goosemang wrote:
i'll tell you one thing: i wouldn't take the DR if the 36 megapixels came with it. but as i understand it the other sony sensors are great as well? (24 megs or less?)
Yes, Sony has a 24 MP FF EXMOR sensor.
The 16 MP sensor in the Nikon D4 is a Nikon sensor, not EXMOR, and still better than Canon for low ISO dynamic range.
The APS-C sensor in the Nikon 5200D is a Toshiba sensor. It has excellent DR on paper, but unfortunately some banding.
dhphoto wrote:
And once again I have not seen this magical photo that *MUST* have been taken on a Nikon. Not once. Not ever.
Lots of examples of when and how the Nikon would be so much better, but not one shot that actually proves, difinitively that it must have been taken on a Nikon with the magical dynamic range
You just said it yourself. "Lots of example of when and how the Nikon would be so much better." These have been provided. Real world examples. Practical examples. Detailed explanations of the shooting scenarios.
There is no such thing as a photo that *MUST* be taken with a Nikon. And no one, to my knowledge, has ever made such a silly claim on this forum. There are however plenty of examples showing when an EXMOR sensor would clearly be better.
The OP asked a question about "real world use." There have been several concrete examples posted demonstrating when in "real world use" Canon sensors run into issues.
dhphoto wrote:
And once again I have not seen this magical photo that *MUST* have been taken on a Nikon. Not once. Not ever.
Lots of examples of when and how the Nikon would be so much better, but not one shot that actually proves, difinitively that it must have been taken on a Nikon with the magical dynamic range
The benefits of this supposedly superior sensor are minute. That was my point.
So asking for more DR would only be reasonable if we MUST have it (a need ?) to get a picture. Things like operational convenience (a want ? - although a busy professional may call the time saving a need), for example, aren't good reasons enough. And yet you bought a 5DIII although its characteristics did only answer wants, not needs ?
Didn't Fred already cover the Exmor vs. Canon sensor DR issue when he did his side-by-side D800/5D3 write-up that he published awhile back...his eval was done in Yosemite if memory serves.
Why rehash a know DR issue when Canon hasn't answered back with a new body yet...only they know if they can or will attempt a challenge...sure seems like another waste of time by all...kinda like this post.
Get over yourselves, go out n shoot something...please
Honestly guys this is why most people stay away from discussions like this, it's like being in a crowded bar with about a hundred other people, all of which are buzzed, drunk, or somewhere between the two, everyone talking at the same time and not making a whole lot of sense when you try to put it all together.
saneproduction wrote:
Would it really improve things?
only if you need it. and most of the time one does not need more DR. however, if and when you need it it is nice to have.
kinda like the other day i decided to take a short cut from point a to point b via a frozen lake. it was about an 8 mile drive. i was within one mile of my destination and a huge pressure ridge formed a big ridge in the ice. no way around it. it sure was nice to have a SUV with high clearance so I didn't need to turn around and drive all the way back and take the road. typically a car would do fine but on this occasion no chance.
I think since the beginning of photography, people have found ways to work around the limitations of the camera and what it can see. Even with the limitations, photographers have been able to produce stunning results working around limited dynamic range, noise, autofocus etc. A lot of these skills we attribute to becoming a good photographer. We know how to add light, reposition subjects to work around limitations of the exposure, we prefocus etc etc etc.
When new tools become available such as a wide dynamic range, some photographers may look at it and say "why would I need that, I've been able to take photos without it anyways and that's cheating cause being a photographer is learning how to work around these things". Other photographers will embrace the tools and say "Great!!!, now I have a wider set of tools that I can use to produce the art that I want and not be so concerned about working around the limitations"
At the end of the day, no one needs a huge dynamic range to take a photo. You can take a box and poke a hole in it and take a photo as long as its acceptable to you. I would welcome as much dynamic range as my eye can see. It just gives me more range in exposure to capture what I see and produce good large prints.
artd wrote:
On average, I'd say I run into a circumstance at least once every photoshoot where the dynamic range is an issue and I either have to set up extra lighting on site, or I have to do extra post processing work on the computer. (Why don't I use a D800, you might ask? Because Canon's TS-E lenses are more important to me.)
The thing I keep trying to explain is this: scenarios where dynamic range becomes a real issue with Canon are rare, and when they occur, there is usually a workaround. But: that doesn't mean I don't want a better sensor. Because it would be a nice benefit to my time and productivity if I could simplify my shooting and processing and not worry about workarounds....Show more →
I fully understand. I know that the term HDR normally screams everything but realistic, but I have found that Nik Software HDR Efex Pro 2 can be some pretty awesome sauce that will not give you that annoying HDR-effect. I mentioning this because it is really easy to use on raw-files from within Lightroom, so the workflow doesn't have to be that time consuming. Try it out, when you get the time.
gdanmitchell wrote:
No camera will ever remove all technical limits on photography. And photography as an art would be no better even if such a thing could happen.
I think I agree with you to a certain degree. I would say that the technical limitations of the camera equipment has led to photographers utilizing it in a way to create art. The camera does not see what we has humans see from our eyes or process in our brains. This is not necessarily a bad thing though, as it allows us to manipulate the scene, exposures, DOF, to create works of art. What I would say is as the capabilities of the cameras change, so too does our way of using the tools to create photos and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
gdanmitchell wrote:
No camera will ever remove all technical limits on photography. And photography as an art would be no better even if such a thing could happen.
I disagree on both counts.
I think actually one day, technology will advance to a point where the combination of camera and software will remove all the technical limits (at least to the point that physics will allow). Technology will allow anyone to create a technically perfect image with any effect desired with very little to no technical skill involved. Just have the lens capture the image and tell the software what you want the image to look like. It may not happen soon, but technological advancement makes it inevitable, I think.
As far as photography being no better as an art because of that...throughout history as new technologies emerge people have always decried they ruin a particular art. That's a false perception. Because technical execution is not what makes something art.
The craft of photography will not fare so well. But the art of photography will continue to thrive.
artd wrote:
The thing I keep trying to explain is this: scenarios where dynamic range becomes a real issue with Canon are rare, and when they occur, there is usually a workaround. But: that doesn't mean I don't want a better sensor. Because it would be a nice benefit to my time and productivity if I could simplify my shooting and processing and not worry about workarounds.
I can totally agree with that. Very occasionally I wished for more DR. I don't need it - there's a way around - but occasionally it would have been nice.
That's led me to the conclusion that *for me* it's not worth upgrading the 5d3 for better DR. But I would upgrade for other things and take the increased DR which I think we all hope is coming.
For you the situation might be different - your time and productivity might make an upgrade on DR alone worth it.
artd wrote:
I think actually one day, technology will advance to a point where the combination of camera and software will remove all the technical limits (at least to the point that physics will allow). Technology will allow anyone to create a technically perfect image with any effect desired with very little to no technical skill involved. Just have the lens capture the image and tell the software what you want the image to look like. It may not happen soon, but technological advancement makes it inevitable, I think.
Perhaps, but I bet we won't appreciate it when we get there.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
Perhaps, but I bet we won't appreciate it when we get there.
Hmm. So this begs the question,"What is it we would be afraid of?" If technology will give everyone the ability to have technically perfect photos, then the only differnetiator left will be artistic vision. If you take away the technical limits, then we will have no choice but to focus on our own creative limits.
artd wrote:
Hmm. So this begs the question,"What is it we would be afraid of?" If technology will give everyone the ability to have technically perfect photos, then the only differnetiator left will be artistic vision. If you take away the technical limits, then we will have no choice but to focus on our own creative limits.
Yes, also content. What you are able to shoot, what you choose to shoot, and how and where you present it. These things will still be different for everyone. Photography should be more about these things and less about trying to duel with or coax good images out of one's camera, or device.
artd wrote:
Hmm. So this begs the question,"What is it we would be afraid of?" If technology will give everyone the ability to have technically perfect photos, then the only differnetiator left will be artistic vision. If you take away the technical limits, then we will have no choice but to focus on our own creative limits.
+1
I think people are afraid of change. Sometimes we define how good of a photographer we are based upon how we tackle the technical limits. We've practiced, tested, learned and trained to be able to work around the technical limitations of the equipment to create the art that we want. This takes a lot of time and effort that as photographers, we are proud of. To some extent when a new technology comes in and renders all the time we have spent to learn and perfect our craft null, it does feel like we get a bit robbed and the people that have never learned that craft seem to be cheating. But that's all a part of evolving.
As you say, if the technical limitations are no longer a barrier, then all we have to work on is our art.
This kind of thread is pervasive every time a new camera comes out. Fill in the blank: My ___ camera is holds its own against the new ___ camera because ___.
If the D800 has a technically better camera then so be it. IMHO modern cameras still lose out to film in the highlights. Heck, shoot midday when there is no clouds and harsh sunlight and compare to film and you'll see that modern cameras still need more DR.
