Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

  

  Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #14200414 « Landscape upgrade options from the 6d? »

  

gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Landscape upgrade options from the 6d?


I'm happily using a 5DsR for my landscape photography. Yes, Sony sensors have a bit more dynamic range, but that is virtually never an actual impediment to my landscape photography. (I use a Sony sensor camera for my street and travel photography, but more due to the other features of that camera rather than than sensor.)

I notice an odd situation regarding the comparisons between the fine Sony options and the fine Canon options. In general, from a Canon perspective, it often strikes me as a "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" issue, wherein some folks unreasonably diminish the capability of the Canon system and unrealistically exaggerate the capabilities of the Sony system. (To be clear, both have their pluses and minuses — it is just that these are not regarded in an entirely rational manner.)

Let's take dynamic range. First the number of situations in which the dynamic range difference between, say, the 5DsR and the A7rii determines whether or not you can make an excellent exposure is quite small. There are basically three possibilities:

1. The subject is well within the dynamic range capabilities of both systems. This is, by a great margin, the largest percentage of your photographs with any modern digital camera.

2. The subject's dynamic range is within the capabilities of one system but outside that of the the other. This is, by far, the least likely of the three possibilities — perhaps, arguably, a one-stop difference— and here the actual difference is likely to be a marginal one of degree rather than a hard limit of "won't work." And, in many cases, a different exposure decision will make it work.

3. The subject's dynamic range is outside the capabilities of both systems.This is the second-largest category, though still not a large one, and includes those extreme situations in which you might have 20 stops of DR in the scene — say the sun itself is in the frame and important subjects are backlit and in the shadows.

Second, regarding the exaggeration of differences, quite often subjects that folks imagine to be beyond the dynamic range capability of their system actually are not. While the precise limits (to the extent that "precise" is even the right word here) of systems do differ, many folks simply don't know how to expose and post-process to get the maximum image data out of their files and into a print.

In that regard, I've become quite amazed by how much detail I can get from shadow areas in 5DsR exposures. It was not that many years ago that we often relied on exposure blending in very high dynamic range scenes. (Back then I occasionally had to blend as many as three exposures with some extreme scenes.) To the best of my recall, I have not had to resort to exposure blending for a single image since I started using the 5DsR. Habits die hard, and I still bracket for safety reasons, but I invariably find that I can select a single of the images in post and recover plenty of shadow detail to make an excellent print.

Shadows that like this...







Are great if you know that you can easily make them look like this (they are supposed to be shadows), and the overall image look like the example lower on the page:







Or, if you are really going nuts, you make them not look like shadows at all — if I actually did this, the small photo of the scene below would look technically awful, with pure white sky and badly blown out mountains.







These are 100% crops from this scene, exposed this way on purpose — the unadjusted raw file. (Regarding crops, at typical screen resolutions you are looking at what is equivalent to small sections from a print that would be many feet wide.) Here is what the unadjusted raw file looked like.







With the intention of ending up with something more like what I saw:







I recently shared an illustrated article (https://www.gdanmitchell.com/2017/09/20/what-you-get-is-not-what-you-see) explaining how this has changed how I expose — specifically regarding the landscape photography the OP asked about. Basically, faced with high dynamic range scenes I always opt to protect the highlights, even at the expense of getting a raw file in which the shadows look essentially black — because I know that I can get fine detail out of those shadows in post.

I have many other examples of this, too. (Please read those that I'm sharing with an open mind before you tell me I'm wrong, only shoot unchallenging scenes, don't care much about image quality, am a Canon a "fanboy," or the other usual stuff. None of that stuff is true.)

https://www.gdanmitchell.com/2015/07/19/the-canon-5ds-r-dynamic-range-examples


In the latter example, I intentionally exposed this way...







Knowing that it would allow me to get this in my print...







There are plenty of reasons to choose Canon, Nikon, Sony, or other brands, and I know excellent photographers who shoot with all of them — some of whom use more than one. But the constant search for magical solutions through brand-switching and buying gear often seems to encourage us to magnify differences and ignore the need to learn more and hone our technique. You'd almost think sometimes that the lure of the Shiny New Thing looms larger than the actual photography... ;-)

Dan



Sep 30, 2017 at 12:33 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Landscape upgrade options from the 6d?


I'm happily using a 5DsR for my landscape photography. Yes, Sony sensors have a bit more dynamic range, but that is virtually never an actual impediment to my landscape photography. (I use a Sony sensor camera for my street and travel photography, but more due to the other features of that camera rather than than sensor.)

I notice an odd situation regarding the comparisons between the fine Sony options and the fine Canon options. In general, from a Canon perspective, it often strikes me as a "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" issue, wherein some folks unreasonably diminish the capability of the Canon system and unrealistically exaggerate the capabilities of the Sony system. (To be clear, both have their pluses and minuses — it is just that these are not regarded in an entirely rational manner.)

Let's take dynamic range. First the number of situations in which the dynamic range difference between, say, the 5DsR and the A7rii determines whether or not you can make an excellent exposure is quite small. There are basically three possibilities:

1. The subject is well within the dynamic range capabilities of both systems. This is, by a great margin, the largest percentage of your photographs with any modern digital camera.

2. The subject's dynamic range is within the capabilities of one system but outside that of the the other. This is, by far, the least likely of the three possibilities — perhaps, arguably, a stop-wide — and here the actual difference is likely to be a marginal one of degree rather than a hard stop of "won't work." And, in many cases, a different exposure decision will make it work.

3. The subject's dynamic range is outside the capabilities of both systems.This is the second-largest category, though still not a large one, and includes those extreme situations in which you might have 20 stops of DR in the scene — say the sun itself is in the frame and important subjects are backlit and in the shadows.

Second, regarding the exaggeration of differences, quite often subjects that folks imagine to be beyond the dynamic range capability of their system actually are not. While the precise limits (to the extent that "precise" is even the right word here) of systems do differ, many folks simply don't know how to expose and post-process to get the maximum image data out of their files and into a print.

In that regard, I've become quite amazed by how much detail I can get from shadow areas in 5DsR exposures. It was not that many years ago that we often relied on exposure blending in very high dynamic range scenes. (Back then I occasionally had to blend as many as three exposures with some extreme scenes.) To the best of my recall, I have not had to resort to exposure blending for a single image since I started using the 5DsR. Habits die hard, and I still bracket for safety reasons, but I invariably find that I can select a single of the images in post and recover plenty of shadow detail to make an excellent print.

Shadows that like this...







Are great if you know that you can easily make them look like this (they are supposed to be shadows), and the overall image look like the example lower on the page:







Or, if you are really going nuts, you make them not look like shadows at all — if I actually did this, the small photo of the scene below would look technically awful, with pure white sky and badly blown out mountains.







These are 100% crops from this scene, exposed this way on purpose — the unadjusted raw file. (Regarding crops, at typical screen resolutions you are looking at what is equivalent to small sections from a print that would be many feet wide.) Here is what the unadjusted raw file looked like.







With the intention of ending up with something more like what I saw:







I recently shared an illustrated article (https://www.gdanmitchell.com/2017/09/20/what-you-get-is-not-what-you-see) explaining how this has changed how I expose — specifically regarding the landscape photography the OP asked about. Basically, faced with high dynamic range scenes I always opt to protect the highlights, even at the expense of getting a raw file in which the shadows look essentially black — because I know that I can get fine detail out of those shadows in post.

I have many other examples of this, too. (Please read those that I'm sharing with an open mind before you tell me I'm wrong, only shoot unchallenging scenes, don't care much about image quality, am a Canon a "fanboy," or the other usual stuff. None of that stuff is true.)

https://www.gdanmitchell.com/2015/07/19/the-canon-5ds-r-dynamic-range-examples


In the latter example, I intentionally exposed this way...







Knowing that it would allow me to get this in my print...







There are plenty of reasons to choose Canon, Nikon, Sony, or other brands, and I know excellent photographers who shoot with all of them — some of whom use more than one. But the constant search for magical solutions through brand-switching and buying gear often seems to encourage us to magnify differences and ignore the need to learn more and hone our technique. You'd almost think sometimes that the lure of the Shiny New Thing looms larger than the actual photography... ;-)

Dan



Sep 30, 2017 at 12:31 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Landscape upgrade options from the 6d?


I'm happily using a 5DsR for my landscape photography. Yes, Sony sensors have a bit more dynamic range, but that is virtually never an actual impediment to my landscape photography. (I use a Sony sensor camera for my street and travel photography, but more due to the other features of that camera rather than than sensor.)

I notice an odd situation regarding the comparisons between the fine Sony options and the fine Canon options. In general, from a Canon perspective, it often strikes me as a "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" issue, wherein some folks unreasonably diminish the capability of the Canon system and unrealistically exaggerate the capabilities of the Sony system. (To be clear, both have their pluses and minuses — it is just that these are not regarded in an entirely rational manner.)

Let's take dynamic range. First the number of situations in which the dynamic range difference between, say, the 5DsR and the A7rii determines whether or not you can make an excellent exposure is quite small. There are basically three possibilities:

1. The subject is well within the dynamic range capabilities of both systems. This is, by a great margin, the largest percentage of your photographs with any modern digital camera.

2. The subject's dynamic range is within the capabilities of one system but outside that of the the other. This is, by far, the least likely of the three possibilities — perhaps, arguably, a stop-wide — and here the actual difference is likely to be a marginal one of degree rather than a hard stop of "won't work." And, in many cases, a different exposure decision will make it work.

3. The subject's dynamic range is outside the capabilities of both systems.This is the second-largest category, though still not a large one, and includes those extreme situations in which you might have 20 stops of DR in the scene — say the sun itself is in the frame and important subjects are backlit and in the shadows.

Second, regarding the exaggeration of differences, quite often subjects that folks imagine to be beyond the dynamic range capability of their system actually are not. While the precise limits (to the extent that "precise" is even the right word here) of systems do differ, many folks simply don't know how to expose and post-process to get the maximum image data out of their files and into a print.

In that regard, I've become quite amazed by how much detail I can get from shadow areas in 5DsR exposures. It was not that many years ago that we often relied on exposure blending in very high dynamic range scenes. (Back then I occasionally had to blend as many as three exposures with some extreme scenes.) To the best of my recall, I have not had to resort to exposure blending for a single image since I started using the 5DsR. Habits die hard, and I still bracket for safety reasons, but I invariably find that I can select a single of the images in post and recover plenty of shadow detail to make an excellent print.

Shadows that like this...







Are great if you know that you can easily make them look like this (they are supposed to be shadows), and the overall image look like the example lower on the page:







Or, if you are really going nuts, you make them not look like shadows at all — if I actually did this, the small photo of the scene below would look technically awful, with pure white sky and badly blown out mountains.







These are 100% crops from this scene, exposed this way on purpose — the unadjusted raw file. (Regarding crops, at typical screen resolutions you are looking at what is equivalent to small sections from a print that would be many feet wide.) Here is what the unadjusted raw file looked like.







With the intention of ending up with something more like what I saw:







I recently shared an illustrated article (https://www.gdanmitchell.com/2017/09/20/what-you-get-is-not-what-you-see) explaining how this has changed how I expose — specifically regarding the landscape photography the OP asked about. Basically, faced with high dynamic range scenes I always opt to protect the highlights, even at the expense of getting a raw file in which the shadows look essentially black — because I know that I can get fine detail out of those shadows in post.

I have many other examples of this, too. (Please read those that I'm sharing with an open mind before you tell me I'm wrong, only shoot unchallenging scenes, don't care much about image quality, am a Canon a "fanboy," or the other usual stuff. None of that stuff is true.)

https://www.gdanmitchell.com/2015/07/19/the-canon-5ds-r-dynamic-range-examples


In the latter example, I intentionally exposed this way...







Knowing that it would allow me to get this in my print...







There are plenty of reasons to choose Canon, Nikon, Sony, or other brands, and know excellent photographers who shoot with all of them — some of whom use more than one. But the constant search for magical solutions through brand-switching and buying gear often seems to encourage us to magnify differences and ignore the need to learn more and hone our technique. You'd almost think sometimes that the lure of the Shiny New Thing looms larger than the actual photography... ;-)

Dan



Sep 30, 2017 at 10:24 AM





  Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #14200414 « Landscape upgrade options from the 6d? »

 




This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.