rwbaron
Forum Pro
Great shot and I agree there is nothing to be concerned with regarding DR as it's a Sony sensor.
Care to share which AF mode you're using for the action tracking shots? Is that the 100-400 or the 50-140?
Bob
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
XT2 dynamic range?
- Thread starter lostnotstranded
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sony a7 sony a7r sony a7r ii
Care to share which AF mode you're using for the action tracking shots? Is that the 100-400 or the 50-140?
Bob
Joachim Gerstl
Veteran Member
Viramati
Senior Member
Well I have done no technical tests but I have been impressed with the DR range on my X-Pro 2, it isn't up to what I can get out of a file from my A7rII but it's really not far behind
I don't know about Sony but I know Nikon's metering in the D800 will lead to ignoring some highlights unless you throw in some compensation. I think the 810 address this.
I always shoot either using ADL or -2/3 exposure compensation with my D800E. It seems that Fuji's metering is close to Nikon and one either has to shoot DR200 or DRAuto or throw in some exposure compensation in certain scenes. Since the noise levels of the sensor are quite low - that allows one to save the highlights and then pull the shadows up.
No camera has infinite dynamic range. And considering that slide file of old had about 5 to 6 stops DR - we have come a long way.
Troubleshooter
Forum Enthusiast
rwbaron
Forum Pro
Troubleshooter
Forum Enthusiast
juvx
Senior Member
Not the best. Pretty much any Sony a7 series and Nikon full frame are still superior.
The problem is you introduce a lot of noise into the shadows when you lift them and they sometimes become muddy.. of course this is for trying to save a photo.
For properly exposed shots the dynamic range is good.
The problem is you introduce a lot of noise into the shadows when you lift them and they sometimes become muddy.. of course this is for trying to save a photo.
For properly exposed shots the dynamic range is good.
FingerPainter
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,593
- Solutions
- 37
- Reaction score
- 13,643
IDK why you included the D500 in there. It is an action camera, not a landscape camera. Show an a6300 or even a D7200 if you want to include other APS-C.according to Bill Claff's analysis:
Not sure why the D750 instead of the D810.
And we should note that Bills X-T dta is preliminary, he has few smapes and the hgiehr ISO data, which exhibits considrabel variation, should be considered tentative.
At nominal ISO 200 or higher the X-T2 may well be the class leader.
But,...
Well there's four 'but's.
- OP Is interested in landscape and citycsape. A lot of those are shot at base ISO and the rest at not many stops above base.
- The X-T2's base ISO is 200. Other leading APS-C cameras go to 100, and as a result, get about a stop more DR.
- FF dSLRs have a bigger sensor, and get a DR advantage ftom this, as well as the advantge they get from a lower base ISO.
- And finally, of course is the matter of Fuji's different method of ISO calibration, which tends to trail other maes by 1/2 to 2/3 stops. SO when you are shooting at ISO, 200 on Fuji, you might get the brightness of an ISO 320 shot on a Sony. For equally bright ashots, as opposed to nominally equal ISO shots, the Canikony cameras will have another fractional advantage.
At its base ISO, the D810 has more than 1.5 stops better DR than the X-T2. At their base ISOs, the Sony a7RII and Pentax K1 have nearly 1.5 stops better DR. Even the two year old APS-C D7200 has about a stop better DR than the X-T2 at their base ISOs.
At ISO 200, the X-T2 barely sneaks by the D7200, is about 1/2 stop behind the K-1, and about 1/3 stop behind the D810 and a7RII. That's phenominal performance for an APS-C sensor, but it is still behind.
When the X-T2's extra capacitance kicks in at IS 800 It surpasses the conventional sensors of the K-1 and D810., But that's at nominal ISO 800, not measured, and how often do you find yourself shooting landscapes at ISO 800?
No charts, but here' s a real world challenge in terms of DR of the scene. Taken w/ X-Pro2, but same sensor and processing. I was astounded at how it handled deep shadows to very bright white buildings, specular highlights in glass buildings, etc.
Rand
Last edited:
I know you like presenting that example. But really, that is what all these modern sensors are capable of. In fact, they are often even better than they look, because - usually - the print/viewing medium has a narrower DR than the sensor (monitor: 9-10 stops). Or the format is the limiting factor: It's difficult to get more than 8 stops of DR with a JPEG.
No charts, but here' s a real world challenge in terms of DR of the scene. Taken w/ X-Pro2, but same sensor and processing. I was astounded at how it handled deep shadows to very bright white buildings, specular highlights in glass buildings, etc.
5
57even
Guest
Yes, but it's possible to remap more stops onto the contrast range of a display or print. That's what a tone-curve does.I know you like presenting that example. But really, that is what all these modern sensors are capable of. In fact, they are often even better than they look, because - usually - the print/viewing medium has a narrower DR than the sensor (monitor: 9-10 stops). Or the format is the limiting factor: It's difficult to get more than 8 stops of DR with a JPEG.
No charts, but here' s a real world challenge in terms of DR of the scene. Taken w/ X-Pro2, but same sensor and processing. I was astounded at how it handled deep shadows to very bright white buildings, specular highlights in glass buildings, etc.
The whole debate is about how many 'spare' stops you have to allow you to underexpose (to maintain highlights) and recover the mid-tones from two or three stops further down without introducing too much noise. That is actually a more complicated question than simply looking at DR charts.
Perhaps if a few folk learned about post-processing, they wouldn't get so hung up on the numbers. Anyone who deliberately pushes tones near the noise floor is going to get garbage.
--
Reporter: "Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?"
Mahatma Gandhi: "I think it would be a very good idea!"
JG Fawcett
New member
I have only just begin using the X-T2 and my various lenses, but I have to say I have been extremely impressed with DR and freedom from flare in high-contrast situations. This photo, my first upload to my DPRev Gallery, beats anything I was ever able to do with my former Nikon lenses. And I had some really good glass! This was taken with the XF 18-135 WR OIS lens. This is the unprocessed jpeg.
Attachments
...
When there finally is a camera without any read noise, and these people look at the images and ask "why, oh why aren't my ISO12800 any better than before?", maybe then it will dawn on them where the problem is.
That's why I didn't write it was impossible to get more than 8 stops, just difficult, because if one crams too much into that space, something else has got to give.
Indeed. I have the feeling that a lot of people just cling to buzz lines, like high-ISO camera performance, or high-ISO noise characteristics. All that 'high-ISO' has given us is a bunch of noisy images that are basically useless. There are even some here who would happily shoot ISO12800 with an APS-C camera, all day long. Gasp.
When there finally is a camera without any read noise, and these people look at the images and ask "why, oh why aren't my ISO12800 any better than before?", maybe then it will dawn on them where the problem is.
5
57even
Guest
Yep. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
It's already true in some cases. But you can't reduce shot noise.
The Ghost of Caravaggio
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,006
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 747
I admit I did not read many responses to this thread.
This link shows the XT2's analog dynamic range compared to the Nikon D7200 when their shutters are open. This data is computed using statistical analysis of un-rendered raw data files. One can select results from other cameras as well.
Notes:
The DR computation is different than DxO and other rigorous sources. They use engineering DR. The DR here (photographic DR) is lower because the author decided engineering DR is less useful for still camera imaging. The difference between the two DR definitions is a constant, so the issue is moot (except people can become confused).
The DR can not be increased above the analog DR recorded when the shutter is open. DR 'enhancement' during raw rendering (in-camera or ex-camera) merely makes the most out of the raw data's inherent analog DR.
This link shows the XT2's analog dynamic range compared to the Nikon D7200 when their shutters are open. This data is computed using statistical analysis of un-rendered raw data files. One can select results from other cameras as well.
Notes:
The DR computation is different than DxO and other rigorous sources. They use engineering DR. The DR here (photographic DR) is lower because the author decided engineering DR is less useful for still camera imaging. The difference between the two DR definitions is a constant, so the issue is moot (except people can become confused).
The DR can not be increased above the analog DR recorded when the shutter is open. DR 'enhancement' during raw rendering (in-camera or ex-camera) merely makes the most out of the raw data's inherent analog DR.
Great images. I have been having trouble with post processing of my images. I use LR but your images seem to have a sharpness and color rendition I have been unable to obtain. Do you mind me asking what your processing style is ?
thanks, again great images
thanks, again great images
Andy Mumford is a pro landscape photographer who uses Fujifilm cameras. Check out his work and see what you think.
https://www.andymumford.com/recent-work/
--
Jon
https://www.andymumford.com/recent-work/
--
Jon
Last edited:
SandySandy
Member
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 5
Hahaha. this Bill Claff's measurements are hilarious. Initially I thought he's extremely strict with the measurements. Af te r checking many cameras I am certain now, that his methodologies are just flawed.according to Bill Claff's analysis:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum