Options
In camera HDR
chrisjohnson
Registered Users Posts: 771 Major grins
Does anybody have an opinion or link on which prosumer camera has the best on-board HDR? I would be using this for outdoors landscape photography, trying to capture a natural look.
0
Comments
My serious recommendation for high-quality landscapes with HDR is to use a system which allows as many RAW input samples as necessary to capture the relevant dynamic range, generally around 15 EV for a landscape in bright sunny conditions, and which can be processed using a full computer so that you can vary the blending and tonal emphasis.
I typically use a combination of "Dynamic Photo HDR" (commercial software) plus EnBlend-EnFuse (open-source and free) plus EnfuseGui (also free).
http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/
http://enblend.sourceforge.net/
http://software.bergmark.com/enfuseGUI/Main.html
If you have a fairly recent Canon dSLR then Magic Lantern software (firmware overlay) can even help by measuring the dynamic range and automating the number of captures. (There is also a separate mode for allowing you to set bracketing automation criteria.)
http://wiki.magiclantern.fm/userguide#hdr_bracketing
Advanced Tone Blending vs HDR:
http://digital-photography-school.com/exposure-fusion-what-is-it-how-does-it-compare-to-hdr-how-do-i-do-it
Most Nikon and Canon advanced and professional dSLRs have some level of bracketing automation, so exposure bracketing need not be the chore it once was.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
For the sake of simplicity, let's compare two of the most popular cameras today, both of which have an HDR feature: The Nikon D800, and the Canon 5D mk3.
Right off the bat, let's disqualify the Nikon D800's HDR mode because it only works in JPG capture. Yeah. Bzzzzzt, game over. Adobe can pull more lattitude from a single RAW D800 file than any in-camera JPG HDR mode, most of the time. Either way, with the Nikon D800 you're better off just sticking with the oldschool bracketing method and using post-processing HDR techniques. Hell, with the dynamic range being so incredible on the D800, simply buying that camera in the first place will eliminate 80-90% of your need for bracketing / HDR techniques in the first place!
The Canon 5D mk3, on the other hand, does have RAW capture during its HDR mode. However it does not create a RAW frame that includes the HDR data, it simply creates another JPG image with whatever style of HDR processing you designate.
Yes, the mk3 does a pretty darn good job of creating that JPG file, and for that matter so does the Nikon D800. However in my opinion neither camera can match the post-processing power of a program like Photomatix etc.
Lastly, the Canon 5D mk3's overal RAW dynamic range struggles quite a lot to keep up with the Nikon D800's, and the bottom line to me is this: If you're like HDRs, you like dynamic range in general. If you like dynamic range in general, you should buy the camera with the most dynamic range. Which, right now, is a Nikon.
Personally I don't own a D800, although I have processed thousands of images from it and almost every other Nikon DSLR in production today. My choice, for adventure / landscape photography? The D5200, and now the D5300. (Or the D7100, if you really need the speed and functionality, but as a landscape / nature shooter I happily trade that for the articulated LCD screen!!!!)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
The 6D does it a little differently though. You can only use HDR mode in JPG mode. The 5D3 will let you do it in RAW mode, in which it gives you the option of keeping the 3 RAWs, but the HDR output will still be a JPG. Which makes sense if you think about it.
As for the DR of the 6D or 5D3 in general, I find it way more than adequate, but I am not a landscaper. Here is another user's review of the 6D for landscape:
www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52407138
Images from the above review:
I don't know if you will find the above DR acceptable, but I do.
Below is a single shot from my 5D3, converted in Lightroom. All the snow area (minus the shadow) was pure white and devoid of detail at first:
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
You helped me make up my mind for the 6D - especially your estate agent photos.
I have been checking into lots of alternative upgrades for my 40D, from Nikon to Fuji X-Pro. The 5D3 was an option but I cannot justify the cost to myself, being an amateur. Nikon is tempting because of the sensors they have at the moment but, again, the extra cost of switching systems does not feel justified. Fuji is doing great things too but I don't think it will give me more than a 6D. So I am back with the obvious choice.
Some people say 6D is no good for fast moving subjects like sport but lots of people seem to manage well. In my technique I use the centre point on 40D to lock in a fast moving subject so it should work the same way on 6D
Now I need to make up my mind on a lens to replace the 17-55 EF-S ...
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Hoorah! While the battery is charging for the new 6D I took this snap with my G9 to show the dilemma we all face. The 6D has my EF 50mm f1.4. It feels light and airy. The 40D with EFS 17-55 looks and feels intimidating by comparison - like a prehistoric monster from a bygone age. If we could manage without a zoom I am sure we all would.
What has given me pause for thought is the claim that the new Canon 24-70 zooms have the quality of prime lenses. If this is really true then it is probably worth paying the extra for either the f4 or the f2.8 Mk2.
If not then I think I should buy an additional prime in the wide end - probably 35mm. The new f2 IS USM looks good and is actually a lower investment for me than buying the 24-105 kit lens, and much cheaper than buying either of the 24-70s. (My EF lenses are currently 50mm, 100mm Macro, 70-300 IS USM).
Bill, I really need advice on sports. My galleries of recent shoots are http://www.chrisjohnsonnl.smugmug.com/Vessem/Trekkertrek (the lawnmower racing was particularly challenging) and http://www.chrisjohnsonnl/Ironman-wales-2013 . I did them mostly to learn how and mostly used the 70-300 lens, as you predict around 200mm. The main aim was to shoot my grandchildren now they are running around more, but it was great fun to do and I'm sure I'll do more. I cannot blame my gear for the obvious faults here - at least the faults I have seen - it is mostly down to technique and trying to learn by trial and error. You know what I mean I'm sure - focus on the person running towards you with the centre point on the chest, AI servo engaged, shoot away and find out you cut them all off at the knees. The pros at these events all had big tele lenses of the white variety and, most important, had chosen the right position. Anyway all advice is very welcome because I don't really know what I am doing in this area.
Jack, I think you are right about the 24-105. It is a good lens and a bit of a bargain - although here other Canon L lenses are being sucked down the pricing hole in its wake so more choice for similar money (17-40, for example). I turned down the offer mostly because I have not decided between primes and zooms and firstly need to experience the high ISO world before I can decide for myself whether I still need f2.8. There are also a lot of "buts" around the 24-105 from the pixel peepers and I guess if it was that easy to make a zoom with this range then the new Canon pro-line would be 24-105 and not 24-70. My current favourite on the zoom front is the 24-70 f4 IS USM which is only a couple of hundred Euros more than the 24-105 kit.
Thanks again all for helping me think this through - off to see whether the battery is charged and test out the low light performance outside as it is pitch black here at the moment
I just went through this decision, as I switched to a from crop to FF Canon a few weeks ago. Here's what I came to (YMMV):
--From the reviews I read, the two Canon 24-70s (2.8II, 4.0) are quite different, even apart from speed and IS.
--After reading lots of reviews and comparisons and posting for users' advice, I ended up opting for the 24-105 rather than the new 24-70 f/4. The near-macro function of the latter is nifty, but I have a macro lens, so I don't really need this. The performance of 24-70 is not consistently better than that of the 24-105, although it is in some respects at some focal lengths. I finally decided that for my purposes (yours might be very different), the 24-70 f/4 did not offer enough advantages over the 24-105 to offset the inconvenience of losing the additional 35 mm. I had been using an EF-S 15-85 as my walk-around on my 50D and found that I really liked having the range at the long end (that is 24-136mm equivalent). Also, some of the drawbacks of the 24-105, such as the amount of barrel distortion at the end, are trivial to fix in post.
Just google something like "canon 24-70 24-105 comparison" and you will get lots of information. Also, http://www.the-digital-picture.com allows you to put the test results from both lenses side by side. You can change aperture and focal length and see for yourself.
One other consideration, since you mentioned the size of one zoom: FF zoom lenses can get very heavy. E.g., the two Canon 24-70 f/2.8 lenses, the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 (another one I seriously considered), and the new Sigma 24-105 are all quite heavy. You can get all the specs for different brands from one site by going to the B&H website.
Again, your uses may be very different. I ended up regretting that I had not bought the 24-105 with the body as a kit to save $$.
Probably the same is true with lenses and the new generation. I am sure 24-105 is a great product - would be my first "L" - just not sure I want a zoom as a walk around. My EFS 17-55 is a great lens too but gets left at home a lot.