Dynamic Range Question

C

ChrisWilsonEos

Suspended / Banned
Messages
16
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello,

I'm looking for a bit of advice regarding a cameras dynamic range.

I've been photographing for about a year now, starting out with a canon 1200d, I've now moved on to a 60d. I really only photograph landscape, mainly sunset/rise etc... So I do tend to pull detail from the shadows and highlights.

later in the year I'll be upgrading to full frame, and the 6d seemed to be my best option, however I've noticed that the Nikon range have far greater dynamic range than Canon, is this important when choosing my next camera? Would it make a visible difference to have the extra 3-4 "bits"?

I've struggled to find any actual photo comparison that can help me decide.

thanks in advance
Chris.
 
I never thought I'd say this...

If I were starting out now, I'd buy a Nikon. I've shot Canon for 15 years, for most of that time Nikon and Canon have been neck and neck, but lately Nikon have just been pulling further and further in front when it comes to Sensor tech. Buying in from Sony was the smartest business decision they ever made.
 
Phil V said:
I never thought I'd say this...

If I were starting out now, I'd buy a Nikon. I've shot Canon for 15 years, for most of that time Nikon and Canon have been neck and neck, but lately Nikon have just been pulling further and further in front when it comes to Sensor tech. Buying in from Sony was the smartest business decision they ever made.
Click to expand...


Must. Not. Gloat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
If starting now... I'd go mirrorless... or I'd at least get something that could shoot live view with an in view histogram and here's why...

I did a lot of comparison shots between my first generation Panasonic G1 and my 5D (the original one...) and although the G1 has less DR than the 5D (I don't know the figures but I'm sure it does) I actually found it easier to get the shot first time in difficult conditions with the G1 when using the in view histogram. When shooting with the G1 I could see the histogram in view and expose as far to the right as possible and if necessary boost the shadows post capture and I found that at low ISO's the G1 files can be pushed quite a bit. With the 5D I'd have to guess, check the result and if necessary dial in compensation and take the shot again, and again if necessary.

These days my G1 does still see some use as I like it but my Sony A7 definitely produces nicer files and has greater DR and also has the benefit of having an in view histogram.

As Phil above if buying into a DSLR system today I'd choose Nikon but to be honest I'd need a gun to my head to go that way and left to my own devices I'd choose a CSC and at the moment I believe that the Sony A7 series offers the best potential image quality. It could be argued that it's an immature system and has more bodies than native lenses but the lenses are coming and before they're here there's a huge number which can be used via the appropriate adapter.

I suppose that another reason to go CSC is focus. AF will focus on something and it'll do it quickly but with a CSC you can call up a magnified view and focus on exactly what you want to focus on. Of course you need time to manually focus accurately but when doing landscape photography maybe time isn't that much of an issue?

Just points to think about.
 
Another reason to go mirrorless (I haven't yet) is that the short flange distance makes a vast array of lenses accessible through adapters. The quality of the results is debated, but there's definitely a lot of fun to be had.
 
thanks for the detailed reply, I have been considering the a7 too, and heard exactly the same quote that it produces a better file to work with... Do you think the larger DR has something to do with it? By that I mean it should collect more usable info and will actually give you more room for error?

I'm just trying to work out whether the extra range is going to help.
 
I'm not qualified to answer this question because I mainly use film; but my experience with the Olympus E3 and the Sony a7r is that the 4/3 E3 almost always blows highlights, and the full frame a7r doesn't. The best dynamic range is apparently on the a7s, which also has the lowest megapixel count. The DXO site gives dynamic range figures for cameras which you could use as a guide.

Edit to add: with reference to Dave's post above, the a7r which I've been using is actually my wife's, but I've not used the Zeiss 24-70 lens after the first few times. I now use OM lenses on it, and for my purposes get better results.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
I never thought I'd say this...

If I were starting out now, I'd buy a Nikon. I've shot Canon for 15 years, for most of that time Nikon and Canon have been neck and neck, but lately Nikon have just been pulling further and further in front when it comes to Sensor tech. Buying in from Sony was the smartest business decision they ever made.
Click to expand...
I have to agree and it's bloody annoying !!
 
ChrisWilsonEos said:
thanks for the detailed reply, I have been considering the a7 too, and heard exactly the same quote that it produces a better file to work with... Do you think the larger DR has something to do with it? By that I mean it should collect more usable info and will actually give you more room for error?

I'm just trying to work out whether the extra range is going to help.
Click to expand...

Very probably :D but maybe DR isn't the whole story? I'd be easily convinced that it isn't and that the nice files are the result of combination of factors.

As mentioned by Stephen the A7S possibly leads the way in DR at the moment and I read somewhere recently that it's the best selling A7 series camera. Some would bemoan the lack of resolution and that is something to think about but personally I'd probably have bought the A7S if it had come out at the same time as the A7 and A7R as I never wanted more than 12mp when I had my 5D. As it was I had the choice of the A7 and the A7R and I went for the A7 because I didn't think that I needed the resolution of the A7R and by a happy coincidence I think I made the right choice as I now rather like shooting with the electronic first curtain shutter and not having my hard drive quite as clogged as it would be if I'd gone for the A7R.

The A7II is out now and it has in body image stabilisation and I think that that would be a very nice thing to have. There may be a A7RII and A7SII along sometime so if going this way decisions need to be made. Do you go for resolution or a smaller mp count with possibly larger DR?

Personally I'd go for the A7II or A7SII if it comes out.
 
Last edited:
dave.hallett said:
Another reason to go mirrorless (I haven't yet) is that the short flange distance makes a vast array of lenses accessible through adapters. The quality of the results is debated, but there's definitely a lot of fun to be had.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons I bought the A7 was to use old lenses on but I have to warn anyone interested in doing this.... it's addictive! :D

I have Minolta "MD", Olympus Zuiko and Canon FD lenses and I do like using them via Novoflex adapters. I only have two native lenses but I may buy more. I currently have the 28-70mm kit lens and the 55mm f1.8 which does look to be a very good lens.
 
I'll admit that having all my old OM lenses available for the cost of a £30 adapter was a consideration when we actually bought the a7r; plus the size and weight. It's about the same size as the OM cameras, and vastly different to DSLRs. As well as the OM lenses, we also have Pentax, Canon and Minolta lenses.

On the original question, greater ability to capture a long tonal range is a major asset for landscape photography. It's the reason people put up with the deficiencies of graduated ND filters (or merge exposures) to achieve it.
 
Phil V said:
I never thought I'd say this...

If I were starting out now, I'd buy a Nikon. I've shot Canon for 15 years, for most of that time Nikon and Canon have been neck and neck, but lately Nikon have just been pulling further and further in front when it comes to Sensor tech. Buying in from Sony was the smartest business decision they ever made.
Click to expand...

I'm feeling this more and more. I especially get this feeling that skin tones are better on Nikon after comparing my 5D2 with a D3 on a recent shoot.
 
Phil V said:
I never thought I'd say this...

If I were starting out now, I'd buy a Nikon. I've shot Canon for 15 years, for most of that time Nikon and Canon have been neck and neck, but lately Nikon have just been pulling further and further in front when it comes to Sensor tech. Buying in from Sony was the smartest business decision they ever made.
Click to expand...

Copied for all eternity :D

boyfalldown said:
Must. Not. Gloat.
Click to expand...

Why not ??? I'm GLOATING :banana::banana::banana:

Dave
 
Facts are facts.
I wouldn't go wholesale down the route of 'better cameras' or 'better lenses' but on the simple measure of DR and sensor tech, Canon are behind.
 
thanks for the replies, with out getting into the old "Vs" argument, would I be better off getting something like the A7 over the canon 6d or the 5d mk2? Does the extra DR of the A7 make it more worthwhile for landscape photography?
 
^^ I would say yes, indeed I cannot see any reason to choose a camera with a sensor which by modern standards has poor dynamic range when yoir shooting primarily landscapes.
 
ChrisWilsonEos said:
thanks for the replies, with out getting into the old "Vs" argument, would I be better off getting something like the A7 over the canon 6d or the 5d mk2? Does the extra DR of the A7 make it more worthwhile for landscape photography?
Click to expand...

If you need to ask are you fully getting the best results out of what you do have?
 
ST4 said:
If you need to ask are you fully getting the best results out of what you do have?
Click to expand...

I'm sure I'm not, but maybe that's another bonus of a wide DR, if I don't expose correctly, it gives me a bit more of a margin for error.
 
Phil V said:
Facts are facts.
I wouldn't go wholesale down the route of 'better cameras' or 'better lenses' but on the simple measure of DR and sensor tech, Canon are behind.
Click to expand...


The other mans grass and all that

i know you did say...if you where starting out now....

its swapping I think is silly.. no sooner have you lost thousands swapping from one to another... then camera A brings out somehting better than B and you want to swap back..... I ahve seen sports shooters go backward and forward.. makes me laugh :)
 
KIPAX said:
The other mans grass and all that

i know you did say...if you where starting out now....

its swapping I think is silly.. no sooner have you lost thousands swapping from one to another... then camera A brings out somehting better than B and you want to swap back..... I ahve seen sports shooters go backward and forward.. makes me laugh :)
Click to expand...
I've no intention of swapping. ;)
 
Phil V said:
I've no intention of swapping. ;)
Click to expand...

Sit tight Phil. These things tend to ebb and flow between Canon and Nikon, or Sony whoever, but Canon has been number one for decades and still is (in sales). I think Canon believes it has market leading sensor tech over the longer run, and crucially, that now includes phase-detect AF pixels*. We'll find out in the next year or two :)

*I wonder if that also includes sensor-switching, and sometime soon we'll see a fully solid-state camera - not just mirrorless, but shutterless too :thumbs:
 
HoppyUK said:
*I wonder if that also includes sensor-switching, and sometime soon we'll see a fully solid-state camera - not just mirrorless, but shutterless too (y)
Click to expand...

Haven't we already got electronic shutter in quite a few cameras now? I own one which appears to have it.
 
KIPAX said:
its swapping I think is silly.. no sooner have you lost thousands swapping from one to another... then camera A brings out something better than B and you want to swap back..... I have seen sports shooters go backward and forward.. makes me laugh :)
Click to expand...

But those who do keep swapping become a target market for the manufacturers, forcing them to continually improve and innovate, to try and get one step ahead of their rivals.

Which means we get better kit to play with when we upgrade without swapping :)

So I say :clap: to those who switch, you're helping making things better :D
 
woof woof said:
Haven't we already got electronic shutter in quite a few cameras now? I own one which appears to have it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have too (Nikon-1) and electronic first-curtain is quite common in DSLRs, but they all have mechanical shutters too.

What we don't have yet is a fully electronic global (not scanning) shutter, and no need for any mechanical shutter. Smaller, lighter, cheaper cameras with no x-sync issues (y) The carrot for manufacturers is getting rid of the costly mechanical shutter.
 
HoppyUK said:
Sit tight Phil. These things tend to ebb and flow between Canon and Nikon, or Sony whoever, but Canon has been number one for decades and still is (in sales). I think Canon believes it has market leading sensor tech over the longer run, and crucially, that now includes phase-detect AF pixels*. We'll find out in the next year or two :)

*I wonder if that also includes sensor-switching, and sometime soon we'll see a fully solid-state camera - not just mirrorless, but shutterless too :thumbs:
Click to expand...
In many areas I still think Canon hold the better technology.
But on the issue of DR and noise, only the FF models are keeping close to the Sony sensors.
Unfortunately for me, that's quite an important point for the kind of work I do.
The better focussing on sensor won't help me, I already have an AF system that's brilliant for my needs. Electronic shutters are interesting to me. But I don't think Canon will have them exclusively.

I'd also like to see a 'better' mirror less camera, and if I'm having s wish list a Canon version of the retro slr with knobs on.
 
@chris, one thing you haven't mentioned is whether you shoot jpegs or raw. Whatever camera you decide on, shooting raw is the best way of extracting the maximum dynamic range from your camera. Also, avoid setting any additional picture control enhancements such as Vivid. Stick to Neutral or your camera's equivalent and do any adjustments in post processing.
As for switching brands, only you can decide whether your current investment in lenses is sufficiently prohibitive. But be aware that as a relatively new shooter, you may well get the wildlife bug and start snapping birds or bugs in flight, or start going to sporting events, for which the latest Canons are rather good.
 
Last edited:
ChrisWilsonEos said:
thanks for the replies, with out getting into the old "Vs" argument, would I be better off getting something like the A7 over the canon 6d or the 5d mk2? Does the extra DR of the A7 make it more worthwhile for landscape photography?
Click to expand...

Not on Dynamic range alone it doesn't, there's much more to it than that. I had an A7R. I shoot landscapes. I no longer have an A7R, didn't even keep it a year. I ended up hating it. Don't get me wrong, it produced some fantastic images for me, but it never really sparkled. As soon as I picked up it's replacement the Fuji XT1 the images instantly had the feel I was after. I was always having to really work at the PP with the Sony, it never seemed to just do what I wanted. I'm now using the out of camera JPEGs from my Fuji, it's that much better FOR ME.

Before the Sony I had another Fuji - an S5 which when used in RAW has dynamic range equal to or better than the Sony. The flipside is a low resolution sensor that isn't really suited to landscapes, but if you're not printing big it takes some serious beating as it's got the colour and the dynamic range to deliver.

You may want to have a browse through these two flickr albums of mine, both in Dinorwig quarry. One is entirely A7R and a variety of lenses and the other from the S5.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/darkandindustrial/sets/72157638447815913/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/darkandindustrial/sets/72157635453521097/

There is also a third album from the XT1 again at Dinorwig but it is as yet not very extensive as I have only done a handful of short visits, and the majority of pics are the from my very first try using the camera so the overall styling is a bit mismatched.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/darkandindustrial/sets/72157644731375839

For what it's worth, I've always thought Canon have been getting it very right for Landscape. Nothing else delivers the same colour palette, not even my beloved Fuji!
 
CanonRumours (I know, I know) seem to think that there's a high resolution 50mp camera coming in March. If it happens, it will reveal a lot of where Canon are going to be sensor-wise in the next few years. The D800 will have been on sale for three years by that point, and Sony's Exmoor technology is the byword for the best. Canon won't finally release a camera to answer the Nikon & Sony high-resolution offerings without throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it. Will it feel like a revolutionary step for them or just more pixels crammed in to the otherwise same sensor tech?
 
And when they reach 50Mp will that be it?

No, Phase already way in excess of that and are heading towards the century, but at what price! If you are a top fashion photog or similar published snapper, then the figures stack up, but for everyone else it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Of course, it is possible to function on a lot less and more importantly the eye and knowledge of the grey matter behind the shutter is what actually see and capture the image.
 
If they do release a 50MP camera, it's going to be their 'flagship' sensor for a few years. So if they've got any major sensor technology changes in the pipeline, they're going to feature on that sensor and the camera will have been delayed to allow the sensor technology to reach the required maturity. Or it could be a reheated 7DII sensor scaled up to full frame (which would work out as 51mp). If it is the latter, I wouldn't expect anything revolutionary for a while, and Nikon-sony will remain the DR, low ISO noise leaders.
 
At last! 50Mp. The prices of hard disks and SSDs have been falling faster than we can fill them.
 
ianp5a said:
At last! 50Mp. The prices of hard disks and SSDs have been falling faster than we can fill them.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself! I have no problem.

On Alan's post above, I've looked at the two galleries, and agree about the differences. The Sony has a cooler colour balance and the black and whites are far too soot and whitewash for my tastes. On the other hand, that isn't my experience with the a7r that I use, and I'd happily use it for colour landscapes (landscape and architecture are my preferred subjects, but I don't normally use colour). I just ran a quick test, and found it ridiculously easy to warm up a a7r photo. I'm one of those people who regard fine detail as an essential technical attribute in a normal landscape (I'm assuming artistic merit goes without saying) and for that reason I'm happy with a a7r - detail can't be faked afterwards. Although it is possible to make multiple exposures and merge them (like a panorama, but merging up and down as well as left and right) to produce a fantastically detailed image with a lower megapixel camera. There are always way round technical limitations if you're prepared to make the effort and find them. At my age though, having fewer limitations is the way I prefer to go.

And one man's limitation isn't necessarily the same as the next man's; in fact it could even be a strength to a different person's way of working.
 
eccles said:
@chris, one thing you haven't mentioned is whether you shoot jpegs or raw. Whatever camera you decide on, shooting raw is the best way of extracting the maximum dynamic range from your camera. Also, avoid setting any additional picture control enhancements such as Vivid. Stick to Neutral or your camera's equivalent and do any adjustments in post processing.
As for switching brands, only you can decide whether your current investment in lenses is sufficiently prohibitive. But be aware that as a relatively new shooter, you may well get the wildlife bug and start snapping birds or bugs in flight, or start going to sporting events, for which the latest Canons are rather good.
Click to expand...


yeah I shoot in raw and do my editing in Lr5, the reason I started this thread really was that I know I can open up the shadows and bring down the highlights to try and even the exposure, but it never looks natural when you have to do it so much. I've started to meter on the sky for example, and then shoot again metered on the darker area and blend the two images using photoshop, basically just replacing the sky. But that too can be difficult when you have something in the foreground that breaks the hozizon... So that brings me to the DR predicament I'm in, ideally id like to shoot once and have enough DR to open up the image.
 
Get a Nikon d800! Best landscape body I've ever come accross! Just budget for a new PC !



Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums

Nikon d7100 and loads of the wife knows not what it all cost!
 
Do you use grad filters? If so which ones?


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums

Nikon d7100 and loads of the wife knows not what it all cost!
 
I use Hoya circular ones, always worried with hard grads that they cut through objects in the foreground that break the skyline... How do you guys get around that?
 
i use soft grads and hard ones....... only use hard grads on seascapes really
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top