70D and Dxomark....

[Aglet]

Only 4 stops? Are you sure that's enough?  Or is that just the limit of the exposure slider?

yup, it's enough, and it's the limit of my slider.  So it's pretty consistent.

..maybe shooting in bizarre, oligochromatic light would be a good way to test auto WB?

Maybe.  If you'd like to develop a technique, fill yer boots.
Don't forget to be mindful of the filters peak admittance and asymmetrical shoulder responses and the effects that has on QE & debayering algorithms and how they differ from mfr to mfr and model to model .. and temperature.

Well, the PhD in neuroscience certainly suggests I'm a 'real' scientist.  So do the publications listed on my CV.  As for time, science often isn't a 9-5 job, which is great for me because I'd really dislike something so mundane.  But thanks for the snide remark.  Looking forward to more lens cap shots....but be careful - if you take too many, you may find yourself forgetting to take the cap off for an actual picture, and that would be a great loss.

It wasn't intended as snide.
I don't pay too much attention to you so don't know if you're for real or just a wannabe neuroscientist with a nifty avatar.
Just seems kinda odd you spend probably as much time on this forum as you do being a scientist... None of the science PhDs I work with divert so much of their energy in alternative directions.  But they're not in neurology; is that where the money is?

[9VIII]

It's funny how last fall when I started looking at cameras as a serious hobby, all I wanted was a D800E, "the ultimate in camera technology" (so I would say to myself).
To start with I bought the cheapest Rebel they make (just to use with the 400f5.6, for which there is no Nikon equivalent), but I always knew I'd upgrade, hopefully to the D800E right? Oh man am I glad I didn't jump on that ship. Over the winter I found out how much live view in the D800 sucks, and that's almost all I do with a camera on a regular basis (macro and close-ups of neat little things). My stinky little T3 just happens to be perfectly suited to long exposures and spending hours on end in live view (and it actually works quite well with the 400f5.6 too).
Would a few stops of dynamic range make up for that? Not a chance. The specs on the sensor don't mean a thing if I can't use the freaking camera. Now the 70D comes out, and once again the sensor is pretty ho-hum. Same old story, but that thing is jam packed with improvements to user functionality. So who actually has their priorities straight?

[ME]

"Really pushing DR" ... what does that mean? ... Is this all about being able to radically push the sliders in Lightroom?

Yes. That's all this discussion is about. Nikon...er, Sony...sensor fanboys taking terribly underexposed photos, turning off NR, shoving the exposure slider to +5EV, and then crying about noise and banding.

Never mind that people don't underexpose like that...
Never mind the complete loss of subtle tonality when you push that hard...
Never mind that the differences are much smaller when you actually use NR...
Never mind that the differences are smaller still when you view at normal sizes...

All that matters in the entire world of photography is shooting a wall at -5EV. I don't know how anyone ever made a photograph before Sony's revolutionary sensors.

Side note: I bet cult members don't push as hard as the DRboys in this forum.

What do you mean? The "DRboys" are a cult, and i think we all know who the leader is.

[dtaylor]

Umm no, that is what the fanboys CLAIM the people who wouldn't more DR are all about when it is not remotely true. The only people mentioning underexposing everything by five stops are the pure fanboys, it sure ain't the people who wouldn't mind a bit more DR to work with in order to expand real world photographic possibilities.

The only examples I've seen demonstrating the 'undeniable awesomeness of Sony sensors' are walls at -5EV. If the 'crowd that just wants more DR' is producing better photographs (the kind people want to actually look at) thanks to Sony sensors, they sure as hell aren't posting any of them here.

[Apop]

where is the banding?
5D3
ISO 4000
extreme cropped

It is at LOW ISO in the very darkest tones where it has more banding than Exmor not at high ISO. At very high ISO it does even a trace better than D800.

So what kind of shutter speed are we talking?
Low ISO in extremely dark places, sounds like pictures where you have the time to setup a tripod or lean on something to take a picture.
Wouldn't you also have the time to take 7 pictures then? and make an HDR for some extra DR.....

Sure it is nice to have , but the 'need' for it may be overrated?

[Pi]

So what kind of shutter speed are we talking?
Low ISO in extremely dark places, sounds like pictures where you have the time to setup a tripod or lean on something to take a picture.
Wouldn't you also have the time to take 7 pictures then? and make an HDR for some extra DR.....

Sure it is nice to have , but the 'need' for it may be overrated?

You chose to ignore the example I posted, so convenient.

[privatebydesign]

So what kind of shutter speed are we talking?
Low ISO in extremely dark places, sounds like pictures where you have the time to setup a tripod or lean on something to take a picture.
Wouldn't you also have the time to take 7 pictures then? and make an HDR for some extra DR.....

Sure it is nice to have , but the 'need' for it may be overrated?

You chose to ignore the example I posted, how convenient.

No the "example" you posted is a perfect example of why actual photographers don't understand why some of you have such issues.

First, this scene does not have a wide dynamic range! There is very little DR in that scene, probably around five or six stops, a decent P&S can cover that range at 400iso.

Second, you didn't ETTR, you did use +0.33 EC but that wasn't enough for an optimal RAW exposure.

Third, your post processing exposes the fact that you just don't know what you are doing. Try this, I just did to your jpeg file. Exposure up 1.35 (that is where you should have been exposing by the way) Highlights down -37. That is how to post process your image, you have detail where you wanted it, but you have zero noise and banding even at 300% (with zero noise reduction).

Fourth, even at 100% and badly processed the banding is not serious enough to destroy the image, a little noise reduction and it is gone anyway, try +35 NR in Lightroom and it disappears.

Your "example" is not an example of failing Canon sensor capabilities, it is an example of you not knowing what you are doing at exposure time and in post. What you have illustrated is if you expose incorrectly, then process badly, then don't take any steps to mitigate those errors you can end up with slight noise and banding, you will forgive me for not taking your demonstration of Canon sensor issues seriously.

There is a kernel of truth in this DR "debate" but most of the "examples" posted just don't stand up and do not actually illustrate  the "problem" at all, that is why there is such a staunch defense of Canon gear from some people here. You think your sensor failed you at that concert, it didn't, you didn't educate yourself on a competent way to use your equipment.

[Pi]

No the "example" you posted is a perfect example of why actual photographers don't understand why some of you have such issues.

First, this scene does not have a wide dynamic range! There is very little DR in that scene, probably around five or six stops, a decent P&S can cover that range at 400iso.

You might be right about the decent P&S. But a Canon dSLR can't.

Second, you didn't ETTR, you did use +0.33 EC but that wasn't enough for an optimal RAW exposure.

Are you kidding me? This is a live subject. What ETTR?

Third, your post processing exposes the fact that you just don't know what you are doing. Try this, I just did to your jpeg file. Exposure up 1.35 (that is where you should have been exposing by the way) Highlights down -37. That is how to post process your image, you have detail where you wanted it, but you have zero noise and banding even at 300% (with zero noise reduction).

The guy would not stay still, you know.

Fourth, even at 100% and badly processed the banding is not serious enough to destroy the image, a little noise reduction and it is gone anyway, try +35 NR in Lightroom and it disappears.

100% chroma NR does not put a dent on it. 80% lumina hides most of it. 35% lumina hides the random noise but leaves the pattern noise in place.

Your "example" is not an example of failing Canon sensor capabilities, it is an example of you not knowing what you are doing at exposure time and in post. What you have illustrated is if you expose incorrectly, then process badly, then don't take any steps to mitigate those errors you can end up with slight noise and banding, you will forgive me for not taking your demonstration of Canon sensor issues seriously.

Nonsense. But even if I was guilty of not exposing correctly ("Hey, you, would you stay still for a moment? Thank you!") so what? I posted the "unprocessed" image. It is not 4 stop underexposed, right? Any modern non-Canon sensor would not have a problem with that image.

I could have used ISO 800 vs. 400. The read noise penalty is likely worse with ISO 400. But the only reason ISO 800 would have helped, maybe, is the deficiency of the sensor. With any other modern sensor, the ISO would not matter much.

[privatebydesign]

No the "example" you posted is a perfect example of why actual photographers don't understand why some of you have such issues.

First, this scene does not have a wide dynamic range! There is very little DR in that scene, probably around five or six stops, a decent P&S can cover that range at 400iso.

You might be right about the decent P&S. But a Canon dSLR can't.

Second, you didn't ETTR, you did use +0.33 EC but that wasn't enough for an optimal RAW exposure.

Are you kidding me? This is a live subject. What ETTR?

Third, your post processing exposes the fact that you just don't know what you are doing. Try this, I just did to your jpeg file. Exposure up 1.35 (that is where you should have been exposing by the way) Highlights down -37. That is how to post process your image, you have detail where you wanted it, but you have zero noise and banding even at 300% (with zero noise reduction).

The guy would not stay still, you know.

Fourth, even at 100% and badly processed the banding is not serious enough to destroy the image, a little noise reduction and it is gone anyway, try +35 NR in Lightroom and it disappears.

100% chroma NR does not put a dent on it. 80% lumina hides most of it. 35% lumina hides the random noise but leaves the pattern noise in place.

Your "example" is not an example of failing Canon sensor capabilities, it is an example of you not knowing what you are doing at exposure time and in post. What you have illustrated is if you expose incorrectly, then process badly, then don't take any steps to mitigate those errors you can end up with slight noise and banding, you will forgive me for not taking your demonstration of Canon sensor issues seriously.

Nonsense. But even if I was guilty of not exposing correctly ("Hey, you, would you stay still for a moment? Thank you!") so what? I posted the "unprocessed" image. It is not 4 stop underexposed, right? Any modern non-Canon sensor would not have a problem with that image.

The guy is standing in front of a stand mic with another set up for his acoustic guitar, did he have a roadie moving the stand for him too?

I shoot concerts, I shoot M and take some exposure tests shots, it is digital and takes less than five seconds, not AV in spot metering with EV comp, again, you are just making excuses for the fact you messed up, the sensor did not let you down.

I'll post 100% crops of your jpeg processed with competence if you want to labour the point even further.

[Apop]

So what kind of shutter speed are we talking?
Low ISO in extremely dark places, sounds like pictures where you have the time to setup a tripod or lean on something to take a picture.
Wouldn't you also have the time to take 7 pictures then? and make an HDR for some extra DR.....

Sure it is nice to have , but the 'need' for it may be overrated?

You chose to ignore the example I posted, so convenient.

I did look at it, but I didn't think it was worth saying anything about.

To me the 'processed' shot looks a lot worse than your RAW shot.

Now I am not that good at processing either, but I usually end up with files that look better than the original raw image ( to my eyes anyway)

[zlatko]

No the "example" you posted is a perfect example of why actual photographers don't understand why some of you have such issues.

First, this scene does not have a wide dynamic range! There is very little DR in that scene, probably around five or six stops, a decent P&S can cover that range at 400iso.

You might be right about the decent P&S. But a Canon dSLR can't.

Second, you didn't ETTR, you did use +0.33 EC but that wasn't enough for an optimal RAW exposure.

Are you kidding me? This is a live subject. What ETTR?

Third, your post processing exposes the fact that you just don't know what you are doing. Try this, I just did to your jpeg file. Exposure up 1.35 (that is where you should have been exposing by the way) Highlights down -37. That is how to post process your image, you have detail where you wanted it, but you have zero noise and banding even at 300% (with zero noise reduction).

The guy would not stay still, you know.

Fourth, even at 100% and badly processed the banding is not serious enough to destroy the image, a little noise reduction and it is gone anyway, try +35 NR in Lightroom and it disappears.

100% chroma NR does not put a dent on it. 80% lumina hides most of it. 35% lumina hides the random noise but leaves the pattern noise in place.

Your "example" is not an example of failing Canon sensor capabilities, it is an example of you not knowing what you are doing at exposure time and in post. What you have illustrated is if you expose incorrectly, then process badly, then don't take any steps to mitigate those errors you can end up with slight noise and banding, you will forgive me for not taking your demonstration of Canon sensor issues seriously.

Nonsense. But even if I was guilty of not exposing correctly ("Hey, you, would you stay still for a moment? Thank you!") so what? I posted the "unprocessed" image. It is not 4 stop underexposed, right? Any modern non-Canon sensor would not have a problem with that image.

I could have used ISO 800 vs. 400. The read noise penalty is likely worse with ISO 400. But the only reason ISO 800 would have helped, maybe, is the deficiency of the sensor. With any other modern sensor, the ISO would not matter much.

The unprocessed image is fine.  You can't blame the camera for your processing.  To even see this supposed problem with the sensor, one has to raise the darkest parts of the image to exaggerate it, and one has to turn the monitor brightness all the way up.

By the way, ETTR has nothing to do with asking the subject to remain still.  It sounds like you are thinking of HDR?

[Sporgon]

I'll post 100% crops of your jpeg processed with competence if you want to labour the point even further.

I think Pi produced a photographic faux pas.

There's little doubt that with current technology you're better off with Nikon or Sony if you don't know what you're doing 

I'd post it.

[zim]

The unprocessed image is fine.  You can't blame the camera for your processing.  To even see this supposed problem with the sensor, one has to raise the darkest parts of the image to exaggerate it, and one has to turn the monitor brightness all the way up.

By the way, ETTR has nothing to do with asking the subject to remain still.  It sounds like you are thinking of HDR?

+1 I think the unprocessed file is rather good, If anything I'd be darkening the background a little to get rid of the slightly distracting drum set in the background

I think the subject remaining still thing is about shutter speed, ETTR would force a slower speed and therefore subject movement, the subject doesn't look like much of a speedy gonzales to me but you never know! isn't that what better high iso performance is for though?

[Pi]

The guy is standing in front of a stand mic with another set up for his acoustic guitar, did he have a roadie moving the stand for him too?

This is completely irrelevant. Did you even pay attention what post I replied to? Somebody posted a high ISO image, processed who knows how, and asked "where is the banding"? I posted a real world image, not pushed by 4 stops which shows banding. I could have posted a shot of an empty stage to make that point.

Now, everybody who claims that you cannot see banding unless you put the cap on an push exposure by 4 stop has to say - well, I saw it once, and it was not pushed by 4 stops (the adjustments in RAW conversion cannot be so simply described in stops).

BTW, are you sure you understand what ETTR means? In light limited situations like this, the only benefit of ETTR may have is ... well, to compensate for the deficiency of the sensor (with minor, probably invisible tonality gain which diminishes greatly for low light)

I shoot concerts, I shoot M and take some exposure tests shots, it is digital and takes less than five seconds, not AV in spot metering with EV comp, again, you are just making excuses for the fact you messed up, the sensor did not let you down.

I did take the next shot in M but then the light changed. In concerts, light changes quickly all the time. But again, that is irrelevant. His forehead has some hot spots before the push. The exposure is not 4 stops below what should have been.

I'll post 100% crops of your jpeg processed with competence if you want to labour the point even further.

Why would you "process with competence" shots from a sensor which has no problems with the shadows? Shouldn't t the banding be not there in the first place? You are missing the point again. This is not a thread about pp techniques.

[Pi]

So what kind of shutter speed are we talking?
Low ISO in extremely dark places, sounds like pictures where you have the time to setup a tripod or lean on something to take a picture.
Wouldn't you also have the time to take 7 pictures then? and make an HDR for some extra DR.....

Sure it is nice to have , but the 'need' for it may be overrated?

You chose to ignore the example I posted, so convenient.

I did look at it, but I didn't think it was worth saying anything about.

To me the 'processed' shot looks a lot worse than your RAW shot.

But I could have taken 7 shots with a tripod, right? Why do you have to change the topic?