fredmiranda.com
Login

  

  Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #13154295 « Interesting Reference Data on Dynamic Range - 5dsr »
  

gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Interesting Reference Data on Dynamic Range - 5dsr


First...

It is hard to think of too many situations in which \"X is always better than Y\" or \"More X is always better than less X.\" Perhaps it could be accurate to say, \"If all else is equal, X is always better than Y, or more X is better than less X.\" In the real world — including the world of cameras — all else is rarely if ever equal, and that is the main issue here, I think.

And...

Examples contrived to show how crappy the thing that the other guy uses are so tedious, especially when dropped regularly and voluminously into discussions about the \"other guy\'s\" thing. I appreciate KKFung\'s real world examples of how this thing works a lot more than someone else\'s examples designed to suggest that someone else\'s thing suck badly.

(For the umpteenth X 100 time, all of the cameras being compared here — Sony, Nikon, Canon, etc. — are fine tools and reasonable, smart people could select any among them for their photography and use them to do brilliant work. I\'m completely NOT interested in telling folks who use a different brand than I do why they are fools for not selecting \"my\" brand.)

Here, again, is one of mine, with a link to more information for those who might be interested:

- - -

I updated an article at my website that includes a couple of examples of very underexposed 5DsR images from which deep shadow details have been recovered. If you are interested... http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2015/07/19/the-canon-5ds-r-dynamic-range-examples

Nearly black deep shadow section of a 100% crop....







... becomes...







details in the article

- - -

Then...

dugaut wrote:
I\'m a math teacher and I loaded up the DR graph with 5dsr, pentax 645z, d4/s, d800/810, 5dmkiii, phase one iq250, canon g1x, sony a7rii. I\'m always leery when so much data gets crunched into a single graph.

It\'s great to see the differences on the graph but ability with camera, planning , execution of the plan, and post-production make the differences I see in the graph less profound....

To keep spinning the broken record (after thanking you for your perspective), camera selection is a rather subjective thing and it is typically made on the basis of a range of tangible and intangible elements.

In the end, for most photographers who think a lot about how particular gear options relate to their particular photographic needs, the choice (or choices) cannot be made on the basis of one primary factor only. We would all love it if some camera manufacturer designed the absolutely perfect camera for each of us that had exactly the feature that we individually desire, but the reality is that while Camera A may get closer to our ideal in one respect, Camera B may get closer in another. On top of that, Camera C may come out that beats A and B in some way, but falls short in others.

So we look at our photography, at all of this tangible and intangible factors, and we select the imperfect gear that best fits our needs/desires.

I suspect you are referring to the comparative dynamic range curve graph of a whole list of cameras that was shared earlier. I also plugged in a bunch of cameras whose performance interests me — the major full frame DSLR and mirrorless cameras, the Fujifilm mirrorless cameras (since I own one), the 645z (since I considered getting one at one point, and still haven\'t ruled it out for the future), the Phase One backs (good friends use them), and more.

Clearly there are differences in DR (and some other things) that are visible in the chart. But even if DR is your only decision point (not likely!), it isn\'t clear which camera one would get based only on the chart data.

In the end, most people will likely agree with what most people here say: Increases in DR and other camera capabilities are a fine thing and always welcome as long as they don\'t diminish performance in other areas. Ultimately, there is no single \"right\" choice of camera, and each photographer has to figure out how the various factors play into his or her choice.

My view is that most — but not necessarily all — photographers trying to make a selection between brands and models will be well served by trying to weight their decision toward that larger range of camera characteristics and away from any single characteristic... and then to get on with it, get almost any one of the current fine cameras/brands that meets their functional needs, and focus on making pictures.

jctriguy wrote:
There is a big difference between more DR being better and deciding to choose a camera with more DR. I\'m sure everyone would be happy with a canon that had 14 stops of DR. That isn\'t reality, so people look at the actual existing options. Selecting a camera based on the outrageous info in some posts would be a mistake. Exactly opposite of the stated goal of some users here that want to educate the new forum members. Cutting through the hype is hard. People show images of pushed shadows at +6 and they all look like shit. Some ask, and rightly so, what do the files actually look like at normal usage levels? Does a canon file look that different from a Sony when pushed 2 stops?

Yup. Pretty much exactly yup.

YMMV,

Dan


Aug 17, 2015 at 10:25 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Interesting Reference Data on Dynamic Range - 5dsr


First...

It is hard to think of too many situations in which \"X is always better than Y\" or \"More X is always better than less X.\" Perhaps it could be accurate to say, \"If all else is equal, X is always better than Y, or more X is better than less X.\" In the real world — including the world of cameras — all else is rarely if ever equal, and that is the main issue here, I think.

And...

Examples contrived to show how crappy the thing that the other guy uses are so tedious, especially when dropped regularly and voluminously into discussions about the \"other guy\'s\" thing. I appreciate KKFung\'s real world examples.

Here, again, is one of mine, with a link to more information for those who might be interested:

- - -

I updated an article at my website that includes a couple of examples of very underexposed 5DsR images from which deep shadow details have been recovered. If you are interested... http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2015/07/19/the-canon-5ds-r-dynamic-range-examples

Nearly black deep shadow section of a 100% crop....







... becomes...







details in the article

- - -

Then...

dugaut wrote:
I\'m a math teacher and I loaded up the DR graph with 5dsr, pentax 645z, d4/s, d800/810, 5dmkiii, phase one iq250, canon g1x, sony a7rii. I\'m always leery when so much data gets crunched into a single graph.

It\'s great to see the differences on the graph but ability with camera, planning , execution of the plan, and post-production make the differences I see in the graph less profound....

To keep spinning the broken record (after thanking you for your perspective), camera selection is a rather subjective thing and it is typically made on the basis of a range of tangible and intangible elements.

In the end, for most photographers who think a lot about how particular gear options relate to their particular photographic needs, the choice (or choices) cannot be made on the basis of one primary factor only. We would all love it if some camera manufacturer designed the absolutely perfect camera for each of us that had exactly the feature that we individually desire, but the reality is that while Camera A may get closer to our ideal in one respect, Camera B may get closer in another. On top of that, Camera C may come out that beats A and B in some way, but falls short in others.

So we look at our photography, at all of this tangible and intangible factors, and we select the imperfect gear that best fits our needs/desires.

I suspect you are referring to the comparative dynamic range curve graph of a whole list of cameras that was shared earlier. I also plugged in a bunch of cameras whose performance interests me — the major full frame DSLR and mirrorless cameras, the Fujifilm mirrorless cameras (since I own one), the 645z (since I considered getting one at one point, and still haven\'t ruled it out for the future), the Phase One backs (good friends use them), and more.

Clearly there are differences in DR (and some other things) that are visible in the chart. But even if DR is your only decision point (not likely!), it isn\'t clear which camera one would get based only on the chart data.

In the end, most people will likely agree with what most people here say: Increases in DR and other camera capabilities are a fine thing and always welcome as long as they don\'t diminish performance in other areas. Ultimately, there is no single \"right\" choice of camera, and each photographer has to figure out how the various factors play into his or her choice.

My view is that most — but not necessarily all — photographers trying to make a selection between brands and models will be well served by trying to weight their decision toward that larger range of camera characteristics and away from any single characteristic... and then to get on with it, get almost any one of the current fine cameras/brands that meets their functional needs, and focus on making pictures.

jctriguy wrote:
There is a big difference between more DR being better and deciding to choose a camera with more DR. I\'m sure everyone would be happy with a canon that had 14 stops of DR. That isn\'t reality, so people look at the actual existing options. Selecting a camera based on the outrageous info in some posts would be a mistake. Exactly opposite of the stated goal of some users here that want to educate the new forum members. Cutting through the hype is hard. People show images of pushed shadows at +6 and they all look like shit. Some ask, and rightly so, what do the files actually look like at normal usage levels? Does a canon file look that different from a Sony when pushed 2 stops?

Yup. Pretty much exactly yup.

YMMV,

Dan


Aug 17, 2015 at 10:20 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Interesting Reference Data on Dynamic Range - 5dsr


First...

It is hard to think of too many situations in which \"X is always better than Y\" or \"More X is always better than less X.\" Perhaps it could be accurate to say, \"If all else is equal, X is always better than Y, or more X is better than less X.\" In the real world — including the world of cameras — all else is rarely if ever equal, and that is the main issue here, I think.

Then...

dugaut wrote:
I\'m a math teacher and I loaded up the DR graph with 5dsr, pentax 645z, d4/s, d800/810, 5dmkiii, phase one iq250, canon g1x, sony a7rii. I\'m always leery when so much data gets crunched into a single graph.

It\'s great to see the differences on the graph but ability with camera, planning , execution of the plan, and post-production make the differences I see in the graph less profound....

To keep spinning the broken record (after thanking you for your perspective), camera selection is a rather subjective thing and it is typically made on the basis of a range of tangible and intangible elements.

In the end, for most photographers who think a lot about how particular gear options relate to their particular photographic needs, the choice (or choices) cannot be made on the basis of one primary factor only. We would all love it if some camera manufacturer designed the absolutely perfect camera for each of us that had exactly the feature that we individually desire, but the reality is that while Camera A may get closer to our ideal in one respect, Camera B may get closer in another. On top of that, Camera C may come out that beats A and B in some way, but falls short in others.

So we look at our photography, at all of this tangible and intangible factors, and we select the imperfect gear that best fits our needs/desires.

I suspect you are referring to the comparative dynamic range curve graph of a whole list of cameras that was shared earlier. I also plugged in a bunch of cameras whose performance interests me — the major full frame DSLR and mirrorless cameras, the Fujifilm mirrorless cameras (since I own one), the 645z (since I considered getting one at one point, and still haven\'t ruled it out for the future), the Phase One backs (good friends use them), and more.

Clearly there are differences in DR (and some other things) that are visible in the chart. But even if DR is your only decision point (not likely!), it isn\'t clear which camera one would get based only on the chart data.

In the end, most people will likely agree with what most people here say: Increases in DR and other camera capabilities are a fine thing and always welcome as long as they don\'t diminish performance in other areas. Ultimately, there is no single \"right\" choice of camera, and each photographer has to figure out how the various factors play into his or her choice.

My view is that most — but not necessarily all — photographers trying to make a selection between brands and models will be well served by trying to weight their decision toward that larger range of camera characteristics and away from any single characteristic... and then to get on with it, get almost any one of the current fine cameras/brands that meets their functional needs, and focus on making pictures.

jctriguy wrote:
There is a big difference between more DR being better and deciding to choose a camera with more DR. I\'m sure everyone would be happy with a canon that had 14 stops of DR. That isn\'t reality, so people look at the actual existing options. Selecting a camera based on the outrageous info in some posts would be a mistake. Exactly opposite of the stated goal of some users here that want to educate the new forum members. Cutting through the hype is hard. People show images of pushed shadows at +6 and they all look like shit. Some ask, and rightly so, what do the files actually look like at normal usage levels? Does a canon file look that different from a Sony when pushed 2 stops?

Yup. Pretty much exactly yup.

YMMV,

Dan


Aug 17, 2015 at 10:13 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Interesting Reference Data on Dynamic Range - 5dsr


First...

It is hard to think of too many situations in which \"X is always better than Y.\" Perhaps it could be accurate to say, \"If all else is equal, X is always better than Y.\" In the real world — including the world of cameras — all else is rarely if ever equal, and that is the main issue here, I think.

Then...

dugaut wrote:
I\'m a math teacher and I loaded up the DR graph with 5dsr, pentax 645z, d4/s, d800/810, 5dmkiii, phase one iq250, canon g1x, sony a7rii. I\'m always leery when so much data gets crunched into a single graph.

It\'s great to see the differences on the graph but ability with camera, planning , execution of the plan, and post-production make the differences I see in the graph less profound....

To keep spinning the broken record (after thanking you for your perspective), camera selection is a rather subjective thing and it is typically made on the basis of a range of tangible and intangible elements.

In the end, for most photographers who think a lot about how particular gear options relate to their particular photographic needs, the choice (or choices) cannot be made on the basis of one primary factor only. We would all love it if some camera manufacturer designed the absolutely perfect camera for each of us that had exactly the feature that we individually desire, but the reality is that while Camera A may get closer to our ideal in one respect, Camera B may get closer in another. On top of that, Camera C may come out that beats A and B in some way, but falls short in others.

So we look at our photography, at all of this tangible and intangible factors, and we select the imperfect gear that best fits our needs/desires.

I suspect you are referring to the comparative dynamic range curve graph of a whole list of cameras that was shared earlier. I also plugged in a bunch of cameras whose performance interests me — the major full frame DSLR and mirrorless cameras, the Fujifilm mirrorless cameras (since I own one), the 645z (since I considered getting one at one point, and still haven\'t ruled it out for the future), the Phase One backs (good friends use them), and more.

Clearly there are differences in DR (and some other things) that are visible in the chart. But even if DR is your only decision point (not likely!), it isn\'t clear which camera one would get based only on the chart data.

In the end, most people will likely agree with what most people here say: Increases in DR and other camera capabilities are a fine thing and always welcome as long as they don\'t diminish performance in other areas. Ultimately, there is no single \"right\" choice of camera, and each photographer has to figure out how the various factors play into his or her choice.

My view is that most — but not necessarily all — photographers trying to make a selection between brands and models will be well served by trying to weight their decision toward that larger range of camera characteristics and away from any single characteristic... and then to get on with it, get almost any one of the current fine cameras/brands that meets their functional needs, and focus on making pictures.

jctriguy wrote:
There is a big difference between more DR being better and deciding to choose a camera with more DR. I\'m sure everyone would be happy with a canon that had 14 stops of DR. That isn\'t reality, so people look at the actual existing options. Selecting a camera based on the outrageous info in some posts would be a mistake. Exactly opposite of the stated goal of some users here that want to educate the new forum members. Cutting through the hype is hard. People show images of pushed shadows at +6 and they all look like shit. Some ask, and rightly so, what do the files actually look like at normal usage levels? Does a canon file look that different from a Sony when pushed 2 stops?

Yup. Pretty much exactly yup.

YMMV,

Dan


Aug 17, 2015 at 10:12 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Interesting Reference Data on Dynamic Range - 5dsr


First...

It is hard to think of too many situations in which \"X is always better than Y.\" Perhaps it is accurate to say, \"If all else is equal, X is always better than Y.\" In the real world — including the world of cameras — all else is rarely if ever equal, and that is the main issue here, I think.

Then...

dugaut wrote:
I\'m a math teacher and I loaded up the DR graph with 5dsr, pentax 645z, d4/s, d800/810, 5dmkiii, phase one iq250, canon g1x, sony a7rii. I\'m always leery when so much data gets crunched into a single graph.

It\'s great to see the differences on the graph but ability with camera, planning , execution of the plan, and post-production make the differences I see in the graph less profound....

To keep spinning the broken record (after thanking you for your perspective), camera selection is a rather subjective thing and it is typically made on the basis of a range of tangible and intangible elements.

In the end, for most photographers who think a lot about how particular gear options relate to their particular photographic needs, the choice (or choices) cannot be made on the basis of one primary factor only. We would all love it if some camera manufacturer designed the absolutely perfect camera for each of us that had exactly the feature that we individually desire, but the reality is that while Camera A may get closer to our ideal in one respect, Camera B may get closer in another. On top of that, Camera C may come out that beats A and B in some way, but falls short in others.

So we look at our photography, at all of this tangible and intangible factors, and we select the imperfect gear that best fits our needs/desires.

I suspect you are referring to the comparative dynamic range curve graph of a whole list of cameras that was shared earlier. I also plugged in a bunch of cameras whose performance interests me — the major full frame DSLR and mirrorless cameras, the Fujifilm mirrorless cameras (since I own one), the 645z (since I considered getting one at one point, and still haven\'t ruled it out for the future), the Phase One backs (good friends use them), and more.

Clearly there are differences in DR (and some other things) that are visible in the chart. But even if DR is your only decision point (not likely!), it isn\'t clear which camera one would get based only on the chart data.

In the end, most people will likely agree with what most people here say: Increases in DR and other camera capabilities are a fine thing and always welcome as long as they don\'t diminish performance in other areas. Ultimately, there is no single \"right\" choice of camera, and each photographer has to figure out how the various factors play into his or her choice.

My view is that most — but not necessarily all — photographers trying to make a selection between brands and models will be well served by trying to weight their decision toward that larger range of camera characteristics and away from any single characteristic... and then to get on with it, get almost any one of the current fine cameras/brands that meets their functional needs, and focus on making pictures.

jctriguy wrote:
There is a big difference between more DR being better and deciding to choose a camera with more DR. I\'m sure everyone would be happy with a canon that had 14 stops of DR. That isn\'t reality, so people look at the actual existing options. Selecting a camera based on the outrageous info in some posts would be a mistake. Exactly opposite of the stated goal of some users here that want to educate the new forum members. Cutting through the hype is hard. People show images of pushed shadows at +6 and they all look like shit. Some ask, and rightly so, what do the files actually look like at normal usage levels? Does a canon file look that different from a Sony when pushed 2 stops?

Yup. Pretty much exactly yup.

YMMV,

Dan


Aug 17, 2015 at 10:11 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Interesting Reference Data on Dynamic Range - 5dsr


dugaut wrote:
I\'m a math teacher and I loaded up the DR graph with 5dsr, pentax 645z, d4/s, d800/810, 5dmkiii, phase one iq250, canon g1x, sony a7rii. I\'m always leery when so much data gets crunched into a single graph.

It\'s great to see the differences on the graph but ability with camera, planning , execution of the plan, and post-production make the differences I see in the graph less profound....

To keep spinning the broken record (after thanking you for your perspective), camera selection is a rather subjective thing and it is typically made on the basis of a range of tangible and intangible elements.

In the end, for most photographers who think a lot about how particular gear options relate to their particular photographic needs, the choice (or choices) cannot be made on the basis of one primary factor only. We would all love it if some camera manufacturer designed the absolutely perfect camera for each of us that had exactly the feature that we individually desire, but the reality is that while Camera A may get closer to our ideal in one respect, Camera B may get closer in another. On top of that, Camera C may come out that beats A and B in some way, but falls short in others.

So we look at our photography, at all of this tangible and intangible factors, and we select the imperfect gear that best fits our needs/desires.

I suspect you are referring to the comparative dynamic range curve graph of a whole list of cameras that was shared earlier. I also plugged in a bunch of cameras whose performance interests me — the major full frame DSLR and mirrorless cameras, the Fujifilm mirrorless cameras (since I own one), the 645z (since I considered getting one at one point, and still haven\'t ruled it out for the future), the Phase One backs (good friends use them), and more.

Clearly there are differences in DR (and some other things) that are visible in the chart. But even if DR is your only decision point (not likely!), it isn\'t clear which camera one would get based only on the chart data.

In the end, most people will likely agree with what most people here say: Increases in DR and other camera capabilities are a fine thing and always welcome as long as they don\'t diminish performance in other areas. Ultimately, there is no single \"right\" choice of camera, and each photographer has to figure out how the various factors play into his or her choice.

My view is that most — but not necessarily all — photographers trying to make a selection between brands and models will be well served by trying to weight their decision toward that larger range of camera characteristics and away from any single characteristic... and then to get on with it, get almost any one of the current fine cameras/brands that meets their functional needs, and focus on making pictures.

jctriguy wrote:
There is a big difference between more DR being better and deciding to choose a camera with more DR. I\'m sure everyone would be happy with a canon that had 14 stops of DR. That isn\'t reality, so people look at the actual existing options. Selecting a camera based on the outrageous info in some posts would be a mistake. Exactly opposite of the stated goal of some users here that want to educate the new forum members. Cutting through the hype is hard. People show images of pushed shadows at +6 and they all look like shit. Some ask, and rightly so, what do the files actually look like at normal usage levels? Does a canon file look that different from a Sony when pushed 2 stops?

Yup. Pretty much exactly yup.

YMMV,

Dan
Aug 17, 2015 at 10:07 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Interesting Reference Data on Dynamic Range - 5dsr


dugaut wrote:
I\'m a math teacher and I loaded up the DR graph with 5dsr, pentax 645z, d4/s, d800/810, 5dmkiii, phase one iq250, canon g1x, sony a7rii. I\'m always leery when so much data gets crunched into a single graph.

It\'s great to see the differences on the graph but ability with camera, planning , execution of the plan, and post-production make the differences I see in the graph less profound.

But it\'s another tool in analyzing what would be a best purchase for an individual and their specific needs.

In my own mind, knowing my ability to parse these differences in my final work, anything less than a one stop difference isn\'t that important taking into account the differences differ among cameras at different iso values.

My most important work I always try and do at iso 100 or thereabouts but I often find myself not using my cameras in the most pristine conditions even if it\'s not my intent and iso then goes into the zones where the differences in dr start to get close.

I wonder if others have put a theoretical value out there for dr for their own work given their own personal goals and abilities when making purchasing decisions.

One value for me that was striking is that by iso 12800 the dr values are around a half or so the max dr for that camera. You would think a picture taken at iso 12800 would be deleted immediately. Yet we compare cameras at higher iso values.

My struggle is owning the pentax 645z for my summertime landscape photography, but owning several canon lenses for my school year sports photography. I winced when the 5dsr came out and I was using my 1dx for macro photography with the canon 180 f/3.5 macro. DR wouldn\'t be at the top of my list in my decision to sell the z and get the 5dsr.

Understood I\'m bringing another variable into the equation by talking about lenses, but lenses are far more important to me than the differences in dr among the same class of camera I see in the graph.

To keep spinning the broken record (after thanking you for your perspective), camera selection is a rather subjective thing and it is typically made on the basis of a range of tangible and intangible elements.

In the end, for most photographers who think a lot about how particular gear options relate to their particular photographic needs, the choice (or choices) cannot be made on the basis of one primary factor only. We would all love it if some camera manufacturer designed the absolutely perfect camera for each of us that had exactly the feature that we individually desire, but the reality is that while Camera A may get closer to our ideal in one respect, Camera B may get closer in another. On top of that, Camera C may come out that beats A and B in some way, but falls short in others.

So we look at our photography, at all of this tangible and intangible factors, and we select the imperfect gear that best fits our needs/desires.

I suspect you are referring to the comparative dynamic range curve graph of a whole list of cameras that was shared earlier. I also plugged in a bunch of cameras whose performance interests me — the major full frame DSLR and mirrorless cameras, the Fujifilm mirrorless cameras (since I own one), the 645z (since I considered getting one at one point, and still haven\'t ruled it out for the future), the Phase One backs (good friends use them), and more.

Clearly there are differences in DR (and some other things) that are visible in the chart. But even if DR is your only decision point (not likely!), it isn\'t clear which camera one would get based only on the chart data.

In the end, most people will likely agree with what most people here say: Increases in DR and other camera capabilities are a fine thing and always welcome as long as they don\'t diminish performance in other areas. Ultimately, there is no single \"right\" choice of camera, and each photographer has to figure out how the various factors play into his or her choice.

My view is that most — but not necessarily all — photographers trying to make a selection between brands and models will be well served by trying to weight their decision toward that larger range of camera characteristics and away from any single characteristic... and then to get on with it, get almost any one of the current fine cameras/brands that meets their functional needs, and focus on making pictures.

jctriguy wrote:
There is a big difference between more DR being better and deciding to choose a camera with more DR. I\'m sure everyone would be happy with a canon that had 14 stops of DR. That isn\'t reality, so people look at the actual existing options. Selecting a camera based on the outrageous info in some posts would be a mistake. Exactly opposite of the stated goal of some users here that want to educate the new forum members. Cutting through the hype is hard. People show images of pushed shadows at +6 and they all look like shit. Some ask, and rightly so, what do the files actually look like at normal usage levels? Does a canon file look that different from a Sony when pushed 2 stops?

Yup. Pretty much exactly yup.

YMMV,

Dan
Aug 17, 2015 at 10:06 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Interesting Reference Data on Dynamic Range - 5dsr


To keep spinning the broken record (after thanking you for your perspective), camera selection is a rather subjective thing and it is typically made on the basis of a range of tangible and intangible elements.

In the end, for most photographers who think a lot about how particular gear options relate to their particular photographic needs, the choice (or choices) cannot be made on the basis of one primary factor only. We would all love it if some camera manufacturer designed the absolutely perfect camera for each of us that had exactly the feature that we individually desire, but the reality is that while Camera A may get closer to our ideal in one respect, Camera B may get closer in another. On top of that, Camera C may come out that beats A and B in some way, but falls short in others.

So we look at our photography, at all of this tangible and intangible factors, and we select the imperfect gear that best fits our needs/desires.

I suspect you are referring to the comparative dynamic range curve graph of a whole list of cameras that was shared earlier. I also plugged in a bunch of cameras whose performance interests me — the major full frame DSLR and mirrorless cameras, the Fujifilm mirrorless cameras (since I own one), the 645z (since I considered getting one at one point, and still haven\'t ruled it out for the future), the Phase One backs (good friends use them), and more.

Clearly there are differences in DR (and some other things) that are visible in the chart. But even if DR is your only decision point (not likely!), it isn\'t clear which camera one would get based only on the chart data.

In the end, most people will likely agree with what most people here say: Increases in DR and other camera capabilities are a fine thing and always welcome as long as they don\'t diminish performance in other areas. Ultimately, there is no single \"right\" choice of camera, and each photographer has to figure out how the various factors play into his or her choice.

My view is that most — but not necessarily all — photographers trying to make a selection between brands and models will be well served by trying to weight their decision toward that larger range of camera characteristics and away from any single characteristic... and then to get on with it, get almost any one of the current fine cameras/brands that meets their functional needs, and focus on making pictures.

YMMV,

Dan

dugaut wrote:
I\'m a math teacher and I loaded up the DR graph with 5dsr, pentax 645z, d4/s, d800/810, 5dmkiii, phase one iq250, canon g1x, sony a7rii. I\'m always leery when so much data gets crunched into a single graph.

It\'s great to see the differences on the graph but ability with camera, planning , execution of the plan, and post-production make the differences I see in the graph less profound.

But it\'s another tool in analyzing what would be a best purchase for an individual and their specific needs.

In my own mind, knowing my ability to parse these differences in my final work, anything less than a one stop difference isn\'t that important taking into account the differences differ among cameras at different iso values.

My most important work I always try and do at iso 100 or thereabouts but I often find myself not using my cameras in the most pristine conditions even if it\'s not my intent and iso then goes into the zones where the differences in dr start to get close.

I wonder if others have put a theoretical value out there for dr for their own work given their own personal goals and abilities when making purchasing decisions.

One value for me that was striking is that by iso 12800 the dr values are around a half or so the max dr for that camera. You would think a picture taken at iso 12800 would be deleted immediately. Yet we compare cameras at higher iso values.

My struggle is owning the pentax 645z for my summertime landscape photography, but owning several canon lenses for my school year sports photography. I winced when the 5dsr came out and I was using my 1dx for macro photography with the canon 180 f/3.5 macro. DR wouldn\'t be at the top of my list in my decision to sell the z and get the 5dsr.

Understood I\'m bringing another variable into the equation by talking about lenses, but lenses are far more important to me than the differences in dr among the same class of camera I see in the graph.


Aug 17, 2015 at 09:58 AM





  Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #13154295 « Interesting Reference Data on Dynamic Range - 5dsr »