros capacity to control, but there it is still an easy way to take the shot much better than it was done with either system.
I will also agree that there will be a rare occasion in that type of situation where you can "get away" with one Exmor exposure rather than two Canon ones, but I'd venture the two Canon ones would give you a much better image anyway!
In truth I did learn something from the files, that was that from my perspective the tonality of heavily lifted shadows is very limited, if the lifted areas only account for a small area of the scene I can see some utility to the capability, but when the areas to be lifted become a larger part of the image, even thought hey have little noise and no banding, I can't see the practical benefit for my uses, if I had I would have had an A7r here by now!
Upvote
0
jrista said:
Best advice I've read yet. Why others who find Canon sensors lacking in DR can't reach the same conclusion is beyond me.
I applaud you for trying out an Exmor-equipped camera so you can experience firsthand how it can impact what you shoot. If additional DR were at the top of my priority list, I'd do the exact same thing, and wouldn't hesitate to give another company my money if the pros outweighed the cons. Money talks, not whiny message board posts (BTW, I'm referencing other posters not you)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
