Doesn't work like that. ND filters do nothing to reduce contrast or "reel in blown highlights". I wish it does. An ND filter will cut down brightness, but your contrast problems are still there.
Rijsberman wrote:
Well, it does in a way. It 'reels in' those otherwise blown highlights.
Much like a faster shutterspeed (e.g. 1/1000th) or smaller aperture would.
Your built-in ND filter did nothing for this image. It would have looked exactly the same with or without it. The only difference is a slower shutter speed. Why don't you post one of these images that "require extensive post processing" without the ND filter, then the same image but "rescued" by your magical ND filter... The same scene, captured at the same time, with the only difference being your ND filter on and off. The images will be dead on identical. End of story... I have a feeling you won't do this as you may be proved wrong. Please accept the challenge so you may learn something here.
Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com
Savas K wrote:
Here's another old G7 shot that would have been toast, or required extensive post processing, had I not put the ND filter to use. This is as-exposed, only reduced in size and sharpened a little bit.
No, it doesn't work like that. See my example photos from earlier today. A ND filter recuces exposure over the entire image equally (unless you're talking about a graduated ND filter, which the G9 doesn't have). So, if your image has a 7 stop dynamic range, when you add a ND filter to the image it still has a 7 stop dynamic range. You just have to keep the shutter open longer to gather the same amount of light. If you want to "reel in those highlights", you must reduce exposure with EC or manual mode. The camera's automatic metering will blow highlights just as easily with the ND filter on or off. Makes no difference at all. Once again, look at my sample images I shot earlier today. You ca't tell the difference between the one shot with the ND filter and the one without. That's because it makes no difference at all, other than reduce shutter speed.The skies in each photo are equally blown...
Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com
Rijsberman wrote:
Well, it does in a way. It 'reels in' those otherwise blown highlights.
Much like a faster shutterspeed (e.g. 1/1000th) or smaller aperture would.
Rijsberman and Savas, I'm sorry to be a stuck record but you are just, plain wrong. That is not and never has been the function of a Neutral Density filter - as the name implies it applies NEUTRAL DENSITY to an image - It just makes it darker - all over- so you need to give more exposure, either via aperture, shutter speed, ISO or a combination.
It doesn't have ANY affect on contrast - or the difference between the brightest and darkest parts of an image. Chris's example shows that perfectly
You may be being fooled by the fact the light was very bright, but exposure will deal with that, the ND filter won't change the 'range' of tones the sensor/film can record. Please believe us, we are experienced profeassional photographers and we really do know a bit about what we say.
I know Savas was initially trying to be helpful, but his information was incorrect and that seems to have confused Rijsberman as well now.
No confusion here. Maybe you misread my previous post.
Allow me to expand. I believe the G7 has a 3 stop ND filter (if it doesn't, lets assume it does for the sake of agument).
If you have a very contrasty scene, where the bright areas are overexposed by say 2 stops for a given exposure, applying the ND filter will darken the image, including the bright areas, by three stops, resulting in non overexposed bright areas: less clipped highlights. The dark areas will also be 3 stops darker and loose detail. Much to the same effect a changed exposure would have. I presume you agree with me here. The ND filter is especially handy when aperture and shutterspeed are maxed out or if you want a slower shutter speed than a scene would allow, given the f/8 limit of the G7/G9
If someone wants to describe being able to capture brighter scenes as extending the dynamic range, it is not correct in the strict technical sense. But I can see where the confusion comes from.
Rijsberman wrote:
No confusion here. Maybe you misread my previous post.
Allow me to expand. I believe the G7 has a 3 stop ND filter (if it doesn't, lets assume it does for the sake of agument).
If you have a very contrasty scene, where the bright areas are overexposed by say 2 stops for a given exposure, applying the ND filter will darken the image, including the bright areas, by three stops, resulting in non overexposed bright areas: less clipped highlights. The dark areas will also be 3 stops darker and loose detail. Much to the same effect a changed exposure would have. I presume you agree with me here. The ND filter is especially handy when aperture and shutterspeed are maxed out or if you want a slower shutter speed than a scene would allow, given the f/8 limit of the G7/G9
If someone wants to describe being able to capture brighter scenes as extending the dynamic range, it is not correct in the strict technical sense. But I can see where the confusion comes from....Show more →
I would agree except to say EXACTLY the same effect a changed exposure would have. To say capturing brighter scenes is extending the dynamic range would be entirely wrong.
Yes, it has the same effect of reducing exposure. But why not just reduce exposure, if you can? I don't believe you were confused by Savas' post, but instead I believe you are contributing to his confusion. A ND filter does nothing for an image in terms of rescuing highlights or enhancing an image in any way, as Savas is misled to believe. As my examples of the golf course clearly demonstrated, the ND filter has absolutely no effect on an image whatsoever, other than to reduce the shutter speed. And that's all it's good for, when you want to reduce shutter speed or open aperture for creative effect.
Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com
Rijsberman wrote:
No confusion here. Maybe you misread my previous post.
Allow me to expand. I believe the G7 has a 3 stop ND filter (if it doesn't, lets assume it does for the sake of agument).
If you have a very contrasty scene, where the bright areas are overexposed by say 2 stops for a given exposure, applying the ND filter will darken the image, including the bright areas, by three stops, resulting in non overexposed bright areas: less clipped highlights. The dark areas will also be 3 stops darker and loose detail. Much to the same effect a changed exposure would have. I presume you agree with me here. The ND filter is especially handy when aperture and shutterspeed are maxed out or if you want a slower shutter speed than a scene would allow, given the f/8 limit of the G7/G9
If someone wants to describe being able to capture brighter scenes as extending the dynamic range, it is not correct in the strict technical sense. But I can see where the confusion comes from....Show more →
bobbytan wrote:
To change the subject somewhat ..... does anyone know how the G9 compares to the Pro-1 in terms of IQ?
Yes I do. I have both.
The Pro1 is a good camera, but it is simply beaten for noise at every ISO by the G9. Even 50ISO on the Pro1 is noisier than 80 ISO on the G9. If you want confirmation check out the reviews on dpreview, which give the noise samples.
It's a great shame because the Pro1 has good usability, a very useful zoom and a fold-out LCD.
However it seems very slow in comparison to the G9 and of course much bulkier. They are fundamentally different types of camera - the Pro1 is a small dslr-like camera and the G9 is a big point-and-shoot type camera, but, apart from the lack of a 28mm wideangle (which is a great shame) the G9 wins comfortably for me. And I'm a great Pro1 advocate.
It's just much newer, faster, more efficient and of course a lot smaller.
Two things that would make the "G10" irresistable to me are:
1. 28mm wide angle (I'd happily give up 40mm on the long end if Canon wants/needs to maintain the 5.7x zoom ratio).
2. +2 stops better high ISO performance (high quality ISO 800, decent ISO 1600).
Please, at least match the high ISO performance of the Fuji F30 (which will be almost 2 years old if the G10 is released 12 months after the G9)! The Canon's IS will help keep ISO lower and provide a further noise/IQ advantage if stopping motion isn't required.
Canon is investing $450m to build a new factory to produce CMOS sensors, some of which would go into compact cameras (I believe Canon now uses Sony sensors for its compact cameras). A larger sensor with larger photosites (leveraging Canon's technology from its latest dSLR sensors) would address #1 and #2 at the same time... no need to increase megapixels! Let's the megapixel war end and refocus on DR and high ISO performance!
A nice to have would be the ability to zoom the lens when shooting video (the S5 IS can do this).
I am fine if the G10/G11 or whatever its called isn't as compact or light as my Fuji F30 but I really want/need a more versatile compact camera when I don't want to lug a dSLR. And don't remove the flash hot-shoe!
P.S. A version of the small & light 220ex flash with a rotating head would be really great too (Nikon has something like this).
I have two F31's so I feel qualified to comment and while the Fuji's are good at low light (better than the others) they won't allow you to turn down the sharpening, noise reduction etc and they have no RAW, which is such a shame. The range of adjustment is simply missing.
I don't generally like to speculate, but I will:
I would like Canon to build a sensor, don't mind what meg (perhaps 8), that has low noise, high dynamic range and that can be used in two cameras - one a small G9-style, one a Pro1 style, both can have RAW and mutual software and motherboards and they will have the features they need for their respective jobs - either as a pocketable cam or a more pro-style cam. The sensor will remain and the cameras around the sensor will improve.
The R&D budget for the sensor is shared and almost the entire market is catered for.
The Pro1 is a good camera, but it is simply beaten for noise at every ISO by the G9. Even 50ISO on the Pro1 is noisier than 80 ISO on the G9. If you want confirmation check out the reviews on dpreview, which give the noise samples.
It's a great shame because the Pro1 has good usability, a very useful zoom and a fold-out LCD.
However it seems very slow in comparison to the G9 and of course much bulkier. They are fundamentally different types of camera - the Pro1 is a small dslr-like camera and the G9 is a big point-and-shoot type camera, but, apart from the lack of a 28mm wideangle (which is a great shame) the G9 wins comfortably for me. And I'm a great Pro1 advocate.
It's just much newer, faster, more efficient and of course a lot smaller.
Those would be great improvements. Except I would reverse the order of priority, making improved ISO performance number 1. I would also add to the list:
3. f/2.0 lens.
4. High resolution LCD.
I also agree about the small flash with bounce capibility.
Its too bad that Fuji wasn't more successful with the F30/F31... and felt compelled to throw away the high ISO advantage and boost MPs with the F40/F50! We're suffering as a result, not just because of the direction of the recent Fujis but also because others like Canon could continue on the same old rotten track.
Jay S wrote:
Its too bad that Fuji wasn't more successful with the F30/F31... and felt compelled to throw away the high ISO advantage and boost MPs with the F40/F50! We're suffering as a result, not just because of the direction of the recent Fujis but also because others like Canon could continue on the same old rotten track.
AFAIK the F30/F31 was a pretty decent success, it is certainly the small cam by which all others are judged for low light.
It's not got anything like the features of the G9 though, a much simpler cam
David - you have very valid points re the F30/F31. They are one-trick high-ISO ponies.
An "ideal" G10 would also improve lens sharpness (a la Leica lenses on Panasonic compact cameras, though not crippled by noisy sensors / overly aggressive noise reduction processing). An f2.0 lens would be great (and help counter the deeper DOF of a small P&S sensor). Add this and perhaps the better LCD to my wishes above and I would gladly pay more than $500.
