As far as I know, the 6D's dynamic range is around 12.1, while almost all FF competitors have bigger DR numbers, more than 13 or even more than 14. So, how much does count a 2 EV difference in real life? I know, you will say that if I mess the exposure, then I can recover more easily in post those highlights or lift better the shadows... But what about when the exposure is spot on, and the image is perfectly exposed. Does the 2 EV difference would matter? If yes, then how? And how often? I'm thinking to leave my A7 for a 6D, but I'm afraid of those smaller DR numbers...
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
How "bad" is the DR on 6D in practical conditions?
- Thread starter dandoro
- Start date
-
- Tags
- canon eos 6d
A
Apewithacamera
Guest
Happy shooting.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
The exposure is the density of light falling on the sensor. Of course, if we are taking photos of scenes that don't have a uniform luminance, the exposure will be higher and lower for different portions of the scene. In other words, no matter the average exposure we choose for the photo, there will be portions of the scene that will be "underexposed", and a high DR is beneficial when these portions of the photo are pushed (also keeping in mind that each stop we raise the ISO, we are literally pushing the entire scene by a stop).
What a large DR does is allow you to push the portions of the scene with lower exposure with less of a noise penalty, although, as these portions of the scene are made from less light, they will be more noisy regardless of the DR, it's just that higher DR will result in less noise.
So, if you are not into pushing shadows heavily at base ISO, the relatively low base ISO DR of Canon sensors is a non-issue. However, if you do find yourself occasionally pushing shadows, then you will find that the more you push, the better many non-Canon sensors are for the task at hand.
Tharaphita
Senior Member
In my personal experience between D610 and 6D you will only notice difference in DR if you shoot RAW, have high contrasty scene and expose for the highlights in order to lift shadows later in post. With 6D noise comes out sooner then with D610. With 5D3 even worse.
High ISO performance is better on 6D compared to A7
If you get good exposure in both highlights and shadows you wont really see any difference.
Here is example from dpreview.com low light scene with shadows boosted around 70 and Exposure about 1,4 EV. In lightroom . A7 should have similar DR as with D610. They have same sensor but different RAW processing.
Best is if you download 6D and A7 raws from testscene.open them in same converter and process them same to notice difference.
D610 on the left. This comparison only works if you consider low ISO.s at 1600-3200 they about same. at 6400 and more 6D has little edge.
I would say that it's really pretty good. I think part of that is how well the 20MP sensor controls noise. There's no banding and the noise structure resembles a fine grain. Shadow details aren't a smear of noise reduction or banding. There's usually usable information left.
On the flip side, my APS-C Fuji X-E2 is pretty much just as good for dynamic range. There's obviously room for Canon to improve things.
On the flip side, my APS-C Fuji X-E2 is pretty much just as good for dynamic range. There's obviously room for Canon to improve things.
Albert Silver
Senior Member
From a Nikon user's point of view:
http://photographylife.com/reviews/canon-6d/3
"Yes, in my experience Canon RAW files tend to yield poorer results compared to Nikon when recovering shadows – (...) However, the difference is not as drastic as DxOMark leads us to believe…"
However, on the flip side, the same author also made an interesting test:
http://photographylife.com/nikon-vs-canon-dynamic-range
Last edited:
bhollis
Senior Member
You might want to take a look at this article comparing the 5D3 (IQ very similar to the 6D, although the 6D probably has slightly more DR) and the Nikon D800 (which has a Sony Exmor sensor similar to that in the A7/r).
Loading…
www.fredmiranda.com
I think there are two things you can take away from this article:
1) the Exmor sensor does provide substantially greater DR, which translates into better ability to raise shadows: and
2) you can still take great landscape shots with the Canon.
Only you can decide whether the "practical" difference is important to you.
vagtanklan
Senior Member
I have a 6D, and have owned a D610 (and an A7) ... here are my two cents on the matter.
The D610 has better shadow recovery properties at lower ISO values, the 6D has better highlight recovery properties. After using first a 5D MKII, then a 6D, I've realised that I hold the latter property more to hearth than the former.
The 6D also has a more accurate AWB, if that is important to you.
Both are brilliant cameras capable of stellar results, but their inherent properties demands different strategies in post.
Lawn Lends
Senior Member
Everything you said is correct.
I would say that Dynamic Range allows the photographer to capture more data (believe it or not, what we are doing when we take a photo is "capturing data"). Now whether that data is visible to a viewer depends on whether that data was made available in the medium through which the viewer is looking at the data. Remember, photographic paper and computer screens have DR too.
In many cases, the medium through which the data is being viewed doesn't have as good DR as the camera. In these cases the image can be " flattened" so that the additional data can be viewed, but in flattening the image you are changing it significantly, and some purists might object here.
I guess it all depends on the kind of photography you are doing and whether you are looking for an image that duplicates what would have been visible to a viewer on the scene or whether you are trying to get every bit of visual detail out of the image (like viewing nuclear missiles parked in a shadow on a spy satellite photo).
I would say that Dynamic Range allows the photographer to capture more data (believe it or not, what we are doing when we take a photo is "capturing data"). Now whether that data is visible to a viewer depends on whether that data was made available in the medium through which the viewer is looking at the data. Remember, photographic paper and computer screens have DR too.
In many cases, the medium through which the data is being viewed doesn't have as good DR as the camera. In these cases the image can be " flattened" so that the additional data can be viewed, but in flattening the image you are changing it significantly, and some purists might object here.
I guess it all depends on the kind of photography you are doing and whether you are looking for an image that duplicates what would have been visible to a viewer on the scene or whether you are trying to get every bit of visual detail out of the image (like viewing nuclear missiles parked in a shadow on a spy satellite photo).
Last edited:
I definitely agree. I switched from Nikon to Canon because my wife was already heavily invested in Canon and we shoot events. The dynamic range of the 6D is similar to my old Nikon D90, however there is so much less noise and more resolution. I found the D90 never limiting in the DR department (i used to shoot unforgiving slide film so DR of most digital cameras makes me happy). I've been using the 6D for the past week and find the output pretty good for landscape.
Timing of day is so crucial for landscape photos, even if you have more DR than Canon's recent offerings. I do wish the 6D had a lighter AA filter though (prob better it doesn't for events though). Images sharpen up very well though and I don't doubt 24x36 high gloss prints will look phenomenal
I feel very confident that the 6D can satisfy in the landscape realm. I would never go Sony because of the battery life and the erratic business model... they seem to release a new camera every month. I almost pulled the trigger on the excellent A850 until I realized they didn't give a crap about their dslr customers.
Also, Canon glass is supreme haha. I loved my nikkors but 70-200 2.8 II is the best lens I've ever shot hands down
Timing of day is so crucial for landscape photos, even if you have more DR than Canon's recent offerings. I do wish the 6D had a lighter AA filter though (prob better it doesn't for events though). Images sharpen up very well though and I don't doubt 24x36 high gloss prints will look phenomenal
I feel very confident that the 6D can satisfy in the landscape realm. I would never go Sony because of the battery life and the erratic business model... they seem to release a new camera every month. I almost pulled the trigger on the excellent A850 until I realized they didn't give a crap about their dslr customers.
Also, Canon glass is supreme haha. I loved my nikkors but 70-200 2.8 II is the best lens I've ever shot hands down
Slideshow Bob
Senior Member
Not wanting to be particularly pedantic, but...
No, the EXPOSURE is the time that the sensor is EXPOSED to the light, regardless of the density of the light. Hence the word EXPOSURE. The density of light falling on the sensor is….the density of light falling on the sensor!
DR isn't just about pushing shadows. If you're trying to shoot a high DR scene with a lower DR sensor, something, somewhere, has to give. You only push shadows if you've protected your highlights by underexposing. I'm not disagreeing in a general sense, but you're fostering the idea that DR has something intrinsically to do with wanting to push shadows. Pushing shadows might be the method, but the desired result often has more to do with the highlights. It's not so much a case of whether or not "you're into pushing shadows", but more of a case of "are you into blown highlights or blocked shadows". Two stops is two stops, no more, no less.
If the OP hasn't ever needed to push shadows from their Sony camera (or ever thought "I wish my highlights weren't blown out" without shadow pushing), then the chances are that they'd have no problem with the Canon sensors.
Last edited:
Two stops difference as defined by noise difference in minimum signals (i.e. shadows). Not two stops as defined by maximum signal captured - minimum signal captured. Of course the sensor can capture many stops...even perhaps by *luck* from pure white, to pure black for *some* pixels. The question is if those pixels are consistent and represent the signal accurately or just random noise, etc.
So 2 stops difference is not necessarily one camera can capture 2 full stops while the other doesn't try, it means that the noise of one looks like say ISO 400, and the other looks like say ISO 1600. 2 stops of noise in shadows.
This is no different from measuring dynamic range of an audio DAC, there are plenty for which there is low level noise that you can hear if digitally amplified. And some have analog gain for which in the presence of recorded signal the noise would be absolutely buried, etc...some have more read noise than others. Not only DACs but audio amplifiers as well. Behaves in a very similar nature in that after a certain amount of dynamic range, the amount of practical use cases for the ultimate dynamic range fall off. Similarly dynamic range in audio equipment is not about how well it plays back strong signals...again it is how well it reproduces the *quiestest* of signals, i.e. shadows of the audio world...*whispers* perhaps?
To me the 6D reaches good enough status.
Here are some +4 exposure pulls
of shadow regions of various sensors at ISO 100 or 400.
Banding? Must be Canon right? Nope Latest greatest Sony 24 MP APS-C Exmor
Starting to get chunky with impulse noise
Classic Canon 18MP APS-C. Heavy noise + slight banding patterns. 7D is actually worse
You can see why the read noise is higher than the Sony, but there is little banding characteristic
A6000 is measured as 1 stop more DR on DxOMark...you can see why a computer or machine would see it that way. A human who works with the files might however consider it more or less equal considering banding characteristics which the DxOMark machine does not measure. However the A6000 absolutely blows away the 5DMKII which is a sign of progress and portability I say. In addition there is no point to pull this high, so there may be an advantage to the Sony when you pull a bit less, and overall there is less noise, and you did not pull high enough to reveal banding, etc.
It is all about use cases and really there is so many RAW resources available I see no reason why anyone needs to pay attention to DxOMark to the nth degree when they can explore files themselves.
To answer the OPs question...because the 6D in especially difficult conditions should be capable of delivering a greater amount of detail, and the lack of banding characteristic, I would say that not only does it match the greatest APS-C sensors in *practical* dynamic range, it actually beats them if you consider captured detail as the enemy of noise (and often times people will apply NR differently to captured detail than they would backgrounds). And as you can see at the ISO 400 pull, it is going to have some low light advantage coupled with more shallow DOF, etc.
That said the A6000 really does *awesome* for the price and portability itself.
Last edited:
Lawn Lends
Senior Member
One of the factors in the density of light falling on the sensor is the time the sensor is exposed to the light reflecting or emanating from objects in the scene. This is one of the things that what we can control as photographers which affects exposure of the sensor.
But different areas of the sensor are exposed differently by the light reflecting or emanating from the objects in the scene. So different areas of the sensor have different exposures. If this wasnt the case all our photos would be shades of gray.
Your disagreement may be because of different usages of the word "exposure". GB is using it in a wider scientific/technical way, and you are using it in a narrow photographic meaning.
grammieb14
Senior Member
I just returned from a trip to Rocky Mt. National Park. The sun is very bright there most of the time & the shadows from the mountains are pretty deep. I have a 5Dlll, but the sensors are pretty much the same. I shoot raw & when I processed my photos, I had to lift shadows in many of them. I had no banding or noise in my shots & was very happy with my results. Bab--
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Sorry, but you are mistaken. The time the sensor is exposure to the light is the exposure time, thus the term "exposure time". The exposure, itself, is the density of light that falls on the sensor during the time the sensor is exposed to the light.
The DR is the range of light levels between the noise floor (typically taken to be the read noise or 100% NSR in most DR calculations) and the saturation limit over a particular portion of the photo (typically taken to be per-pixel or per-pixel for the photo normalized to 8 MP -- DxOMark's "print" measure).
The utility of a high DR becomes most noticeable when pushing shadows at base ISO and at high ISOs (since the whole photo is pushed).
The presumption here is that we are comparing scenes with the same exposure, and thus the same highlights. For sure, you can get better shadows on a low DR sensor by using a greater exposure at the expense of blown highlights. However, you could do the same with a high DR sensor and get better shadows still, so that's not a method where the low DR sensor can match the high DR sensor.
The way for a low DR sensor to match a high DR sensor is to merge multiple exposures. In this case, the advantage of the high DR sensor is merely convenience as it needs to take fewer photos to get the desired result.
Correct. If the DR of Canon's sensors is "good enough" for the scenes he shoots and the processing he uses, then he's not missing anything.
Flying Fish
Senior Member
That Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is one amazing lens. It is such a relief to read these discussions--everyone is reasonable and logical--as compared with the flame wars that erupt whenever DR and Canon are mentioned in the same sentence over on the 70D-7D forum. For what it's worth, I just love the 6D's images.
FF
FF
moimoi
Veteran Member
Shadow recovery is good with careful settings. Exif data are provided.
Here is an example where shadow recovery from the files of the 6D works pretty well.
Before
After:
--
www.facebook.com
Photography is about time, space, expression, and - ultimately - capturing light. As easy as it may sound, the process of capturing the "ideal" photograph is far more complex to accomplish as our own perceptions and responses vary according to each individual. Photography is inherently driven by human subjectivity, but the general feeling is that a superb photograph is widely appreciated, as it commonly depicts a striking and universal concept. I believe this process should be sought by many of us, who deeply enjoy capturing and sharing photographs that embrace life and depict what we are.
Here is an example where shadow recovery from the files of the 6D works pretty well.
Before
After:
--
Maxime Siegler Photography
Maxime Siegler Photography. 844 likes. http://maximesiegler.com
www.facebook.com
Mick Porter
Forum Enthusiast
I've got a 6D and an A7.
At low ISO the A7 is noticeably better with DR. I used both at a wedding last week, and the 6D lost some details in the sky where the A7 shots had all kinds of detail.
But the 6D is amazing in low light, and it was able to autofocus on the bride and groom way after sunset, as they were surrounded by candles.
At low ISO the A7 is noticeably better with DR. I used both at a wedding last week, and the 6D lost some details in the sky where the A7 shots had all kinds of detail.
But the 6D is amazing in low light, and it was able to autofocus on the bride and groom way after sunset, as they were surrounded by candles.
M
Michael Thomas Mitchell
Guest
Hmmmm....
Remember Kodachrome? The film used by countless professionals? It had a dynamic range of about 12 stops. Looked great.
I shoot weddings. Been at it for almost two decades. Grooms wear black. Brides wear white. Kind of tough when they are next to each other! The raw files from the 6D pulls out LOTS of details from both. If 2EV makes a real world difference, then you've got some very special needs indeed.
Rick Knepper
Forum Pro
No, it would not matter if you obtained the perfect exposure (I assume for this camera). Aren't we saying by "perfect exposure" that the DR inherent in the scene fit within the camera's DR? If this is not what you mean, please define perfect exposure.
May I ask what you shoot? Does the typical scene have a large DR? Obviously, DR is important to you given the question. May I also ask why you are considering the 6D over the A7? Obviously, it has some characteristics that beat the A7.
If you shoot landscape, this could be an issue. Or not. I use a D800E, 5D3 & 6D. I mostly use the 6D with a macro lens or lately with the 70-200 (since I can't seem to take the 24-70 II off my 5D3). In most cases, I am shooting midday light or uniform lighting so, not so many issues.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum