16
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 same max dynamic range as the 5D2???
« on: March 10, 2012, 06:17:56 AM »
Waiting for raw support in my raw processor before I can do investigations myself.
June 19, 2013, 11:26:22 PM
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
17
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 same max dynamic range as the 5D2???
« on: March 10, 2012, 03:30:47 AM »
Numbers are hard to interpret, there are so many factors that don't show in a number. No measurement so far I've seen take noise quality (pattern etc) into account, which has a huge impact on subjective DR.
Even if 5Dmk2 and 3 measure the same, if pattern noise is less than usable DR will be better.
High ISO measurements often miss out on quantum efficiency and can be misleading due to that.
A test that I would like to see is mk2 and mk3 shooting the exact same test scene perfectly ETTR, and then push a shadow area (preferably containing a color checker) 3 stops and show the crops side by side, resolution is almost the same so no sacling is required. I suspect/hope that the mk3 will fair much better in such a test than these measurements indicate.
Even if 5Dmk2 and 3 measure the same, if pattern noise is less than usable DR will be better.
High ISO measurements often miss out on quantum efficiency and can be misleading due to that.
A test that I would like to see is mk2 and mk3 shooting the exact same test scene perfectly ETTR, and then push a shadow area (preferably containing a color checker) 3 stops and show the crops side by side, resolution is almost the same so no sacling is required. I suspect/hope that the mk3 will fair much better in such a test than these measurements indicate.
18
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why don't DSLRs go low ? ASA 25 equivalent
« on: March 06, 2012, 03:19:11 AM »
Some older medium format digital backs have low ISO ratings. But this is because less good quantum efficiency (not all photons are registered), which also makes them really bad in low light.
To get the same effect with a modern sensor you can put on a ND filter.
To get the same effect with a modern sensor you can put on a ND filter.
19
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's answer to the D800E
« on: March 06, 2012, 03:15:15 AM »
I think in general that it is a good thing to outresolve the lenses, one would want to get the max out of the expensive glass right? One can always downscale.
However, if one does expect really good corner performance with ~40 megapixel sensor I think there will be a bit of disappointment.
Medium format is a disaster price/performance too of course. I've looked into tech cameras, and the camera and lenses are not too expensive if you choose those with better price/performance, similar to pro DSLR equipment, but the digital backs... arrghh... as an amateur what you need to do is to get a second hand back several years old. A 22 megapixel 48x36mm back can be had for $4000 if you keep your eye on ebay, in a couple of years you can probably upgrade to 40 megapixel back for a similar price. The sensors are quite good despite old actually thanks to the large pixels, but user interface is a joke. So one really have to looooove those sharp corners to go there
.
However, if one does expect really good corner performance with ~40 megapixel sensor I think there will be a bit of disappointment.
Medium format is a disaster price/performance too of course. I've looked into tech cameras, and the camera and lenses are not too expensive if you choose those with better price/performance, similar to pro DSLR equipment, but the digital backs... arrghh... as an amateur what you need to do is to get a second hand back several years old. A 22 megapixel 48x36mm back can be had for $4000 if you keep your eye on ebay, in a couple of years you can probably upgrade to 40 megapixel back for a similar price. The sensors are quite good despite old actually thanks to the large pixels, but user interface is a joke. So one really have to looooove those sharp corners to go there
.
20
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's answer to the D800E
« on: March 05, 2012, 11:26:07 AM »
I would prefer more MP for my landscape work.
But lately I'm kind of starting to change my mind about this. I'm afraid that corner sharpness for a ~40 megapixel DSLR will suffer a bit too much for landscape work. When I shift my 7D to the "full-frame" corner of a TS-E 24mm II I can see how that lens will look in the corner for a 45 megapixel full-frame camera (without shift). It is not that sharp, and then the TS-E 24mm II is the best 24mm lens out there, concerning corner performance. So is it worthwhile making that high megapixel DSLRs? Well, center sharpness will be good, so in much photography I guess it would work out.
But for landscape work where corner sharpness is important, it may be that you really have to go to medium format to get 40+ megapixels resolved with good quality.
It shall be interesting to see how the D800 will perform in landscape photography with the Nikon lens lineup.
But lately I'm kind of starting to change my mind about this. I'm afraid that corner sharpness for a ~40 megapixel DSLR will suffer a bit too much for landscape work. When I shift my 7D to the "full-frame" corner of a TS-E 24mm II I can see how that lens will look in the corner for a 45 megapixel full-frame camera (without shift). It is not that sharp, and then the TS-E 24mm II is the best 24mm lens out there, concerning corner performance. So is it worthwhile making that high megapixel DSLRs? Well, center sharpness will be good, so in much photography I guess it would work out.
But for landscape work where corner sharpness is important, it may be that you really have to go to medium format to get 40+ megapixels resolved with good quality.
It shall be interesting to see how the D800 will perform in landscape photography with the Nikon lens lineup.
21
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D III high ISO samples
« on: March 02, 2012, 03:43:38 PM »Canon has done some real work on the blacks, I can move the black slider in LR4 all the way to the right without seeing any banding.
Yes that was about the first thing I tested too. Banding may be gone! I'm kind of shocked, in a positive way. I've been quite pessimistic about canon noise performance, but perhaps this sensor really can put up a match against Sony Exmor! We'll see when RAW samples become available. But it looks promising.
22
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the suggested 5d III specs satisfy your photograpy needs?
« on: March 01, 2012, 01:36:14 AM »
I have the 5D mark II, and I don't think the mark III will provide anything significant for my needs. It's probably a nice all-around camera, but no features I really need as a landscape photographer.
Had it been higher resolution or significantly higher DR at base ISO (yet to see!) I would have been interested.
I'll wait and see if Canon will do any high resolution camera. The lack of D800E response have actually made me interested in digital medium format. With second hand digital back it is less expensive than one may think, still a lot more expensive than 35mm DSLRs though.
But say if Canon won't make a high resolution camera in the coming three year period, I may just be better off halting my Canon system investment, sell off some of it I already have and get a medium format tech camera for my landscape work. "Switching" to Nikon does not seem as a good idea, since I'm a tilt-shift lens user. Nikon's lenses are not too impressive. Canon has the TS-E 24mm II. I'd like to see an upgrade of the 45 and 90 mm real soon though.
Had it been higher resolution or significantly higher DR at base ISO (yet to see!) I would have been interested.
I'll wait and see if Canon will do any high resolution camera. The lack of D800E response have actually made me interested in digital medium format. With second hand digital back it is less expensive than one may think, still a lot more expensive than 35mm DSLRs though.
But say if Canon won't make a high resolution camera in the coming three year period, I may just be better off halting my Canon system investment, sell off some of it I already have and get a medium format tech camera for my landscape work. "Switching" to Nikon does not seem as a good idea, since I'm a tilt-shift lens user. Nikon's lenses are not too impressive. Canon has the TS-E 24mm II. I'd like to see an upgrade of the 45 and 90 mm real soon though.
23
EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...
« on: February 28, 2012, 02:09:57 AM »How do all the high end medium format digital backs get such good DR? do they read at a higher true bit rate though sampling before the AD converter?
The good DR of medium format is a bit of a myth. They do have 16 bit ADC, but that's meaningless since the noise levels are too high, 14 bit would yield the same result. I've also heard the exposure metering is different from DSLRs, underexposing more so you get more highlight headroom so you can push more in Lightroom which some mistakingly think means that there is more dynamic range.
And then there is what you compare with. If you compare with Canon 5D mark II, yes, there is better dynamic range, because the MF sensors are usually very nice random noise, not patterned noise like on the 5D. But compare with a Sony Exmor sensor and the MF sensor has a little bit less DR. All MF vs DSLR tests I've seen has been with Canon cameras, and they always lose. But they would lose against a Nikon or a Sony with a Sony Exmor sensor too.
Then there is the larger sensor area, there is some DR gain from that since you can gather more photons (less shot noise), but that gain is not very large.
Throughout the years many DSLRs have been released with less than perfect DR, while MF sensors has at least since 2003 had good DR. But that's only on base ISO of course, those CCDs are not good at high ISO. DSLRs have always aimed for more all-around performance including high ISO. Anyway for several years if you have got MF you know that base ISO performance will be great, which has helped established the belief that MF is generally superior, although some DSLRs today mave even have greater DR.
24
EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...
« on: February 26, 2012, 03:50:08 PM »the comparisons are between different sensor generations, with 2+ years difference in release. A more relevant comparison would be between the 5d MkII and D700 or the 7D and D300s. Even the 1D MkIV is now over two years old.
The new G1X sensor which is fairly large, does not look very promising in that regard, but perhaps they've made it deliberatly worse than the 7D sensor to not compete within their own lines.
There's also the thing that Canon simply don't have the Sony Exmor technology. The big difference is that the ADC is on chip. Canon does not have that. Sony Exmor is a minor revolution (for low ISO). What you can expect from Canon is a gradual evolution. You'll certainly see "good enough" performance, but I'll (almost) eat my shorts if it will be world-leading.
25
EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...
« on: February 26, 2012, 03:39:28 PM »I won't start an argument over Nikon vs. Canon, but since you say you know about these things: From what I see, a Canon raw image with "highlight tone priority" is not linear - or am I mistaken?
The raw file content is always linear, since the sensor is linear. How Canon DPP interprets a RAW file with highlight tone priority may be a different story. You need a "dumb" raw processor like dcraw or similar to actually be sure that there's no non-linear trickery added to the RAW data in the conversion.
26
EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...
« on: February 26, 2012, 03:31:18 PM »I think the videos speak for themselves...modern sensors, including canons, offer far more DYNAMIC range than 7-8 stops.
May be true, I haven't actually done any subjective tests of how many stops the files actually contains, I have just compared different cameras to eachother and see I sometimes get problems when I push shadows etc. The actual number is not too important, the relative differences are though. What the camera can record in a scene which then can be compressed into a print without visible noise.
The raw files are 14 bit, meaning that 14 stops down the signal is either 0 or 1. At 13 stops down, the range is 0 - 4. Quite coarse quantization. I would be suprised if those last stops are usuable.
The videos are interesting, but I would certainly not use lightroom as some base to check how many stops (the actual number) there are in there, since you can't really trust that program's linearity, so I'd take the "13 or 14 stops of useful dynamic range" with a grain of salt. How much visible noise and dead colors you accept is also subjective, and it also dependent on the picture what works.
27
EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...
« on: February 26, 2012, 03:12:33 PM »
A problem with DxoMark dynamic range measurements is that they do not show "usable DR". 14 stops measured DR just means that 14 stops down signal is equal to noise, that is how "engineering DR" is measured. But in a real photograph, such noisy information must be black, it is unusable. In fact, those parts of the image that are bright enough to show detail must have pretty good signal-to-noise ratio to look good. So perhaps only 7-8 out of those 14 is usable.
Another problem is that Dxomark does not measure pattern noise, random noise is much more acceptable to the eye than if you see patterns. And this is a weak spot with Canon. So a sensor with random noise with the same DR measurement as say Canon 5D mark II which have some pattern noise will have more dynamic range in practice.
One may argue that Canon sensors are already good enough and that DR problems never occur in normal images. Many photographers have that experience. But that the sensors are actually worse than the competition is easy to prove, just open a raw file from a Canon 7D and from a Nikon D7000 shot at base ISO and push both files 3-4 stops, and watch the noise in the dark parts.
Oh, remember that color negative film, if scanned with HDR on a high quality drum scanner (practically non-existent these days unfortunately), can deliver about 18 stops of dynamic range. There's still improvements to make in digital sensors... People *think* film has poor dynamic range, because they scan it with lousy flatbed scanners, or are used to old analog print workflows when you couldn't really expand the film S-curve. Also slide film while less DR than color negative do have quite good DR, assuming high end scanning equipment.
Another problem is that Dxomark does not measure pattern noise, random noise is much more acceptable to the eye than if you see patterns. And this is a weak spot with Canon. So a sensor with random noise with the same DR measurement as say Canon 5D mark II which have some pattern noise will have more dynamic range in practice.
One may argue that Canon sensors are already good enough and that DR problems never occur in normal images. Many photographers have that experience. But that the sensors are actually worse than the competition is easy to prove, just open a raw file from a Canon 7D and from a Nikon D7000 shot at base ISO and push both files 3-4 stops, and watch the noise in the dark parts.
Oh, remember that color negative film, if scanned with HDR on a high quality drum scanner (practically non-existent these days unfortunately), can deliver about 18 stops of dynamic range. There's still improvements to make in digital sensors... People *think* film has poor dynamic range, because they scan it with lousy flatbed scanners, or are used to old analog print workflows when you couldn't really expand the film S-curve. Also slide film while less DR than color negative do have quite good DR, assuming high end scanning equipment.
28
EOS Bodies / Re: Leaked photo of 5DIII/X to be 38MP ?
« on: February 17, 2012, 08:52:09 AM »
That calculation does not work, the navigation window is not scale-correct, at least not if I compare my 7D and 5Dmk2.
29
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]
« on: February 16, 2012, 03:28:14 AM »the dynamic range on the nikons isnt so much the sensor, but more their active-d lighting. Canon has their HTP, which isn't as good IMo, but if you shoot RAW....
That and since Nikon are using Sony sensors =P
that said, it might seem that Canon are lagging behind slightly - but the product is still brilliant - and if you were to threaten to jump ship because of that you're failing to see the big picture, or have too much cash. If Nikon *did* somehow win this round - and they haven't because Canon hasn't even revealed their cards yet - theres still no reason to jump ship, Canon will come right back, because thats the way it is.
Yes on-chip ADC of Sony sensors seems to be key for DR. I hope they don't have a patent for it :-). I only consider RAW, so I'd say the practical DR is due to the Sony Exmor and the fact that they don't have as much pattern noise which subjectively kills some of Canon's usable DR.
Since I'm in the low ISO high resolution niche I'm a bit worried though, Canon seems to be that kind of player that care more about maximizing profit than to than to care for for all their users, including the less profitable niche users. But as you say, Canon hasn't revealed their cards yet. We'll see.
I would not "jump ship" though before we start to see what Canon will and can deliver. The latest three lenses suggest an interest for video (IS on wide angles) but also for high resolution (the 24-70 without IS but great MTF).
30
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]
« on: February 16, 2012, 02:53:05 AM »
When I see Canon products coming out today I get the impression that pretty much everything except the sensors are great. I'm very impressed with the lenses coming out for example. However, to some of us the sensor is quite an important part of a camera. When it was D700 vs 5Dmk2 it was not a hard choice, about the same performance plus a lot more resolution.
Then Nikon started to impress with sensors, D3s, D3x, D7000 and now D800. This is really tough competition concerning dynamic range, low light capability and now resolution. Canon is now lagging behind. Will 1DX or 5Dmk3 change that? I doubt it, but we'll see once the products are out and properly tested.
Then Nikon started to impress with sensors, D3s, D3x, D7000 and now D800. This is really tough competition concerning dynamic range, low light capability and now resolution. Canon is now lagging behind. Will 1DX or 5Dmk3 change that? I doubt it, but we'll see once the products are out and properly tested.