Which SLR for HDR photos?

[MarkC426]

I am trying to decide which camera to buy, either the Nikon D60 or the Canon EOS 400D.
Because I am new to HDR photography, some of the technical stuff baffles me a bit.
For example
400D - has Auto Exposure Bracketing (+/- 2EV 0.5 or 0.3 increments)
Exposure Compensation (+/- 2EV 0.5 or 0.3 increments)
D60 - has no AEB but Exposure Compensation (+/- 5EV 0.3 increments)
1.Exactly how many exposure levels do these produce?
(400D - 8/12; D60 - 30?)
2.Does AEB take multiple exposures automatically (as the name would suggest) and how many?
3.If there is no AEB, do you have to manually alter exposure and retake photo?

HELP

 

[robbieduncan]

2.Does AEB take multiple exposures automatically (as the name would suggest) and how many?

Yes you hold down the shutter (iirc) and it takes 3 images, one at +, one middle and one at -.

3.If there is no AEB, do you have to manually alter exposure and retake photo?

Yes. On a tripod!

 

[TimJim]

1.Exactly how many exposure levels do these produce?
(400D - 8/12; D60 - 30?)
2.Does AEB take multiple exposures automatically (as the name would suggest) and how many?
3.If there is no AEB, do you have to manually alter exposure and retake photo?

1. Do the math.

2. You need to hold it in one place (tripod is best) and shoot in continuos mode and the 3 separate pictures are + , 0 , - [The + and - are set in EV steps by you]

3. Yeah, you just change exposure compensation after each shot, you need a tripod of stationary object.

 

[MarkC426]

Thanks for the comments.
So I guess the D60 would give me a greater range of exposures but I really need a tripod and more setup time, and the 400D would let me take the three levels as long as the camera is steady.

 

[iBookG4user]

Thanks for the comments.
So I guess the D60 would give me a greater range of exposures but I really need a tripod and more setup time, and the 400D would let me take the three levels as long as the camera is steady.

I think you are mistaken there, exposure compensation is when the camera is on auto or aperture/program/shutter priority and it goes up that amount from what the light metre says is the correct exposure. You can do that just as easily on manual by adjusting the shutter speed, thus exposure compensation would not make much of a difference if you use it on manual. That said, the 400D becomes the better buy for you.

 

[AxisOfBeagles]

the 400D would let me take the three levels as long as the camera is steady.

the Canon (and, presumably, the Nikon) also has a timed auto exposure button. For HDR, or other bracketing needs, I set the Auto Exposure Bracketing to my desired gaps; compose my image; then set the timer for auto exposure - press the shutter release, and the three AEB exposures are fired off in succession. That way, I'm not disturbing the camera in between exposures.

Obviously, this is done on a tripod.

 

[MarkC426]

Ah, thanks.......I am new to DSLR cameras.
I was leaning more towards the 400D.

 

[form]

I understand the D300 handles up to 9 bracketed images.

 

[nyquist11]

I was thinking about purchasing a DSLR myself for HDR stuff, and I was wondering what you are planning to use (software) to combine the images

 

[MarkC426]

I will probably use photosphere.

 

[SonicChronicler]

Photomatix is commonly used. It's easy to get used to and can give great results - check the HDR thread if you haven't already


Sonic

 

[ChrisA]

Thanks for the comments.
So I guess the D60 would give me a greater range of exposures but I really need a tripod and more setup time, and the 400D would let me take the three levels as long as the camera is steady.

No. Either camera will do the job. The difference is how easy or not HDR might be is so small it should not be a factor in selecting a camera. It is "way easy" with either of them.

Also when it comes down to it I doubt you will really want to use "exposure compensation" and "P Mode" you would allmost certainly want the f-stop to remain fixed while you vary the shutter speed as changes to the f-stop effect the DOF. But don't worry it is dead easy with either camera.

What you should be looking at are the sets of lenses you mght want. Pick a few out think of the set of lenses you would like to have in twoo and in five years. Buy the brand of camera that will let you get that set of lenses.

 

[ChrisA]

I was thinking about purchasing a DSLR myself for HDR stuff, and I was wondering what you are planning to use (software) to combine the images

If you are at all serious about photography you will already own a copy of photoshop. Use that.

 

[compuwar]

If you are at all serious about photography you will already own a copy of photoshop. Use that.

Photoshop's HDR sucks compared to Photomatix. Manual HDR in Photoshop takes a long time and sucks compared to Photoshop.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

As others said, it does not matter with of the two cameras you buy. The camera itself is no going to produce HDR photos for you. All it does it to take photos. The XT-series include automatic bracketing, but you can also do that manually if you want. The AEB saves you a lot of time, however. For HRD photography, three identical but differently exposed images (not nine, nor ten, etc.) are used.

You can achieve HDR with CS2 or CS3 much easier than manual/software work on your computer by buying the relatively cheap (around $14.00) Fred Miranda's DRI Photoshop action. But Photomatix Pro (around $99.00) as well Photomatix standard version (around $39.00), achieve the same at a fraction of the time required by an action for Photoshop.

And then there is HDR Tools for the Mac. I haven't used this application, so I can't tell you how easy to use it it. But with the high value of the Euro, it costs about the same as PhotoMatix Pro, or around the same for the cheaper version with an educational discount.

 

[compuwar]

For HRD photography, three identical but differently exposed images (not nine, nor ten, etc.) are used.

I find that I get the best results from between six and twelve images for HDR, depending on the dynamic range of the original scene and the tonal variation I want in the final print. I've done it from as few as one and as many as twenty, and would consider three to be skimping at a bare minimum unless it was a pretty low overall range image. Indoors with whatever ambient light there is an possibly some fill flash, I find that about a dozen images gives me what I want no matter which way I want to go with an image. I do 13x19 prints myself.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I find that I get the best results from between six and twelve images for HDR, depending on the dynamic range of the original scene and the tonal variation I want in the final print. I've done it from as few as one and as many as twenty, and would consider three to be skimping at a bare minimum unless it was a pretty low overall range image. Indoors with whatever ambient light there is an possibly some fill flash, I find that about a dozen images gives me what I want no matter which way I want to go with an image. I do 13x19 prints myself.

Well, that's news to me. Of all the instructions I have been able to dig on the subject of HDR, these point to three images for HDR, and at least two for blending photos which can be taken by the use of three filters . Thank you for the clarification.

By the way, I found some easy to understand article about HDR photography. Well, since it seems that you already know more than enough about HDR. perhaps the article would be of benefit to others (and Me, of course:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm

 

[compuwar]

Well, that's news to me. Of all the instructions I have been able to dig on the subject of HDR, these point to three images for HDR, and at least two blending. photos which can be taken by the use of three filters . Thank you for the clarification.

By the way, I found some easy to understand article about HDR photography. Well, since it seems that you already know more than enough about HDR. perhaps the article would be of benefit to others (and Me, of course:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm

Michael Riechman actually praised the D2x for having a 9-shot autobracket, it looks like seven shots is his norm:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hdr.shtml

AFAIR, that was one of the earliest HDR articles on the 'Net, but it's still pretty valid- even if "Merge to HDR" does mostly suck

The Cambridge Colour folks have a lot of good articles.

If you're not using Photomatix, I can't recommend it enough, the tone mapping function is really good, and even better than a lot of the techniques other folks worked out with PS and layer masks.

 

[stillshooting]

As others said, it does not matter with of the two cameras you buy. The camera itself is no going to produce HDR photos for you. All it does it to take photos....

Aint this the damn truth! I bought a pentax k10d with the idea that HDR would be easy and make all photos cool; i was so wrong. In the beggining, dont expect to be busting out hdr photos like solracselbor and valdore, if you do youll be sadly disappointed. Theres so much more to photos than just the processing that you will need to learn before you consider doing HDR, IMHO. Hope all works out for ya!

Oh an one more thing, the Pentax K10D does 5 AEB images in either +/-1.5 or +/-2.0 exposures. What you can do then is set the AEB to 5 shots +/-1.5 and then after you take that series of 5 shots you can adjust it to 5 shots in +/-2.0 and get a total of 10 bracketed shots.

 

[leighonigar]

Of course, if you just want a bit more dynamic range the fuji S3/5 really does add something.

 

[nburwell]

Photoshop's HDR sucks compared to Photomatix. Manual HDR in Photoshop takes a long time and sucks compared to Photoshop.

Photoshop improved their HDR feature in CS3. I personally don't use it because of the way many people over do their HDR photos. I would rather take the time to manually blend two exposures together to give a much more realistic look.

 

[compuwar]

Photoshop improved their HDR feature in CS3. I personally don't use it because of the way many people over do their HDR photos. I would rather take the time to manually blend two exposures together to give a much more realistic look.

I have CS3, in my opinion, it still sucks- there are at least a dozen good ways to do it manually- but they're all very time-consuming, especially if you're working with an image that needs six or eight exposures. In contrast, going into Photomatix, "tone mapping" and adjusting a few options is considerably easier and produces really good results- in general, most of my "adjustments" are actually removing exposures.

 

[adjuster]

Braketeer

There is a terrific little program called Bracketeer that makes blending photos a piece of cake. Costs about $30. Cheaper and better than Photomatix, which I also bought.

Digital Outback recommends bracketing everything that does not involve photographing movement, even by hand held. Bracketeer will first align the photos, then blend them.

Some techniques result is exaggerated images that do not look real. Bracketeer just blends the photos as is. It doesn't try to stretch the range.

 

[termina3]

It doesn't try to stretch the range.

That doesn't sound like HDR

 

[onomatopoeia]

That doesn't sound like HDR

It's not. It simply merges bracketed shots. I guess it's handy if you can't seem to get the exposure quite right but it's not HDR.