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

Mornnb wrote in post #15990550
Sure. Nikon is a much better choice for landscape and architecture. With the dynamic range and the famed 14-24mm.
I'm not about to switch boat just to gain dynamic range and the 14-24mm. Canon still rules for sports. And has the best standard zoom and best tele zoom.

You make it sound like Nikon can't shoot sports. When it comes to super teles, Nikon has the same glass and both camps have the high prices as well. $18K for Nikon's new 800 VR? Canon's 200-400 L at $11K? Need I say more?

jocau wrote in post #15989965
You can get the same amount of dynamic range with the 6D (or any other Canon DSLR) in a single shot. Google this: "Black Card Photography" (it only works with landscapes though).

Interesting technique, I haven't seen that one before, thanks

This issue is still (imo) largely overblown. Yes, there is a difference with Nikon's (sony's) sensors, but it's not that drastic in real world usage. With all the excellent NR software out there pushing shadows in any FF camera will yield very good results. I've shot scenes recently where I pushed the shadows a pretty good amount and still didn't see any noise at 100% (though there was some loss in color detail, not sure if the Nikon's have this problem or not since all anyone ever talks about is the noise).

Really though people should quit whining about it and just get out and shoot, it's a pretty well established fact that both Canon and Nikon make fantastic cameras, either brand will get you good results I stick with Canon because most of the people I know shoot Canon (I can borrow or loan lenses) and I think the ergonomics and build feel are much better than Nikon's DSLR's.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #15990779
Interesting technique, I haven't seen that one before, thanks

This issue is still (imo) largely overblown. Yes, there is a difference with Nikon's (sony's) sensors, but it's not that drastic in real world usage. With all the excellent NR software out there pushing shadows in any FF camera will yield very good results. I've shot scenes recently where I pushed the shadows a pretty good amount and still didn't see any noise at 100% (though there was some loss in color detail, not sure if the Nikon's have this problem or not since all anyone ever talks about is the noise).

Really though people should quit whining about it and just get out and shoot, it's a pretty well established fact that both Canon and Nikon make fantastic cameras, either brand will get you good results I stick with Canon because most of the people I know shoot Canon (I can borrow or loan lenses) and I think the ergonomics and build feel are much better than Nikon's DSLR's.

Have you had a chance to retouch D800 files next to 5dII or 5dIII files? If so you wouldn't likely be calling it "overblown". Of course, if you're happy with what you're getting out of your camera now then you're not hitting the limits so it's not an issue. For me it's quite an issue and I'd love to have the extra DR. Granted, 90% of my images are shot off of a tripod, so I'm not likely to fit in with the majority here.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #15990828
Have you had a chance to retouch D800 files next to 5dII or 5dIII files? If so you wouldn't likely be calling it "overblown". Of course, if you're happy with what you're getting out of your camera now then you're not hitting the limits so it's not an issue. For me it's quite an issue and I'd love to have the extra DR. Granted, 90% of my images are shot off of a tripod, so I'm not likely to fit in with the majority here.

+1

The Nikon is really in its own league when it comes to DR at low ISO. It is a night and day difference and certainly not 'overblown'.

Whether or not it matters to one's type of photography is subjective. For scapers DR is crucial. Oh and some people do demand more than just 'good'

kin2son wrote in post #15990850
+1

The Nikon is really in its own league when it comes to DR at low ISO. It is a night and day difference and certainly not 'overblown'.

What about Sony since it's a sensor made by Sony? Wouldn't twice the DR constitute the night and day difference?

Waldemar Sikorski wrote in post #15990990
What about Sony since it's a sensor made by Sony? Wouldn't twice the DR constitute the night and day difference?

And why couldn't Canon buy that sensor just as easily as Nikon can...

But Canon seems to be prioritising high ISO noise at the moment rather than dynamic range, as the 6D does beat even the D800 for high ISO noise.

kin2son wrote in post #15990850
+1

The Nikon is really in its own league when it comes to DR at low ISO. It is a night and day difference and certainly not 'overblown'.

Whether or not it matters to one's type of photography is subjective. For scapers DR is crucial. Oh and some people do demand more than just 'good'

Completely true, Sony's sensors have a 2 stop advantage over Canon for dynamic range. 2 stops! That is huge, that is the difference between a sunset landscape shot over water showing waves and showing darkness. We're not talking about a slight difference here, we're talking about a difference in photos a laymen could easily spot.

Waldemar Sikorski wrote in post #15990990
What about Sony since it's a sensor made by Sony? Wouldn't twice the DR constitute the night and day difference?

You're being pedantic.
Also note as you're a crop user, that this dynamic range advantage applies equally to crop cameras. The D7100 has 2 stops dynamic range advantage on the 7D too.
Dynamic range has little to do with sensor size and the 7D and 5D3 actually have exactly the same dynamic range, although that being said full frame sensors provide shadows with lower noise.

Mornnb wrote in post #15991044
And why couldn't Canon buy that sensor just as easily as Nikon can...

Because Canon are fixated on video, to the exclusion of all else it seems to me. As I've absolutely no interest in video I can see myself returning to Nikon if Canon insist on this head-in-the-sand approach to DR and noise advances.

Yes, I did say return to Nikon. I was lured away from them when the Canon Eos-3 appeared with its amazing eye-focusing.

Mornnb wrote in post #15991044
But Canon seems to be prioritising high ISO noise at the moment rather than dynamic range, as the 6D does beat even the D800 for high ISO noise.

Even high ISO, Nikon is on the same level. I posted earlier, when resized to 6d dimensions, Nikon is on par or even better than canon at high ISO. IMO, that's the correct way to compare rather than 100% pixels.

elitejp wrote in post #15990068
so like others have said there are workarounds for increasing dynamic range for a canon dslr however i would just prefer to skip the workarounds and start off with a cam that has better dynamic range to begin with. Not to mention any workrounds you can use for the canon you could also use for the nikon. When it comes to dynamic range Nikon is definitely ahead of Canon.

I prefer lenses in the first place. Nikon has no extreme macrolens (MP-E 65mm F/2.8), Nikon has no great TS-E lenses (meaning they are not as good as the Canon TS-E lenses), Nikon has no pancake lens, Nikon has no wide-angle lenses with IS, Nikon has no F/1.2 glass (at least not NEW). And I also believe that you can't use all of their glass (with AF) on their mirrorless cameras like you can with Canon (EF and EF-S lenses work fine on the EOS M). Not to speak of the bad ergonomics of Nikon cameras... Don't get me wrong though, I would also love to have more DR at low ISO but not at the expense of the things I mentioned in the last couple of sentences.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #15990779
Interesting technique, I haven't seen that one before, thanks

This issue is still (imo) largely overblown. Yes, there is a difference with Nikon's (sony's) sensors, but it's not that drastic in real world usage. With all the excellent NR software out there pushing shadows in any FF camera will yield very good results. I've shot scenes recently where I pushed the shadows a pretty good amount and still didn't see any noise at 100% (though there was some loss in color detail, not sure if the Nikon's have this problem or not since all anyone ever talks about is the noise).

Really though people should quit whining about it and just get out and shoot, it's a pretty well established fact that both Canon and Nikon make fantastic cameras, either brand will get you good results I stick with Canon because most of the people I know shoot Canon (I can borrow or loan lenses) and I think the ergonomics and build feel are much better than Nikon's DSLR's.

You're welcome. I didn't know about it either until I read it somewhere on this forum.

jocau wrote in post #15991129
I prefer lenses in the first place. Nikon has no extreme macrolens (MP-E 65mm F/2.8), Nikon has no great TS-E lenses (meaning they are not as good as the Canon TS-E lenses), Nikon has no pancake lens, Nikon has no wide-angle lenses with IS, Nikon has no F/1.2 glass (at least not NEW). And I also believe that you can't use all of their glass (with AF) on their mirrorless cameras like you can with Canon (EF and EF-S lenses work fine on the EOS M). Not to speak of the bad ergonomics of Nikon cameras... Don't get me wrong though, I would also love to have more DR at low ISO but not at the expense of the things I mentioned in the last couple of sentences.

I agree with this although a few points, who needs IS on a wide angle??
Also you missed that Nikon has no zooms that perform as well as the 24-70mm II and the 70-200mm IS II.
However, Canon has nothing close to the performance of Nikon's wide angle zoom. The 16-35mm F4 well out performs Canon's 17-40mm and 16-35mm and the 14-24mm blows away even Canon's wide angle primes. It is one of the best wide angles ever made and only the 15mm Zeiss is comparable. Which is on EF mount, but that's a $3000 lens.
See for landscapes, on Nikon you get both the best dynamic range and best wide angles, there's not much of an argument for Canon except for the TS-E lenses.

jocau wrote in post #15991129
I prefer lenses in the first place. Nikon has no extreme macrolens (MP-E 65mm F/2.8), Nikon has no great TS-E lenses (meaning they are not as good as the Canon TS-E lenses), Nikon has no pancake lens, Nikon has no wide-angle lenses with IS, Nikon has no F/1.2 glass (at least not NEW). And I also believe that you can't use all of their glass (with AF) on their mirrorless cameras like you can with Canon (EF and EF-S lenses work fine on the EOS M). Not to speak of the bad ergonomics of Nikon cameras... Don't get me wrong though, I would also love to have more DR at low ISO but not at the expense of the things I mentioned in the last couple of sentences.

You're welcome. I didn't know about it either until I read it somewhere on this forum.

I agree with Nikon not having certain features when it comes to glass but, it hasn't limited me in my shooting with Nikon. Nikon has a 70-200 f4 VR now.

Mornnb wrote in post #15991144
I agree with this although a few points, who needs IS on a wide angle??
Also you missed that Nikon has no zooms that perform as well as the 24-70mm II and the 70-200mm IS II.
However, Canon has nothing close to the performance of Nikon's wide angle zoom. The 14-24mm blows away even Canon's wide angle primes. It is one of the best wide angles ever made and only the 15mm Zeiss is comparable. Which is on EF mount, but that's a $3000 lens.
See for landscapes, on Nikon you get both the best dynamic range and best wide angles, there's not much of an argument for Canon except for the TS-E lenses.

Wide-angle lenses aren't only used for landscapes you know. When shooting indoors in the evening/at night, wide-angle lenses with IS might come in handy. You can use the 14-24mm on Canon by using an adapter, so no big deal. Another option would be Carl Zeiss like you mentioned. As for the zooms Nikon also has a very good 70-200mm F/2.8 lens (although it's a bit worse than the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II).

jdizzle wrote in post #15991150
I agree with Nikon not having certain features when it comes to glass but, it hasn't limited me in my shooting with Nikon. Nikon has a 70-200 f4 VR now.

Yeah, I know Nikon also has a 70-200mm F/4 now. But only a few years too late... Having such a broad range of lenses available gives you options. The fact that I don't own any of these lenses doesn't change a thing about that. I'm considering the 35mm F/2 IS though. And I also really like the MP-E 65mm. I did consider a switch to Nikon last Summer (so far I've played around with a D90, D3100, D5100, D7000 and D600). But after holding these cameras in my hands, the decision was easy. No Nikon for me since none of their cameras feel good in my hands...

jocau wrote in post #15991171
Wide-angle lenses aren't only used for landscapes you know. When shooting indoors in the evening/at night, wide-angle lenses with IS might come in handy.

Not really because on a wide angle you can shoot fine without IS at 1/30 or possibly even 1/20. The only reason you want IS on a wide angle is video, to help stabilise handheld video. And I assume this is the reason Canon introduced these lenses.

There are issues with that, lack of aperture control. Zeiss is really the best option.

The Canon 24-70mm II also out performs the Nikon 24-70mm, the Tamron 24-70mm sits between them in sharpness, though has the worst bokeh.
Canon might not be executing sensors well, but the lens team are doing a great job, if only they would give some attention to wide angles.

The point remains, with Nikon's dynamic range and wide angles, Nikon is really the obvious choice for landscape shooters.

jocau wrote in post #15991171
Wide-angle lenses aren't only used for landscapes you know. When shooting indoors in the evening/at night, wide-angle lenses with IS might come in handy. You can use the 14-24mm on Canon by using an adapter, so no big deal. Another option would be Carl Zeiss like you mentioned. As for the zooms Nikon also has a very good 70-200mm F/2.8 lens (although it's a bit worse than the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II).

Yeah, I know Nikon also has a 70-200mm F/4 now. But only a few years too late... Having such a broad range of lenses available gives you options. The fact that I don't own any of these lenses doesn't change a thing about that. I'm considering the 35mm F/2 IS though. And I also really like the MP-E 65mm. I did consider a switch to Nikon last Summer (so far I've played around with a D90, D3100, D5100, D7000 and D600). But after holding these cameras in my hands, the decision was easy. No Nikon for me since none of their cameras feel good in my hands...

Ergonomics is a big deal for some. I do like Canon ergonomics but, that can only go so far. I've grown accustomed to Nikon's layout that it has become second nature. I can still pick up a Canon and figure out the basic controls (M mode, ISO, SS, etc.).

Mornnb wrote in post #15991229
Not really because on a wide angle you can shoot fine without IS at 1/30 or possibly even 1/20. The only reason you want IS on a wide angle is video, to help stabilise handheld video. And I assume this is the reason Canon introduced these lenses.

There are issues with that, lack of aperture control. Zeiss is really the best option.

The Canon 24-70mm II also out performs the Nikon 24-70mm, the Tamron 24-70mm sits between them in sharpness, though has the worst bokeh.
Canon might not be executing sensors well, but the lens team are doing a great job, if only they would give some attention to wide angles.

The point remains, with Nikon's dynamic range and wide angles, Nikon is really the obvious choice for landscape shooters.

Agreed with Nikon sensors. The problem Canon has is that other brands are pulling ahead in sensor performance. It's time they wake up and smell the silicone!!