aCuria
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses) | |
Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:
johnvanr wrote:
aCuria wrote:
johnvanr wrote:
aCuria wrote:
johnvanr wrote:
snegron7 wrote:
jojib wrote:
snegron7 wrote:
jojib wrote:
I shoot with both Sony and Canon systems. For Sony I have the A7V and A6700. For Canon I also have the R6MKII and the 5Ds.
You mentioned the classic 24-70/2.8 lens and I have that (RF 24-70/2.8 L IS) and it is an amazing lens. However, it might not fit your criterion of being light. For the Sony side, have you looked at the 40/2.5 G lens? It's pretty light and great for environmental portraits. I do a lot of travelling as well but when I do I often do model shoots thus my MVP lens there is the Sigma 28-105/2.8 DG DN ART. It's the lens I take for street editorial/fashion and then straight to the beach for swimsuit shots. Once again you might find it heavy but if you are considering a 24-70 then you should look at the Sigma as well.
A couple of years ago I owned an A7c with several lenses including the Sony 40mm f2.5 G. Yes, I agree with you, it's a very good compact lens. My only issue with it was that I had to exchange two decentered copies before I git a good one. Same with a Sony 85mm f1.8. Unfortunately I sold that camera and several lenses because I thought I was going to use only Canon gear. Three months later I ended up re-purchasing another A7c plus the 3 Tamron lenses I currently own.
I've only owned Sigma lenses in F mount, so I don't have any FE experience with them. I have read that Sigma produces good lensds; their 24-70mm f2.8 seems good on paper.
Do you print your images? One lens that hardly gets any mention here is the Sony 15/1.4 G. It's an aps-c lens but I tried with my A7V and it works really well. I seldom print but I tried it with the Super Resolution feature in Photoshop and it works really well.
I haven't printed in years except for the occasional prints I get whenever I test out a film camera that I buy.
So, why do you want large files? Is there something wrong with your OM-5 files from Japan?
I am not OP but dynamic range takes a hit on small sensor cameras.
This means its easy to blow out say a white dress.
For example, if the scene needs 7 stops of DR, you wont clip the dress until above ISO 4000+ on A7C but with OM-5 you will clip the dress above ISO 1600
I’ve shot tens of thousands of shots with MFT and the relatively narrower dynamic range has never been an issue. And my MFT gear can warn me when I’m about to blow the highlights, while my Canons can’t.
Granted, I’m not one to seek details in the shadows.
Noise used to be the biggest issue, but that’s gone with the great noise reduction software.
The relative difference in DoF goes both ways. For travel, I’m fine with MFT’s DoF.
I shoot all formats, btw. About to give up APS-c.
That’s an odd way to put it. If dynamic range has truly never been an issue, then you wouldn’t need a warning telling you when you’re about to exceed it in the first place.
That doesn’t make sense. It’s just a highlight warning. Leica’s have them as well, to warn against overexposure.
That’s the contradiction. You’re saying dynamic range has never been an issue, then immediately citing a feature you use to warn you when you’re about to exceed the sensor’s dynamic range. If the limit genuinely never mattered, there would be nothing to warn you about.
Take a simple example: you meter an 18% grey card to establish the correct exposure for the subject. If, at that exposure, the white dress exceeds the sensor’s highlight limit and clips, then the scene requires more dynamic range than the sensor provides at that ISO. You can underexpose to save the dress, but now you’re shifting the problem toward the shadows.
If you have time to slowly compose the shot, sure, you can watch the warning and adjust the exposure until the clipping disappears. But if you’re capturing a spontaneous moment, you may not get that opportunity. The dress may already be irretrievably clipped by the time you see the warning.
A camera with more dynamic range gives you more exposure latitude and reduces the chance of losing either highlights or shadows in the first place.
Alternatively, you can ask all your subjects to get a spray tan and wear dark clothes. That should solve the dynamic-range problem too. /s
I don't think this is right. The key variable for clipping with the camera is how much headroom the camera has when metering at 18% middle grey. I have seen exactly zero evidence that sensors with more dynamic range have more headroom. It is true that having more dynamic range will improve the shadows when highlights are protected, but that doesn't mean the camera will clip highlights less. Clipping highlights is all about exposure and not exposing too far to the right of the histogram.
And let's not forget about the role of the photographer in the process. If you have even a bit of experience and you know you are shooting a white dress (or a similar bight object) and you want to protect the highlights for that target, then you should know that the camera is not setting exposure for that object and you should be using exposure compensation. Clipping the highlights on an object you want to get proper exposure for is really an error of the photographer. You have to know what the camera does (exposes for 18% middle grey) and adjust the camera for the exposure you want. More dynamic range does give you more room in the shadows in this situation, but protecting the highlights you want is on the photographer. Clipped highlights of a feature you want should not be attributed the camera or the dynamic range of the sensor being used. It should be attributed to an error made by the photographer.
Now if you can't keep that dress from being blown out while at the same time getting the shadow details that you want, that cont be attributed to the dynamic range of the sensor, but there are many many times when you can easily avoid clipping highlights and have plenty of shadow detail as well even when shooting bright objects and if you clip the the highlights in those cases it is because the camera was not set properly not because of the camera or the sensor in the camera.
 DACB8663 by acurian, on Flickr
This is example from 1D, ISO 3200, Straight out of camera.
DR Equivalent to OM5 ~ ISO 12,800, so if you shoot at ISO 12,800 you would have more or less the same problem
To avoid blowing the highlights here I probably have to dial in like -2 or -3 compensation maybe, but the shadows already look bad.
The problem is ultimately lack of DR at higher ISO. This is the biggest problem with 1D. It can beat modern cameras in other areas, for example the only Sony milc that can match 1/500s flash sync is A9iii, and it can do mechanical shutter speed of 1/16000s which the A1 mechanical shutter cant beat.
I have been chasing more high ISO DR for > 20 years already... its hard for me to accept OM5 DR when A7C exists.
Or rather than using ISO 12,800 on the OM-5 he can use a lens that has a two stop faster aperture, which is often available and have the same depth of field and have 2 stops better DR than the 1D. Yeah you pick up an extra stop of DR with the A7C cameras, but that isn't the same as this three stops worse DR shot that you linked. Nothing even close to that. Yes, the 1D with light that low has really bad DR, but even 2 stops more helps a lot with the shadows.
Note I am not advocating for the OM-5, I was just pointing out that DR is not at all about blowing the highlights like you discussed in the post I quoted. Not blowing the highlights that one cares about, is about getting the exposure right. DR is about the quality of the shadows when you get the exposure right. For some types of shooting that can matter, but even in your example any modern camera, as opposed to the 1D, would do pretty well with the shadows if the exposure is right. Of course good post-processing can help too.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Or rather than using ISO 12,800 on the OM-5 he can use a lens that has a two stop faster aperture, which is often available and have the same depth of field and have 2 stops better DR than the 1D.
You’re moving the goalposts by comparing lenses when we are talking sensors. A 1D can use the EF 50mm f/1.0L USM. On an OM-5, there’s no autofocus-capable 25mm f/0.5 equivalent; the fastest is the 25mm f/1.2. If we’re comparing the fastest available AF lenses, EF has the advantage.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I was just pointing out that DR is not at all about blowing the highlights like you discussed in the post I quoted. Not blowing the highlights that one cares about, is about getting the exposure right. DR is about the quality of the shadows when you get the exposure right.
Disagree. Dynamic range is the range between the brightest reproducible highlight and the darkest usable shadow. So highlight clipping is not separate from DR. Together with shadow quality, they are the two ends of the same dynamic range.
By your definition, the “right” exposure means exposing so that the highlights you care about are not clipped.
I care about ALL the highlights. All else being equal, the image is always going to be better if we have a hypothetical 30-stop sensor and can capture everything without clipping. That is also why I use exposure stacking whenever the subject allows for it, since it can effectively emulate a much higher-DR sensor.
Sony, like most other manufacturers, even has a “Highlight” metering mode designed specifically to protect highlights. The problem is that blindly protecting the brightest highlights can leave the midtones and shadows so severely underexposed that they cannot be adequately recovered in post.
So simply avoiding highlight clipping does not necessarily produce the “correct” exposure. The correct exposure is ultimately a compromise between choosing which highlights to clip AND maintaining sufficient quality in the darker parts of the image, and that compromise is dictated by the camera’s available dynamic range.
That is precisely why more dynamic range helps. If preserving the highlights forces everything else down, then the quality of those lower tones depends on how much usable range the sensor has below the highlights. Highlight retention and shadow quality are therefore not competing definitions of DR. They are the two boundaries that define it.
The sample images should clearly show everyone how the image improves as DR increases.
 DSC04477-SDR Q100 by acurian, on Flickr
Modern High DR Camera, A7III ISO 12,800
DACB8663 by acurian, on Flickr
Low DR Camera, 1D, ISO 3200
Even if I under-exposed the 1D shot by 2-3 stops and then pulled the exposure in POST, as Steve Spencer suggests, its not going to be as effective as simply using a camera body with more DR. In fact the shot would probably be technically worse than how I captured it because mid-tone and shadow quality would be degraded
I chose these shots because the 1D at ISO 3200 should have roughly similar dynamic range to the OM-5 at ISO 12,800, making it suitable for comparison with the A7iii shot at ISO 12,800.
I’m not advocating for or against the OM-5, in fact in my first post I did not even suggest selling it:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1955684/4#17101997
The OM5 definitely holds the weight advantage, especially with the two pancake lenses OP has. However the weight advantage is in a sense paid for in dynamic range. Win some lose some
|
