# 5D III Dynamic Range



## bestimage (Feb 8, 2013)

Folks,
Greetings,
As we all know the dynamic range of 5D MK III is not better than its counterpart Nikon D800. I was wondering if this deficiency could be addressed by using single shot HDR for batch processing. Has anyone tried HDR batch process to improve dynamic range, what would be good software for this purpose or any other comments. Thanks in advance.
Raj


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 8, 2013)

The popcorn is popping as I type. :


----------



## bestimage (Feb 8, 2013)

That means ?


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 8, 2013)

that means he is waiting for "flame war" with his pop corn... hic.. hic... i am getting tired of that too. however, back to your question. below is the link to show you the good way:

HDR Ep 115: Take & Make Great Photography with Gavin Hoey: Adorama Photography TV


----------



## rpt (Feb 8, 2013)

bestimage said:


> That means ?


Like ishdakuteb says, it means that your original post could result in an all out polarization on this thread leading to at least two well defined poles and possibly a third one that represents the "neutral/do not care" segment with a very low possibility of a fourth segment trying very hard to keep technical responses of this thread on track...


----------



## rpt (Feb 8, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I use Photomatix Pro, Lightroom Enfuse, and CS5/6 32 bit HDR.
> 
> Mostly I use Enfuse, it batch processes well and is comparatively quick and the results very good. Photomatix does do batch processing but the results are very inconsistent as normally each image needs a slightly different adjustment. The CS5/6 32 bit HDR is beautiful, it gives far and away the most natural looking files but is a system hog, each image takes a decent amount of time and you need to record an action to make it a batch process, plus you then need to edit it in a 32 bit enabled program, from Adobe that would be either Lightroom 4 or Camera RAW7 that shipped with ACR in CS6.
> 
> Generally I will use Enfuse for interiors and some exteriors, I use Photomatix Pro for difficult exteriors and more dramatic looks. I use CS5/6 for big prints when I want the best and have the time to spend. If I had to choose one program it would be Enfuse, if I had to lose one it would be Photomatix Pro.


Thank you for bringing us back on track.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 8, 2013)

m said:


> bestimage said:
> 
> 
> > single shot HDR
> ...



Both Topaz adjust and Adobe CS6 do a nice job at single shot HDR... I prefer topaz adjust personally with a touch of detail, but to each their own. The problem is they can easily get overdone and I dont like, personally, the overdone look... I like a little pop... Not more not less... The difference is topaz and the like tend to give the image overall punch, especially dependent on how you have the sliders... Plus you can get unnatural halo's and such. It really is a slippery slope. The D800 and it's 14 stops of DR, tend to do the opposite, it is very natural but very flat as a result. So you need to do tweeking to give it that pop. Of course, you could use topaz or CS6 to give it that pop, and it could arguably do a better job with less noise due to the extra information anyways, but that's another topic for a different day. In the end, it really, honestly, doesn't matter, and it is what it is... Dont worry about extra DR that you likely wouldn't need or want anyways.


----------



## David Hull (Feb 8, 2013)

bestimage said:


> Folks,
> Greetings,
> As we all know the dynamic range of 5D MK III is not better than its counterpart Nikon D800. I was wondering if this deficiency could be addressed by using single shot HDR for batch processing. Has anyone tried HDR batch process to improve dynamic range, what would be good software for this purpose or any other comments. Thanks in advance.
> Raj



If the information ain't there in the original single shot, then it won't be there in the post processed result regardless of how you try to post process it. Put another way, there is no way you can squeeze 14 stops of DR out of a capture that only had 12 stops of information in the first place.


----------



## DanielW (Feb 8, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> IF you want a real answer- the answer is, the read out noise in the Canon cameras is high due theirs read out from the sensor edge to the ADC, as long the read out noise is 14 times higher than the Sony/Nikon cameras at base iso there will be problem for Canon to get a large DR at base iso as Sony have with theirs column wise ADC onboard the sensor chip. And add that the Canon sensor has banding issues/pattern noise in the lower levels.
> Simple facts



Now who could have foreseen this?


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 8, 2013)

ishdakuteb said:


> that means he is waiting for "flame war" with his pop corn... hic.. hic... i am getting tired of that too. however, back to your question. below is the link to show you the good way:
> 
> HDR Ep 115: Take & Make Great Photography with Gavin Hoey: Adorama Photography TV



THanks for this!


----------



## m (Feb 8, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> Dont worry about extra DR that you likely wouldn't need or want anyways.



But the OP worries about it.

Whatever you apply, you could do the same to the image data that initially has more DR.

You cannot get more juice out of this orange than it contains.
Especially not more than out of that other orange that happens to have more juice in it.
No matter what fancy juicer you use.

If the juice is tastier or not was not the question.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 8, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> bestimage said:
> 
> 
> > Folks,
> ...



That about sums it up.
You can only tone map a single shot, you can't get more DR from it altho you can compress it to look that way. You'll still have the original limitations of whatever camera you shot it with.

So I think the answer to your actual question is, No, even if there is a batch process to do this you would not be able to gain any DR from it.

Expanding DR beyond any camera's limitations will require multiple exposures bracketed appropriately to provide the extra range required. More files, more data, more processing and more limitations in the form of things possibly moving within the image from one shot to the next.
No real batch process for that either as each image will usually require some tweaking to make it look right.

Sorry, no shortcuts. Best compromise is to use the highest DR camera you can use and tone-map as desired if you want to do single shot only.

Meanwhile, you may not realize you just created another DR argument minefield that people are now jumping around in, somewhat off-topic.


----------



## K-amps (Feb 8, 2013)

Speaking of DR compression; Here's a thought.... 

Pixel or photosite level "Electronic shutter".

areas of the sensor with enough light shut off sooner than the areas that need the shutter to be open longer... till you have perfect exposure with reduce DR capturing everything and no banding or gradient issues.

I should patent this and sell it to Sony quick...


----------



## pwp (Feb 8, 2013)

ishdakuteb said:


> Below is the link to show you the good way:
> HDR Ep 115: Take & Make Great Photography with Gavin Hoey: Adorama Photography TV


+1 This is a great little tutorial and the most relevant contribution to this thread. I've bookmarked it. Thanks.

-PW


----------



## lintoni (Feb 8, 2013)

K-amps said:


> Speaking of DR compression; Here's a thought....
> 
> Pixel or photosite level "Electronic shutter".
> 
> ...



Continuously measuring and then switching off 20.000.000+ pixels as required ? Good luck with the processing required and the noise generated.


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 8, 2013)

K-amps said:


> Speaking of DR compression; Here's a thought....
> 
> Pixel or photosite level "Electronic shutter".
> 
> ...


LOL


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2013)

bestimage said:


> As we all know the dynamic range of 5D MK III is not better than its counterpart Nikon D800.



Now, where have I heard that before?? :



bestimage said:


> I was wondering if this deficiency could be addressed by using single shot HDR for batch processing. Has anyone tried HDR batch process to improve dynamic range, what would be good software for this purpose or any other comments. Thanks in advance.



IMO, your question has been accurately and helpfully answered by David Hull and ishdakuteb. DR not present in the original shot cannot be added, but post processing techniques as described in the Adorama tutorial can maximize the DR from a single shot, up to the limit of the image capture. 

Many scenes have less than 11 stops of actual DR in the scene, in which case there's no 'deficiency'. Other scenes have more than 14 stops of DR, in which case all current dSLRs are 'deficient' and multiple bracketed exposures and HDR are the only way to capture the full scene DR, assuming you need to do so.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 8, 2013)

RLPhoto, can you share me your pop corn... i am running out of it ;D


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 9, 2013)

ishdakuteb said:


> RLPhoto, can you share me your pop corn... i am running out of it ;D



*passes popcorn


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto, can you share me your pop corn... i am running out of it ;D
> ...


 
I hope its a big bag


----------



## joshmurrah (Feb 9, 2013)

ishdakuteb said:


> that means he is waiting for "flame war" with his pop corn... hic.. hic... i am getting tired of that too. however, back to your question. below is the link to show you the good way:
> 
> HDR Ep 115: Take & Make Great Photography with Gavin Hoey: Adorama Photography TV



I just wanted to pop in and say THANKS for posting that! I open all image formats with ACR already for the controls, and saving as a 32-bit TIFF and reusing ACR for the controls is neat! I usually do the HDR Pro and save from that, but I'll try it this way from now on.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 9, 2013)

joshmurrah said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > that means he is waiting for "flame war" with his pop corn... hic.. hic... i am getting tired of that too. however, back to your question. below is the link to show you the good way:
> ...



glad that i can help. for anyone being out there who has been wondered about bryan peterson's hair. got a message from mark wallace conforming that bryan is just fine, nothing to do with his health. he just lost a bet to his daughter so he had to shave...


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 9, 2013)

Many scenes have less than 11 stops of actual DR in the scene, in which case there's no 'deficiency'. Other scenes have more than 14 stops of DR, in which case all current dSLRs are 'deficient' and multiple bracketed exposures and HDR are the only way to capture the full scene DR, assuming you need to do so.
[/quote]
That is a very interesting perspective, never thought of that. Thanks.

I try to work with what I have, I am still far away from using my 5D3 to its limits.


----------



## Dukinald (Feb 9, 2013)

joshmurrah said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > that means he is waiting for "flame war" with his pop corn... hic.. hic... i am getting tired of that too. however, back to your question. below is the link to show you the good way:
> ...



+1


----------



## rpt (Feb 9, 2013)

Dukinald said:


> joshmurrah said:
> 
> 
> > ishdakuteb said:
> ...


@ishdakuteb, thanks. Great link.


----------



## serendipidy (Feb 9, 2013)

K-amps said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The popcorn is popping as I type. :
> ...



All around dynamic range
The Canon chased the Nikon;
The Canon thought 'twas all in fun,
Pop! goes the Nikon. ;D


----------



## deleteme (Feb 9, 2013)

I have always struggled with DR... ever since my 4x5 zone system days. What I realized was that sometimes I just needed to add light to my shadows.


----------



## kbmelb (Feb 9, 2013)

A little while ago a friend asked me what she needed to know about DSLRs in order to take "good" pictures. 

I created an extensive list. I never mentioned dynamic range. Shame on me.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 9, 2013)

So far I have only done single shot HDR, in CS5. I found it helps a bit to pre adjust the clarity slider slightly to the negative side while in ACR, before opening the file in PS to begin the single shot HDR process. This might be wrong, but it sure seems to help. Anyone else notice this?


----------



## rpt (Feb 9, 2013)

kbmelb said:


> A little while ago a friend asked me what she needed to know about DSLRs in order to take "good" pictures.
> 
> I created an extensive list. I never mentioned dynamic range. Shame on me.


Not really. A good friend you are...
Like a number of people have said on this forum (and I am sure many have said so on other forums elsewhere too) that it is the finger that half clicks and then completes the click is all that matters...

They have not? Huh!


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 9, 2013)

Bottom line, unless you are viewing the final result on some kind of very exotic, purpose-built, lighted device (whether back or front-lit)...then a picture with a lot of stops of DR...once it is printed on any kind of paper, will necessarily look "painterly". As in, you are reduced to seeing very few stops of DR with a printed image. However, even a printed image can in some ways exceed the information your computer monitor is able to display. It just looks less bright, less vivid...than a lighted display device. It gets dynamically compressed.

Under normal room lighting, my prints usually look a lot darker, duller, and less colorful, than they did on the computer screen (let alone if the room lighting isn't of neutral color temperature). Hold the print up close to a good light, and it looks a lot closer to what was on the screen. View it outdoors in the sunlight (preferably slightly diffuse), and it can also look close.

It's important when editing (and then printing) pictures, to allow for how they will usually be lit, wherever they wind up being hung, or displayed. If the final destination is only electronic on the web, then you have one less variable...but of course other considerations. 

But you're never going to see 14 stops of DR, no matter what it is viewed on. Your eye saw more than that as you took the shot, so just try to remeber that as you ponder the picture, and enjoy it.


----------



## mrmarks (Feb 9, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Bottom line, unless you are viewing the final result on some kind of very exotic, purpose-built, lighted device (whether back or front-lit)...then a picture with a lot of stops of DR...once it is printed on any kind of paper, will necessarily look "painterly". As in, you are reduced to seeing very few stops of DR with a printed image. However, even a printed image can in some ways exceed the information your computer monitor is able to display. It just looks less bright, less vivid...than a lighted display device. It gets dynamically compressed.
> 
> Under normal room lighting, my prints usually look a lot darker, duller, and less colorful, than they did on the computer screen (let alone if the room lighting isn't of neutral color temperature). Hold the print up close to a good light, and it looks a lot closer to what was on the screen. View it outdoors in the sunlight (preferably slightly diffuse), and it can also look close.
> 
> ...



So what would be a typical DR range of a LCD display and a print?


----------



## Txema (Feb 9, 2013)

In my experience Hdr with only one shot is a very destructive process if you start up with just one shot on a limited dr camera as my 5D mark III. So, for me, HDR only works well on static subjects. I wish my 5D III would ha 14 stops DR.

Anyone knows the real difference in DR on the 5DIII between ISO 100 normal and 200 with hilight tone priority?


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 9, 2013)

mrmarks said:


> So what would be a typical DR range of a LCD display and a print?



I have no idea exactly, supposedly the photo-editing approved monitors are better than the cheap ones. Supposedly prints can display 10 stops (I think I read that somewhere). But that is 10 stops that is effectively compressed by the net result of the reflectivity of the print and whatever constitutes its emulsion, ink, or pigment...in direct light. 

And people are editing 32 bit HDR files on monitors that can't even display a 16 bit file. And when that HDR file gets printed, it looks like a painting. Paintings, however, look nice. They just can't be mistaken for seeing the original event with your eye. This is especially true, when someone produces an image that looks worse than a cheesy cartoon, drawn with spray cans.

I would dare say, that the main reason a (good) HDR image looks nice, when printed, is precisely because it has been artistically _altered _ and arranged, to compress the overall DR, and highlight the parts that make the color and/or the composition look good. I'm sure I'm not stating anything new by saying that.

This is why I don't understand the obsession with dynamic range at the low ISO end. Sure, it gives you more lattitude. However, for those of us who actually prefer to shoot things that aren't lit by a strobe, or the midday sun...the dynamic range recorded by the camera as the _sensitivity is boosted_, is what really affects image quality. In which case, Nikon and Canon aren't that far apart. They will both get better as time goes on. Maybe Canon will surpass overall, maybe they won't. Either way, it's better just to pick a system and go out and take pictures, and enjoy. Otherwise, you will never catch up to the world class shooters.


----------



## David Hull (Feb 9, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Many scenes have less than 11 stops of actual DR in the scene, in which case there's no 'deficiency'. Other scenes have more than 14 stops of DR, in which case all current dSLRs are 'deficient' and multiple bracketed exposures and HDR are the only way to capture the full scene DR, assuming you need to do so.
> ...



What really matters is what sort of photography you can do with it and so far we haven't been treated to any earth shattering breakthroughs in image making as a result of these two stops of additional DR. If it was as significant as some would have us believe, then we would easily be able to walk into any gallery and pick out the Nikon images from the Canon ones – but we cannot. We continue to be treated to the same me tired, contrived examples that are completely devoid of any artistic value whatsoever and I doubt that THIS will change even if Canon were to come out with a 15 stop camera.


----------



## mrmarks (Feb 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> The human eye is estimated to be able to see detail across a range of 12 stops, or so, but that is estimated as without the iris adjusting, so a fair comparison to a single image. Our inbuilt aperture works so well, fast and automatically, that we can actually see detail in scenes far wider than that.
> 
> Cameras, in a single shot in RAW, can record detail across around 12 stops, some a little better, some a little worse. Now if you shoot jpeg you can only record 8 stops. When you shoot RAW 12 bit you get a potential 12 stops. True 14 bit has a ceiling of 14 stops. No camera that records in 14 bits can possibly record detail across more than 14 stops. Until camera manufacturers start releasing true 16 bit RAW files we won't see any genuine increases in DR.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the great info!


----------



## mrmarks (Feb 9, 2013)

David Hull said:


> What really matters is what sort of photography you can do with it and so far we haven't been treated to any earth shattering breakthroughs in image making as a result of these two stops of additional DR. If it was as significant as some would have us believe, then we would easily be able to walk into any gallery and pick out the Nikon images from the Canon ones – but we cannot. We continue to be treated to the same me tired, contrived examples that are completely devoid of any artistic value whatsoever and I doubt that THIS will change even if Canon were to come out with a 15 stop camera.



You hit the nail on the head.


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 9, 2013)

Is Don Quixote over? Which is the one we are watching now?

*hands out some more popcorn*


----------



## DanielW (Feb 9, 2013)

rpt said:


> kbmelb said:
> 
> 
> > A little while ago a friend asked me what she needed to know about DSLRs in order to take "good" pictures.
> ...


----------



## Aglet (Feb 9, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> .. For some reason it is deemed highly important to some Nikon users, while some Canon users find it utterly unimportant. I expect that situation to flip if ever Canon release a 15-stop DR DSLR.



+1
but I aint waitin' for Canon to produce such. Even 11 or 12 stops of CLEAN DR provides a workable imaging tool.

The aspect that's constantly under-rated by most who crow about the adequacy of Canon in comparison to the sensor superiority of other mfrs is the damn pattern noise.
I'd have kept my 5d2 and 7d with the DR they had if only the base iso noise didn't look like a plaid overlay or picket fence, respectively.



David Hull said:


> ..We continue to be treated to the same me tired, contrived examples that are completely devoid of any artistic value ..



Use your imagination.
I'ts nice to know you have gear that CAN do whatever you want in a challenging situation or to allow recovery from an under exposure error than to have gear which has technical limitations that would require more labor and effort to overcome.
If you're gonna pound that DR nail you could beat on it with that model 5d3 wrench or you could smack it down in one clean blow with a d800 hammer.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 9, 2013)

David Hull said:


> To me, the primary benefit of the technology is that if you have a bad exposure for whatever reason, you can lift the shadows a bit and fix it. You clearly have more leeway in this regard with the later Nikon gear than the Canon stuff and that is mainly due to the pattern noise, not the random noise based DR difference (that DxO measures). This is a huge benefit for the Nikon gear; however, in fairness to Canon, I have never really had a problem with their equipment for any real world work I have done.



OK, you DO get it.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 9, 2013)

he will not being able to simply because all of this images are crappy, from color to composition through number of years being photographer unless he goes out there and steal one. you can tell by taking a look at his images via provided link in previous post.

sigh... i thought that i am saying i am getting tired of talking to these type of people, who have been talking about the same topic for a year (over a year when including other forums like dpreview, photographyblog, etc...), nothing else...

proof: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50383414

umm.... "IARNA International anti-banding and read out noise Association" never heard of it... might be there are two member one is president and another one is vice president LOL...


----------



## Radiating (Feb 9, 2013)

bestimage said:


> Folks,
> Greetings,
> As we all know the dynamic range of 5D MK III is not better than its counterpart Nikon D800. I was wondering if this deficiency could be addressed by using single shot HDR for batch processing. Has anyone tried HDR batch process to improve dynamic range, what would be good software for this purpose or any other comments. Thanks in advance.
> Raj



Dynamic range is the result of the highlight saturation ceiling and the noise floor. You can't use software to improve it because you can't create data that doesn't exist in the first place.

Canon cameras have a significant noise floor in the shadows, due to the way the sensor data is read that adds noise to it. Sony/Nikon's method of reading the sensor is inherently less noisy so they have more dynamic range. 

Canon improved the 5D3 dynamic range by about a stop from the previous generation, and you don't really need more DR unless you're doing architecture or landscape, in which case you can use multi shot.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 9, 2013)

Jee another thread that was going good.. with a great video offering up some wonderful techniques... that has now sunk to the bickering of other threads.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 9, 2013)

PBD: I called Mikael an irrelevance, which by my understanding of the word is not an insult, because his comments in these threads are so often irrelevant.

IMO, you are directly disrespecting the man with that statement.
You seem to have an adequate grasp of english to be able to understand that you did not refer to his IDEAS with that comment, which you've repeated more than once.

If you were to do so, you'd have said, "Hey, your opinion or comment is irrelevant."
FWIW, irrelevance is not even a real word, but you're putting it into a context that comes across as disrespectful.
I also find your badgering of people for their raw files a put-off as well.
What do you hope to accomplish from someone else's raw files?
If you want samples of D800 or 5d2 files, you can find them, shot under very controlled conditions, on various sites. Imaging-resourse is a good example.
Download them and play with them. See how they compare for yourself.
I see little need to duplicate their efforts to appease such requests.

PBD: Like his eye comment..
you did not need to respond to that, he didn't contradict what you said, he merely added to it

PBD: Can you show us some images where the DR of the Canon just can't work but the slightly higher DR of the Nikon saved the day and made a worthwhile image? It appears not.

yes.
I can show you where, if I had shot Nikon, it would have provided an image that _I_ would have liked much better. My client didn't care. I'm a much fussier customer than my clients.

PBD: However, what we are constantly asking for is examples of where the Canon equipment lets you down in real world shooting,

Right, and when I actually started a thread on this exact topic a couple days ago I got 2 pages of crap from various fan-boys on this site who weren't patient enough for some examples to be posted by me or anyone else. Very few others even braved the flames to actually try to participate. I feel bad for them because they were interested in the topic but were likely turned off by the resulting brawl. I certainly was.
Why should I, and some others, waste our time trying to share our experience and knowledge when the response is ridicule or disrespect? Many of the people on this forum have something worthwhile to contribute, even if they're newbies. However, I've often seen too many responses in a condescending attitude from certain participants; that does not create a healthy atmosphere for participation.
And it must the crankiness that comes with old age but I'm gonna call it when i see it.

PBD: where maximising the lower capabilities of the Canon are not enough, where worthwhile real world images could only be shot with a Nikon. In truth I have never been shown one, not one single real world image, only lots of artificially set up and badly exposed "tests". 

What I've generally stated is that the superior sensor performance of the other mfr's cameras allow a lot more creative freedom in post and simplified shooting in the field because we don't have to try wring the best from a mediocre product.
I and others have also stated that it's certainly a benefit to be able to recover from an underexposed shot, or to be able to compress the contrast in a shot with lots of dynamic range, so that the shadows aren't wrecked by pattern noise. There are enough real-world situations where this is an issue.
I've made prints from my 5d2 and 7d that people think are great! Sure. I wonder what they'd have thought about the same images if I could have lifted the dark levels a little like I wanted to, so a hint of the detail hiding there could be seen - preferably without the stripes. 

I don't know who said it but taking your dark print outside to view in sunlight to see the shadow details is not often an appropriate option!
This is when shadow range compression (lifting) is beneficial and when patterned noise cameras, like most contemporary Canons, are not up to the task in the more extreme cases.

_Artificially contrived tests_ are what you use when you do research. It's called a controlled environment to minimize variables. It's daft to suggest such tests do not have merit, people need to understand how they work and how the results will apply to real world shooting. If someone can't understand that, it's gonna be pretty hard to teach them much of anything.

PBD: I shoot a lot of very high dynamic range images, a Nikon would not serve me better.
That's true, but it is irrelevant! 
HDR can even be done with an 8-bit compact camera.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 10, 2013)

ishdakuteb said:


> you can take a look at his images right here http://a2bart.com/... thinking of one day i am going to take some of his images and send to "scott kelby blind critique" and then post back result of the video in this forum to see how good his skill is ;D i guess that we probably have great laugh in this forum since scott is pretty straight...
> 
> note: my 7 years old daughter can create much much nicer a website layout than the one listed above (unbelievable entire website is still used html in these days, no wonder why his image and the other irrelevant-er have no improvement...)



YAWN! : I've seen what you've posted on this site, ishdakuteb, you've got a long road ahead of you before you can think about stepping into my shoes.
And frankly, I don't care what you think artistically - you probably like the Ken Rockwell style of over-saturated, over-contrasty clichés.
And if your kid's so much better at building a site, good for her, there's some talent somewhere in your family. 
Meanwhile, keep shooting. You'll benefit from the practice.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Aglet,
> 
> So show us a reasonable selection of images that are not contrived test scenarios where skillful use of the capabilities of the available tools fails. We are not talking unnecessarily underexposing images by 7 stops, as in the video.
> 
> ...



Awe Dude! You see, this is the kind of stuff I mean!

You want me to go shoot a whole bunch of real world tests shots with multiple cameras to appease your request?!? Are you friggin' kidding?!? :

And then you insult me?.. no minced words about it.

Tsk Tsk Tsk.

I'm not going to play with you. 
Go shoot your own test shots. Gheez, are you an only child or something? How'd you get to be so spoiled and demanding?



privatebydesign said:


> _"FWIW, irrelevance is not even a real word"_
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irrelevance


I DON'T CARE! 
i know what it meant from the context, still doesn't matter. You used it to insult Mikael. His dictionary probably doesn't have it as a real word either.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 10, 2013)

Aglet said:


> PBD: I called Mikael an irrelevance, which by my understanding of the word is not an insult, because his comments in these threads are so often irrelevant.
> 
> IMO, you are directly disrespecting the man with that statement.
> You seem to have an adequate grasp of english to be able to understand that you did not refer to his IDEAS with that comment, which you've repeated more than once.
> ...



*PSD calls only one irrelevant but i think should be both of you*



> PBD: Can you show us some images where the DR of the Canon just can't work but the slightly higher DR of the Nikon saved the day and made a worthwhile image? It appears not.
> 
> yes.
> I can show you where, if I had shot Nikon, it would have provided an image that _I_ would have liked much better. My client didn't care. I'm a much fussier customer than my clients.



*your clients are blind. compare the two below. the first one, which is yours, is what i am calling snapshot. if it is mine, i send it to trash can right away*







*and this one, the second one we are calling art*






*and another two, ditto, first one is a snapshot. not necessary an image composed with diagonal line is art*






* and second one is art*








> PBD: However, what we are constantly asking for is examples of where the Canon equipment lets you down in real world shooting,
> 
> Right, and when I actually started a thread on this exact topic a couple days ago I got 2 pages of crap from various fan-boys on this site who weren't patient enough for some examples to be posted by me or anyone else. Very few others even braved the flames to actually try to participate. I feel bad for them because they were interested in the topic but were likely turned off by the resulting brawl. I certainly was.
> Why should I, and some others, waste our time trying to share our experience and knowledge when the response is ridicule or disrespect? Many of the people on this forum have something worthwhile to contribute, even if they're newbies. However, I've often seen too many responses in a condescending attitude from certain participants; that does not create a healthy atmosphere for participation.
> And it must the crankiness that comes with old age but I'm gonna call it when i see it.



*well... we are newbies who are snapping images much much better than you though. yep, i am darn sure that my experience on photoshop and snapping an image is much much better than you by taking a look at your images*



> PBD: where maximising the lower capabilities of the Canon are not enough, where worthwhile real world images could only be shot with a Nikon. In truth I have never been shown one, not one single real world image, only lots of artificially set up and badly exposed "tests".
> 
> What I've generally stated is that the superior sensor performance of the other mfr's cameras allow a lot more creative freedom in post and simplified shooting in the field because we don't have to try wring the best from a mediocre product.
> I and others have also stated that it's certainly a benefit to be able to recover from an underexposed shot, or to be able to compress the contrast in a shot with lots of dynamic range, so that the shadows aren't wrecked by pattern noise. There are enough real-world situations where this is an issue.
> ...



*oh my god, i wonder who would like to learn from you? i do not...*



> PBD: I shoot a lot of very high dynamic range images, a Nikon would not serve me better.
> That's true, but it is irrelevant!
> HDR can even be done with an 8-bit compact camera.



*if nikon is that good dynamic range, i wonder why number of nikon users are using hdr.*

*BORROW JAY MAISEL QUOTE TO EDUCATE YOU: "TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT".*


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 10, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > bestimage said:
> ...



show me your best of best image that you have ever taken so that i am going to open my eyes mr. self promoted president/artist... once again, we all know what is all that about, you do not have to keep talking about the same for year(s) and we all know how to work around with it. well, i guess no matter what you will keep saying the same since i guess that nikon probably hire you to be here and flood with same information, so PATHETIC...


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 10, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> you are like another person here at CR, you do not know the the laws of physics,



AH HAH... I LIKE THAT "THE LAW OF PHYSICS"... WHICH ONE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT... I AM OPENING FOR PUBLIC TELECON... WANT TO SETUP AN WEBEX TO TALK ABOUT PHYSICS? I THINK NEURO IS SITTING OUT THERE AND WONDER HOW GOOD YOU ARE IN PHYSICS TOO 

note: once again, i am want to see your BEST OF BEST IMAGE


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 10, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> why are writing with big letters, you can not ran around the law of physics regarding signal/noise and banding



i thought you do not see it; therefore, i am writing BIG.

"... you can not ran around the law of physics regarding signal/noise and banding..." under one shot, i can't... with HDR/bracketing i certainly can. i believe that i can take good images with any brand of dslr regardless of using canon or nikon


// --- POST YOUR BEST OF BEST IMAGE PLEASE ---


----------



## Aglet (Feb 10, 2013)

ishdakuteb said:


> ..your clients are blind. compare the two below. the first one, which is yours, is what i am calling snapshot. if it is mine, i send it to trash can right away



*DID YOU OBTAIN MY PERMISSION TO POST MY IMAGES ONLINE?*

I don't see a request anywhere. I recommend that that you edit your post to remove them immediately. 



ishdakuteb said:


> BORROW JAY MAISEL QUOTE TO EDUCATE YOU: "TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT".



OK, there's your technicolored hero. As before, oversaturated cliché.
and irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
As is generally the case around here. :

If you want to have an artistic merit discussion there's a different area for that.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 10, 2013)

Aglet said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > ..your clients are blind. compare the two below. the first one, which is yours, is what i am calling snapshot. if it is mine, i send it to trash can right away
> ...



go ahead and make a claim small case at court, i am open to it... i know how to deal with this type of cases though. know how to claim a small case? if not, i am showing you how...

remove it? no, i am not going to. if you wish to, ask admin to delete that post. that the only way... so pathetic that you can not even recognize what is the different between link and download and re-post.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 10, 2013)

I need more popcorn.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 10, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> hmmmm what are you saing?
> I repeat:This people with minor knowledge who are shouting with big letters , they must first understand the physics of law and signal / noise. If they think they now are the wonder of the lives regarding photography , they must understand that with a camera with a large DR they have the conditions to take even better pictures. Good luck



i am certainly a person with minor knowledge, but better than yours. i am going to post any of my image upon your request, but not chicken like you, not posting YOUR BEST OF BEST IMAGE as requested...

note: keep in mind that not going out there to steal aiite...


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 10, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I need more popcorn.



keep an eye on this topic... i am running out to supper market to get you and i a big big one so we can open our big big eyes to see his image... i am not sure that he is going to post... been asking this for a while already...


----------



## DanielW (Feb 10, 2013)

Geez, you folks still arguing? And with the same lines over and over?
Maybe it's time the admins add some kind of human confirmation before each post, for I suspect some here are answering machines or the like.


----------



## DanielW (Feb 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I need more popcorn.
> ...



Both are good ideas...!


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I need more popcorn.
> ...



i will get an extra for you... i think he would probably call. but if he want information to bring me to court, i am willing to assist him how to request it 8)


----------



## Txema (Feb 10, 2013)

[/quote]

It seems the primary benefit you espouse is for covering incompetence! I assumed, you being an "ART" photographer, would have a basic understanding of exposure and your cameras capabilities.
[/quote]

Missing an exposure is not incompetence it is just an error that everybody in this forum , except you, has committed.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> No, I don't want anything of the sort,..



here's the shot I got permission to use from the last time I used the 5d2 for anything semi-useful.
Was gonna put it into the other thread but I'm not gonna spend much more time on this topic so here, have yerselves a field-day with it. 

Conditions, mid-day, rapidly variable sky, shaded outdoor area. 
For metering info the two adults were wearing medium green and mostly black upper garments.
EXIF the rest.

This was shot while experimenting with variety of outdoor settings we were in and done in a bit of a hurry.
Client LIKED this shot for the facial expressions and overall look, I did my best to make it work.

Shot was initially adjusted with DPP, exported 16b TIFF to PS to touch up some cosmetic details and saved.
16b tiff then toned and adjusted in LR3 for printing and displaying in low light viewing conditions.

_They_ loved the end result.
I'm bothered by the crosshatch noise on the ladies pant legs. And no, it isn't fabric texture.

Note: the detail shot was from a scaled file supplied to the client, not the full res version which is somewhat larger and the crosshatch noise even more prominent. It's less visible when printed, but still detectable if I look at it.

EDIT - added 4th image, original file, everything flat in standard style.


----------



## SJ (Feb 10, 2013)

I'm using my 7d for landscape and no problem with DR, im blend 2 exposure in PS to get more DR.

















Yes, Canon DR not good as Nikon, but Canon still great at other categories.

Dont worry about DR, just enjoy your camera and get the great shoot 8)

Keep in mind..im just newbie in photography..


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 10, 2013)

SJ said:


> I'm using my 7d for landscape and no problem with DR, im blend 2 exposure in PS to get more DR.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great shots among the bullshit! I love it. Could not agree with you more and I do the same thing with my Mk3/7D.


----------



## DanielW (Feb 10, 2013)

SJ said:


> I'm using my 7d for landscape and no problem with DR, im blend 2 exposure in PS to get more DR.
> 
> (The photos here.)
> 
> ...



SJ, what lenses did you use for these? Very nice colors and composition! 
Daniel


----------



## SJ (Feb 10, 2013)

DanielW said:


> SJ said:
> 
> 
> > I'm using my 7d for landscape and no problem with DR, im blend 2 exposure in PS to get more DR.
> ...



Im using canon 10-22mm + ND-4 (kenko)


----------



## Aglet (Feb 10, 2013)

SJ said:


> Yes, Canon DR not good as Nikon, but Canon still great at other categories.
> 
> Dont worry about DR, just enjoy your camera and get the great shoot 8)
> 
> Keep in mind..im just newbie in photography..



Very nice images.
But I'd rather not multi-shot and do all the extra processing to do that. And there are many times I can't do that even when I want to.
It's easier to use a better imaging system.

I still like using Canon for plenty of things. And my bodies shadow performance is better than my 5d2 and 7d could perform.


----------



## DanielW (Feb 10, 2013)

SJ said:


> Im using canon 10-22mm + ND-4 (kenko)


Thanks for answering!


----------



## SJ (Feb 10, 2013)

Usually, great tools helping us to get a good photos. But sometimes great photos doesnt mean come from a great tools. We need to find the solution to cover our tools weakness. In this topic, we talk/complaining about canon weakness is DR.

So find the solution how to cover canon low DR problem..in the same time we can learn something new..

Dont limit our creativity by our tools limitation. Just have some fun, shoot, learning and enjoy our camera.. 

1st time im upgrading my 7d to 5dm3, Im not impress, but when I read the manual book and take some pictures, I found my 5dm3 is really amazing camera.. and now..im still using my 7d for landscape and xploring my 5dm3..


----------



## Aglet (Feb 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Aglet,
> 
> Please can you post the same image before you did any adjustments? The untouched RAW file with everything zeroed, obviously, with the necessary masking. I well understand your dissatisfaction with the image as posted, but as it is a devoid of strong shadows and you used flash it doesn't, on the face of it, appear to be a dynamic range issue.
> 
> Quite possibly a shadow detail one but not a dynamic range issue, it would be very nice to talk this one example through.



Done. Appended it to the originals on pg 8. Flash was 580EX II.

I've sometimes wondered if this camera also had a metering flaw, despite the -2/3 EV as shot.
I usually used it in full manual mode to get consistent results; it would occasionally be over or under by multiple EV if AE.
Light was changing too fast that day to rely on manual.

Just before I sold it I took a few shots of a blank white sheet to check the metering.
Was in aperture priority AE, set 0EV exp at 1.0s. resulting histogram was centered right on 0 in DPP raw tab.
when +1 EV was dialed in it gave me a 2s exp.m hist was on +1
when +2 EV was dialed in it gave me a 13s exp! hist was blown out of course
I completed the series in full manual. histogram was as expected in remaining shots.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 10, 2013)

SJ said:


> Usually, great tools helping us to get a good photos. But sometimes great photos doesnt mean come from a great tools. We need to find the solution to cover our tools weakness. In this topic, we talk/complaining about canon weakness is DR.
> 
> So find the solution how to cover canon low DR problem..in the same time we can learn something new..
> 
> ...


You are correct.

I don't have as much problem with limited DR as with HOW it's limited.
My 40D and old Rebels have virtually no detectable banding as base ISO. My 5d2 and 7D were pretty bad if I had to push the shadows. I've pushed the 40D and even the old rebel bodies the same way with much better results.
And THAT, I believe, is the key of the whole argument. Seems some recent Canon cameras were a step _backwards_ in IQ at low ISO. And it also seems to vary in severity from body to body of the same model. I think I had a 5d2 and 7d that were somewhat flawed. Sold them, was tired of the disappointing results compared to my other cameras.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 10, 2013)

You know, if the 5DIII had inadequate dynamic range, then there's no way I would have been able to have made the attached image -- an image which includes detail both in the shadows at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and in the Sun itself. Anybody care to guess how many stops that includes? Whatever the number is, if you think you need more dynamic range than I've captured here, you're nuts.

Sure, it's multiple exposures blended together. So what?

Point is, the instances where the 5DIII has insufficient dynamic range to capture a scene in one exposure but where a D800 does are so far and few between that it's insane to base your camera choice just on that one metric alone. _Especially_ considering that, in the overwhelming majority of said instances, the proper solution isn't a camera with more dynamic range but rather to fix or embrace the light.

Think about it.

If it's landscape, either you should be waiting for the Golden Hour or you should be blending exposures (either digitally or with a graduated neutral density filter) or you should be embracing the harshness and working for something extremely contrasty with lots of black, lots of white, and not much gray. Even if you could capture it all in a single exposure, you're still going to need to make intelligent decisions as to which parts of that dynamic range you're going to keep and which you're going to throw away, since there's no output medium that can come close to reproducing anywhere near as much dynamic range as cameras already capture.

If it's portraiture or still life (including product photography), if you can't control the light, you should be fired.

If it's some sort of photojournalism, you either should be accurately representing the scene (which is going to mean some combination of crushed shadows or blown highlights) or you should again be fixing the light.

Now, will there be situations where you can use a couple extra stops of less noise in the shadows and some digital fill to simulate the flash / reflector you didn't have with you on the set? Yes. But will the results be as good as if you had actually properly used a flash and / or reflector? Hell no.

And will there be people doing some sort of photojournalism who want to make the results look more like portraiture? Sure...but I hope you'll excuse me if I'm not interested in that kind of distortion.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## David Hull (Feb 10, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



I am completely serious and I think that the post was reasonably clear. I think that a lot of people are making a much bigger deal out of this than it deserves, making mountains out of mole-hills IMO. I think I was pretty clear in my last bit where I, myself, thought the real benefit lies. And, yes, I am sure that the same is true for a lot of the discussions about lens resolution but I tend not to participate in those (not sure why -- they are probably interesting as well).

One of the things I notice about photography forums (and other things like High End audio, Apple vs. PC, iPhone vs. Galaxy3… the list goes on) is people tend to get wound up in the minutia to the point that it becomes almost religion. I don’t expect those that are religious regarding the DR differences to agree with me but perhaps some others will find value in the commentary.

I am starting to agree with the popcorn guys though, but I think in my case, I'll go for a martini .


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Feb 10, 2013)

Nikon may very well be leading in dynamic range during this round of camera bodies, however there are many reasons that one might consider Canon better. The fact of the matter is that any of these bodies (Nikon or Canon) have cutting edge technology that would have been unheard of just a few years ago and are light years ahead of the quality of past digital cameras. 

The 5D Mark III is far from being "inadequate." It's more than adequate for most photographers. If you need more than what the 5D3 can deliver, you should consider medium format cameras.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 10, 2013)

Is everybody sleeping in this morning? Where's the ruckus I expected to find over the 5d2 samples I posted? ;D

In one more kick, at a camera that I think is junk with too many flaws, primarily its terribly noisy low ISO shadow performance, I ran a quick test on some files I had shot for this purpose just before I sold it to some poor sap.

I'd shot 1 EV steps from -5 to +3 of a smooth toned nearly neutral surface. Under wide-specrum flourescent, unfortunately, the sun was on the other side of the planet at the time so I couldn't use it.

Going from my real-world e.g. back on pg 8 of this thread, the ladies black pants seem to be responsible for the -5 EV hump in the histogram.
So I took my -5 EV sample shot into ACR, RAISED IT LESS THAN 2 STOPS AND THE FPN WAS ALREADY A PROBLEM.
If the 5d2 has nearly 4 stops above 0, and I'm being generous here, then the 5 stops below are only 9 EV worth of DR out of what it's claimed on DxO to be over 11 stops.

Well, if one wants to do ANY pushing in post, the DxOmark measurement for this camera's DR is still misrepresented, it's still woefully _optimistic_.

By my simple measurements, if you need to do a +2 EV push in the deep shadows, for _whatever_ reason, then

*the 5D Mark II has a USEFUL DYNAMIC RANGE OF LESS THAN 9 STOPS before pattern noise becomes a problem.
*= = = = = =
*ADDENDUM 13-02-10 2320mst:
*I knew it was likely even worse than this so I quickly checked a couple other test shots:
the -4 EV shot, raised less than 2 stops, also shows FPN
the -3 EV shot, will also show FPN if raised by 1 to 2 stops!

*5D2 is now down to a 7 or 8 stop DR camera if any appearance of FPN is the cutoff point.
*Little wonder I was not happy with it.
_Anyone else want to do the same tests with their 5D2? It might be satisfying to know I had a lemon.
OTOH, you might not want to know the truth about your own camera._ 
= = = = = =
That, my Canon-loving friends, is what I call a P-o-S camera and that's why I got rid of mine.
That, is why the 5D2 was the worst camera in my stable for my purposes and the most disappointing piece of Canon gear I'd ever purchased.
That, is the kind of useful information you can get from shooting dark frames and pushing them in post.
That, is why the 6D is looking like a major low ISO IQ improvement over the 5D2 and one main reason why I'd recommend it over the 5d2 for anyone who can afford the price difference, if they want to shoot Canon.

And finally, that is why I'd like to see a lot less moaning on this topic in general from people who haven't done any basic tests on this camera. Maybe I had a lemon, it was one of the earlier made ones. I doubt it. Altho it did meter with too much variability compared to my other, older bodies.

If you don't push in post, ever, for any reason, then your 5d2 will likely serve you well enough.
IF you do need to push in post, for creative reasons or merely to recover from an underexposure error, then the 5d2 could be a disappointing camera for you.

Since this is a 5d3 thread, sort of, shoot your own tests and see what you come up with. I don't have one, don't want one.
= = = = = =
another addendum - I-R agrees with me. See their DR results page, closer to the bottom
www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2IMATEST.HTM
and their sample images look to be cleaner in the shadows than shots from my camera
= = = = = =


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Is everybody sleeping in this morning?



Can't speak for everyone, but "Nemo" found us and we were finishing digging out from 30" of snowfall during the New England blizzard... 



FatDaddyJones said:


> The 5D Mark III is far from being "inadequate." It's more than adequate for most photographers. If you need more than what the 5D3 can deliver, you should consider medium format cameras.



+1

I'm sure there are some people for whom one single feature is so critical that it's the only one that matters, but for most, it's important to consider the whole camera...


----------



## David Hull (Feb 10, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> You know, if the 5DIII had inadequate dynamic range, then there's no way I would have been able to have made the attached image -- an image which includes detail both in the shadows at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and in the Sun itself. Anybody care to guess how many stops that includes? Whatever the number is, if you think you need more dynamic range than I've captured here, you're nuts.
> 
> Sure, it's multiple exposures blended together. So what?
> 
> ...



Pretty much my point exactly. Know the limitations of your stuff and how to work around them if need be. If some limitation turns out to be really annoying, replace that piece with something that works better for you. Pretty simple really.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Is everybody sleeping in this morning?
> ...



I think it was once said by an an early philosopher "The whole is greater then the sum of its parts". Could not be more true with a camera.


----------



## mrmarks (Feb 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm sure there are some people for whom one single feature is so critical that it's the only one that matters, but for most, it's important to consider the whole camera...



+1

The whole system including lenses and flash system


----------



## Ivan Muller (Feb 11, 2013)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > No, I don't want anything of the sort,..
> ...



Ok first of all I thought they were holding a giant graycard...lol...but eventually it dawned on me....

I must say I cannot see the crosshatch at all on my 22 inch monitor. But if it bothered me I would just use some photoshop tools like the 'colour replacement tool' to eliminate 'noise' etc. topaz has a very nice tool to get rid of high iso banding too...maybe coming from an old school B&W film background I take it for granted that I have to do quite a bit of PP to get things right...


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 11, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I have missed many many exposures, I still do from time to time, I don't blame the camera in those situations, and I don't rely on it saving my butt, I blame my competence.
> ...



I don't know many pro's who use MF for action~


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 11, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> It is funny, for all the histrionics that these threads throw out, the highest level pros are still using Canon cameras and 24-70 f2.8 MkI's, just today I came across this video of Patrick Demarchelier shooting Beyoncé for Vouge Behind the Scenes Beyoncés March 2013 Vogue Shoot
> 
> Or look at any of a multitude of videos of Annie Liebowitz, Behind the Scenes: Meryl Streep by Annie Leibovitz for Vogue US January 2012 that show her happily working successfully for the high end of the photo industry with her faithful 1Ds MkIII's and, again, the 24-70 f2.8 MkI.
> 
> ...



Couldn't agree more. I love my 24-70 MK 1. Gets the job done, grabbed it at a bargain price (1200 right before the MK2 released) in perfect condition and I honestly don't feel the price of the MkII can justify it.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 11, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> hjulenissen said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



No kidding. Thanks for the tip. I'll MF from now on. Afterall, then I'm a real pro, right?


----------



## Dianoda (Feb 11, 2013)

ishdakuteb said:


> that means he is waiting for "flame war" with his pop corn... hic.. hic... i am getting tired of that too. however, back to your question. below is the link to show you the good way:
> 
> HDR Ep 115: Take & Make Great Photography with Gavin Hoey: Adorama Photography TV



Thanks so much for the link. After putting this technique (multiple exposure to 32 bit tiff and processing again in ACR) into action on a few of the HDRs I've shot, wow, so easy, very powerful, great results.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 11, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> RMC33 said:
> 
> 
> > hjulenissen said:
> ...



I think my sarcasm was lost in the interwebs.


----------



## agierke (Feb 12, 2013)

> It is funny, for all the histrionics that these threads throw out, the highest level pros are still using Canon cameras and 24-70 f2.8 MkI's, just today I came across this video of Patrick Demarchelier shooting Beyoncé for Vouge
> Behind the Scenes Beyoncés March 2013 Vogue Shoot	Small | Large
> 
> 
> ...



thats because Subject > Quality of Light > Gear. (i could be swayed to put QoL first but i did this order because Leibovitz is renown for her handling Subject matter above all else)


----------



## dlleno (Feb 12, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Nobody has every denied having two more stops would be useful on occasions. The dispute has been about how bad the 5D MkII and Canon sensors in general actually are. Some on the forum have said quite clearly that the 5D MkII and current generation of sensors are unusable, that is patently false. Not one of them has ever posted an optimally exposed (or even a correctly exposed) image to back up there claims. I see no shame in exposing that sham.



true enough. even the poster child example of direct sunlight with blown highlights and lifted shadows that was underexposed 4 stops only showed that a D800 had more usable data in the shadows. It didn't show the D800 producing a particularly compelling image in that situation -- only one that faired better in the shadows. I would have prefered to see the Canon used to produce the best example, and the Nikon used to produce the best example, and then compare the processes. 

on edit: better yet, make the example one that clearly demonstrates the potential for a truly great shot


----------



## mbpics (Feb 12, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Is everybody sleeping in this morning? Where's the ruckus I expected to find over the 5d2 samples I posted? ;D



It's probably because your photos are awful and nobody gives a shit about what some hack "photographer" has to say. The 5D2 is a venerable piece of equipment that has served many, many people very well. Let us know how much better your D800 is at recovering the shadows when you underexpose your next subject's black pants. :



agierke said:


> thats because Subject > Quality of Light > Gear. (i could be swayed to put QoL first but i did this order because Leibovitz is renown for her handling Subject matter above all else)



Nonononono NO! You have it all wrong. It's obviously Read Noise >> Ability to push shadows 10 stops >> Subject > Quality of Light! God, all of you idiots are wasting your time taking brilliant photos with your horrendously unusable Canon equipment when you could be out there taking photos of black pants or the shed in your backyard!



privatebydesign said:


> I am still waiting for one person to post a single optimally exposed image where the Canon DR ruined the shot but the Nikon made a worthwhile one.



That's because it doesn't exist.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 12, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > RMC33 said:
> ...



No I was adding on to yours .


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 12, 2013)

Bdunbar79 and RMC33, from what I gather, the 24-70 Mk1, has better bokeh...and for portraiture, you don't always want ultimate sharpness. Not sure I see myself buying a used Mk1 when I go full frame, though. Also won't buy the Mk2. Since I don't do much portraiture, I probably stick with the 24-105 kit, and maybe get a Tokina 16-28 at some point. I feel the 24-105 is (or can be) sharper than the 24-70 Mk1...at least based on my cousin's RAW landscape files I've worked on (he has the 24-70 Mk1 on a 5D3)...and comparing them to my own files from renting the 24-105 with a 1 series body. The 24-105 has more CA in the periphery, though, and possibly a lot more barrel at the wide end...both easily correctable though.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 12, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Bdunbar79 and RMC33, from what I gather, the 24-70 Mk1, has better bokeh...and for portraiture, you don't always want ultimate sharpness. Not sure I see myself buying a used Mk1 when I go full frame, though. Also won't buy the Mk2. Since I don't do much portraiture, I probably stick with the 24-105 kit, and maybe get a Tokina 16-28 at some point. I feel the 24-105 is (or can be) sharper than the 24-70 Mk1...at least based on my cousin's RAW landscape files I've worked on (he has the 24-70 Mk1 on a 5D3)...and comparing them to my own files from renting the 24-105 with a 1 series body. The 24-105 has more CA in the periphery, though, and possibly a lot more barrel at the wide end...both easily correctable though.



If you don't need f/2.8, then yeah, get the 24-105L. I always crop a little bit anyways, no matter what, so all of my edges are always gone. The 24-70L II has incredible distortion, that's not easily corrected.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 12, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> RMC33 said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Figured as much. I WILL say. I do use MF on my 200 f/2.... for portraits.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 12, 2013)

RMC33, the 200 f/2 is just a super lens, I only rented one for a few days.

Bdunbar79, I wasn't aware that the Mk2 has a lot of distortion. I thought it had almost none. In any case, if I needed a f/2.8 on a full frame, I would buy the Tamron over the Canon Mk2, or even try the old Sigma (if I didn't need sharpness or to make larger prints). Both the Tamron and the Canon M2 have "onion" bokeh, where the Canon Mk1 has very smooth bokeh. Not sure about the Sigma, although it supposedly has a lot of problems (and softness). If Sigma ever bring in a new one, it would probably kill them all. I would just wait on that one. I won't even own a FF till this Fall at the earliest.

Honestly if I was going to just blow a huge wad of money on a wide lens for a FF camera, I would probably buy several primes instead, like the Zeiss 15 f/2.8, etc. I already have the 50mm I want, so that leaves a 35...probably go with Sigma. I've rented the Canon 24mm f/1.4 Mk2 on my crop camera...didn't care much for it. It wasn't sharp at the edges until f/5.6. So that leaves the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon, with its mustache distortion...it's supposedly still the best lens around this focal length.

And somebody needs to make a really good 28mm f/1.4, or dare I ask, an f/1.2. (Cosina) Voigtlander supposedly make a 35mm f/1.2 in Leica M mount...although seems like I've read it doesn't actually have the brightness of a 1.2.

Another Leica lens appeals to me, the 75mm f/2 Summicron. It's a shame the front half of a Canon camera has to be chopped off, in order to use M lenses...I guess Leica simply need to start making autofocus EF lenses...won't hold my breath.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 12, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Bdunbar79 and RMC33, from what I gather, the 24-70 Mk1, has better bokeh...and for portraiture, you don't always want ultimate sharpness. Not sure I see myself buying a used Mk1 when I go full frame, though. Also won't buy the Mk2. Since I don't do much portraiture, I probably stick with the 24-105 kit, and maybe get a Tokina 16-28 at some point. I feel the 24-105 is (or can be) sharper than the 24-70 Mk1...at least based on my cousin's RAW landscape files I've worked on (he has the 24-70 Mk1 on a 5D3)...and comparing them to my own files from renting the 24-105 with a 1 series body. The 24-105 has more CA in the periphery, though, and possibly a lot more barrel at the wide end...both easily correctable though.



I honestly love the 24-70 Mk1. The fellow I backup shoot/assist weddings for uses a Mk2 (24-70) and we get similar quality out of our Mk3/mk2 combos we use. I do feel the 70-200 is better then the 24-70 for my style of portraiture but you cant beat the combined length of the two lenses.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 12, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> RMC33, the 200 f/2 is just a super lens, I only rented one for a few days.
> 
> Bdunbar79, I wasn't aware that the Mk2 has a lot of distortion. I thought it had almost none. In any case, if I needed a f/2.8 on a full frame, I would buy the Tamron over the Canon Mk2, or even try the old Sigma (if I didn't need sharpness or to make larger prints). Both the Tamron and the Canon M2 have "onion" bokeh, where the Canon Mk1 has very smooth bokeh. Not sure about the Sigma, although it supposedly has a lot of problems (and softness). If Sigma ever bring in a new one, it would probably kill them all. I would just wait on that one. I won't even own a FF till this Fall at the earliest.
> 
> ...



How do you like the Zeiss 50 1.4? Im CPS renting the Canon 50 1.2 and Zeiss 1.4 to replace my old 50 1.4 Canon.


----------



## David Hull (Feb 12, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> agierke,
> 
> You miss the point, she is a way more successful photographer than any of us for whatever reason, but she has the budget to use anything that might get her an edge, she still chooses gear which is regularly denigrated and lambasted on here as being past it. Clearly either she is misguided or the complainers are.
> 
> ...



Another one is Pete Souza who for some reason chose to use a 5DII (and now a 5DIII) when I suspect that he can probably use anything he wants as well. The fact is that there is more than ample proof that people who know how to use the gear can get rather stunning results from it. Sadly, this is a bit more than we can say for some of the more vocal detractors.

FWIW: Fashion shooters probably never worry about the DR of their gear, I didn't watch the videos (I will when I get a chance) but Anne Libowitz can also afford all the lights, reflectors, assistants, etc. that she needs to make sure the shot is perfect. Souza is a little different, having less control over his lighting. All this said though, the DR is only an issue if you make it one which is what most of these guys are out to do. I have yet to see anything in this thread that I could not be done just about any decent DSLR regardless of the brand if used properly.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 12, 2013)

mbpics said:


> It's probably because your photos are awful and nobody gives a S___ about what some hack "photographer" has to say. The 5D2 is a venerable piece of equipment that has served many, many people very well. Let us know how much better your D800 is at recovering the shadows when you underexpose your next subject's black pants. :



you missed the part where a -3EV exposure shows pattern noise with +1 EV
no way that can be described as a good performing camera, no matter what the subject.
SNR on that thing is far worse than DxO published measurements convey because they don't accurately evaluate detectable noise pattern

if you expect me to show you SNR problems at higher EV levels you don't understand how this works.




privatebydesign said:


> I am still waiting for one person to post a single optimally exposed image where the Canon DR ruined the shot but the Nikon made a worthwhile one.



you just SAW one example, not gonna waste my time providing others.

If people can't infere or extrapolate _real world_ performance from an example or controlled tests then the camera's IQ isn't the only problem.

I would not say the 5d2 is useless, but it is very limited in its usefulness.
I did say that it was a very disappointing product for the price and even compared to its forerunners, never mind comparing it to the competition.


----------



## David Hull (Feb 12, 2013)

Aglet said:
 

> mbpics said:
> 
> 
> > It's probably because your photos are awful and nobody gives a S___ about what some hack "photographer" has to say. The 5D2 is a venerable piece of equipment that has served many, many people very well. Let us know how much better your D800 is at recovering the shadows when you underexpose your next subject's black pants. :
> ...



For a camera with such limited usefulness, it somehow garnered a huge user base – essentially eclipsing its competition. I think you are going to see the same from its successor as well which seems to be doing quite despite its rather steep price. While YOU may think the camera is a POS it would appear that the majority of buyers and users have not found themselves in agreement with your assessment.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 12, 2013)

rpt said:


> bestimage said:
> 
> 
> > That means ?
> ...



The third group keeps quiet while the fourth group either does what you suggest or reports the posts to the mods!


----------



## J.R. (Feb 12, 2013)

Aglet said:


> I would not say the 5d2 is useless, but it is very limited in its usefulness.
> I did say that it was a very disappointing product for the price and even compared to its forerunners, never mind comparing it to the competition.



Aglet, this borders right on paranoia. The 5D2 is a pretty useful camera to thousands of pros who still use it, unless of course, you have an axe to grind!


----------



## agierke (Feb 12, 2013)

> You miss the point, she is a way more successful photographer than any of us for whatever reason, but she has the budget to use anything that might get her an edge, she still chooses gear which is regularly denigrated and lambasted on here as being past it. Clearly either she is misguided or the complainers are



no, i was pretty much agreeing exactly with that point.

there seems to be a certain degree of nonsense that comes out in these types of conversations. to suggest the 5D mrk2 is a garbage camera for any reason only serves to discredit those making that claim. stop the nonsense or post a picture proving that the camera is the sole reason holding you back from taking great pictures.

the DR conversation is a bit of a non starter for me for two reasons. 

firstly there are a number of work arounds to increasing the dynamic range of a scene that have been around for a long time. i can get all the range i need in my 5Dc. i do the same on the Mrk 2. would extra DR in camera be nice? yes....but it doesn't come even close to negating the cameras usefulness. 

secondly, most great photographers seek out great light. the gear they use to record the image is almost superfluous if great light is not present! i have to shoot in all kinds of light due to circumstances and i accept that not all shots i take are going to be the pinnacle of my ability. not because my gear is the shortcoming...but because i am not afforded the luxury of finding the quality of light i know will create a phenomenal photograph.

14 stops of DR will not turn crappy light into great light. it will only marginally improve a photograph that is taken in crappy light. why is that so exciting? you are still left with crappy light.....

i dont get it.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 12, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > I would not say the 5d2 is useless, but it is very limited in its usefulness.
> ...



Could not agree more. I love my Mk2.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 12, 2013)

Well, I've yet to see someone post some 5d2 test shots that show it is NOT noisy. I've sample some other raw files that seemed to be less noise-patterned than the ones my camera created, including the samples at imaging-resource.

There's a fair possibility that the particular body I had was a lemon. Why don't we, and I mean you, find out?
I only had the one 5d2 and it was so bad I did not buy a second, unlike various other bodies i've used.

So, for those who actually HAVE a 5d2. kindly take a white or gray card, use a long lens and the largest f# you can use on it, light it evenly, and shoot a metered shot in raw. then shoot it again at -3,-4, -5 EV from metered.

Take the -3,4 & 5 EV shots into ACR or LR (or even DPP) and apply + exposure compensation.
Tell me how far you can go before you see any pattern noise showing up.
Simple as that. 
Post your results here if you've got the 'nads.

As for those still haranguing about my sample shot being 2 stops underexposed, DAMN RIGHT IT IS!
And I'll take responsibility for -2/3 of that underexposure. The rest is camera metering. (sarc)Can't blame any of that on the gear tho, everything Canon makes is perfect. (/sarc)
Give some thought to all the dark subject matter and use of CWA metering, for those who may not know how that works.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 12, 2013)

I'm out of popcorn. :|

Edit: Btw Aglet, I could do a better job with a D30 than what you've shown as samples.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 12, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Take the -3,4 & 5 EV shots into ACR or LR (or even DPP) and apply + exposure compensation.



Huh? You can't be serious. You think there's some point in attempting to recover from a shot five stops underexposed? Hell, even three stops underexposed is insane. But five?



> As for those still haranguing about my sample shot being 2 stops underexposed, DAMN RIGHT IT IS!
> And I'll take responsibility for -2/3 of that underexposure. The rest is camera metering.



I'm sorry, but 'tis a poor workman who blames his tools, and an incompetent photographer who misses proper exposure by two stops. One stop, sure, happens to the best of us (and, in the age of digital, should be caught and fixed promptly). But two? That's well into the territory of "couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from ten paces."

And five stops?

Seriously?

Somebody please tell me this is a joke post, or a troll, or something like that. Even so, it's a very bad example of such, but it's nowhere near as scary a thing to contemplate as a straight reading....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Dantana (Feb 12, 2013)

agierke said:


> > You miss the point, she is a way more successful photographer than any of us for whatever reason, but she has the budget to use anything that might get her an edge, she still chooses gear which is regularly denigrated and lambasted on here as being past it. Clearly either she is misguided or the complainers are
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+ as many as I can +

There's a reason that Magic Hour is Magic Hour. There's a reason that people spend huge amounts of time learning to light a shot or how shape available light.

It's comical to me to read posts about how horrible the 5DII is (especially in a thread about the Mark III). There have been so many amazing images captured with the 5DII and now the 5DIII it's ridiculous to call either of them garbage. I wish I could afford either of them right now. Instead I will make due with my old crop body until that time comes.

That's not to say that extra DR wouldn't be nice. I'm not an idiot. I remember being in college, amazed at the latitude of every new Kodak stock that came out and the ways it could be used. Of course that doesn't mean that I couldn't still go back and get some great images with a roll of Plus-X or a load of 7248. 

If the 5DII or III doesn't have what you are looking for, then buy a different camera. It's the beauty of the competitive marketplace. Just don't tell me that all the great images that I've seen created with the 5D's were created with an unusable camera. It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## David Hull (Feb 12, 2013)

agierke said:


> > You miss the point, she is a way more successful photographer than any of us for whatever reason, but she has the budget to use anything that might get her an edge, she still chooses gear which is regularly denigrated and lambasted on here as being past it. Clearly either she is misguided or the complainers are
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yea... this is pretty much the conclusion I have come to over several years of these sorts of threads as well. I think that "non-starter" is a pretty apt summary of current state of the whole discussion. If the equipment was as bad as folks like aglet would want us to believe, no one would be using it. However, the reality seems to be the exact opposite in that despite these well-known and well documented limitations, somehow, someway competent photographers continue to achieve excellent results. The limitations don’t seem to be too insurmountable for those who know what they are doing and there seem to be a heck of a lot of people who do because there is a veritable plethora of excellent shots available as examples of this.


----------



## David Hull (Feb 12, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > no, i was pretty much agreeing exactly with that point.
> ...



This forum structure doesn't help a lot either.


----------



## David Hull (Feb 12, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I wondeered what was going on. It had been at 11 pages then droped to 7 with some stuff gone, now creaping back up. Oh well, moderation is good even if it is a bit like hearding cats sometimes.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 12, 2013)

Cant believe this thread is still puttering along. As far as DR and detail or lack there of... Last night I had a photo review showing with a couple of my models that i did recent photo shoots for and one of them said last night that they almost hate my 5d Mark 3... They said it has so much detail that it shows every imperfection... That, to me, speaks volumes on the quality of the camera more than whether it has 12 or 14 stops of light. Who cares? Back in the film days we had BW film that had very good DR... what did we do? Use contrast filters to kill the DR and make it more punchy or else it was too flat and ugly... this debate is stupid... learn your cameras and stop obsessing about things that really dont matter.


----------



## agierke (Feb 12, 2013)

^ this...ty. 

i would add, learn about good light as well. that is what photography is supposed to be about.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 12, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> So, as a kind of rebuttal against the DR "issues", I had a play with a file or two.
> 
> Image was shot with a 1Ds MkIII, effectively the same sensor as the 5D MkII. Here are two images, they are both screenshots from LR with before to the left and after to the right, first is the full frame the second is a 100% crop, the blue is obviously black warning. It was a test exposure shot at a wedding reception to determine ambient levels, there is no point of focus.
> 
> ...



Great, you got nads.
But can you do this with a 5d2?!?
I already know the old 1DS3 is a good/better camera, so is my ancient 40D, as compared to the 5d2 I had. So this contribution is an "_irrelevance_." 

That's the point, comparing my extremely noisy 5D2 to another 5d2. A 1Ds3 is not "close enough." internal guts are quite different and it's not just the sensor in the equation but every bit of copper and silicon between the pixel and raw file.

So, will someone with 'nads AND a 5d2 care to show how well their camera can perform in this simple test?


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 12, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I'm out of popcorn. :|
> 
> Edit: Btw Aglet, I could do a better job with a D30 than what you've shown as samples.



i'll get one for you, who else wants more popcorn  i thought that someone was trying to make popcorn-booth though LOL


----------



## Aglet (Feb 12, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I'm out of popcorn. :|
> 
> Edit: Btw Aglet, I could do a better job with a D30 than what you've shown as samples.



I'll share my twizzlers

and my 40 D can also provide better samples, that's not the point.
Do you still have a 5d2? If so, care to perform the test described and publish your results?


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 12, 2013)

Aglet said:


> So, will someone with 'nads AND a 5d2 care to show how well their camera can perform in this simple test?



I don't have anything handy from a 5DII, but here's something from a classic 5D, shot not long after I got it several years ago.

Two copies. First is the JPEG preview the camera embedded in the raw file. Next is after I last re-did the post processing a few years ago. I'll probably re-visit it again at some point in the future. I've made 12" x 18" prints and been most happy with them.

If the dynamic range of any of the 5D line of cameras prevents you from getting the shot, you have nothing to blame but your own incompetence.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Aglet (Feb 12, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Huh? You can't be serious. You think there's some point in attempting to recover from a shot five stops underexposed? Hell, even three stops underexposed is insane. But five?



totally serious, but you misunderstand.
i'm not asking to recover a -5EV shot to 0, or the -4 or the -3.
I'm asking you to try this and see how far you can push your 5d2's -3, -4, or -5EV shot before visible pattern noise shows up on a smooth subject. IT IS SIMPLE.
In the real world this can by sky, water, various man-made surfaces so it's completely appropriate.

Sorry, I'm not accepting any blame for the camera's metering. i didn't build it or calibrate it.
If you know how it works, look at the subject and shooting conditions, you should realize why.
Apparently you did not read/comprehend all the info provided. Take more time to understand than to ridicule, it's better all around.

if you have a 5d2 and care to contribute, follow the instructions. If not, sit back, have some popcorn and join the rest of the peanut gallery to watch the drama. ;D


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 12, 2013)

Aglet said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > Huh? You can't be serious. You think there's some point in attempting to recover from a shot five stops underexposed? Hell, even three stops underexposed is insane. But five?
> ...



Who gives a flying leap how much noise you've got after pushing exposure five stops? And when on Earth would you push exposure five stops other than if you had forgotten to take the lens cap off?

It's like you're complaining that Michael Jordan was an incompetent athlete because he couldn't throw a 110 mph curveball over the strike zone with a football while wearing a goalie's uniform.

If you seriously think you're being serious, I seriously recommend the help of a licensed mental health professional.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Aglet (Feb 12, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> I don't have anything handy from a 5DII, but here's something from a classic 5D, shot not long after I got it several years ago.
> 
> Two copies. First is the JPEG preview the camera embedded in the raw file. Next is after I last re-did the post processing a few years ago. I'll probably re-visit it again at some point in the future. I've made 12" x 18" prints and been most happy with them.
> 
> ...



nice, but another irrelevant comparison/sample.

and again, I'm not talking about dynamic range (DR), altho it is directly affected by noise content
I'm purely interested in the highly offensive appearance of Fixed Pattern Noise (FPN) which is much more of a problem than reduced DR.

*Again, anyone with a 5d2 care to contribute appropriate test shots, technique as outlined?*


----------



## Aglet (Feb 12, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > TrumpetPower! said:
> ...


*I'm only quoting this whole pile above so everyone can clearly see you actually did not understand what I told you.
*
As such, any further commentary from you will be disregarded until you display adequate comprehension of the problem and can provide valid input. You seem more interested in a brawl than actually exchanging knowledge.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 12, 2013)

Aglet said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have anything handy from a 5DII, but here's something from a classic 5D, shot not long after I got it several years ago.
> ...



So, I give you a nighttime shot with a classic 5D with a very wide dynamic range and shadows lifted at least a couple, maybe a few stops (I honestly don't remember)...and that's not enough to tell you what you need to know?

What, do you think the 5DII has worse noise than the classic? Do you only shoot grey cards and not actual photographs? Have you ever actually wanted to lift shadows more than the extreme amount I did in that shot?

May I recommend? Go learn about the First Rule of Holes before posting further in this thread. It's high past time you did so.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 12, 2013)

Aglet, why u no Nikon already? My take after eating my popcorn.

Aglet - There is FPN on 5D2 files.

General response - Don't lift the shadows +3 stops. 5D2 is a fantastic camera.

Aglet - Here is a file that shows the FPN.

General Response - Don't lift the shadows +3 stops. 5D2 is a fantastic camera.

Aglet - Well Prove me wrong! supply me photos!

General Response - Here's some photos. Don't lift the shadows +3 stops. 5D2 is a fantastic camera.

Aglet -  That doesn't mean nothing!

Rlphoto - :| Pass the popcorn.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 12, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Aglet, why u no Nikon already? My take after eating my popcorn.
> 
> Aglet - There is FPN on 5D2 files.
> 
> ...



This^. 

I get great shots out of my 5d2.

/boggle

Just know what the tool can and can't do. Its like using a pair of pliers to pull nails.. sure it works but a Crowbar (My group of friends refers to it as a Gordon Freeman) works MUCH better.


----------



## dlleno (Feb 12, 2013)

popcorn consuming "group 4" comment coming -- 

I think we should create a support group for those who insist on lifting shadows 4 stops as a common or even best practice to create compelling, high quality photos (Better yet, a workshop on how to create compelling, high quality photos). Let such a group concentrate on whatever is necessary to re-train its members how to study light and apply the tools in their hands to create great results. RL's hillarious summary should appear as an FAQ, and be included in the sylabus of a required workshop/class. TrumpetPower's examples, along with many others, can be used as inspiration. 

I note that the OP raised a perfectly reasonable question that should have resulted in a normal conversation. instead we got:

OP: how can I make use of my 5D3 to make better photos in HDR scenarios
shadow junkies: I think the 5D2 is junk cause I can't lift shadows as far as I want

I would urge that we concentrate on the questions posed by the likes of the OP, so that the conversation goes more like this:

OP: how can I make use of my 5D3 to make great photos
forum: I study the light and apply <these techniques>


----------



## marinien (Feb 12, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Ah, welcome back Mikael.





fotanu said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > hjulenissen said:
> ...



Indeed, welcome back, Mikael!


----------



## Aglet (Feb 13, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> So, I give you a nighttime shot with a classic 5D with a very wide dynamic range and shadows lifted at least a couple, maybe a few stops (I honestly don't remember)...and that's not enough to tell you what you need to know?



why the heck would I want to use your 5dc to compare to my 5d2?!?
only thing they've got in common is the "5" and a tripod mount!
You telling me you'd ask for samples of my 5d2 file and would be satisfied if I gave you a 5dc instead?!?
who's got the fundamental understanding problem here? 
I've got a dozen other bodies I can compare it to, I'm asking for 5D2 samples, as outlined.
You really are not good at following instructions. :



TrumpetPower! said:


> What, do you think the 5DII has worse noise than the classic?


don't know, don't care about 5dc



TrumpetPower! said:


> Do you only shoot grey cards and not actual photographs? Have you ever actually wanted to lift shadows more than the extreme amount I did in that shot?


yawn...
re-read your own reply before you post it - edit, re-read, edit, re-read... go have some popcorn


----------



## Aglet (Feb 13, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Aglet, why u no Nikon already? My take after eating my popcorn.
> 
> Aglet - There is FPN on 5D2 files.
> 
> ...


Actually, my FF gear is now Nikon, but that's not the point either. 
FPN on my 5d2 showed up at less than a 2-stop push applied to levels that should have been high enough to not exhibit a problem (e.g. -3 EV down from metered)

Repeating for (who's keeping track of how many times now?) 
*If anyone of you 5d2-lovers actually HAS one, and are brave enough to show, or at least TELL, us how it performs in simple tests, as outlined a pg or 2 back, then please do so.* (RL?...)
I'd like to compare it to mine, which might have been a bit of a lemon in the FPN area.
If you're willing to post a sample of a pushed raw file, kindly include a full res crop so we can see pixel-per-pixel, not scaled down so small as to obliterate FPN in the averaging.
Thank-you.


----------



## dlleno (Feb 13, 2013)

ok so guys are saying you want the thread to go this way:

OP: help me use my 5D3 better in HDR situations
forum: you dont' understand physics; you're camera is junk

how does that help? why do we have to answer reasonable request on how to use a Canon camera with a sensor bomb that Nikon does DR better? help the OP for pete's sake and move the physics discussions to another thread please. Those discussions (about sensor physics) are valuable and I want to see them - just not in response to a question about how to use a camera that is branded according to the charter of this site.


----------



## David Hull (Feb 13, 2013)

dlleno said:


> ok so guys are saying you want the thread to go this way:
> 
> OP: help me use my 5D3 better in HDR situations
> forum: you dont' understand physics; you're camera is junk
> ...



The question was answered several times -- I answered it in te 8th reply. He probably got his answer, took his popcorn and moved on.


----------



## dlleno (Feb 13, 2013)

David Hull said:


> The question was answered several times -- I answered it in te 8th reply. He probably got his answer, took his popcorn and moved on.



yes, to be sure. I just wanted subsequent answers to stay more on topic as well, but thats just my "group 4" tendancy showing. Cue mention of Sony DR, shadow lifting, Canon noise/banding, why it happens, how bad Canon sensors are, etc. and examples of the same that don't help the OP. long live the internet, popcorn, mutiple personas and welcome back Mikael  

.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 13, 2013)

dlleno said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > The question was answered several times -- I answered it in te 8th reply. He probably got his answer, took his popcorn and moved on.
> ...



+1

I agree that such comments don't help the OP and I'm not too sure whom these comments help even otherwise (save a few gearheads). People around here make have so much noise (pun intended) on the Canon sensors to the point of calling the cameras "useless" only because you can't recover 5 stops or that you get FPN when you do try to recover 5 stops. Does it may a discernible difference to your images which are correctly exposed? Do your clients notice the FPN? or rather ... do your clients ask you to recover the image 5 stops? GEEZ 

One wonders why they are sticking to Canon at all, if the cameras sensors were really "useless" as alleged.


----------



## davidson (Feb 13, 2013)

i think my popcorn booth got shut down for some reason..dunno why. So from now i will be selling popcorn from the back of the butter yellow panel van over there under the bridge all inconspicuous-like. knock three times, then twice more for the buttery goodness....


----------



## deletemyaccount (Feb 13, 2013)

davidson said:


> i think my popcorn booth got shut down for some reason..dunno why. So from now i will be selling popcorn from the back of the butter yellow panel van over there under the bridge all inconspicuous-like. knock three times, then twice more for the buttery goodness....



That made me laugh hard davidson! Nice touch!


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 13, 2013)

davidson said:


> i think my popcorn booth got shut down for some reason..dunno why. So from now i will be selling popcorn from the back of the butter yellow panel van over there under the bridge all inconspicuous-like. knock three times, then twice more for the buttery goodness....



I wonder if the banding and other issues (that you can work around) would show up in photos of your van?


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 13, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> davidson said:
> 
> 
> > i think my popcorn booth got shut down for some reason..dunno why. So from now i will be selling popcorn from the back of the butter yellow panel van over there under the bridge all inconspicuous-like. knock three times, then twice more for the buttery goodness....
> ...



no because being buttery yellow its a Nikon van and hence doesnt have banding. DxO gave it the highest score for popcorn vans


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 13, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> RMC33 said:
> 
> 
> > davidson said:
> ...



OH MAH SIDES!

Since when did DxO rate popcorn vans?


----------



## dlleno (Feb 13, 2013)

its just too good, guys. just too good!


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 13, 2013)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet, why u no Nikon already? My take after eating my popcorn.
> ...



Don't blame the tools for poor craftsmanship. Infact, since the d800 is doing so well for you, let's see some photos you've taken with it. Please do post.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 13, 2013)

RMC33, I've not tried the Zeiss 50 1.4. I own the Voigtlander 58mm Nokton, Nikon mount, use an adaptor. From what I have seen online, if you want some of the best, if not the best bokeh at 50mm, then the Canon f/1.2 is it. If you want sharpness, I like the one I have. The 24-70 f/2.8 mk2 was recently found by Lensrentals, to be sharper than the Zeiss 50mm f/2 makro planar, which in turn is a lot sharper than the Zeiss 50 1.4. I've not tried any of those, myself. I've only rented the Zeiss 100mm f/2 makro planar, and the Zeiss 35mm f/2. The 100mm had very vivid red colors, was very sharp, with a tiny bit of purple bokeh fringing...with bokeh smoothness on par with my 135L, which is saying a lot (it has no fringing of any kind, as you may know). The 35mm Zeiss was neutral color, more contrast than the sensor could bear (had to underexpose), no fringing lateral or bokeh, and quite sharp (supposedly the 1.4 is sharper.) I mostly don't do portraiture, at least not of people. I should at some point...it's just that I don't like people very much, and more importantly, they don't like me taking their picture for some reason...hahaha. Not sure which happened first! I need to work on my people skills...


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 13, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> RMC33, I've not tried the Zeiss 50 1.4. I own the Voigtlander 58mm Nokton, Nikon mount, use an adaptor. From what I have seen online, if you want some of the best, if not the best bokeh at 50mm, then the Canon f/1.2 is it. If you want sharpness, I like the one I have. The 24-70 f/2.8 mk2 was recently found by Lensrentals, to be sharper than the Zeiss 50mm f/2 makro planar, which in turn is a lot sharper than the Zeiss 50 1.4. I've not tried any of those, myself. I've only rented the Zeiss 100mm f/2 makro planar, and the Zeiss 35mm f/2. The 100mm had very vivid red colors, was very sharp, with a tiny bit of purple bokeh fringing...with bokeh smoothness on par with my 135L, which is saying a lot (it has no fringing of any kind, as you may know). The 35mm Zeiss was neutral color, more contrast than the sensor could bear (had to underexpose), no fringing lateral or bokeh, and quite sharp (supposedly the 1.4 is sharper.) I mostly don't do portraiture, at least not of people. I should at some point...it's just that I don't like people very much, and more importantly, they don't like me taking their picture for some reason...hahaha. Not sure which happened first! I need to work on my people skills...



Gotcha! Thanks.

I will be getting both the Canon f/1.2 Zeiss f/1.4 50's to compare and see what will replace my current Canon 50 f/1.4. My current 50 does not AF anymore (died last night) but is about 6 years old. My biggest concern is the Focus shift in the Canon 50 f/1.2, but I think Neuro made a good point as to find the f/stop you like and AFMA it at that point. I have been told/read the Zeiss does not have any shift and have been using MF on my current 50 for the last year since it started to die hence my reason for asking.

I am not much for primes below 50 but have been considering a few (Canon 14 and 24) as well as finally buying a TS-E for all the Real estate I do (not sure if it will be a 17 or 24 yet).

On the note of the 24-70 MKII, I will be CPS renting one for two weeks for a wedding I will be attending. I am going to bring my MK1 and MK2 and just play around. I have been told on a MK3/1Dx the AF routines in the Mk2 make it focus much faster and more accurate then the older Mk1. Its impressive that the 24-70 is sharper then a prime but I guess Ill just have to see what I like=).

Thanks for the great response!


----------



## Aglet (Feb 14, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Don't blame the tools for poor craftsmanship. Infact, since the d800 is doing so well for you, let's see some photos you've taken with it. Please do post.



I've posted heavily adjusted d800 shots on here last year. They're awesome.
Can't do that with a 5d2!! no bloody way at all
I could tell you where to look ... _but..._

Let's see _you_ post something from your fabulous 5d2... Like some of those test shots I requested.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 14, 2013)

J.R. said:


> ..only because you can't recover 5 stops or that you get FPN when you do try to recover 5 stops. Does it may a discernible difference to your images which are correctly exposed? Do your clients notice the FPN? or rather ... do your clients ask you to recover the image 5 stops? GEEZ
> 
> One wonders why they are sticking to Canon at all, if the cameras sensors were really "useless" as alleged.



nobody's asked to recover _5_ stops in this thread.
I found my camera would show FPN with less than TWO stops of push on shades as high as -3EV to start with, even worse on a -5EV shade pushed *2* stops.
I'd like to see someone who has a 5d2 post some samples, as I described back on (now) pg 7 I think.

I've kept my older Canon bodies that perform well. I've tossed mt 5d2 and 7D, they both had horrendous FPN. Sort of miss the AF and fps of the latter but not the low iso IQ of either.
Nikon and Pentax are satisfying those low IQ requirements very nicely now. And their hi iso is PDG too.
I have neither time or patience to work around the limitations of an inferior tool like the 5d2, much as i otherwise liked it and other Canon kit.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 14, 2013)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Don't blame the tools for poor craftsmanship. Infact, since the d800 is doing so well for you, let's see some photos you've taken with it. Please do post.
> ...



I don't shoot test charts like youself, but I will post these. 

Now please, indulge me in your d800 art aglet.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 14, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I posted a shot that I had recovered over 6 stops with a camera with the SAME SENSOR as the 5D MkII, even allowing for your _"copper wire and silicone"_ comment how much DR do you honestly believe they actually added? DxO, and whatever you make of their overall results I believe their testing is accurate, says variation between the two is so small that you wouldn't be able to see the differences unless they were greater to the order of 5-15 times, indeed the difference is so small it almost certainly falls within testing errors.
> 
> Stop trying to get around the subject. If you expose properly then you everybody else can get superb results from it.
> 
> ...


I wish I had written that.


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 14, 2013)

RL, love the third picture!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 14, 2013)

Aglet said:


> nobody's asked to recover _5_ stops in this thread.



Actually, you have (and did so again right here), but never mind.



> I found my camera would show FPN with less than TWO stops of push on shades as high as -3EV to start with, even worse on a -5EV shade pushed *2* stops.



So, you underexposed your shot by three stops, and you're upset that you weren't able to push your Zone II detail-less shadows to midtones. And then you underexposed another shot by five stops, and you're upset that you weren't able to push your maximum-density clear-negatives pure blacks to light shadows rich in detail.

Sorry, but I ain't got nothin' for ya, except to suggest that you really should take an introduction to photography class.

Here's another hint: if your scene has large dark expanses of areas with little detail, you really shouldn't be trying to lighten those areas. Indeed, those are perfect candidates for crushing them to near-black to enhance the image's overall contrast. Trying to lighten them is going in the exact worng direction.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 14, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I posted a shot that I had recovered over 6 stops with a camera with the SAME SENSOR as the 5D MkII, even allowing for your _"copper wire and silicone"_ comment how much DR do you honestly believe they actually added? DxO, and whatever you make of their overall results I believe their testing is accurate, says variation between the two is so small that you wouldn't be able to see the differences unless they were greater to the order of 5-15 times, indeed the difference is so small it almost certainly falls within testing errors.
> 
> Stop trying to get around the subject. If you expose properly then you everybody else can get superb results from it.
> 
> ...



Well said. Great advice.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 14, 2013)

Shot with a MKII. 

Love that body for landscape


----------



## Aglet (Feb 14, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I don't shoot test charts like youself, but I will post these.


you otta, you can learn a lot from doing so which can spare you from some surprises later. Wish I'd have shot the heck out of test charts w my 5d2 when I first got it, would not have been so disappointed if I'd have returned/sold it.

I don’t like the first shot at all, about 40% of the image is deliberately crushed to black, complete RGB=000, a style I’ve seen you use too often for my tastes. I’d have preferred to see a hint of texture in the t-shirt and collar at least. but if that’s what you and your subject are happy with, so be it.

2nd shot is good, i like it and it doesn’t have to be crushed like 1st eg to look good.

3rd is enjoyable and, if I remember the last time you posted that, didn’t you say it was heavily pushed from your 7D?.. I don’t remember seeing the original or any 100% crops so we can tell if there’s any FPN tho it looks adequate for printing a 5x7 to 8x10 at least.

4th doesn’t do anything for me altho if I happened upon such a scene I’d likely have shot it similarly.


RLPhoto said:


> Now please, indulge me in your d800 art aglet.


look at my profile, posts, attachments - dsc prefixes are definitely Nikon, as are likely some others with file numbers < 1000.
But posted here is not necessarily my _art_, but educational examples, some w artistic merit.

But you will not DARE to wade into this croc’-pond with some specific test shots requests, will you?
Bummer, i was hoping to compare how bad my 5d2’s FPN was to others’ 5d2s.
Educational opportunities here seem mostly afforded only by the brave.


----------



## dlleno (Feb 14, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> As I have said many times.
> Rule 1 for a photographer: Get the exposure right. If you are working for a client that means KNOW WHAT YOUR CAMERA NEEDS BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE METER READING *NO EXCUSES*).
> Rule 101 for Canon shooters shooting RAW: ETTR, if you move to -EV compensation you better have a VERY good reason for doing it.
> Rule101-2: Canon RAW files will give you MUCH better overall image quality if you overexpose and then lower exposure in post. The rights and wrongs of this are immaterial, if it is a question of DR or shadow detail refer to Rule 101.
> ...


+ many and profoundly stated sir. I would only add "optimally exposed real world *compelling * image *worthy of critical review *. otherwise we will again see that stunning  image shot directly into the sun that violated all of the rules you eloquently stated.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 14, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I posted a shot that I had recovered over 6 stops with a camera with the SAME SENSOR as the 5D MkII..


There’s more to a camera’s IQ than it’s sensor, one of the reasons 1-series cost so much more.
comparing 1ds3 to 5d2 is like comparing a PnS to a rebel.

I appreciate the effort you’re expending but.. If you have a 5d2, pony-up. 
otherwise there’s nothing I can learn from you.

*And again, I’m not discussing DR, I’m discussing FPN.
*FWIW, I’d consider buying the 6D, even tho it has about the same rated DR, because it has much lower FPN than the 5d2. Please understand the difference in noise structures and how they can affect efforts in post.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 14, 2013)

I shot with a 5D2 for a long time. I never had any trouble with it. Then again, I guess I knew what I was doing.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 14, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > nobody's asked to recover _5_ stops in this thread.
> ...



A -3EV from metered zero is still pretty darn gray.
The point is, my 5d2 still produced FPN visible at this high a level if pushed one mere stop.
I don’t need lessons from people on how to expose properly, thanks anyway for offering.
I’m merely pointing out my 5d2 was so affected by FPN that something even just below midtones showed banding. At times it also showed visible banding artefacts in upper midtones rigth out of the camera! That is pathetic performance for a body that cost me nearly $3k when it came out!
i have used 8 bit PnSs that produced cleaner shades at those levels.

The inherrently high levels of FPN of my 5d2 made it useless if I wanted to do any work in post where I had to affect + exposure adjustments or localized/micro-contrast enhancements even at midtones.

If you haven't experienced this, (first, you don't have a 5d2) then you're not exactly pushing the boundaries of your equipment, are you? A better tool is not sought by those content with what they have.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 14, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> I shot with a 5D2 for a long time. I never had any trouble with it. Then again, I guess I knew what I was doing.



One of the best comments I've seen on this thread.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 14, 2013)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I don't shoot test charts like youself, but I will post these.
> ...



your posted images in here are NOT? really, i thought number of those images being tried to sell on your website (http://www.a2bart.com). however, i am here to throw to your face number of images taken with canon 5d mark ii from "colby brown" - www.colbybrownphotography.com... 

my words to your images... as bad as your photography skills.


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 14, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> I am astonished that so many fellow Canon users rush to flog whoever mentions that Nikon have been doing one single parameter of sensor design better than Canon for some years. Rather, I would hope that you should welcome the debate and fair criticism in the hope that Canon listens and improves their system.
> 
> -h



I have no issue with acknowledging the fact that Nikon etc have superior DR etc at low ISO with their sensors compared to Canon. I do not mind the debate. The trouble is the debate is soured by those who constantly 'bang on' about the superiority of Nikon. Some of the comments would have you believe you could hardly take a decent picture with a Canon camera. It is therefore not surprising many people have grown tired of the same old arguments. The topic of this thread is 5DIII dynamic range. The topic being debated by Aglet in some of his previous posts, by his own words is fixed pattern noise and banding, which is not the same thing. I do not have experience of the 5DII and the banding/FPN issues to make any informed comment on that.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Feb 14, 2013)

Soooo.
After shooting and printing my favorite shots for 4 years with the 5d2, now 5d3:
I never had a picture which disqualified by to much banding, too low DR or whatsoever. 

Thats all, folks.


----------



## skitron (Feb 14, 2013)

pwp said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > Below is the link to show you the good way:
> ...



+1 here too

Thanks for posting that link ishdakuteb, very informative...4th post in the thread no less. Any popcorn left?

Too bad for me I actually only viewed this thread today and went thru it from most recent to oldest...


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 14, 2013)

RMC33, nice image! And you're welcome.

I would be interested in an AF/real world comparison, more between the Tamron and the Canon 24-70 Mk2, rather than Mk1 and Mk2, but then that wouldn’t help so much on your end I guess.

I agree, a tilt shift is essential for real estate. If you do enough to justify getting one, I’m somewhat envious. The real estate photography on the ground in my area, is mostly done by non professional realty agents with smartphones, who don’t really care about quality, and obviously rely on sex appeal to make sales. But the best aerial real estate photography in my area, is done by me :-D.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 14, 2013)

insanitybeard: thank-you too, for recognizing what my topic is about, even if I did misplace it in this thread. It’s gonna happen somewhere. Kinda like (insert great historical battle of your choice).

hjulenissen: thank you for stating your understanding of the topic
be careful you don’t fall under attack for providing a supporting point of view to mine around here. 

beyond criticism and fair debate, the most vocal opponents I have in this argument repeatedly show themselves to be condescending, hypocrites, and even insulting. Add to that, unwilling or unable to back up their viewpoint with appropriate and valid samples, as outlined at least 6 pages ago. Yet they demand my samples and I oblige.

All this, when all I’m asking for is samples from their 5d2, if they have one, so I could make a simple comparison to the one I had. Doesn’t sound like such an onerous request, considering the amount of effort they expend hurling invective, nonsense and unrequested advice on this thread. (some of occasionally even invalid)

It would be hilarious if it were a comedy sketch.. if you like the 3+ Stooges taking on the lone voice standing up for logic and reason.

JR: I did not say 5d2 was useless, I said it’s usefullness was LIMITED.
Go back and read it.

ishdakuteb: posts his latest idol of the day. I don’t care who you want to emulate.
Do you have a 5d2?

alexanderferdinand: finally, somewhat useful contribution, this person’s had no problems with his 5d2. i don’t know how he uses his files but he’s happy with it. OK by me.

bdunbar79: happy w his 5d2, proudly credits his own skill. Another one that’s fine w me. But no 5d2 samples from him here either, plenty of 5d3 and 1dx as he learns their quirks.

trumpetpower: expending yet more effort providing a useless comparison wasting his time, upsetting himself in the process.
Dude, if you'd have actually shot the actual exposure series, with a 5d2 instead of creating a fake in photoshop, you'd have something close to a valid contribution.
And how do you think I came to this if I did not actually shoot the series with my 5d2 when i had it. go back to (is it still on?) page 6 and re-read it.


but still no 5d2 samples for me to compare.. from anyone?...


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 14, 2013)

Trumpet seems very angry and is taking things personally. Photography should be fun. Why spend so much time on a Canon-related forum, if you prefer another brand anyway? A forum like this should be less antagonistic...it's not a shoot-em-up video game. Go out and take pictures...be a photographer, not a rageaholic. Trumpet, I admit I have some rage myself. As I've gotten older, it has moderated in some ways. Hope that continues, and hope yours can.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 14, 2013)

Aglet said:


> but still no 5d2 samples for me to compare.. from anyone?...



Exactly.

Since none of us bother trying to recover images where the flash didn't fire, none of us have ever had problems with noise in Zone -2 shadows. And none of us care what kinds of noise may or may not lurk in Zone -2 shadows.

You're the guy claiming that brand X car is complete junk because it can only do 45 MPH in first gear, while brand Y car is totally awesome because it can do 50 MPH in first gear. All the rest of us are telling you you're an idiot for waiting so long to shift gears, and that we're not at all interested in seeing how fast we can drive in first gear.

And then you have the nerve to insult us for not bothering to test-drive our cars way past redline for you to see just how fast we can get them to go in first gear.

(Of course, the car analogy breaks down at this point, as there's no danger from exposing images in a pointless manner. But why bother wasting our time on something as stupidly pointless as seeing what kind of noise there is in a lenscap-on shot with enough digital gain to put it in Zone III?)

Cheers,

b&


----------

