Dynamic Range

[stevo23]

I do this

Great. You have all the DR you need.

Not quite universally applicable, but often useable. I would do it even if I had a high DR camera like D850.

 

[Bill Ferris]

I do this

Great. You have all the DR you need.

Not quite universally applicable, but often useable. I would do it even if I had a high DR camera like D850.

Exactly. For landscape photography, bracketing exposures with one photo exposed for highlights and a second for shadows, is a great way to ensure the final image is just oozing DR. Of ten, you can shoot at or near base ISO where DR is maximized, and use a long exposure to allow for a deep depth of field. The person who prefers to keep image processing to a minimum can use filters to event out the scene brightness and "get it right, in camera," Or, depending on the scene and lighting conditions, you can bracket from 3 to 7 exposures to give yourself tremendous latitude. And it's not just a technique used to produce HDR images. The resulting composite can have a very natural appearance, if that's a person's preference, and it's become fairly easy in most photo processing apps to stack and layer multiple exposures.

 

[timwit]

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. If you are considering full frame, the Nikon Z7 is a solid option for landscape photography.

Tim C.

 

[Ysarex]

If you did buy a Z7, Z6, D850, a7RIII or A7III, you would be unwise to shoot them at ISO 200 in most cases.

One gets your stated goal - "a bunch more dynamic range" - by capturing more light. There are three ways you can capture more light:

1. ...
2. Use a higher exposure (more light falling on the sensor per unit area). Fuji's higher base ISO prevents you from doing this.

No it doesn't. The Fuji X camera's come with an ISO L setting (100) but there's noting stopping you from just exposing the sensor more. I have a Fuji XT-2 comparable to the OP's XP-2 (same sensor) and my most common exposure (calculated to NOT clip diffuse highlights) is +1.3 more than the meter indication for ISO 200. As a result I get more DR.

Are you suggesting you couldn't use the same technique on the other cameras I listed?

No, I'm suggesting that Fuji's higher base ISO doesn't prevent using a higher exposure to get more DR.

Unless its higher base ISO provides significantly more highlight headroom then otehr camera have at their base ISOs,

It does.

It does?

You seem to suggest that your Fuji has a typical highlight headroom of between 1.3 and 1.7 stops. A Z7 has 1.7 stops lower base ISO. So only if the Z7 had no highlight headroom whatsoever at ISO 64 for the same scene where your fuji has 1.7 stops at ISO 200 would the Fuji be able to use as high an exposure.

And the part of my earlier response that you cut off: "In any case I didn't make any claim about comparison with other cameras. I just said there's nothing stopping you from exposing the sensor more and in the case of the OP's camera -- a lot more, commonly more than twice as much more."

And, ISO is not a rating of sensor sensitivity.

 

[Henrik Helmers]

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’d say “no”. The difference is not large enough to make high-contrast scenes pleasing. Choosing the light more carefully has a much greater impact. If you really want the DR regardless I would look at the GFX line. Then you get more quality in every way, but at the cost of portability and lens speed.

 

[DiMiColoGy]

Landscapes?

more DR?

no video?

id recommend where I come from with no hesitation :

PENTAX K1 FF.

best landscape camera by far,

<cough>

lots of neat feature like pixel shift, Astro gps, etc

plus great lenses

better than Sony and Nikon?

and dynamic range is the best of FF as seen with my own eyes.

Yet as seen by more reliable test measurements than your eyes, D850 and a7RII have slightly better DR than the K1.

I know pentax is not often mentioned but you should read reviews other than DPR’s

Here we are...

Please consider the price difference between a K1 and D850 or A7rII.
About the landscape lens, yes the system has the best one, rebadged Tamron, IRIX and Pentax history of lens which performs well with K1.

And yes, I trust my eyes.

This was only a suggestion from me to the OP, Im not trying to discuss Pentax gear here anyway.

 

[biza43]

I have tried Fuji X between 2012 - 2014, at the time I saw a negative impact on the photography I like to do: long exposure landscapes in low light. Between 2015 - 2018 I used Sony A7 and A7II, the sensor was better for my application.

Today, I went back to using Fuji X because the sensors are good enough and I prefer that system; yes, I get clipping in the highlights and shadows sooner than with Sony, but the RAW files have enough information to recover. And it is just a small amount of clipping anyway, and it only occurs in really extreme situations.

So yes - quantitatively the FF systems have the potential to improve on that aspect, but to me Fuji X is plenty good enough already.

 

[RDoe]

No! If you need or have that big of a dynamic range need, then shoot bracket. Fullframe will help, but the images won't be clean either. The plus point of the XT series is that you can do a burst shot of multiple exposures. As long as the minimal shutter speed is not in seconds, you can do this handhold.

 

[aChanceEncounter]

I had no idea this topic would be so prolific. Thanks all. I will likely stay with my x bodies and will upgrade when the x-t4 comes out. I do a lot of bracketing and do use my lee filters to help reduce the dr in the scene.

 

[stevo23]

I do this

Great. You have all the DR you need.

Not quite universally applicable, but often useable. I would do it even if I had a high DR camera like D850.

Exactly. For landscape photography, bracketing exposures with one photo exposed for highlights and a second for shadows, is a great way to ensure the final image is just oozing DR. Of ten, you can shoot at or near base ISO where DR is maximized, and use a long exposure to allow for a deep depth of field. The person who prefers to keep image processing to a minimum can use filters to event out the scene brightness and "get it right, in camera," Or, depending on the scene and lighting conditions, you can bracket from 3 to 7 exposures to give yourself tremendous latitude. And it's not just a technique used to produce HDR images. The resulting composite can have a very natural appearance, if that's a person's preference, and it's become fairly easy in most photo processing apps to stack and layer multiple exposures.

I usually use the Lightroom HDR feature which makes it easy to give a natural look.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

Make one exposure to protect highlights and a second tip capture detail in the shadows. Blend in your photo processing app of choice. QED.

Makes the assumption that

a) you are on a sturdy tripod

b) nothing changes in the scene

That limits the genera this might work in. For land scape without much foliage on a calm day - it would work fine. Even with landscape if water is present - depending on how one wants to render the water - it would work or not work.

Yes exposure bracketing is a work around in some limited applications. However, it is just that that, a workaround for insufficient DR in the sensor. However, every medium has built in limitations. It's the job of the artist to figure out how to tell his story within the limitations of the medium.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Make one exposure to protect highlights and a second tip capture detail in the shadows. Blend in your photo processing app of choice. QED.

Makes the assumption that

a) you are on a sturdy tripod

b) nothing changes in the scene

The OP does landscape photography. Anyone serious about landscape photography is almost certainly using a tripod. There's a good chance, they're using filters to help knock down glare or even the overall scene DR. Bracketing exposures and blending is a common technique.

That limits the genera this might work in. For land scape without much foliage on a calm day - it would work fine. Even with landscape if water is present - depending on how one wants to render the water - it would work or not work.

Yes exposure bracketing is a work around in some limited applications. However, it is just that that, a workaround for insufficient DR in the sensor.

People who do landscape photography call bracketing, a technique. It's something they use along with filters to capture a scene with as much or more dynamic range than can be captured in a single exposure with another body. I bracket with APS-C and full frame bodies.

However, every medium has built in limitations. It's the job of the artist to figure out how to tell his story within the limitations of the medium.

If a person chooses to limit themselves to working only with single exposures, they're free to do so and I wish them, well. Personally, I consider that mindset a bit pedantic. Why settle when multiple exposures have the potential to open the door to better images of wide dynamic range and panoramic scenes?

 

[57even]

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

In my opinion, it won't make much difference.

I owned a D800 and a D600, and neither of them could pull much more shadow detail from a -3EV exposure. If anything, the D600 was worse than my Xpro2. Needed lots of colour noise reduction in the shadows, and there was a significant magenta cast.

Z7 has banding issues in deep shadows, D750 has reflections from the AF module, etc etc. You are revealing signal levels that are so low they have no business being in the image in the first place.

Also, something has to give. If you are displaying an image with a contrast of 20000:1 (14.3 EV) on a display with range of 1000:1 (10 EV) you are going to compress the shadows and highlights to fit. If you pull shadows too far, you bleach out the highlights.

My advice is to control the light - ND grad filters and a bit of daylight fill for portraits is a lot cheaper than a new camera.

 

[Waldemar]

Do you have a concrete example, where you couldn´t pull the shadows back with a Fuji?

Because in my experience an exposure with -3 EV is practically always enough to retain highlights. But you need to shoot at low ISOs. If you shoot at high ISOs, you´ll always get too much noise, FF or not.

This said, I have the impression, that my A7 I is slightly more tolerant to extreme shadow pushes in post than my X-T2. But it´s not much and only relevant, if the final outcome is supposed to look like an HDR shot (i.e. usually pretty ugly).


---------------------------------------------
Waldemar
www.pbase.com/haak

 

[a_c_skinner]

I think that is true, DR is sufficiently wide in modern cameras to not be a key issue. I managed with my D200 and a graduated filter, now I don't use the filters.

 

[stevo23]

Make one exposure to protect highlights and a second tip capture detail in the shadows. Blend in your photo processing app of choice. QED.

Makes the assumption that

a) you are on a sturdy tripod

b) nothing changes in the scene

The OP does landscape photography. Anyone serious about landscape photography is almost certainly using a tripod. There's a good chance, they're using filters to help knock down glare or even the overall scene DR. Bracketing exposures and blending is a common technique.

Indeed common and tripods are not as necessary as one might think. Yes, if you needed a tripod without multi exposures, you need it with. But if you didn't need it before, you probably don't need it now.

That limits the genera this might work in. For land scape without much foliage on a calm day - it would work fine. Even with landscape if water is present - depending on how one wants to render the water - it would work or not work.

Yes exposure bracketing is a work around in some limited applications. However, it is just that that, a workaround for insufficient DR in the sensor.

People who do landscape photography call bracketing, a technique. It's something they use along with filters to capture a scene with as much or more dynamic range than can be captured in a single exposure with another body. I bracket with APS-C and full frame bodies.

No sensor has the DR to completely capture many of my shots. Granted, a higher DR sensor might look better overall, but I still see myself bracketing even with a high DR sensor like the D850.

 

[kiwi2]

My advice is to control the light - ND grad filters and a bit of daylight fill for portraits is a lot cheaper than a new camera.

Yep. There is also how you can work with the light when doing landscapes. Like choosing the right time of day for a particular direction to be shooting in.

In fact I prefer to do landscapes in early predawn light well before sunrise. Long 20 or 30 sec exposures when everything is being illuminated in skylight only. A much more even light that gets into deep mountain valleys almost as much as the open faces. (Plus it has the added benefit of giving soft pastel colours) The DR of the scene that the camera is expected to capture is greatly reduced.

 

[Smallpox]

My advice is to control the light - ND grad filters and a bit of daylight fill for portraits is a lot cheaper than a new camera.

Yep. There is also how you can work with the light when doing landscapes. Like choosing the right time of day for a particular direction to be shooting in.

In fact I prefer to do landscapes in early predawn light well before sunrise. Long 20 or 30 sec exposures when everything is being illuminated in skylight only. A much more even light that gets into deep mountain valleys almost as much as the open faces. (Plus it has the added benefit of giving soft pastel colours) The DR of the scene that the camera is expected to capture is greatly reduced.

Every top photographer I have worked with gets up at 5 in the morning. Exhausting

 

[57even]

My advice is to control the light - ND grad filters and a bit of daylight fill for portraits is a lot cheaper than a new camera.

Yep. There is also how you can work with the light when doing landscapes. Like choosing the right time of day for a particular direction to be shooting in.

This is also true, if we have the freedom to choose.

In fact I prefer to do landscapes in early predawn light well before sunrise. Long 20 or 30 sec exposures when everything is being illuminated in skylight only. A much more even light that gets into deep mountain valleys almost as much as the open faces. (Plus it has the added benefit of giving soft pastel colours) The DR of the scene that the camera is expected to capture is greatly reduced.

Good advice. Sunny days are generally lousy for photography.

Another thing I learned early on was to shoot portraits in the shade. I do most of my outdoor portraits that way. It's just like having a giant softbox and gives you lots of headroom to play with tones in post.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

Make one exposure to protect highlights and a second tip capture detail in the shadows. Blend in your photo processing app of choice. QED.

Makes the assumption that

a) you are on a sturdy tripod

b) nothing changes in the scene

The OP does landscape photography. Anyone serious about landscape photography is almost certainly using a tripod. There's a good chance, they're using filters to help knock down glare or even the overall scene DR. Bracketing exposures and blending is a common technique.

Indeed common and tripods are not as necessary as one might think. Yes, if you needed a tripod without multi exposures, you need it with. But if you didn't need it before, you probably don't need it now.

That limits the genera this might work in. For land scape without much foliage on a calm day - it would work fine. Even with landscape if water is present - depending on how one wants to render the water - it would work or not work.

Yes exposure bracketing is a work around in some limited applications. However, it is just that that, a workaround for insufficient DR in the sensor.

People who do landscape photography call bracketing, a technique. It's something they use along with filters to capture a scene with as much or more dynamic range than can be captured in a single exposure with another body. I bracket with APS-C and full frame bodies.

No sensor has the DR to completely capture many of my shots. Granted, a higher DR sensor might look better overall, but I still see myself bracketing even with a high DR sensor like the D850.

Like it or not, current sensor technology has about the same dynamic range of negative photographic film. A sheet of thick emulsion B&W film like a sheet of TriX with the appropriate developer and development protocol can capture a significantly higher DR than digital sensors. When I am serious about landscape I will still use my 4x5 and good old TriX and scan the negative. If I am going to have to lug a tripod in order to bracket, I might as well take my 4x5.

My D800E had better DR than my FujiX by a little bit but it still wasn't sufficient for a lot of scenes. The limiting factor today is photodetectors and they are about as efficient as they are going to get and the noise figure on the electronics is pretty close to as good as it is going to get. Hopefully the hype around organic sensors will be at least partially true.