When will we have the Canon D800e?

[TMARK]

I don´t know, maybe it is just me, but I have never taken a shot that I then would go and say: "Gosh, I wish I had 2 more stops of DR!". What I am saying is, for someone that grew up as a photographer with slide film, I find the current crop of Canon sensors more than enough for what I need (landscapes, seascapes, travel, people, nature macro). I sure can appreciate more DR, but I just wonder how many photographers really need it? BTW, I also don´t need or want more pixels, the ones on my 6D are plenty enough.

Do we really need to open up shadows that much? Lots of photos I see today have (for me) shadows that are too light, that do not match the existing light. When I look at photos from photographers I admire, I see that they are not afraid of deep and moody shadows.

Here is were the D800's DR comes in to play:  With previous Canons, shooting fashion/portraits under lights, I had to light for the raw file.  I had to use lots of fill and at the same time really watch my highlights, scrimming and flagging until I ran out of C-Stands.  At ISO 100, my lights were often too strong.  It was a lot of grip work to get a file that looked too flat before post, like when teh client sees it pop up on a monitor.  With the D800 (or MFDB) I can expose mor elike the final image, less scrimming and flagging, preserve the high lights and if needed bring up the shadows.  I can also shoot under natural light without a shit ton of reflectors for fill and still recover an overcast sky.  Its much more like shooting negative film.

[MrSmith]

I never shot neg film as the quality was poor compared to transparency and clients always insisted on E6 so have always controlled the light in the studio or judged exposure on a B&W Polaroid, digital is no more tolerant of slapdash working.
Control the medium until it becomes second nature and go make images.
More dynamic range seems to just encourage the 'fix it afterwards' mentality instead of crafting images, if 2more stops became available overnight it wouldn't change my way of working or mean better images.
I can appreciate it might matter to people who work in a more haphazard arbitrary way though.

[NancyP]

OK, that was an obvious statement. It would be nice to have better DR for those situations where HDR may not be optimal (fast-moving subjects). But right now, I am going to enjoy what I have.

Actually, the real issue for me now is when do I get that landscape photography support vehicle (end of this year? next year? year after that, when the current LPSV hits age 20?)

[Kirk Gittings]

I never shot neg film as the quality was poor compared to transparency and clients always insisted on E6 so have always controlled the light in the studio or judged exposure on a B&W Polaroid, digital is no more tolerant of slapdash working.
Control the medium until it becomes second nature and go make images.
More dynamic range seems to just encourage the 'fix it afterwards' mentality instead of crafting images, if 2more stops became available overnight it wouldn't change my way of working or mean better images.
I can appreciate it might matter to people who work in a more haphazard arbitrary way though.

Well, I don't work in a haphazard way after shooting large format exclusively for my commercial architectural photography and b&w work for 27 years, but I would love more dynamic range. AAMOF I would always opt for more information in the file to work with. It has nothing what so ever to do with a haphazard work method.

[EricWHiss]

I'd like more DR too, mostly to get closer to what my eye sees.  But then I'd also like to see better "DR" in printing too.   Agree with all above, that when in studio or with lots of gear, the DR isn't as important, but still I'd like to have that option.     

I'm not expecting Canon to win on DR though with their next cameras.  Surely it will be more pixels and not more DR.  Pixels is the easy thing for the marketers to count and advertise and compare. 

[FredBGG]

Here is were the D800's DR comes in to play:  With previous Canons, shooting fashion/portraits under lights, I had to light for the raw file.  I had to use lots of fill and at the same time really watch my highlights, scrimming and flagging until I ran out of C-Stands.  At ISO 100, my lights were often too strong.  It was a lot of grip work to get a file that looked too flat before post, like when teh client sees it pop up on a monitor.  With the D800 (or MFDB) I can expose mor elike the final image, less scrimming and flagging, preserve the high lights and if needed bring up the shadows.  I can also shoot under natural light without a shit ton of reflectors for fill and still recover an overcast sky.  Its much more like shooting negative film.

+1

I also find I get much better B+W conversions and more depth in dark hair...

[TMARK]

+1

I also find I get much better B+W conversions and more depth in dark hair...

Really beautiful B&W.   

[TMARK]

I never shot neg film as the quality was poor compared to transparency and clients always insisted on E6 so have always controlled the light in the studio or judged exposure on a B&W Polaroid, digital is no more tolerant of slapdash working.
Control the medium until it becomes second nature and go make images.
More dynamic range seems to just encourage the 'fix it afterwards' mentality instead of crafting images, if 2more stops became available overnight it wouldn't change my way of working or mean better images.
I can appreciate it might matter to people who work in a more haphazard arbitrary way though.

I get what you are saying about the DR allowing for lazy production, but even without extended DR people don't use meters and adjust lights and f stops based on histograms, which is not crafting an image.   I shot LOTS of E100G, color and B&W neg. on the RZ and 4x5/8x10 and I've always lit sets so that I wouldn't have to do much in post. You have to know your medium.  I never liked chromes and only shot it for beauty work, due to client demands.  What I never liked about digital is that it tends to look like E6, with similar limitations, at least in 35mm format.  The DR on a camera like the D800 allows me to think in terms of teh tonal range of color neg, which is big advantage to me.

[Ludwig Nobel]

I don´t know, maybe it is just me, but I have never taken a shot that I then would go and say: "Gosh, I wish I had 2 more stops of DR!". What I am saying is, for someone that grew up as a photographer with slide film, I find the current crop of Canon sensors more than enough for what I need (landscapes, seascapes, travel, people, nature macro). I sure can appreciate more DR, but I just wonder how many photographers really need it? BTW, I also don´t need or want more pixels, the ones on my 6D are plenty enough.

Do we really need to open up shadows that much? Lots of photos I see today have (for me) shadows that are too light, that do not match the existing light. When I look at photos from photographers I admire, I see that they are not afraid of deep and moody shadows.

With the current Canon sensors, theres is a real problem of banding noise in shadows and midrange, even without lifting dark areas. The red channel is especially critical. I had numerous shots ruined by that. So it's not only for revealing detail in shadows, but also in pictures with dynamic range that should be handeld just fine by this sensors.

Ludwig

[shadowblade]

I never shot neg film as the quality was poor compared to transparency and clients always insisted on E6 so have always controlled the light in the studio or judged exposure on a B&W Polaroid, digital is no more tolerant of slapdash working.
Control the medium until it becomes second nature and go make images.
More dynamic range seems to just encourage the 'fix it afterwards' mentality instead of crafting images, if 2more stops became available overnight it wouldn't change my way of working or mean better images.
I can appreciate it might matter to people who work in a more haphazard arbitrary way though.

Surely I can't be the only one who used to shoot multiple exposures with film (617-format Velvia in my case), scan them and combine them in Photoshop...

[shadowblade]

With the current Canon sensors, theres is a real problem of banding noise in shadows and midrange, even without lifting dark areas. The red channel is especially critical. I had numerous shots ruined by that. So it's not only for revealing detail in shadows, but also in pictures with dynamic range that should be handeld just fine by this sensors.

Ludwig

That's because Canon's still relying on 12-year-old technology (especially with regards to off-chip A/D conversion), while everyone has moved on. It was revolutionary when it first came out, but is now truly dated.

The thing is, on comparing high-ISO performance, where the predominant source of noise is shot noise, rather than read or pattern noise as is the case at low ISOs, Canon actually has a small lead there. By extrapolation, this means that, were Canon to use column parallel A/D conversion like everyone else, the Canon sensors would actually have better DR than the Sony Exmor sensors!

[MrSmith]

Surely I can't be the only one who used to shoot multiple exposures with film (617-format Velvia in my case), scan them and combine them in Photoshop...

Well I never shot 617. But sometimes half sheet masked on the back of a 10x8 (4x10) which is a similar format.
As for multiple exposures, plenty of that but only using one sheet of film 

[shadowblade]

"I hear your pain brother" I was ready for a 5DIII but went for the D800E due to it's better sensor. What to do about the lenses? For landscapes manual focus is fine so I invested in Leica R lenses modified them with Leitax Nikkor mounts. So now I can use them directly on my D800E or with an adapter on my 5DII. So I future proofed my lens investment, they can be used on a Nikon,Canon or Sony
Marc

What about the ultra-wide or tilt-shift side of things?

[AFairley]

I get what you are saying about the DR allowing for lazy production, but even without extended DR people don't use meters and adjust lights and f stops based on histograms, which is not crafting an image. 

Sure it is, just different tools.

[Tony Jay]

Every time I take a shot with my D800e or D4 where the histogram hits both ends I say aloud: "Gosh, I wish I had 2 more stops of DR!"

I am with Petrus!

Tony Jay

[Rhossydd]

Will it come soon, or is it time to sell and go to Nikon?

If you need more pixels now, buy the 800 now.
If Canon announced their big pixel camera tomorrow the chances are you wouldn't get your hands on one this side of Christmas.

It's certainly on it's way. There have been many rumours, both fanciful and credible that one is under development and various prototypes are being tested.
Nikon's very competitive pricing on the 800 has given Canon a nightmare decision where to price it and what model series to put it in.

[hjulenissen]

If you need more pixels now, buy the 800 now.
If Canon announced their big pixel camera tomorrow the chances are you wouldn't get your hands on one this side of Christmas.

It's certainly on it's way. There have been many rumours, both fanciful and credible that one is under development and various prototypes are being tested.
Nikon's very competitive pricing on the 800 has given Canon a nightmare decision where to price it and what model series to put it in.

It seems that Canon is using a "mature" process tech for their APS-C and 24x36mm sensors, while their compact cameras get a more modern process tech. There may be many reasons for this, the higher sensel density of small sensor may mean that smaller process technology is needed, while the larger sensor may be more concerned with the probability of faults per sensor?

It seems natural that unless Canon executives feels really pressured, they will gradually phase in new process tech in APS-C sensors due to their (usually) denser sensels, and perhaps smaller sensors is lower risk/cost?

-h

[CptZar]

I don't mind 40+ MP. The fils of the 5DMIII are big enough. I do A2+ prints, and I doubt it will ever be more. And I assume this goes for 99% of the users here. Even the Pro's. If they go bigger they use MF anyway. But I hate to fiddle around with Photoshop, to merge a couple of exposures and get the whole digital range right. Especially when it gets complicated (light leaves dark sky). As the 5DMIII has very bad noise when darks are pushed, there is no other way around it. I hear the D800 is much better there.

So I am fine with the print sizes, but I would love to have more DR.

[LoisWakeman]

Do we really need to open up shadows that much? Lots of photos I see today have (for me) shadows that are too light, that do not match the existing light.

Well said Paul! Away with dishrag grey HDR landscapes, I say.

[hjulenissen]

Well said Paul! Away with dishrag grey HDR landscapes, I say.

Shadows that are clipped into black are not an accurate representation of how grand landscapes appear to me in person.

Now, HDR/tonemapping may not be entirely accurate, either, but (well done) I think it is a more accurate method.

Now, "accurate compared to being there in person" might not be what all of us are striving for all of the time.

-h