dSLR thread

[udaman]

I think is was SD that said the Sony A900 had poor IQ...yes, based on what measure?


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-5dmkii.shtml

Canon has over the years excelled in their long lenses, but it's no secret among pros and diligent amateurs that the company's wide angles leave a lot to be desired. The new Sony / Zeiss 16-35mm f/2.8 promises a lot, and will be reviewed here in February, 2009.​

In the end it comes down to a question of which lens one needs, and especially which ones one already has. For someone with a selection of existing Canon glass there's likely little that will make one change systems. Similarly for someone with an earlier Sony camera, or a Minolta system, motivations are likewise going to make one stay within the family.​

Nope. Not gunna do it. Yes the Sony has more pixels. Yes the Canon has lower noise pixels (above ISO 800). Other than that it's an exercise in pixel peeping and if one does it too much hair starts to grow on the palms of ones hands.​

Take it as gospel that when processed by a competent worker in their favourite raw processor these cameras will essentially produce if not identical then at least equally terrific images. Likely shooting technique deficiencies and inferior lenses will play a much bigger role in any visible differences on comparable sized prints than any minor differences between these cameras sensors.

​

But, if you really insist on doing some pixel peeping, have a look at the three-way noise comparison that I recently published, which included these two cameras as well as the Nikon D3x.​

 

[udaman]

However....

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/big-three.shtml

Comparing different camera's raw files presents a certain level of difficulty. One must of course use a raw converter. But, which one? Some people say that it's only fair to use the manufacturer's software, but this isn't always the best choice. In the case of the Sony A900, for example, their provided raw converter is simply awful, and in the case of Nikon does one use the simple converter provided with the camera or their optional and pricey NX2?.
How about a popular standard like Camera Raw or Lightroom? Well, some people like them and some don't. Aperture? A fine product, but Mac only, so 75% of the audience is going to feel like they can't emulate the results without buying a new computer – which they should, but that's another story.

^^^I concur, you all should get a Mac .

But he was wrong about one part...sort of.

This test is of noise only. Dynamic range and colour sensitivity are beyond the ability of someone without a lab to measure reliably, but noise is readily tested and compared. That's what this test attempts to do – not to produce any quantitative results, but rather simply to do the type of comparison that any moderately knowledable photographer might do given the availability of these three cameras at the same time and in the same place.

DxO measured these, the D3X came out ahead .

Other factors such as dynamic range and colour rendition are not being evaluated here, but I doubt that there is more than a half stop difference between them in terms of DR, and now with the availability of proper profiles and the profile editor in Camera Raw and Lightroom colour rendition differences between cameras are academic because these can be modified and made to match the manufacturer's rendering, or anything else that pleases you.

DxO's tests showed a full 1.5 stop difference btw the Canon & D3x, in most cases you'll not notice, but in many situations like low light levels...you will notice to be sure

All three cameras are remarkable. The Sony is a very fine camera and offers exceptional value for the money

Yeah, sure, if you consider $3k is 'exceptional'...to me that's exceptionally expensive, I want a full frame dSLR for <$1k now, not 5yrs from now.

The extent to which the Nikon D3x and Canon 5D MKII are equivalent in noise (or its lack) is almost uncanny. There simply isn't anything to choose between them in this regard. Yes, the Canon goes to ISO 25,600, but that's just for bragging rights and is unlikely to be used in the real world for anything other than experimentation or forensics.
The Nikon D3x is in a class by itself – the most full featured, the most robust, and need I add, the most expensive of the three by a factor of nearly 3X. The Canon 5D MKII is probably the all-around champ, offering a combination of image quality, features and especially price that is very hard to top. On the other hand, the Sony is comparably priced, has the best viewfinder, in-body stabilization, and access to some fantastic Zeiss lenses. Decisions, decisions.

This is where I defer to that most uniquely qualified Ken (sometimes he comes down off of his koolaid experiences long enough to make some sense ).

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x/sharpness-comparison.htm

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Warning: Sharpness has nothing to do with good pictures. The huge differences in default contrast and color are far more important than any difference in sharpness. [/FONT]

​

Can't have it both ways Ken, on the one hand he says you need better lens for this high MP full frame sensors, but that says sharpness above has nothing to do with good pictures...make up your mind Ken.

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The D3X wins. Not only is it sharpest, it's the most natural, even shot as JPG. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The Canon 5D Mark II looks crappy by comparison as direct-from-camera JPGs. The 5D Mark II applies too much oversharpening and too much noise reduction to remove subtle textures. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] The wild part is that if I go through the trouble of shooting CR2 with the 5D Mark II and open it in Lightroom 2.2 that it looks almost identical to the JPG direct from the D3X![/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The Canon 5D Mark II comes close, but as expected from other Canons, its image direct-from-camera looks more artificial with more artifacts of digital processing. The Canon image has more obvious edge sharpening, and it also smudges-out subtler textures. The Nikon D3X image just looks like an image.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]You'll see that even though the stark white branches are pronounced in the 5D Mark II images, that the softer leaves are less pronounced, This weird differential effect is what's so bad about the 5D Mark II: different details are presented different, as they are in electronic video images. Yuck. [/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Since the Canon 5D Mark II has a design flaw where it applies too much noise reduction, even at ISO 100 as shot here, I gave it a "Special Olympics" style do-over and allowed it to try again with its noise reduction disabled. This helps, but the image still doesn't look as natural to my eyes as the one from the D3X.[/FONT]​

hehe, Canon's in the Special Olympics .

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Look in the shadows and look for subtle texture. The 5D Mark II is burying these with noise reduction. This is just one of the many reasons I love film: you get what you shot, not some anonymous firmware programmer's chewed-up version of your image.[/FONT]

I agree, lets hope for a firmware upgrade.

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]For those of you who shoot under softer light as I showed earlier, the defects in the Canon firmware become even more egregious. Be careful. [/FONT]

​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I doubt it. That's why 10 MP cameras are more than enough for all the guys I know who earn their livings selling images. Stand as far away from your computer screen as you would from a huge 40 x 60" (100 x 150cm) print. All the images look OK now, don't they? [/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]If you're a hobbyist, and if you think a scrawny 13x19" (30x45cm) print is big, then even a 3MP camera looks great. These results will only be as significant as shown on this page if you blow them up 5 feet (1.5 meters) wide. [/FONT]​

Oh well Ken, but my 5MP old Oly PnS takes super noisy images that look like crap from *any* distance, if you hate chroma noise, like I do. The 14MP Canon 450 XSi has massive red chroma noise @ISO1600 in the preliminary shots posted by dpreview in just a tiny image.

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I use specially grown reference trees at a regional arboretum (tree museum) instead of man-made objects like star targets, classified ads or buildings precisely because an educated eye can see far more with natural targets. Trees have a fractal nature, meaning that there is detail at every level, every resolution, every amplitude and in every direction. Artificial target edges only have detail at odd-harmonic series, at discrete amplitudes and only in some directions. Test targets miss a lot of things that become obvious with appropriate natural targets. There was no wind and no heat shimmer. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]You'd never see the way the 5D Mark II smudges subtle textures if all you shot were hard black-and-white printed resolution test targets.[/FONT]​

Hmm, does Tannin use specially grown reference trees too, or has global warming killed them all ?

 

[udaman]

update/full review of the 5DmkII on IR.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2A.HTM

I would use 12,800 if necessary, even if LL thinks it's not real world worthy.

But damn, check out the blow up of the D3X compared to 5DMkII @ISO 6400. Amazing stuff. Give me a D3X sensor in a D90...er, better yet in a body with the exact same dimensions as a Oly OM-1, yeah that's the ticket...and it has to be <$1k .

See there's where Ken's been drinking the koolaid again. He spent a good long time ranting in his boycott on the D3X because of cost, then when he gets to test it, he loves it, but still can't recommend it because it's a hulking giant mass that costs $8k. I agree. He rants about how the sensor shouldn't cost more than about $200 when production ramps up, that said sensor (never mind engineering, processing chips R&D) is just slapped into a D3 body. So then, it should by his definition cost only a few hundred more than a D3?

Then here he goes again on the koolaid:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d700x.htm

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The D3X was announced on 01 July 2008, meaning I'd expect the D700x to be announced in the summer of 2009 and ship at the end of 2009.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Most decent photographers are boycotting the outrageously priced D3X, and by doing so, keeping themselves open to getting the mostly likely superior D700x instead.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Nikon scammed us with the D3: we all bought them as Nikon's first FX DSLR. A year later, out comes the D700, which handles much better and faster. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]This time, Nikon can keep their $8,000 bluff, and I'll wait for a D700X.[/FONT]​

I'll agree with that so far, except the D700 is still too big to handle as fast & better as the D90 (needs better HD video capability, while we're at it ) ...but

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Price (USA): $4,399, September 2009.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Introduction: 21 August 2009. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Available: Early December 2009. [/FONT]​

WTF Ken, didn't you say the sensor shouldn't cost more than a few hundred? And yet the D3 was priced at $5k, the D700 $3k...so how TF did he come up with a silly speculation on a D700x priced a full $1.4k higher than the D700!?!?

Where is the FX version of the D90 @$1.4k? $4.4k for a D700x, I'll boycott that and all other overpriced, oversized 'prosumer' dSLR's.

Ken has too much time on his hands, and drinking tooo much koolaid to do basic math, which is probably why he likes his massively incorrect color accuracy, pumped up...or 'pimped' up , exaggerated color images.

 

[udaman]

As KR has already pointed out in terms of IQ, the D3X prwnd the 5DMKii...it only cost 3x as much. Not sure dpreview's timely D) review has much meaning now, nor the contention that IQ is what weighs heavily in the 5DMkII's favor...both D3x & 5Dmkii are too expensive, pure and simple.

Wake me with Nikon puts a similar D3x sensor in the d90 body, for the same price or less than the current D90. Same for Canon, wake me when they drop a bombshell and intro the 1st sub $1k, full-frame sensor dSLR.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5Dmarkii/page40.asp

We have always placed a heavy emphasis on image quality, and all other things aside this means the 5D Mark II has to receive our highest rating. When you consider the price of the EOS-1Ds Mark III, the 5D Mark II seems like quite a bargain. In our review of the original 5D we said 'only history will tell if the EOS 5D is the start of a full frame revolution or simply the first of a new niche format'. Now we have to wait to see if the 5D Mark II (and the Nikon D90) are the start of the convergence of high end video and still photography cameras. But even if you never shoot video, and consider Live View to be a pointless novelty, the EOS 5D Mark II has an awful lot to recommend it to the serious photographer.

 

[ddrueding]

I think the problem is you are having a hard time acclimating to reality WRT pricing and size. D3X beats a camera 3x less expensive? D3X is too expensive, buy one that costs 3x less. Seems pretty simple to me. If I didn't have to drop $20k real soon I would have a 5DII already.

 

[paugie]

If I didn't have to drop $20k real soon I would have a 5DII already.

You may have been lucky. Some guys have reported problems with the 5DMarkII. It was the only camera with significant failure rates on the Luminous Landscape's sponsored Antartica trip. And some professional fashion photographer ditched his 5DIIs because of image/sensor problems
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml
http://www.afashionshooter.com/2009/02/08/canon-5d2-so-long/

 

[udaman]

NooooOH!!!!!

http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/02/ts-e-17mm-ts-e-24mm-cr2/

TS-E 17mm F4, on a 50D would be 35mm equiv. 27.2mm, I wouldn't need a FF Canon body! (could almost use a Rebel, but still, friggin Canon imposed/limited to only ISO1600...just have to wait for the next update to the Rebel)....or would either or these work on a crop factor Canon body (older versions of TS-E lenses don't work on many of the cropped sensor bodies).

Then again, even with the USA getting better prices than Europe, assuming a 1:1 price Euro to USD$, $2,499!!! Damn, that's more than any Nikon PC lens...isn't it Tannin ? ...yeah, still a rumor, but the pictures look real.

TS-E 17mm €2499
TS-E 24mm €2299

Why couldn't they come up with a F2.8 24mm TS-E for a II model? Just upgrading the optics to match Nikon and then pricing same or higher than Nikon? Hell, screw Canon, if I had the $$$, I'd just go buy a damned D700 & Nikon PC24mm.

For some reason, the 17mm looks like it's shorter overall in length(narrower manual focus ring/grip), fewer elements?

 

[udaman]

http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/02/ts-e-17mm-ts-e-24mm-cr2/

TS-E 17mm F4, on a 50D would be 35mm equiv. 27.2mm, I wouldn't need a FF Canon body! (could almost use a Rebel, but still, friggin Canon imposed/limited to only ISO1600...just have to wait for the next update to the Rebel)....or would either or these work on a crop factor Canon body (older versions of TS-E lenses don't work on many of the cropped sensor bodies).

Then again, even with the USA getting better prices than Europe, assuming a 1:1 price Euro to USD$, $2,499!!! Damn, that's more than any Nikon PC lens...isn't it Tannin ? ...yeah, still a rumor, but the pictures look real.

It's official:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09021806canon17mm24mmTSElenses.asp

17mm TS-E is one 'bug-eyed' lens! Filter mount on the rear? Need a mighty huge lens shade to protect that lens from scratches.

Speaking of anemic Rebel & 50D, today Canon announced a bridge camera with ISO 'high' boast to 3200, and like the 5DmkII, HD 1080p movie capture.

Rebel is getting really long in the tooth now (both 1000D & 450D). Where is the FF version of the Rebel???

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...categoryid=144&modelid=18301#ModelFeaturesAct

Come to think of it, why would anyone buy a 1000D, when you get more (except smaller sensor, but it remains to be seen comparison of IQ between the 1000D and this CMOS bridge cam) in the SX1 IS? I'll bet 90% or more of the buyers of 1000D's don't buy anything more than the kit lenses that come with it, might as well go with the SX1 IS instead.

 

[udaman]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030315panasoniclumixdmcgh1.asp

A 4/3rds with 1080p video now from Panny . Like the oft derided iPhone on SF, I'm sure the majority here just won't 'get it'. By next year I predict the majority of dSLR's will have HD video capability. AVCHD format is less prone to compression artifacts (if recorded at max bandwidth) than other common algorithms.

Suppose, inorder to get size down, they had to have the 14-140 (28-280mm film equiv) at a pokey slow F4-5.8 Really *need* that noisy ISO3200 setting, therefore.


Did you know (and where are all the photo babes that should be posting here on SF ?) the majority of dSLR users are female!!!

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/PMA-Survey-Shows-More-DSLR-Users-Female-13429.htm


What would really be a shocker, would be unlike Samsung's APS electronic VF prototype; is if Canon put out a HD video version of the Rebel series, full-frame sensor, and eliminated the mirror, full elec. VF



Nice this Panny is more advanced than the Canon 5DMkII in video capabilities. IQ still won't be as good as a larger sensor camera, however

 

[Handruin]

The photo club I'm part of isn't biased toward female shooters. It's more male than female, if not a 50/50 mix from what I've seen.

I would hate a full electronic view finder. There would be too much lag and not enough resolution to make it appealing. It would also have to be calibrated and extremely accurate to not change the colors of the photo that you'd be framing. Seems like a complicated and expensive way to replace a mirror.

The Panasonic might be more advanced in video than the 5DII, but without good glass, who cares?

 

[e_dawg]

Handy,

I think you underestimate EVF's. I was skeptical of using EVF's as well, but when I got the G1, I was really impressed.

From what I've seen, the industry is marching towards EVF's; eventually, they will replace OVF's across the board in all mfr's lineups, except in professional bodies. They have come a long way, and you will soon see EVF's that are good enough to be accepted by the majority of photographers out there. It's just a matter of time...

Except for in low-light situations, the G1's EVF is superb. You get 100% coverage and full-frame OVF sized magnification. Contrast and colour are very good. Its contrast-detect AF system is as fast as any entry-level dSLR's phase-detect system, but with better continuous servo/tracking AF. You should see the way the AF system locks onto a target and tracks it across the frame. It's as good as your average dSLR in that regard... probably even better.

This is essentially the first generation of EVF use in a dSLR, and it's already pretty darn good. If it doesn't meet your standards, i'm sure the second or third gen units will (at least the quality of the EVF will... not sure about the rest of the camera).

I know what you're saying about the lack of lenses for the m4/3 system. Surely, that's a disadvantage when it comes to still image photography. But for videography (and let's not kid ourselves; the GH1 is really much more for the videographer than for the serious photographer), the lenses and sensor on the GH1 are more than good enough. HD video is so low resolution compared to still images that even the crappiest kit lens would far exceed the resolution requirements of HD video.

While the lenses are slow for still photography, they provide much greater DoF isolation than would ever be possible on a real video camera because the sensor is so much bigger. Similarly, while it won't be as good as a FF camera like the 5DMkII, the low-light and high ISO performance of the GH1 are much better than a typical videocam due to aforementioned size advantage of its sensor.

Bottom line: the GH1 is a better video camera than the 5DMkII; the 5DMkII is a better still image camera than the GH1. Get the GH1 if videography is your priority; get the 5DMkII if photography is. Simple as that.

 

[mubs]

I would prefer an EVF any day to an OVF. But I guess they are some time away from maturity. In the meantime I broke down and bankrupted myself with a Nikon D700, Nikkor 24-70 2.8 and Nikkor 70-200 2.8. Been travelling a lot since I got the shipment, so I just inspected the stuff and put it away. Haven't had time to play with them.

 

[Tannin]

Hoolie Doolie, Mubs, you don't muck about!

 

[mubs]

It's all your fault. You got me hooked with your posts in this thread and those pictures you posted.

 

[ddrueding]

Nice gear Mubs, what did you have before?

 

[mubs]

Canon PowerShot A620 P&S <--- Olympus C4000 <--- Canon AE-1 waaaaaaaay back that I hardly got to use but took some very nice pics with (especially from my honeymoon).

 

[ddrueding]

Wow, so you went straight into the deep end. Congrats.

 

[mubs]

Yup. Thanks.

 

[ddrueding]

For some shots I have in mind, the typical -2,0,+2 AEB isn't going to be enough DR. Is there another way to get more exposures without resorting to manual adjustments? If I use a tethered laptop, is there some kind of scripting I can do? Stitching will also be involved, so I'd like to automate the exposure changes as much as possible to simplify the process.

 

[udaman]

For some shots I have in mind, the typical -2,0,+2 AEB isn't going to be enough DR. Is there another way to get more exposures without resorting to manual adjustments? If I use a tethered laptop, is there some kind of scripting I can do? Stitching will also be involved, so I'd like to automate the exposure changes as much as possible to simplify the process.

Sorry, no ideas... .

Did you read this article on dp?

Feature: Apical dynamic range interview
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09031801apical.asp

In other news (so I can keep my post total down, and appear to not write 140 char. or less 'twitter' style replies ):


I might be interested in the rumored Rebel---now all they need to do is make a FF sensor, and "I'm in":

Doubt the rumored spec's of ISO12.8k is accurate, that would surpass the 50D! Lucky if there is 3200 high gain mode on it (and given the IQ of 1600 on the current Rebel, who would want even more noise/poor quality with ISO3.2k ???)

Japanese trade show starts March 26th,

http://www.canonrumors.com/category/photography/canon-500d/

 

[ddrueding]

Feature: Apical dynamic range interview
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09031801apical.asp

Interesting article, though it doesn't really go into the "power user" level of detail.

I've gotten interested in night photography, specifically of areas with light sources (airports, cities, etc) taken from above. I'm imagining that 6-8 stops of DR might be enough; I don't mind some highs and lows, I just don't want the lights to blow out everything else. I'm also playing with image stacking, as some of the exposures are 30-second ISO 800. All I need to do is add DOF enhancement and I'll be doing 100+ images to get a 60MP final.

 

[udaman]

Rumors were only partially correct. No commander dial, no articulating LCD .

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09032504canoneos500d.asp

WTF, 1080p...but, is this a misprint? 20fps??? So really, it only does 720p @30fps.

Higher (theoretical) ISO @12.8k, higher than the 50D? Well that's a 1st, and shows how much Canon has bowed to the ISO wars, as well as the MP wars.

Nice upgrade, but hardly impressive.

Still, now the spec's match or exceed the 50D in almost all areas, sans pentaprism, higher continuous frame rates, different AF?, easier/better control interface of the 50D (for some, that's a big one...but then you'd have a Nikon if that really mattered so much ). This will surely cannibalize 50D sales, IMHO.

Where's the groundbreaking FF version of the Rebel line???

 

[udaman]

Alright, IR has a better preview, notes on what you lose by not buying a 50D, dumbed down 500D to avoid cannibalizing 50D sales..sadly again.


http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T1I/T1IA.HTM

perhaps answering dd's HDR dilemma :

AE Bracketing. HDR (High Dynamic Range) shooters have a new tool in the Canon T1i's enhanced AE Bracketing feature. The feature allows you to bracket images starting from four stops darker or ending four stops brighter than the meter's selected exposure value, over a two-stop range, when combining exposure compensation with AE Bracketing. A new display makes it easier to understand the feature (see animation at left).

 

[ddrueding]

Alright, IR has a better preview, notes on what you lose by not buying a 50D, dumbed down 500D to avoid cannibalizing 50D sales..sadly again.


http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T1I/T1IA.HTM

perhaps answering dd's HDR dilemma :

The camera does look interesting, and if it allowed 5 shots, each 2 stops apart, for a total range from 4 stops darker to 4 stops lighter, I would buy it today. It would be easy, the new UI would make it easy to control, and no one else does it. WTF.

 

[Stereodude]

The ISO 12,800 sample I saw on dpreview certainly didn't blow up my skirt. In fact it looked down right awful.

I also don't get the whole 20FPS thing for 1080p video. I guess the marketing people wanted to be able to brag about 1080p capability even though it's basically useless. I'm surprised they're not bragging about it having 3168p video capability*

*at 3.4FPS for 170 frames

IDIOTS!!!

 

[ddrueding]

I don't mind them letting the ISOs go beyond what the sensor really should be doing, at least it gives me the option if I need that shot (social events, happy snaps, whatever).

20fps 1080p is more dumb, but again, allowing the options to max out the hardware isn't a bad thing. 20fps does get a significant number of 1920x1080 pictures into the camera, if you have a timing-sensitive shot. Marketing it as 1080p video is a bit of a stretch, however.

Just think, if they had only included 720p video, they would be yelled at for crippling their lower-end product intentionally. Now at least they let you use what you paid for.

 

[e_dawg]

For some shots I have in mind, the typical -2,0,+2 AEB isn't going to be enough DR. Is there another way to get more exposures without resorting to manual adjustments? If I use a tethered laptop, is there some kind of scripting I can do? Stitching will also be involved, so I'd like to automate the exposure changes as much as possible to simplify the process.

I honestly can't see needing more DR than that, but to each his own... Here are a couple other techniques you can combine with HDR for even greater range:

GND Filter: Since I rarely use HDR anymore, I rely mainly on GND filters. A standard 2-stop GND is great for balancing a bright, sunny sky with a dark ground, vegetation, or shade. That's 2 stops added to your DR.

Highlight Recovery / Neg Exp Comp and Shadow Recovery / Pos Exp Comp on your darkest and lightest RAW files: For your -2 EV RAW file, fire up ACR and dial in -1 EV exposure to recover an additional stop from the highlights; for your +2 EV RAW file, fire up ACR and dial in +1 EV exposure to recover an additional stop from the shadows. Include these files with the other 3, and you got -3,-2,0,+2,+3 EV exposures to use for HDR. Another 2 stops of DR.

Combine a GND with a -2,0,+2 AEB and +/- development in ACR and you got an additional, what, 8 stops of DR in addition to the 8 or so that you already have from your camera?

Keep in mind that no display technology (neither monitor/projector nor printer) can display more than 10 stops of DR anyways, so you're never going to be able to mimic the DR you capture on any medium that you wish to present on without severely compressing the tonal contrast in various parts of the tonal range.

 

[LunarMist]

David just wants to do things the "new" way, never mind IQ loss from sensor blooming, registration degradation, etc. In the old days we had concepts like metering for the subject and the zone system.

 

[ddrueding]

Thanks e_dawg. For the images I have in mind, true-to-life recreation isn't the objective. It seems that my most popular (and profitable) pictures are the ones that aren't quite right. I must admit, I enjoy them as well.

I completely agree that having a final picture with 16 stops of info is not useful, but using tonal compression and other techniques can produce interesting results if you start with 16 stops of information.

 

[e_dawg]

I guess I'm just too rigid in my notions of what consitutes a good photograph, at least from a technical perspective. I mean, if the intent was never to produce a realistic photograph in the first place, then how is "good" defined?

I am trying to improve my grasp on the tenets of drawing, painting, and visual arts theory... composition, tonal value contrast, colour theory, exposure zones and "key", etc. So what's valid and applicable these days? Wish I had time to take some visual arts cont-ed courses at the community college.

 

[e_dawg]

David just wants to do things the "new" way, never mind IQ loss from sensor blooming, registration degradation, etc. In the old days we had concepts like metering for the subject and the zone system.

I don't think those concepts are just for "the old days"... they are just as valid today, but it depends on what you're doing. If the goal is to produce a good photograph is the traditional sense, then why wouldn't you use best practices? But there is an increasing trend towards "deviant art" and hybrid visual art styles these days... where I am finding myself out of touch.

I don't strictly use the zone system myself, but I do try to manage my exposure at the time of capture, keeping in mind the DR limits of the sensor, latitude in post, and requirements of exposure vis-a-vis prioritization of the subject vs other elements.

 

[e_dawg]

I do think that 10 stops of DR is plenty for most things, though. I know you like more, but what do you think of the following pic? I would say that's quite a lot of DR in that scene, wouldn't you? Full sun in the frame and shadows everywhere. This is a JPEG from an Olympus E-520, which means you only really have about 7 stops available OoC, and I added 2 more with a GND. That's 9 stops, and I think it handled this scene pretty well...

 

[ddrueding]

What got me going in this direction was a co-worker who kept taking my natural/normal photographs and re-creating them in watercolor or pencil. After looking at what she was doing, and thinking about what parts of it I liked, it had me looking at post processing even more.

Sensor Blooming is certainly an issue, and I'm trying to overcome it by selectively masking the blown out portions of the longer exposures before stacking into an HDR. I've also played with framing the brighter portions out of most exposures, then stitching in different exposure sets afterward.

Registration Degradation? I Googled and didn't come up with much.

 

[ddrueding]

Taking pictures of stuff that moves is hard. I have a bunch of great pictures, if they weren't so out of focus

 

[ddrueding]

Based on our earlier posts, I doubt it, but worth asking anyway.

Does anyone have issues with Photomatix working with large (100MP+) images? Some I can get to work in the ~30MP range, but I had to take this one down to 11MP (original was 175MP, great detail).

It is simply refusing to open really large files, and error/closing on intermediate ones. I've sent it off to tech support already, just curious if anyone here has the same issues?

 

[e_dawg]

Hey SD,

Have dd's shadows called you yet? Last time they went missing, I believe they called you... :mrgrn: Mind you, they haven't disappeared... it's more like they've been cutting class this semester

 

[Stereodude]

That one still has some shadows, but they're clearly on the endangered subject list in DD's photos.

We might have to start a Shadow Protection Agency and have them monitor his photos.

 

[ddrueding]

This one is an SD shot (tripod isn't sturdy enough for HDR @ 300mm). They all have shadows, to a degree . The main thing I like Photomatix for is giving all areas some detail through localized DR exaggeration.

 

[Handruin]

How come the image is so large at 100MP? Is that from stitching 10+ images together?

I like the image, however I find it very busy for me (all the different lines). I feel like the leading lines were almost there, but no one made the choice on which to follow. The tree on the right has some fun colors in it (HDR?). Then there is the fence leading my eyes down the middle and some mountains in the back. There is also the fences in the front which are different types.

I think having the winding fence right in the middle was upsetting me. I know everyone is a critic. I made a crop of it and uploaded to show what I mean.

 

[ddrueding]

If I get out of the office tonight I'll see if I can get some shadows for you...