jennajenna
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,593
- Reaction score
- 506
will this work with mark2?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Magic Lantern Improves 5D Mark III Dynamic Range to 14 Stops
- Thread starter XeroJay
- Start date
Agreed here.
5% or less is hardly a big difference 5% = 0.05 and don't see how to make a WOW factor :-D I only see a better technique to make WOW photos but certainly not from rescued photos which only better than nothing, or lesser of evil.
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
Not really...if you only print at says 8x10...the large dif is indeed not noticeable. I can see how that concept might allude.
Been to many of the gallery's and got to talk and see. Pretty cool stuff. His printers/process alone cost in the millions. First facility was in Cairns, Queensland
No, he just recently started using the D800e as up to that point, he could not get the clean resolution he was getting with larger format film. Again, he's working at the extremes. Far from the average person here.
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
You should go check some of that work out then. Might become more obvious.
so now people who do see a difference in those images or print large enough to definitely see a benefit are liars according to you - it must be nice to be so high and mighty...
How is it better though? You've maintained there is no difference in end images.
What's the reality I won't face - I've always maintained that higher DR can be useful for more than just extreme shadow pulling - to many that's not important, but for some it can be. We'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.
So wouldn't that mean it's not of any real use? Make up your mind.
So then please answer the simple question so I don't have to interpret - Exactly how is higher DR useful outside of salvaging an underexposed, low IQ image?
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3514784
You got kidding me. How many dual system owners we have heard said virtually no difference when print to 30x20" or even 40x30". I'd suggest you to use my processed samples in the above link to print to 40x30" to see difference even at D800 full size after I upsampling 5D3 to D800 size and even OP used one of the best prime lenses.
How many Nikon vs Canon in the galleries you visited? If that guy is the only photographer you following?
I don't know him well but he is just one of many landscape photographers there. I am sure if you open you eyes you can find many Canon landscape photographers also generate world top grade photos.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Last edited:
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
One of the few using readily available DSLR's to go to the extremes that normally only medium and large format could. Times have changed recently. A good thing for all.
Sure, but not like that with a DSLR. Soon may change though.
As I said please don't go to extreme. it's subjective if you want to exaggerate difference. Anyone can read that thread and found many said the difference is very small.
I only said diference is very small, 5% of less in nromally or ETTR exposure, hope you're clear.
If you said in this way I don't disagree but just diferent opinion if extreme ETTL is a good technique in general.
The difference is so small, so that absolutely is not critical to many, no menton to someone like me don't print more than 30" wide. There are lots other factors are equally important or even more importhant to me - lense choice, color tonality (I prefer Canon colors), skin tone (again I prefer Canon generated), managable file sizes (I don't print super big) and most importantly overall performance in AF, speed, erganomic and handling, burst and buffer depth and cleanup time, and other resposne times. 5D3 is a better all-round camera to many people.
As I said repeatedly if I must give a number only 5% of less better in normally or ETTR exposed photos that you'd have to pixel peeping to see difference. Big diference in extrme ETTL exposed photos however, accidentally or intentionally.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Last edited:
roustabout66
Leading Member
- Messages
- 711
- Reaction score
- 394
PhaseOne IQ160 and IQ180 with 16-bit RAW (noticeably better in DR and color tonality) still beats 35mm FF DSLRs including D800E easily with respective lenses although MF cameras and lenses are lots more expensive. If DXOMark ever tested IQ160 and IQ180, likely they will get around 45 and 55 mpix respectively while D800 with Sigma 35/1.4 (the most resolution lens DXOMark has tested on D800) only gets 23 mpix.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Last edited:
You're the one questioned peoples' honesty if they didn't see it your way - I didn't go there!
and several said they saw a meaningful difference for their usage - No one said it was dramatic!
Not clear - what does 5% better mean: 5% of what?
I never said it was a good technique in general or that it was better than other techniques - though in certain situations it can be useful (for example taking an ISO-less approach to shooting).
Why change topic - the discussion was not around what is a better camera (and to me 5D3 and D800 are for different target audience anyhow) - it was around benefits of higher DR??
I didn't ask for a number as that is pretty meaningless - I asked specifically how you think that higher DR could provide better IQ (or not) or if you only believe it's only use is for ETTL or underexposed image salvaging?
how you see the difference in that thread, sky and earth or very small difference?
what definition of meaningful difference. After I upsampling 5D3 to D800 full size, the difference is still very small even you pixel peeping. Here again from my process that just default from ACR.
5D3 upsampling to D800's full size in a process everyone can duplicate.
I'd not call sky and earth difference, but 5% at max, and bear in mind I upsampling 5D3 file to D800E full size.
judge yourself from my above side by side even with one of the BEST prime lenses, Zeiss 35/f2.0 lens, and I upsampling 5D3 file to match to D800 file size.
That is another disputable technique - that for example you shoot D800 at ISO 400, and then increase exposure 2-stop in ACR (by moving exposure bar) will equal to ISO 1600 or not. We need to see concrete evidence but that is another topic.
No. I just said the very small difference in DR is not the ONLY factor but t here are many other equally or more important factors.
More DR is ALWAYS better but the difference is pretty small if you expose normally or ETTR. The only big difference is in extreme ETTL but that is not a good technique in general, better than nothing however or lesser of evil. I will not shoot in ETTL in contrast scene even one day Canon camera has 14-stop or with this ML firmware. Rescue an accidental underexposed photo is different story but fortunately I very rarely need to do so as I exposed carefully and use bracket many times.
--
I give up - talk about a complete non-answer!qianp2k wrote:
how you see the difference in that thread, sky and earth or very small difference?
what definition of meaningful difference. After I upsampling 5D3 to D800 full size, the difference is still very small even you pixel peeping. Here again from my process that just default from ACR.
5D3 upsampling to D800's full size in a process everyone can duplicate.
I'd not call sky and earth difference, but 5% at max, and bear in mind I upsampling 5D3 file to D800E full size.
judge yourself from my above side by side even with one of the BEST prime lenses, Zeiss 35/f2.0 lens, and I upsampling 5D3 file to match to D800 file size.
That is another disputable technique - that for example you shoot D800 at ISO 400, and then increase exposure 2-stop in ACR (by moving exposure bar) will equal to ISO 1600 or not. We need to see concrete evidence but that is another topic.
No. I just said the very small difference in DR is not the ONLY factor but t here are many other equally or more important factors.
More DR is ALWAYS better but the difference is pretty small if you expose normally or ETTR. The only big difference is in extreme ETTL but that is not a good technique in general, better than nothing however or lesser of evil. I will not shoot in ETTL in contrast scene even one day Canon camera has 14-stop or with this ML firmware. Rescue an accidental underexposed photo is different story but fortunately I very rarely need to do so as I exposed carefully and use bracket many times.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
You should not start at beginning! You have no better to offer, and just don't want to listen to something you refuse to hear or don't want to see something you refuse to see - the difference is very small in both DR if exposed normally or ETTR and resolution.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Last edited:
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
I'm not sure I understand how this expands the DR of the camera; the shutter and aperture are the same. ISO is just amplifying the signal from the sensor, is it not? The sensor itself is not becoming "more sensitive" every other set of 2 rows?
If so how is this different than just pushing exposure 4 stops? I've seen other examples of Canon sensors having less noise at higher ISO than when exposure is pushed in post, and I'm not sure I get it at all.
Obviously the technique works, I'm just puzzled as to how, exactly, it's working. The same amount of light is hitting the ISO 1600 rows as the ISO 100 rows (ignoring shot noise/poisson whatever) so is this just a case of Canon's raw files not being as resilient when pushing shadows?
I have a Nikon D40 & d700 and neither seems to have much issue with noise in shadows when pushed. My Panasonic GX1 on the other hand has horrible noise in shadow areas even at base ISO, so this type of interpolation is interesting.
If so how is this different than just pushing exposure 4 stops? I've seen other examples of Canon sensors having less noise at higher ISO than when exposure is pushed in post, and I'm not sure I get it at all.
Obviously the technique works, I'm just puzzled as to how, exactly, it's working. The same amount of light is hitting the ISO 1600 rows as the ISO 100 rows (ignoring shot noise/poisson whatever) so is this just a case of Canon's raw files not being as resilient when pushing shadows?
I have a Nikon D40 & d700 and neither seems to have much issue with noise in shadows when pushed. My Panasonic GX1 on the other hand has horrible noise in shadow areas even at base ISO, so this type of interpolation is interesting.
This is an interesting question. If this is true that there is no loss after pushing up ISOs, why Nikon cameras would even need different ISOs but just have the base ISO 100 that you could push up ISOs any stops you wanted in software?
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum