Thoughts on older vs newer cameras, dynamic range

[PAntunes]

I think the problem is somewhere else...

Flickr.

Back in the day flickr was a great place to share photos. It was where many pro photographers shared their best work and where they would direct possible clients. So the level was high.

Today a lot less people share on flickr. For most pros, it's no longer a platform worth using. And with that, the quality of the photos goes down.

If you go to other platforms, like behance or instagram, I'm sure you'll find many images made with recent cameras that are just as good as those old ones.

 

[mosswings]

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.

I wonder if you are fully aware that the output you see has far less dynamic range than that captured by the camera (including most older cameras)?

Most viewing devices in typical viewing conditions have a dynamic range of no more than around 7 or 8ev, whereas almost all cameras can capture far more than that. Unless you consider the processing, comparing the "output" of different cameras is unlikely to be meaningful.

I agree. "Older and poorer DR" was a low ISO characteristic of Canon sensors at the time. DR would have a knee at about ISO 400. Sony introduced EXMOR and the era of "ISO-invariance" to the world - DR became a simple straight line, and you could now play postprocessing games with the image files to an amazing extent, rehabilitating in some cases highly nonoptimal exposures. It also allowed for tasteless overprocessing of image files. With those Canon sensors, you had more work to do in-camera for best data quality.
So yeah, there was some extra exposure technique needed for those old Canons, but most of what you're seeing in modern images is "because I can"-ism made possible by modern technology and the desire to stand out from a billion other renderings.
I remember thread after thread here and elsewhere back then on the SOOC profiles employed by each manufacturer to differentiate themselves: Canon's color profile "twists" that were devilish to try and back out of; Olympus's interesting "filmic" curvatures; Sony overboosts; profiles with clipped deep black levels but fairly straightforward elsewheres; and universally whether LR/PS or Capture One or DXO or whoever were faithfully emulating the SOOC profiles and whether should one accept the clumsiness of this or that postprocessor to reap its advantages.
Modern cameras are different animals, and if you're shooting RAW you have tremendous data quality to work with, but as always if you're shooting RAW it's your skill in rendering and your taste level that shows the most; if you're looking at images on a website it's the quality of the rendering engine and the bandwidth conservation algorithms that can ruin what a careful capture and develop phase was trying to present.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Sorry for the late response - I had to sleep! but thanks all for the comments.

I don't know the ethics behind posting photos strangers took

You could post links to external images, there's no need to insert/post them in this thread directly.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

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?

 

[Hike Pics]

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.

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

I don't think I've ever photographed a scene and wished that I had shot it with a camera that had more DR. Call me a freak but, sometimes, I'm just as happy taking out my old Sony S75 than my A390.

 

[lomoapontaechuta]

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?

you forgot to add the compression of social media in general.

I don't know either, but it's the same here.

Lately I'm seeing a lot of Back and white WW photos, much lower resolution, often with crashed blacks, and even with blew up highlights but so much punchier than the regular ( and somewhat bland and smooth ) Black and white S.O.C.s of nowadays.

Even coloured photos of 50's /60's - 80's.

Grain aside, even trying to manipulate the files in post processing one has to almost "sabotage " the thing to hope to get even in the same postal code as the ones we can take as a threshold.

Nowadays, gear are made to please as much as possible to as many people as possible.

Never mind mind the necessary leap between a pro shooting a bomber through a small opening trying to not get in the way in a high stress situation vs an amateur with nothing to shoot at.

Tho, many ships and planes photos were taken by hobbyists.

Editing tools and procedures at that time were more crude than the precision of sliders nowadays

Guess, sometimes less is much more.

Maybe contrast, can be a key ingredient, whatever the frame comes out, as long it has contrast it has potential

 

[Quarkcharmed]

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.

How does any of that make a high-DR camera 'undesirable'?

Shooting with older (classic/vintage) cameras because a person finds them fun/interesting to use.

But that has nothing to do with the dynamic range.

 

[Hike Pics]

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.

How does any of that make a high-DR camera 'undesirable'?

I do not desire or need a high DR camera for the above. My latest camera is a Sony A3000, about 11 years old. There are (obviously) higher DR cameras on the market. I don't desire them, my cameras are enough, they do what I want. Besides, the cost difference is very undesirable for me!

Shooting with older (classic/vintage) cameras because a person finds them fun/interesting to use.

But that has nothing to do with the dynamic range.

Puzzled at this. There is a certain look of those older "lower DR" cameras that I enjoy....actually, that many people enjoy by reading threads here and elsewhere. That's one of the reason those older models are selling like crazy these days. There are many threads here discussing that.

 

[ActionPhotoPassion]

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

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.

IMO, the A7 and A7II sensor was a bit of a dud (not a modern sensor either). It had about the worst and most difficult to sort out color I’ve encountered - ugly jpegs and ugly color profiles in Lightroom/ACR too. Not surprised you like Canon images better. The newer Sony sensors are significantly better, IMO.

The A7 sensor 24mpx is the same in A7, A7ii and A7iii

The sensor is good, just it's needed to shoot in Raw as as you said the jpegs colors are far from good.

I use A7 with raw and jpg sooc, jpeg is very challenging. DR is nothing exceptional tbh but you know the limits of it, it's manageable.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

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

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.

IMO, the A7 and A7II sensor was a bit of a dud (not a modern sensor either). It had about the worst and most difficult to sort out color I’ve encountered - ugly jpegs and ugly color profiles in Lightroom/ACR too. Not surprised you like Canon images better. The newer Sony sensors are significantly better, IMO.

The A7 sensor 24mpx is the same in A7, A7ii and A7iii

The sensor is good, just it's needed to shoot in Raw as as you said the jpegs colors are far from good.

I use A7 with raw and jpg sooc, jpeg is very challenging. DR is nothing exceptional tbh but you know the limits of it, it's manageable.

It's the same as the A7II, but it's NOT the same as the A7III.

The A7 and A7II are both FSI designs, with single gain ISO.

The A7III has a BSI sensor, with dual gain ISO. Performance is about the same at low ISO (100-500) but it's VERY different once you get to the second native ISO (640 and higher). And tha't for both noise levels and dynamic range.









When it comes to colors, it's more down to the processor than the sensor. The A7RII had the same terrible colors from the A7II/A7, but the A7RIII with the same sensor but newer processing had a much better color output (which got improved again with later models)

--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)

 

[All Bushs Fault]

Does anyone else see what I'm seeing?

First, I am not sure what you are describing but no, I do not see what you are seeing. I owned every 5D model through the 5DsR. Starting with the 5D2, the DR was problematic. It didn't have anything to do with DR in general. It had everything to do with Canon sensor tech.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

My latest camera is a Sony A3000, about 11 years old. There are (obviously) higher DR cameras on the market.

This camera actually has a pretty decent DR even by modern standards.

Shooting with older (classic/vintage) cameras because a person finds them fun/interesting to use.

But that has nothing to do with the dynamic range.

Puzzled at this. There is a certain look of those older "lower DR" cameras that I enjoy....

You think that look was because of lower DR? I don't think so, especially in case of Sony A3000.

In-camera processing will be in charge for that look, mostly.

actually, that many people enjoy by reading threads here and elsewhere. That's one of the reason those older models are selling like crazy these days. There are many threads here discussing that.

To be honest, I haven't seen any, but maybe I wasn't paying attention to such threads. Can you post a few links to those threads?

 

[GarysInSoCal]

The D810 for full frame... The D7200 for APS-C... both are stellar HDR performers at budget prices. Don't take my word for it. Surf on over the DXOMark's camera testing site and see for yourself (link below)... 'Landscape' number is the dynamic range calculation.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/


IMATS... shot with the D810... doesn't get much more dynamic than this!

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

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

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.

IMO, the A7 and A7II sensor was a bit of a dud (not a modern sensor either). It had about the worst and most difficult to sort out color I’ve encountered - ugly jpegs and ugly color profiles in Lightroom/ACR too. Not surprised you like Canon images better. The newer Sony sensors are significantly better, IMO.

The A7 sensor 24mpx is the same in A7, A7ii and A7iii

Nope, the A7III sensor is significantly improved.

The sensor is good, just it's needed to shoot in Raw as as you said the jpegs colors are far from good.

Is the A7 sensor capable of creating nice images? Sure, but it’s really not all that good in the scheme of things, especially for a FF sensor. I’d much rather shoot with an (also older, but better tech) Fuji X-T2 with an APS-C sensor.

I use A7 with raw and jpg sooc, jpeg is very challenging. DR is nothing exceptional tbh but you know the limits of it, it's manageable.

--
https://www.actionphotopassion.com

 

[Hike Pics]

My latest camera is a Sony A3000, about 11 years old. There are (obviously) higher DR cameras on the market.

This camera actually has a pretty decent DR even by modern standards.

Shooting with older (classic/vintage) cameras because a person finds them fun/interesting to use.

But that has nothing to do with the dynamic range.

Puzzled at this. There is a certain look of those older "lower DR" cameras that I enjoy....

You think that look was because of lower DR? I don't think so, especially in case of Sony A3000.

Yes. (The A3000 isn't a classic/vintage camera. Yet.) I'm talking about Nikon 995, Oly C-2100, Sony S75, Canon G6 and G7, A750, etc etc. Even those early 2/3" models....C-8080, Pro1, F828. ALL have much lower DR, ALL selling for much more now than 5-10 years ago. So many more models. Why? Lower DR is part of it.

By the way, my A3000 had a pretty good DXO DR score for its day. Not like the A6700 these days. I don't have (or want/need) an A6700 but that's what I have heard from some Sony users who have had both.

In-camera processing will be in charge for that look, mostly.

actually, that many people enjoy by reading threads here and elsewhere. That's one of the reason those older models are selling like crazy these days. There are many threads here discussing that.

To be honest, I haven't seen any, but maybe I wasn't paying attention to such threads. Can you post a few links to those threads?

OK, but be ready to read a lot. Here's some starters...

Good enough for me…

I’ve had something of a revelation in the past few weeks. Several factors have contributed to this. I will explain if you can be bothered to read a few more lines, and I’m wondering if anyone else has come to a similar “point of contentment”. I started taking pictures over 50 years ago. I liked...

www.dpreview.com

Compact cameras are apparently not dead.

I saw someone on Youtube claiming that kodak was the best selling camera brand April in Japan and they did so by selling simple compact camera’s. After some digging I found the source article: https://www.bcnretail.com/research/detail/20240524_426697.html

www.dpreview.com

Using vintage digicams has added fun for me

I am going through a vintage digicam phase and I am pleased with what I can extract from cameras from the early days of digital, you have to work harder and I kind of like the old CCD look which is probably what is attracting the intrest in older powershots etc on Ebay, these were just shot...

www.dpreview.com

Does anybody else find cheap cameras more fun ?

Results are usually better than you were expecting No worry about breaking it or getting it stolen Lighter and easier to manage Far less settings to mess with No PP required All shot with a Kodak FZ55 P&S today

www.dpreview.com

WHY are compact camera prices up??

After reading about it online, i've recently discovered that old compact camera sales are up in my country as well, which is absurd because the people here have lost their interest for these types of cameras a decade ago. The old cameras which i could get for very little money are now difficult...

www.dpreview.com

Ebay sales and compact craziness

Many of you reading these boards will have noticed the recent resurgence of interest in premium compact cameras, after most manufacturers discontinued their lines. Fujifilm in particular has had a great time of it, selling every X100VI they can make. The used market is also very buoyant, as...

www.dpreview.com

Devotees of the modern style of edge to edge sharpness versus the classic film style

Right now I see 2 very different approaches to digital photography. One group is drawn to extreme optical excellence - text scores and charts are reviewed and carefully studied. Lens are bought and sold with the hope of obtaining perfectly flat field curvatures. Any sort of chromatic...

www.dpreview.com

Do you buy new lenses / cameras although you can easily get great results with what you already have

[No message]

www.dpreview.com

Are digital cameras coming back?? 🤔

What I mean by this is, are they becoming truly popular again? With mobile phones being more than sufficient (for most people - not me!), people don't tend to walk about with cameras. But after posting some video footage to a fitness page I have on instagram using the Xt30 and Fuji's beautiful...

www.dpreview.com

I don't like wide dynamic range. Anyone else?

Everywhere I go I see people obsessed with high dynamic in pictures or video, to the point that when a camera hasn't the best dymanic range capabilities, it is deemed "unusable". And I'm here wondering where are the people liking low dynamic range? This page shows what I'm taling about...

www.dpreview.com

If you really want a LOT of info on why many people are shooting lower DR cameras just ask YouTube.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

My latest camera is a Sony A3000, about 11 years old. There are (obviously) higher DR cameras on the market.

This camera actually has a pretty decent DR even by modern standards.

Shooting with older (classic/vintage) cameras because a person finds them fun/interesting to use.

But that has nothing to do with the dynamic range.

Puzzled at this. There is a certain look of those older "lower DR" cameras that I enjoy....

You think that look was because of lower DR? I don't think so, especially in case of Sony A3000.

Yes. (The A3000 isn't a classic/vintage camera. Yet.) I'm talking about Nikon 995, Oly C-2100, Sony S75, Canon G6 and G7, A750, etc etc. Even those early 2/3" models....C-8080, Pro1, F828. ALL have much lower DR, ALL selling for much more now than 5-10 years ago. So many more models. Why? Lower DR is part of it.

I highly doubt that. Compact cameras are being canceled and discontinued, but there's still some demand. Hence the interest t the old cameras. It's got nothing to do with the DR.

By the way, my A3000 had a pretty good DXO DR score for its day. Not like the A6700 these days.

That's what I said above.

actually, that many people enjoy by reading threads here and elsewhere. That's one of the reason those older models are selling like crazy these days. There are many threads here discussing that.

To be honest, I haven't seen any, but maybe I wasn't paying attention to such threads. Can you post a few links to those threads?

OK, but be ready to read a lot. Here's some starters...

Ok, some of the posts indicate that the prices on old compacts are up. It doesn't mean they're "selling like crazy", it means the demand is higher than supply (if the DPR posts are representative samples).

The articles mentioned there (https://www.bcnretail.com/research/detail/20240524_426697.html) refers to new Kodak compacts, not the old ones, although it says the interest for vintage compacts is up.

Ok, but how does all of that relate to the low DR? Most of the compact camera users don't even know what DR is.

--
https://www.instagram.com/quarkcharmed/
https://500px.com/quarkcharmed

 

[Shooters on My Squad]

Ok, but how does all of that relate to the low DR? Most of the compact camera users don't even know what DR is.

I don’t think there’s any real difference. You might spot some on a chart, but you won’t notice them in the final output. It’s probably just OP preferring a certain look, but you can get that vintage vibe from modern cameras too (the other way around, not so much—unless you’re faking it with some AI).


Where is the huge difference in DR? I don’t see it

The compact camera hype is because cameras have gotten so damn expensive that your average teenager can’t afford one, and used vintage cameras are still within reach. The youth wants to do more than just sit in front of their phones, but many just can’t swing the cost of a modern camera. Sure, old CCD sensors and all that play a part, but they’re downplaying the real issue. Nobody wants to be seen as "poor," but presenting yourself as "hip" is the move right now.

The youth will get over it. Most will drop photography altogether, some will go all out and grab the most hyped MILC, and others will pick up used ones in a few years. It’s all good. To each their own.

--
You are talking to crazy. With too many cameras.

 

[Ron Poelman]

The youth will get over it. Most will drop photography altogether, some will go all out and grab the most hyped MILC, and others will pick up used ones in a few years. It’s all good. To each their own.

does not a movement make.
A little camera price cherry picking does not prove a hipster fad.
There's probably a lot more gear going to Steam Punk, but only "really old and interesting camera stuff".

 

[Hike Pics]

My latest camera is a Sony A3000, about 11 years old. There are (obviously) higher DR cameras on the market.

This camera actually has a pretty decent DR even by modern standards.

Shooting with older (classic/vintage) cameras because a person finds them fun/interesting to use.

But that has nothing to do with the dynamic range.

Puzzled at this. There is a certain look of those older "lower DR" cameras that I enjoy....

You think that look was because of lower DR? I don't think so, especially in case of Sony A3000.

Yes. (The A3000 isn't a classic/vintage camera. Yet.) I'm talking about Nikon 995, Oly C-2100, Sony S75, Canon G6 and G7, A750, etc etc. Even those early 2/3" models....C-8080, Pro1, F828. ALL have much lower DR, ALL selling for much more now than 5-10 years ago. So many more models. Why? Lower DR is part of it.

I highly doubt that. Compact cameras are being canceled and discontinued, but there's still some demand. Hence the interest t the old cameras. It's got nothing to do with the DR.

By the way, my A3000 had a pretty good DXO DR score for its day. Not like the A6700 these days.

That's what I said above.

actually, that many people enjoy by reading threads here and elsewhere. That's one of the reason those older models are selling like crazy these days. There are many threads here discussing that.

To be honest, I haven't seen any, but maybe I wasn't paying attention to such threads. Can you post a few links to those threads?

OK, but be ready to read a lot. Here's some starters...

Ok, some of the posts indicate that the prices on old compacts are up. It doesn't mean they're "selling like crazy", it means the demand is higher than supply (if the DPR posts are representative samples).

The articles mentioned there (https://www.bcnretail.com/research/detail/20240524_426697.html) refers to new Kodak compacts, not the old ones, although it says the interest for vintage compacts is up.

Ok, but how does all of that relate to the low DR? Most of the compact camera users don't even know what DR is.

 

[GarysInSoCal]

You know, this post has been beat to hell and back. I have made my statement and I and many others (lots not on DPR or care about it) stand by it. I have listed resources and made recommendations for resources. I cannot help it if you do not use them.

We can, however, agree to disagree and that's all well and good. But I'm done here.

Unsubscribed...

I fail to visualize how this post descended to the depths of Hell, and then came roaring back... LOL! I find it hilarious how some people think their recommendations are gospel, and that nobody else's matters.

If one does not agree with what's considered 'a consensus'... then it's findings can easily be ignored and outcasted... quite possibly even to the depths of Hell... ;-)




Here's Chelsea in Laguna Beach... 5 seconds before 'Hammer Time'...