Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 15 Sep 2014 (Monday) 01:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

why is Canon considered to have bad dynamic range?

 
this thread is locked
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,892 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2613
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Nov 11, 2014 21:37 |  #136

mclaren777 wrote in post #17155596 (external link)
Canon is still using an antiquated manufacturing process (0.50 µm) while Sony is using a much newer, more advanced process (0.18 µm).

It's a real shame. (external link)

5D3
IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image%2fjpeg'


D800E
IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image%2fjpeg'

I can clearly see that the Canon image is noisier, but the Nikon lens has poor acutance! Note the lens engraving. Photography is a trade off, so often


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
CanonVsNikon
Senior Member
255 posts
Joined Jan 2013
     
Nov 11, 2014 21:42 |  #137
bannedPermanent ban

davebreal wrote in post #17266432 (external link)
7D MK 1 shot, ACR set to 0 on shadows, highlights at -5. No further shadows/highlights actions taken. Slight Curves adjustment in CS 6.

No lighting equipment brought, other than years of experience in shooting landscapes.

Yes, lack of understanding of quality of light is ABSOLUTELY amateur waters.

QUOTED IMAGE

Yes, because all landscape shots are within a cameras dynamic range.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davebreal
Senior Member
Avatar
894 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jul 2007
Location: new jersey, usa
     
Nov 11, 2014 21:54 |  #138

CanonVsNikon wrote in post #17266477 (external link)
Yes, because all landscape shots are within a cameras dynamic range.

Right on. Hopefully we can agree that pulling down highlights to muddy the whites and lifting blacks to lessen contrast are amateur landscape techniques next.


Dave
flickr  (external link)Twitter  (external link)Wordpress Blog (external link) YouTube (external link)
My Gear--> Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davebreal
Senior Member
Avatar
894 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jul 2007
Location: new jersey, usa
     
Nov 11, 2014 22:05 |  #139

Yet another. I can post 'em all night folks. Again, tell me why a landscape photographer NEEDS to lift shadows.

Canon 50D. No lighting equipment. No shadow lifting. Highlights -5 in ACR.

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3779/12804676675_7065bb85c0.jpg

Dave
flickr  (external link)Twitter  (external link)Wordpress Blog (external link) YouTube (external link)
My Gear--> Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonVsNikon
Senior Member
255 posts
Joined Jan 2013
     
Nov 11, 2014 22:05 |  #140
bannedPermanent ban

davebreal wrote in post #17266497 (external link)
Right on. Hopefully we can agree that pulling down highlights to muddy the whites and lifting blacks to lessen contrast are amateur landscape techniques next.

Your sample shots are safe. Try shooting in high contrast scenes




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davebreal
Senior Member
Avatar
894 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jul 2007
Location: new jersey, usa
     
Nov 11, 2014 22:11 |  #141

CanonVsNikon wrote in post #17266517 (external link)
Your sample shots are safe. Try shooting in high contrast scenes

Why would I shoot in less than flattering light? Landscape photographers generally decided what time and what weather they shoot in. When people ask me what camera body or lens to upgrade to (with hopes of improvement), I usually tell them the best money spent will be in concise books or expert lessons.

Buy less, shoot smarter.


Dave
flickr  (external link)Twitter  (external link)Wordpress Blog (external link) YouTube (external link)
My Gear--> Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WhyFi
Goldmember
Avatar
2,766 posts
Gallery: 237 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 805
Joined Apr 2008
Location: I got a castle in Brooklyn, that's where I dwell.
     
Nov 11, 2014 22:41 |  #142

Ya got zero Luddite cred unless you're rockin' the camera obscura.


Bill is my name - I'm the most wanted man on my island, except I'm not on my island, of course. More's the pity.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davebreal
Senior Member
Avatar
894 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jul 2007
Location: new jersey, usa
     
Nov 11, 2014 22:45 |  #143

WhyFi wrote in post #17266592 (external link)
Ya got zero Luddite cred unless you're rockin' the camera obscura.

LOL. Luddite. Because, shadow/highlight sliders are the wave of the future, right?  :p


Dave
flickr  (external link)Twitter  (external link)Wordpress Blog (external link) YouTube (external link)
My Gear--> Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,139 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6241
Joined Sep 2007
     
Nov 11, 2014 23:32 |  #144

davebreal wrote in post #17266526 (external link)
Why would I shoot in less than flattering light? Landscape photographers generally decided what time and what weather they shoot in. When people ask me what camera body or lens to upgrade to (with hopes of improvement), I usually tell them the best money spent will be in concise books or expert lessons.

Buy less, shoot smarter.

you have somewhat a point. Generally, shooting flattering light is the best idea for high quality landscapes, so in the grand scheme of things, the DR isnt too big of a deal whether you're shooting canon or sony.

Canon can definitely improve the sensor and should since the difference is so great. Canon use to have the lead in high ISO, but it was nowhere near the lead compared to sony and low iso. Heck just close the gap by a stop and I'm sure most, landscape users would be in great joy. More sexypixels without AA filter would also be golden, probably even more important than DR.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,472 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 8261
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
     
Nov 12, 2014 00:03 |  #145

davebreal wrote in post #17266515 (external link)
Yet another. I can post 'em all night folks. Again, tell me why a landscape photographer NEEDS to lift shadows.

Canon 50D. No lighting equipment. No shadow lifting. Highlights -5 in ACR.

QUOTED IMAGE

Yes, please do keep posting. Eventually maybe we'll see something impressive. Sorry, but your "AMATEUR" slams are really off-putting, which of course appears to be your whole purpose here.

Whenever I read what landscape pros (with actually impressive work) write about their workflow they all recover shadow details in post. Their work is amazing, they earn their living from such work, they are professionals, and yet somehow they find the need for shadow recovery. I don't mind if you want to have an opinion that recovering shadow detail is poor practice, but calling it "absolutely amateur" is absolute nonsense.

Posts like yours are why these dynamic range "discussions" prove to be so horrible. Seems like they are the spawning ground for trash talking instead of nice civil discussions about the merits of various sensors.


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, Sigma 35mm F/1.2, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,472 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 8261
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
     
Nov 12, 2014 00:34 |  #146

Wilt wrote in post #17266467 (external link)
I can clearly see that the Canon image is noisier, but the Nikon lens has poor acutance! Note the lens engraving. Photography is a trade off, so often

That is something I had noticed in other comparisons (D800 vs 5D III). it seemed odd that a 22MP sensor could seem to, as in the referenced example, out-resolve a 36MP sensor Acutance eh? Thanks for pointing that out! :)


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, Sigma 35mm F/1.2, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2014
     
Nov 12, 2014 00:44 |  #147

I personally agree with and confirm everything you're saying. I'm an old school technique photographer though. I don't really spend much time in post-production for my images. I spend all my time messing with the camera on site to get it right there so I don't have to mess with the image in software.

davebreal wrote in post #17266526 (external link)
Why would I shoot in less than flattering light? Landscape photographers generally decided what time and what weather they shoot in. When people ask me what camera body or lens to upgrade to (with hopes of improvement), I usually tell them the best money spent will be in concise books or expert lessons.

Buy less, shoot smarter.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2014
     
Nov 12, 2014 00:47 |  #148

Not only that, but the 36MP sensor doesn't have the anti-aliasing filter on front of it to slightly blur the image.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17266721 (external link)
That is something I had noticed in other comparisons (D800 vs 5D III). it seemed odd that a 22MP sensor could seem to, as in the referenced example, out-resolve a 36MP sensor Acutance eh? Thanks for pointing that out! :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davebreal
Senior Member
Avatar
894 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jul 2007
Location: new jersey, usa
     
Nov 12, 2014 05:53 |  #149

Charlie wrote in post #17266657 (external link)
you have somewhat a point. Generally, shooting flattering light is the best idea for high quality landscapes, so in the grand scheme of things, the DR isnt too big of a deal whether you're shooting canon or sony.

CRCchemist wrote in post #17266731 (external link)
I personally agree with and confirm everything you're saying. I'm an old school technique photographer though. I don't really spend much time in post-production for my images. I spend all my time messing with the camera on site to get it right there so I don't have to mess with the image in software.

Thanks guys!


Dave
flickr  (external link)Twitter  (external link)Wordpress Blog (external link) YouTube (external link)
My Gear--> Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nekrosoft13
Goldmember
Avatar
4,087 posts
Gallery: 185 photos
Likes: 683
Joined Jun 2010
     
Nov 12, 2014 08:24 |  #150
bannedPermanent ban

David Arbogast wrote in post #17266701 (external link)
Yes, please do keep posting. Eventually maybe we'll see something impressive. Sorry, but your "AMATEUR" slams are really off-putting, which of course appears to be your whole purpose here.

Whenever I read what landscape pros (with actually impressive work) write about their workflow they all recover shadow details in post. Their work is amazing, they earn their living from such work, they are professionals, and yet somehow they find the need for shadow recovery. I don't mind if you want to have an opinion that recovering shadow detail is poor practice, but calling it "absolutely amateur" is absolute nonsense.

Posts like yours are why these dynamic range "discussions" prove to be so horrible. Seems like they are the spawning ground for trash talking instead of nice civil discussions about the merits of various sensors.

Canon fans need to keep justifying why Canon has the worse sensors.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

35,013 views & 0 likes for this thread
why is Canon considered to have bad dynamic range?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Cosmo19
867 guests, 231 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.