correct and the carrot man with the cheetoh dust hair might get offended!
In another thread I posted a link to an interesting video about the GRIV that should probably have been posted here:
For those who understand the Photons to Photos charts, can anyone please explain to me what Iām seeing here:
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20X-T5,Nikon%20Z%205II,Ricoh%20GR%20III
It seems the Ricoh GRIII has really good dynamic range at ISO 200 to 800, even beating out the latest Nikon Z5II full-frame camera. But the data points for the Ricoh are triangles, whereas the other two cameras are solid circles. According to the legend at the top, ātriangle down indicates noise reductionā. So does this mean the Ricoh is applying noise reduction to its RAWs? What is this graph telling me?
Thatās what the graph is saying, yes. Although the amount of noise reduction seems to fairly mild (~1 stop).
You also see the top DR of the Z5 exceeding the top DR of the two crop sensors by ~1 stop. And you see that the Z5 has a dual gain architecture, where the DR improves at ISO 800.
Quite a few camera companies do that now. Iām not sure if itās because they think their baked in NR is better than can be applied after the fact⦠or theyāre trying to compete in the dynamic range wars by lowering the noise floor to give themselves better metrics. There have been complaints from some people on the forumsā¦
Thanks for confirming what I thought. I guess my question now is whether that dynamic range of 10.52 for the Ricoh at ISO300 looks equivalent to the Z5ās 10.6 at ISO 160. I guess having similar DR does not mean the noise levels would be equal, but it would be interesting to compare the two.
As for all three camerasā maximum DR, 11.13 on the Z5 compared to 10.52 for the Ricoh and 10.42 for the X-T5 shows that there really isnāt much difference. I wouldnāt even call this ~1 stop as itās closer to half a stop in the case of the Ricoh.
For Dynamic Range see Gerald Undone on YT
One stop difference in dynamic range is just barely noticeable. You know the difference already, itās like stopping down from f/2.8 to f/4, or raising ISO from 100 to 200. Itās not nothing, but itās very little.
This used to be a big issue, as many of our pictures were just scraping by above the noise floor. In the 12/16 MP early-CMOS era, battling noise was a real challenge.
But nowadays? Our modern 24+ MP BSI architectures are naturally so much more sensitive, that noise levels are much less of a problem. Stabilization also got much better, allowing for longer shutter speeds more often. Noise reduction software also improved a lot. At least for my photography, dynamic range (on APS-C) is simply more than enough.
For my photography, more DR is not better. I just need enough of it. Once that threshold is cleared, more doesnāt improve things. Of course, YMMV. I am overall perhaps a bit more noise tolerant than average, and not much of a pixel peeper.
Continuing the Nikon talk, apparently the Z7(first gen) shares the same sensor with the D850, and itās āaffordableā bought used compared to cameras with similar megapixel and dynamic range. You can get one for 1300⬠on MPB. When buying new I think you would struggle to find such a high quality sensor for so little.
There are other factors to compare the 3 cameras than just DR. Look at the shadow recovery, the input noise, etc.
More importantly, look at handling, lens availability, ergonomics⦠They are quite different.
Same here. Sensor specs like noise and DR became irrelevant for my purposes, as anything from the past 5ā8 years is more than satisfactory, even with micro 4/3 sensors. When I can pull 3 stops of shadows, I am fine, going way beyond that probably suggests a mistake in capturing on my part.
I understand that some people need high DR. But I donāt think that the large majority of people should care at all. Certainly not the the extent it is discussed on forums.
I admire Fuji for daring to infuriate the spec warriors on the internet with the X-Half. Their outrage over this camera is like a sweet balm for my soul.
I think that the announcement of any camera that is not a full-frame monster with the latest specs is going to get flak from people who donāt necessarily understand photography but are very vocal about it. The video makes a very good point that those complaining would not buy this camera anyway.
Hopefully camera companies know this and keep themselves focused on designing cameras that are fun EDC instead of a huge weight to carry that sucks the joy out of photography.
Again itās anger over someone having different needs to you and your tribe. Canāt help thinking it would be a lot less effort if people just painted their faces red or blue, went to a random field and mud wrestled to decide a winner. Then everyone could go to the pub together and STFU.
Or you know. Just buy the camera that has the features you need/want. Ignore all features you are not interested in. And be happy while using your camera.
That ⦠that could also work.
p.s.: most of you are probably using 10% of what your camera can do anyway. So am I.
Obv Iām being OTT and Iām prone myself to talking nonsense on the internetā¦.
This is a reasonable explanation, but I think there is more to it.
A lot of the technical part of photography is working around limitations. Lenses are imperfect, sensors are noisy, camera bodies move while you expose, shutter canāt sync with flash outside a certain range, etc, etc.
A sensible strategy is to accept these limitations and learn to work around them, incorporating them into how you shoot photos. This is a lengthy process.
But improvements in sensors, cameras, AF, etc, seemingly offer an alternative: that you can have everything, no limitations, so you can fix a lot of stuff in post. To a certain extent this is a feasible strategy, but at the same time it is also an illusion.
People are uncomfortable when their illusions are shattered. Hence the rage about camera A not having feature B.
Could work⦠except that I doubt that a lot of people kvetching about cameras actually buy any camera at all.
Until it comes the time where you need a feature present in the 90% For example, I rarely use the electronic shutter on my X-T3, but when I have enough light for a good shutter speed, I will opt for it so I can achieve 30fps for certain subjects.
But Iād say I never used 30-40% if not more of what the X-T3 offers.
Or take pictures if they buy it