artd wrote:
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.
I never wrote or implied such a thing. I am not "afraid of change."
I was hoping to see more real world examples and less D800 is better fluff. Sure it is better, but what is the real difference? Tired of seeing so many complaints about canon DR with no examples to back it up. Would I like more DR, sure! Will I switch? No!
It is not very tempting to post images showing DR characteristics.
- Controlled comparisons that show the real difference already exist.
- If somebody posts a real image, it will be claimed (rightfully or not) that the other camera would do just as well, better, worse, etc and we will need to see the same picture from the other camera.
- If somebody posts an example where the DR helped them out when something failed, the photographer is blamed.
- If somebody posts a controlled comparison, somebody will jump in and say it is a comparison, not a real image, and therefore not valid for real world results.
- We will never agree on the significance of a certain amount of noise, banding, color cast, detail smearing etc. anyway.
Dynamic rage is not only what Nikon have. Nikon have always been the best, when Nikon F4 the first digital camera came out it was the best and then the F5 was best you can ask ken rockwell and when Canon started making cameras in 2001 you could see they were scared of Nikon.
Compare DR to film? I shot any kind of film for 25 years. My experience is that any modern DSLR camera produced within the last half decade offers a higher DR than film ever was able to do.
I have shot quite a bit of 120 film in my wife's 500 C/M Hasselblad lately. Mostly porta 160 rated at 80 and 400 rated at 250 and I feel like I can keep a lot of highlights, more than my 5DII did in backlit situations.
I'm trying to explain that 'want' is not the same as 'need'.
At least I was, rather bored of it now.
I understand where you are coming from. Years ago I stated that the 2 reasons we ever bought anything & the 2 emotions salesman worked on were need v greed or need v want. It ended up with me being called a neo fascist & receiving a lecture on the might of the US economy.
I get the feeling if the shoe was on the other foot and Canon had better DR than the Nikons the people saying DR isn't important would be singing a completely different tune....
daskibum wrote:
I get the feeling if the shoe was on the other foot and Canon had better DR than the Nikons the people saying DR isn't important would be singing a completely different tune....
Equally troubling are the people saying they "need" greater DR but don't use the gear that provides that very function.
ggreene wrote:
Equally troubling are the people saying they "need" greater DR but don't use the gear that provides that very function.
Why is that so troubling for you. It is not so easy to drop your Canon investment in gear and just go out and purchase the equivalent nikon gear. For one there is the cost associated with the switch and there is not the equivalent range of lens with Nikon.
Paul Mo wrote:
Linear curves, Ralph. Linear curves.
I know film works non linear, Paul. But as far I remember film offered a DR between 6 and 9 stops. And DSLRs are already far beyond that. Correct me if I am wrong.
chez wrote:
It is not so easy to drop your Canon investment in gear and just go out and purchase the equivalent nikon gear. For one there is the cost associated with the switch and there is not the equivalent range of lens with Nikon.
True, and as things are now, you got to pick your poison. It really is as simple as that, and as complicated as that on the same time.
Bruce Sawle wrote:
The DR difference is real between the two cams. I can already see the noise and banding on the building on the left. The Nikon would not produce that banding or close to that level of noise if shot at a low ISO. Here is an example I did for fun when my strobe did not fire. This was PRE d800 and was done with a d3x. I think you will get the idea. The d800 was even better. DR aside there are many other things that make a great cam. I really like both the MK III and D800 yet I find myself shooting the Canon more.
Bruce - these are not the same photo...the water reflections visible between the pier posts are quite different between the two. Obviously taken very close to each other given that the poses are identical, but I think the before is from an earlier frame in a burst, as the one wave appears to be traveling to the right between the 'before' and 'after' photos. (or it was taken after in a burst and the wave is moving left).
