Steve Spencer Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
gdanmitchell wrote:
Steve: Because you are a smart and serious person, I'm going to take the time to reply in some detail. Others who don't like lengthy writing have my sincere sympathy, and I do not expect them to wade through all of this...
There is no question that, as I have stipulated many times, Sony sensors and larger sensors are capable of recording larger dynamic ranges. [All else being equal — which it never is, of course — most anyone would select it over an otherwise equal camera with less dynamic range. (If you offered to trade me a magical 5DsR with 2 stops more dynamic range than the real one I use, I think I'd get some guarantees that it was otherwise identical... and then I'd make the trade. ;-)
Let me also stipulate — again! — right at the start that I'm coming from the perspective of my own photography, my subjects, the ways I work, and the output I create. A person with a different perspective can come to different conclusions that are equally valid for them.
The real questions are whether "all else actually is equal" and how these potential IQ improvements affect our individual work.
In the past I've described three scenarios that might help us think about the comparisons between cameras with different DR capabilities.
Scenario 1: We photograph a scene in which both Camera A and Camera B possess sufficient dynamic range to produce an excellent image. This is, of course, by far the most common circumstance.
Scenario 2: We attempt to photograph a scene with an extraordinarily large dynamic range — lets say that it includes important shadow details and the sun itself — and neither Camera A nor Camera B have sufficient DR to capture the full range.
Scenario 3: We photograph a scene in which the dynamic range is one that cannot quite be captured by the lower DR Camera A but can be captured by the higher DR Camera B. This can occur, but it is a small subset of all of the scenes we might attempt to photograph.
So, what actually happens in Scenario 3? It isn't a binary where Camera A can't do it at all and Camera B does it perfectly. In the real world, both cameras are stretched (with low S/N at the dark end or blown highlight potential at the high luminosity end of the scale) but Camera B's performance is measurably better. In other words it is a matter of degree in this least likely circumstance, not typically a yes/no binary. (However, it is accurate to state that Camera A will arrive at the point at which the image is too degraded before Camera B does.)
This leads to a few more questions.
1. What do we do with photographs made in this third scenario? In both cases, the recorded dynamic range will exceed what we can reproduce without post-processing to bring up the shadow details. (In fact, this is even the case with images that have a wide dynamic range but which can be well-captured by Camera A and B in scenario 1.) The extremes of DR capture exist to allow us to recover detail in post so that it fits within the display DR of paper prints or typical monitors.
We often hear — it came up in this thread — that folks with cameras that have less (but still quite a bit of) dynamic range will have to resort to multiple exposure blends in order to produce a good image from high dynamic range scenes. This used to be the case more often when camera noise was more of an issue, when we worked with lower MP files that tended to show noise at smaller enlargement sizes, and so forth. In my own experience, this is rarely the case with any of today's cameras. Years ago I used to use exposure blending fairly regularly, but I do not think I have ever had to use it with my 5DsR, even with some very wide dynamic range scenes.
I've written about this and shared examples more than once. A few of them:
- An example of a photograph in which pre-visualization and awareness of DR challenges led me to "underexpose" with the knowledge that I would have sufficient detail in the file to produce the print I had in mind in post:
https://www.gdanmitchell.com/2015/08/17/a-photograph-exposed-technique-and-interpretation-in-post
- An example of a scene where I thought I might need to blend exposures — still in that mode of thought back then — but discovered that I really did not need to:
https://www.gdanmitchell.com/2012/12/22/post-processing-a-shadow-recovery-example
I have plenty more, but you get the idea.
2. What other plus/minus trade-offs do we make to get the increased DR (and other advantages that a camera might provide), and how do those stack up for our own photography? This has actually been my main point in this discussion from the perspective of my own photography — and I understand that each photographer will value these things differently and may come to a different conclusion. (One of the things that baffles me is the number of people in photography forums who not only believe that their choices are right for them but a) insist that they are right for everyone else and b) are offended when others come to a different conclusion. Note: I'm thinking of posters other than you at the moment.)
While stipulating (repeatedly!) that miniMF systems have greater DR, lower noise levels, potential for higher system resolution, etc., when I look at the whole package in the context of my photography (which I take quite seriously and which, I'm confident, is of pretty high quality, or so I'm told...), I attempt to analyze an economy of pluses and minuses and see what the balance sheet looks like for me and my photography at the conclusion. Note that I'm not claiming that my photography is better than anyone else's, simply that there are certain things that are more or less critical to being successful at what I do.
Also keep in mind that I was initially inclined to move to a miniMF system, and that I'm still interested once certain criteria are met for me. I described them in an earlier post. So for me and my photography I see it this way:
miniMF PLUSES: greater dynamic range, slightly better system resolution potential, lower noise, slightly smaller DOF at a given aperture.
miniMF MINUSES: cost of camera and lenses, availability of the range of lenses I rely on for my work, visible improvement in prints compared to FF not significant below about 30" x 40", larger/heavier system if camera and lenses, not useful for some things I currently use high MP FF camera for, such as bird photography.
Now, for a person who finds that the currently available lenses are just right for them (or who is interested in adapting FF and MF lenses and working with manual focus and aperture in some cases), who works in situations where weight/bulk aren't a concern, who frequently prints at 30" x 40" and larger, and whose FF system is deficient in ways that the miniMF system will resolve... the miniMF system makes sense. I don't quarrel with your/their choice at all. (In fact, I have good friends who are first-rate photographers who use miniMF, along with others who have not. Among them you would find people using just about every film and digital format imaginable. We all get along just fine, by the way, and we even like one another's photography.)
But that's not my scenario.
Again, I actually like these cameras and I'm intrigued by them. As I wrote earlier in this thread, I can envision a time when my own kit might consist of a miniMF system for my landscape and similar work and a more capable smaller mirrorless system for everything from my street photography to bird photography. (Details in an earlier post.) It wouldn't even surprise me if that system is full Fujifilm at that point.
But right now for me, the plus/minus analysis for my photography doesn't point there.
I know that you "won't go there," but I hope that a few other folks who might take the time to laboriously wade through all of this prose can resist the inclination to chalk my point of view — which may not match their valid-to-them POV — to lack of understanding of quality photography or equipment and all the rest of that... and understand that intelligent, talented photographers can come to different conclusions about these things and can even acknowledge the validity of other points of view.
As always, YMMV.
Oh, to answer your specific question about long lenses, a significant amount of my landscape photography is done with long zoom lenses. It is an aspen of my style, if you will. Lenses comparable to the 70-200mm and 100-400mm lenses I rely on are not really available for the GFX system at this point. The availability of such things would be one of the pluses that may change my POV in the future. (I've included a couple of examples below.)
Dan
http://gallery.gdanmitchell.com/gallery/var/resizes/NaturalWorld/TheLandscape/California/Desert/MonoLake/MonoLakeWildfireSmokeLayersDawn20160918.jpg
http://gallery.gdanmitchell.com/gallery/var/resizes/NaturalWorld/TheLandscape/California/CaliforniaCoast/BigSur/BlackAndWhite/BigSurFisherman2BW20080209.jpg...Show more →
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your post. I see a bit more where you are coming from but I am still confused by some of the things you are saying. You discuss Scenario 1, 2, & 3 as if how common they are is a universal fact and does not depend on what people shoot. I think how common 1, 2 & 3 are depends a lot on the shooter and what they shoot. For example, I like to shoot macro (really close up) a lot. For that shooting Scenario 1 is the most common, but Scenario 3 is common enough and Scenario 2 almost never occurs. But in my own landscape photography I like to shoot in the golden hour almost exclusively, so for that shooting Scenario 3 is by far the most common, then Scenario 2, and Scenario 1 is the least common. My father-in-law is a judge at a car show at Pebble Beach every year and I also get to shoot that show. It is midday in typically bright California sun, but there are lots of shadows too. At that car show Scenario 2 is by far the most common, followed by Scenario 3, with Scenario 1 being the least common. So, my view is that even in talking about how common these scenarios are we have to recognize that they differ wildly for different photographers and even for the same photographer from one topic to the next. Your analysis which says that Scenario 1 is by far the most common, in my view, heavily tips the analysis to suggest that dynamic range isn't that big a deal. Well I think that doesn't take different people's shooting styles and topics enough into consideration. For some people it rightfully will be a very big deal. Now if scenario 3 really is uncommon to you, then of course you aren't going to care that your camera has over 2 stops less DR than another camera, but that is certainly a reasonable thing for someone to care about and it might be a big deal to them. I know in my own experience switching from a Canon 5D MK III to a Sony A7 MK II, which is about the same difference in dynamic range, made a huge difference for my landscape photography. So, although you definitely recognize that different people have different needs for their photography, somehow that seems to get lost in your analysis of dynamic range.
The same sort of making general statements without noting that may matter to some and not others creeps into your analysis of plusses and minuses. In this case you talk about things that are objective and apply your own labels rather than noting the objective difference and your evaluation of it. For example, in the pluses you note, "slightly smaller DOF at a given aperture." Well that certainly is one take on the issue, but there is an objective answer here. The GFX at the same aperture has almost a stop shallower DOF if you crop to 4 X 3 or squarer, and about half a stop if you crop to 3 X 2 or a skinnier rectangle. Now to you that may be slightly shallower depth of field, but to others it likely is not. For me it is one of the reasons I shoot a GFX. I think it is noteworthy shallower depth of field. When you talk about an objective difference and only give your subjective interpretation of it, it is easy to get confused and to think you are reporting the objective difference rather than your subjective take on it. A similar thing happens when you discuss minuses. There you say, "larger/heavier system if camera and lenses." Here you seem to be reporting an objective fact, but I don't think it is accurate. Both the Fuji GFX and the Hassy X1D are lighter than the Canon 5DsR, and depending on exactly the lenses you choose it is nowhere near a given that the Canon system will be lighter with camera and lenses. Now it could well be true that with the lenses you would choose the Canon system with lenses would be lighter than the Fuji or Hassy kit with the lenses you would choose, but the way you write here sounds like you are reporting an objective fact when it is actually a very personal evaluation. This misperception is compounded in the paragraph below when you say people, "who works in situations where weight/bulk aren't a concern," might be more inclined to shoot a 33X44 system. But the truth is someone who is concerned with weight/bulk might also prefer a 33X44 system because if they design the system with those concerns in mind they can actually get a smaller kit with the Fuji system or the Hassy system than with a Canon system.
In fact, you also missed that people like me might choose the Fuji system because they can get meaningful to them shallower depth of field across a whole spectrum of lenses than they can get using any FF 35mm system. So, again you acknowledge that people may have different needs and priorities but you cast certain issues in ways that appear to be facts when in reality they are your assessments.
I do think you make clear efforts to understand other people's rationale for using a 33X44 system, but I continue to be surprised how you gloss over things that are likely to be important to some people and describe them in ways that suggests not just to you, but in an objective sense they aren't important. I actually don't think you mean to do that, but it definitely comes across that way in your writing and I think the cause of that is two things. First, at times you don't recognize the diversity in the way people practice photography--a mistake you made in describing scenarios about dynamic range. Second, you do not draw a clear distinction between objective differences and your subjective interpretation of those differences which makes it easy to confuse your subjective statements as statements about objective facts. This you did in your discussion of plusses and minuses.
And just to be clear I have no issue with you picking the 5DsR and your zoom lenses. The 33X44 system means a more expensive camera and unless you pick the lenses very carefully the whole system of camera and lenses is likely to be more expensive and that matters to you as it likely does for a lot of people. You also prefer long zooms and I don't think 33X44 systems will ever have long zooms. Sure a 100-200mm lens could happen, but that is just a 75-150 equivalent with a 4 X 3 or squarer crop. I don't think anything like the 100-400 will happen. That would be a 150-560mm and nothing even close to that was ever made for medium format. You never know, but I would be shocked by such a lens. Nor do I think 33X44 system will any time soon be useful for many people's needs for wildlife--although I do think I will shoot wildlife on it from time to time. I do think the image quality even in prints is noteworthy right now, but I certainly think it is reasonable to have a different take. So, by all means stay with your Canon system. You are producing very nice work and the gear is never the end all an be all. In fact, it is only a tool. Sometimes a nice tool, but the real work is done by the photographer.
Edited on Dec 13, 2017 at 11:23 AM · View previous versions
|