Quest21: My Nikon D7100 can recover lots of over exposed highlights in RAW. I wish there was a test between cameras to see how much highlights can be recovered in RAW...
The HL range of the DR is the same. The reason that someone thinks is different is because there is more or less hidden negative exposure compensation dialed in the camera light meters.
A 18% gray (a gray reference card) is the amount of gray that separates the HL range from the shadows range. From 18% to pure white is only 2.47 stops (as explained in the article I linked above).
2.47 stops is too narrow so camera makers calibrate camera light meters to less than 18%. Some as of 12% to give its users a little more HL. That is essentially a dialed in hidden exposure compensation and does not mean that digital cameras have different HL range.
Spot meter a evenly lit surface. Add 3 stops of exposure and you are near or over saturation. Where are all the other stops of the 10-14 stops of contemporary digital cameras? Answer: in the shadows (bellow 18%).
http://www.libraw.org/articles/zone-v-in-digital.htmlThe variance you see its because the cameras you are using have their light meters calibrated differently (to underexpose). Camera makers do this in order to protect highlights. The amount of underexposure is different between camera brand and camera models and the result is that the user believes that camera A can recover more HL than camera B.
The highlight DR range is the same for all digital cameras old or new, large sensor or small sensor. The difference in DR in digital cameras is only in the shadows. There is often a misconception on this because people tend to confuse camera lightmeter calibration to highlight DR range.
Mateus1: I like Nikon menu, one of the best. Pentax is also good, Fuji also. Only Sony's sucks.
Please add to those that suck Olympus too :)
Smaug01: That photo that won 1st place is pretty poor on its own. But the story behind it makes it so much more powerful.
Nevertheless, I think 'China's Coal Addiction' is better. It would've worked well as a B&W too.
That's the problem with photography. A photograph cannot tell anything on it's own. It cannot tell the specific story. Text adds the story. Remove text and you have nothing. I don't see the point of photojournalism in general. Write powerful text and leave the poor photography alone please.
The review is partially complete IMO. You are giving too much weight on the sensor, DR, AF performance and you are completely omitting other important aspects of the camera. This camera and it's rivals (D8xx. A7, etc) are going to replace medium format cameras for tripod work. Where is the viewfinder review? Is there some framing aids for square aspect ratio for example?
"rather than JPEGs created from Raw files" yes but every JPEG is a product of RAW data. Even in the most basic and old digital camera or phone. Isn't it an oxymoron?
xoio: This is my favourite portrait by her... Ellen Terryhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Julia_Margaret_Cameron_(British,_born_India_-_Ellen_Terry_at_Age_Sixteen_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
Does anyone know what camera(s) / lenses specifically Julia used?
This is an interesting photograph.From a small J.P.Getty In Focus series book on Cameron I have:This version is a mirrored version of the original Cameron shot at 1864 were the wall is on the right side. The original is wider oval shaped and is damaged at the lower center were the collodion emulsion peeled away from the glass plate. The negative was rephotographed later in a London studio with the damaged repaired. The mirrored version was published by Stieglitz in his Camera Work in 1915. Unfortunately I cannot find any other technical information in this book :(
My favorite portrait, Beatrice:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Cameron_Beatrice_1870.jpg
Cameron is probably the first photographer in history with a body of work at such high level. In my eyes she one of the greatest. I wish I could visit the exhibition.
EvilTed: Underexposure and High ISO leads to more noise.Awesome.Thanks for enlightening us :)
What triangle? ISO is not part of exposure. Exposure is aperture and shutter speed only. ISO is a post processing step.
High ISO by itself doesn't lead to more noise. Underexposure does. The use of high ISO means that you uderexposing the sensor. Do you understand the difference?
panos_m: It seems that I will need a new operating system (64bit) also. As I read somewhere there is no 32bit version anymore :( True?
That's good news. Thanks. I suppose a clean install will be needed but that'is not a big problem. Thanks again.
I think also that the win 10 64bit free upgrade will be possible from 64bit win7 only and not from 32bit win 7, right?
@kevin_r: I didn't know that. I will wait then.Thanks :)
I know but I can not afford anything new now. Unfortunately :)
It seems that I will need a new operating system (64bit) also. As I read somewhere there is no 32bit version anymore :( True?
armanius: I'm enjoying my LX100. Unless I'm missing an option somewhere, the auto-ISO implementation is horrible. Camera refuses to go past ISO 1600 even when the shutter speed has dropped to 1/8" at full zoom (when in aperture priority).
I don't have the camera but I am interested in it. In the manual (p.137) says that you can set the Auto-ISO upper limit (contrary to what dpreview says at the Auto-ISO section of the review on page 5). Where is it set in your camera?
falconeyes: 18 hours ago, David Jacobowitz made an argument that this article should cite work which helped evolve the concept of equivalence (or how I call it, the equivalence theoreme).
To this end, I observed that the concept was missing in internet discussions dated 2007, Jan 11. At that time, Daniel Buck in http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/544062/ described the Brenizer method on the Fred Miranda forum (actually before Ryan Brenizer "invented" it; he did not). The effect is easily understood using equivalence (stitching effectively creates a larger sensor). Yet, the fredmiranda discussion fails to recognize this relation and does a poor job explaining the effect or compute its effective aperture.
Therefore, I think it is safe to assume that the equivalence theoreme was discovered after 2007 January. Moreover, this is a nice example how useful the equivalence theoreme actually is ...
Check this thread from 2006:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/21454287
Mark Forman: It seems possible that the use of the Metabones adaptor might be skewing the back focus slightly. The 5D3 appears to be slightly sharper across the board.Is it possible to repeat this test using native lenses?In my personal experience with adaptors it is almost always a slight tradeoff in this respect.
"This test was initially conducted using native lenses, but because of obvious exposure differences - despite matched apertures/exposures"
If at the same exposure settings (F number, Shutter speed) the sensors saturate at a different point you should choose different ISO to match the saturation point or you should normalize the "exposure" in the raw converter. The strict ISO number doesn't play crucial role (even for this comparison). That is at least how I think when I shoot.
Thanks for the test :)
Don Karner: Why do we mess up photos on purpose?
Is is called style? Or what?
Because it (messing with photos) subtract realism. And realism kills abstraction. And abstraction is one of the most important ingredients of art. By using a modern low-noise, super crisp camera with faithful color reproduction is difficult to overcome reality and come a step closer to abstraction.That is the reason for the revival of old techniques. Convenience.