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
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 12, 2014 08:42 as a reply to  @ post 17266477 |  #151

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

The front of the lens is in front of the plane of focus. If you look at the camera body, which is in focus in both samples, the leather wrap, buttons, etc, all show much better detail in the D800 pic.


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
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 12, 2014 08:49 |  #152

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #17267092 (external link)
Canon fans need to keep justifying why Canon has the worse sensors.

What I love is the false dichotomy - "shoot smarter!" As if having better sensor tech somehow prevents one from "shooting smarter." We can have our cake and eat it too, folks - no reason to argue against more capable equipment.


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
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,487 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 8302
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
     
Nov 12, 2014 08:56 |  #153

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #17267092 (external link)
Canon fans need to keep justifying why Canon has the worse sensors.

I don't believe this latest outburst is a Canon-fan thing. Rather it's a "photography-purist" thing. There are many photographers who eschew post-processing as somehow impure. They are post-processing minimalists. In the case of davebreal, he has decided to draw the line between "get-it-right-in-camera" purism and those that that use advanced post-processing techniques (beyond minimal simple curves adjustments) as the line between professional and "absolute amateur waters".

I would simply challenge davebreal, and anyone else agreeing with such a down-putting claim, to prove that assertion. Prove that the greatest landscape photography "professionals" never work their images in post to recover shadow detail. Prove that every "professional" landscape photography professional from Ansel Adams to Marc Adamus always get it right in camera and never push their images in post beyond a few curves adjustments. Prove that all landscape photography professionals agree with davebreal's statement that shadow recovery is nothing but amateurism.

He needs to prove it because he put it in absolute terms ("absolute amateur waters").


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
ksbal
Goldmember
Avatar
2,745 posts
Gallery: 374 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 2398
Joined Sep 2010
Location: N.E. Kansas
     
Nov 12, 2014 08:59 |  #154

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #17267092 (external link)
Canon fans need to keep justifying why Canon has the worse sensors.


Actually, this is a false statement... insert at 'at low iso' and the numbers agree with you.

While yes I'd like to have the best quality at low iso and high iso, if the trade off is better quality at higher iso (as most of the number support) and I get what I need at the current low iso - then I don't need to justify a thing.

I don't get the need for bashing - I choose the lens I need, based on what I want. I choose the camera body the same way, just as you have. People don't bash lenses they way they do sensors around the web (or do they and I'm missing out? :lol: :rolleyes: )

I'm sure all this sensor bashing will be a moot point in the future anyways, someone is always innovating somewhere. Read all the specs and go with your needs. If you don't like Canon/Sony/Nikon then go where you need to.

Bashing is pretty unproductive.


Godox/Flashpoint r2 system, plus some canon stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davebreal
Senior Member
Avatar
894 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jul 2007
Location: new jersey, usa
     
Nov 12, 2014 09:00 |  #155

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #17267092 (external link)
Canon fans need to keep justifying why Canon has the worse sensors.

I'm not a fan boy. I'm a working photographer, who aready owns cameras that work. Would I like to see greater detail and color retention in shadows and highlights? Of course. Is current Canon dynamic range limiting my output? No. Has anyone here posted a well executed Canon DSLR photo that fails because of dynamic range? No.


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 12, 2014 09:06 |  #156

ksbal wrote in post #17267170 (external link)
I'm sure all this sensor bashing will be a moot point in the future anyways...

Bashing is pretty unproductive.

Couldn't agree more. If users seriously believe that Canon does not already have a draft of 1 year, 5 year, and 10 year business plans, they have no concept of R&D and how the electronics market works.

Do manufacturers care what consumers think? Yes. Do they attempt to stop on a dime or bend over backwards? No, why would they?


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Nov 12, 2014 09:17 |  #157
bannedPermanent ban

davebreal wrote in post #17267173 (external link)
I'm not a fan boy. I'm a working photographer, who aready owns cameras that work. Would I like to see greater detail and color retention in shadows and highlights? Of course. Is current Canon dynamic range limiting my output? No. Has anyone here posted a well executed Canon DSLR photo that fails because of dynamic range? No.

That's because failed photos don't get posted. Does not mean photographers don't have a bucket full of failed photos. From my perspective, more is always better than less. More DR ability in the sensor allows for more keepers in post processing.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ksbal
Goldmember
Avatar
2,745 posts
Gallery: 374 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 2398
Joined Sep 2010
Location: N.E. Kansas
     
Nov 12, 2014 09:24 |  #158

Hogloff wrote in post #17267213 (external link)
That's because failed photos don't get posted. Does not mean photographers don't have a bucket full of failed photos. From my perspective, more is always better than less. More DR ability in the sensor allows for more keepers in post processing.

So go buy what you need. We'll still love you anyways! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Godox/Flashpoint r2 system, plus some canon stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,420 posts
Gallery: 217 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4117
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Nov 12, 2014 09:28 |  #159

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.

...............

I just had to quote this for truth.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,420 posts
Gallery: 217 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4117
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Nov 12, 2014 09:40 |  #160

davebreal wrote in post #17267173 (external link)
.... Has anyone here posted a well executed Canon DSLR photo that fails because of dynamic range? No.

If the image "failed" because of a lack of dynamic range, why would it be retained?

HDR and exposure blending exist to overcome dynamic range limitations (not including people who just like to look at technicolor vomit). Oftentimes there is a tradeoff that has to be made between highlight and shadow. Between getting the shot, or not. Between breaking out the filters and hoping that whatever sticks up into the gradient doesn't ruin the photo, or hoping you can bracket your shots before the scene changes.


Here's a perfect example of dynamic range limitations, from my own backyard. . . . . This image employes a -3 stop reverse grad ND and I still had to pull the sky in post:

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7047/13856226793_1016efdf57_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/n7qM​tX  (external link) Bennetts Creek: Sunset with the Eos M (external link) by tltichy (external link), on Flickr

Here's another example of where a bit more dynamic range would have allowed be to grab the scene in one shot, rather than having to bracket multiple images:
IMAGE: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8266/8676137165_74222567d6_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/edFt​iP  (external link) Tomorrowland Aglow (external link) by tltichy (external link), on Flickr

I can post 'em up all day. ;)

Of course, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about so. . . . . . . .

VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Nov 12, 2014 09:41 |  #161
bannedPermanent ban

ksbal wrote in post #17267235 (external link)
So go buy what you need. We'll still love you anyways! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I did, got an A7r for my landscape photography. Love it.

Now at least I don't need to defend Canon's 10 year sensor tech by saying I don't need that extra dynamic range because real prod never lift shadows. That is such a lame and totally false statement.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,420 posts
Gallery: 217 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4117
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Nov 12, 2014 09:49 |  #162

ksbal wrote in post #17267170 (external link)
...............
I don't get the need for bashing - I choose the lens I need, based on what I want. I choose the camera body the same way, just as you have. People don't bash lenses they way they do sensors around the web (or do they and I'm missing out? :lol: :rolleyes: )

I'm sure all this sensor bashing will be a moot point in the future anyways, someone is always innovating somewhere. Read all the specs and go with your needs. If you don't like Canon/Sony/Nikon then go where you need to.

Bashing is pretty unproductive.

Just search for "50L + focus shift". You'll get lot's of "lens bashing". "Nifty fifty" will bring it out too. As well as any discussion of the original 24-70L. ;)


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ksbal
Goldmember
Avatar
2,745 posts
Gallery: 374 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 2398
Joined Sep 2010
Location: N.E. Kansas
     
Nov 12, 2014 09:54 |  #163

:D ;)


Godox/Flashpoint r2 system, plus some canon stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ksbal
Goldmember
Avatar
2,745 posts
Gallery: 374 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 2398
Joined Sep 2010
Location: N.E. Kansas
     
Nov 12, 2014 09:59 |  #164

Hogloff wrote in post #17267282 (external link)
I did, got an A7r for my landscape photography. Love it.

Now at least I don't need to defend Canon's 10 year sensor tech by saying I don't need that extra dynamic range because real prod never lift shadows. That is such a lame and totally false statement.

I'm glad you don't need to defend the sensor anymore. I loved the Sony A7 I had my hands on for a bit. Rocking camera for landscape. :)


Godox/Flashpoint r2 system, plus some canon stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,208 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6286
Joined Sep 2007
     
Nov 12, 2014 10:01 |  #165

nice backyard scatterbrained. I can see the rgnd effect I think. 1/3rd from the top right?


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

35,449 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 JohnBlackburn
2646 guests, 319 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.