Opticallimits

Full Version: So finally ... the Nikon D850
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
  Congrats on the D850 JoJu!   Nice test shots...

 

Sort of like your coming back to Nikon to roost.  Tongue

 

  I've been away this week struggling to get close to birds,  great white egrets set against a shady tree line, the result is a bit like a white cat in a coal mine.........perhaps that's why DR counts for everything in birding, not withstanding all other.

 

  Oh that I'd love one but it's one price hike too far..... 

 

   So I'll have to settle for hearing about yours.  Sad

I was critical against the mirror concept, but never away from Nikon. Unlike others, I didn't sell the mirror bodies when the mirrorless came in the house - but not because I felt the concept better, I just didn't want to throw away great glass. Some of that came after Fujis were already around.

 

Even if I can't carry that with me all the time, it's sometimes like a challenge: pick 2 or three items and go for a walk, accept the limits and find nice subjects for them. But that I also do with mirrorless.

Quote:And here's why I think it's good to have enough DR (which is more than 12 stops...)
 
Original â†“
[Image: _DSC015301-XL.jpg]
1/50, f/5.6 ISO 200
 
After using highlight and shadow slider â†“
[Image: _DSC0153-XL.jpg]
 
 
And a crop at the end of the picture which I haven't even focused on â†“
[Image: _DSC015302.jpg]
 
I like this 14 mm beast  ^_^ Great fit for that camera.
This is a clear example of not super high DR, you are not showing 12 stops or more. The extra DR is not hidden in the highlights, but in the dark part of RAW.
  ... the point is just that highlights as well as the shadows have been recovered to advantage.

     Is there more than 12 stops in the scene?

    Certainly...yes!  between the deeper shadows and the bright sky...whether the PP captured it all is another story.... but it's there if you should have need of it!

   

  .......but no, it's not a reference example of max. DR......but it worked out fine and without the flatness of a DR mode.
That's precisely my point, dave. Neither highlight no shadow slider were maxed out for the whole picture (as I did below) - the result would just look weird, but parts of the picture only benefitted from the great DR. I could lift the shadows far more without a problem - but why? In this subject there's nothing to see in the shadows but two fence posts. That's not making it better. I took the picture in the evening, making it a noon picture with an awkward moon in it, was never my point nor my aim nor my idea when I took it.

 

[Image: i-BMwGbDZ-XL.jpg]

 

I never said each picture needs +14 stops DR. But there are pictures which take big advantage from a bigger range of DR even if the most parts of them are exposed correctly. I don't like white skies or dark grey holes of shadows, and I also don't want to take every time two instead of one picture to get this kind of result as the end result doesn't get better by applying this kind of more work on it. Single shot HDR.

 

As if BC or Wim would buy a car which doesn't drive faster than 100 km/h because that's the max speed one ever needs. And if one ever wants to go max speed as allowed on the highway, one gets another car coupled together to drive 120 km/h.

  I rarely/never use a HDR mode because of that look JoJu!

 

    To me I like to add a little clarity to just minor adjustments in RAW, then deal with the highlights and the shadows with the adjustment brush, without changing the overall appearance of the image........

 

   .....which to me is the idea.....to make a normally light scene with only the shadows and highlights touched.....

 

  Thinking 14-15 stops of DR produces flat uncontrasty images is false! 

Quote:That's precisely my point, dave. Neither highlight no shadow slider were maxed out for the whole picture (as I did below) - the result would just look weird, but parts of the picture only benefitted from the great DR. I could lift the shadows far more without a problem - but why? In this subject there's nothing to see in the shadows but two fence posts. That's not making it better. I took the picture in the evening, making it a noon picture with an awkward moon in it, was never my point nor my aim nor my idea when I took it.

 

[Image: i-BMwGbDZ-XL.jpg]

 

I never said each picture needs +14 stops DR. But there are pictures which take big advantage from a bigger range of DR even if the most parts of them are exposed correctly. I don't like white skies or dark grey holes of shadows, and I also don't want to take every time two instead of one picture to get this kind of result as the end result doesn't get better by applying this kind of more work on it. Single shot HDR.

 

As if BC or Wim would buy a car which doesn't drive faster than 100 km/h because that's the max speed one ever needs. And if one ever wants to go max speed as allowed on the highway, one gets another car coupled together to drive 120 km/h.
 

 

Not going to get into the discussion about DR, other than that you just proved that you don't need more than 12 stops anyway Wink.

 

As to cars: in order to drive comfortably, IMO you need to go no faster than approximately 75% to 80% of top speed with a car, and since max speed here is 130 km/h, that means approximately 160 km/h to 175 km/h. For a motorbike that is approximately 60% to 65%, so 200 km/h to 215 km/h. In both cases I am covered. As I am with DR <ROFL>.

 

Kind regards, Wim
Your post speaks for itself.

Maybe a silly question, in weddings a bride's dress is sometimes a nightmare, if I expose to the bride's face the details in the dress are lost, 12 f stops on 750D and 7Dmkii don't solve this issue, using 850D would this issue be solved ?
No, your way of measuring exposure just needs addressing. A D850 (there is no Canon 850D yet) does not give specifically more room in highlights. Your "expose for the bride's face" apparently underexposes. So, expose for the light present, and you get consistent exposures from image to image. And when that is not possible, learn to recognize mid tones and expose for those. Or alternatively, learn to guesstimate how metering on different faces will differ from a real mid tone, and use exposure compensation to... compensate.

The dress usually is not a nightmare, as most don't give light, but just are what our eyes say is "white". With standard tonal curves, and metering for mid tones, things work out ok. And even then, there is the headroom in RAW (the bright end) to work with still.

A D850's DR as a solution would work like this: Set the camera to ISO 100. Underexpose a lot (with ISO 100 that should not be an issue, unless in outdoor daaylight). Lift the entire tonal range to taste.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19