Geir Ove: Why not do the same test with the incredible Panasonic FZ-1000. I got it, and it's focus speed is just amazing even in difficult situations:
Flying pigeons: Throwing the camera up and not any time to keep the camera still: Even so, I get keepers more often than not!
@nutraman Doubt it is from there. The shot is from the Animal Kingdom Lodge Pool at Disney World. We stayed there for 8 days and had a blast.
Here's another I think great example of image extraction from 4k video.
Hijacking the topic sorry.
Here are two shots from the FZ-1000 using their software to extract an 8mp image from 4k video. Both of these are heavy crops. Especially the gorilla one. They work out pretty well given the drop in dynamic range due to coming from video.
I was thinking I'd like to see the FZ-1000 used in a test as well. I have one and while I use my SLR for sports, the FZ does focus amazingly well and I am going to try it at my next event just to see how it does. Overall it's a great camera.
Too little too late for me Epson. I was tired of your prices and printers constantly clogging and halted my printing several years ago. I spent $60-$100 on carts several times per year and go tired of it.
Really, we have several tablets throughout the house. In fact I remember buying my old iPad 3 from work for less than $200 and it's easier to just pass around several tablets than photo albums. At holidays we just view them on our TV's.
I'm done with printing outside the occasional prints for the office.
Good video and nice review. I compared this one to the RX100M3 and while I shoot Canon DSLR's and went for the Sony Compact this go-round, both are winners and this video is a good reminder that even the compact cameras of today are super great bodies that simply can't be entirely replaced by cell phones.
$4,250 ? Seriously....I'm a HUGE photography nut but that price is just plain stupid.
I have to agree that the images here are telling. I love/hate things about Samsung and this is one of those instances where their team should be asking why this product even made it to market. It's very typical of a low quality 1200mm superzoom that sells for cheap. You really do get what you pay for. Ouch.
Hans Kruse: I got one and like the IQ and size which makes it a camera go everywhere. The EVF doubling as an on/off switch is quite irritating with no option to turn this function off. I wonder if Sony is listening ;)
Holding down the power button while pushing the EVF doesn't prevent it from turning off. does not work on the one I just bought. RX-100 MKIII
jonrobertp: The only reason this unit got Gold was due to having no competition at the time it came out. The new canon easily beats it in features and usefulness. Most ppl are fine w lcd shooting these days. And to not have a touchscreen nor touchscreen AF....in this day...is clearly behind the times. B-.
No way. I bought both and used them side by side and even one year after it's birth the MKIII Sony still beats out the G7x. Most noticeably in performance. It's way faster and more accurate. Battery life was nearly 50% better too. Lastly, the EVF is most welcome. It was sunny the past few days and it's way easier to use than an LCD Only camera. Helps steady your shots too. Lastly, if you wear glasses or are in need of readers it makes seeing things a lot easier too.
Mr Ed M: When normalized to print resolutions the dynamic range is competitive with other cameras.
It took a while to load, but, ISO 100 +4 EV looks fine when set to print.
ISO 100 +5 EV should clean up fine at print resolutions with a little post processing.
I don't see any issue with the available dynamic range.
"it's not just about 4-5 EV shadow pushes. It's also about 2-3 EV pushes that don't add noise. Meanwhile, even moderate 2-3EV pushes of cameras with high downstream read noise lead to noisier shadows/midtones than a camera with low downstream read noise (high base ISO DR)."
Again, I agree, having the latitude is nice but I don't, in the shots I take, see issue pushing the shadows on Canon. I'm picky but I'm not pixel peeping picky to where my final results show noisier shadows/midtones when pushing shadows even 2-3 stops. Although, again, I can't say I need to push them even that much on a regular basis.
"blown highlights, which you willfully ignored, w/ the end effect being you've just had a long argument w/ yourself."
Not sure if you're directing the above at me, but I'm not ignoring it anything. I'm going back to the fact that if someone is blowing out skies/highlights, they need to rethink their technique. You don't need a an ISO invariant camera to avoid this nor if you have an ISO Varient camera are your shots doomed to blown highlights.
"I'm not talking about landscapes at all. We don't shoot landscapes at high ISO. I'm talking about situations like a backlit sports shot where, in order to freeze the action, your camera selects ISO 3200 for proper midtone exposure, but this limits your DR & your background/skies blow. In this case, you properly ETTR by decreasing ISO, which is exactly what an ISO-variant camera won't let you do."
With two active kids, I shoot a lot of indoor and outdoor sports and have yet to encounter a situation where I'm blowing out skies, even on sunny afternoon or even bright overcast soccer days. Even when they had dark blue uniforms, I'd push my histo's to the right and still end up with plenty of room to bump the shadows, but again, no where need to push them 4-5 stops.
Look, I appreciate camera technology having that ability but my 40D, 7DMKII and 5DMKIII have done me just fine without hitting the limits of blowing skies or having the shadows hit the floor.
@MR Ed M: He also makes many assumptions that I frankly haven't corrected. I also think he's speaking more of landscape only shots where I'm talking people in my scenes too.
In the above he assumes I'm sacrificing highlight headroom but in fact I'm not. I don't blow the highlights. No need to. When taking a photo of someone outside under tree with the sunlight and bright sky visible in the background, I expose for the background correctly and use fill-flash to light my subject. When done well it doesn't change the appearance of the photo it just plain appears to have a properly exposed scene.
No need to try and push the shadows 4-5EV's. I mean I suppose it's nice if you f-up and don't properly set up the shot, but overall I think people need to learn better technique vs leveraging post processing so much.
"So while with an ISO-invariant camera there is not a penalty to the DR of the exposure compared to raising the ISO and properly exposing the photo (ETTR), this doesn't mean it is 'better' than raising the ISO and properly exposing the photo."
I think Rishi is staying it is better as there's less noise and greater latitude. I would agree to some extent but stand by the fact that I see little if any need in what I shoot day to day where noise or latitude on even a 7DMKII is a concern over Sony's latest sensors.
It is nice to see such advancements and no doubt Canon users will appreciate it when they are there, but IMO it's getting to a point like MP's where we're splitting hairs and pixel peeping way too much. There are also many, many other factors impacting the end product and DR Capability the far outweigh the gear.
Output size/medium, each humans vision, each persons awareness or artistic/technical eye, type of photos being created, etc....
"What is your point? What are you taking issue with?"
I took issues with the above snide reply but let's agree to move on from that.
I also took issue that what you called workarounds are actually techniques and important concepts of photography. If you want to agree to disagree there, let's move for the sake of the board.
I agree that every camera has it's place depending on the users needs both in terms of DR and focus capability/performance overall.
My opinion around DR like yours can be around the understanding of the technicals but here on the forums I see way to many arguments that are essentially people levering the DR capability as a crutch to fix poor technique. That's fine, see point #3 above. I just think it's important to leverage how to properly expose shots as well as discuss DR capabilities.
Shadow areas on people shot outdoors shouldn't require 4 stops of push on a regular basis. IMO the fix is easy and prior to pressing the shutter.
"So you've failed to notice all the properly ETTR'd sunsets we've posted recently, in content, in reviews, etc. where the cameras don't run into DR limitations b/c they have significantly more DR than, say, the 5DS R?"
How are you determining what I notice or fail to notice? Just curious.
Also, are you trying to say that prior to those fantastic reviews and shots there's never been a sunset shot that's not had DR issues? No other camera is capable of taking a properly exposed sunset shot?
"Whether or not you use flash is an artistic choice, not a question of proper technique"
Debate artistic choice all you want, technique does include the following and yes they all also play into artistic choice:Proficiency with controlling light - illumination & lighting are different. Photography is painting with light. Know how to evaluate the quality of the light, it's intensity & direction; location choice. Know when during the day/season is best to shoot at which times of day, etc.
I'm sorry but while this is a technical forum, it's not all about the gear and DR it offers. Great photography exists without the need to push shadows to ridiculous extremes. Nor does a sensor/camera that allows for it make someone a better photographer. They still need good technique.
" I use flash in environmental portraiture when I want it. But it changes the look, so it's irrelevant to bring into the discussion here. Whether or not you use flash is an artistic choice, not a question of proper technique."
The old artistic choice stance point. I'll remember that in the next thread in DPR forus that discuss dynamic range and typically include images with poor technique. Not every thread, but many. In the mean time we all can agree to use a flash when we so choose. The rest can continue to crank up the shadows.
"Also: not at all a smart aleck reply: I'm just pointing out that the comment is pretty irrelevant when I've shown you a properly ETTR'd sunset that did run into the DR limitations of the camera."
I'm sure I'm not alone in my comment about the tone of your reply. Feel free to carry on with it though. It still stands advice given either way. Perhaps once there is a properly ETTR'd sunset that doesn't run into DR limitations it will becomes relevant.
"I've shot some really nice sunrise and sunset images without issues."
... is kind of like saying:
"I've shot some really nice pictures that are different from yours without issues."
Ok... thanks for sharing.-------
I can appreciate the smart aleck reply but it does little for your integrity. Personally I expect better from the staff writers here.
I do trust however you're smart enough to know what I mean in terms of capturing a bright sky and a dark foreground that matches what you've shown. Different pictures with simliar to same challenges.
"So you've sacrificed stops of highlight headroom by upping your ISO setting so you wouldn't have to push in post. OK, that's fine, that's what most people do, and it's how cameras expect you to work, in fact.
But you, and most others, also throw away that many stops of highlights (that's why DR shrinks with ISO) - this may matter to some."
Not really. I don't push ISO's very high at all and even when I do I insure proper exposure and don't blow my highlights as you're eluding I might be.
I've shot plenty of outdoor scenes with a bright sky and shadows in the scene and still haven't needed to push the shadows 4 stops.
Most of samples and posts I read discussing such a need typically involve poor exposure settings and people trying to recover shadows on the face of someone with a bright window behind them. Perhaps they need to learn how to use a flash? But as you say, perhaps proper technique only matters to some.