Amazing !!

ksbal wrote in post #17216102
All the bickering and back and forth on sensors and I've never seen it put like this before.

This makes me feel much better about sticking with Canon (as I've invested in glass here) and knowing the photographer makes the image, and not the camera. Knowing the limitations, and dealing with them is what being a photographer is all about.

Thanks Alan!

But wouldn't things be better if you didn't have those limitations? Why accept them.

You should be asking (or demanding) Canon to step up. Not just be an apologist for them

CanonVsNikon wrote in post #17216623
But wouldn't things be better if you didn't have those limitations? Why accept them.

You should be asking (or demanding) Canon to step up. Not just be an apologist for them

Excuse me? I didn't apologize for Canon. We accept limitations no matter what the camera is we choose to buy. Why are you wanking on me for feeling better about Canon's sensor?

Sorry to piss in your cheerios this morning. Maybe tomorrow you can sell everything and be Nikonvstheworld.

Sounds like you're the one getting pissed on. I'm just making an observation. You ACCEPT Canon's inferior sensor

I think what Gabe suggested is important. The whole system matters when choosing a brand for your camera gear. Then you add in what types of photography you shoot and make a decision.

If landscapes are your thing and that is most of what you shoot, I can see choosing Nikon at this point. Several photographers here who have won my respect have switched from Canon to Nikon and are very happy. Personally, I'm satisfied with the results I'm getting with my Canon gear but I don't push the DR limits. I shoot mostly wildlife (more birds than anything else). When I do shoot landscapes (sunrises and sunsets for the most part), I've been happy with the results, even though I'm using a crop camera but I'm not a professional and have no desire to work into selling my stuff.

Anyway, both Canon and Nikon are excellent suppliers for photo gear these days and a few other companies are making strides as well. I guess I don't understand the "war" here. If you are happy with the results you are getting, isn't that the main thing?

As far as "forcing" Canon or Nikon to do anything, I suspect that is beyond our capability. I would guess Canon is fully aware of the strides Nikon has made over the past few years and will address it as time goes on. If not...... can you say "Kodak"? Competition is good for the consumer.

AJSJones wrote in post #17215610
If the scene dynamic range is 15 stops and your camera can only record 11 stops, what's the "proper" exposure?

let me know if that makes you a better photographer

CanonVsNikon wrote in post #17216682
Sounds like you're the one getting pissed on. I'm just making an observation. You ACCEPT Canon's inferior sensor

Which is better depends on what you use it for. For my style of photography, Canon's is superior.

The main reason why Sony sensors get so much negativity here is because all of the exmor cheerleaders love to parrot how awesome it is repeatedly in every thread even though the topic is relevant. We all know that they make better sensors. That information is already 2 years old and when its the only think you read about in a canon forum, it gets annoying and old fast. A lot of exmor cheerleaders tend to gush on just the sensor and ignore everything else about the process of, you know, taking pictures and just can't help but bring it up all the time.

Threads like this a big example of the internet echo chamber that doesn't even belong in this sub forum.

CanonVsNikon wrote in post #17216682
Sounds like you're the one getting pissed on. I'm just making an observation. You ACCEPT Canon's inferior sensor

His point (which you clearly didn't read) was that it isn't inferior for what he uses it for... at higher ISO the Canon sensors are as good or better than anything else on the market, period.

Also, I've posted this before, but I'll go ahead and do it again since it's such a clear illustration as to why I think the need for crazy amounts of DR is overblown

Original file, far underexposed, this type of shot almost never happens in my experience

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i1225.photobuck​et.com …at65225PM_zpsd1​c241c1.png

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nPQf​xX

panicatnabisco wrote in post #17215576
Proper exposure, who needs that

AJSJones wrote in post #17215610
If the scene dynamic range is 15 stops and your camera can only record 11 stops, what's the "proper" exposure?

panicatnabisco wrote in post #17217006
let me know if that makes you a better photographer

If "what" makes me a better photographer???

You missed the point entirely Before you can make any comment on my photography skills (or lack thereof) you need to answer the simple question of "what is the proper exposure?" when your camera, whether it's Canon, Nikon, Sony, P&S or iPhone can't record the scene properly? You have to accept either blown highlights or blocked shadows, right? Which do you choose?

I did this just now to test out. Shot in raw, pushed exposure up 2, then went to curves and pushed up yet more, probably 3 stops or so in total? Lots of noise, but strangely nothing in the way of banding. Cleaned up a bit of noise, here are the results. That is more than I would ever need for what I shoot, so I don't care about what Nikon/Sony can do. However as I own Sony stock, please buy up Sony products, and help me out.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17217118
His point (which you clearly didn't read) was that it isn't inferior for what he uses it for... at higher ISO the Canon sensors are as good or better than anything else on the market, period.

Also, I've posted this before, but I'll go ahead and do it again since it's such a clear illustration as to why I think the need for crazy amounts of DR is overblown

Original file, far underexposed, this type of shot almost never happens in my experience

And after post

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nPQf​xX IMG_7167.jpg by EverydayGetaway, on Flickr

If you need more recovery than that, you're doing crazier things than me with your photography I guess...

Like I said, it's better to have it and not need it than not have it when you need it. Like a 600hp car. Yeah it's overkill but boy is it nice to have it available when you need it

CanonVsNikon wrote in post #17217315
Like I said, it's better to have it and not need it than not have it when you need it. Like a 600hp car. Yeah it's overkill but boy is it nice to have it available when you need it

That's a horrible analogy for a myriad of reasons... but I get your argument

All I'm saying is that it's not worth jumping ship for for 95% of shooters or more, and for sure not worth the constant internet whining about Canon's cameras, I happen to like my Canon gear very much and the majority of other Canon users do as well

AJSJones wrote in post #17217283
If "what" makes me a better photographer???

You missed the point entirely Before you can make any comment on my photography skills (or lack thereof) you need to answer the simple question of "what is the proper exposure?" when your camera, whether it's Canon, Nikon, Sony, P&S or iPhone can't record the scene properly? You have to accept either blown highlights or blocked shadows, right? Which do you choose?

I'll answer your question, the proper exposure in this case will be scene dependant. In all probability I might end up blocking up the very deepest shadows, and blowing the brightest highlights, but I would only really be able to make a decision based on looking at the scene and what I feel is important.

For example in many of my aviation images, I can quite happily let the sky in the background blow out, especially if it has very little detail to start with. I can fix that in post quite often by simply adding a layer with a blue grad dropped across it in darken blend mode, with a layer mask for the actual aircraft. Takes me about half an hour to do a good job of the masking.

Alan

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17217289
I did this just now to test out. Shot in raw, pushed exposure up 2, then went to curves and pushed up yet more, probably 3 stops or so in total? Lots of noise, but strangely nothing in the way of banding. Cleaned up a bit of noise, here are the results. That is more than I would ever need for what I shoot, so I don't care about what Nikon/Sony can do. However as I own Sony stock, please buy up Sony products, and help me out.

Which body was this, the 5D3?

BigAl007 wrote in post #17217693
I'll answer your question, the proper exposure in this case will be scene dependant. In all probability I might end up blocking up the very deepest shadows, and blowing the brightest highlights, but I would only really be able to make a decision based on looking at the scene and what I feel is important.

Alan

Thanks Alan. It was more of a rhetorical question, based on exactly the points you emphasize. Often you neeed to "sacrifice" some part in order to get the part you really want, because the camera/film/sensor you have can't get it all. We've all lived with this for years and had to make those decisions on what to keep and what to sacrifice. I used to use slide film and chose to live with the lower DR because of the immediacy of slides when viewed with a loupe or projector, even though negative film had more DR.

I was just responding to a comment that implied that "if you think the extra DR might be useful, you don't know how to get the mythical "proper exposure" - obviously a ludicrous argument. As you desribe, the "proper exposure" is often one in which you make the sacrifice in the less important part of the image. The extra DR just means you make less of a sacrifice in those situations where the image you are capturing has important highlights and shadows.