This has nothing to do with not understanding light. I understand and am capable of exposing an image correctly, but I like to shoot into the sun to get that dramatic look, so I would either need to bracket the image (more time, need to lug around a tripod) or have a camera with great dynamic range. I'm trying to save time, so I would prefer if a camera had enough dynamic range where I would not need to bracket and then merge the photos in photoshop. And that brings back the original question, which camera provides the most amount of flexibility in those terms.
IME you will lose more time with the Sony and adapters, etc. than bracketing a 5D III. I had the a7R for 3 weeks and it was less productive than any camera I had used in over a decade. If you buy a set of native Sony mount lenses and practice you will become more proficient, but you'll have to figure out the lens economics compared to Canon.
The ideal body is probably the 5D IV. Perhaps you can aim for that in the future.
twinsfan7777 wrote:
This has nothing to do with not understanding light. I understand and am capable of exposing an image correctly, but I like to shoot into the sun to get that dramatic look, so I would either need to bracket the image (more time, need to lug around a tripod) or have a camera with great dynamic range. I'm trying to save time, so I would prefer if a camera had enough dynamic range where I would not need to bracket and then merge the photos in photoshop. And that brings back the original question, which camera provides the most amount of flexibility in those terms....Show more →
One thing to consider when hoping that extra DR will solve such a problem is that when comparing cameras with differing DR capabilities, there are basically three possibilities:
1. The dynamic range of the scene doesn't exceed the capabilities of either camera.
2. The dynamic range exceeds the capability of the less capable camera, but only by a small enough increment that it doesn't exceed that of the more capable camera.
3. The dynamic range exceeds the capacity of both cameras.
The most common situation by far is case #1. The second most common is case #3 —and your "straight into the sun" photographs fall into that category. The least common circumstance, since it is the smallest exposure window, is case #2, where one camera can handle it and the other cannot.
I suspect that you'll find that shooting directly into the sun exceeds the DR capability of any camera that you would consider, and that you'll still have to resort to other techniques for that no matter what camera you get.
Seem seldom people pay attention on the DR form iso400 -1250 for landscape shoot, when you are shooting in low light with those moving leaves, fast moving cloud, etc which is always happen, you will be forced to use iso higher than 200 no matter you have your camera on tripod, then you will see differently on actual DR you will need from a camera.
twinsfan7777 wrote:
I'm debating whether to upgrade to a Sony A7ii or a 5D3. In the past, I've owned nothing but Canon dslr's, but I have been playing around with a Sony RX1R recently and I'm amazed at the shadow recovery and dynamic range. From my experience, Canon crop sensors have pretty lousy dynamic range and shadow recovery, but I've never shot with a modern Canon full frame sensor (only with the original 5D, which is like 10 years old now), and by DXOmark scores, the A7ii blows the 5D3 out of the water. So I'm curious if anyone has played with both of these cameras and can report back on which has the better shadow recovery and overall dynamic range?...Show more →
You should at least be debating 5DsR or A7RII. 5DsR is a better camera than 5D3 in most areas, with IQ being the main area, but IMO, AF is better probably due to having dual cpu's, live view AF is faster too, it has several features not found on the 5D3,, such as intervalometer, improved auto ISO, and high ISO at least to ISO 6400 is better or as good. It also has improved shadow areas and effectively at least 1 stop better shadow DR. To do better you need one of the cameras released this year.
I would suggest OP to pay more for a 5DIV, then no need to care about the DR war on the internet and at the same time you get many good features, AF, lens availability that the A7 series cannot provide.
twinsfan7777 wrote:
I'm the kind of shooter who brings a camera with him on a family excursion, and then gets left behind while I try to get the exposure right...
So we are not alone in the universe after all - there are others like us.
Agree very much with the others here, esp. Dan, his scenario #2 is rather rare, speaking from experience with A7R, A7R2, 5D3, 5D4, and 5DSR.
Also, you do not really need a tripod for bracketing. Put the camera on high-speed continuous shooting and into HDR-mode (5D-series). The camera will then take 3 shots in rapid succession when you press the shutter, and merge them, including aligning them automatically (a real HDR post-processing program will do a better job, of course). The merged file is JPG, but you can also have the 3 raw-files and make further enhancements in post. I found 5D4 was best at this (much faster processing), but it works ok on the two other 5Ds as well (just takes a few secs to create the merged file).
I actually did the whole round-trip last year 5D3 -> A7II -> 5D3. The Sony is nice but I never got used to the colors it produces, and there are a lot of small things that bother you more and more over time if you're coming from a DSLR. Now I'm glad I have the 5D3 again, it feels like a luxury, and the images look "correct" again.
Having moved from a 5D II to an XT-1, there's zero chance I'll ever buy another camera with less DR than the Fuji. DR and ISO invariance take a whole lot of the work out of both shooting and post. To me, then, it's a one-horse race.
Thorsten wrote:
I actually did the whole round-trip last year 5D3 -> A7II -> 5D3. The Sony is nice but I never got used to the colors it produces, and there are a lot of small things that bother you more and more over time if you're coming from a DSLR. Now I'm glad I have the 5D3 again, it feels like a luxury, and the images look "correct" again.
I especially appreciate not having to wait two days for a card to format.
It's tiny, FF, 24MP, great DR, great malleability of files, you already own it-- and 35mm is an incredibly versatile focal length for a broad array of shooting (notably the kind where you don't want to make your family wait).
What else are you chasing FL wise? Are you going to consider adding a second camera to the RX1 for other FLs?
If so, I might suggest you grab an A7r instead. Save yourself the money, grab a used one for ~$900, and figure out what lenses/FL you want. That body + FE 16-35, or CV 15mm, or Zeiss 21/18, would give you small size/weight, massive DR, high resolution... all great things for landscape shooting. Then you can use your RX1 for your every-day carry.
When I shot my 5D2 beside my A7rII, it simply got to the point I'd never take the 5D2 out. Why would I carry something bigger and heavier with such an inferior sensor? For my needs (no field sports, no BIF), it made perfect sense. For someone else, it would be the opposite. No need to force a square peg through a round hole.
Side note: DR is but one of many considerations (hell, even the sensor is but one of many considerations, and the best sensor connected to the worst body-- for one's needs-- is a bad idea). But the argument about three different DR scenarios is flawed for a number of reasons:
- Even if the DR in the scene is greater than the DR of either camera choice, the one with more DR still gives you more flexibility and control to capture more data wrt DR-- and result in more power/choice/flexibility in your given processed output when using a single exposure. It is a fallacy to believe that scene DR vs. sensor DR is an all of nothing proposition.
- It is likewise a fallacy that output medium having less DR than scene or sensor really matters all that much. The point of maximum DR capture is not empty simply because the output medium can't display the full range captured; the end goal of maximum DR capture isn't about being able to display all that DR in your output medium. Far more often the advantage in DR capture range is about having the most data to work with-- in order to choose and control how and where you compress that data/DR to get to your final output. Strong analogues include RAW image files, and log/flat video profiles. The goal in these formats is to start from a very, very flat/broad/boring maximum-data file-- and craft that into our final output. A RAW file or log-profile is NOT supposed to look like the scene as we saw it through our eyes-- it's supposed to give us the flexibility to end up at an image that looks like what we saw through our eyes (and the possibility to impart as wide a range of impressionistic or stylistic visions onto that scene without the limit of not having captured enough data).
Resolution is similar, actually, as are many other variables.
How we weight the importance of these variables, and the thresholds above which we're satisfied (for now, at least, and with a glance towards the future)-- is highly, highly individual and personal and subjective.
twinsfan7777 wrote:
This has nothing to do with not understanding light. I understand and am capable of exposing an image correctly, but I like to shoot into the sun to get that dramatic look, so I would either need to bracket the image (more time, need to lug around a tripod) or have a camera with great dynamic range. I'm trying to save time, so I would prefer if a camera had enough dynamic range where I would not need to bracket and then merge the photos in photoshop.
No camera in the world will do that. If you expose for the absolute highlights in the glistening sun (which contrary to the common belief of the DR cult do not need protecting as nothing worthwhile is happening in them) then the midtones and shadows will be heavily compromised no matter what...You can't cheat physics and they dictate that you can't capture small amounts of photons without the amount of noise skyrocketing - even if your camera doesn't contribute much to that noise, noise still will be inevitable...
twinsfan7777 wrote:
This has nothing to do with not understanding light. I understand and am capable of exposing an image correctly, but I like to shoot into the sun to get that dramatic look, so I would either need to bracket the image (more time, need to lug around a tripod) or have a camera with great dynamic range. I'm trying to save time, so I would prefer if a camera had enough dynamic range where I would not need to bracket and then merge the photos in photoshop. And that brings back the original question, which camera provides the most amount of flexibility in those terms....Show more →
You sound like you've already made up your mind. If you think that the single most important parameter is DR, over all the other reasons mentioned, then get the Sony. If you need to shoot quickly and want to "save time", I think you'll find the Sony disappointing, it is not a fast camera to use.
Do realize, the DR of the Sony is not a panacea, it has around a 2 stop advantage over the mark3 but that is at base ISO. The advantage decreases rapidly as the ISO increases, and by ISO 800 you only have a 1/2 stop advantage or so.
If you are going to put your faith in DXO measurements for DR (your stated #1 priority) you've got the Nikon D810 at the low end of ISO and the Sony A7R2 at the higher end of ISO and the Canon 5D4 in the middle.
gdanmitchell wrote:
One thing to consider when hoping that extra DR will solve such a problem is that when comparing cameras with differing DR capabilities, there are basically three possibilities:
1. The dynamic range of the scene doesn't exceed the capabilities of either camera.
2. The dynamic range exceeds the capability of the less capable camera, but only by a small enough increment that it doesn't exceed that of the more capable camera.
3. The dynamic range exceeds the capacity of both cameras.
The most common situation by far is case #1. The second most common is case #3 —and your "straight into the sun" photographs fall into that category. The least common circumstance, since it is the smallest exposure window, is case #2, where one camera can handle it and the other cannot.
I suspect that you'll find that shooting directly into the sun exceeds the DR capability of any camera that you would consider, and that you'll still have to resort to other techniques for that no matter what camera you get.
You make a very good point here, but there are different ways of seeing this too.
#1: Both cameras will make the capture usable, but in many cases you will still see a difference in that one of the camera is cleaner and has more accurate color reproduction in a part of the tonal range. Your examples of succesful shadow recovery demonstrate that improvements here would be welcome.
#3: The measures you need to take in order to capture the dynamic range intended for reproduction may be smaller.
Someone who really means that DR is priority #1 would benefit most form getting a medium format camera with a Sony CMOS sensor.
Within the 36x24 mm sensor format, the D810 is the best of the kind.
Within the EF lens ecosystem, there are many options on the scale. The Canon 5D IV deserves serious consideration even if it is more expensive.
alundeb wrote:
#1: Both cameras will make the capture usable, but in many cases you will still see a difference in that one of the camera is cleaner and has more accurate color reproduction in a part of the tonal range.
Interestingly this almost completely is making a case for the camera with the smaller DR as all DR monster cameras have compromised color accuracy. Just take a look the the Imaging Resource color fidelity measurements. There the worst Canon is considerably better than either the best ever Nikon or Sony camera... For example the average delta C for the Sony A7RII is 5.45 and the Canon 5Dsr comes in at an average delta C of 3.67 and the Nikon D810 worst of the lot at an average delta C of 6.71...
So the cameras that require less processing to get the colors right are the Canon by quite a margin, I wouldn't want a Sony or Nikon for that very reason!
charlyw wrote:
Interestingly this almost completely is making a case for the camera with the smaller DR as all DR monster cameras have compromised color accuracy. Just take a look the the Imaging Resource color fidelity measurements. There the worst Canon is considerably better than either the best ever Nikon or Sony camera... For example the average delta C for the Sony A7RII is 5.45 and the Canon 5Dsr comes in at an average delta C of 3.67 and the Nikon D810 worst of the lot at an average delta C of 6.71...
So the cameras that require less processing to get the colors right are the Canon by quite a margin, I wouldn't want a Sony or Nikon for that very reason!...Show more →
Where can I find the Imaging Resource color fidelity measurements?
alundeb wrote:
Where can I find the Imaging Resource color fidelity measurements?
In every full review under Exposure they show the Hue&Saturation plots... It's interesting that these plots confirm that Nikon is always the worst of the lot - probably because of the white balance prescaling they apply to the RAW files which means that they lose tonal resolution at the RAW level to the tune of 1/12 to 1/8th of all possible values in two of the channels (red and blue) - which reduces the cameras ability to reproduce colors accurately...
