Hi,
Wow. One afternoon. I have my Kodak 760 with 80k frames on the clock. From 03 to 18 when I all but replaced it with a Nikon Df. The 760 then became dedicated on a copy stand in the electronics lab to shoot failed circuit boards.
Anyway, I thought that was a lot of shooting over that time period.
Stan
IQ is not singled out to a one outgoing image aspect; DR is one that at this time reached a limit that falls outside most everyday situations.
We can also gain IQ from a camera that allows the user to achieve an image that otherwise was more difficult in capturing.
Even to this day I will shoot a HDR image using one or two additional images to cleanup some of the shadow details I am wanting to recover
My old obsolete Z7i has a one stop DR advantage over the Z6iii, if the Photons to Photos graph is correct. As I work at base ISO for 90% of my pictures, and for Architecture, I need all the DR that I can get, the Z6iii is not for me on this score. I cannot always use a tripod for 3 frame HDR, which mostly removes the DR problem.
me too, i shoot out door portraits and need the cleanest skin tones in shadows i can get. the z6iii is behind my old em1mk2 for my most common iso, 🤨 its why i switched to FF in the first place.
thats the problem the z6iii still cant focus on a cats eye and the af is laggy and jumpy with only 270 af points compared to the a74 800 focus points that are that sticky it just doesnt miss.
A lot of times people discuss DR when that might not be the IQ they think that it means.
When I take an image of lets say looking directly at the sun while somewhere in the frame we have shadows found on the backside of structures found in the image. those shadows fall around 9-11 stops from saturation, most cameras have the DR needed for this kind of image. How the tonal values are recorded, more importantly the noise across those darker tonal values is not a measurment of DR but a SNR for that tonal range. When people talk of DR they feel that this is what it is describing /
We can have a cropped and FF cameras that have the same DR but how clean they are across those values can be very different.
More MP is the quickest and easiest way to increase image quality.
This has always been true.
It depends on how you qualify "better". My R5 is definitely better than my R in every respect. However, the R5 is better than the R3 in some ways, and worse in others.
For a fact. More than that is even given that all agree that Camera A is better than Camera B, if Camera B is [even more than] good enough and you enjoy using it, why even care that Camera A is better? Same applies to everything, really.
This is a bit of a thread diversion prompted by your screenshot from PTP, but an interesting thread has just started on DPR calling some of Bill Claff's PTP results into question:
Link: www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4767164
Thread is titled: How reliable are “Photons to Photo” data? G9 vs Canon 6DMII
This is true. I hopped back into 36x24 from m4/3 for that reason. Not so much high ISO, but nicer, cleaner shadow areas where blacks are black, and colours don't shift or end up looking odd due to a colour cast.
It was the ability to recover detail from the shadows, that amazed me when I started to dabble with FF, compared to M43. I did not expect such a big difference.
Even with my antiquated D700, the ability to see better tonal and colour transitions, was quite evident, compared to my 16MP EM5.
An interesting diversion. I cannot ask the question there as Caldwell will instantly ban me, but why was the the G9 picture exposed more by 1.73 stops? Surely we want to see the dynamic range with the cameras both set to a certain ISO and exposed at the same shutter speed and aperture, to have the same lightness.
Comparing a 2017 camera with a 2023 camera was a typical DPR forum trick to make a certain system look better.
Maybe sombody with more knowledge of the theoretical side can help out.
Dustin Abbott is the only person that actually tests DR correctly in my books.
HAND.
Yes, it's all quite technical and somewhat beyond me, but it does seem that there are some issues with PTP's results.
Quote from link:
"I have decided to make this post after recent results published at “Photons to Photos” (PTP) on measurements of Dynamic Range (DR) of the latest Lumix G9 Mark II camera, which are in strong disagreement not only with my measurements, but also with real life observations of many G9II users."
He tested the Mk2.
His test method is wrong then. Logic tells me that I must start with two pictures of the same lightness at the same ISO to test the dynamic range.
Smells of the usual DPR forum cherry picking.
I guess it is much easier to shoot and see how much shadow detail we can pull in real situations, as well as discovering when our picture will clip. For my indoor architecture, I just make HDR sets, which solves clipping in most cases.
HAND.
HAND.
