chez wrote:
I see the boys who never have a banding issue still keep popping into this thread just to be heard again. Why is that? Surely Frued must have a term for this.
artd wrote:
I find it puzzling that in light of the latest sensor technology we are still entertaining such a question.
These expectations are based on products that currently exist. By the very fact that there are other cameras that do have this kind of dynamic range, that means the expectations are by definition realisitic. Because they are based on something real!
Can you go out and set up excessive amounts of lighting gear and reflectors and so on to work around this kind of issue? Sure you can. But given a choice, wouldn't you rather be able to have clean shadows to begin with? Can anyone honestly say they think it is better to deal with the hassle and the extra time spent hauling out and setting up a bunch of extra gear just to get the same kind of image you could get with another camera without any extra gear?
There is no magic expected here. EXMOR sensors can do this. Canon sensors can't. That's the reality.
So I am fine in dealing with that reality for the time being and hoping Canon will eventually improve this. But what I don't understand is why people go to such great lengths to rationalize away Canon's shortcoming in this area? ...Show more →
chez wrote:
I see the boys who never have a banding issue still keep popping into this thread just to be heard again. Why is that? Surely Frued must have a term for this.
just like when one sees things that arnt there...LSD,Psychotic break....
Arun Gupta wrote:
No argument with that, except, IMO, these threads are expecting **everyone** to express a concern; and if they don't it is called "rationalization".
I would have to disagree.
First, this particular thread was *started* by someone making the rationalization that if you have an issue with banding, it must be because you are an incompetent photographer.
Second, there are people are saying things in this thread like we are wanting "magic" from our cameras. They are rationalizing Canon's lagging sensor performance as not really lagging at all, it's just our expectations that are unreasonable. (Presumably Canon's sensor performance should be considered the industry standard and anything better is an aberration.)
Thirdly, there are people saying that if you experience banding you don't know what you are doing because you should be using extra equipment to compensate for lighting conditions. Which is again a rationalization as it dismisses out of hand the point that with other cameras it is not necessary to do this.
Finally, when I see someone expressing their concern with the banding issue, they often make it a point to say that if someone else doesn't see banding as an issue, that's fine. Personally I have said a number of times that if someone doesn't have a problem with banding, I think that's great. I've never criticized anyone for not having an issue with banding. On the other hand, I do take exception with people being dismissive and disparaging someone else's competence as a photographer.
mttran wrote:
+1,
I know why...because 99.99 percent buy cameras for one thing to take pictures,not as a scientific tool...what really is the point of going over charts and graphs to prove IQ,over say an actual print that 99.99 wouldnt know what DR is nor signal-to-noise ratio ect,and why should they if the print satisfies their own criteria,of which a fine picture.
digitalbug30d wrote:
I know why...because 99.99 percent buy cameras for one thing to take pictures,not as a scientific tool...what really is the point of going over charts and graphs to prove IQ,over say an actual print that 99.99 wouldnt know what DR is nor signal-to-noise ratio ect,and why should they if the print satisfies their own criteria,of which a fine picture.
oh just read this
you go out and set up excessive amounts of lighting gear and reflectors and so on to work around this kind of issue? Sure you can. But given a choice, wouldn't you rather be able to have clean shadows to begin with? Can anyone honestly say they think it is better to deal with the hassle and the extra time spent hauling out and setting up a bunch of extra gear just to get the same kind of image you could get with another camera without any extra gear.
um tell this to the motion picture industry,it works the same for stills why would lighting not be the same? they put the light where its needed so ...
digitalbug30d wrote:
oh just read this
you go out and set up excessive amounts of lighting gear and reflectors and so on to work around this kind of issue? Sure you can. But given a choice, wouldn't you rather be able to have clean shadows to begin with? Can anyone honestly say they think it is better to deal with the hassle and the extra time spent hauling out and setting up a bunch of extra gear just to get the same kind of image you could get with another camera without any extra gear.
um tell this to the motion picture industry,it works the same for stills why would lighting not be the same? they put the light where its needed so ......Show more →
yeah and they take all day to setup a 5 minute scene and of staff to trek equipment all over with them and I'd like to see you (or even them) light a broad landscape expanse covering a couple hundred acres, instantly, on the spot when you suddenly come across an awesome shot whre the interesting light/etc. only lasts a few minutes. they carefully shoot only what they can shoot and what they can make work out. and yeah you can shoot what you can shoot for stills and make stunning photos of this or that, but it does restrict you from being able to shoot as many things as you might if you had more DR
if you don't care about such scenes, whatever, fine, what do I care, but don't tell us that we can't or that anyone who does is clueless
digitalbug30d wrote:
even when they use RED cameras ect...the scenes still need to be lit properly,you cant throw out a hundred years of lighting tech...
maybe your only experience is with studio and set shots, natural world photography, random on the spot photography, is a different game
digitalbug30d wrote:
even when they use RED cameras ect...the scenes still need to be lit properly,you cant throw out a hundred years of lighting tech...
If you prefer "a hundred years of lighting tech" to be an albatross around your neck then be my guest Meanwhile there are amazing advances occurring in sensor tech and I hope Canon can make up some ground in the next few years.
A key point lost on those who treat "shadow pushing" as some marginal or outlier exercise is that High ISO is the exact same thing - post-capture gain applied to an image so that it has adequate output brightness. The only difference is that most CMOS sensors produce a better image if that gain is applied in the analog domain rather than digital. This applies to all Canon CMOS sensors and all non-Exmor Nikon sensors, such as those in the D3/D700/D3s. With the advent of the Sony Exmor sensor the difference in post-gain IQ between analog and digital gain becomes very small, to the point of almost being interchangeable on the D800. This is what facilitates the concept of "ISOless" shooting, where instead of having to shoot at a specific High ISO for acceptable IQ you can instead shoot at a low ISO and arbitrarily push the exposure digitally in post with nearly the same IQ, with the added benefit of maintaining the base ISO dynamic range since analog gain results in 1 stop loss of DR per ISO step.
Would anyone then claim that High ISO shooting is a marginal or outlier exercise?
Here's an example... a D800 image shot at ISO 100 but in lighting conditions roughly equivalent to ISO 3200. The exposure was pushed in ACR, allowing the full retention of ISO 100 dynamic range (note the TV screen) but without any IQ penalty associated with traditional sensors
digitalbug30d wrote:
even when they use RED cameras ect...the scenes still need to be lit properly,you cant throw out a hundred years of lighting tech...
This is an absolutely crazy position to take and you may want to unbox yourself from the corner you have walked into. In your own pictures there are multiple examples where better shadow detail would be in order. Does that make you a bad photographer? Does it make you a lazy photographer for not carting around a ton of lights to properly light some of those classic cars? Wouldn't you rather have the inherent capability of being able to pull the shadows rather than shoot a car show with an assistant and multiple lights to get exactly the same effect? Would the car show organizers even let you in with multiple light stands and softboxes that might blow over and damage some very expensive cars? Do you want to spend the hundreds or perhaps thousands of extra dollars for a portable lighting kit to realize the same benefit of shadow detail that Nikon gives you in a camera that's already $500 cheaper?
Nikon and Sony can already do this so it isn't like anyone here is asking for the impossible or the unreasonable. They are asking that a beneficial, existing technology be available from a camera manufacturer with whom they have invested a lot of money. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. What seems unreasonable is carrying lights and reflectors around a car show (referencing your images) or backpacking them into the wilderness to be prepared for the off chance to shoot a happened upon mushroom, nursery log, or waterfall.
digitalbug30d wrote:
...because 99.99 percent buy cameras for one thing to take pictures,not as a scientific tool...what really is the point of going over charts and graphs to prove IQ,over say an actual print that 99.99 wouldnt know what DR is nor signal-to-noise ratio ect,and why should they if the print satisfies their own criteria,of which a fine picture.
I assure you, we are talking about real world results where this is an issue. Again, trying to dismiss this issue by saying "it only shows up in charts or graphs" is demonstrably false.
snapsy wrote:
A key point lost on those who treat "shadow pushing" as some marginal or outlier exercise is that High ISO is the exact same thing - post-capture gain applied to an image so that it has adequate output brightness. The only difference is that most CMOS sensors produce a better image if that gain is applied in the analog domain rather than digital. This applies to all Canon CMOS sensors and all non-Exmor Nikon sensors, such as those in the D3/D700/D3s. With the advent of the Sony Exmor sensor the difference in post-gain IQ between analog and digital gain becomes very small, to the point of almost being interchangeable on the D800. This is what facilitates the concept of "ISOless" shooting, where instead of having to shoot at a specific High ISO for acceptable IQ you can instead shoot at a low ISO and arbitrarily push the exposure digitally in post with nearly the same IQ, with the added benefit of maintaining the base ISO dynamic range since analog gain results in 1 stop loss of DR per ISO step.
Would anyone then claim that High ISO shooting is a marginal or outlier exercise?
Here's an example... a D800 image shot at ISO 100 but in lighting conditions roughly equivalent to ISO 3200. The exposure was pushed in ACR, allowing the full retention of ISO 100 dynamic range (note the TV screen) but without any IQ penalty associated with traditional sensors
digitalbug30d wrote:
um tell this to the motion picture industry,it works the same for stills why would lighting not be the same? they put the light where its needed so ...
This is exactly the kind of rationalization I don't understand. You are comparing a solo photographer working to get a single photograph to having the resources of an entire film crew?
So if you have a high contrast scene and you want to retain highlights and not have blocked up shadows, you have the following choices:
1. Set up extra lighting gear to balance the lighting of the scene to fall within your sensor's dynamic range.
2. Use no extra gear, but take additional exposures and use exposure blending in post production.
3. Use no extra gear, no extra exposures, take one shot exposed for the highlights and lift the shadows in post.
Isn't it obvious which option is the simplest and most efficient?
Options 1 and 2 are not even feasible a lot of times. If you are working in a studio, or if you have an entire production crew backing you up, sure, bring in all the lighting gear that you want. If you are shooting a static scene on a tripod, blending exposures works great (I do it a lot). But a lot of times we don't have such luxuries.
So again, it seems we are spending a lot of time constructing rationalizations instead of just accepting the facts. Canon's sensors don't have the same latitude as the competition. If you do option 3, your result will be worse if you are using a 5Dx sensor vs an EXMOR sensor. It doesn't matter how you spin it, that's just the reality. If your shooting and processing style never bumps up against the limitations of the Canon sensor, then that's perfectly fine. But some do.
um dont think so but,you can keep using your camera as a lab test tool fine by me..