Thoughts on older vs newer cameras, dynamic range

[John Sheehy]

So I keep coming back to an issue I have with "high dynamic range" sensors. When I look at photos on flickr (mostly landscapes) taken with older, poorer dynamic range camera like the 5D II or 5dsr, I am continually impressed with the output. The tonality of images are gorgeous - nice soft shadows, beautiful midtones.

When I look up newer, "better" cameras I often see near-black shadows dominating the image or washed out looking midtones.

I am fully aware, from experience myself, that more DR helps. Having shot old Canon Rebel cameras in the past and fighting to not blow the sky out, I fully get the advantages of newer sensors. What I'm wondering is... Why do I tend to prefer old, lower dynamic range images?

I've got a few theories:

• People bracketed more back then so they had even MORE DR to work with.
• People shot/posted only low DR scenes which... Are just nicer scenes - basically I'm not seeing the ruined shots of old, but I'm seeing people trying to use their full DR now.
• People are lazier with more DR because you don't NEED to be as careful.
• In the 5D III era, full frame was more dominated by pro and experienced photogs, and now we see everyone's work.

I've seen stunning shots from most every sensor, including many newer ones - I'm definitely not saying more DR is worse. But... Does anyone else see what I'm seeing?

Noise is often rendered with whitish or bright-ish dots in otherwise dark areas, giving a boost to apparent shadow brightness. Less noise, and the shadows are darker, with the same intended tone curve. I noticed this early on in the days of digital cameras, because clean images need a gamma curve to convert from raw to sRGB (if you want to see the darker areas), but when you have a really high ISO, or you severely under-expose, the brightness created by the "salt" of the "salt and pepper" of noise reduced or eliminated the need for gamma correction.

Lower DR means more shadow noise, so more of this "salt" effect that brightens shadows.

 

[Teila Day]

I'm mostly looking on flickr so I'm assuming raw edits primarily.

I think you're very safe assuming such .. as jpg, tiffs, dng, raw, etc., are all subject to being "processed" by the respective photographer.

I know I personally shot way more "maybe I can recover this in post" shots after first getting an A7. My guess is that's it - most old DSLR shooters had to just go "eh" to mediocre light and wait for a better day.

In my experience DSLR shooters shot on the same kind of days back in say, 2004 as they do in 2024. I might've been shooting with a camera that I didn't want to go past 400 iso (thus necessitating a tripod), whereas today I would feel comfortable running the iso beyond 2,000 under the same conditions and would feel comfortable hand-holding the camera as opposed to pulling out the tripod, depending on the subject matter.

Mediocre light wasn't stopping me in the old days shooting DSLR, just like it didn't stop me in 1969 (film).. or 2024. All the same to me.

 

[tbcass]

I'm mostly looking on flickr so I'm assuming raw edits primarily.

I think you're very safe assuming such .. as jpg, tiffs, dng, raw, etc., are all subject to being "processed" by the respective photographer.

I know I personally shot way more "maybe I can recover this in post" shots after first getting an A7. My guess is that's it - most old DSLR shooters had to just go "eh" to mediocre light and wait for a better day.

In my experience DSLR shooters shot on the same kind of days back in say, 2004 as they do in 2024. I might've been shooting with a camera that I didn't want to go past 400 iso (thus necessitating a tripod), whereas today I would feel comfortable running the iso beyond 2,000 under the same conditions and would feel comfortable hand-holding the camera as opposed to pulling out the tripod, depending on the subject matter.

Mediocre light wasn't stopping me in the old days shooting DSLR, just like it didn't stop me in 1969 (film).. or 2024. All the same to me.

Back in 1969 I shot a roll of Agfachrome 800. The results were atrocious, and I never used it again.

 

[John Sheehy]

Sometimes (maybe many times) greater DR is not needed or even desired for certain scenes.

I can hardly imagine a situation where a greater DR is not desired. Why would you want a camera with a lower DR?

Hmmmm....

How about a high key shot. Or even a low key shot. Shooting in certain inclement weather to obtain what is really being seen. Artistic shots. Shooting with older (classic/vintage) cameras because a person finds them fun/interesting to use.

Higher sensor DR is simply a lack of shadow noise that allows some minimum standard SNR to fall more stops below highlight clipping. It dictates nothing about how the capture needs to be rendered, as a tone curve. All these sensors we are talking about have linear capture of light levels in their working range; they do not do anything themselves to suggest how the tones should be rendered.

Sometimes a sharp image is more important. Sometimes it's color, or lack of, that makes a photo more interesting than DR.

DR is not on a see-saw with those other values. You seem to think that greater DR forces some unwanted conditions on output images. You can always add noise to an image, if you want a grainier look, and you can use noise that has a much friendlier appearance than digital camera read noise. If you try to remove sensor noise, you lose some detail. So why not start out with less sensor shadow noise?

I don't think I've ever photographed a scene and wished that I had shot it with a camera that had more DR.

That statement is nebulous to me, because I don't think you've demonstrated that you know what sensor DR is. You seem to be conflating it with tone curves, which are completely independent. Higher sensor DR is NOT some sensor feature that packs a wide range of real-world light levels into a narrower range, or pushes shadows and compresses highlights, while increasing local contrast. It just means that one minimum aesthetics-based SNR falls further below the clipping point, for SNR-based DR metrics like PDR, or how much read noise there is, relative to the maximum raw value, for engineering DR, similar to DxO.

Call me a freak but, sometimes, I'm just as happy taking out my old Sony S75 than my A390.

 

[Teila Day]

I'm mostly looking on flickr so I'm assuming raw edits primarily.

I think you're very safe assuming such .. as jpg, tiffs, dng, raw, etc., are all subject to being "processed" by the respective photographer.

I know I personally shot way more "maybe I can recover this in post" shots after first getting an A7. My guess is that's it - most old DSLR shooters had to just go "eh" to mediocre light and wait for a better day.

In my experience DSLR shooters shot on the same kind of days back in say, 2004 as they do in 2024. I might've been shooting with a camera that I didn't want to go past 400 iso (thus necessitating a tripod), whereas today I would feel comfortable running the iso beyond 2,000 under the same conditions and would feel comfortable hand-holding the camera as opposed to pulling out the tripod, depending on the subject matter.

Mediocre light wasn't stopping me in the old days shooting DSLR, just like it didn't stop me in 1969 (film).. or 2024. All the same to me.

Back in 1969 I shot a roll of Agfachrome 800. The results were atrocious, and I never used it again.

The question is whether you shot in mediocre light (irrespective of film type) or did you just give up and mainly resort to shooting on a days with ideal light. I usually simply adjusted to the light by using different film, tripod, lower shutter speed, etc).

My response was to Le Camerique's guess about old shooters..

"My guess is that's it - most old DSLR shooters had to just go "eh" to mediocre light and wait for a better day."

I shoot in the same light with a DSLR as I did with film. Nothing changed for me in that regard.

 

[tbcass]

Back in 1969 I shot a roll of Agfachrome 800. The results were atrocious, and I never used it again.

The question is whether you shot in mediocre light (irrespective of film type) or did you just give up and mainly resort to shooting on a days with ideal light. I usually simply adjusted to the light by using different film, tripod, lower shutter speed, etc).

My response was to Le Camerique's guess about old shooters..

I just gave up shooting hand held in low light without a flash because the results were so bad. I returned to flash or tripod.

--
Tom

 

[Bob]

Once I learned how to adjust my photos properly with Lightroom, I stopped worrying about DR. ETR and lift the shadows in Lightroom. Most cameras are far more capable than you would realise.

 

[GarysInSoCal]

Once I learned how to adjust my photos properly with Lightroom, I stopped worrying about DR. ETR and lift the shadows in Lightroom. Most cameras are far more capable than you would realise.

This is true... AND... most software applications are also far more capable than most will realize... ;-)