I thought the Sony 16 rule was amusing. I think you've nailed how it's going to be. Why do anything in-camera that you can defer until later? If I could aim at the general direction of the scene and decide the majority of the picture later, why wouldn't I?
Those of us shooting in raw already do it with white balance, sharpening, tone, and about a hundred other decisions. Anything I can put off is one less thing I have to deal with while trying to grab some fleeting photographic moment.
alexdi wrote:
I think you've nailed how it's going to be. Why do anything in-camera that you can defer until later? If I could aim at the general direction of the scene and decide the majority of the picture later, why wouldn't I?
Me and everyone else, you inclusive. Why worry about nailing focus when you can choose it later? That particular product (and the physics behind it) was much too limited, but if we could magically add that capability to an existing DSLR, I'd be all over it.
chez wrote:
I believe that is the 5th time in this thread that you told people to move on to the Nikon system. Do you think just maybe we get your point and could you possibly contribute some other more meaningful information rather than being rude to people by telling them to move on.
How many times have you told us that Canon doesn't have the low ISO DR you need in your photography? We get the point. Canon doesn't have it, Nikon/Sony does. At some point don't you have to question your choice of gear?
I don't think it's rude to ask someone why they keep complaining about a lack of a feature that a competitor has had for supposedly years and at less cost as well.
Wow, the threshold of rude is quite low these days.
alexdi wrote:
Me and everyone else, you inclusive. Why worry about nailing focus when you can choose it later? That particular product (and the physics behind it) was much too limited, but if we could magically add that capability to an existing DSLR, I'd be all over it.
Whilst I am all for continued improvement in the abilities of the features and functionality that a camera system can provide. What you are lying out fills me with horror! I really enjoy the creative process behind the camera when capturing the shot. I like to keep any post processing to an absolute minimum. The idea of not caring about the point of capture in a shot just doesn't appeal to me. You can all have your 8mm lens system with immense cropability and the the ability to pick a focus point anywhere in the frame etc. I'll be busy buying all your old school cameras\lenses at knock down prices
alexdi wrote:
Me and everyone else, you inclusive. Why worry about nailing focus when you can choose it later? That particular product (and the physics behind it) was much too limited, but if we could magically add that capability to an existing DSLR, I'd be all over it.
Not for me.
However, you should install your Lytro in a GigaPan, and then you won't even have to compose when you make the photo.
ggreene wrote:
How many times have you told us that Canon doesn't have the low ISO DR you need in your photography? We get the point. Canon doesn't have it, Nikon/Sony does. At some point don't you have to question your choice of gear?
I don't think it's rude to ask someone why they keep complaining about a lack of a feature that a competitor has had for supposedly years and at less cost as well.
Wow, the threshold of rude is quite low these days.
Seems to me, you really don't have an interest in dynamic range, yet you continually jump in to these threads that discuss it and offer your great tidbits of moving to Nikon. Why is that? What is your true interest in these threads.
Me, I do wish for more dynamic range and I do have very specific situations that can benefit from it. So I like to discuss this topic with others in the same situation. What I don't like, and in fact I would say many others, is stupid immature remarks about selling your gear and moving to Nikon. This topic was started to discuss situations where more dynamic range would be a benefit...and all you do is turn it into a canon / Nikon battle. Please contribute to the actual topic or just sit back and learn.
However, you should install your Lytro in a GigaPan, and then you won't even have to compose when you make the photo.
i get where you're coming from, but it's a slippery slope to draw a line in the sand w/r/t how much "real" photography one must endure in order for it to be a "legit" medium.
i mean perhaps we should all be shooting wet plate collodion?
on the other end of the spectrum we have stuff like Doug Rickard's work, which is essentially what you describe with the added bonus of him not even manning the camera.
i'm not saying you're wrong, i'm just saying we're going down another rabbit hole here. does the viability of work as art have anything to do with the process of how it's created, or need we only consider the end result?
Monito wrote:
He didn't turn it. The Original Post directly pitted Canon DR again Nikon DR.
Yes, but the OP wanted to discuss actual examples where more dynamic range would help an image. A very logical topic and would have been great to discuss. We then get the usual crowd come into the thread and claim you really don't need more dynamic range, we've shot for years without more dynamic range, I don't need it so no one else needs it...yadayadayada. Then we get the ultimate bit of wisdom...move to Nikon. All of this totally off topic, which is to discuss situations where more dynamic range would be useful.
There are fine art photographers shooting wet plate collodion to this very day.
I hope that even if the "push the button and we do the rest" philosophy or the "push the button and do the rest at home" philosophy may be appealing to one or two writers here, I hope that most of us are interested in doing as much pre-production, production, and post-production work to get the best quality results we are capable of with today's excellent Nikon and Canon and Pentax cameras. For snapshot takers, yes there are other convenient ways to not have to think too much.
goosemang wrote:
i think we recently had a whole thread about this when discussing pulling stills from 4k video or something like that.
Yup. A similar trap that people can fall into. Video lighting and composing are very different from stills, and dealing with Terabytes of data, let alone making intelligent artistic selections from it is more time-consuming that doing it right in the first place, except in a few exceptional situations (peak action sports shots, for example).
maybe this is a good rabbit hole to go down, though. i mean why the hell not, do we really need to stay on topic here when the topic has been discussed endlessly?
question: what is going to happen when they develop a camera that has enough dynamic range to capture a cat in a coal mine and the sun in the same shot? when said camera has other-worldly autofocus where it never misses a shot. when this camera is implanted into your eyeball and all you have to do is think about capturing what you are seeing and the shutter trips. and a wifi card in your shoulder transmits the image to your computer instantly.
then what, ye olde photographer? once the requirement of intricate knowledge of the physical medium is done away with, and there are no limits to capture, how will one explain that their photographs are *still* shit?
ggreene wrote:
Exactly how it should be. Each manufacturer has different strengths in their gear. It's pointless to keep lamenting the fact that Canon does not have the low ISO DR of Sony/Nikon technology. Some people on this forum have said that Canon are years behind. I admire their patience but at some point you have to see the trend and say it's time to move on.
Actually I think a lot of times this is way overdone, things are 95% similar maybe 5% different.
It's simply an illusion created by the advertisements and the 'brand holy wars' and rationalization that their stuff is so much different so much better than the competition. But when it comes down to it, it's pretty much the same. You might get one little thing here, and give up a minor detail there, but it's not going to revolutionize your photography or anything like that.
chez wrote:
Yes, but the OP wanted to discuss actual examples where more dynamic range would help an image. A very logical topic and would have been great to discuss. We then get the usual crowd come into the thread and claim you really don't need more dynamic range, we've shot for years without more dynamic range, I don't need it so no one else needs it...yadayadayada. Then we get the ultimate bit of wisdom...move to Nikon. All of this totally off topic, which is to discuss situations where more dynamic range would be useful.
And we get the same crowd coming into these threads saying that Canon doesn't have the low ISO DR that Nikon/Sony has, which is pretty obvious to all by now. So what is this really about other then more frustration that Canon is behind in that technology? What do you do in general when you are frustrated or dissatisfied with something? Wouldn't you try to improve the situation? Nikon/Sony offers an alternative now not some vague rumor sometime in 2014. It's a perfectly valid option to suggest for people continually wanting more DR.
One of the useful things ("the" useful thing?") about many DR threads on FM is that by the fourth or fifth page or so they efficiently reveal who you might want to add to your "hide" list. ;-)
This post is not meant to suggest what other people should do, but to share my reasoning behind adding a D800E and some lenses to my Canon system. Hopefully it will be valuable for anyone already considering this.
The D800E offers three advantages from an image quality standpoint.
- Resolution
- Dynamic range
- No AA filter (or actually a self-cancelling AA filter)
The last point requires more explanation, because using a camera without AA filter with sharp lenses produce false detail and color aliasing. That happens even when it is not visible as moire. So why did I not get the D800? In many cases, I want to stop down as much as possible either to maximize DoF, or to get long exposures. Then there is a trade-off against diffraction. When stopped down to f/16, diffraction acts as a fully effective AA filter with the D800E pixel density, but without the additional blur from the AA filter.
If there was no D800E, or if I would not use it much stopped down maximally, my decision would not be so easy.
Then there are the rumors about a high megapixel camera from Canon. I feel confident that they will bring such a camera, but it is also likely that it will be priced and sized like a 1Ds camera, and that would be a deal breaker for me. It is also likely that they will not improve low ISO dynamic range in a new camera. EXMOR is patent protected, and it is difficult to maximize low ISO DR.
Finally, since I use mostly manual focus lenses with the D800E, these can also be used on a Canon camera without worries.
After the purchase, Samyang has announced a 24 mm Tilt/Shift lens. If it is good enough, I will sell my Canon TS-E 24II and get the Samyang in Nikon mount instead.
I have one complaint about the D800E, and that is the poor LiveView implementation. I don't use it with AF.
Access wrote:
Actually I think a lot of times this is way overdone, things are 95% similar maybe 5% different.
It's simply an illusion created by the advertisements and the 'brand holy wars' and rationalization that their stuff is so much different so much better than the competition. But when it comes down to it, it's pretty much the same. You might get one little thing here, and give up a minor detail there, but it's not going to revolutionize your photography or anything like that.
This is the conclusion I have about the current state of cameras. All of this fervor seems to be over a minor difference. I am happy with what I can do now. I am interested in seeing examples of what the competition is doing and where is could be useful. I also like the idea of having more DR someday, but there is no Nikon 200 1.8 so I am not switching
saneproduction wrote:
This is the conclusion I have about the current state of cameras. All of this fervor seems to be over a minor difference.
I think the "fervor" as it relates to the DR issue comes over the semantics of the word "minor." In one perspective, yes, the DR limitation in Canon sensors is minor, because scenarios where you encounter it are comparatively few. But in another perspective though, it would provide substantial major benefits.
Consider, for instance, if I had a Canon camera with a sensor capable of cleanly lifting shadows. It is conceivable I would be able to get by carrying around less (or maybe even no) lighting gear for those "just in case" scenarios where I need a little extra fill light. That has the potential of saving me a lot of time and physical effort in packing, carrying around, unpacking, setting up, tearing down and repacking lighting gear. That "minor" benefit has the potential of being a major boon.
