chez wrote:
Sure, there’s a line…but it seems many cross that line and enjoy more the technicalities within the cameras than what those cameras can produce. How much does that extra 3% of dynamic range really matter in actual use…no one discusses this…instead it’s graphs and charts digging deep for that 3%.
I guess right when photography entered the digital world, the bit heads would follow.
Some of us care more about gear than photography. So what? What's your problem with that?
chez wrote:
Sure, there’s a line…but it seems many cross that line and enjoy more the technicalities within the cameras than what those cameras can produce. How much does that extra 3% of dynamic range really matter in actual use…no one discusses this…instead it’s graphs and charts digging deep for that 3%.
I guess right when photography entered the digital world, the bit heads would follow.
I understand you, and I’m completely with you.
For me, photography is mainly about capturing the thoughts and feelings I have in my head and turning them into images. The camera is not unimportant, but it is only a tool. If you handed me a 20-year-old DSLR, I would still deliver. The photos would remain very similar.
In the end, it has always been about photographic technique in the deeper sense. New cameras rarely make photos truly better, because the person behind the camera does not change just by buying new gear. Whether there is slightly less noise does not change the emotions or moods a photo creates when viewed.
Of course, everyone can approach this however they like. Many people simply enjoy collecting and buying cameras and may be less interested in photography itself. And there are probably many other aspects I haven’t even thought of. I have also met many people who are extremely gifted when it comes to camera technology, but have no real sense for mood or subject.
In the past, camera technology was very important to me. Today, I am mainly interested in how I can play with and influence the emotions of people when they look at my photographs. The best subject means nothing if the photograph does not evoke a feeling in the viewer.
This is the next phase I want to strongly develop and refine. I no longer think: here is a beautiful bee, I take a photo. Instead, I think: how can I photograph it in a way that creates a very specific feeling?
For days now, I have been trying to create an image that evokes a maximum dystopian feeling. A dark future, something that feels heavy and oppressive when people look at it. It is not easy to achieve, and I have been working on it for quite some time. The way I approach photography has changed significantly compared to the past.
And that is why it does not matter to me whether it is a Sony or a Canon. It would not change the photographs.
Stefan Official wrote:
I understand you, and I’m completely with you.
For me, photography is mainly about capturing the thoughts and feelings I have in my head and turning them into images. The camera is not unimportant, but it is only a tool. If you handed me a 20-year-old DSLR, I would still deliver. The photos would remain very similar.
In the end, it has always been about photographic technique in the deeper sense. New cameras rarely make photos truly better, because the person behind the camera does not change just by buying new gear. Whether there is slightly less noise does not change the emotions or moods a photo creates when viewed.
Of course, everyone can approach this however they like. Many people simply enjoy collecting and buying cameras and may be less interested in photography itself. And there are probably many other aspects I haven’t even thought of. I have also met many people who are extremely gifted when it comes to camera technology, but have no real sense for mood or subject.
In the past, camera technology was very important to me. Today, I am mainly interested in how I can play with and influence the emotions of people when they look at my photographs. The best subject means nothing if the photograph does not evoke a feeling in the viewer.
This is the next phase I want to strongly develop and refine. I no longer think: here is a beautiful bee, I take a photo. Instead, I think: how can I photograph it in a way that creates a very specific feeling?
For days now, I have been trying to create an image that evokes a maximum dystopian feeling. A dark future, something that feels heavy and oppressive when people look at it. It is not easy to achieve, and I have been working on it for quite some time. The way I approach photography has changed significantly compared to the past.
And that is why it does not matter to me whether it is a Sony or a Canon. It would not change the photographs....Show more →
It's perfectly fine for you to hold that opinion. But just like chez's post you quoted, it's completely out of topic for this thread.
tctmp wrote:
It's perfectly fine for you to hold that opinion. But just like chez's post you quoted, it's completely out of topic for this thread.
I replied directly to chez’s comment, since it is part of this thread. In that sense, I think it’s legitimate to respond to it.
No one has to read everything if they’re not interested. And from my perspective, it’s completely natural for conversations to touch on different aspects and occasionally branch out. We’re not robots having scripted exchanges.
That’s exactly what makes discussions human and interesting — different viewpoints, thoughts, and perspectives. Otherwise, one could just read Wikipedia or talk to an AI.
For me, this is about exchange and shared perspectives, not rigid protocols.
Stefan Official wrote:
I replied directly to chez’s comment, since it is part of this thread. In that sense, I think it’s legitimate to respond to it.
No one has to read everything if they’re not interested. And from my perspective, it’s completely natural for conversations to touch on different aspects and occasionally branch out. We’re not robots having scripted exchanges.
That’s exactly what makes discussions human and interesting — different viewpoints, thoughts, and perspectives. Otherwise, one could just read Wikipedia or talk to an AI.
For me, this is about exchange and shared perspectives, not rigid protocols.
How about this, instead of insisting to people here that gears don't matter, why don't you insist to Fred that gears don't matter and ask him to shut down the gear forums? if he agrees, we are fine. Otherwise, if you can't even convince him, stop preaching to others in the gear forums. You can preach all you want in the photo forums.
Chez and a few of his supporters are already thread crapping in this thread. What you do is no different.
Stefan Official wrote:
For days now, I have been trying to create an image that evokes a maximum dystopian feeling. A dark future, something that feels heavy and oppressive when people look at it. It is not easy to achieve, and I have been working on it for quite some time..
Need inspiration? Try typing "Günter Steffen Berlin" into Google!
tctmp wrote:
Chez and a few of his supporters are already thread crapping in this thread. What you do is no different.
If you want to moderate the forum in a certain way, then this should be done consistently — including removing corresponding replies.
Since that is not happening, it must be assumed that such responses are not considered undesirable from the operator’s point of view. In that case, I consider it legitimate to respond to them.
Furthermore, other replies to Chez’s did not seem to bother you. This creates the impression that it depends on whether a post aligns with your own interests.
In this context, please also take a look at Nifty Fifty’s reply. Do you intend to judge him just as quickly as well?
That said, Chez’s is not wrong at the core. In a discussion about dynamic range, it should be legitimate to point out that it is largely irrelevant whether a camera has half an EV more or less. It is perfectly acceptable to mention this, and he is not talking about something completely unrelated.
Personally, a high dynamic range is important to me as well. However, I have been working with exposure bracketing for around 30 years and routinely reach effective values of roughly 25 EV. About 90% of my photo archive exists in this form, including true linear 16-bit HDR RAWs.
For that reason, the specific camera is largely irrelevant to me, as long as one understands photographic technique. But I am drifting off topic.
Feel free to continue focusing on fine-grained details that are ultimately of no real importance to a photograph.
Please also look at Nifty Fifty’s response. Are you planning to judge him as well?
Stefan Official wrote:
If you want to moderate the forum in a certain way, then this should be done consistently — including removing corresponding replies.
Since that is not happening, it must be assumed that such responses are not considered undesirable from the operator’s point of view. In that case, I consider it legitimate to respond to them.
Furthermore, other replies to Chez’s did not seem to bother you. This creates the impression that it depends on whether a post aligns with your own interests.
In this context, please also take a look at Nifty Fifty’s reply. Do you intend to judge him just as quickly as well?
That said, Chez’s is not wrong at the core. In a discussion about dynamic range, it should be legitimate to point out that it is largely irrelevant whether a camera has half an EV more or less. It is perfectly acceptable to mention this, and he is not talking about something completely unrelated.
Personally, a high dynamic range is important to me as well. However, I have been working with exposure bracketing for around 30 years and routinely reach effective values of roughly 25 EV. About 90% of my photo archive exists in this form, including true linear 16-bit HDR RAWs.
For that reason, the specific camera is largely irrelevant to me, as long as one understands photographic technique. But I am drifting off topic.
Feel free to continue focusing on fine-grained details that are ultimately of no real importance to a photograph.
Please also look at Nifty Fifty’s response. Are you planning to judge him as well?
I already told Chez to mind his own business. I also included Nifty Fifty as his supporters when I said they were thread crapping. Are you insisting that I have to keep on responding to each of you guys' post to be "fair"?
The topic of this thread is very clear, and you guys' behavior is very clear too.
And don't be a revisionist. Chez made up a 3% number and you said cameras don't matter without any qualifiers.
tctmp wrote:
I already told Chez to mind his own business. I also included Nifty Fifty as his supporters when I said they were thread crapping. Are you insisting that I have to keep on responding to each of you guys' post to be "fair"?
The topic of this thread is very clear, and you guys' behavior is very clear too.
And don't be a revisionist. Chez made up a 3% number and you said cameras don't matter without any qualifiers.
I will now place you on my block list, so you are of course free to continue writing whatever you like. I am simply not interested in engaging with it any further.
With your behavior, you have effectively derailed this thread, and that is not something I want to continue participating in.
Stefan Official wrote:
I will now place you on my block list, so you are of course free to continue writing whatever you like. I am simply not interested in engaging with it any further.
With your behavior, you have effectively derailed this thread, and that is not something I want to continue participating in.
In that sense, this discussion ends here for me.
Good, mind your own business, it had already been derailed again by chez 16 posts ago, but you could have saved the last 9 posts at least.
tctmp wrote:
How about this, instead of insisting to people here that gears don't matter, why don't you insist to Fred that gears don't matter and ask him to shut down the gear forums? if he agrees, we are fine. Otherwise, if you can't even convince him, stop preaching to others in the gear forums. You can preach all you want in the photo forums.
Chez and a few of his supporters are already thread crapping in this thread. What you do is no different.
Seems to me you are doing one hell of a job crapping on this thread…watch were you step.
Stefan’s responses are very mature…yours not so much.
It seems likely that the dual-gain implementation in the A7V will be part of the basic template for future Sony cameras. This will likely incline people to shoot more with mechanical shutter and may erode some of the appeal of the fully electronic shutter.
I do wonder how well the ES in the A7V will deal with the problem of banding under modern lighting.
Does dual-gain require a specific chip or other specific hardware for its implementation? Or could it be added to exisiting cameras via a firmware update (though, even if possible, Sony might choose not to do that)?
chez wrote:
Seems to me you are doing one hell of a job crapping on this thread…watch were you step.
Stefan’s responses are very mature…yours not so much.
My suggestion to him works on you too, and that message has come from multiple people to you too.
It's pathetic for you to enter a thread to claim the topic being discussed is irrelevant, (all without provocation btw), and do it multiple times, On page 2, #13 you already said you will leave people alone. However, you are still here on page 7 and 8 crapping publicly. You are very ignorant to not seeing your problem.
chiron wrote:
It seems likely that the dual-gain implementation in the A7V will be part of the basic template for future Sony cameras. This will likely incline people to shoot more with mechanical shutter and may erode some of the appeal of the fully electronic shutter.
I do wonder how well the ES in the A7V will deal with the problem of banding under modern lighting.
Yes, this is very interesting for the future (and so I implore @chez & company to ignore this thread as it's obviously not the case for them). I think @snapsy already tested that DGO (electronic shutter) results in *double* the number of bands.
The other question he & @ruthenium raised is why DGO does not work in ES on A7V (readout speed/tech or closing the shutter issue probably), while it does on MFT cameras. I also think Sony will overcome this limitation with the next Sony A1, and if we're lucky A9 too .
The question about fw upgrade is also an interesting one. I'd say that it does require some extra hw around the sensor, but on the other hand Nikon lacks DGO in Z6III while Panasonic has it in S1II, which use the same sensor...
chiron wrote:
Does dual-gain require a specific chip or other specific hardware for its implementation? Or could it be added to exisiting cameras via a firmware update (though, even if possible, Sony might choose not to do that)?
The two amplifiers are already there. You are asking whether the merging of the data needs additional hardware or can be done in software. If both data are kept at the same time, then in theory it can be done in software, though it probably is serious software revision which is very unlikely for any current cameras not already having it. But depending on the chip architecture, (the processing unit, not the sensor), both data may not even be stored at the same time. the data path may choose only one or the other. In that case, chip architecture needs to be replanned to provide this.
j4nu wrote:
Yes, this is very interesting for the future (and so I implore @chez@ & company to ignore this thread as it's obviously not the case for them). I think @snapsy@ already tested that DGO (mech shutter) results in *double* the number of bands.
The other question he & @ruthenium@ raised is why DGO does not work in ES on A7V (readout speed/tech or closing the shutter issue probably), while it does on MFT cameras. I also think Sony will overcome this limitation with the next Sony A1, and if we're lucky A9 too .
The question about fw upgrade is also an interesting one. I'd say that it does require some extra hw around the sensor, but on the other hand Nikon lacks DGO in Z6III while Panasonic has it in S1II, which use the same sensor......Show more →
Yes, if DGO were allowed with the electronic shutter today it would double the bands on these partially-stacked sensors. However if it were implemented on a fully-stacked sensor like the A1/Z9/Z8 then that wouldn't be as much an issue. I'm guessing this tech hit the partially-stacked sensors first in these formats to offset the DR regression these sensors saw from the faster readouts.
tctmp wrote:
The two amplifiers are already there. You are asking whether the merging of the data needs additional hardware or can be done in software. If both data are kept at the same time, then in theory it can be done in software, though it probably is serious software revision which is very unlikely for any current cameras not already having it. But depending on the chip architecture, (the processing unit, not the sensor), both data may not even be stored at the same time. the data path may choose only one or the other. In that case, chip architecture needs to be replanned to provide this....Show more →
Agreed. I've read through patents of various HDR implementations and some interleave the multiple-exposure/gain data read off the sensor, requiring ISP ASIC logic to process the data, whereas others dump them into separate frames that are more amenable to firmware processing.
.