The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

[nandbytes]

I don’t use CPL’s very much at all, but obviously grads need to be the square type, especially hard edge ones, to get them in the right place.

I do bracket sometimes but often find I get better results with a single shot underexposed a couple of stops. I don’t like the classic HDR look.

its very rare that I require to bracket also tbh. I don't think grads/bracketing is required 90+% of the time with Sony sensors.
might have been useful in the scene above though lot of shadows from the direct rising sun. I would have bracketed or take two exposures and merge.
you can choose how far you go with HDR, no need to overdo it

 

[LeeRatters]

Local abandoned farmhouse from a couple of weeks ago


*** by Lee, on Flickr

 

[snerkler]

its very rare that I require to bracket also tbh. I don't think grads/bracketing is required 90+% of the time with Sony sensors.
might have been useful in the scene above though lot of shadows from the direct rising sun. I would have bracketed or take two exposures and merge.
you can choose how far you go with HDR, no need to overdo it

Yeah I prefer the more subtle/natural looking HDR, I don’t know if it’s in my head but if I process 3 bracketed shots as HDR, and then do another process of the mid exposure one as a single shot I tend to prefer the latter 99% of the time. Maybe I’m just not good at processing blended shots.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Ever since I've used filters for sunsets I get these kinds of flare when the sun is in, or close to the edge of the frame. Years ago I thought it was due to cheap filters so I invested in some Firecrest ones and as you can see here in the unedited raw I still get them, this is from a £120 reversed grad. Filters and lens were meticulously cleaned to ensure it's not due to anything on the lens or filter.

Is there just no way to avoid this, or are there filters out there that don't do this? My filters are resin and I've considered investing in a glass reversed grad filter but these are even more expensive and so I'd want to know you don't get these artefacts before purchase
View attachment 412456

It is 2024 already. Filters are so so long obsoleted. Just the word resin makes me cringe so bad.

And besides you are still clipping so that filter didn't even do its primary job.

So tripod, 5 bracketed exposures combine in post, end of.


Also some lenses will flare more than others. A lot more. 16-35 GM II should be quite good so would look into that really.

 

[snerkler]

It is 2024 already. Filters are so so long obsoleted. Just the word resin makes me cringe so bad.

And besides you are still clipping so that filter didn't even do its primary job.

So tripod, 5 bracketed exposures combine in post, end of.


Also some lenses will flare more than others. A lot more. 16-35 GM II should be quite good so would look into that really.

The clipping is actually salvageable in post, and even if it wasn’t fully can you imagine what it would have looked like without?

For me it’s about balancing exposure not necessarily about avoiding all clipping, I personally think if the sun’s not clipping it doesn’t look natural.

Also that shot was actually part of a bracketed series, I tend to only do 3 shots though, I don’t feel 5 is necessary with today’s sensors.

The lens does not flare like that without the filter so the lens itself is fine.

 

[LeeRatters]

The clipping is actually salvageable in post, and even if it wasn’t fully can you imagine what it would have looked like without?

For me it’s about balancing exposure not necessarily about avoiding all clipping, I personally think if the sun’s not clipping it doesn’t look natural.

Also that shot was actually part of a bracketed series, I tend to only do 3 shots though, I don’t feel 5 is necessary with today’s sensors.

The lens does not flare like that without the filter so the lens itself is fine.

I typically go for a foreground exposure & a sky exposure. Occasionally I might do something inbetween to aid with editing depending on the scene & how complicated it might be. More often than not though, I tend to pull the shadows/drop the highlights & just use the sky image - I do expose it just on the verge of blowing out using the zebras.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

The clipping is actually salvageable in post

I guarantee you that it is not. If you get x,x,x grey that is not recovered.

can you imagine what it would have looked like without?

irrelevant. 5 shot bracket and you don't need to ever imagine it again. Now can you imagine how that filter affects uneven horizon? And you can't ever get it back to how it really was.

I personally think if the sun’s not clipping it doesn’t look natural.

a pretty substantial area around the sun is clipping, and even if it is not as severe then it is in other examples. And what do you do with reflections?

I don’t feel 5 is necessary with today’s sensors.

For anything with sun in the frame it is; at least 5. Storage is cheap, and you can't get information you never recorded so this idea really doesn't make much sense.

The lens does not flare like that without the filter so the lens itself is fine.

Great. Filter in the bin = problem solved

 

[nandbytes]

For anything with sun in the frame it is; at least 5. Storage is cheap, and you can't get information you never recorded so this idea really doesn't make much sense.

Can manage with single shot on Sony sensors even sun in the frame.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Can manage with single shot on Sony sensors even sun in the frame.

25 stop dynamic range? Which one?!

 

[Mr Perceptive]

I tend to only do 3 shots though, I don’t feel 5 is necessary with today’s sensors.

But the more shots means that you choose which ones to combine in post, there is no need to combine them all! Once the camera is on the tripod, it only adds slightly to the overall exposure time to take more shots. You've paid for the camera to do it, so just push the button!

 

[nandbytes]

25 stop dynamic range? Which one?!

don't need that much dynamic range
I shoot into the sun plenty and single shot is generally enough.
I do bracket because as mentioned why not but it's not needed most of the time.

 

[snerkler]

I guarantee you that it is not. If you get x,x,x grey that is not recovered.

A quick 2 s add of a radial gradiant and that's all I'd want to pull back otherwise it starts looking unnatural to my eyes.

irrelevant. 5 shot bracket and you don't need to ever imagine it again. Now can you imagine how that filter affects uneven horizon? And you can't ever get it back to how it really was.

It's not irrelevant if you don't want to bracket. Off course it's not suitable for an uneven horizon, although of course you could adjust this is post if you want to spend time on it.

a pretty substantial area around the sun is clipping, and even if it is not as severe then it is in other examples. And what do you do with reflections?

If there's refelctions than I'd likely shoot differently

For anything with sun in the frame it is; at least 5. Storage is cheap, and you can't get information you never recorded so this idea really doesn't make much sense.

I don't understand why, I can do 3 frames, 4ev under, 1ev unser and 2ev over, that gives me all the info I need.


We're oving away from the original question though, I didn't ask which way everyone prefers to shoot landscapes I asked about whether you can filters that don't flare

 

[snerkler]

But the more shots means that you choose which ones to combine in post, there is no need to combine them all! Once the camera is on the tripod, it only adds slightly to the overall exposure time to take more shots. You've paid for the camera to do it, so just push the button!

As above, 3 stops gives me all the info I need

 

[woof woof]

For those who are interested...

I just got a reply from Pergear.

To recap. I had two issues with a 35mm f1.4. Firstly the lens is about a stop or more off for exposure at some f stops when compared to other lenses and secondly some the f markings on the lens are not accurate and that's not just my opinion as I've read one review which said the same thing. I sent an explanation and some sample pictures to Pergear and their reply is that this is normal but if I'm not happy I can have a refund.

Normal. So there you go.

If the exposure issue is a light transmission issue rather than big porkies about what the apertures actually are in reality then fair enough but I still think being over a stop out and even way out when compared to decades old film era primes is a bit much and then there's the accuracy and consistency of the f stops, they're just not accurate or consistent as you go through them.

I'll have a think and decide what to do. The plus points are that it's tiny and light and nice to use and the IQ is acceptable. The downsides are that in low light a higher ISO will be needed compared to other lenses and also the DoF characteristics are off at some f stops which again could lead to higher ISO's.

I've never had a lens this far out from my expectations and when compared to other lenses before and it's been interesting.

 

[LeeRatters]

For those who are interested...

I just got a reply from Pergear.

To recap. I had two issues with a 35mm f1.4. Firstly the lens is about a stop or more off for exposure at some f stops when compared to other lenses and secondly some the f markings on the lens are not accurate and that's not just my opinion as I've read one review which said the same thing. I sent an explanation and some sample pictures to Pergear and their reply is that this is normal but if I'm not happy I can have a refund.

Normal. So there you go.

If the exposure issue is a light transmission issue rather than big porkies about what the apertures actually are in reality then fair enough but I still think being over a stop out and even way out when compared to decades old film era primes is a bit much and then there's the accuracy and consistency of the f stops, they're just not accurate or consistent as you go through them.

I'll have a think and decide what to do. The plus points are that it's tiny and light and nice to use and the IQ is acceptable. The downsides are that in low light a higher ISO will be needed compared to other lenses and also the DoF characteristics are off at some f stops which again could lead to higher ISO's.

I've never had a lens this far out from my expectations and when compared to other lenses before and it's been interesting.

That bold right there ^^ would be me returning for a refund & never buying from them again

 

[woof woof]

That bold right there ^^ would be me returning for a refund & never buying from them again

The exposure discrepancies against other lenses if they were consistent could be normal and could I suppose potentially be down to poor coatings but IMO the discrepancies become inconsistencies as you go through the f stops and this makes them harder to wright off as normal because if all was well and honest if it's a stop out at the start shouldn't there be some consistency as you stop down? IMO there maybe should be but there doesn't seem to be a pattern I can see and the markings really therefore are for what? Indication only? Guestimates? It's not just light transmission as at some apertures the DoF is clearly different compared to other lenses at the same marked f stop. This is less important than exposure as normally you maybe wouldn't notice the difference between one aperture and the next stop DoF wise unless making a side by side comparison but it is I think an indication that more than one thing is off here. There seems to be a light transmission issue when compared to other lenses and it seems that there are aperture marking differences / accuracy issues which come and go / change as you go through the f stops when comparing DoF to other lenses.

As above. It's been interesting.

 

[snerkler]

For those who are interested...

I just got a reply from Pergear.

To recap. I had two issues with a 35mm f1.4. Firstly the lens is about a stop or more off for exposure at some f stops when compared to other lenses and secondly some the f markings on the lens are not accurate and that's not just my opinion as I've read one review which said the same thing. I sent an explanation and some sample pictures to Pergear and their reply is that this is normal but if I'm not happy I can have a refund.

Normal. So there you go.

If the exposure issue is a light transmission issue rather than big porkies about what the apertures actually are in reality then fair enough but I still think being over a stop out and even way out when compared to decades old film era primes is a bit much and then there's the accuracy and consistency of the f stops, they're just not accurate or consistent as you go through them.

I'll have a think and decide what to do. The plus points are that it's tiny and light and nice to use and the IQ is acceptable. The downsides are that in low light a higher ISO will be needed compared to other lenses and also the DoF characteristics are off at some f stops which again could lead to higher ISO's.

I've never had a lens this far out from my expectations and when compared to other lenses before and it's been interesting.

I’d be returning it, if the light transmission is this bad and the DOF is not what you’re expecting I would definitely say the aperture is not what it says and it’s not normal despite what pergear say.

 

[Redspider]

First tests with Sony A7CR and APS-C 70-350 in APS-C mode. Very cloudy and dark. PIctures cropped and topaz DeNoise low light. Also JPEG out of camera no touch up.

Robin by Andy Williams, on Flickr
Starling by Andy Williams, on Flickr
Blue Tit by Andy Williams, on Flickr

Robin out of camera.

Robin. Sony ACR and APS-C 70-350 in APS-C mode. Dark cloudy day. Straight out of camera. by Andy Williams, on Flickr

 

[woof woof]

I’d be returning it, if the light transmission is this bad and the DOF is not what you’re expecting I would definitely say the aperture is not what it says and it’s not normal despite what pergear say.

Yup. I think sadly it'll go back as these issues will always be in my mind.

Here's some pictures that made me start to think something wasn't quite right.

I wont claim to be able to look at a scene and tell you exactly what the exposure should be but 1/60 at ISO 200 didn't seem right.



For this one I noticed the shutter speed was low so I put it in manual at 1/160 and the ISO went to 250.



Those two maybe planted a seed of doubt and then I took this one at f1.4. Because she was constantly moving I set the camera to manual and dialled in 1/200, I called her name and she looked round and the ISO ended up at 2,000. This made me pause and think Really? Just didn't seem right. The DoF also didn't really shout f1.4. IMO.



One last one, f1.4, 1/60 at ISO 20,000. The ISO seemed too high for the aperture, shutter and light levels, IMO.



I began by raising an eye brow but moving on and ended thinking something was amiss so I then started comparing it to other lenses.

Anyway. It's been interesting for me and maybe for others too

 

[LongLensPhotography]

don't need that much dynamic range
I shoot into the sun plenty and single shot is generally enough.
I do bracket because as mentioned why not but it's not needed most of the time.

Completely disagree. It's not like I started shooting landscapes yesterday; I did the math

 

[LongLensPhotography]

A quick 2 s add of a radial gradiant and that's all I'd want to pull back otherwise it starts looking unnatural to my eyes.



It's not irrelevant if you don't want to bracket. Off course it's not suitable for an uneven horizon, although of course you could adjust this is post if you want to spend time on it.



If there's refelctions than I'd likely shoot differently



I don't understand why, I can do 3 frames, 4ev under, 1ev unser and 2ev over, that gives me all the info I need.


We're oving away from the original question though, I didn't ask which way everyone prefers to shoot landscapes I asked about whether you can filters that don't flare

Pretty much No to everything above

 

[nandbytes]

Completely disagree. It's not like I started shooting landscapes yesterday; I did the math

Its not like I started shooting landscapes and into the sun yesterday
you can disagree all you want, I have photos (some hanging on my wall) which beats maths in this case.

 

[snerkler]

Pretty much No to everything above

Whilst your photos are stellar I do wonder sometimes if you realise that the way you shoot is not the only way and other ways aren't wrong?

I must admit I am finding it difficult to understand why a 5 shot bracket is better than a 3 shot bracket. Clearly it is preferred by some, and camera manufacturers also give you the option but i can't figure out why?

IIRC the max you can bracket is +/-3 ev, so if I take 3 shots one at -3ev, one at 0 ev and one at +3ev how would having another two shots at -1.5ev and +1.5ev help me as I've got the max dynamic range already?

 

[snerkler]

Its not like I started shooting landscapes and into the sun yesterday
you can disagree all you want, I have photos (some hanging on my wall) which beats maths in this case.

I agree you can get it in a single shot. This is far from the greatest photo you'll ever see but it's a sinlge shot and the sun is not overblown and there's no crushed blacks.


A1_07723-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

 

[woof woof]

Its not like I started shooting landscapes and into the sun yesterday
you can disagree all you want, I have photos (some hanging on my wall) which beats maths in this case.

If it means anything to you... I agree with you. Even my lowly A7 files manage to stay acceptable to me when shooting into the sun and doing things post capture. I suppose it all hangs on our perceptions and what we're willing to accept though.

I've shot into light in which I couldn't even see before and been happy with the result after processing.

 

[woof woof]

Just an experience with a dealer.

The Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 I posted in the for sale section didn't look like selling at what I thought was a reasonable price including postage so I got a quote from a dealer and off it went. Upon examination they knocked the quote down by an odd amount, £20 odd quid, and I can't see why. The lens was only used about a dozen times and looked unmarked, the box was perfect and the original lens cap and hood and plastic bag and little booklet were all there and unused. I can't really see any reason to offer less than the original quote.

I decided to accept it anyway as even if I get an offer here it'll be £20-£50 less than I advertise it for and I'll be paying the postage. I do wonder if downgrading an offer is pretty commonplace.

Oh Well. My film era lenses will still go to a dealer if there's no interest on here.

 

[robj20]

Just an experience with a dealer.

The Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 I posted in the for sale section didn't look like selling at what I thought was a reasonable price including postage so I got a quote from a dealer and off it went. Upon examination they knocked the quote down by an odd amount, £20 odd quid, and I can't see why. The lens was only used about a dozen times and looked unmarked, the box was perfect and the original lens cap and hood and plastic bag and little booklet were all there and unused. I can't really see any reason to offer less than the original quote.

I decided to accept it anyway as even if I get an offer here it'll be £20-£50 less than I advertise it for and I'll be paying the postage. I do wonder if downgrading an offer is pretty commonplace.

Oh Well. My film era lenses will still go to a dealer if there's no interest on here.

Was it WEX?
Thet tried telling me my 24-70 had a notchy zoom.
MPB took it no problem.

 

[woof woof]

Was it WEX?
Thet tried telling me my 24-70 had a notchy zoom.
MPB took it no problem.

Got it in one.

Looks like maybe standard practice. I'll try and remember not to use them again. I've spent a lot of money with them over the years. Not that that'll matter to them. I'm now glad my Fuji X100f didn't go to them as someone who often posts in this very thread bought it...

 

[snerkler]

I’ve had good experiences with Wex and they have even given me more than their quote before saying it was better than expected.

I did get bumped down by one store before but I can’t remember which, they said there was more than average dust inside which was nonsense as there was none visible with the naked eye.

 

[woof woof]

I’ve had good experiences with Wex and they have even given me more than their quote before saying it was better than expected.

I just don't know what they're seeing to justify knocking £20 odd off that I didn't. Or whoever inspected it has floaters in their eyes. The quote is still just about acceptable and at least I don't have the hassle of starting again.

 

[snerkler]

 

[nandbytes]

Got it in one.

Looks like maybe standard practice. I'll try and remember not to use them again. I've spent a lot of money with them over the years. Not that that'll matter to them. I'm now glad my Fuji X100f didn't go to them as someone who often posts in this very thread bought it...

A lot people seems have a poor experience trading into Wex. I have only ever traded in twice and in one case they knocked down the price of the body by £100 claiming it was grey import. I don't know how they established that tbh (and I wasn't aware of its source since I bought it used). After a bit of back and forth plus chatting with branch manager over the phone, we settled on halfway i.e. £50 reduction.

They may be exploiting the fact that people will not want their lens/camera back since they are looking to move on. So knocking off £20-30 might work in their favour most of the time.
I hope they are not doing this but it would be really poor if they are.

LCE and MPB have always been good at honouring the trade in value for me. Though LCE seldom gives a good competing quote (they also seem to sell for slightly less than other places which is why I like to buy used from there but prefer to trade-in elsewhere). In fact almost all my gear apart from ones bought on this forum is from LCE now!

 

[LeeRatters]

View attachment 412547

I think the top image should have been bracketed at capture.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I agree you can get it in a single shot. This is far from the greatest photo you'll ever see but it's a sinlge shot and the sun is not overblown and there's no crushed blacks.


A1_07723-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

sun and that little cloud are completely gone; I bet it was a lovely orange glow (not light grey which you rightly don't like).
The area around the sun is gone in red channel, That stingy yellow is clearly indictive of that. In truth it should just be a brighter shade of orange.
In this example the sun is already touching the horizon with almost zero clouds, so a much easier case than anything completely above and with glowing clouds.

I can't go into shadows, but I bet they are up many many stops which is maybe not as bad as clipping channels, but easily can be.

Yes, for web only hardly anyone would care for this amount of clipping as this is fairly borderline. If you fancy printing a meter or two wide you will be in photoshop painting over the colour in a hope of remedy.

Whilst your photos are stellar I do wonder sometimes if you realise that the way you shoot is not the only way and other ways aren't wrong?

you can do any way you like but you need to get the complete data. There is an easy way and there are harder ways. Your choice.

I trashed enough money buying LEE plastic and degrading enough of my earlier images so a wise thing to do is take experience onboard instead of repeating mistakes.
Accidentally smashing that piece of s*** into pieces in Tenerife in 2014 was the best thing photographically that happened to me.

I must admit I am finding it difficult to understand why a 5 shot bracket is better than a 3 shot bracket. Clearly it is preferred by some, and camera manufacturers also give you the option but i can't figure out why?

more data. Simple as that. Why do you want the risk of not having enough? Also good idea not to throw away one of the frames shooting it way too bright. Default setups are very wrong and inconvenient.

Sometimes you only need 2, so you do 2. These typically have no specular highlights, just some stubborn shadows that are best lifted cleanly rather than denoised to death.

IIRC the max you can bracket is +/-3 ev, so if I take 3 shots one at -3ev, one at 0 ev and one at +3ev how would having another two shots at -1.5ev and +1.5ev help me as I've got the max dynamic range already?

This is where you got it wrong.

You have up to max 3EV per step, so you can go way further.

And likewise 3EV steps are too big leaving a big gapping hole of data in the middle. somewhere between 1 and 2 is better, and clearly all scenes are different.

 

[snerkler]

sun and that little cloud are completely gone; I bet it was a lovely orange glow (not light grey which you rightly don't like).
The area around the sun is gone in red channel, That stingy yellow is clearly indictive of that. In truth it should just be a brighter shade of orange.
In this example the sun is already touching the horizon with almost zero clouds, so a much easier case than anything completely above and with glowing clouds.

I can't go into shadows, but I bet they are up many many stops which is maybe not as bad as clipping channels, but easily can be.

Yes, for web only hardly anyone would care for this amount of clipping as this is fairly borderline. If you fancy printing a meter or two wide you will be in photoshop painting over the colour in a hope of remedy.


you can do any way you like but you need to get the complete data. There is an easy way and there are harder ways. Your choice.

I trashed enough money buying LEE plastic and degrading enough of my earlier images so a wise thing to do is take experience onboard instead of repeating mistakes.
Accidentally smashing that piece of s*** into pieces in Tenerife in 2014 was the best thing photographically that happened to me.


more data. Simple as that. Why do you want the risk of not having enough? Also good idea not to throw away one of the frames shooting it way too bright. Default setups are very wrong and inconvenient.

Sometimes you only need 2, so you do 2. These typically have no specular highlights, just some stubborn shadows that are best lifted cleanly rather than denoised to death.


This is where you got it wrong.

You have up to max 3EV per step, so you can go way further.

And likewise 3EV steps are too big leaving a big gapping hole of data in the middle. somewhere between 1 and 2 is better, and clearly all scenes are different.

The sun is completely gone yes, but that to me looks natural.

Thanks for the clarification on the bracketing. With regards to the 3ev steps leaving holes in data I’m not sure how when Sony cameras tend to have 14-15ev stops. You’re going to get 7ev either side so by the time you’ve gone up 3ev you’ve already got overlapping data.

 

[woof woof]

They may be exploiting the fact that people will not want their lens/camera back since they are looking to move on. So knocking off £20-30 might work in their favour most of the time.
I hope they are not doing this but it would be really poor if they are.

LCE and MPB have always been good at honouring the trade in value for me. Though LCE seldom gives a good competing quote (they also seem to sell for slightly less than other places which is why I like to buy used from there but prefer to trade-in elsewhere). In fact almost all my gear apart from ones bought on this forum is from LCE now!

They knocked £23 off mine. That seems such an odd amount. Why not £25 or a percentage of the valuation that makes sense?

I have spent thousands with them over the years but I think I'll only do so in the future if they offer the best price or the only buying option. Otherwise someone else will get the sale as it looks like this downgrading may be a thing with them.

 

[woof woof]

On the subject of trading in. Can anyone suggest a dealer who'd be willing to take my film era lenses. I have a lot. I was thinking of Ffordes as they're the only ones I could think of.

 

[gjhill]

On the subject of trading in. Can anyone suggest a dealer who'd be willing to take my film era lenses. I have a lot. I was thinking of Ffordes as they're the only ones I could think of.

West Yorkshire cameras in Leeds?

 

[LeeRatters]

On the subject of trading in. Can anyone suggest a dealer who'd be willing to take my film era lenses. I have a lot. I was thinking of Ffordes as they're the only ones I could think of.

I used Ffordes before. Not sure I'd use them again in all honesty but I did go for the 'commission' thing rather than outright trade in. They sent my Contax CZ zoom back as they refused it based on haze. They also said the CV 40/1.4M had haze & in both cases they wanted pretty much more to 'repair' than the value. So I said don't bother. The CV21/3.4E sold okay. But the 40mm went in with an extra hood, CPL filter, adapter and all those little things just 'vanished'. It also kept vanishing from their website and every time I emailed an enquiry it was 'reserved' but was always back listed the following day......

I guess if they give you an okay price & it's straight trade in then go for it.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

The sun is completely gone yes, but that to me looks natural.

I tend to make sun pure white when it is just a little higher because we perceive it this way. What else could it be?
When it is at the horizon level I want to at least to have the option, and particularly when there is some atmospheric haze rendering it deep orange and even red, as perceived by the naked eye. This becomes more important with longer lenses.
If you print on glossy papers you must have noticed issues with white areas coming out in different gloss, i.e. the original paper gloss. Having some colour mitigates that issue.
The sunbursts and area adjacent to the sun shouldn't go to pure yellow., i,e, red pixel signal saturation. This can be also true of sRGB files proofed for AdobeRGB, i.e. when you can't be bothered to produce more than 1 version and I'm too lazy for that. sRGB clips red and cyans much much sooner.

The specular highlights really become a problem when there are clouds or light reflections in the water and they tend to need a very good buffer with the brackets sometimes many stops down - I just play it safe. One of my custom modes on each of my cameras is 5 step bracket in 1 2/3EV or 2EV increments. So I don't have to even think: Set C2 and just press the shutter and deal with it at home.

There has been a big improvement in shadow handling over the decade, but highlights are still nearly as problematic no matter what camera you pick. When a pixel reaches well saturation it is game over for that pixel and it looks crap. They need to implement a reset counter or full well timer; we may just see Global Shutter get there one day. Until that we just need to deal with it.

With regards to the 3ev steps leaving holes in data I’m not sure how when Sony cameras tend to have 14-15ev stops.

This is potentially how: -3EV may be 1 or 2 stops out from the ideal 2nd exposure, and there is no -4EV should you need it. For majority of the area it will likely be suboptimal. Your data may just survive treatment at base ISO but you are leaving information and IQ on the table while going through the same exact effort. Maybe some denoise is not a big deal but if you raise the ISO (moving foliage, or shoot handheld - yes that's very possible in demanding situation), or shoot a moving object like a body of water and you will see noise or very different rendering, respectively.

If you really wanted to be super frugal with exposures and do it in 3 the ideal sequence may be more like BASE, -1 2/3, -5. These are the statistically most useful points. But you can't do that unless setting up each shot individually and risk minor tripod or head movement by doing so unless using the app.

Finally this is an insurance policy. First frame may have tripod shake or wind related movement. So next one is 1.6ev down, not 3ev down so that's still OK. Or you messed up with your base exposure. Also happens.

As I said before I like to have 20+ stops for high DR scenes, and I can (and do) throw out anything I don't need.