6D Dynamic Range

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
Slideshow Bob
Senior MemberPosts: 1,073
Like?
Re: 6D Dynamic Range
In reply to roustabout66, 4 months ago

roustabout66 wrote:

Slideshow Bob wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Slideshow Bob wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Slideshow Bob wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

canoes wrote:

When looking at comparisons between 6D and D600, it is always pointed out how much higher the Nikon scores in DR. (14.2 vs 12.1) I am wondering if this is really noticeable in everyday photography or is it more just numbers on paper. Do any Canon owners feel the lower DR limits their photography?

I am in the market for a FF camera and am very scared by Nikon's QC issues. I am really leaning towards Canon, but want to make sure I understand what I am getting into.

I would suggest you base your decision on feel ,usability, and lens selection more than DR. The recent QC issues at Nikon are also quite problematic to me. I think all this buzz about the need for 14 stops DR is generally speaking the biggest bunch of BS since "nobody needs more than 6 mega pixels". Pulling shadows is almost always done as a last resort to rescue an image and if you look at the examples on the web you will see that most people would discard the scene even after post processing. If you want a drab boring uninteresting image make one with 14 stops of DR. A valuable lesson I learned from famed Nikon shooter Moose Peterson is to INCREASE the blacks, not turn them into a muddy grey! If you see any of Moose's videos the FIRST thing he does in post is bump the black level...sometimes more than once. He says his secret to "sharp" pics is a high black level, it increases contrast and the appearance of sharpness. If you look at the most famous Nikon shooter Joe McNally's work it almost always has mostly dark dramatic shadows with a central subject well lit. Those guys are not bring up shadow detail they are reducing it. Take a look at Moose Peterson's gallery shot of the grand canyon on the front page of his blog at the link below and tell me how much he lightened the shadows....do you think that shot is 14 stops

http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/2013/02/23/grand-canyon-perfect-bw/

Lightening shadows does not equate to having increased dynamic range. Increased dynamic range means that when shooting a high contrast scene, nothing will have clipped shadows or blown highlights. Moose's grand canyon photo has neither, and despite the high contrast, there is still detail in the darkest and lightest areas. Nothing is clipped (aside from sharpening artefacts).

Increased dynamic range means more grey scale wedges between absolute black and pure white. You can have 14 stops and still have blown highlights.

Sure. But given that clipped or blown out images are generally regarded as bad, more sensor DR deals with higher scene DR better than less sensor DR.

Except that higher dynamic range is often not important and in fact quite boring.

Your statement "If you want a drab boring uninteresting image make one with 14 stops of DR." doesn't really hold water, partially because it assumes some sort of standardised scene DR, but also because final image contrast can be adjusted pretty much any way you want, and (clipping aside) has little to do with sensor DR.

I am sure that mumbo jumbo means something to measurebaters but not photographers. Here are some images that are NOT drab or boring from Joe McNally's The Moment it Clicks. None of them have anywhere close to 11 stops DR much less more. Please show some pics with 14 stops DR that are nearly as dynamic of interesting.



Here you go...



... that's 14 stops right there. It's not a good photo (just the view from my office), but it COULD have been, given a better subject and similar lighting conditions. Explain to me how an 11 stop camera would have done it better.

No offense friend but you really do not know what you are talking about as far as DR goes. Having something visible in the dark area and/or not having blown highlights is not the same as having a wide DR. As I said before DR is the number of different grey wedges between white and black and having that broken into 12 or 13 or 14 discrete boxes seldom makes a significant difference in a photo. There were some pretty good photos made with Kodachrome which often struggled to have 5 stops DR.

Right, but does that make you pine for a Canon with only 5 stops of DR?

The above photograph, as crappy as it is, was shot RAW, and has clipped blacks (just) AND blown highlights, and was taken with a 14 stop Fuji S5 Pro at ISO 100. As I said, it's a 14 stop image. The scene was probably 15 stops.

No one is debating whether or not you can take great photos with less DR. We all know you can. But this idea that nature just so happens to conform to the DR limits of Canon DSLRs is getting ridiculous. More DR is nice to have, but you don't use it all (or even very much) the time. It's just another little thing that can make your photos look better. If I eventually buy a 5DIII I'll be a really happy bunny, but I'll still keep (and use) my higher DR Fujis.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow