gabebalazs wrote in post #16498092
You really want me to show test images of boring subjects to clients friends and family? Look grandma, how much better I can lift the shadows by 5 stops on the D800 as opposed to my 6D!
Like they're super interested in that stuff.
Again, it looks impressive to us, but not necessarily to everybody.
But what are you even doing in this thread if you don't care about extra dynamic range. That's like not caring about racing and then visit a racing thread and argue that you don't think a specific Indy car has a need for a specific spoiler design.
Real world images that I shoot for my clients or just as a hobby don't require to lift shadows by 4 stops. If they did, I screwed up big already when shooting them. Are they super happy? Yes. Would they be much happier if I shot those same images with a Nikon. Nope.
So . once more established that you don't care abour DR. So why spend time arguing the subject?
On the other hand, are there people who do require the best DR? Yes of course there are, but again I stand by my original post: the VAST majority of real people (not hardcore photographers) don't care about DR differences that exist between my 6D and a Nikon D600 for instance. I doubt that if I stopped 100 people in the street and showed them a photo of the Grand Canyon taken with a 6D and a D600, they would be able to tell the difference. THIS was exactly the gist of my original post.
1) The majority of asked people wouldn't know to debate DR. And they would not know what the difference is between a 6D and D600. So they could absolutely not know if a difference they see should be credited to the 6D or the D600. But they would be able to see the difference in the photos - unless the two photos are just straight-out-of-camera RAW->JPEG. Default conversions to JPEG will produce photos that are practically identical. But that just means that one camera has more details thrown away than the other, before they both ended up with a normalized output file.
The problem is that we here at the forum are often trying to force our own enthusiasm and detail-orientedness (is there such a word) onto regular folks. Sure, providing the best available quality is a good driving force but beyond a certain point it has diminishing returns.
I actually see the reverse. When the debate about the banding in the 5D2 was brought up, then a huge number of people started with:
1) It's underexposed. While proof showed that the highlights was all up to the clipping level.
2) You should have used a flash. While the scene was obviously impossible to cover with a flash.
3) You don't want such a photo. Which would be a totally irrelevant comment.
4) You're a bad photographer. Which is an even sillier response.
5) No camera can manage better - it isn't possible. While other cameras could already be shown to manage better.
6) I don't need more DR - which is irrelevant to people doing other types of photography.
7) Not visible in print - which may be correct in small prints but not at all in bigger prints.
8) You need to push soooo much to see the banding. Not true since the 5D2 banding can be seen without pushing anything at all, depending on print size and scene type.
No - a huge number of people feel a huge reason to defend their own gear, and aren't willing to accept that:
1) Gear have limitations. Just that some gear have way less limitations.
2) Canon gear isn't always the best.
3) Not all photography is similar.
4) Not all print larger sizes.
My friend and colleague plays Warhammer 40K. He's really into it and asked me a couple times to photograph his soldiers. He went into explaining it to me how delicate the painting process is, how this figure cost more than others etc. I felt a little embarrassed because I did not notice any difference, and to be honest felt bad that I couldn't appreciate what he was so enthusiastic about.
The guitar analogy was perfect by the way, as others have pointed out. Sorry that not everyone got it, maybe I should have brought up something more easily understandable. Oh, man if I stopped to have arguments about harmonics on my guitar compared to other guitars every time someone just can't hear the difference, I'd be very busy. And they would ask me why I spent $1500 more on my guitar as opposed to something cheaper which, to them, sounds the same.
But that analogy really is irrelevant. The difference is almost outside of hearing capability of people.
It is only relevant if you decide to debate default raw->jpeg, in which case all cameras have almost indentical transfer functions and ends up with almost identical jpeg output.
The DR difference that can be captured here is not even close to the limit of what humans can see. I asked you earlier - but you ignored my question: Are you saying that the two initial photos in this thread are so totally similar to each other that 100 people on the street would not be able to spot any difference? Think very carefully before you answer. Because the answer could be quite embarrasing...
If you stopped your failed debate line and just settled on the "do all people need extra dynamic range?" then the answer is simple. No - everyone doesn't need extra dynamic range. But don't you ever try to push the line that normal people can't spot the difference of edited photos from the two cameras. That's just a huge fail in analogy.
It's just a question of: is there a need for bringing in more shadow details or not when doing the edits. And if the answer is yes, then the difference is very much visible without people have any knowledge of the DR concept.
And before the argument continues, I'll put it in writing here, just like I did in my original post: YES, better DR is a good thing.
Just so nobody can tell me I'm saying the opposite.
The problem is that you are saying that people can't spot the difference unless they are experts. That's only true with default curves used in the jpeg transfer.
p.s. I tested my 6D yesterday, lifting very dark shadows by 4-5 stops and didn't see any banding. I guess that's good compared to what I'm hearing about the 5dII.
The 5D2 sometimes manages visible banding with zero lifting. The latest Canon sensors are better. But still falls way short of the Exmor sensor.