[toni-a]

We have discussed this several times,  dynamic range importance , the more the better etc 
the discussion we had last week was at least for me very interesting

https://forum.opticallimits.com/showthre...759&page=3

Anyone interested in a real life comparo between cameras to see the difference in real life ?
Cameras I have available for the comparo 

Canon 300D
Canon 30D
Canon 550D
Canon 750D
Canon 5D classic
Canon 7Dmkii

Canon EOS RP
Sony A6000

I guess the most interesting would be to do Sony  A6000 13.1 EV vs 750D with 12 EV  vs EOS RP 11.8 EV and see how they compare in real life
will choose a scene where high dynamic range is needed and show the difference in real life 
Same lens will be used on all cameras 
I go for it ?

[Brightcolours]

How would you go about pulling all those extreme darks many, many stops into "the light"?

And what kind of scene, according to you, would have/need high dynamic range? And which amount of "shadow pulling" would you deem sensible?

If you are bored, you are free to do with your time as you please, but there are numerous sources which "measure" the difference in DR in RAW, and the point of what is tasteful or sane in respect to shadow pulling, tonal mapping, and the manner one should go about that, differs so much from specs fetishist to gear head to photographer to artist, that it will be rather pointless, it will not bring together different camps in any way.

[davidmanze]

It could only interest Canon shooters .... note the word "could"......

..... I'm currently watching some paint dry ....... so I'm out!

[toni-a]

The measures we have them, but how much are they meaningful in real life, in the real world...

[thxbb12]

The measures we have them, but how much are they meaningful in real life, in the real world...

At dpreview.com they have a gallery for the Canon RP which features a few under-exposed shots that could serve as test examples.

For instance, this shot at base ISO looks pretty bad once adjusted; original shot:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0019055356/canon-eos-rp-sample-gallery/2200358155

The adjusted one which becomes quite noisy and reminds me of what I get with MFT:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0019055356/canon-eos-rp-sample-gallery/8943620914

It would be interesting to see the result of a similar shot with a Nikon Z6 or a Sony A7III for instance.

[toni-a]

The measures we have them, but how much are they meaningful in real life, in the real world...

At dpreview.com they have a gallery for the Canon RP which features a few under-exposed shots that could serve as test examples.

For instance, this shot at base ISO looks pretty bad once adjusted; original shot:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0019055356/canon-eos-rp-sample-gallery/2200358155

The adjusted one which becomes quite noisy and reminds me of what I get with MFT:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0019055356/canon-eos-rp-sample-gallery/8943620914

It would be interesting to see the result of a similar shot with a Nikon Z6 or a Sony A7III for instance.

this test is more about ISO invariance than dynamic range, I guess we are mixing things a little bit
For ISO invariance yes EOSRP is a loser a picture taken at ISO 400 and pushed one f stop has much more noise than a photo taken natively at ISO 800, that's why plenty of Canon users have the habit of shooting to the right and then decrease exposure in post processing to overcome this issue, to add insult to the injury Canon sensors already have more noise in shadows areas than the rest of the frame... shooting to the right solves this.
In bright daylight, instead of 1/100 f16 at ISO 100 use 1/50f16 ISO 100 and push exposure minus one f stop in RAW you will have much better results
For landscape when shooting RAW I do my metering using live histogram taking care of not to have clipped highlights, when you know your gear shortcomings and know how to overcome them, they are not shortcomings anymore
will show you all this as soon as I have some time to shoot and edit pictures, hopefully this week

[thxbb12]

The measures we have them, but how much are they meaningful in real life, in the real world...

At dpreview.com they have a gallery for the Canon RP which features a few under-exposed shots that could serve as test examples.

For instance, this shot at base ISO looks pretty bad once adjusted; original shot:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0019055356/canon-eos-rp-sample-gallery/2200358155

The adjusted one which becomes quite noisy and reminds me of what I get with MFT:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0019055356/canon-eos-rp-sample-gallery/8943620914

It would be interesting to see the result of a similar shot with a Nikon Z6 or a Sony A7III for instance.

this test is more about ISO invariance than dynamic range, I guess we are mixing things a little bit
For ISO invariance yes EOSRP is a loser a picture taken at ISO 400 and pushed one f stop has much more noise than a photo taken natively at ISO 800, that's why plenty of  Canon users have the habit of shooting  to the right and then decrease exposure in post processing to overcome this issue, to add insult to the injury  Canon sensors already have more noise in  shadows areas than the rest of the frame...  shooting to the right solves this.
In bright daylight, instead of 1/100 f16 at ISO 100 use 1/50f16 ISO 100 and push exposure minus one f stop in RAW  you will have much better results
For landscape when shooting RAW I do my metering using live  histogram taking care of not to have clipped highlights, when you know your gear shortcomings and know how to overcome them, they are not shortcomings anymore
will show you all this as soon as I have some time to shoot and edit pictures, hopefully this week

Well, that's my point: if the scene has more DR than the sensor can capture, you'll be in the same situation as in the example above. You'll expose to the right to prevent the sky to be blown out, but then end up with under-exposed areas in the foreground.
A sensor capable of recording a wider DR will mitigate this a bit and give better results.

[toni-a]

The measures we have them, but how much are they meaningful in real life, in the real world...

At dpreview.com they have a gallery for the Canon RP which features a few under-exposed shots that could serve as test examples.

For instance, this shot at base ISO looks pretty bad once adjusted; original shot:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0019055356/canon-eos-rp-sample-gallery/2200358155

The adjusted one which becomes quite noisy and reminds me of what I get with MFT:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0019055356/canon-eos-rp-sample-gallery/8943620914

It would be interesting to see the result of a similar shot with a Nikon Z6 or a Sony A7III for instance.

this test is more about ISO invariance than dynamic range, I guess we are mixing things a little bit
For ISO invariance yes EOSRP is a loser a picture taken at ISO 400 and pushed one f stop has much more noise than a photo taken natively at ISO 800, that's why plenty of  Canon users have the habit of shooting  to the right and then decrease exposure in post processing to overcome this issue, to add insult to the injury  Canon sensors already have more noise in  shadows areas than the rest of the frame...  shooting to the right solves this.
In bright daylight, instead of 1/100 f16 at ISO 100 use 1/50f16 ISO 100 and push exposure minus one f stop in RAW  you will have much better results
For landscape when shooting RAW I do my metering using live  histogram taking care of not to have clipped highlights, when you know your gear shortcomings and know how to overcome them, they are not shortcomings anymore
will show you all this as soon as I have some time to shoot and edit pictures, hopefully this week

Well, that's my point: if the scene has more DR than the sensor can capture, you'll be in the same situation as in the example above. You'll expose to the right to prevent the sky to be blown out, but then end up with under-exposed areas in the foreground.
A sensor capable of recording a wider DR will mitigate this a bit and give better results.

shooting to the right=shifting histogram to the right a term used by photographers for overexposing to look smart, when you shoot to the right the shadows aren't usually underexposed, however with a wider dynamic range you can overexpose more without getting clipped highlights

https://digital-photography-school.com/exposing-to-the-right/

[thxbb12]

The measures we have them, but how much are they meaningful in real life, in the real world...

At dpreview.com they have a gallery for the Canon RP which features a few under-exposed shots that could serve as test examples.

For instance, this shot at base ISO looks pretty bad once adjusted; original shot:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0019055356/canon-eos-rp-sample-gallery/2200358155

The adjusted one which becomes quite noisy and reminds me of what I get with MFT:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/0019055356/canon-eos-rp-sample-gallery/8943620914

It would be interesting to see the result of a similar shot with a Nikon Z6 or a Sony A7III for instance.

this test is more about ISO invariance than dynamic range, I guess we are mixing things a little bit
For ISO invariance yes EOSRP is a loser a picture taken at ISO 400 and pushed one f stop has much more noise than a photo taken natively at ISO 800, that's why plenty of  Canon users have the habit of shooting  to the right and then decrease exposure in post processing to overcome this issue, to add insult to the injury  Canon sensors already have more noise in  shadows areas than the rest of the frame...  shooting to the right solves this.
In bright daylight, instead of 1/100 f16 at ISO 100 use 1/50f16 ISO 100 and push exposure minus one f stop in RAW  you will have much better results
For landscape when shooting RAW I do my metering using live  histogram taking care of not to have clipped highlights, when you know your gear shortcomings and know how to overcome them, they are not shortcomings anymore
will show you all this as soon as I have some time to shoot and edit pictures, hopefully this week

Well, that's my point: if the scene has more DR than the sensor can capture, you'll be in the same situation as in the example above. You'll expose to the right to prevent the sky to be blown out, but then end up with under-exposed areas in the foreground.
A sensor capable of recording a wider DR will mitigate this a bit and give better results.

shooting to the right=shifting histogram to the right a term used  by photographers for overexposing to look smart, when you shoot to the right the shadows aren't usually underexposed, however with a wider dynamic range you can overexpose more without getting clipped highlights

https://digital-photography-school.com/exposing-to-the-right/

I know what "exposing-to-the-right" means (ETTR). BTW, the histogram you see in camera is from the jpeg output, not th RAW output, so you're not seeing what the sensor truly sees. Consequently, you might not be exposing exactly the way you want.

What I was saying in my previous message still holds true even if you ETTR. If the dynamic range of the scene is too great, you'll still end up with under-exposed areas and hence, lost details. It's up to you to decide whether you'd rather clip some of the highlights or lose information in the dark areas too close to the noise floor.

[toni-a]

What I was saying in my previous message still holds true even if you ETTR. If the dynamic range of the scene is too great, you'll still end up with under-exposed areas and hence, lost details. It's up to you to decide whether you'd rather clip some of the highlights or lose information in the dark areas too close to the noise floor.

obviously even if you manage the impossible there are still shadows to recover...
https://favim.com/image/259068/

but frankly who is expecting the photographer to show the green forest here...