December 22, 2014, 12:55:42 PM

Author Topic: DxOMark vs. Reality  (Read 84714 times)

Orangutan

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 772
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« Reply #225 on: January 15, 2013, 02:31:40 PM »
If you do not understand WHAT you can do in the REAL world with larger DR , why still discussing it?

Let me illustrate it this way: people have used slide film for decades, and it is supposed to have limited DR.  Apparently, slide film had other qualities that, for many purposes, were more important than its limited DR, and  many people chose that compromise.  Sure, photographers would have loved slide film that had 14 stops of DR, while retaining the other qualities of slide film, but that was not available. 

The same is true for modern DSLR's: we would all love DSLR's that have 16 stops of clean DR, while retaining all the other qualities of the overall device (AF, speed, high ISO, color qualities, etc).  No one (so far as I can tell) is saying that they don't want more DR.  They're saying that, as with slide film, they have chosen their compromise until a better compromise is available.  At least, so it appears to me.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« Reply #225 on: January 15, 2013, 02:31:40 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15237
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« Reply #226 on: January 15, 2013, 02:50:22 PM »
Neuro.  You did not answer my question, do you understand - and read again what I asked
Underexposing, head room , bring in high lights more than 4 stops above middle grey
 If you understand this we take  lesson 2

Certainly, I understand.  But no one is asking for theoretical 'lessons'.  Rather, both me and privatebydesign are asking for actual examples of images 'ruined' by the FPN of the 5DII, and some idea of the frequency at which the low ISO FPN renders real-world images unusable. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3544
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« Reply #227 on: January 15, 2013, 02:56:59 PM »
Neuro.  You did not answer my question, do you understand - and read again what I asked
Underexposing, head room , bring in high lights more than 4 stops above middle grey
 If you understand this we take  lesson 2

Certainly, I understand.  But no one is asking for theoretical 'lessons'.  Rather, both me and privatebydesign are asking for actual examples of images 'ruined' by the FPN of the 5DII, and some idea of the frequency at which the low ISO FPN renders real-world images unusable.

Yes, FPN ruins the perfect test charts of obsessive camera disorder sufferers.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15237
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« Reply #228 on: January 15, 2013, 03:39:18 PM »
I have shown pictures after pictures taken with my d800 and 5dmk2, I have shown how it is possible to expose and recover high lights (sun sets etc etc) and the adjust the picture by moving middle grey back and lift shadows and darker tones. I think it is time that you and others stop denying the benefit of a wide DR and where unfortunately not the Canon is the leader.

shall we take lesson 2   ?

Let's skip right to Lesson 5:
Q: What is the sum of 2 + 2?
A: You must stop denying the power of arithmetic, and realize the benefit of the D800 for simple math.

Point being, you are answering questions that aren't being asked, attributing statements/beliefs to people which are not their own, and for some reason, the D800 is always part of your answer, even if it's a complete non sequitur.

To be very clear, I am neither denying the benefit of wide DR nor suggesting that Canon is a leader in that specific aspect of sensor performance.  As I've repeatedly stated, if a wide DR were my primary need, I'd be shooting with a D800.

To reiterate, what's being asked is neither 'does the D800 have better DR than the 5DII?' nor 'can an image with wider DR be pushed harder in post than an image with less DR?'.  I'm not talking about contrived test scenarios.  I could just as easily contrive a scenario where the D800 would fail miserably (take a shot with the D800 with a Nikon lens at 5:1 magnification, for example). 

I've taken several thousand shots with a 5DII in the ISO 100-400 range, and guess how many I've rejected due to 'horrible low ISO FPN'?  Zero.

Yes, FPN ruins the perfect test charts of obsessive camera disorder sufferers.

Indeed.  It also ruins shots of QPcards on barbecues, but for some strange reason, that subject constitutes 0% of my shots.   ::)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15237
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« Reply #229 on: January 15, 2013, 04:13:30 PM »
Stop then  denying the benefits of great DR,  and this BS about  "real life pictures" etc etc, it is up to peoples skills to use great DR or not and as resolution it is not bad to have.

Thanks for yet another non-answer to a not-asked question.  If your lessons are intended to be instructive as to how to obfuscate and avoid answering pointed questions, and attribute motives to people that they do not espouse, perhaps those would be better delivered on a forum devoted to politics. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Aglet

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1088
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« Reply #230 on: January 15, 2013, 04:20:13 PM »
I've requested permission of a family whose casual photos I shot last summer where FPN is noticeable on dark clothing.
I expect they'll approve my request.
It's about the last time I used the camera.  Customer was totally pleased with the results, I was not.

I've basically sidelined the 5d2 as an inadequate FF Rebel with serious FPN problems, not worthy of MY use so it's seen very little action with me.
I got the thing to do landscape and other outdoor and high DR work.  It's not been able to adequately fulfill that role, the way I want to use it, so to me it was an expensive PoS with limited ability.  It DID deliver some really great images in many situations where lighting was not challenging, but was not able to do so when and where I needed it to. At the time I was also using a 40D which showed less FPN when using similar PP.  I still like and use the 40D.
So a new 5D2 having worse raw file IQ than my older, cheaper camera was a big disappointment, to put it mildly.

Maybe 5d2 was one of the better tools available at the time, doesn't mean it was good enough.  A better tool was announced less than 3 weeks prior to the 5d2, the d90.  However I was an ignorant Canon fanboy at that time and paid little attention to the competition with all the full-frame excitement and high expectations.
Now a cheap consumer camera from a competitor nearly 2 years ago, at 1/5th the cost, grossly outperforms 5d2 in this part of the operating regime it only reinforces my opinion that the 5d2 was, and still is, a grossly overhyped bit of gear.  Despite that, the vast majority of users are happy to continue using it.  That's fine for them.
Those who are content with the shortcomings of a tool they're using are not going to convince those of us who need a better tool that it's OK!  Thanks for trying.  People on here are truly helpful and a great resource to plenty of newbies. :)

Hopefully I'll get permission to post a few samples where maybe you'll actually SEE the problem.  Possibly helping spare some avid users some unpleasant surprises that they haven't yet discovered.

You guys may need to be reminded. I'm not a Canon hater, just a disappointed long time Canon user who opened his eyes and found better tools for certain shots from the competition.
I still like using my bucket of Rebel bodies, 40D, and 60D and am looking fwd to an improved 7D Mk 2 or 70D.

@privatebydesign - i often print big too. expose for the highlights, bring up the rest with various curve tools until the image DR is compressed to a useful range for printing.  This is where the 5d2 (&7D) can fail if there was a lot of DR in the original scene.  The sensor may be similar or even the same between this and your 1 series body but there's a lot more to the rest of the electronic guts that can make the difference in FPN.  Quality is rarely skimped on the 1 series.

I got better results with my 40D, 60D, and various Rebels than what the 5d2 delivered.  And now my modern Nikon gear blows them all away whenever I need to do this this kind of processing.  Right tool for the job, but not necessarily the same tool for all jobs.

@Mikael Risedal - Thanks for knowing and understanding. :) I don't know if I've seen your real world comparison shots other than the one of a shed with interior shadows.  Apparently that does not qualify as a real world image for some people.  What if you want to spy on the contents of your neighbor's shed?  ;)

I suspect Neuro will tell me that I wasted 1 or 2 possible stops worth of DR on some of the shots by some of the method I used.  I.E.  I could have ETTR more if I were using Neutral or Faithful instead of Standard settings so my RGB playback histogram would more closely reflect raw headroom.  Yup... Might have.  I don't have to worry about this on my other bodies tho.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15237
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« Reply #231 on: January 15, 2013, 04:42:33 PM »
I suspect Neuro will tell me that I wasted 1 or 2 possible stops worth of DR on some of the shots by some of the method I used.

Highly unlikely.  Thanks for working toward sharing real-world examples, though (I don't consider a scenario intentionally chosen and designed to make a point to be 'real-world'). 

I've taken several thousand shots with a 5DII in the ISO 100-400 range, and guess how many I've rejected due to 'horrible low ISO FPN'?  Zero.

I should add, by way of maintaining objectivity and putting things in perspective: I've taken several thousand shots with a 5DII in the ISO 100-400 range, and guess how many I've rejected due to misfocusing by the less than stellar AF system of the 5DII?  Hundreds at least, likely thousands. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« Reply #231 on: January 15, 2013, 04:42:33 PM »

Zlatko

  • Guest
Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« Reply #232 on: January 15, 2013, 10:13:14 PM »
I've taken several thousand shots with a 5DII in the ISO 100-400 range, and guess how many I've rejected due to 'horrible low ISO FPN'?  Zero.

Same here.  Three years of heavy shooting with this camera.  Zero photos rejected due to this "horrible" problem.  The 5DII has been good.

I should add, by way of maintaining objectivity and putting things in perspective: I've taken several thousand shots with a 5DII in the ISO 100-400 range, and guess how many I've rejected due to misfocusing by the less than stellar AF system of the 5DII?  Hundreds at least, likely thousands.

Again, same here.  AF could have been better.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 10:15:39 PM by Zlatko »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« Reply #232 on: January 15, 2013, 10:13:14 PM »