gwilliams6

Right now, Sony and Nikon (using Sony sensors) have the best overall dynamic range in their lineup of mirrorless cameras. Canon is getting close, but still not quite there to lead in this category. Cheers

Expect fanboys to argue here. LOL

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Buckle your seat belt --Canon is very very CLOSE.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

You - calling others “fanboys”, when 90% of your posts are advertisements for Sony is the height of hypocrisy. No arguments - just facts. Comparing Canon’s R5, Nikon’s Z7 And the two Sony’s with the best DR. Notice who has the highest at base ISO, and notice that there’s trivial difference between the 4 all the way up the ISO range.

(Download)

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Snead your wish is my command...
Please invest some quality time at DxOmark's camera sensor database...
https://www.dxomark.com/cameras/sensor_format-sensor_micro43

That said I'm a hardcore user of Photomatix...
Albeit be warned there is a learning curve...
https://www.hdrsoft.com/

If you have Photoshop, it has HDR bundled within...

Snead words of wisdom from the commercial shooters I assist
"Photographic excellence is not a consumer commodity"
Enough said.

All the best on your journey Snead...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Why stop ranting?

This is an example of why DR may not be overrated. I say may, because as an abstract the SOOC image (converted from raw with no adjustments), could be considered to be an abstract. The second image is the same file processed then exported, which gives it some context. These were just illustrations for someone that was asking about dynamic range, and I was explaining that shooting raw can help.

(Download)


(Download)

gwilliams6

In most independent tests, Sony still has overall the best dynamic range, but Canon is close, but not quite there yet. Cheers my ole favorite fanboy TRIX. You just cant ever get over the success and innovation of Sony mirrorless can you. LOL

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Fanboy to fanboy, Sony had an early start in FF mirrorless, but with the Canon R5, that lead is gone. Did you actually look at the chart posted above? Pretty hard to continue to argue DR when the graph clearly shows your contention is incorrect. If you doubt that, instead of just saying so, let’s see some actual tests. Got any? You can pick any spec you like, for any Sony you like, and the R5 matches it. Your company’s lead in FF mirrorless has just vaporized, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Nikon on par with anything Sony with their next release. Next year, with 16 new Canon RF lenses due out, let’s see what the market share of all cameras (which Canon already owns) and the share of the Mirrorless looks like. I’ll make you a public bet right now that Canon will continue to dominate the pro market as they have for decades.

Now honestly, I think that Canon, Nikon, and Sony all have fine professional grade FF systems, and a new or existing shooter would be hard pressed to go wrong with any of the above. I argue with you because you continue to schill for Sony and denigrate other brands in the majority of your posts. Why not post more of your excellent photos and leave the marketing to guys in the Sony front office? I’m sure they can afford to purchase actual ads on UHH rather than compensate you for your continuing brand advertising on a photo forum.

Josephakraig

When I got my first Nikon Digital I did so because a friend of mine showed me some of his shots from his D700. they were much better dynamic range photo's than I could take on my Olympus.

I'm now on my 5th Nikon, a D850. I can't believe the DR I get, I'm getting about 15 stops of DR and you don't need to stack or do any HDR tricks to get it, just shoot at low ISO and you have it. When I was shooting with the D810 I was very pleased with the DR shooting at ISO 64 but I swear it looks like the D850 has a full stop above the D810.

I'm loving the D850, there is little to complain about but the dynamic range is just incredible.

glenn mayher

You can do all that or get a fuji.

Canisdirus

Only if it is the Fujifilm GFX 100.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Hasselblad and other MF cameras. They will have the highest dynamic range at about 15 to 16 stops. But no free lunch. To get that dynamic range, one must spend $$$$$.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

For static subjects and single shot focus (AF-S), use centre area only and use it to get a focus lock then recompose. That way you control where the focus point ends up. if you want AF tracking for moving subjects you'll want to use AF-C and use the full frame.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

I find my Sony cameras have reasonable dynamic range; however, if I really want dynamic range I shoot multiple subs for HDR processing.

bwa

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

One of the best cameras for dynamic range right now is the Canon R5 (full frame, mirrorless, 45MP). DXO testing shows it to have slightly wider DR than the Nikon Z7 (FF, mirrorless, 45MP). The Sony a7R Mark IV (FF, mirrorless, 61MP) falls right in between them in DR, though obviously with a bit higher resolution.

All three of these cameras use the latest sensor tech to achieve almost 12 stops of DR at their base ISO setting. That's ISO 100 with the Canon and Sony, ISO 65 with the Nikon camera.

Note: Dynamic range decreases as ISO is increased. Even lower extended ISO also tends to decrease DR, though not always.

Let me emphasize.... There is VERY little difference between the DR performance of those three cameras!

Below is a link to a website where you can compare almost any digital camera, based upon DXO sensor testing. It can graphically display multiple camera models alongside each other for comparison. I pre-loaded it with the three cameras mentioned above, but you can turn those off and/or turn on any other models you'd like to compare. There's also a list further down where you can scroll through the different models to spot others with higher DR ranges at their base ISOs.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5,Nikon%20Z%207,Sony%20ILCE-7RM4

HOWEVER... No current camera will give you what you want. No camera can render a sunny scene's entire DR the same way your eye sees it. Maybe some day in the future that will be possible. But I doubt it.

You need to use light and exposure control techniques to balance the scene's DR to match the medium, rather than trying to find a medium that matches the scene. There are various ways to do this.

One way is to add light to portions of the image with flash. Obviously, that won't work for most scenic shots like you want to do.

The old school method necessary with film was Graduated Neutral Density filters. These oversize, rectangular filters are half gray, half clear. The filter was positioned in front of the lens to "hold back" the sky, which tends to overexpose. Personally I carried one, two and three stop filters... and used two stops most often. There were even filters such as 1.5 stop, 2.5 stop. And there are "soft", "hard" and "normal" graduated transitions too, depending upon the focal length length being used or look you want in an image (an ultra wide lens might need a soft Grad ND, while a telephoto can require a "hard" one). I no longer need, carry or use these filters with digital. There are much better ways now to achieve the same results. I've kept a few of my Grad NDs, along with the holders, adapters and hoods for them, just in case I want to shoot film... but that doesn't happen very often now. I don't mind not carrying the bulky, easily damaged filters around!

Another filter that can help is a Circular Polarizer. It has a stronger effect on the sky than on the rest of the scene, so can help prevent the sky from being overexposed. However, a C-Pol also reduces reflections. That can be a good thing... such as when foliage has a lot of reflections off its surfaces, a C-Pol cuts those reflections and helps bring out the colors. But it also can be a bad thing, such as when a there's a reflection off water.... think of a mountain reflected in a lake... that you want to keep in the image. A C-Pol will also reduce or eliminate that reflection. A C-Pol will also make a rainbow disappear from a scene.

BUT... any filter can be problematic when directly shooting a sunrise or sunset. It's usually better to shoot with a bare lens in those situations, or you may see various types of flare effects ruining your image. Any added layers of glass or optical plastic in front of the lens risks increasing flare.

Today with digital there are other things that can be done, besides using filters. One of the easiest techniques for a scenic photographer is to simply take two shots... one exposed for the sky and the other set to make proper exposure of the rest of the scene. Later in post-processing they can combine the "correct" part from each of those images into a single composite. This gives much better more controlled results than was ever possible with filters. If you are also dealing with some heavily shaded areas in the image, you could even make a third shot. This isn't "HDR" or "high dynamic range" imaging, even though it uses similar technique. The goal here is to make a natural looking scene, more as we see it with our eyes, rather than the exaggerations that are often associated with HDR. The only problem with this technique is that it may not work if there's something moving in the scene.

Something similar can be done even with a single shot. In this case, post-process two different versions of the image.... one adjusted for the sky, the other for the rest of the scene. Then combine the two into a single image, using the "correct" parts from each. There isn't as much latitude with this method, as there can be when you make two different exposures. However, it can help to shoot RAW (rather than JPEGs), because it has more latitude for exposure adjustments. Plus, how you make the original image sort of depends upon your particular camera. With some cameras it may be best to bias the image slightly too bright, and then "pull back" the overexposed parts of the image... because there's risk of added noise in shadow areas and the camera doesn't tend to "blow out" highlights. Another camera, it might be the opposite... it's better to expose to protect highlight detail and then "pull up" the underexposed parts of the image because the camera handles noise really well. You pretty much need to experiment with your particular gear, to see which works best. It also depends upon what ISO you're using. If you can keep to the camera's base ISO, there's usually less concern about noise in shadow areas. But if you have to use a higher ISO, you may need to do the opposite.

Below is an example where I used the single shot/double processed method. The subject was moving rapidly, in shade and strongly backlit by a sunlit scene. There is no camera made that can handle this extreme DR and no way a filter can possibly be used. To handle the extreme DR, I made two copies of the image... one processing both exposure and white balance for the indoor, shaded subject... the other to recover some of the outdoor, sunlit background, adjusting it for both exposure and white balance, for a more "natural" appearance....

LEFT: image adjusted for main subject in shade. RIGHT: image adjusted for sunlit background.


COMPOSITE IMAGE (combining portions from each of the above)


Here I made the original exposure primarily for the shaded subject... that was the most important. This led to more overexposure of the background and limited how much it could be recovered. But, when I went to combine the two I felt the recovered background was getting too dominant, so ended up dialing it back a little for the final image. Depending upon your monitor, that composite image may appear a bit saturated. This was done deliberately due to the printing process that was going to be used.

In addition to differences between cameras that require different approaches, what you do also can depend upon the ultimate use of an image. If you're making a print with a photo quality inkjet or through a professional printing service, you'll very often see much better shadow and highlight detail (i.e., more dynamic range) than you did viewing the image on your computer monitor. But, if you are planning to display the image online, you may need to "compress" the image more to optimize it for viewing on most computer monitors. Explore these difference with your printing and/or monitor, to have a better feel for what you need to do with your images in post-processing.

Which brings us to another thing.... Your computer monitor is probably lying to you. A backlit computer screen can never render true black or true white. There is a lot of "clipping" on most computer monitors, occurring at both extremes of the DR. Your images may be quite a bit better than you think, if you're only viewing them on screen. I'm often pleasantly surprised how much shadow and highlight detail I see in a print, the first time I make one after only seeing the image on screen.

There's a third possible method of tweaking images in post-processing.... many image editing software programs have a digital "graduated neutral density" filter, which can be applied to an image. This works much like the old school filters mentioned above and might be useful in some situations. It probably won't work in the most extreme situations, where the sky is just too overexposed for recovery. But, unlike the old school physical filters, a digital Grad ND filter can be applied more selectively (perhaps using a layer and mask), doing a better job than was ever possible with actual filters.

Yet another method that may work and has been mentioned in previous responses is in-camera HDR. This essentially involves making multiple shots and then letting the camera combine them, rather than doing it yourself in post-processing. My concern with this is that in all cases I'm aware of, you have to shoot JPEGs for the camera to combine. And, does the camera retain all versions, or just the composite image it makes from them? Even if it does keep all versions, they're JPEGs and there won't be the latitude to work with the images later in post-processing, the way there is with RAW files. If it doesn't keep all versions, if the final HDR composite the camera creates isn't to your liking, it might be difficult or impossible to tweak it further yourself. You sort of have to hope for the best and accept whatever the camera produces. Sounds risky. I think I'll keep doing my own compositing in post-processing.

Depending upon what camera you're using now, you may want to consider an upgrade to a newer model. But, honestly, unless your camera is really old you aren't going to see a great deal of improvement in dynamic range. There was a lot of talk in the past about how Sony sensors (and Nikon, since they were buying them from Sony) had greater DR than Canon sensors.... and that was true... to some extent. The Sony (Nikon) sensors from comparable cameras (similar resolution and format) typically had a half to full stop more DR than Canon.... at all the cameras' base ISO. However, as you increased to around ISO 400 or 800 they were nearly identical.... and at even higher ISOs the Canon sensors typically had more DR (although all the cameras at high ISO have significantly less DR than at their base ISO). You can see this comparing various camera makes and models at the above link. It was as if Sony/Nikon had biased their sensors for low ISO work, with some cost to high ISO performance... while Canon did the opposite. But, even so, if you compare fairly similar and concurrent models, you won't see all that much difference.... and none of them will ever be able to capture the full DR of a sunlit landscape, as seen by your eye.

Hope this helps!

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

👍👍 Well said Alan - your usual accurate, insightful and comprehensive post.