# Examples of DR photos and why this is important to landscape shooters



## birdman (Jun 9, 2012)

Can anyone provide me with example(s) of pictures that needed high DR to expose/bring out shadows/clip highlights, etc.? I am trying to evaluate how important it is to my shooting. 

With the 17-40L, I do need to upgrade in the future to get the most out of this 5d2 sensor. I am including 5d3 users in this conversation as well, since at low ISO these cameras are nearly identical. I think I have seen a few examples where my camera could use more DR, especially when pulling shadows and banding that occur (in these situations). 

I just started using LR 4.0 so I have spent tons of time in post, but I do use DPP quite regularly. So, if you can provide some samples would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## iso79 (Jun 9, 2012)

Check out this guy's work:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmtoh/

He shoots with the 5D Mark III and Mark II previously. When people say these cameras have poor dynamic range just point them to this guy's work


----------



## poias (Jun 9, 2012)

iso79 said:


> Check out this guy's work:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmtoh/
> 
> He shoots with the 5D Mark III and Mark II previously. When people say these cameras have poor dynamic range just point them to this guy's work



Nobody is saying 5D Mark II has low dynamic range. Its DR was fine, similar to its competition 4 YEARS AGO!

Now, the new 5D Mark III has much lower DR than its competition. Good photographers can somewhat compensate using HDR techniques, but the facts don't change that 5D Mark III has much lower DR than the competition.

If you are a landscape shooter and are not married to Canon, then you will get much, much more bang for the buck if you use D800/E. OF course, the ultimate for landscape shooters is the MF backs, but that is beyond the scope of the DSLRs.


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 9, 2012)

Try to take a good picture of a magpie in sunlight and you'll have an idea


----------



## iso79 (Jun 9, 2012)

poias said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > Check out this guy's work:
> ...



Too bad there aren't any good Nikon lenses that will utilize the full DR potential of the 800/E.


----------



## poias (Jun 10, 2012)

iso79 said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > iso79 said:
> ...



No FF lens can utilize a 36mpx sensor to its "full DR potential". But that does not mean they come close... coming close to the full potential yields far greater IQ than whatever inferior sensor Canon is stuck on, at least for landscape photography. I guess my point is that D800/E IQ will exceed Canon's in landscape photography, so a landscape shooter(like the OP) would definitely benefit right away.


----------



## aznable (Jun 10, 2012)

iso79 said:


> Too bad there aren't any good Nikon lenses that will utilize the full DR potential of the 800/E.



nikkon 14-24 is a very good lens for LS photography


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 10, 2012)

poias said:


> Nobody is saying 5D Mark II has low dynamic range. Its DR was fine, similar to its competition 4 YEARS AGO!



Exactly. Canon has been producing sensors with around 11.5 EVs of DR for 3 generations now. To make it clear, it's the same DR the 500D/T2i has.

The difference is of course related to noise, newer cameras and especially FFs let you pull out more details in PP without producing as much noise. But it's not the same thing.

There is plainly something wrong with this.


----------



## revup67 (Jun 11, 2012)

> If you are a landscape shooter and are not married to Canon, then you will get much, much more bang for the buck if you use D800/E.



The D800 has its shortcomings as well. Seems no one can can the proper color right on this camera. The AWB in comparison to the Canon fails miserably where as the 5D Mark III out of the box appears spot on. Also trying to use the D800 custom WB settings still does not reflect the right colors or shifting.

See for yourself > http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=11652

To resolve any concerns about shadow recovery there is a good tip on how to resolve this as found on the Fred Miranda site: "...there is a workaround if you shoot RAW. Start by overexposing (up to 1 stop) above the correct exposure before taking your shot and then normalize the exposure later in software. This gives you the correct exposure but the shadow detail is much cleaner, just in case you need to push it a stop or two. Alternatively you could use ISO L (50) for low contrast situations whenever lighting and wind conditions allow. However, make sure that there is no clipping in the highlights (blinkies) because essentially when you are using ISO 50, you are already compromising highlight detail by about one stop. I've used this workaround for many years and have been happy with the results.


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 11, 2012)

revup67 said:


> > If you are a landscape shooter and are not married to Canon, then you will get much, much more bang for the buck if you use D800/E.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Very amusing.

The video was posted on Cinema5D, so guess who was the winner? 

They tested the 5D3 with the 50mm f/1.4 USM while they put the old Nikkor f/1.4 D on the D800. Why not the G lens? How can you compare autofocus when Canon is mounting an USM lens and the Nikon an old micromotor one? Why the dear Dave didn't see fit to mention it?

He pointed out Canon's better performance in low light - which is something plainly known - but it was very unfair. It's very apparent, when you compare those hi-ISO pics (minute 2:40 on) that Nikon's images look 1/3 or even 1/2 stops brighter. Why the dear Dave didn't point it out, when comparing noise levels?

One other very amusing part was the one about continuous shoot. Instead of praising Nikon's higher fps and buffer in spite of the file size, he urged to stress how slow the Nikon was on writing those files on what? On a Class 6 sd card!!! Jesus, you're spending several thousands bucks on a camera, and then you're niggard with cards??? Do this test with a hi-performance CF card and then you can have a sound and concrete opinion. Of course, being D800's files much bigger, using a slow card creates a terrible bottleneck, much more than with the 5D3. Even if you spend 200 bucks on cards, you're still getting a better bargain than the 5D3. So again, complaining on what?

And then yes, dulcis in fundo, the AWB problem. I mean, seriously, it's about moving 2 slides. T W O. Calibrate your camera with LR and you have to do it just once. Unless he's saying that D800's files are greenish - and it would be quite a novelty - he's really complaining on nothing.


----------



## dswatson83 (Jun 11, 2012)

What I would give to have the 5D mark III as my workhorse camera and the Nikon D800 as my dynamic photo shooter. I shoot weddings and the mark III is the jack of all trades with great low light, fast shooting, awesome video, more convenient file sizes with more than enough resolution, great screen, 3 custom modes, and just overall awesome pictures. However, there is no denying that in scenes that have great lighting with plenty of DR, with a style that looks good super sharp, paired with a great lens, and shooting at lower ISO speeds, the D800 will yield a noticeably better photo when placed side by side. During portrait sessions, I do shoot some photos under those conditions that would make for some really stunning pictures using the D800. However, all of that comes with many weaknesses such as huge file sizes, not quite as wonderful (but still good) low light results, and slow speeds that keep me from wanting it as my primary shooter.


----------



## birdman (Jun 16, 2012)

Would this be an example of DR? I took with 5d2 and edited some in LR 4.1. 

Loving some Lightroom 4!!!!!!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 16, 2012)

Nice shot.


----------



## Astro (Jun 16, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> They tested the 5D3 with the 50mm f/1.4 USM while they put the old Nikkor f/1.4 D on the D800.



speaking about "old" the EF 50 f1.4 design is 20 years old too.


----------



## Policar (Jun 16, 2012)

It's not that important unless you're in a rush and can't wait on light.

The best landscape photography is still shot on Velvia, which has four or five stops of DR. If need be you can always use grad filters or multiple exposures, anyway.


----------



## lola (Jun 16, 2012)

Policar said:


> The best landscape photography is still shot on Velvia, which has four or five stops of DR.



Thank you, that gave me a good laugh!


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 16, 2012)

poias said:


> Now, the new 5D Mark III has much lower DR than its competition. Good photographers can somewhat compensate using HDR techniques, but the facts don't change that 5D Mark III has much lower DR than the competition.



And just how many of the best landscape photographers use HDR? I don't see them struggling with dynamic range up to now. The difference is, they use good technique and the right equipment to overcome any problems (real or perceived). Landscape photography isn't about getting every ounce of detail out of the shadows, it's about making photographs that have real impact.
No doubt I'm wasting my breath, no-one has listened up to now about DR being only a small part of the whole. The photographer will make a much larger difference than any perceived deficiencies in a camera, whatever it may be.


----------



## Policar (Jun 16, 2012)

lola said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > The best landscape photography is still shot on Velvia, which has four or five stops of DR.
> ...



Let me guess, you like HDR, UWAs, and instagram?


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 17, 2012)

birdman said:


> With the 17-40L, I do need to upgrade in the future to get the most out of this 5d2 sensor.



I'm very hesitant to agree with that. Galleries of photos, suggest otherwise. 

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=134756&page=606

I am happy with the 16-35 and appreciate having access to f/2.8 but I think I would quite like working with the 17-40.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 17, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Now, the new 5D Mark III has much lower DR than its competition. Good photographers can somewhat compensate using HDR techniques, but the facts don't change that 5D Mark III has much lower DR than the competition.
> ...



I'm with you on that.

I have been monitoring DR with DPP with a view to getting a high DR body. However I found that a rarely went over a DR of 8 - so no point in changing.

Some of my best images have been in monochrome, so DR really doesn't come into it


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 17, 2012)

Even if the 5D Mark III has lower DR than the competition, who cares????? It still has good DR! That's like saying a billionaire worth $2 billion has less money than Bill Gates. Who cares?


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 17, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Even if the 5D Mark III has lower DR than the competition, who cares????? It still has good DR! That's like saying a billionaire worth $2 billion has less money than Bill Gates. Who cares?


Indeed.


----------



## cpsico (Jun 17, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Even if the 5D Mark III has lower DR than the competition, who cares????? It still has good DR! That's like saying a billionaire worth $2 billion has less money than Bill Gates. Who cares?


The d800 only beats the 5d II and III in dynamic range at ISO 100-400 after that there is no advantage. I don't know what all the hype is about. You need a tripod, or triple the shutter speed to focal length to take advantage of such resolution. It certainly is not a great walk about camera. Personally I think the d3s makes far superior files at high ISO's.


----------



## birdman (Jun 17, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Nice shot.



Thanks, bud. I am the OP by the way. I see no limitation to 5d2's DR. You should see how much detail I pulled from that particular shot. 

Me and my ex-gf had driven back from a Deftones concert and had been up all night driving. We pulled over to rest and the morning was absolutely breath-taking. My *average* shots don't do it justice. The beauty of that morning cancelled out the ugliness and nastiness of the fighting we were doing driving from midnight to 6:30 am.


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 17, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> No doubt I'm wasting my breath, no-one has listened up to now about DR being only a small part of the whole. The photographer will make a much larger difference than any perceived deficiencies in a camera, whatever it may be.



DR is a small part unless you hit a wall, just like AF, MP, and high ISO are 'small parts' unless you hit limits with them, at which point they become big deals.

I regularly hit DR limit of my camera and need to use HDR to make the shots work, though I am planning to invest some grad ND filters, but those have their limits (i.e. are best when you have a nice strait horizon).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 17, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > No doubt I'm wasting my breath, no-one has listened up to now about DR being only a small part of the whole. The photographer will make a much larger difference than any perceived deficiencies in a camera, whatever it may be.
> ...



HDR is okay to do as long as you know what you're doing. I've seen some bad HDR photos, haha.


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 17, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> HDR is okay to do as long as you know what you're doing. I've seen some bad HDR photos, haha.



Well, 'bad' is pretty subjective since what is 'in' is always in flux.
But yeah, setting aside the 'obviously HDR' pictures, used lightly it can be a really good tool for overcoming limitations in DR.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 17, 2012)

I take a lot of historical pictures, usually genuine buildings and also re-enactment candids and then pp to get the atmosphere.

I dont use hdr very much at all - but here is one that I took 18 months ago using the 5DII + [email protected], iso 400, f16.

Dark room, bright sky through window


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 17, 2012)

poias said:


> Good photographers can somewhat compensate using HDR techniques, but the facts don't change that 5D Mark III has much lower DR than the competition.



I don't know why people are saying only landscape needs high dr - as soon as I'm shooting an animal with black & white fur or trying to raise the shadows I'm always wishing for more dr no matter what the scene is. 

Canon raw files are said to have more potential for highlight recovery than Nikon, and while I cannot make the comparison myself Lightroom is certainly able to recover a lot with ettr images without using hdr - but it's annoying to to this with every second shot.


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 17, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Good photographers can somewhat compensate using HDR techniques, but the facts don't change that 5D Mark III has much lower DR than the competition.
> ...


Actually, I think that wildlife photography would benefot more from a high DR than landscape photography, because it's easier to control the light in landscapes. The argument was that professionals need high DR, but the truth is actually that they shoot landscapes in the golden hours, when light is more diffuse, as someone mentioned and will almost invariably use grad filters (as I do and you don't always need to have a straight horizon, that's what soft grads are for). To some extent, that is also true for wildlife, but there are some animals, where that isn't possible, then more DR would benefit (oystercatchers are one animal that comes to mind). However, many pro wildlife photographers (not all by any means) will then balance the light with fill flash and some use flash extenders. Of course, the low frame rate of the D800 is then likely to be a greater barrier than the lower DR of the 5D MkIII, depending on what is being photographed. In fact even the 6 fps of the 5D MkIII won't be enough for some things, but the 50% increase over the D800 would be useful. I also know from experience with the 7D, that the higher pixel density sensors change the rules of at least 1/focal length for sharp photos. The higher density sensors are less forgiving of focus inaccuracies and motion, which means pushing the ISO higher, where the 5D MkIII has the advantage in DR anyway. There aren't many days in the UK where I can drop below ISO 400 when shooting fast moving wildlife.


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 17, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> Actually, I think that wildlife photography would benefot more from a high DR than landscape photography, because it's easier to control the light in landscapes. The argument was that professionals need high DR, but the truth is actually that they shoot landscapes in the golden hours, when light is more diffuse, as someone mentioned and will almost invariably use grad filters (as I do and you don't always need to have a straight horizon, that's what soft grads are for). To some extent, that is also true for wildlife, but there are some animals, where that isn't possible, then more DR would benefit (oystercatchers are one animal that comes to mind). However, many pro wildlife photographers (not all by any means) will then balance the light with fill flash and some use flash extenders. Of course, the low frame rate of the D800 is then likely to be a greater barrier than the lower DR of the 5D MkIII, depending on what is being photographed. In fact even the 6 fps of the 5D MkIII won't be enough for some things, but the 50% increase over the D800 would be useful. I also know from experience with the 7D, that the higher pixel density sensors change the rules of at least 1/focal length for sharp photos. The higher density sensors are less forgiving of focus inaccuracies and motion, which means pushing the ISO higher, where the 5D MkIII has the advantage in DR anyway. There aren't many days in the UK where I can drop below ISO 400 when shooting fast moving wildlife.



IMHO you are perfectly right but for one thing: I don't think the D800 is actually meant for wildlife photographers as much as the 5D3 isn't, although their 1.7x teleconverter and 1.2x crop mode look interesting to me. I think this issue along with sport will be covered by the upcoming D400 and its 24MP APS-C sensor.


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 17, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I don't know why people are saying only landscape needs high dr - as soon as I'm shooting an animal with black & white fur or trying to raise the shadows I'm always wishing for more dr no matter what the scene is.



I think people are talking about landscape photographers not because 'only' they need high DR, but because they are a group that typically (or more often then most) encounter situations where 'the more the better'. Sorta like how sports photographers need high FPS, but naturally lots of other types also benefit from it.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 17, 2012)

It's called using a DSLR people. No, DR will not be infinite and superb, on any DSLR camera.


----------



## aznable (Jun 17, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Good photographers can somewhat compensate using HDR techniques, but the facts don't change that 5D Mark III has much lower DR than the competition.
> ...



just because landscape photographer doesnt need a very reactive af/camera like the 5dmk3, but are more interested in DR/resolution of the sensor.

yes it seems canon in test has and edge in highlight parts of pictures, but maybe wsiht acreful underspose you can get better overall results with the d800 sensor; someone would try with both sensors


----------



## NormanBates (Jun 17, 2012)

My example of "damn I wish I had more DR":

I went to Munich last May, to the Champions League final. We spent the day walking around the city, taking shots of the colorful fans. Many of those shots were "stolen": you don't want that group of drunken monkeys to know you're taking pictures of them. There shouldn't be any problems, but there could be, so better be quick and low-key, just in case. So auto-exposure it is, and the camera gets to decide where to put the shutter speed.

Say there's a group of people under the shadow of a tree, and they would be properly exposed at 1/100s. If the camera goes to 1/250s, you can still push the image in post and it will look nice. But if it decides to expose for the sky or the building in the background and chooses a faster shutter, you end up with an unusable shot.

If instead of a Canon we were using something like a D800, D7000, or even a D3200 or a NEX-5N, we'd have 3 more stops of DR at our disposal. Even at 1/2000s, that same shot should would end up perfectly fine. Yes, that's what 3 more stops of DR looks like. We probably wouldn't have bothered with auto-exposure: just set the shutter at 1/1000 and fix it in post. Yes. Because you can.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 17, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> To those that don't think DR is too important, I provide the following hand-held shot. Although it is an extreme example, it demonstrates how a little more DR could make more the frame more usable. A crop is fine, but the entire frame is horrid. I could not get this shot in magic hour, and I could not take it on a tripod (HDR) or use an ND grad.



Indeed, but this kind of shots is where you pull out your flash. Landscape is way harder when flash really can't be used, but for these type of shots, using a flash makes them REALLY pop.. 

Keep in mind these aren't purposely made to show the most DR possible, but edited to my liking.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 18, 2012)

poias said:


> If you are a landscape shooter and are not married to Canon, then you will get much, much more bang for the buck if you use D800/E.



I'm the first person to complain that the 5D3 is 22 MP, and that Canon is behind Sony in sensor DR. (This is related to a Sony patent that Canon has not worked around yet, btw. The specific patent was discussed in a DPReview thread.) But I do not think you will get "much, much more bang for the buck" from a D800.

The DR difference is there and is quite noticeable while pixel peeping test images designed to reveal it. In the real world it is mitigated by two factors.

* Landscapes with a wide scene brightness range tend to have a really wide SBR, one that exceeds either camera. If you shoot landscapes you will find yourself using exposure blending, HDR, and/or filters with either camera.

* Online pundits will declare the 5D3's shadow range done the moment they see some noise while pixel peeping. I've found that when making prints I can usually make use of another stop or even 1.5 stops of shadow range from Canon sensors. It's noisy on screen at 100%, but fine in print even at 24".

Quite frankly I consider the D800's resolution advantage to be more important, and even that is only important if you regularly make >30" prints.



iso79 said:


> Too bad there aren't any good Nikon lenses that will utilize the full DR potential of the 800/E.





poias said:


> No FF lens can utilize a 36mpx sensor to its "full DR potential".



Lenses do not attenuate scene brightness range. Any lens made can utilize any sensor to its "full DR potential."

If either of you were referring to resolution, there are plenty of lenses that can take advantage of 36 MP, even in the Nikon lineup.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 18, 2012)

poias said:


> coming close to the full potential yields far greater IQ than whatever inferior sensor Canon is stuck on, at least for landscape photography.



"Far greater"? The 5D3 is a 24-30" print camera when producing landscape prints for critical review. The D800 is a 32-40" print camera. A judge standing 6" away from two 36" prints will notice a fine detail advantage to the Nikon one. However, people standing a few feet away in your home will not. Even a judge will struggle to see the differences in a 24" or smaller print. As for other subject matter...well, you might have to fill a wall to see a difference in a portrait, for example.

If you don't regularly produce 30" and larger prints there's not much IQ difference between the two cameras.



scrappydog said:


> According to reviews that I have read, the 5DIII has a tad less dynamic range than the 5DII, and the 5DII has a total latitude of 11.2 stops, of which about 8.5 stops is usable



All 11.2 is usable. I would argue that for prints (not pixel peeping) you can dig a little deeper into the shadows and use 12 or even 12.5 stops. Published DR results assume a noise floor for the shadow side. If you can accept...or process away...a little more noise then you can make use of more detail (to a point).

Of course the same holds true for Nikon, which would yield even more impressive numbers. But at the end of the day it's not a massive practical difference. I wish Canon would catch up, but it's not the end of the world.


----------



## fegari (Jun 18, 2012)

@Poias

Could you substantiate your claim below, in a more factual way? Looks pretty bold to me...wonder what your opinion is on high Mpx MF Backs/lenses.

"No FF lens can utilize a 36mpx sensor to its "full DR potential".

br


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 18, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> It's called using a DSLR people. No, DR will not be infinite and superb, on any DSLR camera.



There is nothing magical about a medium format or other sytems with higher then common DR. There is no mechanical reason why a DSLR can not have a high DR sensor, it is just a matter of economics. There are machine vision sensors that meet or exceed human DR, and in another 5-10 years the common DLSR (or mirrorless, depending on how the market goes) this will be likely be available to regular photographers.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jun 18, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > It's called using a DSLR people. No, DR will not be infinite and superb, on any DSLR camera.
> ...



Once the DR technology is perfected, and high ISO noise is completely eliminated, and all cameras are 60 mega pixies... What excuse will all the spec-sheet-pixel-peepin-chart-reading-camera-testers complain about as the reason their photos aren't good enough? I'm so excited for these future point-and-shoots!


----------



## birdman (Jun 18, 2012)

There's so many examples of excellent 5d2 and 5d3 landscape shots out there that DR limitations are not as prevalent as reading this forum would suggest IMHO. 

It's as simple as a higher MP competing FF body that came along and bested Canon's top MP in a couple of technical specs....according to DXO mark. The D800 is a great camera. The 5d2/5d3 are great cameras. What would sway me to the D800 (if I strictly did landscape photog) is more about Resolution, IQ, and Nikon's slightly better wide angle offerings. 

I say slightly better because 1) I am a Canon owner and 2) I don't want to feel the wrath of hate if I claim this is better than that. This camera crap is only a hobby for me; an obsessive compulsive hobby, but still a hobby. Pardon the reference, but I see it as a D!ck measuring contest. "Mine is bigger than yours." Happy Father's Day folks. Time for some shut eye. GNite.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 18, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> birdman said:
> 
> 
> > What would sway me to the D800 (if I strictly did landscape photog) is more about Resolution, IQ, and Nikon's slightly better wide angle offerings.
> ...



I agree

The 200 f/2 is not far behind either ...


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 18, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> A crop is fine, but the entire frame is horrid.



Did you recover the highlights (in Lightroom) from the raw? And in this case, you could just have taken 2 bracketing shots because the bright scene is static and exposure fused them with no hdr blur.

The problem w/ too little dr only matters when shooting lots of shots w/o the time for exposure fusion/hdr or when the high dr scene itsself isn't static like a black and white animal or moving leaves and such.


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 18, 2012)

I guess most people still don't realize the big difference in terms of DR, MPs, etc.

If you are an event photographer you need to use a flash, and this determines most of your IQ and shooting style. You don't even need a FF camera for that. I've been shooting events with a Rebel and my pics put to shame those taken with a 5D2, because I was shooting ISO 800 f/4 and knew how to use my speedlite while most of people with a FF relied on their bigger sensor and fast primes to to the job without freezing the action with a flash. Result? A disaster (for them). But the point is: such celebrative pictures do not need a high DR because the point usually is to lit subject and bg evenly. Also, no one is going to print posters from such pics, so even 10MP would be more than enough. So I would say it's basically a tie, with a slight advantage for the 5D3.

If you are a studio-based or fashion pro, you will plan your set in advance and again, you will not need a high DR or more MP than the 5D3 has. You decide if you want soft or contrasty shadows, and you can take your time to frame your subject. Again I would say it's a tie, with a slight advantage for the D800 if you change your mind during post processing. D800 clear winner if you really print big.

If you are into sports or wildlife, none of these cameras is suitable due to low fps and buffer. Again though, having to choose, D800's higher MP and DR would be my choice. Its crop modes might also be useful in such situations.

If you are into landscape photography D800 is the clear winner. More pixels, more DR, more colore depth. Can't find one reason why one should prefer the 5D3 here. 

If you are a PRO, both the D800 and the 5D3 would suite your needs equally well in most situations. This doesn't change the fact though that the D800 is an overall better and more versatile camera, and it's embarassing that it's considerably cheaper than the 5D3. So yes, this makes the 5D3 look very overpriced from a market perspective. 

The interesting difference is if you're not a PRO. It makes a lot of difference when you can't plan your shots to have more DR and more pixels to crop. The D800 is the clear winner here, and I don't see how any amateur should prefer to buy a even more expensive 5D3.


----------



## torger (Jun 18, 2012)

Don't forget that the DR advantage is there at base ISO, at higher ISOs there's not much of a difference. For wildlife I think the Canon *system* is a winner thanks to the excellent super-telephoto lenses and great teleconverters.

The D800 can compete with some medium format systems thanks to the resolution and excellent base ISO DR, this is very clear at MF forums where the D800 is discussed a lot, some have dropped out of MF and uses a D800E instead. The 5Dmk3 is not discussed at all - it is not an alternative to MF. For typical DSLR type of photography though the 5Dmk3 sensor is good enough so it is other things that people care about, like how it feels in the hand, ruggedness, autofocus performance, speed etc.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 18, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> and it was hand held, which would have made bracketing a difficult proposition.



... this is one of the few things why I think IS makes sense in wider angle lenses - taking handheld bracketing shots w/o too much differences between them. But Photomatrix does a good job assembling different pictures, it's just that the overlapping smaller part gets smaller.


----------



## Jason Beiko (Jun 18, 2012)

kraats said:


> Good (landscape) photography is about reading the light, not about the dynamic range of your camera.



Jim Brandenburg would disagree with you...both are important.


----------



## motorhead (Jun 18, 2012)

I use a 5D2 now. When it was new to me I spent a couple of days with a pro landscape 'tog who used the same camera. We discussed the DR and came to an agreement that 5 stops was about it. The 11 point something quoted by Canon is completely artificial. Look at the actual DR graph and it has around the 5 stops in the centre, then long, almost horizontal tails top and bottom. These tails achieve nothing except artificially push the quotable DR sky high.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 18, 2012)

motorhead said:


> I use a 5D2 now. When it was new to me I spent a couple of days with a pro landscape 'tog who used the same camera. We discussed the DR and came to an agreement that 5 stops was about it.



That's very interesting, because (well, on my 60d) a theoretical higher dr capability isn't backed up by my experiences of how large bracketing steps have to be so the exposures just overlap a little.

I have indeed often wondered myself where the high dr is hidden, because exactly as you say according to the graphs you should/could squeeze more dr out (at least in postprocessing), but the resolution of these highlights/shadows is very low. Do you have any other sources on this?


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 18, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Once the DR technology is perfected, and high ISO noise is completely eliminated, and all cameras are 60 mega pixies... What excuse will all the spec-sheet-pixel-peepin-chart-reading-camera-testers complain about as the reason their photos aren't good enough? I'm so excited for these future point-and-shoots!



*shrug* people often look towards what is better then what they currently have. New equipment with new capabilities that lets you push the limits of what already exists can be exciting.

Digital cameras have been 'good enough' for years. Outside large format they have pretty much completely eclipsed film when it comes to capability, and film spent its entire lifespan improving every year. We are all on this site because we want to know what is next and because there is some element of photography that we hope will be improved over what we are currently using.

I am always perplexed as to why people feel the need to degrade or diminish others when they are hoping for improvements in domains that the speaker is not interested in, with this 'you are just pixel peepers' derailing being a common one.


----------



## NormanBates (Jun 18, 2012)

I'm not complaining that the 5D3 is not good enough. I'm complaining that its price is out of line with the D800: it should be clearly cheaper, not massively more expensive.


----------



## iso79 (Jun 18, 2012)

Quit complaining. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. If you really want it, save up for it or wait for a price drop in a year or two.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 18, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> I'm not complaining that the 5D3 is not good enough. I'm complaining that its price is out of line with the D800: it should be clearly cheaper, not massively more expensive.



This has been asserted numerous times in previous threads, but the answer has been known for two thousand years:

_"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."_ -- Publius Syrius

Nothing else matters, and it will remain at this price as long as purchasers are willing to pay.


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 18, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> I'm not complaining that the 5D3 is not good enough. I'm complaining that its price is out of line with the D800: it should be clearly cheaper, not massively more expensive.



Why should it be cheaper?
Outside the two cameras coming out at about the same time and being similar in price point, they are not really related. The D800 does better at some things, the 5D3 better at others. Of course if you are focused on the D800's strengths it seems odd the 5D3 is more expensive, but if you are focused on the 5D3's streghts the price makes a lot more sense (though many will still complain since we, as consumers generally want things cheaper)


----------



## NormanBates (Jun 18, 2012)

* I can afford it, but I won't pay $3500 for it: I don't think it's good bang-for-buck, there are better alternatives in the market (D800).

* The only 5D3 strengths I see are "it can use my current Canon lenses" and "it has clean video". At anything else, the D800 wins, or it's a tie.

* I also think many people think like me, and sales are low (yes, I know it's out of stock everywhere, but only because Canon has had lots of manufacturing issues, not because demand was strong, see link at the end).

* I know it's worth whatever people are ready to pay for it. If manufacturing issues are solved and cameras start to pile up in the shelves, the price will fall. That is what happened with 60D vs D7000, and D700 vs 5D2, and I expect to see it soon with the 5D3.

* You think I'm crazy? In the first weeks, where it was really hard to find a 5D3 in stock, they sold on ebay for a big markup ($4000 body only). But now it can already be bought at a discount at reputable ebay sellers ($3220). I think the official price will follow in the coming weeks.



that's why I started this thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6539.45


----------



## art_d (Jun 18, 2012)

birdman said:


> Can anyone provide me with example(s) of pictures that needed high DR to expose/bring out shadows/clip highlights, etc.? I am trying to evaluate how important it is to my shooting.



I wrote an article about dynamic range awhile ago on my blog as it related to making this image (shot with a 5DII):







Basically I needed to keep from blowing the highlights in the sky and lift the shadows in the foreground so they were dark blue instead of black. This was done by processing the raw file three separate times and blending the images together, and then using a combination of selective noise reduction, manual blur, and large feature sharpening to address shadow noise. 

So yeah, more dyanmic range is never a bad thing.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 18, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> * I can afford it, but I won't pay $3500 for it: I don't think it's good bang-for-buck, there are better alternatives in the market (D800).
> 
> * The only 5D3 strengths I see are "it can use my current Canon lenses" and "it has clean video". At anything else, the D800 wins, or it's a tie.
> 
> ...



I think everone should buy the camera which is best for them. For whatever reasons people have different needs and requirements. If the 5DIII doesn't suit then that it is fine.


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 18, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> * The only 5D3 strengths I see are "it can use my current Canon lenses" and "it has clean video". At anything else, the D800 wins, or it's a tie.



The 'video' alone is enough to do it. The 5D2 was a big success in no small part due to its popularity among video shooters. With the 5D3 they are trying to build off that success by giving video capabilities a high design priority. So a significant chunk of the 5D3 target audience are primarily concerned with how it behaves for video.

While the D800 does not exactly do poorly in that regard, it is generally held that the 5D3 is more geared for it.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 18, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> * You think I'm crazy? In the first weeks, where it was really hard to find a 5D3 in stock, they sold on ebay for a big markup ($4000 body only). But now it can already be bought at a discount at reputable ebay sellers ($3220). I think the official price will follow in the coming weeks.
> 
> that's why I started this thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6539.45


Yes, you are crazy, and for the same reasons people stated in that thread. Amazon USA's top seller list is one specific metric of many...and yet you are inferring everything from it. For one, a lot of the original pre-orders got cancelled at Amazon because B+H, Adorama, etc got stock before them. Cameras were shipping and people got mad that Amazon hadn't even gotten a shipment yet. You can find threads on this forum to that effect. So that would impact your numbers. Especially since the D800 has had universal stock issues, and I haven't read about a specific retailer getting orders dumped. That doesn't even factor in whether the target audiences would normally buy from Amazon.

Then lets go further. Amazon has one option for the D800, yet two for the 5dIII (body and kit). Today, the 5dIII body is 5th, the D800 is 6th, the 5dIII kit is 39th. Do you know what that means? No, because that only tells you relative numbers. Do pre-orders affect those rankings? Do they factor in cancelled orders? If I'm assuming answers like you, I'd assume the D800 got crushed today and I should expect to see it for $2800 in a few weeks. You're asking the 8-Ball for answers and assuming its all knowing.

At best, I think you'd see Canon admit prices are too high by doing a big body/lens combo rebate. Rather than taking $150 or $200 off, like they have for the APS-C cameras, you'd see $3-400 when you buy a lens with it. Even then, I wouldn't expect that until the end of summer.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 18, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> * I can afford it, but I won't pay $3500 for it: I don't think it's good bang-for-buck, there are better alternatives in the market (D800).
> 
> * The only 5D3 strengths I see are "it can use my current Canon lenses" and "it has clean video". At anything else, the D800 wins, or it's a tie.
> 
> ...



The only strengths you see? Please post photos you have taken with the 5D Mark III sir and point out to us which features of your photos you are not sufficiently satisfied over the 5D Mark II. Do you own the 5D Mark III? Have you used it extensively? I have had both and there are many improved features vs. what you list. How do I know? I used both everyday. Do you own or have you used a D800? Or are you just literate?


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 18, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> * I can afford it, but I won't pay $3500 for it: I don't think it's good bang-for-buck, there are better alternatives in the market (D800).


I also won't pay 3.5K for 5D3. However, I have different thought.
1. Selling my 5D2 and buying 5D3 will cost about 2K. It doesn't worth for me.
2. The price of 5D3 should drop in few months because of its competitor D800.
However, D800 is not a really alternative of 5D3. The market between 5D3 and D800 is still quite different. High ISO vs high MP/DR is just like apple vs orange. Maybe D600 will be the really alternative of 5D3.
The only thing I feel bad is why Nikon can give its users better price and Canon cannot. I will buy 5D3 if its price drops to 3K in end of this year. Otherwise, I might just wait for Canon's other model. I am okay with my 5D2 now, so I can just wait. No rush for me.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 18, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> However, D800 is not a really alternative of 5D3. The market between 5D3 and D800 is still quite different. High ISO vs high MP/DR is just like apple vs orange.



If you're going to upgrade to the 5d3 I'd advise you to look at the 5d2/5d3 controlled raw samples yourself (see dpreview): This is the nearly the same sensor, the successor only has a "nicer" noise pattern - you fell for the "high iso" marketing. Only extremely high iso will show a difference, but then dynamic range is low.

The 5d3 has other nice features like the af if your lens happens to be in a group that allows it to use the full af (see the manual), more fps, silent shutter, yadayadayada. But a denoised and scaled down d800 image is just as good as the 5d3's, I'm sorry to say as a Canon user.



cliffwang said:


> Maybe D600 will be the really alternative of 5D3. The only thing I feel bad is why Nikon can give its users better price and Canon cannot.



Simple: Sony has done the r&d, and Nikon uses their sensors while Canon cannot get at the patents - so they're stuck with the tech that was current when they developed the 5d2. They have to develop something on their own, ask again in two or more years for progress.


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 18, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> If you're going to upgrade to the 5d3 I'd advise you to look at the 5d2/5d3 controlled raw samples yourself (see dpreview): This is the nearly the same sensor, the successor only has a "nicer" noise pattern - you fell for the "high iso" marketing. Only extremely high iso will show a difference, but then dynamic range is low.


I heard that the raw IQ on 5D2/5D3 is not much different. However, when I see some samples on ISO 3200 and 6400 from 5D3, I feel they have better noise control then my 5D2.
You mentioned that 5D3 has nicer noise pattern then 5D2. Does that mean after I use LR to reduce the noise from 5D2 raw files, they will looks similar to the 5D3 raw files? By the way, do you have the review link?



Marsu42 said:


> The 5d3 has other nice features like the af if your lens happens to be in a group that allows it to use the full af (see the manual), more fps, silent shutter, yadayadayada. But a denoised and scaled down d800 image is just as good as the 5d3's, I'm sorry to say as a Canon user.


A quick question. If you scaled a ISO 6400 D800 image files from 36MP to 22MP, will the file has same quality with files taken from 5D3 @ISO 6400?


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 18, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> If you're going to upgrade to the 5d3 I'd advise you to look at the 5d2/5d3 controlled raw samples yourself (see dpreview): This is the nearly the same sensor, the successor only has a "nicer" noise pattern - you fell for the "high iso" marketing. Only extremely high iso will show a difference, but then dynamic range is low.


Some people do need to shoot at that level at times though. From my quick tests just after the announcement, there were about 1.5 stops difference between the MkII and MkIII. Even without the need for lower noise, the focusing improvements will also be a benefit for many. While it is by no means a sports or wildlife camera, it can be used for most applications in sports and wildlife. It is a relatively low number of occasions where I actually need a high frame rate, in which case, I'd use my 7D (when I eventually get a 5D MkIII). I have actually used my 5D MkII for moving wildlife (diving gannets), but it was a real chore. Basically it was a single shot, trying to time when they dived (I did get some success though). The extra two fps and better focus tracking would have been much better. At the time, I wasn't convinced that my 7D was performing properly IQ-wise, but it turned out it was a Lightroom issue annoyingly.


----------



## TTMartin (Jun 18, 2012)

Then why is the Canon 5D Mk III, now out selling the Nikon D800 at Amazon?
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/3017941



NormanBates said:


> * I can afford it, but I won't pay $3500 for it: I don't think it's good bang-for-buck, there are better alternatives in the market (D800).
> 
> * The only 5D3 strengths I see are "it can use my current Canon lenses" and "it has clean video". At anything else, the D800 wins, or it's a tie.
> 
> ...


----------



## TTMartin (Jun 18, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> ...
> If you're going to upgrade to the 5d3 I'd advise you to look at the 5d2/5d3 controlled raw samples yourself (see dpreview): This is the nearly the same sensor, the successor only has a "nicer" noise pattern - you fell for the "high iso" marketing. Only extremely high iso will show a difference, but then dynamic range is low.
> ...



Here's the link at DPReview: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/28

When you change it to higher ISO the 5D MkIII sure looks like it has less noise to me.

Nicer noise is that the new Nikon phrase for less noise when it applies to Canon cameras?


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 18, 2012)

I have no problem with people buying either the D800 or the 5DIII. Just a question of personal choice, I am not going to try to get them to change their mind as I dont want people telling me what to buy, so I wont tell them.

The D800 and the 5D3 are quite different cameras that appeal to different types of users, they are so far apart that it is difficult to make a objective comparison.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 18, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> Here's the link at DPReview: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/28 When you change it to higher ISO the 5D MkIII sure looks like it has less noise to me. Nicer noise is that the new Nikon phrase for less noise when it applies to Canon cameras?


I downloaded all raws of 600d, 5d2, 5d3 and d800 (ugh! clearly the killer sensor) of all isos, imported them into Lightroom and compared them myself looking at the critical area of the threads in the box on a larger screen.

Up to iso1600 I cannot see any difference, at iso3200 it's small, and at iso6400+ it's noticeable - but then both sensors are so bad that it hardly matters to *me* and my future use for such a body (weddings, mostly with flash, if not lens with f2.8 or better). And when comparing the raw samples, it's no noise reduction and no downsizing, so hardly a real world comparison which will even the differences even further.

"Nicer" noise is my term and describes what 5d3 users reported in the forum - the acutal noise isn't much better, but looks more like film and is more "pleasing" - and looking at iso3200 5d2 vs. 5d3 I'd second to that.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Jun 19, 2012)

iso79 said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > iso79 said:
> ...



It is unfortunate that there isn't better moderation of online forums. Posts such as yours, misinform readers and waste the time of others correcting your mis-statements.

There are plenty of lenses by Nikon, Zeiss and Schneider that take full advantage of the D800.
Examples? Lenses such as the Nikon 200 f2, Nikon 14-24, Zeiss 100 f2 and Schneider 90mm TS give superlative results. Heck, even the $500 Nikon 85 f1.8G is producing stunning results. 

Same will be true when Canon release their mega MP / high DR camera in the relatively near future.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Jun 19, 2012)

birdman said:


> Can anyone provide me with example(s) of pictures that needed high DR to expose/bring out shadows/clip highlights, etc.? I am trying to evaluate how important it is to my shooting.
> 
> With the 17-40L, I do need to upgrade in the future to get the most out of this 5d2 sensor. I am including 5d3 users in this conversation as well, since at low ISO these cameras are nearly identical. I think I have seen a few examples where my camera could use more DR, especially when pulling shadows and banding that occur (in these situations).
> 
> I just started using LR 4.0 so I have spent tons of time in post, but I do use DPP quite regularly. So, if you can provide some samples would be greatly appreciated.




Birdman, usually people are going to think of its obvious advantages with landscape photography such as Peter Lik.
http://www.lik.com/

For me as a portrait /editorial shooter, DR is a big deal too. 

The larger sensors and film negs will still have their advantages over the D800, but it's getting a LOT closer now.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Jun 19, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> revup67 said:
> 
> 
> > > If you are a landscape shooter and are not married to Canon, then you will get much, much more bang for the buck if you use D800/E.
> ...



Amusing indeed. My personal fave was a fashion blog site comparing the D800 to a Hassleblad H3D-39. They concluded that the Hasselblad was better, but were very surprised how well the D800 performed. "Amusing" part? They used the $5000 HC Macro 120mm-II lens on the hassy and the $100 50mm f1.8D Nikon lens on the D800. Yah.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 19, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> There are plenty of lenses by Nikon, Zeiss and Schneider that take full advantage of the D800. Same will be true when Canon release their mega MP / high DR camera in the relatively near future.



... and Canon is doing it, see the new 24-70ii - the only question is if other updated Canon lenses for high mp camera bodies will keep being that much more expensive, or if Nikon and Canon will be even again in 2-3 years.


----------



## mrjimmy (Jun 19, 2012)

Into the sun This photo was taken at a rest stop in Florida off I-10 its on a display stand about 30 feet in the air ok yes I did use a filter on my lense and taken with a canon 5D mk 3


----------



## rpt (Jun 19, 2012)

mrjimmy said:


> Into the sun


Oooooooh! Lovely! I would love to learn your technique if you can share it.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 19, 2012)

rpt said:


> mrjimmy said:
> 
> 
> > Into the sun
> ...



A big ass reflector...


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 19, 2012)

Viggo said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > mrjimmy said:
> ...



Green screen and a good sky image


----------



## aznable (Jun 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...



i tought the same...looks too extreme


----------



## serendipidy (Jun 19, 2012)

Great photo, but where is the pilot? I've shot some Blue Angels and even though the planes appear smaller and not as clear, I often can see the pilot in the cockpit. Could it be the angle of the sun on the canopy?


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Green screen and a good sky image



I am sure a few had that thought as well.

I hate to be cynical but I thought it looked like a model airplane when I first looked at the picture. In fact I thought was why we do not see the whole aircraft as someone or something was holding it.

Like I say, I hate to be cynical but...


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 19, 2012)

expatinasia said:


> Like I say, I hate to be cynical but...



Well, reading about Canon's marketing ploys it's hard not go get a little cynical  ... concerning green screen pictures, this is really a problem because I often think a real world situations I see look likes cgi - but actually it's the other way around. My demand: ban green screen, I want to see the strings that holds the model like in the good ol' Star Trek days!


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 20, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> Birdman, usually people are going to think of its obvious advantages with landscape photography such as Peter Lik.
> http://www.lik.com/




oh boy dont open the lik can of worms on this forum again! ;D


----------



## Danielle (Jun 21, 2012)

Fuji Velvia was mentioned somewhere in this thread. 

I guess I'd want to ask how many still shoot film and or how did you cope with only film. I coped just fine. *shrugs*


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 21, 2012)

Danielle said:


> I guess I'd want to ask how many still shoot film and or how did you cope with only film. I coped just fine. *shrugs*



I think one source of much of the griping is that, while they improve every generation, digital sensors still have not caught up with good film in terms of DR... which I guess also ties into the question of 'how good is good enough?'. I think when senors are at least on-par with the high end films then there will be some tapering off of the desire for improvement.


----------



## edawg (Jun 21, 2012)

what about peter lik? I tried to search but nothing came up...


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 21, 2012)

edawg said:


> what about peter lik? I tried to search but nothing came up...



here you go:

http://digital-photography-school.com/watch-peter-lik-photograph-new-york


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 21, 2012)

edawg said:


> what about peter lik? I tried to search but nothing came up...



the threads got deleted, he does all sorts of dodgy stuff, blatantly lieing about massivly fake photoshopped pictures and claiming other photographers work as his own to name a few


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 21, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I have no problem with people buying either the D800 or the 5DIII. Just a question of personal choice, I am not going to try to get them to change their mind as I dont want people telling me what to buy, so I wont tell them.
> 
> The D800 and the 5D3 are quite different cameras that appeal to different types of users, they are so far apart that it is difficult to make a objective comparison.



ed zackery

add to that its getting really tiresome of all the ner ner ner ner the D800 is better posts filtering into every single thread so what if it is still doesnt make the 5Dmk3 bad and the bettererness is only marginal anyway


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 26, 2012)

I guess I still can't grasp what this thread is about. Do you mean that the 5D Mark III's DR is worse than the D800, relatively speaking, OR, that in general, the DR with the 5D Mark III is bad?


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 26, 2012)

i think the OP wanted to see images indicating example of what all the drama is about relaing to DxO numbers

since this thread has hit 7 pages and no images have come forth it kind of proves what a non event the whole issue is


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 26, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i think the OP wanted to see images indicating example of what all the drama is about relaing to DxO numbers
> 
> since this thread has hit 7 pages and no images have come forth it kind of proves what a non event the whole issue is



8)


----------



## TTMartin (Jun 27, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> Okay doke. Here are two shots demonstrating decent dynamic range. Both were shot with the 5D Mark II. Both were shot in the morning. The landscape shot was taken at 5am, and the monument shot was taken at 8am. At 12pm, both shots would be near impossible without HDR and/or a 3-stop ND grad because the shots would be approximately 3 stops short of what the 5D Mark III could handle. The Nikon has 2 stops (or more) of usable latitude, which would make the shots easier to handle (if shot later, when the latitude of the scene extends beyond what the camera can handle).



According to whom?

No electronic enhancements: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/19


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 27, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> Okay doke. Here are two shots demonstrating decent dynamic range. Both were shot with the 5D Mark II. Both were shot in the morning. The landscape shot was taken at 5am, and the monument shot was taken at 8am. At 12pm, both shots would be near impossible without HDR and/or a 3-stop ND grad because the shots would be approximately 3 stops short of what the 5D Mark III could handle. The Nikon has 2 stops (or more) of usable latitude, which would make the shots easier to handle (if shot later, when the latitude of the scene extends beyond what the camera can handle).



First image is perfect for HDR

Second image is perfect for flash 

There a few occasions where there is too much light for iso50, f/16, 1/8000


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 27, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > First image is perfect for HDR
> ...



HDR increases the DR o the image
Flash reduces the DR requirement by reducing the shadowss

This was taken on a sunny summer day using a lot of flash to overcome the sun
1DS3, iso 50, 1/2000, f/2.8


----------



## birdman (Jun 27, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i think the OP wanted to see images indicating example of what all the drama is about relaing to DxO numbers
> 
> since this thread has hit 7 pages and no images have come forth it kind of proves what a non event the whole issue is



I am OP (and posted one landscape shot)

You hit the nail on the head. I don't own any ND filters, just the 5d2, 17-40L, and some UVs and cir polarizers. I need to invest in some ND grad filters and practice, practice, practice. 

I agree there are too many chiefs and not enough indians on these forums. No offense to Native Americans. I wanted to see examples of shots that could benefit from better DR, or that demonstrated what DR could do. I guess my strategy got thrown out the window. Or did it get vomited into 8 pages? You be the judge...


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 27, 2012)

birdman said:


> I agree there are too many chiefs and not enough indians on these forums. No offense to Native Americans. I wanted to see examples of shots that could benefit from better DR, or that demonstrated what DR could do. I guess my strategy got thrown out the window. Or did it get vomited into 8 pages? You be the judge...



I think you find that my last picture would have needed more DR due to the very bright contrast. My picture demonstrates how to avoid needing a much higher DR sensor


----------

