Many cameras, like, D7K, 5100, K5, A55/57, D800, A77 have Sony sensors characterized by low read noise. This has some DR implications and shadows can be pulled without noise penalties and they remain clean.
If we look at canon 5D MII for examples, shadows become muddy when pulled, necessitating correct exposure.
Do you think this has any real world implications on your photography, will you prefer a camera over the other because of this?
Or do you think it's not important?
regards,
nandadevieast
For me it is totally not important. Pulling up shadows for several stops is quite nonsensical. Only makes sense for messed up exposures that can not be done again, or to try and save images that are taken in very unattractive light in the first place, which never result in keepers anyway..
I just about ALWAYS find myself to actually limit the DR (in other words: enhance contrast). We (photo viewing public) just happen to like contrasty images. Also, note that output in print will severely limit DR (about 5 stops DR).
Of course, some people may actually have a real use for lower noise floor in low ISO. One can for instance shoot HDR with less EV spread for the same results. I do not think astro photography has too much use for it, as I understand that rarely is done at base ISO? And at higher ISO's the lower read noise advantage falls away again.
For me, lower read noise at base ISO for pulling up shadows has zero use. I rather have better high ISO performance. It is more a specsheet thing.
Brightcolours writes arrogant nonsense again. Poor dynamic range, producing excessively dark shadows and blown highlights, is the achilles heel of digital photography.
[quote name='Dick England' timestamp='1333763737' post='17351']
Brightcolours writes arrogant nonsense again.
[/quote]
Watch your tone, please.
-- Markus
[quote name='nandadevieast' timestamp='1333721574' post='17347']
Many cameras, like, D7K, 5100, K5, A55/57, D800, A77 have Sony sensors characterized by low read noise. This has some DR implications and shadows can be pulled without noise penalties and they remain clean.
If we look at canon 5D MII for examples, shadows become muddy when pulled, necessitating correct exposure.
Do you think this has any real world implications on your photography, will you prefer a camera over the other because of this?
Or do you think it's not important?
regards,
nandadevieast
[/quote]
[quote name='nandadevieast' timestamp='1333721574' post='17347']
Many cameras, like, D7K, 5100, K5, A55/57, D800, A77 have Sony sensors characterized by low read noise. This has some DR implications and shadows can be pulled without noise penalties and they remain clean.
If we look at canon 5D MII for examples, shadows become muddy when pulled, necessitating correct exposure.
Do you think this has any real world implications on your photography, will you prefer a camera over the other because of this?
Or do you think it's not important?
regards,
nandadevieast
[/quote]
Hi,
I think the improvements in dynamic range in recent sensors have revolutionized DSLRs,eg the K10 I found lacked DR and also not having any extended DR made it for me very difficult to not get bleached whites especially in very bright sunlight, the K20 was a great improvement. The K5 has good DR and yes shadow detail is good also! you don't have struggle so much when using RAW files and not so good exposures can brought back up to a decent level without bleached holes. Overexposed faces seem to produce a kind of pink/lime green tinge in the highlights which I find completely unacceptable, outside TV broadcasts often suffer from this, I no longer have this problem. To some people these photos can look a bit lacking in contrast but with careful PP you can have the best of both worlds.
Dave's clichés
[quote name='nandadevieast' timestamp='1333721574' post='17347']
Many cameras, like, D7K, 5100, K5, A55/57, D800, A77 have Sony sensors characterized by low read noise. This has some DR implications and shadows can be pulled without noise penalties and they remain clean.
If we look at canon 5D MII for examples, shadows become muddy when pulled, necessitating correct exposure.
Do you think this has any real world implications on your photography, will you prefer a camera over the other because of this?
Or do you think it's not important?
regards,
nandadevieast
[/quote]
.... for my generation of living in the same house with an a900 + a 7d (i know, we are all so old now) = for my use, both are lovely, each in it's own special way - just like humans really - well some humans, possibly mr.-2 above has a somewhat more restricted DR, or maybe is more of a P&S or camera phone style -
- if anything the 900 has a greater problem with dark noise and the 7d has lesser detail in the whites and the white clipping is earlier and not so smooth, maybe (not so unlike an earlier aps-c camera i had) - but i can make both camera pictures look the same via C1, but not using standard settings in either case for either high contrast or a flat response (horses for courses) -
- and besides, one friend has a 5D2 and makes lovely pictures from it in difficult and sometimes dark conditions - another friend has just acquired an 800 and the pictures i've seen from it look super (but i haven't seen it under test conditions, just very detailed low noise people pix) -
- so if the 800 is the next gen camera, things are looking promising, although i understand he already wants it to be faster and have a wider selection of focus points - so there is always the roving eye for something/someone more beautiful while forever remaining faithful to the already beloved and dare i say most useful cook in the kitchen....
I think it's a matter of personal taste and how you like to view the images. I always wellcome higher DR and tonal range capabilities of the sensors, because this gives you more flexibility during post processing. I like to view images with high DR and tonal range on a decent wide gamut IPS panel. To see details in shadows, or unclipped highlights and more importantly tack sharp feel of the midtones... I believe a decent image should be able to show as much as possible different tones from pure white to pure black, that's how I like it...
But of course when it comes to printing, there are limitations in terms of DR, which are quite lower than the recent sensors are capable of.
Serkan
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1333724574' post='17348']
For me it is totally not important. Pulling up shadows for several stops is quite nonsensical. Only makes sense for messed up exposures that can not be done again, or to try and save images that are taken in very unattractive light in the first place, which never result in keepers anyway..
I just about ALWAYS find myself to actually limit the DR (in other words: enhance contrast). We (photo viewing public) just happen to like contrasty images. Also, note that output in print will severely limit DR (about 5 stops DR).
Of course, some people may actually have a real use for lower noise floor in low ISO. One can for instance shoot HDR with less EV spread for the same results. I do not think astro photography has too much use for it, as I understand that rarely is done at base ISO? And at higher ISO's the lower read noise advantage falls away again.
For me, lower read noise at base ISO for pulling up shadows has zero use. I rather have better high ISO performance. It is more a specsheet thing.
[/quote]
I guess it depends what you are used to - if I increase exposure in PP by as little as half a stop I can produce noisy shadows from my D200 bodies - at base ISO. Old technology, I guess - designed... 7 years ago? Certainly well before the D3/D300 leap in performance.
I suspect, therefore that any current Nikon DSLR can remove that problem due to greater DR. So in that respect, for me, more DR would be a blessing.
[quote name='Dick England' timestamp='1333763737' post='17351']
Brightcolours writes arrogant nonsense again. Poor dynamic range, producing excessively dark shadows and blown highlights, is the achilles heel of digital photography. [/quote]
Here is a comparison of dynamic range:
Positive slides (using E-6 chemicals) = 12 stops
Print film (using C-41 chemicals) = 8 stops
Developed photograph = 5 stops
Nikon D800 = 14 stops
LCD display = 9.5 stops
Human eye at a single pupil dilation = 17 stops (see [url="http://wiki.panotools.org/Dynamic_range"]http://wiki.panotool...g/Dynamic_range[/url])
So, digital photography has overtaken film and slides for dynamic range. We are merely limited by our LCD displays. Still not as good as the human eye, but we are making progress.
The dark shadows and blown highlights you often see in digital photos can be attributed to users who love to keep their in-camera contrast setting at default. Mine is always set to the LOWEST possible. I prefer to tweak contrast/micro-contrast in RAW development.