Dynamic Range

[stevo23]

It's been said, but I think the solution is to find better light. A better camera helps but pales in importance vs. quality light. Landscape photographers often spend so much time looking for the scene that they misunderstand that the light is equally important. Start showing up at your scenes early in the morning, late in the evening, or on cloudy days.

I don’t think they misunderstand as much as you might think.

I didn't mean to imply that the OP misunderstood anyting. Instead, I was trying to imply that the premise of the question is incorrect from the start. If the concern is dynamic range, the solution should be the time of day and weather that you are shooting the scene. Pretty much all cameras today are capable of capturing enough dynamic range assuming you are out shooting in good light to begin with.

The premise of the question is fine. It’s not up to you or I to decide the right time of day for someone to make their capture. If someone needs more DR to capture what they’re after, they need more DR.

 

[Advent1sam]

I currently have the xt1, xp2 and x100f. Biggest wish is a bunch more dynamic range to expose to protect the highlights and recover the shadows without much noise. Do i need to consider moving to FF? I love the shooting experience of Fuji. I shoot mostly landscapes and occassional family. I like the colors from fuji and AF is fine with Fuji. I like the benefits of shooting mirrorless. Do i need to go high end like the Z7 or GFX (ouch)? No matter what i will keep the x100f.

thanks

Yes, FF will provide upto 1.5 stops maybe 2 over the xp2, and the Gfx more, but this is at base, and most of these sensors are iso100 base. So as long as you can use base theoretically yes you will see a benefit, mostly in the highlights.

I have just been testing the Sony a6400, I know, still only aps-c, and what I notice with all these non-Fuji cameras, have never tested FF but I suspect Sony FF might be the same, is the Fuji xtrans shadows are always super clean for 4 stops, it is incredible the detail that comes from them and clean! The Sony a6400 for example I would put as maybe 1/2 stop more highlight headroom, but even then I'd need to double check this but in the shadows, the Fuji is cleaner. I tried to convince myself it was close but it isn't really. So with Fuji, expose to the highlights and pull the shadows in post, simple!

 

[Darryl Brooks]

I haven't read this entire thread, and have only had an X-T3 in my hands for a few days, but I have to say, based on your images, I'm pretty impressed. The second one though the tunnel - my Canon 5D MKIII would not have achieved that DR. Easily fixed in post, but SOOC, I don't think so.

 

[tdwesbo]

I haven't read this entire thread, and have only had an X-T3 in my hands for a few days, but I have to say, based on your images, I'm pretty impressed. The second one though the tunnel - my Canon 5D MKIII would not have achieved that DR. Easily fixed in post, but SOOC, I don't think so.

Don’t bother reading the whole thread. It’s mostly bald men fighting over a comb while they pick fly poop out of pepper. As my old boss would say...

 

[rwbaron]

I currently have the xt1, xp2 and x100f. Biggest wish is a bunch more dynamic range to expose to protect the highlights and recover the shadows without much noise. Do i need to consider moving to FF? I love the shooting experience of Fuji. I shoot mostly landscapes and occassional family. I like the colors from fuji and AF is fine with Fuji. I like the benefits of shooting mirrorless. Do i need to go high end like the Z7 or GFX (ouch)? No matter what i will keep the x100f.

thanks

Yes, FF will provide upto 1.5 stops maybe 2 over the xp2, and the Gfx more, but this is at base, and most of these sensors are iso100 base. So as long as you can use base theoretically yes you will see a benefit, mostly in the highlights.

I have just been testing the Sony a6400, I know, still only aps-c, and what I notice with all these non-Fuji cameras, have never tested FF but I suspect Sony FF might be the same, is the Fuji xtrans shadows are always super clean for 4 stops, it is incredible the detail that comes from them and clean! The Sony a6400 for example I would put as maybe 1/2 stop more highlight headroom, but even then I'd need to double check this but in the shadows, the Fuji is cleaner. I tried to convince myself it was close but it isn't really. So with Fuji, expose to the highlights and pull the shadows in post, simple!

Fuji is using Sony sensors but with the X-Trans CFA. There is no real difference in DR between the current Sony sensor based APS C models.

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm X-T30,Sony ILCE-6400

It's all about knowing your camera and how to get the most from it.

Bob

 

[Henrik Helmers]

I haven't read this entire thread, and have only had an X-T3 in my hands for a few days, but I have to say, based on your images, I'm pretty impressed. The second one though the tunnel - my Canon 5D MKIII would not have achieved that DR. Easily fixed in post, but SOOC, I don't think so.

My old mk3 is a big part of the reason I switched to Fujifilm. While the noise level at base ISO is excellent, you can’t really lift shadows at all. And the color noise, even at ISO 1600 is terrible. With Fujifilm I get solid colors regardless of ISO setting.

I suppose that is a lot of words to say that the dynamic range of the mk3 is not a high bar.

 

[rwbaron]

I haven't read this entire thread, and have only had an X-T3 in my hands for a few days, but I have to say, based on your images, I'm pretty impressed. The second one though the tunnel - my Canon 5D MKIII would not have achieved that DR. Easily fixed in post, but SOOC, I don't think so.

My old mk3 is a big part of the reason I switched to Fujifilm. While the noise level at base ISO is excellent, you can’t really lift shadows at all. And the color noise, even at ISO 1600 is terrible. With Fujifilm I get solid colors regardless of ISO setting.

I suppose that is a lot of words to say that the dynamic range of the mk3 is not a high bar.

I too left Canon for Fuji for several reasons of which one was Canon's lagging in sensor performance. Canon has since developed a few decent (not great) sensors but the 5D3 and 6D2 were abysmal by industry standards.

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/P...on EOS 6D,Canon EOS 6D Mark II,FujiFilm X-T30

It's truly embarrassing when an APS C camera outperforms a FF for DR at base ISO.

 

[sankos]

The Sony a6400 for example I would put as maybe 1/2 stop more highlight headroom, but even then I'd need to double check this but in the shadows, the Fuji is cleaner. I tried to convince myself it was close but it isn't really. So with Fuji, expose to the highlights and pull the shadows in post, simple!

I'd be interested to look at example images showing the difference you're talking about. If you base your conclusion on the ISO Invariance image comparison tool at DPR you should know that they made a processing mistake so that comparison is invalid (unless you download the relevant raw files and process them the same, preferably in a raw converter like RawTherapee or darktable to have as level a playing field as possible).

 

[drewmey123]

It's been said, but I think the solution is to find better light. A better camera helps but pales in importance vs. quality light. Landscape photographers often spend so much time looking for the scene that they misunderstand that the light is equally important. Start showing up at your scenes early in the morning, late in the evening, or on cloudy days.

I don’t think they misunderstand as much as you might think.

I didn't mean to imply that the OP misunderstood anything. Instead, I was trying to imply that the premise of the question is incorrect from the start. If the concern is dynamic range, the solution should be the time of day and weather that you are shooting the scene. Pretty much all cameras today are capable of capturing enough dynamic range assuming you are out shooting in good light to begin with.

The premise of the question is fine.

Any given landscape scene will look better shot at golden hour with an X-T1 than it will shot at high noon with a GFX 100. So I guess I beg to differ. The premise of the question suggests that a good solution for solving dynamic range issues is to upgrade to a larger or superior sensor. Had the person simply asked about getting better images due to their dynamic range issues (their actual concern), the responses would have been drastically different. Simply by changing what exactly is asked, people would suggest other solutions. But by asking something gear specific, they limit the answer responses unnecessarily.

It’s not up to you or I to decide the right time of day for someone to make their capture. If someone needs more DR to capture what they’re after, they need more DR.

It's not about me deciding anything for the OP. It's about me telling them how light and reality works. I am not telling people "when" the right time of day is to shoot. But I will say that if dynamic range is an issue, the best solution is to change the light, not the gear. Since the OP mentioned landscapes, the time of day is the easiest suggestion. In reality they could shoot at high noon but go out on a cloudy day. If neither of those are an option, at least consider altering the direction in which you shoot. If the OP shot portraits, I would suggest buying some lighting gear, not a higher dynamic range camera. If you are a news or event photographer, you may consider a larger sensor since the lighting can sometimes be out of your control.

Landscape photography is one of those weird photographic interests that is highly outside of your control. That's why so many photographers go back to the same scene dozens of times before they get what they want. The weather and light are pretty much more important than anything else in your bag. Obviously you need to have the knowledge and skill as well.

Sometimes the solutions to your problems are to avoid the problems all together.

 

[Advent1sam]

The Sony a6400 for example I would put as maybe 1/2 stop more highlight headroom, but even then I'd need to double check this but in the shadows, the Fuji is cleaner. I tried to convince myself it was close but it isn't really. So with Fuji, expose to the highlights and pull the shadows in post, simple!

I'd be interested to look at example images showing the difference you're talking about. If you base your conclusion on the ISO Invariance image comparison tool at DPR you should know that they made a processing mistake so that comparison is invalid (unless you download the relevant raw files and process them the same, preferably in a raw converter like RawTherapee or darktable to have as level a playing field as possible).

I did my own tests and also looked at the Sony raws from images I took out and about. I really didn’t care for the Sony raws once I returned home, maybe it’s just me but they just don’t seem to be as “rich” in color or dr as the Fuji x-h1, despite what photontophotons would have us believe. I know the Sony A6400 files you are talking about, I suspected they used e-shutter as you say something went wrong there!