6D and D600: The real issue with dynamic range?

Scatterbrained wrote in post #15999104
Here's a screengrab of a shot from a D800 pushed 5 stops (you push to increase and pull to decrease exposure ) It was part of an HDR sequence and I decided to see just what could be done with it. The image is easily clean enough to print.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

That's very nice, I think I've seen this before somewhere.

However, what's the point of this single image other than demonstration?

1.) If you're taking just a single photo, you'd definitely expose differently (I presume. I would).

2.) If it was a part of an HDR sequence, like you mentioned, then you also have several other images to combine this with to create a true HDR image. So then, again, you wouldn't use this single one to push shadows 5 stops, right?

So, maybe I'm missing something but I just can't see how this image would/could be taken like this in real world.

gabebalazs wrote in post #15999131
That's very nice, I think I've seen this before somewhere.

However, what's the point of this single image other than demonstration?

1.) If you're taking just a single photo, you'd definitely expose differently (I presume. I would).

2.) If it was a part of an HDR sequence, like you mentioned, then you also have several other images to combine this with to create a true HDR image. So then, again, you wouldn't use this single one to push shadows 5 stops, right?

So, maybe I'm missing something but I just can't see how this image would/could be taken like this in real world.

You're a stubborn fella. I don't think I'll continue dancing in circles with you. I'm so glad that I'm not stuck with one camera brand.

jdizzle wrote in post #15999139
You're a stubborn fella. I don't think I'll continue dancing in circles with you.

No, it's just no one has answered my question yet.

Again, I'm way beyond 6D vs. D whateverhundred in this discussion. What's the point of pushing a single image 5 stops other than demonstration. I guess deriving HDR from a single image, but maybe I'm wrong.

To sort of end this civilized discussion on my part, I do agree and accept (like I've mentioned before) that we all have different needs.
I rarely shoot landscape and I don't consider myself good at it (even though, probably by some accident, last year I made it into Popular Photograhy).
Most of the shots I take are ISO800 and above. Wildlife action at dawn, dusk, indoor events, etc. So basically DR differences between 6D and Nikons don't apply to me too much, since they are equal around ISO 1250, then the 6D pulls ahead a bit (not that it matters).

It's just I didn't get and still don't get why I'd need 5 stops of pushing shadows in one single image, since I can't think like other photographers who for some reason do. But it's my mistake, I think since I don't see the need for that in real world in what I shoot, it's logical that I don't get it.

gabebalazs wrote in post #15999140

No, it's just no one has answered my question yet.

Again, I'm way beyond 6D vs. D whateverhundred in this discussion. What's the point of pushing a single image 5 stops other than demonstration. I guess deriving HDR from a single image, but maybe I'm wrong.

Tbh, I've printed my sample in this post for shirts and giggles. It turned out just fine. I did not see any artifact at all. Banding is very unflattering when it shows up in a large print. Pulling that much detail in a single image is big feat imo. Especially, when the D800/E's sensor has been compared to Phase One's IQ160. It might not impress you but, recovery like this is a leap for sensor technology. Something I hope Canon will realize someday.

jdizzle wrote in post #15999184
Tbh, I've printed my sample in this post for shirts and giggles. It turned out just fine. I did not see any artifact at all. Banding is very unflattering when it shows up in a large print. Pulling that much detail in a single image is big feat imo. Especially, when the D800/E's sensor has been compared to Phase One's IQ160. It might not impress you but, recovery like this is a leap for sensor technology. Something I hope Canon will realize someday.

Oh, it does impress me, don't get me wrong. A few posts up I even said that if I started out today, I'd probably go Nikon, and in another post I said I wouldn't mind seeing the recent Sony sensors in my Canon bodies. It's a fact they are ahead these days.
But again, I just probably don't see the real practical application of that big feat I guess, regardless of camera or sensor, for reasons I've stated (drastic pushing of shadows in a single image vs. why not take multiple exposures?). It's certainly good to know it is capable of that, but in my photography I haven't experienced the need for that.

I almost didn't get this shot:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tltichy/8938861​158/

gabebalazs wrote in post #15999179
To sort of end this civilized discussion on my part, I do agree and accept (like I've mentioned before) that we all have different needs.
I rarely shoot landscape and I don't consider myself good at it (even though, probably by some accident, last year I made it into Popular Photograhy).
Most of the shots I take are ISO800 and above. Wildlife action at dawn, dusk, indoor events, etc. So basically DR differences between 6D and Nikons don't apply to me too much, since they are equal around ISO 1250, then the 6D pulls ahead a bit (not that it matters).

It's just I didn't get and still don't get why I'd need 5 stops of pushing shadows in one single image, since I can't think like other photographers who for some reason do. But it's my mistake, I think since I don't see the need for that in real world in what I shoot, it's logical that I don't get it.

Because I love shooting landscapes DR is very important to me, almost at all of my photos I need a higher DR (and not only in the shadows )
I dont really like to blend exposure and create HDR, it takes some time and the results not always are natural.
If I had that sony sensor it would be much easier for me to get more natural results with less effort.
BTW - Im a canon shooter and im going to upgrade to the 6D in the near future.

Did this conversation play out in 5dmkIII vs D800?

Before anyone jumps all over me or this test I already know the 5d2 doesn't have the DR of the D800 (two stops less 100-800 ISO). However, I wanted to see if I could pull 5 stops.I think it has a lot more to give than just 5 stops, but have yet to test.

I thought it did well. If you look at the lower portion of the fence, there is ISO banding (Known 5d2 and Canon issue).

Before:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Meh, the noise in that image, even at web resolution, kills it for me.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #15999771
Meh, the noise in that image, even at web resolution, kills it for me.

Didn't do anything to try to clean up the banding or noise (ISO 200). It is what it is. Certainly many will reject the resuts, and understandably so, and you couldn't create or sell a poster from this image.

I could probably try 50 ISO, and see what turns out. Maybe try some noise reduction, and post a 100% crop of a dark shadow area.

davidc502 wrote in post #15999786
Didn't do anything to try to clean up the banding or noise (ISO 200). It is what it is. Certainly many will reject the resuts, and understandibly so, and you couldn't create a poster from this image.

I could probably try 50 ISO, and see what turns out. Maybe try some noise reduction, and post a 100% crop of a dark shadow area.

Iso 50 is just iso 100 pulled down a stop in the camera so I don't see how the results would get any better.

davidc502 wrote in post #15999786
Didn't do anything to try to clean up the banding or noise (ISO 200). It is what it is. Certainly many will reject the resuts, and understandably so, and you couldn't create or sell a poster from this image.

I could probably try 50 ISO, and see what turns out. Maybe try some noise reduction, and post a 100% crop of a dark shadow area.

ISO 50 has the same DR as ISO 100. And that shot isnt useable.

I'd bet someone could do better than Paint Shop Pro X4 can do.

Here's the RAW if anyone wants to fool with it, and perhaps post the results.

Zipped RAW link.

http://home.comcast.ne​t/~davidc502/Canon/IMG​_4367.zip