These are really neat photos. The variety in snowflakes never gets boring.
Cool thing to do for the users of the website. Thanks DPR staff for putting this together. There are many talented photographers here who deserve a bit of recognition for their hard work.
I didn't take any keeper photos in 2014, so it will be nice to see what others have done.
JoEick: Great review! This one has a much better written explanation of DR latitude, and does not go off the rails in making wild claims about landscape photography and what is needed for photos. It keeps to the facts as straight as possible. Just tell us what the gear can do, and we can decide for ourselves how to use it and how much effect it may or may not have on our workflow. Some of us purchased high DR sensors and found it did not make our photography better or more possible, while others may have a different experience.
With that said, it would be nice to see some mentions of work-arounds when even the D750 dynamic range is not adequate. The D750 has Nikon's best bracketing ever over previous generations of Nikons with more than +- 1 EV of compensation per bracket segment. It would also be smart to bracket for best image quality, even if you can push shadows by 5 stops with a usable image left over.
In the future it will be wise to avoid making strange claims in these reviews like in the 7D2 review, where it was stressed that lots of single shot DR is better for landscape photography. DR in landscapes has a simple and easy workaround for a large problem. Us landscapers have been doing this for decades with auto bracketing. Large single shot DR makes much more of a difference for other types of photography such as weddings and journalism.
Just like how the ISO button can be mapped to the movie record button. A simple workaround to an annoying issue for people who shoot one handed in many cases. Note: I totally baited DPR staff into this one, purposely to prove a point. Sorry for being a jerk. lol
Yup, just another "idiotic/ignorant" response from another mindless Canon user here. Carry on. :)
Great review! This one has a much better written explanation of DR latitude, and does not go off the rails in making wild claims about landscape photography and what is needed for photos. It keeps to the facts as straight as possible. Just tell us what the gear can do, and we can decide for ourselves how to use it and how much effect it may or may not have on our workflow. Some of us purchased high DR sensors and found it did not make our photography better or more possible, while others may have a different experience.
JoEick: Rishi, you need to stop being defensive and actually read what is being criticized. Everyone knows Sony exmor sensors have better low ISO DR. We knew this years before this article tried making it into something groundbreaking.
People (including myself) are taking offense to those who try to overstate the effectiveness in being able to get a shot or not, based on the low ISO DR. It's just pushing people to let their gear dictate everything for them, without any thought or skill required by the photographer.
Extra DR is nice and never hurts (except in photographer skills), but it's not really the feature that is making photos possible that were previously not possible with some basic photography skills in merging exposures.
I am aware that this is DPR, a gear praising website, where suggesting features are not needed or are overstated, is like breaking all the 10 commandments in one shot. Photographer skills are going backwards, while tech marches forwards. :(
If the goal is to get people into gear that makes it easier to get the shot, then these things should be considered first:
1. Most cameras today have really bad exposure bracketing. Until recently, Nikon only allowed 1 stop steps between exposures. A bunch of the newer mirrorless cameras limited the total bracketing to + - 1 or 2 stops with only 3 shots as an option. Canon has been top of the game here for years and just made the world much better in bracketing with their new 2 shot option. Exmor is nice, but does not eliminate a need for bracketing in many cases.
2. Live view has been solid in all Canon camera models for years. Even Nikon's top cameras are behind where the Rebel was years ago.
3. Something simple like where and how the ISO button is activated can make a huge difference for some people. I change ISO often and in very fast situations. A two button press is not easy when you only have one hand available.
There is more, but I don't care to post it all here.
I used to own a D800 to see what all the hype was about. The resolution was neat and the 14-24 was cool.
I missed shots on that camera because of crappy live view, ISO button, and crappy exposure bracketing.
I've never missed a shot due to low DR on any Canon camera. They had best in class live view and bracketing, especially with the latest models. I've taken some insanely demanding photos in the 100,000 landscapes I've shot so far, and never missed a shot or lost quality due to a lack of DR.
Landscape DR is very critical, but it doesn't require a single shot at low ISO to get the DR you need for landscapes. Landscapes are the last place you need single shot DR to help much. Wedding and journalism would be more appropriate.
Rishi, you need to stop being defensive and actually read what is being criticized. Everyone knows Sony exmor sensors have better low ISO DR. We knew this years before this article tried making it into something groundbreaking.
Why is it whenever someone makes a scene example of why DR matters, it's always a scene where bracketing could have been easily used? Is this an infomercial where people can't even use a normal spoon in their cereal without burning down their kitchen? lol
1. Bracketing can be used even with things moving fast through the frame. It's very easy to fix in photoshop without artifacts. The 7D2 is a fast machine that can bracket like a bat out of hell. It also has quick 2 shot bracketing.
2. Since when does having the Sun much darker than the shadows ever look good? Pushing shadows often results in bad taste long before bad shadows, regardless of sensor brand.
3. Shots taken at ISO 100 need to be processed as two different output files and then recombined in post for a good result. Pushing shadows over 3 stops while retaining highlights is going to force the software into HDR tone mapping mode, which equals HDR type artifacts and halos from dark to light transitions, which is crap.
I want to know which of these 2 things are most true:
A. DPR allows paid advertisements loosely disguised as articles.
B. DPR staff can't find better or more variety of photographers for these "behind the shot" segments.
Erez is a good photographer, but still has a very long way to go to match the skills of even many amateur photographers. DPR has good writers too. But these articles have no place on the front page without some disclaimers about why they are there.
It's obvious to only a small fraction of us readers who can clearly see this, so maybe I just answered my own question. :)
Erez, when you get to put your photos up on the most popular photo gear website on the internet, in a format that comes across as just an advertisement for your workshops (clearly obvious), you should expect some flack if your images are not impressive enough. There are many more talented photographers out there who could only dream of getting this type of exposure, let alone every month.
Your techniques and explanations come across as very amateur. It is also very amateur to try to argue with people about why they don't think this is a good photo. It was an OK photo that was made worse with poor processing and composition choices.
You've clearly mastered how to get exposure on the front page every month or so, but you still have a long ways to go before most of us would consider your techniques to be on a professional level.
If you keep telling yourself everything you did was all good, then your success as a photographer might be short lived.
Sorry to be so harsh.
Oh snap! Talk about something out of left field.
Sony should be out with theirs soon enough. :)
These photos look lifeless and nothing special (not photographer's fault, he's good!). At least to my eyes.
When I get around to reading the spec sheet and DXO scores they should look a lot better after that.
PhotoRotterdam: I have got a request for future video's. Please don't set music under people having a conversation. It is very hard to keep focus on the conversation. I know this differs from person to person, but I guess a significant amount of people will be distracted by it.
Kater. A 4:1 compression on the voices would help.
Rooru S: Alright! Time to make a new comparison between the Nikon 80-400, Sony 70-400 and the new 100-400. Previously, the Canon was no match for the new lenses, but this promises a lot! I'm not a Canon shooter, but I can tell this is a good thing for all brands shooters (Prices will definitely go lower)
Sony also has pretty bad quality control. I have heard reports of having to go through a lot of copies to find one in spec.
DVT80111: About time Canon but I won't cancel my Tamron 150-600 order.
400mm is no quite long enough for birds.
The Canon will likely be sharper and AF better with a 1.4 TC. It's more expensive so that is to be expected. The MTF charts show it is blistering sharp on the tele end!
JoEick: Funny how Canon always gets the heat from gear enthusiasts for not innovating. If there is any percieved flaw, then it is the doomed end of Canon, and there will be 2,000 comments about their lack of innovation.
Then when Canon comes out with possibly the latest and greatest lens designs and technology ever put into a consumer camera lens, there is crickets.
It was true 30 years ago and it is still true today. Lenses trump all else in what is truly important for a camera system.
If Canon came out with a 16 stop DR sensor and 16 bit RAW, people would still have the audacity to complain that Canon sucks because it took them so long or that 16 bit files are too large and heavy for your backpack.
Us photographers have finally made it to hipster nirvana, where no matter who is top in the game, they are not good because they are not the underdog. It happened to apple and it is already happening to Canon.
TKB, got me there.
Check... and Mate. ;)
love2travelfar: It took them 16 years to improve something everybody was asking to be improved. Imagine if that was introduced 10 years ago when Canon was EVERYTHING. People would be waiting, not sleeping for the announcement. Now - nobody cares much I'm afraid...
So, let's say you are running a company and your old product is still outperforming the competition and selling really well AND has paid off all RandD costs and tooling costs. The only logical thing to do is lose money making a new lens?
There is now more competition for a 100-400ish zoom, and Canon was finally forced to play its cards.
Don't blame Canon. Blame the other manufacturers for not making something better for equal or less of the price. They are the ones lacking innovation.
Funny how Canon always gets the heat from gear enthusiasts for not innovating. If there is any percieved flaw, then it is the doomed end of Canon, and there will be 2,000 comments about their lack of innovation.
Put the stupid camera video settings at their lowest and use that for voice recording.
I use this method when shooting landscapes to note filters, tides, set number, etc. And taking the type of landscapes I do is far more intense than shooting a football game. I don't get time between plays or a halftime. I'm out there working every second for several hours straight taking hundreds or thousands or shots and often standing in water with nowhere to put anything.
This article reads like "my daddy bought me a Mercedes and I can't be bothered to see why a Lexus would work just as well if I have to change my pampered life"