What an improved DR allows me to do is to pull out a lot of detail in the shadow areas w/o too much objectionable noise, assuming one is exposing to the right. And this is definitely a good thing and something you cannot do if the DR is poor.
chez wrote:
But surely you would agree a camera that extends these limits is better and allows the photographer more creative freedom no?
Not too long ago ISO 1600 was tops, now we are much beyond that. Look at what improvements to ISO has done to the creativity of photos as well as the ability to use the camera in situations where you could only dream about a few years ago.
bobbytan wrote:
and something you cannot do if the DR is poor.
You see that's just it, Poor?
These cameras are f'ing marvels of technology and you think the DR is poor?
That's what gets my goat. There is nothing, nothing wrong with modern dslr's. They can all take magnificent images if used properly. I've used my 5DII and 1Ds3 side by side for years now on all manner of subjects and never had any issue with image quality whatsoever.
This is a quick and dirty example of the kind of stuff I do, extremely challenging lighting and colour conditions with massive variations in DR. The 5DII handles it easily
These cameras are f'ing marvels of technology and you think the DR is poor?
That's what gets my goat. There is nothing, nothing wrong with modern dslr's. They can all take magnificent images if used properly. I've used my 5DII and 1Ds3 side by side for years now on all manner of subjects and never had any issue with image quality whatsoever.
Image quality standards keep on moving up. Like I said in a previous post, 1600 ISO was tops not too long ago, afterwhich you would have to use somekind of artificial lighting if possible, or pack up your gear. Today, we've far exceeded 1600 ISO, and far exceeded the types of shots that are now possible, which were not possible with 1600 ISO and definately not possible 10 years ago with film.
The bar keeps raising. What was great yesterday might just be the norm tomorrow.
That wasn't the issue. The issue was dynamic range. What we have now is just fine if you know what you're doing.
I shoot industrial portraits at 800 ISO, something I didn't think I'd ever be able to do but the IQ is so good I can have confidence. Better high ISO is great, but the odd stop of extra DR doesn't somehow move Nikon into a different league
dhphoto wrote:
No. The issue is when a user decides to try and force the camera beyond it's limits.
If you accept that the camera has a similar DR to slide film you just expose for that. It's when you piss about with the shadows the issue (can) surface. Don't do that and you won't have a problem at all.
When was the last time you looked at a picture in a magazine or a print on a wall and said, confidently, "that was taken with a Nikon because the DR is so much greater"?
Yeah if you accept much greater limitations from one camera compared to another. Sure. Heck when not use a 1 frame every three seconds model with no AF and 5 stops DR and just use it for then? Why not just go back to giant plate film and live with all of those limitations and lug 300lb glass plate sets with you on long hikes.
Anyway of course you have to either live with it for now or switch but that doesn't make it silly to bring it up so maybe you end up NOT having to switch?
dhphoto wrote:
That wasn't the issue. The issue was dynamic range. What we have now is just fine if you know what you're doing.
I shoot industrial portraits at 800 ISO, something I didn't think I'd ever be able to do but the IQ is so good I can have confidence. Better high ISO is great, but the odd stop of extra DR doesn't somehow move Nikon into a different league
Depends what you shoot. Landscape photos where there is open sunlit areas as well as shade could definately benefit from the extra dynamic range of the Nikon cameras. I am always using GND filters to control this dynamic range and using multiple exposures and blending. I would rather capture these images with a single exposure not having to resort to GND filters, which do not work in all circumstances.
Maybe for industrial portraits you see no benefit, but for many landscape situations the extra dynamic range is definately useful.
dhphoto wrote:
That wasn't the issue. The issue was dynamic range. What we have now is just fine if you know what you're doing.
I shoot industrial portraits at 800 ISO, something I didn't think I'd ever be able to do but the IQ is so good I can have confidence. Better high ISO is great, but the odd stop of extra DR doesn't somehow move Nikon into a different league
If by know what you are doing you mean simply decide to pass on many opportunities for shots you might not have to with a camera that has more DR. And sure this is what you do, but the heck defend it and say it's OK for Canon to just stay as is for another decade??
And for some types of shooting the Nikon IS in a different league.
Yeah slide film didn't have much DR and guess what there were times when I had it loaded back in the film days and I was ahh man have to skip that shot, oh damn have to skip that shot too, etc. it was annoying.
skibum5 wrote:
much greater limitations from one camera compared to another.
Much? Much greater?
A tiny bit at best, that's the point. The D800 is I am sure a super camera, but it isn't reinventing the wheel.
Canon have I think lagged behind Nikon in IQ with these new models and that's a shame as I for one am well in the Canon system, but I don't need much more than I have now.
James Markus wrote:
I think I am too old school, because I have three bodies with live view, and I never use it for critical focusing. I tried using it for landscapes, and moon shots - but what I call shimmer (probably caused by motion occurring within the landscape) made it hard to choose which had the best critical focus. I found it is faster, and simpler to just shoot an image....hold the +zoom button down after waiting 2-3 seconds for the image to write to the CF card -and then check critical focus at whatever magnification you want (I think 16x is the max). I do this for both my Nikon bodies, as well as my Canon bodies. This way the image isn't squirming on the LCD. The only time I use the rear LCD for focusing is when shooting video, and that isn't being magnified at all....Show more →
Actually if you really were old school used be all over liveview since it's like ground glass viewscreens!
It's actually the most old school type of focusing method there is on a DSLR.
skibum5 wrote:
Actually if you really were old school used be all over liveview since it's like ground glass viewscreens!
It's actually the most old school type of focusing method there is on a DSLR.
Except it isn't dark and upside down!
I use a Delkin hood over my 1Ds3 LCD and live view virtually all the time, same with the 5DII
A tiny bit at best, that's the point. The D800 is I am sure a super camera, but it isn't reinventing the wheel.
Canon have I think lagged behind Nikon in IQ with these new models and that's a shame as I for one am well in the Canon system, but I don't need much more than I have now.
Focusing on ground glass isn't superior to anything on a dslr. From my Graflex Graphic View mono rail 4x5 camera, to 6x9 Zeiss, and 6x6 Bronica and Zeiss - even with little built-in magnifying glasses...A good central split screen in a good 35mm film camera (like the F3HP) left ground glass for dead. You just picked a spot, and viola...almost instant perfect focus. I did it for decades.
skibum5 wrote:
Actually if you really were old school used be all over liveview since it's like ground glass viewscreens!
It's actually the most old school type of focusing method there is on a DSLR.
Noone says the new Canon is bad, it's the best so far, but D800 is even better wrt DR.
If I had the option to go for 3 more stops of DR,allowing me to pull out details of the black dogs I shoot and still keep the highlights, Yes Please Thank You.
For me it's not a show stopper, I have been quite happy with the DR and the 5D2... and it would cost a fortune to swap. And I do not like the grip and ergonomics of Nikon.
I really really like the whole package that Canon offers me right now bodies and lenses.
But if Canon would come out with a 5D Mk3N giving me 3 stops improvement I'd would ugprade in a heart beat!
dhphoto wrote:
No. The issue is when a user decides to try and force the camera beyond it's limits.
If you accept that the camera has a similar DR to slide film you just expose for that. It's when you piss about with the shadows the issue (can) surface. Don't do that and you won't have a problem at all.
When was the last time you looked at a picture in a magazine or a print on a wall and said, confidently, "that was taken with a Nikon because the DR is so much greater"?
I reinserted the part of my post you omitted.
How well the photographer can present the desired image (often, at least in these discussions, not a "forensic" shot because the eye can see detail in the shadows on a day with bright highlights better than a camera can - see the discussion in the thread on "how useful is extended DR") will be based, as you say, on a camera's limits, just as it used to be based on film stock limits (slide vs neg etc). Because a Canon user may run into DR limits, based on sheer noise or the FPN on top of it, those limits determine how that Canon user will be able to present their desired image. Because the Nikon sensor has better DR, its limits will be greater and the same photographer using the Nikon sensor will succeed in their presentation where using the Canon would not get the desired image quality. The same operation in Photoshop or Lightroom or whatever will succeed with one and not the other, due to the camera's limits. So, yes, the Canon is limited in this respect but the Nikon succeeds without "pushing the camera to its limits". Alternatively stated, "P*ssing around in the shadows might create an issue in the Canon where it won't in the Nikon" so which sensor are you gonna choose for such an image?
As agreed, the extent of this pushing/shadowlifting etc will be a personal issue for the photographer - just as others have mentioned, living with the limitations of slide film was relieved somewhat by the advent of digital, so too the (occasional) limitations imposed by one sensor may be overcome by using a different one. Many photographers may never run across this issue, but it's clear that some do. A lot of folks pooh-poohed Live View when it came around ("Get that video out of my camera!") but now love it. Similarly, increased DR - all in one exposure - will be appreciated more and more by folks currently forced to exposure bracket or HDR. There'll always be someone to push the limits of a technology
chez wrote:
Image quality standards keep on moving up. Like I said in a previous post, 1600 ISO was tops not too long ago, afterwhich you would have to use somekind of artificial lighting if possible, or pack up your gear. Today, we've far exceeded 1600 ISO, and far exceeded the types of shots that are now possible, which were not possible with 1600 ISO and definately not possible 10 years ago with film.
The bar keeps raising. What was great yesterday might just be the norm tomorrow.
True, but also one may ask at what point does it become like high end audiophile equipment where the gains made from spending $100K on speakers compared to say $5K speakers in most peoples ears are minuscule. We may obsess about shadow DR etc, but 99% of those that look at prints don't seem to notice any of that; they are looking at the big picture so to speak and not focussing on all the tiny flaws we see.
Don't for one second think I wouldn't rather Sony sensor in the 5D III, but the 5D III is still a darn fine camera and it's all we are getting from Canon at the moment. So we use it or we stay with even lesser cameras from them, or we switch. You have to be pragmatic about the situation, or you suffer paralysis from analysis.
Poor is a bad choice of word, so I take back that word. No modern DSLR has poor DR ... it's either good or better. The Canons are damn good but the Nikons are just better.
dhphoto wrote:
You see that's just it, Poor?
These cameras are f'ing marvels of technology and you think the DR is poor?
That's what gets my goat. There is nothing, nothing wrong with modern dslr's. They can all take magnificent images if used properly. I've used my 5DII and 1Ds3 side by side for years now on all manner of subjects and never had any issue with image quality whatsoever.
This is a quick and dirty example of the kind of stuff I do, extremely challenging lighting and colour conditions with massive variations in DR. The 5DII handles it easily
I am a photojournalist and event shooter and need speed, agility and high ISO performance, so there is no question which camera I would prefer. However, I agree that Nikon sensor tech is pretty impressive.
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned here yet (I confess I haven't read all 7 pages of this post), but reduced dynamic range can be compensated for somewhat by noise processing.
It's relatively easy to remove most color noise from digital files without destroying the fidelity of the image. And as long as there is no repetetive pattern noise, even luminance noise can be reduced effectively in the shadows without messing up the rest of the image (using shadow masking). So I don't really worry if the original file has a bit of shadow noise as long as I can effectivley reduce or eliminate it in software.
This doesn't excuse Canon from falling behind the curve in sensor design, but I have found that in practice the shadow noise in Canon cameras can be tamed in many images. Cameras are tools; they have weaknesses and strengths. Part of being a professional or serious amateur is to learn to compensate for the limitations of said tools.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
True, but also one may ask at what point does it become like high end audiophile equipment where the gains made from spending $100K on speakers compared to say $5K speakers in most peoples ears are minuscule. We may obsess about shadow DR etc, but 99% of those that look at prints don't seem to notice any of that; they are looking at the big picture so to speak and not focussing on all the tiny flaws we see.
Don't for one second think I wouldn't rather Sony sensor in the 5D III, but the 5D III is still a darn fine camera and it's all we are getting from Canon at the moment. So we use it or we stay with even lesser cameras from them, or we switch. You have to be pragmatic about the situation, or you suffer paralysis from analysis. ...Show more →
Your analogy to high end speakers does not fit quite yet. You can see a huge difference in dynamic range between the two cameras without even trying to hard. That is not the case with the high end speakers. The leap Nikon has made in DR is truly impressive and for a landscape photographer, you better believe it you will notice the difference in photos.
