gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #9 · Interesting Reference Data on Dynamic Range - 5dsr | |
First...
It is hard to think of too many situations in which "X is always better than Y" or "More X is always better than less X." Perhaps it could be accurate to say, "If all else is equal, X is always better than Y, or more X is better than less X." In the real world — including the world of cameras — all else is rarely if ever equal, and that is the main issue here, I think.
And...
Examples contrived to show how crappy the thing that the other guy uses are so tedious, especially when dropped regularly and voluminously into discussions about the "other guy's" thing. I appreciate KKFung's real world examples of how this thing works a lot more than someone else's examples designed to suggest that someone else's thing suck badly.
(For the umpteenth X 100 time, all of the cameras being compared here — Sony, Nikon, Canon, etc. — are fine tools and reasonable, smart people could select any among them for their photography and use them to do brilliant work. I'm completely NOT interested in telling folks who use a different brand than I do why they are fools for not selecting "my" brand.)
Here, again, is one of my examples, with a link to more information for those who might be interested:
- - -
I updated an article at my website that includes a couple of examples of very underexposed 5DsR images from which deep shadow details have been recovered. If you are interested... http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2015/07/19/the-canon-5ds-r-dynamic-range-examples
Nearly black deep shadow section of a 100% crop....
http://i2.wp.com/www.gdanmitchell.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CropPreEdit.jpg
... becomes...
http://i2.wp.com/www.gdanmitchell.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/cropPostEditNRSharp.jpg
details in the article
- - -
Then...
dugaut wrote:
I'm a math teacher and I loaded up the DR graph with 5dsr, pentax 645z, d4/s, d800/810, 5dmkiii, phase one iq250, canon g1x, sony a7rii. I'm always leery when so much data gets crunched into a single graph.
It's great to see the differences on the graph but ability with camera, planning , execution of the plan, and post-production make the differences I see in the graph less profound....
To keep spinning the broken record (after thanking you for your perspective), camera selection is a rather subjective thing and it is typically made on the basis of a range of tangible and intangible elements.
In the end, for most photographers who think a lot about how particular gear options relate to their particular photographic needs, the choice (or choices) cannot be made on the basis of one primary factor only. We would all love it if some camera manufacturer designed the absolutely perfect camera for each of us that had exactly the feature that we individually desire, but the reality is that while Camera A may get closer to our ideal in one respect, Camera B may get closer in another. On top of that, Camera C may come out that beats A and B in some way, but falls short in others.
So we look at our photography, at all of this tangible and intangible factors, and we select the imperfect gear that best fits our needs/desires.
I suspect you are referring to the comparative dynamic range curve graph of a whole list of cameras that was shared earlier. I also plugged in a bunch of cameras whose performance interests me — the major full frame DSLR and mirrorless cameras, the Fujifilm mirrorless cameras (since I own one), the 645z (since I considered getting one at one point, and still haven't ruled it out for the future), the Phase One backs (good friends use them), and more.
Clearly there are differences in DR (and some other things) that are visible in the chart. But even if DR is your only decision point (not likely!), it isn't clear which camera one would get based only on the chart data.
In the end, most people will likely agree with what most people here say: Increases in DR and other camera capabilities are a fine thing and always welcome as long as they don't diminish performance in other areas. Ultimately, there is no single "right" choice of camera, and each photographer has to figure out how the various factors play into his or her choice.
My view is that most — but not necessarily all — photographers trying to make a selection between brands and models will be well served by trying to weight their decision toward that larger range of camera characteristics and away from any single characteristic... and then to get on with it, get almost any one of the current fine cameras/brands that meets their functional needs, and focus on making pictures.
jctriguy wrote:
There is a big difference between more DR being better and deciding to choose a camera with more DR. I'm sure everyone would be happy with a canon that had 14 stops of DR. That isn't reality, so people look at the actual existing options. Selecting a camera based on the outrageous info in some posts would be a mistake. Exactly opposite of the stated goal of some users here that want to educate the new forum members. Cutting through the hype is hard. People show images of pushed shadows at +6 and they all look like shit. Some ask, and rightly so, what do the files actually look like at normal usage levels? Does a canon file look that different from a Sony when pushed 2 stops? ...Show more →
Yup. Pretty much exactly yup.
YMMV,
Dan
Edited on Aug 17, 2015 at 10:25 AM · View previous versions
|
