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

ShadowHillsPhoto wrote in post #17885865
Until someone can prove otherwise, I'm going to posit that precisely zero photographers in the history of the world have ever lost or received a wedding or portrait gig because of a one or two stop difference in DR or slightly better/worse shadow detail between their camera and that of a competitor. None. Zero. Never happened.

That.....

nqjudo wrote in post #17886002
I hear what you are saying Charlie but the universal rule that better materials do not equate to better results still applies. I agree that there are many gear heads out there that produce fantastic images but what of the hordes of people with 50k of gear that don't have the portfolio to back it up? There is a simple truth in photography that a better camera doesn't make you a better photographer. There are people out there producing images with iPhones, polaroids and a whole slew of cheap 'lomography' cameras that many high end DSLR owners could never hope make.

As for a 'lacklustre' DR that argument is fine but it is only one that works on paper. For me an image is made of a nice shadows, mid-tones and highlights. My 5D3 is capable of producing that and then some. Personally when I look at some of the images coming from super high DR sensors I shake my head. All of a sudden everyone thinks just because they can lift all the detail from the shadows they should. The best images coming from, say, the newest Sony cameras aren't the ones that look like one frame HDR. They look very much like the shots I can take from any Canon body; there's a bit of mystery in the shadows. I suspect that this trend of puling every details out of the shadows will die off much like the surreal HDR fad.

To go back on your initial statement about high level gear heads producing fantastic work the opposite exists as well. There are some *extremely* high level shooters out there who have a fairly rudimentary understanding of how their cameras work. One of them happens to the the president of the Magnum Group, Alex Webb. He makes absolutely no secret of the fact that he cares little about the tech and prefers to have something small that he can fit in his pocket. Noise? Blur? Lack of DR? All part of the image and that attitude has brought him, I suspect, to a level that none of us here on POTN will ever attain. All of the sample images from the new Nikon and Canon bodies being circulated are good because they were taken by good photographers. A little noise isn't going to hurt them.

HDR is going away like grad filters are going away...... they're not. It's just a feather in your cap. Because one photographer doesnt care about it makes no bearing on how others will use it. It's not just about shadows BTW, sometimes you want to purposely underexpose to preserve skies, then pull back in post, rather than blowing out skies. Some like to use grads for that scenario, however, I think grads look funky when a person is in the foregound.....

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #17886010
Superb post. If shadow detail was always so important, why don't studio guys blast all shadows will fill lights, why don't landscape guys take all their shots with the light behind them and low in the sky to blast away all the shadows, why is portrait lighting like loop/rembrandt/split lighting so popular when there are so many shadows? A very small percentage of shooters will find a higher DR invaluable, and for them I'm sure it's a godsend, but for the average person, simply not an issue, and nothing to be concerned with, let alone hung up about. And as B&W guy, I actually LIKE shadows

fill light is quite important with studio shooting, hence the reason studio shooters have reflectors or using gigantic modifiers. They dont want to pull shadows if they dont need to. strobists highly manipulate shadows to their liking.

In a landscape photo, I cant use flash.

nqjudo wrote in post #17886002
As for a 'lacklustre' DR that argument is fine but it is only one that works on paper. For me an image is made of a nice shadows, mid-tones and highlights. My 5D3 is capable of producing that and then some. Personally when I look at some of the images coming from super high DR sensors I shake my head. All of a sudden everyone thinks just because they can lift all the detail from the shadows they should. The best images coming from, say, the newest Sony cameras aren't the ones that look like one frame HDR. They look very much like the shots I can take from any Canon body; there's a bit of mystery in the shadows. I suspect that this trend of puling every details out of the shadows will die off much like the surreal HDR fad.

I'm seeing this with users of lightroom now. They shoot stuff in shadows then pull up the shadows as if they wern't there in the first place. I've seen images with riders coming out of the sun with face and frontal body completely in shade, almost in total blackness and the photographer lifts the shadows and screws with the colours as well. That's not photographic skill it's simply a reliance on manufacturers of software/hardware to save their lack of skill.

Are some of you who demand this ever higher DR expecting that one day you'll shoot the wedding couple on the dance floor and all unlit areas will reveal all the wonderful details as if they were never in darkness in the first place? Where's the artistry and skill in that?

Then there's those who want to push a raw file five stops 'to test the new incarnation' from Canon ... what? Are you saying that you shoot five stops under then fix in post?

25000 plus iso at a wedding? Are all the guests walking around with torches to see with? Seems to me they would be

Come back Yervant with your video light and 40D shooting jpegs ... all is forgiven

Maybe not torches... sparkler exits?

shaunmcfd wrote in post #17847806
ISO 3,280,000 for when you need a shutter speed of 1/38,000.

Definitely for the sprayer and prayers

Charlie wrote in post #17886042
fill light is quite important with studio shooting, hence the reason studio shooters have reflectors or using gigantic modifiers. They dont want to pull shadows if they dont need to. strobists highly manipulate shadows to their liking.

In a landscape photo, I cant use flash.

You may want to re read my post, fill light is obviously important, but studio shooters don't routinely blast every shadow to remove all trace of them is my point, and I didn't say landscape shooters should use flash.

LincsRP wrote in post #17886058
25000 plus iso at a wedding? Are all the guests walking around with torches to see with? Seems to me they would be

Come back Yervant with your video light and 40D shooting jpegs ... all is forgiven

Taking a 70-200 without a flash and to stop motion, you will be at 1/400th or so. ISO 25600 is easily utilized if your reception hall has all dark paneling on the walls, and they use close to the ceiling incandescent lighting with a few sconces every 5 feet or so. They purposely bring the lighting down for mood and so that the DJ can show off his display on the dance floor.

ISO 12800 and 25600 can easily be needed for many receptions. It doesn't take much for you to push that ISO up. You are not going to carry around video lights to take pics of the guests at each of the tables, and flash sometimes can be used, but alot of times in such a dark environment you are just going to blind everyone even with the flash power turned down. I don't shoot alot of weddings, but the last 3 I did, I needed very, very high ISO.

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #17886010
Superb post. If shadow detail was always so important, why don't studio guys blast all shadows will fill lights, why don't landscape guys take all their shots with the light behind them and low in the sky to blast away all the shadows, why is portrait lighting like loop/rembrandt/split lighting so popular when there are so many shadows? A very small percentage of shooters will find a higher DR invaluable, and for them I'm sure it's a godsend, but for the average person, simply not an issue, and nothing to be concerned with, let alone hung up about. And as B&W guy, I actually LIKE shadows

How do you take a photo of a sunrise/sunset with the light behind you????

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #17886076
You may want to re read my post, fill light is obviously important, but studio shooters don't routinely blast every shadow to remove all trace of them is my point, and I didn't say landscape shooters should use flash.

if someone wants to remove all shadows, that's their prerogative.

here's an HDR thread https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17885172, you should let them know they're doing it all wrong

Somebloke wrote in post #17886096
How do you take a photo of a sunrise/sunset with the light behind you????

It's easy, you aim your lens in the opposite direction. Also, you're putting words in someone else's mouth

It's painfully obvious when there is a gap in what one shoots vs one's opinion about how others should shoot something they themselves don't.

On this topic of DR and how it can 'hurt' photographers, let me offer this historical perspective:

• No one will dispute the fact that the DR of film varied based upon emulsion type: DR B/W > DR colorneg > DR colortransparency
  
• I have not seen data supporting this, but likely that in the 'early days' of a film emulsion type, DR early in history < DR late in history.
  

Who gives an ef about DR? We're prob going to have it. I like DR. But I also like Canon Repair and Professional Services. Now I can get both. DR is an old topic. Let's move on.

Move onto what? DR was one of 3 major gaps that most likely initiated this post. DR, shadow noise recovery, and high ISO performance....

This thread will continue for quite some time, especially once the 1DX II hits the streets. Just unfollow the thread and check in about a month from now to see if it died off or headed into untold number of directions.

I am waiting for the thread that Canon is eating Nikon's Lunch based on the 1DX II release.

Wilt wrote in post #17886109
On this topic of DR and how it can 'hurt' photographers, let me offer this historical perspective:

• No one will dispute the fact that the DR of film varied based upon emulsion type: DR B/W > DR colorneg > DR colortransparency
  
• I have not seen data supporting this, but likely that in the 'early days' of a film emulsion type, DR early in history < DR late in history.
  

Are you contending that the earlier photographers in history were handicapped first via their choice to shoot a very low DR film like color slides, and that the photographers of the 1940s shooting early emulsions were less capable than the photographers of the 1990s shootig newer emulsions?! And Ansel Adams was great because he chose B&W as his emulsion type for his shooting? (but later in life if he shot color transparencies 'they sucked' by comparison because the DR was so much poorer? )

I'm saying times change, you wouldnt want a camera that could only shoot up to ISO 1600 right?

BTW, ansel and his dodging and burning, he'd definitely shoot a high dynamic range system these days!