7DVancouverite
Leading Member
Then dial in some EC value or slow your shutter speed down....stop blaming the sensor and learn how to shoot...
--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
DR Camera performance - and a new DR example
- Thread starter Andreas Helke
- Start date
--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
Karl Gnter Wnsch
Forum Pro
Andreas Helke
Senior Member
I know how to shoot but you seem to have some trouble with the concepts needed.
Exposure correction does not help because it does not increase the power of the flash if I already use the maximum it has available.
The flash only needs about 1/1000 second but a fully open shutter. So it will work the same with every shutter speed not faster than the sync speed. I used no tripod and wanted a flash only exposure so the used shutter speed is completely irrelevant.
7DVancouverite
Leading Member
Andreas,
So you finally understand...first you state: that your "improvised Diffuser killed the light more than you expected"
There are three potential correct cures for this...neither of which is blaming the camera or sensor...
I know that if my STOFEN diffuser is killing the light but I want diffused light, I would either, slow the shutter speed down...or increase the ISO...generally though when looking to add additional light to just the lit part of the image, dialing up the flash is the way to go....as a LAST resort i will dial up some FEC (Flash exposure compensation) but ANY of the other three will work better.
edit: your flash is at max power? then move it closer!!! ITS SOOOO SIMPLE
Your apparent vendetta against Canon is sheer ridiculousness....you need to stop...both arguing on a topic that you obviously have no clue about....and making yourself look so foolish by posting such bad examples of your point...
--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
So you finally understand...first you state: that your "improvised Diffuser killed the light more than you expected"
There are three potential correct cures for this...neither of which is blaming the camera or sensor...
I know that if my STOFEN diffuser is killing the light but I want diffused light, I would either, slow the shutter speed down...or increase the ISO...generally though when looking to add additional light to just the lit part of the image, dialing up the flash is the way to go....as a LAST resort i will dial up some FEC (Flash exposure compensation) but ANY of the other three will work better.
edit: your flash is at max power? then move it closer!!! ITS SOOOO SIMPLE
Your apparent vendetta against Canon is sheer ridiculousness....you need to stop...both arguing on a topic that you obviously have no clue about....and making yourself look so foolish by posting such bad examples of your point...
--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
Andreas Helke
Senior Member
I did look at a few more Pentax K5 images now. And the camera performs even better than I expected for high dynamic range scenes. Adobe will need to extend the Lightroom fill light slider to 200%. 100% fill light is not enough to deal with the dynamic range the Pentax has available. And the 8bit JPG format will now finally see its demise too. If has far too little dynamic range to deal with the dynamic range the Pentax has to offer.
If Canon ever wants to sell a 90D the 80D will need a dynamic range that is competitive with the latest Pentax and Nikon models. Probably we will get that in the 70D already. So I will skip my planned buy of the 60D and keep using the 350D and 5D I have now a while longer.
If Canon ever wants to sell a 90D the 80D will need a dynamic range that is competitive with the latest Pentax and Nikon models. Probably we will get that in the 70D already. So I will skip my planned buy of the 60D and keep using the 350D and 5D I have now a while longer.
Bad news for us I was hoping that you would get a pentax or the 7000d so that you could change forums and stop posting this drivle over and over.
Seriously... grab a brain. . canon is going to go out of business and adobe needs to double the range of the fill slider... are you on crack????
Please buy one and move on!
Otherwise, accept the capabilities of your gear and learn to use it to the best of it's capabilities.
And leave the Fill Light slider alone! Using it too much is not only bad for your images, in your case it's bad for your health (mental health that is).
Andreas Helke
Senior Member
No this only shows how important the new dynamic range is. I am confident that Canon will fix the problem soon. Because they need it fixed once the general camera buying public understands how big an advantage the 2 stops more of dynamic range actually are. Canon will not go out business. I am sure they already recognized the problem and are currently busy to develop cameras with competitive dynamic range.
I am tempted by a Pentax K5. But I have too much Canon equipment to make a switch practical. And probably its not necessary because Canon will catch up anyway.
7DVancouverite
Leading Member
The general Camera buying public doesn't and WON'T ever understand what DR is. Probably barely 1% of the camera buying public even know what those f numbers mean...and as long as they can point and shoot, they're more than happy!
The folks at Canon must think you are as bat$#it crazy as the rest of do!!!
--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
Andreas Helke
Senior Member
The general public does not need to understand the technology. They will see photos taken with a high DR camera that actually need the high DR. Those will end up looking much better than anything a current Canon DSLR could produce. And they will find out that you can use 150% fill light with an image of a high DR camera like the Pentax K5 but not with any current Canon image.
7DVancouverite
Leading Member
You need medication....
I just finished telling you that I would bet that less than 1% of the camera buying public doesn't know what DR is...
They want to show their friends and family on their computer or TV screen, the pretty pictures they took on vacation or of some family event....I am willing to bet that less than 10% of that 1% actually PRINT their snapshots...and less than 10% of THAT 10% even knows the title of any photo editing program (with the exception of the ubiquitous Photoshop) let alone what a fill light slider is....
--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
I just finished telling you that I would bet that less than 1% of the camera buying public doesn't know what DR is...
They want to show their friends and family on their computer or TV screen, the pretty pictures they took on vacation or of some family event....I am willing to bet that less than 10% of that 1% actually PRINT their snapshots...and less than 10% of THAT 10% even knows the title of any photo editing program (with the exception of the ubiquitous Photoshop) let alone what a fill light slider is....
--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
Or your can expose close to correctly and not have to worry about using 150% fill light. Or even use HDR, if you want the extra range in your photos. Honestly, as a user of Canon DSLRs (XTi and now 60D), this is a non-issue for me. 
quekbc
Member
Rather than spend time thinking on what's wrong with everything, might as well just think of ways to make do with what you have, ways to avoid it, and maybe even ways to circumvent it.
Sure beats the hell out of wasting away precious time you could spend out in the sun listing out things that are wrong in this world and how the grass is greener on the other side.
Sure beats the hell out of wasting away precious time you could spend out in the sun listing out things that are wrong in this world and how the grass is greener on the other side.
Too funny. You are missing 'experience' enhancing features at the least. Be careful, or you'll miss some great cameras and end up dying with your 350D clutched in your hands.
In real life, there are shadows, and that's ok, especially if the intended focus of the image is exposed properly.
Maximillan
Forum Enthusiast
Please stop wasting bandwidth.
5 years ago the Canon DSLR cameras image quality was relatively poor but much better than the competition.
2 years ago Canon still had the same performance while the competition finally surpassed Canon.
1 year ago Canon got a lot better and caught up again.
Now the competition led by Sonys sensor development did a very big step forward again. And again Canon is left behind.
The first and the final image below show that even a photo with poor dynamic range can do a good or at least reasonable job if you don´t have much dynamic range in either the original scene or the post processing you choose. But this is no excuse for providing cameras that lack behind the competition as much as Canon currently does.
Reviewers like DPR should at least recognize the problem and mention it. They then can put it in perspective by mentioning too that for many real world photos and almost all the ones created as in camera JPG photos the limited dynamic range does not make much of a difference.
Instead they muddy the water by deriving the their dynamic range measurements from the JPG files. Since the 8 stop of dynamic range that an 8 bit file can store is not enough even for the most unassuming photographer the range gets boosted to 11.5 or 12.5 stops depending on the exact curve used for the gamma correction.
This is what what DPR reports instead of the actual 12 to 14 stop dynamic range modern cameras produce. And why the values reported by DPR have no relationship to the real DR performance of the camera.
The DxO spots marks are a bit suspect and the total scores probably too. But the DxO landscape marks that measures the dynamic range of the camera instead of the DR of the JPG processing are probably the best test data we currently have. All Canon cameras do poorly for the DxO Landscape mark.
Canon prefers to save 12 bit of raw data in 14 bit raw files that get 1/3 bigger that way without providing better performance. Instead Canon should develop cameras that can actually produce 14 bit worth of raw data. If Canon had actual image data to store instead of random noise the files would not need to increase by 1/3 for storing just 1/6 of extra data.
A photo that needs less DR than a Canon has available. No problems here.
The same flower needing more dynamic range from the camera.
With default processing the Canon still does cut it.
It no longer does once you look under the hood.
Using a diffuser required using much higher ISO and still ended up underexposed
Looking under the hood again
At ISO 800 the banding is no worse than at ISO 100. But thanks to the bigger noise grains its easier to notice it.
If you are careful with your processing you may still end up with an usable image.
bobn2
Forum Pro
...I'm with you on this.
Did you look at this thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1034&message=36887819
and this one
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1018&message=36912461
There are more around here that think like you than this thread might indicate.
--
Bob
Did you look at this thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1034&message=36887819
and this one
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1018&message=36912461
There are more around here that think like you than this thread might indicate.
--
Bob
Andreas Helke
Senior Member
Those experts are only experts in how to deal with the flaws of a low DR camera. those band-aids are no longer necessary with the K5. And they will be no longer necessary with the Canon 80D if Canon wants to stay in the camera business.
I hope the improvements will make it to the 70D already. I really want a more modern camera than my 350D. But not the 60D which will be obsolete equipment in a year or two and probably impossible to sell used for a good price.
Andreas Helke
Senior Member
When thinking a bit more about this problem I have to consider if I need to sell my 5D now while I still can get some money for it. Its unlikely that I still want to use my 5D camera once I have bought a high DR camera.
But right now the 5D indeed provides much better images than my 350D under some conditions. And I need the 5D as a backup camera as my 350D has an nearly worn out shutter. So I will probably keep using my 5D until Canon actually has high DR cameras available too and then keep it as a museum piece if I can´t get a decent price anymore if I try to sell my 5D then.
An advice for other people needing or wanting new cameras. If you need one buy the oldest and cheapest used model that will do what you absolutely need. If you just want one consider if you still want to buy it now it after realizing that you probably no longer even want to use it once Canon has high DR cameras available too.
Andreas,
I was just quite ironic regarding those "experts" . Seems they're still blocked at the film camera age.
I'm just interested to know when Canon will hire electronician engineers with professional skills, to design cameras with professional electronic design (which does not mean professional cameras). Then, I will known when I can change my camera. There is no urgency.
I admire your courage to discuss with these photo experts. Personnally, I cannot because I'm just a poor electronician engineer that spent about 20 years about digital camera design, I'm not a photograph expert
I was just quite ironic regarding those "experts" . Seems they're still blocked at the film camera age.
I'm just interested to know when Canon will hire electronician engineers with professional skills, to design cameras with professional electronic design (which does not mean professional cameras). Then, I will known when I can change my camera. There is no urgency.
I admire your courage to discuss with these photo experts. Personnally, I cannot because I'm just a poor electronician engineer that spent about 20 years about digital camera design, I'm not a photograph expert
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum