# 6 stop push: 5DsR vs A7R vs A7RII



## SPKoko (Aug 5, 2015)

Sony A7Rii compared with Sony A7R and Canon 5DSr


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 5, 2015)

[sarc mode] Yeah! Keep pushing  [/sarc mode]

Honestly:
Yeah! We know about these adavantages of EXMOR. Nothing new. We also know, that Canon didn't show much effort to close that gap. If this is a relevant factor to you and limiting your photography feel free to jump ship.


----------



## SPKoko (Aug 5, 2015)

Yes, it is not really breaking news. But it adds to:


Day Two with the Sony A7RII..so far. WOW! | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS
_
Here is a shot with the Canon 50 1.2 EF lens at 1.2. What is really incredible? Myself and all here agree, *this lens focuses faster on the A7RII than it does on the Canon 5D series. Faster and more accurate.* _


----------



## NorbR (Aug 5, 2015)

So 5 stops weren't enough, now we have to push 6 stops ? :

The news, it seems, is not so much how the Canon does worse in these tests. We've known this for a long time, and I'm not interested in debating the relevance (or lack thereof) of this kind of exposure lifting, that's up to each photographer to decide. 

What's somewhat interesting is how much better the A7RII does compared to the A7R. The lifted A7R crops have the usual look: less noisy, sure, but also flat, washed out, with ugly colors, and so in the end not much more usable than the Canon. The A7RII however seems to have much richer colors, and retain details much better. That's interesting.


----------



## Rahul (Aug 5, 2015)

Too bad my photographic (in)competence doesn't allow me to shoot photos which require 6 stops of lift. 

Seriously, if you need to lift 6 stops in your photos - you need to question yourself as to what the hell are you doing?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 5, 2015)

Completion of this test:

Not learn to use your camera. ???
Always use ISO100, even if the light meter indicates that should use ISO6400. :
Image quality is just noise shadows, and nothing else is important in photography. :-[


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 5, 2015)

I don't like what I'm seeing in the over processing of the blacks in Steve Huff's shots - too pure black, a trend that seems to be developing with everyone apart from Nikon & Canon.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 5, 2015)

I played with 5DsR RAW files through a friend. The detail from 100 to 3200ISO on 4K monitor is REALLY good.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 5, 2015)

SPKoko said:


> Sony A7Rii compared with Sony A7R and Canon 5DSr



Note that, in this comparison, the A7R and 5DSR were exposed for 1/2500s, while the A7R2, at the same aperture, was exposed for 1/1000s.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 5, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> SPKoko said:
> 
> 
> > Sony A7Rii compared with Sony A7R and Canon 5DSr
> ...



Well spotted, but Tim Parkin did say that they exposed as far to the right as possible in holding highlights, then under exposed from there by 6 stops. So, this suggests the a7RII has more highlight range. Interesting.

However Tim getting involved in under exposing by 6 stops is a real worry. He lives just up the road from me and I think I'll have to drop in and have a serious word with him. 

Once we have to resort to 5 or 6 stops under to show differences in sensors it's game over really; they're all the same in practical use.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 5, 2015)

I have to admit, canons sensor has come along way but still can't touch the Exmooooooooor. Oh well, my 5D3 looks like will keep chugging along.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 5, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > SPKoko said:
> ...



If at the same sensitivity (ignore in-camera ISO setting; set them up such that the same exposure time and aperture yields the same brightness with a controlled scene) the A7R2 can be exposed for twice as long without clipping highlights, that's something special. But I doubt that's the case. 

Rather, it seems like the base native ISO on the A7R2 is lower than the A7R (thus requiring twice as many photons to achieve about the same brightness). Which is fine/great for landscape long exposure work, but not so much for those buying the camera for high-sensitivity uses. Maybe you can wander up to Tim's place and try to determine what's really happening!


----------



## traveller (Aug 5, 2015)

Yet again everyone's clutching to the straws of "underexposing and pushing is only for those that don't know how to use their camera meter". This sort of test is meant to _simulate_ shadow pulls in high contrast situations; I would have preferred it if Tim had shown this with more close to real life contre-jour shots that are more typical situations in landscape photography, but it seems that the British "summer" got the better of him! He has promised more realistic testing in the future. 

There are plenty of times when I am stacking ND grads for landscape photography, or having to blend multiple exposures. I would love to be able to just pull the shadows a few stops without worrying about noise, as it would save much time and effort (especially when the wind, rain and sea spray are making life tough). 

I think that people should read the whole article again with his updates: even a 2-3 stop (i.e. single ND grad) shadow pull is much cleaner on the A7r ii. I love my 5D Mk3: its build quality; the lovely viewfinder and the ergonomics, but for tripod mounted base-ISO landscape photography, I can't help getting tempted by the Sony + EF mount adapter option. If only Sony would provide 14 bit uncompressed RAW option...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 5, 2015)

traveller said:


> If only Sony would provide 14 bit *uncompressed* RAW option...



Please, no.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 5, 2015)

I'm not surprised. We saw this pattern from the 5DmkIII vs D800 comparisons, let alone the D810 which is an even more refined sensor with ISO 64 capabilities. And unlike before, now canon is the one with the higher density pixel count which makes the problem worse so I was expecting the 5DsR to fall flat on its face in this type of test, and it did. 

I wish sony would release an update for uncompressed lossless 14 bit raws to really get an idea about what their sensor can do. I don't know if that will change anything on this test, but they are really crippling the sensor with their compression and the issue has gotten a lot of attention.

This is why I'm eager to see this sensor or a similar one on a nikon body: the nikon image pipeline will not make the same compromises sony did, thus it may blow us away even more.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > If only Sony would provide 14 bit *uncompressed* RAW option...
> ...



The only suggestion from Sony on the matter suggests they're considering doing just that. It seems that's exactly what some people are asking for...people who apparently don't understand what it is they're asking.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 5, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > traveller said:
> ...



All they are asking for is lossless compression which is a standard feature on canon and nikon. I don't see anything wrong with an option. After all, if you do not see a value, just don't use it, which is why canon and nikon make it an OPTION.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2015)

psolberg said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



You completely miss the point. What people are asking for is UNCOMPRESSED RAW, as the poster above stated. That's the message Sony is hearing, as stated by Sony's Kimio Maki: "_Sony RAW is compressed, not uncompressed. But if we're getting a lot of requests for it, we should make such a kind of no-compression raw. Of course we recognize that. But I cannot give you a guarantee when we're going to fix or not fix._"

Yes, what people (presumably) want is lossless compression for RAW files, like pretty much every other camera maker provides. But that's *not* what they're asking for, and based on the quote above, Sony is getting the wrong message.


----------



## stefang (Aug 5, 2015)

What's wrong with compression?


----------



## traveller (Aug 5, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Couldn't give a toss how they achieve it, as long as it reduces the occurrence of posterisation and other compression artifacts. But that's not the point of what you are both writing, it's to divert attention from the the real thrust of the thread. 

I love Canon bodies as do most people on this forum, but I am getting a bit tired of their sensors not benefiting from the technology advances that the other manufacturers are making. It's a shame to have to make a choice between the best body for my needs and the best sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2015)

traveller said:


> Couldn't give a toss how they achieve it, as long as it reduces the occurrence of posterisation and other compression artifacts.



Perhaps 100+ MB image files and a buffer that fills after 3-4 continuous shots and takes ages to clear are fine with you, but I doubt that's a common viewpoint. Be careful what you ask for...you may get it. 




traveller said:


> It's a shame to have to make a choice between the best body for my needs and the best sensor.



The choice remains what it has always been – picking which *camera system* best meets your needs.


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 5, 2015)

I'm shooting a wedding and my second has the A7rii, we've something radical planned as a side by side shootout.

Properly exposed images to see which has the nicest colours and look.

5DSr, A7Rii, 85L, Sigma 24-35 F2 and a Metabones Mk4


----------



## TeT (Aug 5, 2015)

Great, all 3 images look equally crummy in their own way...

Looking at the original images.. A7II was the only one that looked crummier than the others in comparison...

Whats the point... Show me a viable image resulting from pushing that could not be captured better using proper exposure techniques...


----------



## lycan (Aug 5, 2015)

Check this article that is somewhat a response to those "tests" (if it should be considered tests....) Tim Parkin did

http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2015/08/04/photographic-myths-and-platitudes-that-noise-is-awful


----------



## traveller (Aug 5, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Couldn't give a toss how they achieve it, as long as it reduces the occurrence of posterisation and other compression artifacts.
> ...



Yeah whatever, lossless compressed would be fine if it delivers the same results and RAW file compression is not really the point of this thread. 

The best camera system for landscapes (other than medium format) is rapidly becoming nothing with a Canon made sensor. I really wish that this were not the case, because I really don't want to buy a sh*tty A7 series body.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 5, 2015)

SPKoko said:


> Yes, it is not really breaking news. But it adds to:
> 
> 
> Day Two with the Sony A7RII..so far. WOW! | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS
> ...


_

Cool!!!!

Now maybe -- since absolute image quality is so critical -- he can get a header image for his website that isn't so grainy! 

Then again, maybe that image is a 10-stop push! :_


----------



## Ewinter (Aug 5, 2015)

traveller said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > traveller said:
> ...


I'd be quite happy if my £4600 canon body could focus my 85 1.2l with more precision than my £2600 Sony body, but it can't. I hate to sound like a fanboy, but for some people, those crappy A7 bodies are becoming the best option.

Now if they crammed the A7rii into a 5d body and gave it 1dx focus speed I'd be on cloud 9


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2015)

traveller said:


> Yeah whatever ... is ... the point of this thread.



Yep, that pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 5, 2015)

SPKoko said:


> Sony A7Rii compared with Sony A7R and Canon 5DSr



Yep -- it's _much _better than the Canon. It will feel so smug sitting next to the Canon images it joins in the recycle bin. 

[ _I get it, I get it -- if 6 stops looks so much less crappy, then 2-3 stops must look amazing. Okay. If Canon does fine with 2-3 stops, then who cares? I know, I know -- there are some high-contrast situations in which it would be useful. For the tiny sliver of the market to which those situations are frequent, maybe we could come up with a prefix for forum thread titles letting everyone know that the thread is just for them. I know, I know -- including "6 stop push" accomplishes that. I just couldn't resist jumping in to poke some fun..._  ]


----------



## Famateur (Aug 5, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> I don't like what I'm seeing in the over processing of the blacks in Steve Huff's shots - too pure black, a trend that seems to be developing with everyone apart from Nikon & Canon.



Now that you mention it, I see it, too. Kind of like eye floaters -- once I think about them specifically, they're a bit hard to ignore and become distracting...


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 5, 2015)

Ewinter said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I don't know if this helps but the 5DSr seems to focus better than my 1DX.

Attached : The 85L at 1.6 and 1.8 - All straight from the camera.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 5, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah whatever ... is ... the point of this thread.
> ...



Touché!

Thanks for the laugh...


----------



## Famateur (Aug 5, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> I don't know if this helps but the 5DSr seems to focus better than my 1DX.
> 
> Attached : The 85L at 1.6 and 1.8 - All straight from the camera.



Your images show one way to get around the "so much resolution is unflattering for a portrait and will require more softening in post" comments I've seen here and there: buttery-smooth, shallow depth-of-field.


----------



## traveller (Aug 5, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah whatever ... is ... the point of this thread.
> ...



No, but it sums up your contribution to threads that dare to mention dynamic range. It may not matter to you, but it does impact upon a lot of people's photography. If the topic is becoming a bit of a broken record, then it's really time that Canon did something about fixing it. If it was an issue that never affected my photography, I wouldn't care less, but it often does in one form or another. 

You can't blame people for making comparisons and they are going to crop up on CR Forums as they're all over the bloody internet these days. 

On a side note: I look forward to Tim's promised comparison between the 5DSr with ND grads and the A7R II bare: it should answer my own usage case questions better. 

You can write whatever you like now, as I've got to go to bed -it's getting late in non-America!


----------



## TeT (Aug 5, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> Attached : The 85L at 1.6 and 1.8 - All straight from the camera.



Nice balance colors etc..., Surely a little exposure push would make them better, yes?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 5, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



I believe the a7r and the II both have a 100 ISO base, so I'm not quite sure what's going on. Agree that one full top of extra highlight is, although exciting, highly unlikely. I wonder if the light changed. 

I'm surprised Tim got drawn into the old '6 stop push' comparison. I've got some 6x7 negs for scanning that I'll be taking to Tim - he's Mr Drum Scanner round here, so I'll what happened ! 



wockawocka said:


> I'm shooting a wedding and my second has the A7rii, we've something radical planned as a side by side shootout.
> 
> Properly exposed images to see which has the nicest colours and look.
> 
> 5DSr, A7Rii, 85L, Sigma 24-35 F2 and a Metabones Mk4



I'll be very interested to see real examples, shot 'normally'. I've an urge for the new Pentax FF when it finally arrives, and they say it will have the same sensor as the a7rII.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 5, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> Ewinter said:
> 
> 
> > traveller said:
> ...


How dare you?
It's rude of you to post beautiful and properly exposed pictures in a post on lifting shadows and dynamic range.
You committed the heresy of keeping black shadows under the ears, when you know that all the shadows should be raised to exist only gray shadows.

"SARCASM detector activated"


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 5, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> I believe the a7r and the II both have a 100 ISO base, so I'm not quite sure what's going on.



They have the same base camera setting, but clearly those settings are not equivalent, otherwise it wouldn't take more than twice the time to expose the a7r2 than the a7r, all else being equal. Light falling by over a stop? Maybe; the a7r2 image was captured almost an hour after the a7r image, though both appear to be under direct sunlight, and both within an hour of midday.

Regardless, there are way too many unknown variable at play to draw any meaningful conclusions, IMO.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 5, 2015)

TeT said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > Attached : The 85L at 1.6 and 1.8 - All straight from the camera.
> ...



Obviously an example of how poorly Canon performs. If you push those bricks in the background six stops the noise is terrible. And, your black background has no shadow detail. Absolutely unacceptable. 

(Message to the particularly thick-skulled participants: this is what is known as "sarcasm")


----------



## gdanmitchell (Aug 5, 2015)

lycan said:


> Check this article that is somewhat a response to those "tests" (if it should be considered tests....) Tim Parkin did
> 
> http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2015/08/04/photographic-myths-and-platitudes-that-noise-is-awful



Ah, you found my article. Thanks.

Tim Parkin's article is what is says it is, but you have to read beyond the hyperbolic headline and that catchy three panel photograph — which sure makes the 5Ds(R) look pathetic, doesn't it? — and understand what you are really looking at and what it does and does not mean.

Hint: Anyone imagining that they are going to see something like what is shown in the test samples is barking up the wrong tree.

Stipulations: Sony sensors are able to capture a larger dynamic range than current Canon sensors. On the other hand, Canon sensors can also capture an impressive, albeit slightly smaller, dynamic range. And while dynamic range is a factor in camera selection, it is not even close to being the most important issue.

Observation: I'm confident that if we could go into a gallery where high quality 24 x 36 prints were hung side by side and among them were photographs made with 5DIII, 5Ds, 5DsR, A7r, A7rII, D800/D800e, and D810 cameras that no one would be able to accurately identify which came from which camera. This encourages a bit of perspective on this whole thing.

Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Fujifilm, etc — they all make excellent cameras and the importance of the differences among them are based on a whole range of parameters related to each photographer's intended use. (I just made a bunch of 18" x 24" prints from my 16mm Fujifilm X-trans sensor camera that look great — it is my choice for street photography.)

Now, to get an idea of what it takes to make Canon 5DsR files look awful — yes, it is possible! — follow the link to my article and take a look. Start by looking at the utterly awful noise in the first sample I share. Then look at what I started with — a photograph exposed to the right and containing huge grossly underexposed areas. Them track my explanation of what it took to so completely destroy the image.

Articles like Parkin's and like mine can serve a useful purpose, at least from a highly technical perspective. Even though almost no one will ever actually do to a photograph what we did — therefore these do not demonstrate real world performance at all — we can learn some things that could be a bit useful. What is the "quality" of the noise? Just how far can you push before things fall apart? (Quite an astonishing distance, actually.) What is happening on the outer boundaries of sensor design? All of these are interesting questions for the technically inclined — but don't make the mistake of presuming that they represent anything remotely close to what you'll see in photographs from any of the cameras.

Take care,

Dan


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 5, 2015)

gdanmitchell said:


> When in doubt, doubt.



I love this.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 5, 2015)

gdanmitchell said:


> lycan said:
> 
> 
> > Check this article that is somewhat a response to those "tests" (if it should be considered tests....) Tim Parkin did
> ...



Great article. Puts things into perspective. 

I am honestly dumbfounded by the number of people on this forum who – judging by their comments – seem incapable of producing a quality photograph using equipment that is currently available today. It seems as though the narrowing gap between the lowest-priced and highest-priced cameras has generated a whole group of people desperate to identify miniscule differences and ascribe to those differences a significance that far exceeds rationality.


----------



## thepancakeman (Aug 5, 2015)

So, would this count as a real world example? (Unfortunately, no photo to go with...)

I was tasked with shooting a talent show at night in a dimly lit church with no flash allowed. One of the people put on a karate demonstration. The only way I could get even close to stopping the motion was to severely underexpose (I think I used about 3 stops) the image and try to recover it in post.

But I'm also somewhat of a novice, so maybe there is another way to do this? Also: I was at f1.8 and ISO 3200 on my 7D, which was already way too high IMHO. And yes, I realize going to a 5D III would help a fair amount, but even then I can see it coming up short.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 5, 2015)

thepancakeman said:


> But I'm also somewhat of a novice, so maybe there is another way to do this? Also: I was at f1.8 and ISO 3200 on my 7D, which was already way too high IMHO. And yes, I realize going to a 5D III would help a fair amount, but even then I can see it coming up short.



Assuming I can't augment the light in any way besides flash, I would do (a) what you did; or (b) slow my shutter speed and time shots deliberately, for example at full extension of a punch or kick, etc., when his motion is minimized.


----------



## Botts (Aug 5, 2015)

kraats said:


> Who is going to lift shadows 6 stops in real life. This had nothing to do with the image quality the 5dsr can deliver.



You'd think it's absurd, but on the Sony forums and Fred Miranda the comparisons are occurring at 7 stops. They're also arguing about the 12/14 bit raw voodoo that occurs in bulb or electronic shutter mode.

I don't think I've pushed anything in my library more than 3 stops. If I am missing by 7 stops, something crazy happened.

I'm actually impressed with the 5DsR's performance considering how many words were spilled on the Sony vs Canon DR debate.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 5, 2015)

Botts said:


> kraats said:
> 
> 
> > Who is going to lift shadows 6 stops in real life. This had nothing to do with the image quality the 5dsr can deliver.
> ...



And when you have to push 8 stops to see a difference, once at 6 there isn't enough to be obvious, this is what some people will do. 

I'll be much more interested to see what wockawoo comes up with, using the two cameras together in real world shooting, without trying to force a difference by being overly extreme. 

I'm guessing that at low ISO there want be any difference beyond personal taste between the FF Exmor R sensor and the Canon 50mp one, despite the fact that the R is 'back-lit'.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2015)

thepancakeman said:


> So, would this count as a real world example? (Unfortunately, no photo to go with...)
> 
> I was tasked with shooting a talent show at night in a dimly lit church with no flash allowed. One of the people put on a karate demonstration. The only way I could get even close to stopping the motion was to severely underexpose (I think I used about 3 stops) the image and try to recover it in post.
> 
> But I'm also somewhat of a novice, so maybe there is another way to do this? Also: I was at f1.8 and ISO 3200 on my 7D, which was already way too high IMHO. And yes, I realize going to a 5D III would help a fair amount, but even then I can see it coming up short.



So, you were at ISO 3200 and you needed 3 more stops (ISO 25600). Yes, the a7RII would be perfect in that situation. To realize the amazing benefits you're seeing with Exmor, all you have to do is shoot at ISO 100 and lift in post. In your case, that means a mere 8-stop push – nothing Exmor can't handle. With a thin DoF and really dim lighting, the awesome motion-tracking capability of the a7RII (especially if you need to couple it with the high reliability of a Metabones adapter) will be just the ticket to success. I predict Sony cameras will be used by all the top sports photographers at all the indoor events at the 2016 Olympics. 

[/sarcasm]


----------



## thepancakeman (Aug 5, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > So, would this count as a real world example? (Unfortunately, no photo to go with...)
> ...



I was not trying to say that the Sony (or anything else) would be better or worse, I was suggesting and honestly asking if there was any solution to this other than an extreme push, which is what I did (but not enough) and was still unhappy with the results. (Too noisy of an ISO, still too much motion blur, too thin DOF.)


----------



## NancyP (Aug 5, 2015)

Best part of the "on landscape" review: "If you are too drunk to get the exposure right, grab the Sony". ;D

In other news, Sony A7R/RII s are getting used as "digital backs" on modern geared-movements view cameras that take digital backs (product and architectural photographers use these). Plus, if you want a Canon 11-24mm or Nikon 12-24mm lens with tilt/shift capacity, Hans at Hartblei can modify the lens a bit and stick it on an adapter for the Sony A7. Those lenses happen to have substantially larger image circle than needed for the 24 x 36 mm frame.


----------



## Perio (Aug 5, 2015)

Would love to see a comparison of properly exposed shots at few ISO settings.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 5, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> [sarc mode] Yeah! Keep pushing  [/sarc mode]



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xI_OlP_nEM


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2015)

thepancakeman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > thepancakeman said:
> ...



As you already stated, a FF camera (ideally with good AF) would help. You could get lower noise or deeper DoF. Else, sounds like you did the best you could with your gear.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 5, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I do plenty indoor no-flash sports, and there's only few things you can do:
-Get body with less noise at high ISO
-Get lens with bigger aperture
-Get body which you can push real good

Also often it's better to ETTR. Most times that looks better than lower ISO but more push on post.


----------



## gbchriste (Aug 5, 2015)

How about expose the shot so it doesn't need a 6-stop push.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2015)

traveller said:


> It may not matter to you, but it does impact upon a lot of people's photography.



Indeed, it impacts every photographer who is critically dependent on the need to severely underexpose their images then drastically push them in post. So...about 50 people who post excessively on the Internet. Wait...I forgot Mikael, that makes 51.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 6, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > It may not matter to you, but it does impact upon a lot of people's photography.
> ...





thepancakeman said:


> So, would this count as a real world example? (Unfortunately, no photo to go with...)
> 
> I was tasked with shooting a talent show at night in a dimly lit church with no flash allowed. One of the people put on a karate demonstration. The only way I could get even close to stopping the motion was to severely underexpose (I think I used about 3 stops) the image and try to recover it in post.
> 
> But I'm also somewhat of a novice, so maybe there is another way to do this? Also: I was at f1.8 and ISO 3200 on my 7D, which was already way too high IMHO. And yes, I realize going to a 5D III would help a fair amount, but even then I can see it coming up short.



Unfortunately, Neuro's sarcasm is unwarranted. 

Too often I run into situations where I do have to deliberately underexpose because the light simply isn't sufficient. My paid work requires me to shoot many private meetings and presentations. Invariably, these are held in dimly lit rooms. Too often, a speaker will turn off most of the lights in a room so the audience can see their presentation better.

When a group that has hired me has a 15 minute opportunity to meet with the Governor and the meeting takes place in his office, which is lit like a cave, you don't have a lot of options. You can't be flashing a strobe every five seconds so you do what you can.

That's somewhat comparable to the "real world" situation mentioned above. Here is my take (I shoot with a 5D III):

Remember that the "miracle" Sony sensor has no greater dynamic range than Canon sensors at high ISO. Remember also that the noise performance (which is far more important than dynamic range) is at least as good and maybe better on the Canon. 

So, the short answer (sure to be disputed by internet "experts" who don't have to live in my world) is 
1) use a full frame camera -- there is simply no substitute for larger pixels; 
2) use a camera with reasonable resolution (the new high resolution 5Ds and the new Sony A7RIII are not the camera's for this) The 5DIII, 6D or 1DX are more suitable for these situations, as would be the Nikon D4S or the D750. 
3) Use IS and practice handholding. I have successfully shot speakers as slow as 1/15th of a second with the 70-300 "L" at 300mm, but you have to brace yourself and wait for the subject to pause. 
4) Understand how movement works. In the old Tri-X film days, we used to try to time sports shots to coincide with the moment the body in motion slows down before reversing motion (for example, shooting someone jumping at the exact moment when their jump is at its peak and they are about to begin their descent.)
5) Pick your subjects carefully. Not everything has to be about the action. Some of the best wrestling shots I ever took were the expressions of high school wrestlers as they were about to be pinned. No action, but they were much more compelling.
6) Learn Photoshop. In the film days, no true photographer would turn their pictures over to the neighborhood drugstore to develop the film and make prints. If you aren't using Photoshop, you are handicapping yourself and only doing half the job.
7) Keep in mind the final product. Most pictures live on the web today at 72dpi. That can be very forgiving. 
8 ) Just accept the tradeoffs. A poorly exposed, noisy picture of a interesting subject beats a perfectly exposed picture of a boring subject any day of the week.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Too often I run into situations where I do have to deliberately underexpose because the light simply isn't sufficient. My paid work requires me to shoot many private meetings and presentations. Invariably, these are held in dimly lit rooms. Too often, a speaker will turn off most of the lights in a room so the audience can see their presentation better.
> 
> When a group that has hired me has a 15 minute opportunity to meet with the Governor and the meeting takes place in his office, which is lit like a cave, you don't have a lot of options. You can't be flashing a strobe every five seconds so you do what you can.
> 
> That's somewhat comparable to the "real world" situation mentioned above.



A question for you – in the real world situations you describe above, do you select an ISO in the range of 100 to 400 when you deliberately underexpose due to lack of available light?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 6, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Too often I run into situations where I do have to deliberately underexpose because the light simply isn't sufficient. My paid work requires me to shoot many private meetings and presentations. Invariably, these are held in dimly lit rooms. Too often, a speaker will turn off most of the lights in a room so the audience can see their presentation better.
> ...


I agree that some people benefit from EXMOR in ISO100, and then lift the shadows.

But ... in ISO1600 and above this, the EXMOR advantage disappears. If anyone can prove me wrong, then post images with controlled lighting, where EXMOR allows better recovery of shadows on ISO6400.

Someone?


----------



## benperrin (Aug 6, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Best part of the "on landscape" review: "If you are too drunk to get the exposure right, grab the Sony". ;D



Haha. Love it!!!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 6, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Too often I run into situations where I do have to deliberately underexpose because the light simply isn't sufficient. My paid work requires me to shoot many private meetings and presentations. Invariably, these are held in dimly lit rooms. Too often, a speaker will turn off most of the lights in a room so the audience can see their presentation better.
> 
> When a group that has hired me has a 15 minute opportunity to meet with the Governor and the meeting takes place in his office, which is lit like a cave, you don't have a lot of options. You can't be flashing a strobe every five seconds so you do what you can.
> 
> That's somewhat comparable to the "real world" situation mentioned above.





neuroanatomist said:


> A question for you – in the real world situations you describe above, do you select an ISO in the range of 100 to 400 when you deliberately underexpose due to lack of available light?



I think I made it very clear, that's not the case. I just feel that pancakeman asked a question and I would rather respond in a way that presumes he was legitimately seeking an answer. Even if he wasn't, someone else might be.

It was clear from his question that the Church of Exmor crowd has convinced some people that the slight advantage the sensor has at base ISO somehow translates into pure magic under all conditions.

I thought I was pretty clear, but in case I wasn't, I am talking about situations where there just isn't enough light to get a decent exposure and I have a choice of underexposing a bit or using some ridiculous ISO that I know will be garbage. It's never a good choice -- expose as best you can under the existing conditions and hope you can salvage something or choose an crazy ISO that you know is going to produce an unusable image. 



ajfotofilmagem said:


> I agree that some people benefit from EXMOR in ISO100, and then lift the shadows.
> 
> But ... in ISO1600 and above this, the EXMOR advantage disappears. If anyone can prove me wrong, then post images with controlled lighting, where EXMOR allows better recovery of shadows on ISO6400.
> 
> Someone?



That was exactly my point. I would add that from the images I have seen, the Exmor sensor may be able compete with the Canon for dynamic range at some of the higher ISOs, but it cannot compete in noise and at higher ISOs noise is (for me) a much more serious problem than dynamic range. 

In fact, after comparing sensor examples on multiple review sites I have come to the conclusion that there simply is no substitute for pixel size. Which, by the way, explains why the flagship Canon has an 18mp sensor, the flagship Nikon has a 16 mp sensor and the Sony A7s has a 12 mp sensor. 

Now, with each succeeding generation, it seems that all three manufacturers are able to squeeze a little better noise performance out of their sensors, while boosting the megapixel count a bit.


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 6, 2015)

On would think it would be better to get a proper exposure than to count on the sensor's ability to fix that degree of underexposure. 

Problem solved.

sek



Maximilian said:


> [sarc mode] Yeah! Keep pushing  [/sarc mode]
> 
> Honestly:
> Yeah! We know about these adavantages of EXMOR. Nothing new. We also know, that Canon didn't show much effort to close that gap. If this is a relevant factor to you and limiting your photography feel free to jump ship.


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 6, 2015)

Day 2- meh



Famateur said:


> SPKoko said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it is not really breaking news. But it adds to:
> ...


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 6, 2015)

Can't wait for the nuclear mushroom cloud on this one!



traveller said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > traveller said:
> ...


----------



## Aglet (Aug 6, 2015)

scottkinfw said:


> On would think it would be better to get a proper exposure than to count on the sensor's ability to fix that degree of underexposure.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> sek



as many have stated, you can't always make everything average middle gray!


----------



## Eldar (Aug 6, 2015)

It is interesting to see the extremes of a sensor's performance, but at the same time, it is also interesting to see what the practical implications are. Like most others, I want more dynamic range as long as I am getting shots which crash in one end or both of the histogram. But if it is clipping highlights as my current cameras do and only gives me shadow lift capability, to correct for significantly under exposed images ... I would not mind having it, but I'm less interested. If I did astro I might think differently.

I have gone (randomly) through my last 12 months shots, which is quite a few images, to look for the extremes and check how much exposure compensation, shadow lifting etc. have I applied. And, excluding a test case I shared with jrista a couple of threads back, I have never gone past 2.5 stops EC (trying to save an under exposed image), combined with some shadow lift (I do not know exactly how much 0-100 lifting in LR translates to EC). It might be that some would have done more, but I find that the overall quality of the images suffer if I do. If highlights stay the same, in my view, too much shadow lifting is making images look weird and unnatural.

Most of us agree that both the measurements and scoring done by DxO, both for lenses and sensors, are insufficient (and to some extend incomprehensible) to give an objective view of the total qualities of a camera or lens. At the same time too many fall in their trap by judging cameras on DR and lenses on sharpness. However, unless we include all the other elements that makes up a good image, we make unqualified decisions.

It was interesting to see the 6 stop push, but I do not see the practical implication of having that capability. After I received the 5DSR and saw what the images from this camera looked like, I cancelled my A7RII order.


----------



## benperrin (Aug 6, 2015)

Eldar said:


> It was interesting to see the 6 stop push, but I do not see the practical implication of having that capability. After I received the 5DSR and saw what the images from this camera looked like, I cancelled my A7RII order.



It's quite amazing that people can dismiss a camera based on unacceptable noise during a 6 stop push. Even though I did the opposite to you (cancelled the 5dsr for the a7rii) I think the 5dsr is an amazing camera capable of great detail and great images. It is a beast of a camera.


----------



## krisbell (Aug 6, 2015)

kraats said:


> Who is going to lift shadows 6 stops in real life.



I do, regularly.


----------



## rs (Aug 6, 2015)

krisbell said:


> kraats said:
> 
> 
> > Who is going to lift shadows 6 stops in real life.
> ...



OK, I'm intrigued. Could you post some examples?


----------



## scyrene (Aug 6, 2015)

I think the question and answers regarding what to do in very dim situations are interesting and, for the most part, measured. Ultimately, there will *always* be situations where you're forced to push your equipment further than is comfortable, and the results will be a compromise. Every camera has limitations.

A couple of points not mentioned - has anyone thought of video as an alternative? 1/30-1/60sec exposure time per frame allows a lot more light in, and subject motion blur is a lot less noticeable. You might be able to select frames where it was not apparent, too - although the resolution and quality will be far lower than for stills. Just a thought.

Exposing to the right is still a massively useful and important technique (for Canon users, anyway). Once I realised I could go a couple of stops higher in ISO than I was previously comfortable with, my photography benefitted a great deal. IMHO, a bright ISO 6400 shot darkened in post is better than a dark ISO 1600 brightened to the same level. Noise in the shadows in particular.

What about selective noise reduction? For instance, select the darkest parts of the image, and apply stronger (especially colour) noise reduction. The darkest areas can usually take more heavy-handed processing, as they are rarely the focus of an image. The same goes for out of focus areas.

As for pattern noise, would the astrophotographic technique of subtracting dark/bias frames be of any use?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2015)

scyrene said:


> The darkest areas can usually take more heavy-handed processing, as they are rarely the focus of an image.



Reading CR, one might come to the conclusion that those dark/shadow areas are where all the most interesting and important detail is present, which is why the ability to push an image 6-stops to obliterate shadows is so critical to camera performance.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 6, 2015)

rs said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > kraats said:
> ...



+1

I do a great deal of landscape type photography, in fact my monument pictures are really landscapes much of the time. I'm only ever looking at a two stop push and that would be extreme. Normally I'm in the region of one stop pull, one stop push. 

Perhaps this is why I don't see any difference between the 5DII and the 6D at low ISO.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 6, 2015)

rs said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > kraats said:
> ...


You should check out Kristian's work, really striking images. I particularly like the (predominantly tan) desert shots, not that those require 6-stop shadow lifting.


----------



## K (Aug 6, 2015)

A while back all the talk was about 4-5 stop pushes. So to mock this, I made a sarcastic comment about 6-7 stop pushes. Well...here they are!!! ;D 

In years from now, we'll be hearing the same nonsense, only the numbers will go up. 

Exmorite: "Ha ha, Canon sux, my A7R5 has 18 stops of DR at ISO 100, and I can do a 12 stop push, while loser Canon can only do 9"




At this point, a new realm of photography has emerged thanks to the SoNikon Alliance. They have redefined M mode. 

No longer do you have to know what you're doing to use Manual. After all, the entire blogger and vloggerspheres says that you're a newbie, no good, rotten, know-nothing loser if you don't have your camera on "M" 110% of the time. 

The Modern technique is simple. Use a nice middle of the road ISO 200. By doing that, one can tap into the power of the Exmor's dynamic range and never worry about anything ever again. Using 7-stop push technology, you have an effective range of 200 - 25,600 ISO. Like the infomercials say, "set it and forget it"

Simply set the camera to ISO 200, set the aperture as wide as it can go. Remember, you're a newbie if you don't always shoot wide open 110% of the time. Then just control the shutter as you see fit. Simple as that.

No matter what you get, do not worry. All of it can be fixed in post processing. Just move the exposure slider to get the desired exposure in each photo in post. Exmor gives you that flexibility. With Exmor, you have freedom. 

*****

The irony in this is, the Exmor allows a camera and "modern Sonikon technique user" to operate like the old one-use disposable film cameras. ISO was a constant, and the 1-hour photo lab machine did all the over and under exposure adjustments. The difference is, the photographer armed with lightroom and the exposure slider is now the 1-hour photo machine.


But like those crappy 1-hour photo prints made from disposable cameras - the end result is washed out, inferior image quality.


Congrats on your devolution!


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 6, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > krisbell said:
> ...



I agree that Kris's work is impressive, but I'd be interested to know which have been lifted by 6 stops in his portfolio.


----------



## LightandMotion (Aug 6, 2015)

Not 6 stop, but this is more than I would generally push in my landscape photography, and the 5DSR does just fine.

http://www.lightandmotionphotography.com/section467038_319081.html


----------



## Eldar (Aug 6, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > krisbell said:
> ...


I agree, lots of great images there. Some are a bit over processed for my liking, but a very good portfolio. 

I did not go through everything, but I did not find any images there that seemed to have required a 6 stop lift. However, not knowing anything about the ambient light makes that difficult. It would certainly be interesting if you could post some examples, especially since you say you do it regularly.


----------



## krisbell (Aug 6, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> ..I'd be interested to know which have been lifted by 6 stops in his portfolio.



On a terrible work computer at present so cant link properly but both the below contain 6 stop lifts _in places_. Also, many of my night-time macro shots contain similar - those are all shot with a Canon so I am doing these lifts with both Sony and Canon.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/kristianbell/16946600384
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kristianbell/17184708029

Its one small bugbear I have against some of these "only need to push 6+ stops if you're drunk or useless" comments is that they seem to imply the only use for such a lift is to lighten the entire image - for me it usually means one small patch that for whatever reason I find really distracting.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 6, 2015)

It might be that people don´t think to much about how much a stop or two is. So here is an example.

To me this is at the extreme end of what I do. I have done more extremes than this, but I believe it is a good example.

First the straight RAW-file, just levelled, then the finished image, then two crops from each. If this was a more important picture, I would have worked more on the noise reduction, but that is a bit beside the point here.

The finished picture is Exposure: +1.5, Highlights: -100, Shadows: +100, Whites: +55. Colour luminance (blue): -34 and some rudimentary noise reduction. There´s a Looong way to 6 stop.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 6, 2015)

I have never seen how much compensation +100 shadow lift represents. So I played around with a couple of images. It seems to me that it represent around 2.0 to 2.5 stops. Does anyone have more presise info to share? 

If what I found is correct, the shadows in the image above is lifted 4-4.5 stops (which was more than I thought).


----------



## krisbell (Aug 6, 2015)

Really nice example Eldar of the potential benefits of a significant, clean lift. Like you, I was guessing as to the actual stop value of a +100 lift and was estimating it at around +3 but I too would be interested if someone has some more solid info on this.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 6, 2015)

Eldar said:


> It might be that people don´t think to much about how much a stop or two is. So here is an example.
> 
> To me this is at the extreme end of what I do. I have done more extremes than this, but I believe it is a good example.
> 
> ...


This is a good example of the usefulness of lifting shadows with low ISO. 

But again I ask:
Does anyone have images showing the superiority of EXMOR to lift shadows in images above ISO1600? :


----------



## gdanmitchell (Aug 6, 2015)

It is actually a bit worse than that. It isn't that people are incapable of making good photographs in the technical sense. In fact, any of these current cameras from Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Fujifilm, Olympus, and many others can produce outstanding photographic quality — more than good enough for just about any professional use from inclusion in printed and web media, through advertising, and on to fine art prints. 

The real problem — and while it isn't new it has certainly been amplified — is the unending "brand humping" that sees photography as being all about Who Has The Best Thing, with the consequent effect of "confirmation bias" being a perverse focus on proving that the other guy bought The World's Crappiest Thing.

The lengths people now go to "demonstrate" the "inferiority" of the thing they chose not to get become astounding. Does anyone imagine even for a moment that the "test images" we see bandied about remotely represent what anyone is going to see in their photographs, no matter which of these cameras they might choose to use? That isn't going to happen. 

Given a choice, I welcome improvements in dynamic range. And noise. And color quality. And sensor resolution. And camera interface. And lenses. And speed of operation. And flexibility. And adaptability. And reliability. And...

Camera choice is not about going nuts about this or that test chart. It is not about this brand or that. (I know photographers doing beautiful, professional work using cameras ranging from iPhones and 4/thirds gear up to 8 x 10 LF and everything in between, and using essentially every brand that is currently available.)

When it comes to this thing called "photography," more and more people are getting so distracted by gear humping that they are losing focus on photography and instead going of in some bizarre and unrelated direction...

Dan

By the way, if you want to see a real world example of just how bad you can make a decent exposure look if that is your goal, please read my article: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2015/08/04/photographic-myths-and-platitudes-that-noise-is-awful

Here is the "awful" image from a 5Ds R... but you have to read what it actually represents! ;-)









unfocused said:


> gdanmitchell said:
> 
> 
> > lycan said:
> ...


----------



## anthonyd (Aug 6, 2015)

krisbell said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > ..I'd be interested to know which have been lifted by 6 stops in his portfolio.
> ...



You take nice pictures ... you must have a nice camera 
All jokes aside, your pictures are very nice (and I bet most of them would be just nice even without the 6+ push).


----------



## Eldar (Aug 6, 2015)

gdanmitchell said:


> It is actually a bit worse than that. It isn't that people are incapable of making good photographs in the technical sense. In fact, any of these current cameras from Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Fujifilm, Olympus, and many others can produce outstanding photographic quality — more than good enough for just about any professional use from inclusion in printed and web media, through advertising, and on to fine art prints.
> 
> The real problem — and while it isn't new it has certainly been amplified — is the unending "brand humping" that sees photography as being all about Who Has The Best Thing, with the consequent effect of "confirmation bias" being a perverse focus on proving that the other guy bought The World's Crappiest Thing.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the article, interesting read


----------



## timparkin (Aug 6, 2015)

Botts said:


> kraats said:
> 
> 
> > Who is going to lift shadows 6 stops in real life. This had nothing to do with the image quality the 5dsr can deliver.
> ...



If you've ever used grads you'll have come across situations where you need a combo of two grads. Possibly a three and a two stop. Then add another stop for opening the shadows in general and there's your six stops. I agree it's unlikely but I posted an example in the article (in the updates at the bottom) showing a view outside my back door just as people were asking. the clouds were peaking at EV16 and the shadows under the tree were EV 4. I agree it won't happen that often and in most situations you can use grads but the idea is that you can do without grads. 

Want to see another couple of examples.. 

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/dynamic-range-2.jpg
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/portra-test-pp.jpg

These are actually examples of unfiltered Portra 400 which has nearly 19 stops of dynamic range (unclippable highlights!). 

The shadows here would need over a six stop push to get them back. 

e.g. if you wanted this.. 

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/portra-test.jpg


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 6, 2015)

timparkin said:


> Botts said:
> 
> 
> > kraats said:
> ...



Tim, welcome to CR, which is sometimes mistaken for DR. Get your drum scanner out and polished; I've some 6x7s for scanning.


----------



## weixing (Aug 6, 2015)

Hi,


Eldar said:


> It might be that people don´t think to much about how much a stop or two is. So here is an example.
> 
> To me this is at the extreme end of what I do. I have done more extremes than this, but I believe it is a good example.
> 
> ...


 The problem is the photo become like some CAD generated image...  

Have a nice day.


----------



## gdanmitchell (Aug 6, 2015)

Eldar said:


> gdanmitchell said:
> 
> 
> > It is actually a bit worse than that...
> ...



Thank you for taking the time to read it! I just wrote and posted another follow-up article that is intended to bring a bit of perspective to the the flood of hyperbole. Take a look: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2015/08/06/photographic-myths-and-platitudes-the-best-camera-part-1 — "Photographic Myths and Platitudes: The Best Camera! (Par)t 1)"






Dan


----------



## timparkin (Aug 6, 2015)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> Eldar said:
> ...



Hi Sporg, at last someone who knows which way I'm biased (the proper 'full frame')


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 6, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



I agree too, but everybody here will have to agree that many of these pictures look very "unnatural".


----------



## timparkin (Aug 6, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > SPKoko said:
> ...



It would be great to have a beer to discuss. The exposure difference was ambient light changes I think. As for 6 stop push. I've used a 4 stop grad before AND opened the shadows - that's six stops! The idea with the Sony is the possibility of shooting without grads. I shall have to find a few 6 stop push examples


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 6, 2015)

timparkin said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



So basically each shot was independent, and the range of tones within the scene were not constant (e.g. the shadows may have been deeper relative to similar highlights when the A7R was used versus the A7R2). 

It's certainly interesting and probably correlates well with how an individual camera holds up to huge shadow pushes. I'm not sure I'd use it as a tool of comparison, however.

I hope the weather cooperates and I can play with mine tonight (it's in a box at my house). ;D


----------



## timparkin (Aug 6, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> timparkin said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Unlikely that the distribution of light changed as it was as flat as a pancake and you'd see those variations in the raw files. A minor contribution and way below the 6 stops we are working with.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 6, 2015)

timparkin said:


> Unlikely that the distribution of light changed as it was as flat as a pancake and you'd see those variations in the raw files. A minor contribution and way below the 6 stops we are working with.



Yes, it's quite clearly flat, that's why I was so incredulous about the differently required exposure times when there aren't any obvious clouds and the sun was still close to directly overhead (although maybe not as much as far north you are).


----------



## timparkin (Aug 6, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> timparkin said:
> 
> 
> > Unlikely that the distribution of light changed as it was as flat as a pancake and you'd see those variations in the raw files. A minor contribution and way below the 6 stops we are working with.
> ...



All I can think is that there were very high level clouds above the lower clouds we could see. I suppose one of those going over the sun would moderate the flat light. I know from working large format cameras that light levels can change even though you don't notice it because it's so flat and your eyes adjust


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 6, 2015)

timparkin said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > timparkin said:
> ...



Absolutely. It didn't look cloudy at all (quite harsh), but that's a definite possibility.


----------



## benperrin (Aug 7, 2015)

krisbell said:


> https://www.flickr.com/photos/kristianbell/16946600384
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/kristianbell/17184708029
> 
> Its one small bugbear I have against some of these "only need to push 6+ stops if you're drunk or useless" comments is that they seem to imply the only use for such a lift is to lighten the entire image - for me it usually means one small patch that for whatever reason I find really distracting.



Yes this is correct. Often a large push is confined to a small area of the image. I do have to ask though; why don't you just bracket exposures and use luminosity masks to lift the shadows in the offending area? I mean I know everyone has their own methodology and your images are certainly better than mine so I'm just asking. I like your post processing you really have some awesome images.


----------



## timparkin (Aug 7, 2015)

romanr74 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Here's an example from my business partner Joe Cornish. First the before and after with histogram

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/onlandscape/SonyLakes/dynamic-range-example.jpg

and then the lightroom adjustments to get that far.. 

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/onlandscape/SonyLakes/lightroom-adjustments.jpg

Tim


----------



## timparkin (Aug 7, 2015)

benperrin said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.flickr.com/photos/kristianbell/16946600384
> ...




The obvious answer is - why do that when you don't have to? It sounds like bracketing, blending and luminosity masks is just just making it harder for yourself if you have a camera that can do it in a single exposure.


----------



## benperrin (Aug 7, 2015)

timparkin said:


> The obvious answer is - why do that when you don't have to? It sounds like bracketing, blending and luminosity masks is just just making it harder for yourself if you have a camera that can do it in a single exposure.



Because you lose quality by lifting the shadows by so much. If it's a tiny area it might not matter but it's something that would bug me.


----------



## gdanmitchell (Aug 7, 2015)

benperrin said:


> timparkin said:
> 
> 
> > The obvious answer is - why do that when you don't have to? It sounds like bracketing, blending and luminosity masks is just just making it harder for yourself if you have a camera that can do it in a single exposure.
> ...



I used to worry about things like what the image looks like at 100% on the screen, being upset, for example, by a bit of noise and so forth. 

By I print, on a 24" printer. And if you print your standard is different and far more realistic — namely the quality of the print. Lots of the things that folks see to fret about when they seen them on the screen are completely invisibly even in quite large prints. 

A friend was recently in Antarctica for a couple of weeks to teach workshops. He was working with a Nikon D810 and in order to accommodate some rapidly changing light had set the camera to automate the selection of shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. At one point he made a beautiful photograph of towering ice, lovely dusk sky, and a rising moon... only to discover later that the camera had set the ISO to over 12,000!

Yet, he was able to work this image in post and produce a very lovely large print — I know how lovely, since I've seen it in person.

Dan


----------



## verysimplejason (Aug 7, 2015)

Actually, just closer to what human eyes can perceive. I can still see shadows... 




weixing said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> Eldar said:
> ...


----------



## benperrin (Aug 7, 2015)

gdanmitchell said:


> I used to worry about things like what the image looks like at 100% on the screen, being upset, for example, by a bit of noise and so forth.
> 
> By I print, on a 24" printer. And if you print your standard is different and far more realistic — namely the quality of the print. Lots of the things that folks see to fret about when they seen them on the screen are completely invisibly even in quite large prints.
> 
> ...



Dan I hear what you are saying and to a large degree I agree with you. I have also seen noise disappear in prints of 30 inches. Although the noise wasn't that bad to begin with for an iso of about 1000. The problem however is that different people have different levels of tolerance. What is ok for you might be unacceptable for another or vice versa. If I have no other choice it is great to have the option of bringing up the shadows so much. I find satisfaction though at producing an image that can hold up well in a large print or zoomed in on screen. Or at least that's the goal. I still have a long way to go. I suppose it's about chasing perfection. That doesn't have to be anyone else's goal though. Shoot whatever way makes you happy.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 7, 2015)

Hi Tim,
Something that bothered me was that the A7r-II shot appeared to be taken with a 24/1.4 whereas the Canon 5Ds R shot appeared to be taken with a 35/1.4. Is this just an error in my software or was the same lens used in all the shots? Also, where in the frame was the highlight that you used for assessing the clipping point?


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 7, 2015)

NorbR said:


> So 5 stops weren't enough, now we have to push 6 stops ? :



Photography is opposite to life: the older you get the more stops of lifting your face may need. But the longer you are into photography, the less you need pushing shadows


----------



## timparkin (Aug 7, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Hi Tim,
> Something that bothered me was that the A7r-II shot appeared to be taken with a 24/1.4 whereas the Canon 5Ds R shot appeared to be taken with a 35/1.4. Is this just an error in my software or was the same lens used in all the shots? Also, where in the frame was the highlight that you used for assessing the clipping point?



The only thing I can think of is the metabones adapter giving incorrect exif? Highlights taken from non sky area (see shaded areas in raw digger shots)


----------



## timparkin (Aug 7, 2015)

benperrin said:


> timparkin said:
> 
> 
> > The obvious answer is - why do that when you don't have to? It sounds like bracketing, blending and luminosity masks is just just making it harder for yourself if you have a camera that can do it in a single exposure.
> ...



True - but if he camera gives acceptable quality. Otherwise I would bracket too..


----------



## krisbell (Aug 7, 2015)

romanr74 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that Kris's work is impressive, but I'd be interested to know which have been lifted by 6 stops in his portfolio.
> ...


Not quite _everybody _here will agree! 



benperrin said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.flickr.com/photos/kristianbell/16946600384
> ...



I often do just that, and in principle that is a perfectly good work around. However, it takes up more memory in camera and on my PC, sometimes I forget to bracket or the limited bracketing options of a7r isnt sufficient, or the scene is rapidly changing, plus extra workflow in post etc etc.


----------



## benperrin (Aug 8, 2015)

krisbell said:


> I often do just that, and in principle that is a perfectly good work around. However, it takes up more memory in camera and on my PC, sometimes I forget to bracket or the limited bracketing options of a7r isnt sufficient, or the scene is rapidly changing, plus extra workflow in post etc etc.



Fair enough. There are always multiple ways to do things and reasons why a certain method won't work in every situation.


----------



## sanj (Aug 8, 2015)

I totally agree with the point that option of raising blacks in PART of the image turns out very beneficial. 
Also agree with that in some very rare situations it may become necessary to underexpose and hope to fix it in post. 

I dont understand why people resist the benefits of having the option of raising blacks without creating too much noise. The only explanation I can come up with is that Canon sensors don't do this best and this is a Canon forum.


----------



## benperrin (Aug 8, 2015)

sanj said:


> I dont understand why people resist the benefits of having the option of raising blacks without creating too much noise. The only explanation I can come up with is that Canon sensors don't do this best and this is a Canon forum.



From my own point of view I certainly don't resist having the option but just because one option is available doesn't mean it is the best one. I still think that bracketing is the best option when available. It is great though for those opportunities when bracketing isn't a viable option.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 8, 2015)

sanj said:


> I totally agree with the point that option of raising blacks in PART of the image turns out very beneficial.
> Also agree with that in some very rare situations it may become necessary to underexpose and hope to fix it in post.
> 
> I dont understand why people resist the benefits of having the option of raising blacks without creating too much noise. The only explanation I can come up with is that Canon sensors don't do this best and this is a Canon forum.



Well said. Any added flexibility to manipulate an image to better convey the scene is welcome. Whether one chooses to use it is a matter of personal preference. Personally, I find this camera very intriguing.


----------



## sanj (Aug 8, 2015)

benperrin said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I dont understand why people resist the benefits of having the option of raising blacks without creating too much noise. The only explanation I can come up with is that Canon sensors don't do this best and this is a Canon forum.
> ...



Yes of course but is not always possible to bracket shot. Eg. Handheld or moving subject.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 8, 2015)

sanj said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Moving subject, true, but nowadays handheld doesn't mean you can't B&B a shot. (Bracket and Blend). With the speed most cameras can shoot at now - 5 fps or faster - and auto align software, it's quite possible. Also HDR software is getting so good at giving 'natural' results......


----------



## sanj (Aug 8, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I have never seen how much compensation +100 shadow lift represents. So I played around with a couple of images. It seems to me that it represent around 2.0 to 2.5 stops. Does anyone have more presise info to share?
> 
> If what I found is correct, the shadows in the image above is lifted 4-4.5 stops (which was more than I thought).



It is my estimate as well that +100 shadow lift would be more than 4 stops...


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 8, 2015)

krisbell said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Beautiful photos at your links sir. Just fantastic!


----------



## scyrene (Aug 8, 2015)

brad-man said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I totally agree with the point that option of raising blacks in PART of the image turns out very beneficial.
> ...



I don't think people are saying it's not useful to have more options, nor has anyone claimed that Canon images aren't noisier in the shadows when they are brightened. But to trash e.g. the 5Ds because it can't be pushed to extremes while the A7RII can is to take a marginal case and dismiss a generally very good camera based on it. BOTH cameras will do great things in MOST situations. That's the core point I think.


----------



## sanj (Aug 9, 2015)

scyrene said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Agree with you totally on everything except the first part. You may want to re read the thread.  I will stay with Canon because I find it a very robust and trustworthy camera.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 9, 2015)

sanj said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



Lol, I guess I could have added more disclaimers


----------



## bholliman (Aug 9, 2015)

sanj said:


> I dont understand why people resist the benefits of having the option of raising blacks without creating too much noise. The only explanation I can come up with is that Canon sensors don't do this best and this is a Canon forum.



I'm certainly in favor of anything that provides more options. But, I can't recall ever having to lift shadows 6 stops in any of my keeper shots over the past 5 years.


----------



## jrista (Aug 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Couldn't give a toss how they achieve it, as long as it reduces the occurrence of posterisation and other compression artifacts.
> ...



No, that is no longer a choice you have to make. Not when the competition can use lenses from multiple "camera systems" and perform extremely well...possibly even better than cameras from within the same system.

There are also hotshoe adapters that bring in compatibility with Canon/Nikon hotshoe devices. They won't give you full in-camera TTL control over flash, but it will adapt flash as well as other hotshoe devices compatible with those brands (and in some cases, other brands as well).

The "system" argument is breaking down, which is exactly why the Sony Alpha line is so compelling. You DO NOT have to make a system choice anymore.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 9, 2015)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > traveller said:
> ...



I think things are improving, but you're being a bit more lenient on one situation than the other. On the one hand, a few aspects of image quality - shadow raising/dynamic range etc - are said to be crucial, while others - AF speed, focus accuracy, and distortion/sharpness across the frame - are not. I don't doubt that Sony body + adaptor + Canon lens is a more usable setup than it was, but it's not perfect yet - I'm reminded of Roger Cicala's take on adaptors http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters (even though it's from 2013 I doubt it's no longer valid).

The system argument is less strong than before, but to suggest it's no longer valid is a bit strong.

Not to mention Sony hasn't yet provided a larger body - as I've said elsewhere, I handhold with a supertelephoto lens and can't see the A7 for factor working for this.


----------



## jrista (Aug 9, 2015)

scyrene said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



The system argument is the go-to argument against picking up an A7 body when your already bought into a system. With the A7r II, there are more and more reviews stating that it performs as well or better than comparable Canon bodies when focusing with adapted Canon lenses. I think that invalidates the system argument..._*in the case of the A7r II.*_ It may be that future Sony Alpha bodies get the same AF improvements, and if they do, then I think that would weaken the system argument even more...but for now, I am only referring to the A7r II.

Lenses are the primary thing keeping most photographers in their chosen system. There are flash and other devices, sure. Most of my non-lens devices that I have for my Canon kit can be easily replaced...if they need to be. For example, I have some intervolometers that I simply wouldn't need to replace since that's build in with the Sony cameras. The single largest basis of value that I have in my Canon system is the lenses, by a long shot. For some people who shoot portraiture and the like, flash might be a big second, and if it is, I can see a big reason for sticking with the brand (i.e. E-TTL).

Regardless of that, however, most people's investment is in lenses. Lenses are the things that stick around when we switch in-brand bodies even. 

So, if your able to use your existing lens kit, and are able to focus as fast or faster with an A7r II, then the "AF speed, focus accuracy, and distortion/sharpness across the frame" are not going to differ. It's the same lens, so distortion and sharpness are certainly not going to differ. AF speed is going to be similar if not better. Focus accuracy, well that is as much the user understanding how to use the AF system as it is the AF system itself (and that is true for using Canon lenses on Canon bodies even...my 600mm f/4 lens on a Canon body is designed to focus inward before it focuses outward...before I knew that, I missed a lot of BIF shots because the darn lens would focus the wrong way when the bird was dead center in the lens, just OOF. I had to pre-focus the lens out towards infinity with my thumb before autofocusing, and I was nailing BIF on a regular basis.) 

Is the A7r II perfect? Hell no. Will the A7r III be perfect? Hell no. But my 5D III is far from perfect as well. The point is simply that I can use the A7r II for what I need it for...mostly manually focused with a few AF landscapes, macros, flora and other nature stuff, with all of my existing lenses...no brainer. For the other kind of photography I like, still life scenes of classic old equipment and such at low ISO, where I do use AF, the A7r II will perform better with my existing equipment than the A7r (which, while it could AF, did so poorly enough that I ended up resorting to manual focus for all of it.)


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 9, 2015)

jrista said:


> With the A7r II, there are more and more reviews stating that it performs as well or better than comparable Canon bodies when focusing with adapted Canon lenses.



Not so far in my experience, at least not the way I shoot.

It handles new lenses well (16-35f/4L, for example) if you let it choose what to focus on.

If you choose an af "point" (flexible spot), it handles new lenses decently *when that spot is near center*. Towards the edges it hunts, even in easy situations. And sometimes it gets confused and starts hunting even in the center in easy situations, and I have to switch modes off flexible spot and come back. Then it works.

Old lenses? No go.

It's looking more and more like a native lens or manual focus platform to me.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 9, 2015)

jrista said:


> The system argument is the go-to argument against picking up an A7 body when your already bought into a system. With the A7r II, there are more and more reviews stating that it performs as well or better than comparable Canon bodies when focusing with adapted Canon lenses. I think that invalidates the system argument..._*in the case of the A7r II.*_ It may be that future Sony Alpha bodies get the same AF improvements, and if they do, then I think that would weaken the system argument even more...but for now, I am only referring to the A7r II.
> 
> Lenses are the primary thing keeping most photographers in their chosen system. There are flash and other devices, sure. Most of my non-lens devices that I have for my Canon kit can be easily replaced...if they need to be. For example, I have some intervolometers that I simply wouldn't need to replace since that's build in with the Sony cameras. The single largest basis of value that I have in my Canon system is the lenses, by a long shot. For some people who shoot portraiture and the like, flash might be a big second, and if it is, I can see a big reason for sticking with the brand (i.e. E-TTL).
> 
> ...



I think the reports re. AF are intriguing, but it seems an even less empirically-tested area in camera reviews than sensor performance.

Distortion and sharpness - I thought Cicala was pointing to tolerances within the adaptors. They have glass, right? They'll likely (on average) introduce some aberrations - just as Canon's own extenders do. And on focus speed - it's a minor point maybe, but I thought one of the arguments for 1-series cameras was their more powerful battery made AF faster. The tiny batteries in most mirrorless cameras are surely inferior, even to non 1-series DSLRs?

I've no doubt you personally know exactly what you're doing in choosing a body. But the overall narrative that started this thread was a very specific case (6 stop pushes and using them to trash one camera versus another). That, I think, misleads those who don't spend as much time deciding on cameras based on such careful examination of their specs and how they relate to the work one wants to do with them.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 9, 2015)

bholliman said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I dont understand why people resist the benefits of having the option of raising blacks without creating too much noise. The only explanation I can come up with is that Canon sensors don't do this best and this is a Canon forum.
> ...



Well, don't get stuck on the past. Good example on how people always don't think what something means, years-years ago there was cell phone seminar where the participants were given task to come up with ideas, and then they voted which ideas were best. They said that the ideas don't need to be even remotely possible, just something that they would love to have on a cell phone.

Some reason wireless charging was voted higher than cell phone which doesn't need to be charged ever.

Same for photos, assuming no drawbacks, of course it's better to be able to push/pull more stops, even if you 99.999% of the time don't need it.

Thinking that task above, I'd like a camera with ISO100 50-stop DR.

Week ago I was actually shooting at this place which had huge doors/windows. The day was very bright, and insides were poorly lit. I didn't want to use flash, so exposuring inside properly blew out the outsides. With 6+ stop push/pull camera, I could have exposured in the halfway, and then lift the shadows on post.

I'm still staying with my Canons, but having more features, even when you don't usually need them, can be helpful.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 9, 2015)

scyrene said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The system argument is the go-to argument against picking up an A7 body when your already bought into a system. With the A7r II, there are more and more reviews stating that it performs as well or better than comparable Canon bodies when focusing with adapted Canon lenses. I think that invalidates the system argument..._*in the case of the A7r II.*_ It may be that future Sony Alpha bodies get the same AF improvements, and if they do, then I think that would weaken the system argument even more...but for now, I am only referring to the A7r II.
> ...



To the bold: no, adapters just make out the gap between the mirrorless mount and the back of the SLR lens. There is no glass.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 9, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



There might not be any glass in some adapters but there is often a perceivable loss in IQ even when there is no glass, particularly for high MP stills images off center. Indeed Roger at Lens Rentals confirmed that in some situations glassless adapters were not usable as the falloff off center was too high. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters


----------



## scyrene (Aug 9, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Really? I had no idea! (Obviously)


----------



## kaihp (Aug 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



The Metabones SpeedBooster does have glass in it, so 3kramd5's statement was a bit too bold.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 9, 2015)

kaihp said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



That's not what we're talking about, though. We're talking about using full frame SLR lenses on a full frame mirrorless camera. The speedboosters, which are like the inverse of teleconverters indeed use optics. Pure adapters are essentially extension tubes.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 9, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



The article I linked to was also about glassless adapters. They have an adverse impact on IQ especially off center and at high MP. So the dream of getting Canon lens resolution capacity from non Canon bodies for high quality stills images is not a clear cut case.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> So the dream of getting Canon lens resolution capacity from non Canon bodies for high quality stills images is not a clear cut case.



It's more than clear cut...haven't you heard? Using an adapted lens on a Sony body is possibly even better than native. 



jrista said:


> No, that is no longer a choice you have to make. Not when the competition can use lenses from multiple "camera systems" and perform extremely well...possibly even better than cameras from within the same system.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > kaihp said:
> ...



Im aware of that. It's self evident that adding anything mechanical between a lens and its mount necessarily adds an additional source of alignment error, even if they hold parallelism to say .001 inches. I was just answering the original question as asked.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 9, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



I made an honest mistake, but given the article I linked to (linked again later) was (it turns out) about glassless adaptors, I guess the general point stands? Namely, that adaptors will likely degrade image quality a little, and given image quality is supposed to be the thing everyone cares about it's not fair to say using them is as good as mounting native lenses on a camera body.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > So the dream of getting Canon lens resolution capacity from non Canon bodies for high quality stills images is not a clear cut case.
> ...



Thanks Neuro, if it hadn't been for your sharp eyes that might have slipped me by. So I am good to get the A7RII now and use my EF lenses for even better performance?


----------



## captainkanji (Aug 10, 2015)

If I have to push more than 2 stops, I trash the image.


----------



## dash2k8 (Aug 10, 2015)

I'm late to this game. Who even pushes shadows 3 stops in real life? The only instances of pushing shadows that much is for creative exercise. In my 10 years of digital photography, I've not once had to push shadows beyond 2 stops, let alone 6 stops.

Lesson learned from this comparison: if you want to push shadows by 6 stops, get a a7rII!


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 10, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> I'm late to this game. Who even pushes shadows 3 stops in real life? The only instances of pushing shadows that much is for creative exercise. In my 10 years of digital photography, I've not once had to push shadows beyond 2 stops, let alone 6 stops.
> 
> Lesson learned from this comparison: if you want to push shadows by 6 stops, get a a7rII!



I agree. I spend more time pulling exposures than pushing. If you have to push your exposures all the time, you are doing it wrong. But i guess there are those that are lazy and don't want to use histograms to maximize what their cameras can deliver.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 10, 2015)

captainkanji said:


> If I have to push more than 2 stops, I trash the image.



if you're shooting Canon's DiGic 4, _you have no choice_. (well, not much anyway)
If you're shooting ABC, it's rarely a problem if at lower ISOs.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> So why is there image quality falloff at the edges when using adapters with lenses?
> ...
> Whilst there are some available for sale 2nd hand, if they were the problem that some are making them out to be then there would be more metabones showing up on places like craigslist.



I 'splained dat a few pages back.
The filter stack in front of the sensor refracts the incoming light more as you move away from center.
If that stack refraction isn't accounted for in the lens design, you may have IQ loss away from center.

..because Nikon's/Canon's/Sony's/Pentax/Fuji/whomever's filter stacks may not all have the same effective total refraction so there'll be differences.
Metabones (latest) speed-boosters should be made to compensate for that.

So this makes me wonder how 3rd party glass is made to compromise for this as well.
Does anyone know?
Do they make the rear elements custom to the mount to compensate for this or do they just use a compromise method and employ a longer effective register distance to minimize the effect?

Did Sigma use a compromise before but now the Art lenses are better tuned to each mfr's stack to provide the best possible performance?
4/3 systems at least had a design standard (with some rather thick filter stacks)


----------



## Eldar (Aug 10, 2015)

captainkanji said:


> If I have to push more than 2 stops, I trash the image.


I posted this on another thread also, but it can work as an example. Would you throw this away? What do you think I have done here? (I can reveal that overall EC is 0)


----------



## msm (Aug 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Why do you guys think people adapt Canon lenses on Sony bodies? Because they are stupid?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> captainkanji said:
> 
> 
> > If I have to push more than 2 stops, I trash the image.
> ...



Just in relation to my reply on to this on the other thread: EC 0 doesn't mean that you haven't unneccessarily underexposed.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 10, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > captainkanji said:
> ...


I exposed for the buildings on the left and the sky. I made no EC to these areas in post.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Were you spot metering from the white buildings ?


----------



## Eldar (Aug 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think I have done here? (I can reveal that overall EC is 0)
> ...


This is now being discussed on two threads. See:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27237.msg540617#msg540617

I have made a general shadow lift and I have made an EC compensation in certain areas. I also had the hightlight reduced, which I don't think I should have, since it made the image flatter. It was a quick job on a laptop in an airport lounge. Now it's time to fly.

The CA thing is interesting. I have a couple of examples now, where I have seen (significant) CA on jpeg-images I have posted. But looking at the full resolution image in LR shows nothing. Why that is happening is a mystery to me. Anyone knowing why that happens?


----------



## krisbell (Aug 10, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> I'm late to this game. Who even pushes shadows 3 stops in real life? The only instances of pushing shadows that much is for creative exercise. In my 10 years of digital photography, I've not once had to push shadows beyond 2 stops, let alone 6 stops.
> Lesson learned from this comparison: if you want to push shadows by 6 stops, get a a7rII!



Perhaps you should have taken the time/courtesy to read the previous posts before replying - _you _dont push shadows 2 stops but many of us do.



East Wind Photography said:


> I agree. I spend more time pulling exposures than pushing. If you have to push your exposures all the time, you are doing it wrong. But i guess there are those that are lazy and don't want to use histograms to maximize what their cameras can deliver.



If you have a Sony, pushing is the best way to maximise what your camera can deliver, just like for a Canon ETTR is best. And without knowing what and how people are photographing whatever they are, what is the point in this comment?



captainkanji said:


> If I have to push more than 2 stops, I trash the image.



See my first comment above. Also, I wager my wife's weekly allowance that you wouldnt be able to tell which images I have pushed by 2 stops versus not pushed at all - but if you want to trash perfectly good images on some pre-defined, arbitrary and self-imposed limit all power to you. Canon cameras produce their best images by exposing as far to the right as possible and then reducing exposure significantly in post - do you trash any image you have to pull by more than 2 stops even if that produces the cleanest images?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 10, 2015)

msm said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Because Sony make half a dozen lenses per mount and Canon make around seventy EF lenses, anybody that wants anything but a very modest lens selection with a Sony camera has to use third party lenses. People think they will get the 'best' of all worlds if they use Canon lenses on 'superior' performing sensors, the claims have now gone from, 'you can use your existing lenses on this camera' for the A7R without mentioning the myriad of caveats, to 'your EF lenses will work just as well as on your Canon body, if not better' on the A7RII, what utter bull.

Generally, yes, I think most people who buy a Sony camera to shoot Canon lenses are stupid and buy into the hype and sales speak. I don't buy into hype or sales speak, I personally test every lens I buy and every body too, if it has features or IQ differences that are meaningful and relevant to my images I buy them, if they don't then I don't buy them.


----------



## Txema (Aug 10, 2015)

"Generally, yes, I think most people who buy a Sony camera to shoot Canon lenses are stupid and buy into the hype and sales speak. I don't buy into hype or sales speak, I personally test every lens I buy and every body too, if it has features or IQ differences that are meaningful and relevant to my images I buy them, if they don't then I don't buy them."

I think that buy canon lenses for canon bodies is neither stupid nor clever. Buying the new A7RII to use it with your canon lenses is neither stupid nor clever. Thinking that the people who chose the option you didn't is stupid is stupid indeed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2015)

msm said:


> Why do you guys think people adapt Canon lenses on Sony bodies? Because they are stupid?



Because they wanted the features of a Sony camera but are forced to compromise to use the lenses they want, either due to the very limited native lens selection, or to limited budget. Many may not be aware of the compromise they're making, because they've bought into the hype of the 'best of both worlds'. Some will not even know – or care about – the impacts of using an adapter. 

But to claim that such impacts don't exist is false, and the argument that mounting a Canon lens on a Sony body via an adapter maximizes the performance of both is specious.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 10, 2015)

krisbell said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm late to this game. Who even pushes shadows 3 stops in real life? The only instances of pushing shadows that much is for creative exercise. In my 10 years of digital photography, I've not once had to push shadows beyond 2 stops, let alone 6 stops.
> ...



So by your own answer you clarified my point. The OP comparison here is useless.


----------



## sanj (Aug 10, 2015)

captainkanji said:


> If I have to push more than 2 stops, I trash the image.



Funny. You do that your images pls. Let me do what I want with mine, as I see no need to trash an interesting image if I have to salvage it by lifting part or whole of the image.


----------



## msm (Aug 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you guys think people adapt Canon lenses on Sony bodies? Because they are stupid?
> ...



Hype is a bad thing. As is FUD, usually propagated and blown completely out of proportions on the internet by fanboys such as yourself who only have bad things to say about the a7 cameras and only good things about canon. 

The reality is there are compromises with both choices, when you go for a Canon body you get the worst DR in the business, no manual focus aids, no IBIS and mirror slap.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2015)

msm said:


> ...fanboys such as yourself who only have bad things to say about the a7 cameras and only good things about canon.



Yep, that's me – never said a good thing about a7 bodies, never said a bad thing about Canon. How's the weather there in dilbertland? Do let us know when you return to reality, mmmkay?


----------



## msm (Aug 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > ...fanboys such as yourself who only have bad things to say about the a7 cameras and only good things about canon.
> ...



Yep that is you, I can't recall ever seeing you say anything positive about a a7 camera, however I see you all the time spam threads like these with FUD about things you have absolutely no practical experience with.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2015)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



Just because you can't recall seeing something doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Moreover, you really don't know everything about my practical experience, do you? Feel free to judge and make false statements anyway...after all, it's the Internet and that sort of thing is quite common here.


----------



## msm (Aug 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Nope but if it happens it is so rare that it practically never happens. You pollute this forum with your useless sarcastic garbage at 10 posts a day, I should have seen it if you wrote anything positive about Sony or Nikon at any real frequency. :

As for practical experience, perhaps you can share with us your vast practical experience about Nikon QA, Sony compressed raws, adapter troubles which you seem to know so much about? : Instead of just mentioning crap you read about on the internet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2015)

msm said:


> Nope but if it happens it is so rare that it practically never happens. You pollute this forum with your useless sarcastic garbage at 10 posts a day, I should have seen it if you wrote anything positive about Sony or Nikon at any real frequency.



Yeah, I guess you missed the many times I stated that if landscape photography was my primary focus, I'd be using a D800/D810 and 14-24/2.8G (although that was before the 5Ds and 11-24/4L). But hey, if you didn't see it I guess it didn't happen. :


----------



## sanj (Aug 10, 2015)

I learnt a new term: FUD


----------



## fragilesi (Aug 10, 2015)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



I'm not sure that you can exactly claim to be giving a balanced view in this debate either.


----------



## msm (Aug 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Nope but if it happens it is so rare that it practically never happens. You pollute this forum with your useless sarcastic garbage at 10 posts a day, I should have seen it if you wrote anything positive about Sony or Nikon at any real frequency.
> ...



So in 17k posts that is all you can come up with? No wonder we missed it. ;D Now how many times have you written something negative about Nikon or Sony?


----------



## msm (Aug 10, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I haven't claimed to present a balanced view in this thread, I have tried it before though and in my opinion all camera gear have compromises. Build the system that fits you needs, regardless of what brand is on the lenses or camera. Brand loyalism makes no sense unless you are in love with a company logo or like to subsidize inferior equipment with your money.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 10, 2015)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > traveller said:
> ...



I think you still do if you live and die by AF. Especially AF speed and accuracy on big superteles.


----------



## fragilesi (Aug 10, 2015)

msm said:


> I haven't claimed to present a balanced view in this thread, I have tried it before though and in my opinion all camera gear have compromises. Build the system that fits you needs, regardless of what brand is on the lenses or camera. Brand loyalism makes no sense unless you are in love with a company logo or like to subsidize inferior equipment with your money.



Yes, *your* needs and *your* money.

Which are different to my needs and sadly for me probably more than my money 

But from reading your posts you seem to equate thinking that Canon is the better system with "brand loyalty" and thinking that the Sony A7 is the better system as some kind of objective analysis. I mean otherwise you'd be having the same discussion with Dilbert right? 

I like the look of the A7R but trusting Sony (a company I now have a genuine distrust of) + Metabones (A company I admit to knowing nothing about) + my Canon lenses to deliver reliably . . . that to me is a hell of a leap of faith.


----------



## zim (Aug 10, 2015)

sanj said:


> I learnt a new term: FUD



and where I live a 'fud' is probably something waaay different from that term you just learnt, but amazingly and strangely still quite apt at times on CR ;D


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 10, 2015)

msm said:


> Nope but if it happens it is so rare that it practically never happens. You pollute this forum with your useless sarcastic garbage at 10 posts a day, I should have seen it if you wrote anything positive about Sony or Nikon at any real frequency. :



Could you guys please remain factual, it's 9.185 posts per day.


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 10, 2015)

Forget about 6 stop push. There is discussion in dpr about compression artifacts and hot pixel issue in photographylife even with 4 stop push. Even if you sneeze, it will downgrade itself into 12 bit camera and gives up DR advantage.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56288185
https://photographylife.com/sony-a7r-ii-hot-pixel-issue
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3885355


----------



## sdsr (Aug 10, 2015)

msm said:


> Why do you guys think people adapt Canon lenses on Sony bodies? Because they are stupid?



If you move from Canon to Sony or, like me, add Sony to Canon, the reasons are pretty obvious, even if there is a native Sony e mount equivalent. As for Roger Cicala's warning blogpost, it's important to pay attention to his conclusion:

"Like a lot of tests, you can detect a very real difference in the lab that doesn't make much difference at all in the real world.... In the examples above ... center resolution is pretty much unchanged, it's only when you get away from center that you start to see issues. So someone shooting portraits and centered subjects is unlikely to notice an issue. A landscape photographer, though, would likely see some problems along the edges of the image."

So it rather depends on what you use the camera for, and even then the problems may well be exaggerated (there are enough landscape photos out there taken via adapters available for perusal online). Some A/B comparisons via actual photos of something other than test charts would be useful. (I use a wide array of lenses, incl. Canon, on my Sony a7 cameras via adapters and don't notice a problem, perhaps because I seldom take photos where the edges matter or would be in focus.

(The main problem to date has been with the wider M mount Leica cameras; the one I've tried was terrible except in the center third or so of the image. Some claim that these perform better on the a7rII than on its various predecessors.)


----------



## msm (Aug 10, 2015)

sdsr said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you guys think people adapt Canon lenses on Sony bodies? Because they are stupid?
> ...



Exactly and when I test my Canon cameras against my A7R with my Canon lenses I have always gotten the same result. The A7R produces sharper files all across the frame, even in the corner. But hey R. Cicala wrote that article and some have fanboy glasses on so they missed that part of the article and think it is terrible.

The main problem with uniform sharpness in landscapes is field curvature in my experience and that is just as big problem with Canon cameras as Sony.


----------



## crisotunity (Aug 10, 2015)

ritholtz said:


> Forget about 6 stop push. There is discussion in dpr about compression artifacts and hot pixel issue in photographylife even with 4 stop push. Even if you sneeze, it will downgrade itself into 12 bit camera and gives up DR advantage.
> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56288185
> https://photographylife.com/sony-a7r-ii-hot-pixel-issue
> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3885355



The Photographylife article is hilarious. The author has sold a stunning, up-to-date camera (Nikon D810) because: 
"Although I loved my D810 for landscape images [_I suppose its kick-butt AF was not good enough for anything else_], lugging the camera and tripod when going on vacation or hiking with a 20 month old child, has it’s challenges. The thoughts of a lighter set-up [_the A7 is less than 250g lighter_] and the 5-axis image stabilization [_which miraculously allows for 0.5 to 10 second exposures, so who needs to lug around a tripod?_] is what finally pushed me over". 

Translation: I have so much disposable income, I literally don't know what I'm doing with it.


----------



## msm (Aug 10, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> But from reading your posts you seem to equate thinking that Canon is the better system with "brand loyalty" and thinking that the Sony A7 is the better system as some kind of objective analysis. I mean otherwise you'd be having the same discussion with Dilbert right?



I don't think any system is better in general, they all are better at some things and worse at others. Disregarding that and just posting positive things about one particular system and negative about others reeks of fanboyism.



fragilesi said:


> I like the look of the A7R but trusting Sony (a company I now have a genuine distrust of) + Metabones (A company I admit to knowing nothing about) + my Canon lenses to deliver reliably . . . that to me is a hell of a leap of faith.



And I wouldn't recommend you to get one unless you know what you can expect and what you are after.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2015)

jrista said:


> No, that is no longer a choice you have to make. Not when the competition can use lenses from multiple "camera systems" and perform extremely well...possibly even better than cameras from within the same system.





jrista said:


> The system argument is the go-to argument against picking up an A7 body when your already bought into a system. With the A7r II, there are more and more reviews stating that it performs as well or better than comparable Canon bodies when focusing with adapted Canon lenses. I think that invalidates the system argument..._*in the case of the A7r II.*_
> 
> So, if your able to use your existing lens kit, and are able to focus as fast or faster with an A7r II, then the "AF speed, focus accuracy, and distortion/sharpness across the frame" are not going to differ. It's the same lens, so distortion and sharpness are certainly not going to differ. AF speed is going to be similar if not better.



Or, maybe not.



Maiaibing said:


> I had high hopes. But there are now lots of real life people out there saying that exactly the Canon lenses I wanted to use the most with the SONY cannot AF with it or only slowly; 135L, 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II and 300 f/2.8 IS L II.
> 
> My pre-ordered SONY was set for delivery with the sloooowwww boat. So I actually have not tried it myself - but the reports are consistent enough for me to decide against the experiment for now.



But maybe it's just more FUD from a Canon fanboy... :


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 11, 2015)

sanj said:


> I learnt a new term: FUD



It's FANBOYS, who FUD, not NOOBS, right, nor TROLLS...


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 13, 2015)

In many ways I like the absent hype machine from Canon.

I ordered a second 5DSr today, af if just so much better than the 5D3.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 14, 2015)

Txema said:


> "Generally, yes, I think most people who buy a Sony camera to shoot Canon lenses are stupid and buy into the hype and sales speak. I don't buy into hype or sales speak, I personally test every lens I buy and every body too, if it has features or IQ differences that are meaningful and relevant to my images I buy them, if they don't then I don't buy them."
> 
> I think that buy canon lenses for canon bodies is neither stupid nor clever. Buying the new A7RII to use it with your canon lenses is neither stupid nor clever. Thinking that the people who chose the option you didn't is stupid is stupid indeed.



How about replacing "stupid" with "perhaps making a questionable decision", then? I've been briefly describing in another thread my experiences with my a7rII that arrived yesterday. While that's far too short a time to say much of value about the experience, it's not to short, I think, to make some observations that will likely hold up. At least via the Metabones III (others' experiences with IV suggest it doesn't make much difference), if AF matters, it's important to note that more than a few Canon lenses won't AF at all (some aren't even recognized), some will only focus when the camera is in contrast mode (= annoyingly slow and useless for action), and while a few will focus more-or-less as fast in phase mode as they do on Canon bodies, in less good light when using outer focus points the camera hunts ad nauseam; and I'm inclined to conclude that, leaving aside all that, in phase mode focusing may yield a lower accuracy rate than when attached to a Canon body (sometimes the camera seems it would rather focus on something else, if that something else is large enough and in front of the subject. On the other hand, it accurately and quickly focused on a subject I often have difficulty with AF (a hand on a black statute that has a black lamppost behind it - the camera correctly chose the hand rather than the lamppost)). This was all single-shot, flexible focus point, smallest size (the only sort of AF I'm interested in). 

Presumably at some point a tester with a wide range of Canon lenses will provide a list of which Canon lenses provide, at least on some focus points, fast AF (that list won't include some favorites, such as the 85 1.8, 100L, 135L and 70-200 L IS; my 50mm 1.4 wasn't even recognized). And maybe someone will explain what I'm doing wrong (if anything) or that there's another adapter out there that does a better job.

The Canon lenses I own all work just fine (in terms of image quality) on any a7 if you like manual focusing; and mirrorless cameras with EVFs make that quite easy. But AF lenses typically have shorter focus throws than MF lenses and thus aren't as easy to focus precisely. So....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 15, 2015)

sdsr said:


> Txema said:
> 
> 
> > "Generally, yes, I think most people who buy a Sony camera to shoot Canon lenses are stupid and buy into the hype and sales speak. I don't buy into hype or sales speak, I personally test every lens I buy and every body too, if it has features or IQ differences that are meaningful and relevant to my images I buy them, if they don't then I don't buy them."
> ...



Fredmiranda's forum has a list of canon glass which works, and I believe gives consideration to how well. However it doesn't disclose what modes are being used, etc. 

The long and short of it is, generally speaking: if your lens was designed before 2006, it probably won't work. After 2006, they work progressively better, with the exception of telephotos.


When the FE lenses get here next week I'm eager to try peeking. With my canon glass is laughably bad. I hope it's useable with native glass.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 15, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> When the FE lenses get here next week I'm eager to try peeking. With my canon glass is laughably bad. I hope it's useable with native glass.



If by "peeking" you're referring to manual focusing with "focus peaking," my experience is that it's best used in conjunction with magnification. My success rate using peaking by itself is pretty high if the subject is close and falls as it gets farther away; beyond a certain point I find it so unreliable as to be useless. Used in conjunction with magnification, however, the results are always dead-on accurate (unless I screw something up) regardless of distance, better than AF, including with Canon lenses (though MF is easier with lenses designed for MF; not only is the throw short on AF lenses, on some Canons - the 50mm 1.4 is perhaps the worst of those I've tried - the focus ring won't stay put if you remove your grip on it, which makes the process even more unreliable). I've not tried manually focusing my two FE lenses, though, so perhaps what I've just written won't apply to them - but it might: I've read complaints about the usefulness of Sony's focus peaking used by itself vs Olympus's (I've not tried the latter - my OM-D Em5 is too old).


----------

