Dynamic Range-Can't they or Won't they?

texshooter wrote in post #17719070
Switch to Nikon or wait for canon to catch up. Case closed.

Or just switch from expensive Nikon to Sony?

I'd just be scared of Sony as a long term player. Sony has some good history in video, but they haven't been a real player in stills. Sony is a grade B product in too many lines. I'd rather trust Fuji as an option to Canon or Nikon.

I just don't see going to a Sony mirrorless for my needs. While the A7IIr is supposed to have high MP, 4K video, and improved ISO (therefore more versatile then the 5DS), the AF is still hit or miss with different EF lenses. If you want fast AF with the A7, you need to get native lenses (and there's not much choice in fast aperture FE zooms). While working with D810 files, I find the main difference in DR is recovering shadows from underexposure. Since I first started with a 12bit Canon, I'm pretty used to figuring what exposure I need in camera. The extra MP and slightly better DR of the D810 isn't enough for me to sell all my gear to spend more on Nikon gear (never mind that also I prefer the Canon interface). It's not that the current Canon line-up is lousy...just as it's always been, there's technical pros and cons of both brands and you can get excellent images with either.

As for long term trends with Sony and Nikon....I think it will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years. Sony seems really focused on mirrorless, and for some professional applications, their still cameras are a very good option. Will Nikon still be using Sony sensors for the foreseeable future? Will a D900 have a backlit 42MP sensor? If so, then it will trounce the 5DSr for high ISO performance, but the 5DSr can have a slightly sharper image at low ISO (that seems to be the consensus review of the A7IIr vs 5DSr). Right now the push has been a MP race. Canon has demoed prototype sensors with insane MP and ISO capabilities....is 50MP enough, so that they can now focus on higher DR? We just have to wait and see!

texshooter wrote in post #17740413
This video demonstrates how god awful auto focusing is when you pair the Sony camera with Canon lenses. You can have your cake and eat it, but you'll need two cakes. So don't go selling your Canon DSLR just yet.

That video was posted (Sep10) using v 0.41 before Metabones updated the firmware specifically for the A7R2
0.43 was Sep18,
0.44 was Sep22 and
0.45 was Oct08.

Each update added more lenses and solved ongoing bugs - it's way better than that video (which I didn't watch) could have been because it used the older firmware.... Updating the adapter's firmware just needs a micro-USB cable and a PC/Mac
There's a long thread on FM covering the initial results and then improvements after the updates as they came out. Still, not all lenses work, so a switch might depend on your particular collection and if they are up to it, and how critical superfast AF or tracking are to your style of shooting. Many folks who want extra DR may well be happy with somewhat slower AF but like the benefits of the EVF.

texshooter wrote in post #17740413
This video demonstrates how god awful auto focusing is when you pair the Sony camera with Canon lenses. You can have your cake and eat it, but you'll need two cakes. So don't go selling your Canon DSLR just yet.

I actually shot an A7RII with the Metabones IV adapter (with the latest firmeware). I'd put it on par with a 5DII in decent light. In poor light you're better off manually focusing, but there is built in focus peaking. BTW, read my post, where I talk about using the Canon for "anything that moves".

Said it before and I'll say it again. DR is the most overrated argument in the world of amateur internet forum photographers. No pro sits around around studying DR specs on DxO and making their decisions based upon it. No pro shooting Canon is fretting because their camera has a whole stop less DR than a Nikon or Sony. Its almost as ridiculous as the megapixel wars of years past where people thought more megapixels clearly meant better quality photos, same with DR. The only people who should even be slightly concerned about this are pro landscape photographers being commissioned by art galleries to make huge prints for lots of money. I think pretty much no one here falls into that category, so just stop

dexter75 wrote in post #17741894
Said it before and I'll say it again. DR is the most overrated argument in the world of amateur internet forum photographers. No pro sits around around studying DR specs on DxO and making their decisions based upon it. No pro shooting Canon is fretting because their camera has a whole stop less DR than a Nikon or Sony. Its almost as ridiculous as the megapixel wars of years past where people thought more megapixels clearly meant better quality photos, same with DR. The only people who should even be slightly concerned about this are pro landscape photographers being commissioned by art galleries to make huge prints for lots of money. I think pretty much no one here falls into that category, so just stop

Considering the amount of people in the commercial sector who stuck with (or moved to ) medium format both for the resolution and the DR I think your argument, as usual, is dead in the water.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #17741924
Considering the amount of people in the commercial sector who stuck with (or moved to ) medium format both for the resolution and the DR I think your argument, as usual, is dead in the water.

Which people would these be? Please post statistics from a reputable source that shows this large amount of pro photographers leaving Canon for other formats because of the lack of resolution and DR. We will be waiting....Oh and Canon has a camera with more resolution than either Nikon or Sony by the way. The resolution rivals many MF cameras for 1/4 of the price. Thats no longer an issue.

dexter75 wrote in post #17741940
Which people would these be? Please post statistics from a reputable source that shows this large amount of pro photographers leaving Canon for other formats because of the lack of resolution and DR. We will be waiting....Oh and Canon has a camera with more resolution than either Nikon or Sony by the way. The resolution rivals many MF cameras for 1/4 of the price. Thats no longer an issue.

Dexter, your sounding like a broken record.

dexter75 wrote in post #17741894
Said it before and I'll say it again.

At this point I'd say yes, far too many times. You've been on this forum for a month and posted this kind of post repetitively.

You make open ended statements that are 100% your own opinion, call them fact, then challenge others to post up statistics to back up their own opinions.

Well? Where are your statistics to prove how few people need better DR?
"Please post statistics from a reputable source that shows this"

Right, they don't exist, so stop demanding the same of others.
You are welcome to post your opinions, let others do the same, or move on.

Medium format is not a replacement for a dslr package. Most pros have a few systems; I always had 35 slr, 35 rangefinder, medium format, and few 4x5/8x10 view cameras. It would be a sad life if all professions only had 1 tool each. I own an SUV and fun coupe and would never tell myself one sucked over the other. The right tool for the right job.

There's no way I'm junking a system I'm vested in for the feature flavor of the month. you're better off learning the tool you have like Nadal and a tennis racquet, Buy better glass-- it's always a better investment and will have more impact on an image than 1 stop of DR. Everything is a trade-off —it'll happen for Canon when it happens. They don't suck. sony has a much worse history of mediocre products. Canon might be slow, but they aren't brain dead.

mcluckie wrote in post #17742075
Medium format is not a replacement for a dslr package. Most pros have a few systems; I always had 35 slr, 35 rangefinder, medium format, and 4x5/8x10 view cameras. It would be a sad life if all professions only had 1 tool each.

Whoever said one was in exclusion of the other? I have a truck for hauling things, that doesn't mean I don't have a car.

It was in response to a post about people dumping dslr for medium. unless I read it wrong at 3am. I use both.

I have medium format, i have Sony, i even have film cameras including large format, but i never give up Canon, the only change is that before i was using Canon 100%, now i am suing Canon around 30-60%, say 50%, means it is still holding its value, unless one day i can see digital medium format that is smaller size and lightweight and very fast AF with also mirrorless cameras that has 1DX AF speed or even faster and many lenses then i may leave Canon completely [or just keep 10% which is to lenses only].

I had 7 Canon bodies, sold one and one is lost, and i am in plan of selling 3-4 more and keep only 1 or 2, so i am also moving to another system not completely for favor of DR and mp, Canon just released a high m camera not in the past, and now there are another options out there too not only Canon, i still have my medium format beating Canon newest mp in resolution and i had it since 5 years ago and now just Canon has that over 24mp camera? in all cases i don't depend on one system for everything and i will never do.

dexter75 wrote in post #17741894
Said it before and I'll say it again. DR is the most overrated argument in the world of amateur internet forum photographers. No pro sits around around studying DR specs on DxO and making their decisions based upon it. No pro shooting Canon is fretting because their camera has a whole stop less DR than a Nikon or Sony. Its almost as ridiculous as the megapixel wars of years past where people thought more megapixels clearly meant better quality photos, same with DR. The only people who should even be slightly concerned about this are pro landscape photographers being commissioned by art galleries to make huge prints for lots of money. I think pretty much no one here falls into that category, so just stop

Dexter has been taking some recent heat for his statements, but I think the one he makes above is on target! After all, pros shooting for any print media (advertising, company brochures, 10K reports, product literature) have to reduce the DR of a scene into a range which can be offset printed -- which is barely even 6EV of DR -- regardless of B+W vs. color transparency, this has always been a limitation! So then that raises a response from folks, "But if I can capture a wider DR, I can nevertheless compress it to fit my output". That raises the reaction that you hear from others, when HDR techniques have been applied to a shot, "It (HDR) looks artificial!".

That leads me to offer this challenging question, to hear the responses:

So if DR compression (e.g. HDR) results in artificial appearance, and our media (offset printed page, our monitors, even photographic prints) are inherently 'limited DR' media, just why is it so necessary to get any more than 12EV of DR than can be accomplished today (via Sony sensor)?!

Tareq wrote in post #17742142
I have medium format, i have Sony, i even have film cameras including large format, but i never give up Canon...

And I'll make a request of Tareg, who is uniquely outfitted to do this kind of comparison...
We hear that medium format digital has a very wide DR due to the difference in the sensor technology (CCD vs. CMOS). So...
Can you shoot a wide DR shot on both medium format and with existing Canon gear, and post any comparative sections from both which shows how the wider DR medium format shot results in any presentable (on monitor) detail which is NOT VISIBLE in the Canon shot?

I've found since upgrading from the 5Dc to 5D3, I did see an increase in exposure latitude. I could shoot an outdoor scene with bright light and shadows, and get a better range of contrast between white and black (that I could expose more to not clip as much highlights). Only an improvement in DR can contribute to this. If it were just getting a higher bit ADC, and not improvement in sensor, then you would have the same amount of blown highlights (areas of luminance of scene that were not recorded). DR and tone mapping (even a single RAW to 8bit jpeg) are going to be issues with the photographer for the foreseeable future. As DR and tonal range of RAWs improve, cameras will be able to record more areas of luminance. I have found situations where the scene has more luminance then what my camera can capture (situations where you either "compress" DR by adding a ND or "increase" by overlaying multiple exposures). How much DR and tonal range is acceptable? Certainly depends since there's so many different situations in the world. One thing is that it's certainly going to get more complicated soon as more TVs and monitors will be "HDR" (anything that's over 8bpc). It will make it more necessary to save your RAWs (so that in the least, they can be linearly converted to a higher bit depth). I'll also always shoot RAW. Even if we get "magical" cameras that can record 32bpc worth of data, I will still be shooting RAW. I like being able to adjust contrast range in different areas of the image (it was burning and dodging in the film era, and it's now adjusting gamma curves in the digital era).