Detail and Dynamic Range

Hi Everyone,

A few months ago I started a thread in the general section asking for advice regarding upgrading to FF. The main reason I wanted to upgrade from the GX8 I currently have was low-light performance. The advice I got was that I should by a few fast primes and see if that'll be enough to solve my problem. Per the recommendation I got here I bought the Voigtlander 17.5 f.95 which has become my favorite lens, and is rarely of my camera.

Even with the Voigtlander I find myself often disappointed with the amount of detail and the dynamic range of the camera, especially in low-light. I shoot in low light pretty often as I prefer shooting on the street either around dawn or during the evening.

As a solution, I am considering buying the Sony a7II. I won't be able to replace my MFT gear completely, at least for the time being, and I'm fine with that. I will probably buy the Sony camera with a 28mm f2.0 which will give me a pretty close set-up to the GX8+17.5 f.95. What I hope to gain is additional detail and DR that supposedly comes with a FF sensor.

My question is whether there are people on the forum who have experience with both systems and can help me understand whether this will actually make a difference, and how significant that difference will be. The investment in the new camera is a considerable one for me and comes at the direct expense of buying new MFT lenses.

The photo I have attached was taken a few minutes before sunrise. Ideally I would like to be able to make out the faces of the nuns walking at the far end of the alley.

Did this image start out as a raw capture? If not, then you probably won't be satisfied with the DR of any camera. Post processing will almost always be required to pull out the detail.

Even your jpeg has more detail in it then shows your attached image - here's a Photoshop crop at 100% view.

Richard Southworth

You will get better dynamic range with the FF only if you shoot at the same exposure. If you shoot at f.95 on the GX8 and f2 on the FF, you will gain nothing.

Daniel42 said:

Hi Everyone,

My question is whether there are people on the forum who have experience with both systems and can help me understand whether this will actually make a difference, and how significant that difference will be.

Click to expand...

Not much.

In terms of dynamic range, the GX8 is somewhere around 12.8 stops at ISO 100; the A7R II is 14 stops. Not huge.

In terms of high ISO, you get about 1.5 to 2 stops cleaner performance. However, in some cases this will be offset by the need to stop down to get the same depth of field as with the M43 camera.

The A7R II will give you an advantage if you're shooting in low light and wide open (e.g. concerts, events, weddings). For travel? When you want lots of depth of field? Not so much.

Daniel42 said:

The investment in the new camera is a considerable one for me and comes at the direct expense of buying new MFT lenses.

The photo I have attached was taken a few minutes before sunrise. Ideally I would like to be able to make out the faces of the nuns walking at the far end of the alley.

Click to expand...

I don't think the A7R II will help much with that specific task.

The higher resolution might help. Or, it might do nothing, as it looks like they were walking

However, the better noise performance won't. In order to get this depth of field, you'll need to stop down more, and assuming you want the same shutter speed, that means you'll have to bump up the ISO.

For this type of situation, the larger sensor won't be of much help.

I don't think it will be worth the cost and bulk. Fortunately, it's fairly easy to rent an A7R II setup and test for yourself.

Uncharacteristically, I shot this in JPEG.

I have tried recovering some detail from this photo, and I've tried doing it many time in post using raw files. The results are not very different. Sometimes, like in this photo, the details just aren't there.

I understand that in exposure terms the set-ups are nearly the same(35mm(17.5mm on MFT) vs 28mm and f1.9 vs f2). My thought was that the results might be better because the FF sensor has a higher DR and an improved ability to resolve detail.

Before you invest in a new system consider renting it and see if it can do what you think it can do. Buyer's remorse is very expensive.

If you hand hold at longish exposures you must experience a physically larger and heavier camera/lens combination to see what that does to your shooting style.

Renting will allow you to compare side by side essentially the same images at different ISOs. With the right FF camera and adapters you can even use the same lens on the two cameras. You should not exclude the middle step of APS sensor cameras as the EVF forms are not much larger than M43.

As one who owns too many cameras I have done this with my full frame, APS and m43 (all with current sensor technology) using the same lens on all cameras. My experience is that at moderately high ISOs the advantage of full frame is not obvious when you randomize the images after they have been processed in the way they are going to be seen by others. The least relevant spec is sensor megapixel count for an uncropped image.

If you are not adept at raw processing you might be surprised at what you can pull out of modern m43 at reasonably high ISOs. If you think there are miracles to full frame at super high ISOs you can look at your full frame test images and decide for yourself. If you only shoot jpegs you get what you get regardless of ISO or sensor.

If you want HDR type results you must learn to shoot for that, process for that or imitate the effect. Looking at the image you posted I do not think there is any other way to get what I think you want--you can only open shadows so far in a raw image.

It is easy to get a bit snookered by the small versions of highly processed images shot at super high ISOs --if you see the entire image before processing on a large high resolution screen you might not think it is the snitz--just a noisy raw image you can coax something useful out of.

Right now I'm considering the A7 II, not the A7R II which is out of my price range (and I think the increased resolution might actually be a disadvantage when shooting handheld in low-light, especially when shooting people).

This image, and many others I have shot in similar situations are taken wide-open, usually at f1.4 but sometimes at f.95. They are usually taken focused to infinity. If I were to use the A7 II with a 28mm f2 wide open my DoF should be about the same as when I use the Nokton at f.95. The difference would be the sensor's improved capabilities. The question is whether they would be improved noticeably.

I'm thinking of a noticeable difference in prints, not on my screen.

Edit: Unfortunately, I can't rent to check beforehand. Renting is not as common here.

Daniel42 said:

Daniel42 wrote:
.

I'm thinking of a noticeable difference in prints, not on my screen.

Click to expand...

How big do you usually print? Larger than 30x40 cm?

I would say, before buying a new camera, invest some time (and perhaps money) in post-processing skills. Try different software (you can test most of them for free) and see if you can achieve better results. And don't expect miracles with a full format camera.

Switched to FF a little while ago. Although I highly dislike some of the ergonomics on my A7RII, I'm willing to stick with it since the dynamic range is quite a bit more than M4/3.

You won't gain much advantage in terms of ISO noise (first thing I noticed about my A7RII was that high ISO performance in terms of noise is marginally better than m4/3). Trying to maintain enough DoF to ensure enough is in focus will eat just about any advantage FF has.

But you will have more dynamic range data to work with in post at all equivalent exposures.

Some say it's a small difference, but for someone like me that likes to do a lot of masking work and adjustment of color and brightness--it's a huge difference, as long as the ISO you take the photo at is a reasonable level. M4/3 raws in my workflow start to posterize and otherwise resist editing far more quickly. Shadow noise is quickly shown, and skies show stepped gradients with less than a full exposure adjustment. FF gives me just enough more to work with that my edits look much more subtle.

This is an example edit on my A7RII, which I can do in M4/3, but pushing the exposure this much results in very noticeable shadow noise, and the highlights get much more burnt out. Honestly I should have used a fill light or some sort, but I didn't have time to grab it and set it up as it was just a snapshot.

Rent and try out the A7 and lens you want and see if it will give you that extra dynamic range and resolution you want. I don't think you will see much of an improvement in detail resolution or dynamic range unless you are cropping quite a bit or making a very large print.

Daniel42 said:

I understand that in exposure terms the set-ups are nearly the same(35mm(17.5mm on MFT) vs 28mm and f1.9 vs f2). My thought was that the results might be better because the FF sensor has a higher DR and an improved ability to resolve detail.

Click to expand...

At the same fstop the FF will have greater dynamic range, less noise and thus somewhat cleaner detail. However, if you really want more detail, then one of the FF sensors with a larger number of pixels will be necessary.

At 25 feet the 17.5mm f2 will give a depth of field of 14.3-101.3 with an image Height of 18.6 feet and Width of 24.7 feet

The FF at 25 feet with the 28 mm f2 with give a depth of field of 15.8 - 59.7 feet with an image Height of 21.4 feet and a Width of 32.1 feet. If you move closer to give the same field of view, the depth of field will decrease.

--
drj3

Here is how DXO compares the Panasonic GX8 with the Sony A7II...

Panasonic GX8 vs Sony A7II

So you gain about 1 F-stop of dynamic range, 1.5 F-stops of low-light performance, and a 20 percent resolution increase.

This may not make as big a difference as you are expecting, so I would try to borrow or rent a Sony A7II camera before investing in the new gear.

Like others, I think you may be disappointed. Your kit and shot are a classic example of where FF may not enjoy much advantage. With an A7R2 and a 35mm f/1.4 shot RAW, I'm sure you would notice the difference.

An A7ii, 28mm f/2 cropped to 35mm FoV shot jpeg, maybe not.





If the nuns were still, you might have used different settings. Otherwise it was just a very tough subject. I might have been tempted to HDR handheld with my EM1. The results can be surprising.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin

Do not underexpose, just give more light, you donn't need 1/500 in this example. And you can also bump up the Iso a bit if needed. Light is the key for detail. Deal with the noise later on.

Correct the EV later in Raw.

DxO or any other good raw developer can give you more details than ooc.

Daniel42 said:

A few months ago I started a thread in the general section asking for advice regarding upgrading to FF. The main reason I wanted to upgrade from the GX8 I currently have was low-light performance. [...]

Even with the Voigtlander I find myself often disappointed with the amount of detail and the dynamic range of the camera, especially in low-light. I shoot in low light pretty often as I prefer shooting on the street either around dawn or during the evening.

Click to expand...

I wonder how much of the detail issue is the lens. This Nokton of yours is not really famous for bring sharp corner to corner wide open.

Daniel42 said:

As a solution, I am considering buying the Sony a7II. I won't be able to replace my MFT gear completely, at least for the time being, and I'm fine with that. I will probably buy the Sony camera with a 28mm f2.0 which will give me a pretty close set-up to the GX8+17.5 f.95. What I hope to gain is additional detail and DR that supposedly comes with a FF sensor.

Click to expand...

Bu definition, you will not get much of it in low light situations. If you shoot a scene with your GX8 at f/1.2 and ISO 800, you will have to shoot it with A7II and f/2 lens at around ISO 2000. That means you will get almost the same dynamic range, tonal range and noise performance. The ~1/3 stop of improvement Sony offers in this situation you will be hard pressed to see, I'm afraid.

If you plan to switch to A7II, get a 35mm f/1.4 lens. It will be sharper than the Nokton near maximum aperture and you will be able to actually take full advantage of that larger sensor. This is actually going to be a noticeable improvement.

Switching to larger format to shoot at equivalent settings doesn't really make much sense.

Of course in optimal scenario (shooting at base ISO), larger format always wins.

BTW, there is a downside to those uber fast f/0.95 and faster lenses. At those extreme apertures most of the photosites on the sensor do not really get much more light. You might think that at f/0.95 your image would get over 1 stop more light and thus you could shoot it at ISO that is one stop lower. But this is only true for the very center of the image. I think the most extreme case of this is the Nokton 10.5mm. You would have to run your own evaluation for your particular kit to see where's the point of equilibrium.

From your example, I would say you can gain so much more by shooting raw and do some good post processing, and also take advantage of the image stabilization. You can use much lower shutter speeds than that. Thinking of better gear while throwing away a few good stops of performance that your current gear is capable of, not a good path.

Now to the Sony's I briefly had the original A7, then the A7RII.

I was very, very disappointed by the A7 image quality. To my eyes, it was barely on par with APSC from Nikon like the D7200, slightly worse. A Nikon D610 can put it to shame. And image quality aside, as a camera it was a nightmare to shoot, it felt just like the point and shoots from 2005. I don't know if the A7II improved or not.

When I got the A7RII, I was blown away by the image quality. It's hard to describe, you look at the files and your jaw drop, instantly. No need for big prints or zooming or anything. It is just magnificent, you have to use it to believe it.

So why didn't kept the A7RII and instead kept my m43 ?

Number one was reason, it was a quirky camera to use, many restrictions, sluggish performance overall, lot of things that ruins the quailty (EFCS, ES, MSHTR need to joogle between them constantly for different situations), in the end it was a pain in the a$$ to use.

Number two reason, the lenses I like from Sony are huge and heavy.

Number three reason, the price of the kit I wanted, when added up it almost gave me a heart attack, I love photography but spending that much on camera gear is crazy for an amateur, that money can buy me and my family some very nice trips around the world, and in the end that is what will give me the best photos, it doesn't matter if I take them with the A7RII or my iphone.

And number four, I think the quality of my m43 is good enough, yes the A7RII was in a different league for image quality, but so what, the Phase One 180IQ is even better, that doesn't mean we should all sell our houses to get that, and all of a sudden lesser gear won't cut it.

Nice photo, Daniel.

But a simple lesson: do not underexpose by 2/3 stop when the scene is already dark ...

As others have said, also shoot RAW, or RAW+LSF JPEGs.

Daniel42 said:

Hi Everyone,

A few months ago I started a thread in the general section asking for advice regarding upgrading to FF. The main reason I wanted to upgrade from the GX8 I currently have was low-light performance. The advice I got was that I should by a few fast primes and see if that'll be enough to solve my problem. Per the recommendation I got here I bought the Voigtlander 17.5 f.95 which has become my favorite lens, and is rarely of my camera.

Even with the Voigtlander I find myself often disappointed with the amount of detail and the dynamic range of the camera, especially in low-light. I shoot in low light pretty often as I prefer shooting on the street either around dawn or during the evening.

As a solution, I am considering buying the Sony a7II. I won't be able to replace my MFT gear completely, at least for the time being, and I'm fine with that. I will probably buy the Sony camera with a 28mm f2.0 which will give me a pretty close set-up to the GX8+17.5 f.95. What I hope to gain is additional detail and DR that supposedly comes with a FF sensor.

My question is whether there are people on the forum who have experience with both systems and can help me understand whether this will actually make a difference, and how significant that difference will be. The investment in the new camera is a considerable one for me and comes at the direct expense of buying new MFT lenses.

The photo I have attached was taken a few minutes before sunrise. Ideally I would like to be able to make out the faces of the nuns walking at the far end of the alley.

Click to expand...

Is it OK?





I think I should remove some fires from the sky, but I'll do it next time.

--
Camera in bag tends to stay in bag...

Here are some shots I took side by side a few weeks ago with an EM-1-1 (25mm f/1.8) and a Nikon 750 (50mm f/1.4) .

It's not a direct comparison because I opened the shutter up more on the d750. Consequently, the d750 shots were at a lower ISO. It wasn't intentional; that's just the way the cards fell. I was more interested in tracking motion than in exposure comparisons.

Maybe one of these days I will try some more controlled comparisons.

Anyhow, maybe it gives a rough idea of the same subject in the same light.




Nikon FF example






Olympus OMD example