why is Canon considered to have bad dynamic range?

mclaren777 wrote in post #17155596
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.

5D3

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

D800E

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

davebreal wrote in post #17266432
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.

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

CanonVsNikon wrote in post #17266477
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.

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.

davebreal wrote in post #17266497
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

CanonVsNikon wrote in post #17266517
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.

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

WhyFi wrote in post #17266592
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?

davebreal wrote in post #17266526
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.

davebreal wrote in post #17266515
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.

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.

Wilt wrote in post #17266467
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!

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
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.

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
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!

Charlie wrote in post #17266657
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
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!

David Arbogast wrote in post #17266701
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.