Re: Interesting Reference Data on Dynamic Range - 5dsr
OntheRez wrote:
So here\'s the $64,000 question: does this make a difference in how the human eye perceives the photo particularly printed at a reasonable size? I know you can pixel peep to 200x and up, but come on, that really doesn\'t have much to do with what the photo looks like to other humans.
How serious/significant is this reported superiority of the Sony 7rxxx? Inquiring minds (well at least mine) want to know
This is source of one of the fundamental differences of opinion — not just about these particular cameras, but about how to think about the meaning of this or that performance difference.
I\'ll use the DR issue as an example. Let me begin by stipulating that the Sony sensors can record a larger dynamic range than Canon sensors, and that for anyone who regards this particular difference in capability as the \"be all, end all\" of camera performance will likely be strongly attracted to the optimal DR of the Sony products.
For many people, a good decision will be complicated by a number of other factors. There are many such factors, but I\'ll mention two:
1. One question concerns the actual effect of the objective technical difference in real-world photography. This includes an assessment of how often the difference will solve (or not) a particular problem and how visible (or not) the improvement will be in photographic output. There is a lot to say about the specifics of this relative to prints made from a variety of cameras, but I\'ll mostly not expand on that right here. (My earlier links to some 5DsR examples are relevant.)
2. A second question concerns how that difference in one particular area of interest (say DR) relates to the total picture of all the elements that go into determining the suitability of a camera to particular kinds of photographic use. While camera A my have better DR, camera B may have better something else.
These things become quite subjective. They are highly situational. One photographer may be trying to use a single camera or system to do a wide range of things, while another might have multiple systems tailored for different uses. One photographer may find it more appealing to have the latest thing, while a another values the functional efficiency of familiar tools. One may love using alt manual focus lenses, while another needs fast and responsive AF. And on and on.
ggreene wrote:
From all the samples I have seen from the D810, 5Ds/R, and A7rII, I don\'t think anyone could reliably pick out what camera did them in a blind test. They are simply all very fine camera\'s with outstanding IQ.
I think — though clearly some will disagree — that it is important to keep this in mind. I\'ve shown work from as many as four different cameras at one time (17\" x 22.5\" prints from 5D, 5DII, 5DsR, Fujifilm XE1, for example) and even with close inspection by folks who know what to look for it is often hard, going on impossible, to tell.
Re: Interesting Reference Data on Dynamic Range - 5dsr
OntheRez wrote:
So here\'s the $64,000 question: does this make a difference in how the human eye perceives the photo particularly printed at a reasonable size? I know you can pixel peep to 200x and up, but come on, that really doesn\'t have much to do with what the photo looks like to other humans.
How serious/significant is this reported superiority of the Sony 7rxxx? Inquiring minds (well at least mine) want to know
This is source of one of the fundamental differences of opinion — not just about these particular cameras, but about how to think about the meaning of this or that performance difference.
I\'ll use the DR issue as an example. Let me begin by stipulating that the Sony sensors can record a larger dynamic range than Canon sensors, and that for anyone who regards this particular difference in capability as the \"be all, end all\" of camera performance will likely be strongly attracted to the optimal DR of the Sony products.
For many people, a good decision will be complicated by a number of other factors. There are many such factors, but I\'ll mention two:
1. One question concerns the actual effect of the objective technical difference in real-world photography. This includes an assessment of how often the difference will solve (or not) a particular problem and how visible the improvement will be in photographic output. There is a lot to say about the specifics of this relative to prints made from a variety of cameras, but I\'ll mostly not expand on that right here. (My earlier links to some 5DsR examples are relevant.)
2. A second question concerns how that difference in one particular area of interest (say DR) relates to the total picture of all the elements that go into determining the suitability of a camera to particular kinds of photographic use. While camera A my have better DR, camera B may have better something else.
These things become quite subjective. They are highly situational. One photographer may be trying to use a single camera or system to do a wide range of things, while another might have multiple systems tailored for different uses. One photographer may find it more appealing to have the latest thing, while a another values the functional efficiency of familiar tools. One may love using alt manual focus lenses, while another needs fast and responsive AF. And on and on.
ggreene wrote:
From all the samples I have seen from the D810, 5Ds/R, and A7rII, I don\'t think anyone could reliably pick out what camera did them in a blind test. They are simply all very fine camera\'s with outstanding IQ.
I think — though clearly some will disagree — that it is important to keep this in mind. I\'ve shown work from as many as four different cameras at one time (17\" x 22.5\" prints from 5D, 5DII, 5DsR, Fujifilm XE1, for example) and even with close inspection by folks who know what to look for it is often hard, going on impossible, to tell.
YMMV,
Dan
Aug 15, 2015 at 10:46 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #13151547 « Interesting Reference Data on Dynamic Range - 5dsr »
