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 General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
Thread started 06 Jan 2016 (Wednesday) 21:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Nikon is Feeding Canon its lunch....and them some

 
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,024 posts
Gallery: 543 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1632
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Feb 27, 2016 17:29 |  #691

Alveric wrote in post #17915384 (external link)
Sometimes we don't want such detail visible at all. And this is a concern of mine: will having 'full' DR prevent us from taking shots such as silhouettes which rely on inky shadows for their success? I really don't want the camera seeing scenes as my eyes see them: the 'faults' and limitations of photographic equipment that frustrate so many are the very tools that some others find essential in their image making.

There will be no problem if the sensor initially records data that you don't want in the final image. You can always process it out again. You can't add it into the image if you didn't record it though.

Yes there are features that to me might be more important overall than improved DR, things like native mount lens choice, AF performance, and TTL flash systems all might make it on the list above improved DR, from what Canon offer now. If I can have it too great, you can never record too much information during the initial recording phase of making a photograph. The more information recorded the more options you have. Even if in the end you set some refetence point to use to convert the image into a single bit per pixel for the final output.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1056
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Feb 27, 2016 17:38 as a reply to  @ BigAl007's post |  #692
bannedPermanent ban

I'd rather have that control at the time of shooting. I find it easier to raise the shadows and their dim details in the RAW processor, if I want to, than to be tinkering with the software to hide them. Not a fan of burning/dodging.

Dunno, but speaking of software, I think it also depends on your RAW processor: whilst no RAW processor will put in data that was not recorded, some are better than others at bringing up data that is somehow diminished. I used to use Photomatix for many architectural shots, but ever since I switched to C1P, I don't think I've ever had to anymore. C1P's engine is so good that it brings out detail I couldn't have imagined my 5DII recorded; and all without the grungy looks.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
43,065 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3003
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Feb 27, 2016 17:45 |  #693

Copidosoma wrote in post #17915352 (external link)
The problem with your premise above is that we do compress the DR of our images to have them "properly" display in prints or on our computers..

No, I am not ignoring the print's inability to display the DR...it has always had that limitation compared to projected images.
But I am wondering why the compulsion for 14EV or more of DR when NEITHER the monitor nor the print can display it!...just asking


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
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
43,065 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3003
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 4 years ago by Wilt. (4 edits in all)
     
Feb 28, 2016 08:49 |  #694

BigAl007 wrote in post #17915435 (external link)
There will be no problem if the sensor initially records data that you don't want in the final image. You can always process it out again. You can't add it into the image if you didn't record it though.

Yes there are features that to me might be more important overall than improved DR, things like native mount lens choice, AF performance, and TTL flash systems all might make it on the list above improved DR, from what Canon offer now. If I can have it too great, you can never record too much information during the initial recording phase of making a photograph. The more information recorded the more options you have. Even if in the end you set some refetence point to use to convert the image into a single bit per pixel for the final output.

Alan

OK Alan, understand this point of view expressed. For general discussion...

1. It seems, however, that the emotion that is often compressed after HDR techniques have been applied to a scene is,
"This looks too artificial to me". In essence, the brain is not accustomed to seeing details across such a broad range of brightness, it is accustomed to the usual time requirements of the eyes to adjust to lower level lighting before the brain gets to integrate in the view of the scene with details in the darkest zones. So if our camera captures 14EV of detail, and we compress the range to fit within the limitations of our monitors, we seem to be applying HDR-like techniquies (albeit in a single shot rather than multiple shots composited), and running risk of the common "looks artificial" comments...arent's we?

2. And if I have a nice wide DR monitor (not the unaffordable $40K one!) to see a broader range than today, and I can apply less DR compression than today, to be able see the detail in the darkest zones of the scene on my monitor, I still have the problem that if I want to have a large print made for the wall to show off the impact, I then am unable to reproduce what I could see on the monitor. So what is the point of grabbing such a wide range to begin with...even with our more humble Canon sensor, we are already forced to compress the DR to print something so why do we need more DR from our sensor?


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
ImageMaker...
looks like I picked a bad week to give up halucinagens
Avatar
1,179 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 1024
Joined Dec 2015
Location: AZ-USA
Post edited over 4 years ago by ImageMaker.... (4 edits in all)
     
Feb 28, 2016 12:22 as a reply to  @ Wilt's post |  #695

Why? To a great degree it's marketing and hype. Getting people to part with their money on the newer better faster juicier tech spec. Gotta make the leap over the competition and bamb! More revenue. Me? I can't wait for that new film emulsion to come out that blows digital away... LoL.

Ever look at the loneliest product of all? - Toothpaste. It's forever new and improved - for the same reason. But we all are still subject to cavities... :-)

So, I'm eagerly awaiting for cameras to count each photon to be just sure. But then, we will still be talking noise. May the luminance be with us.

...now, how to fit all that juicy DR into a 256 color web page.


Nikons, Rolleiflexes, Elinchroms, Billinghams

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
brettjrob
Dr. Goodness PHD
Avatar
470 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Norman, OK USA
     
Feb 28, 2016 18:13 |  #696

There's no such thing as "too much" DR. Goodness. This is why, as a scientist and left-brained person, I find it so hard to stay engaged in the photography community sometimes. :-)

Your inky shadows will look just as inky SOOC with a superior Sony sensor. The only difference is that if you wish to lift the shadows in post, the result will be cleaner. If you don't want to do so, there will be no difference between cameras, at least that's directly attributable to the better sensor's lower noise floor.

Emotion and vision and composition and "it's the photographer, not the gear" are all legitimate components of making a great image. But the gear is another component that certainly matters, including the sensor. After about a decade owning and shooting Canon, I left for the Dark Side two years ago, and haven't regretted it once since. On the contrary, as someone who constantly shoots high DR outdoor scenes at low ISO, I still breathe a sigh of relief to this day every time I load a RAW file. The process of switching was absolutely painful, and it may not be worth it for everyone, of course.


Nikon D610, D5100
Samyang 14/2.8 | Nikon 18-35G, 24-85G VR, 70-200/4G VR

Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | skyinmotion.com (external link)
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
scorpio_e
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,402 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 259
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Pa
     
Feb 28, 2016 18:41 as a reply to  @ brettjrob's post |  #697

Who is the DR. Goodness you speak of ;)


www.steelcityphotograp​hy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ImageMaker...
looks like I picked a bad week to give up halucinagens
Avatar
1,179 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 1024
Joined Dec 2015
Location: AZ-USA
     
Feb 28, 2016 20:04 as a reply to  @ scorpio_e's post |  #698

Oh, Dr Goodness is the new POTN Phrenologist. :lol:


Nikons, Rolleiflexes, Elinchroms, Billinghams

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
markd61
Member
60 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Apr 2011
     
Feb 28, 2016 22:27 as a reply to  @ brettjrob's post |  #699

I agree about the usefulness of DR.

When shooting film, the importance of proper exposure was to ensure the preservation of the details one desired in the negative at the time of exposure.
THEN one decided at the time of printing what elements of the tonal scale one wished to record on the print.

If you didn't get it in the neg you did not have a chance to get it on the print.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
supfresh
Member
Avatar
222 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Jun 2013
     
Feb 29, 2016 14:29 |  #700

brettjrob wrote in post #17916941 (external link)
Your inky shadows will look just as inky SOOC with a superior Sony sensor. The only difference is that if you wish to lift the shadows in post, the result will be cleaner. If you don't want to do so, there will be no difference between cameras, at least that's directly attributable to the better sensor's lower noise floor.

This. I don't get why people are bickering back and forth about the two sides, they are both valid. Photographers can decide if they need tools that allow a more flexible and forgiving dynamic range to save shots or open up potential to more creative elements (such as low light, shooting in bright daylight, etc) or people can be pro-getting it right SOOC.

But myself, some weddings are entirely run and gun, no matter how much planning and scheduling you're given. Sometimes you just have to get that shot, and don't have the time to whip out the flash and diffuser to get a properly exposed and flattering image in sunny daylight. Sometimes I just want to underexpose and bring shadows up to avoid any harsh highlights/shadow fall off if I DIDNT have that DR.

But either way, the fact of the matter is Canon IS behind in tech, and that's just plain truth. Does this mean my photos are going to get worse? No, I can still take the same images. I still know all my tricks and techniques, it doesn't matter what camera I have, sure. But could it be easier to get a certain look if I had more DR? Probably.

TL;DR - DR is cool, I'd love it but doesn't take away that technique reigns all but for the sake of the simple topic argument, Canon is falling behind.


Wedding (external link) - Facebook (external link)- Personal (external link)
5DMKIII / A7RII/ RICOHGR / 50L / 24-70L II/ 70-200 2.8 VC / 35A / 16-35L II / S85
Always some lens, never your lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,838 posts
Likes: 251
Joined Oct 2014
Post edited over 4 years ago by idkdc.
     
Feb 29, 2016 14:32 |  #701

supfresh wrote in post #17917987 (external link)
Canon is falling behind.

had fallen behind in DR, just one aspect of the camera business.


Nikon Z7 / D850 | Canon C200 / 1DXII | Fujifilm XT2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
15,082 posts
Gallery: 165 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 5170
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited over 4 years ago by Tom Reichner.
     
Feb 29, 2016 14:34 |  #702

.

supfresh wrote in post #17917987 (external link)
But either way, the fact of the matter is Canon IS behind in tech, and that's just plain truth.

Canon is falling behind.

They are currently falling behind? That is an interesting statement because it seems to run counter to most of what I have been reading ever since the new 1Dx2 was announced.
Is there something that makes you think that Canon is still falling behind, despite the alleged much-improved DR of the 1Dx2?

.

supfresh wrote in post #17917987 (external link)
Canon is falling behind.

idkdc wrote in post #17917991 (external link)
has fallen behind in DR.....

Perhaps had fallen behind would be the more accurate way of expressing this.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
supfresh
Member
Avatar
222 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Jun 2013
     
Feb 29, 2016 14:37 |  #703

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17917996 (external link)
.

despite the alleged
.

You answered it yourself..


Wedding (external link) - Facebook (external link)- Personal (external link)
5DMKIII / A7RII/ RICOHGR / 50L / 24-70L II/ 70-200 2.8 VC / 35A / 16-35L II / S85
Always some lens, never your lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,838 posts
Likes: 251
Joined Oct 2014
     
Feb 29, 2016 14:40 |  #704

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17917996 (external link)
.

They are currently falling behind? That is an interesting statement because it seems to run counter to most of what I have been reading ever since the new 1Dx2 was announced.
Is there something that makes you think that Canon is still falling behind, despite the alleged much-improved DR of the 1Dx2?

.

Perhaps had fallen behind would be the more accurate way of expressing this.

.

Whoops, meant to type had.


Nikon Z7 / D850 | Canon C200 / 1DXII | Fujifilm XT2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,838 posts
Likes: 251
Joined Oct 2014
Post edited over 4 years ago by idkdc. (2 edits in all)
     
Feb 29, 2016 14:44 as a reply to  @ supfresh's post |  #705

I can't wait for the 1DX II to ship so everyone can st*u about DR. :D


Nikon Z7 / D850 | Canon C200 / 1DXII | Fujifilm XT2

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

97,181 views & 414 likes for this thread
Nikon is Feeding Canon its lunch....and them some
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
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 zev
841 guests, 322 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.