D600, 5D3 pics (lots) and observations

Started Oct 30, 2012 | Discussions thread
schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: D600, 5D3 pics (lots) and observations

gl2k wrote:

I definitely used the wrong word. I meant light years apart (not judging which is better). The NX2 haloing is noticeable but the LR version looks very much like bad HDR.

Yeah - neither is very good really. But I was thinking that the LR image might be able to be improved from the state above with curves and clarity, whereas the NX one is pretty much shot (unless you don't mind the halos).

Anyway - I agree - light years apart. Sorry I misunderstood your meaning.

But have to say I'd never move the sliders so far in a serious image.

Me either.

In fact, today driving home there was a lovely sunset. Pity there was nowhere to stop and shoot it.

In any case, I was driving down a section of road with heavy woods on either side and the bright sunset sky shining into the avenue. It was quite a high DR scene.

As such, I was, as we photographers tend to do, looking at the scene and thinking about how I would shoot it.

Thing was, the DR was high and the trees were dark because the sky was so bright. That's the way it appeared to the naked eye, and that's pretty much the way the camera would have recorded it.

If I looked at the trees (which were dark and heavily shaded) I could make out some details - but only really if I completely ignored the bright sky. When I did this, the sky seemed to be just a blinding white mess in the periphery (pretty much blown highlights really).

If, on the other hand, I looked at the sky, the trees where simply dark silhouettes.

If, in post, I'd lifted the shadows much, I'd have been going away from what the scene actually looked like. And that's not really something I like to do, nor do I particularly like the effect when others do it.

Got me thinking, are my eyes more (or less) sensitive to high DR than others? Do other people actually have the ability to "lift the shadows" or apply different tone curves whilst viewing a scene such as this with the naked eye? I certainly can't, and perhaps that could explain why I've never really grasped the fascination some people seem to have with the expanded DR available with the EXMOR sensors. It's always seemed to me to be something that would be mainly useful for saving a fluffed shot or creating images that don't truthfully represent what I see (not that there is anything wrong with that - it's just not my cup of tea).

I'm not saying Canon shouldn't always strive to improve and keep competitive in terms of sensor performance parameters - don't get me wrong. But, at the same time, and given that my 5D3 would easily have had enough DR to record the scene as it appeared to me, I sometimes have to laugh at the apparent importance some people seem to place on this one parameter, as if it was the sole determinate of image quality.

So - thanks to the OP for the excellent comparison. Simple, down to earth comparisons of real scenes that show, to those who understand what they are looking at, just how good both these cameras are in terms of obtainable final image quality. Well done and refreshing (instead of the normal bickering about irrelevance that tends to occur here!)  

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