December 04, 2016, 09:54:58 AM

Author Topic: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?  (Read 27149 times)

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« Reply #75 on: December 02, 2013, 01:16:35 AM »
On the topic of image sharpness as a result of using autofocus, if the testing from dpreview is anything to go by then the AF in the 70D (using the dual-pixel thing) is better again than that in the 5D3 and that using live-view mode on either the 5D2 or 5D3 is better than traditional AF.

Again you intentionally miss the point, or fail to comprehend it.  CDAF on a dSLR can't even keep up with a bride wedding-marching slowly down the aisle, much less any real action.  PDAF on the 5DIII is vastly superior to the 5DII.

But I guess DRones don't shoot anything that moves very fast and/or always shoot at the hyperfocal distance, since you've already said you believe the AF improvements are irrelevant.

Then there are very few "loyal customers" as outside of the Internet, I don't know or see anyone that upgrades with every iteration from a manufacturer like "fan-bois" posting on the 'net do.

Then there are very few people who "believe low ISO DR is the only important feature" of a dSLR as outside of the Internet, I don't know or see anyone that makes camera choices based solely on low ISO DR like the "DRones" posting on the 'net do.

The thing is that if it had stayed Canon with the crippled bodies and best sensors then you'd be going on about the AF/body performance drones and telling everyone what a joke they are because obviously it's the sensor that counts since this is photography.

The argument Neuro is making is that sensor is not the sole, nor necessarily most important, thing that "counts" for photography. The argument Neuro (and myself) have often made is that other components matter more than the sensor for a majority of forms of photography. AF system, for example, often along with frame rate, are frequently the single most important things that count for IQ in a very broad range of types of photography...I mean, in anything that involves action, it doesn't matter if you have 12 stops or 14 stops of DR...if you can't nail focus, nail it perfectly, and nail it every time, then the most significant upgrade you could make would be to a camera with a better AF system.

That is most certainly NOT to say that more DR is meaningless. Of course not. DR is always useful in the circumstances where you can benefit from it. I personally can't wait for Canon to release a camera with improved low ISO read noise and more megapixels, because as far as I am concerned, when it comes to my landscape photography, sensor IS the single most important thing, and I always manually focus for it. But landscape photography accounts for a relatively small fraction of photography in general...sports and other forms of action photography, wedding photography, portrait/studio photography account for a much more significant portion of photography where nailing focus, as perfectly as possible as often as possible, is really the single most important thing. More DR is useful, more megapixels are useful, but focus...focus is truly essential.

It isn't like this argument hasn't been made clearly in the past, either. It is a relatively simple point, one that is difficult to misinterpret, but one that seems to be frequently twisted and misrepresented. Sure, DR is useful, megapixels are useful, we always want more...but they are more often than not not the most important thing to producing the best image quality. In this respect, Canon has served their customers well, and delivered on exactly what their customers asked for. As a result, Canon's business has continued to thrive, because, far short of making a crappy or inferior product...they make a phenomenal product that is superior in almost every respect.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« Reply #75 on: December 02, 2013, 01:16:35 AM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« Reply #76 on: December 08, 2013, 10:15:32 PM »
The ONLY thing I'd really want is a faster SD card slot.

I'd personally prefer the SD card slot be dumped for a second CF card slot. Mixing and matching card types has always seemed like a bad idea to me. Either go with both SD, and the fastest and latest version at that...or go with both CF (and preferably the latest and fastest version of that, like CFast 2.0).

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« Reply #77 on: December 08, 2013, 10:43:51 PM »
Funny that not too many people speak about Improved DR, while the fierce D800 vs 5D3 discussions and the numerous DxO mark discussions always claim Canon has much worse DR compared to competition. I may not be too bad after all  ;)

Or people like me that care about DR and IQ just haven't bought a 5D3 because it doesn't add any value over the 5D2 ...

If we look at just the RAW sensor IQ, the 5D III is most definitely an improvement over the 5D II. I created this GIF out of Roger Clark's (of clarkvision.com) 5D II and 5D III noise tests:


(See full size here: http://i.imgur.com/Upt5Qhi.gif)

There are several improvements in IQ with the 5D III over the 5D II:

 
  • Far less vertical and horizontal banding (horizontal effectively eliminated)
  • More natural random grain look thanks to less hatching
  • Less "popcorn noise", as there are fewer hot pixels, especially at higher ISO
  • ISO 6400 on the 5D II is no better than ISO 1600, there is CLEARLY an improvement on the 5D III
  • Total noise from ISO 400 onward has dropped relative to the 5D II



You can also see, from the comparison in this link, that the 5D III exhibits practically ZERO color noise at higher ISO, where as the 5D II was riddled with it:

http://bydawnlight.zenfolio.com/p470233883/h4F3F6310#h4f3f6310

So, sorry, but the visual evidence says otherwise...there IS an IQ improvement between the 5D II and 5D III, in many ways a significant improvement. Combine the improved IQ with the vastly improved AF system and faster frame rate, and the 5D III is a very worthwhile upgrade.

Ellen Schmidtee

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« Reply #78 on: December 09, 2013, 02:28:29 AM »
A big enough subjset of:

* Improved AF, e.g. illuminated AF points & improved coverage.

* Improved IQ, e.g. in high ISO performance.

* Built in RT transmitter.

* GPS.


Bonus:

* Interchangeable focusing screens, compatible with the 5Dmk2's focusing screens..

* Faster SD slot, supporting UHS-1.


What would set me off is:

* A new 5D is plenty expensive, I don't want to spend more on new batteries and new memory cards.

* >24MP. I don't really need more than that, extra pixels come with a price, esp in lenses that can actually sharp enough. I'll have to save for a while to upgrade to the 5DmkIV, the only way I'll buy a Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 is if I win the lottery.

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6329
  • Canon Pride.
    • Der Tierfotograf
Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« Reply #79 on: December 09, 2013, 02:43:47 AM »
So, sorry, but the visual evidence says otherwise...there IS an IQ improvement between the 5D II and 5D III, in many ways a significant improvement.

Thanks for doing these gifs, it's interesting and I think I can spot the 5d2's banding - but maybe I'm just looking for it.

Having said that, *significant* in a non-scientific context is very subjective, as far as I remember the context then was the horrendous price jump to $3500 that caught many people off guard and created higher expectations towards the sensor than Canon currently can (you'd probably say: wants to) deliver.

What doesn't show up in the gif and what I have to admit I'm guilty of underestimating: The newer ff sensors react *much* better to postprocessing either in nr or sharpening, multiplying the seemingly moderate step up in noise pattern. Esp. with DxO's prime nr it's stunning how iso 6400 looks on the 6d, if only it wouldn't take my laptop 30 minutes to denoise a single picture :-p...

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« Reply #80 on: December 09, 2013, 04:58:53 AM »
So, sorry, but the visual evidence says otherwise...there IS an IQ improvement between the 5D II and 5D III, in many ways a significant improvement.

Thanks for doing these gifs, it's interesting and I think I can spot the 5d2's banding - but maybe I'm just looking for it.

Oh, its definitely there...I see it clearly. Same crap I have in my 7D, too.

Having said that, *significant* in a non-scientific context is very subjective, as far as I remember the context then was the horrendous price jump to $3500 that caught many people off guard and created higher expectations towards the sensor than Canon currently can (you'd probably say: wants to) deliver.

I'd say "Than Canon could have delivered"...past tense, the 5D III is only a couple months away from it's second birthday. I also believe that Canon would be incapable of producing any higher resolution sensors on their current fabrication process, and I believe in two years time, they could have improved.


What doesn't show up in the gif and what I have to admit I'm guilty of underestimating: The newer ff sensors react *much* better to postprocessing either in nr or sharpening, multiplying the seemingly moderate step up in noise pattern. Esp. with DxO's prime nr it's stunning how iso 6400 looks on the 6d, if only it wouldn't take my laptop 30 minutes to denoise a single picture :-p...

Aye, which is in significant part due to the considerable improvement in banding. Horizontal banding was pretty much eliminated, and vertical banding occurs in these "soft" vertical stripes, rather than the harsh kind that occurred in sensors prior to the 5D III and 1D X. The more random, "natural" appearance of the noise, rather than a patterned, unnatural appearance, greatly helps in it's elimination.

As for DXO, while I admit I may be doing something wrong, I have found their software to be the worst of all the available options for editing RAW files. DXO seems to produce the noisiest results, PARTICULARLY for Canon files (they do much better with Nikon files). Compared to LR, DXO tools result in what I would call about two thirds of a stop WORSE noise performance strait out of camera. Compared to DPP, it is more like a stop worse (I do have to say, as much as I hate DPP's UI, it produces the cleanest noise output for Canon RAW files of ANYTHING, free or for pay...it's really too bad Adobe has't looked into Canon's own RAW demosaicing algorithms.)

I don't know if it is an intentional bias, or just a fundamental lack of interest in properly supporting Canon. I have given DXO's tools several dedicated tries, but in general they are lacking, they seems to be far slower than Lightroom or DPP, and specifically in Canon's case, the output is just terrible. All things being equal, that isn't surprising. Canon is not a DXO supporter, DXO has never given Canon much time or interest (it is often months or even years before DXO will test certain Canon cameras, whereas they will test Sony and Nikon cameras right out the gate, as soon as they can get their hands on a few copies.)

If you want the cleanest RAW conversions, DPP can't be beat. It's standard deviation of noise is about two thirds to half that of LR, and a full order of magnitude better than anything I've tried from DXO. (The only thing I DON'T like about it is it doesn't deal with aliasing as well as LR...edges come out of LR with this clean, crisp look, whereas you can clearly see stairstepping and in some cases moire a lot more often with DPP.)

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6329
  • Canon Pride.
    • Der Tierfotograf
Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« Reply #81 on: December 09, 2013, 05:19:43 AM »
As for DXO, while I admit I may be doing something wrong, I have found their software to be the worst of all the available options for editing RAW files. DXO seems to produce the noisiest results, PARTICULARLY for Canon files (they do much better with Nikon files).

I'm *only* talking of the newest nr algorithm labeled "prime" from dxo pro optics 9 ... it's impractical to use for my laptop and doesn't import raw dng, but I compared the trial version enough to know it gives stunning results in comparison to ACR/LR on higher iso settings... I guess Adobe will follow suit esp. if you say dpp is also better (I never really tried the latter either).

they seems to be far slower than Lightroom or DPP, and specifically in Canon's case, the output is just terrible.

Their "prime" is incredibly slow, and the whole dxo software is also way slower than LR for me. Plus I don't like their "settings" style "smart" interface but prefer the plain ACR/LR sliders, maybe out of habit and because I didn't have an in-depth look... but I have to admit you can get very nice "one click" results with dxo's "one shot hdr" settings while with ACR/LR you're quickly getting the feared "hdr look" with high dr images w/o a lot of hassle (tone curves, local adjustment, other external software like enfuse).

canon rumors FORUM

Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« Reply #81 on: December 09, 2013, 05:19:43 AM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« Reply #82 on: December 11, 2013, 12:16:47 AM »
So, sorry, but the visual evidence says otherwise...there IS an IQ improvement between the 5D II and 5D III, in many ways a significant improvement.

Thanks for doing these gifs, it's interesting and I think I can spot the 5d2's banding - but maybe I'm just looking for it.

Oh, its definitely there...I see it clearly. Same crap I have in my 7D, too.

Having said that, *significant* in a non-scientific context is very subjective, as far as I remember the context then was the horrendous price jump to $3500 that caught many people off guard and created higher expectations towards the sensor than Canon currently can (you'd probably say: wants to) deliver.

I'd say "Than Canon could have delivered"...past tense, the 5D III is only a couple months away from it's second birthday. I also believe that Canon would be incapable of producing any higher resolution sensors on their current fabrication process, and I believe in two years time, they could have improved.


What doesn't show up in the gif and what I have to admit I'm guilty of underestimating: The newer ff sensors react *much* better to postprocessing either in nr or sharpening, multiplying the seemingly moderate step up in noise pattern. Esp. with DxO's prime nr it's stunning how iso 6400 looks on the 6d, if only it wouldn't take my laptop 30 minutes to denoise a single picture :-p...

Aye, which is in significant part due to the considerable improvement in banding. Horizontal banding was pretty much eliminated, and vertical banding occurs in these "soft" vertical stripes, rather than the harsh kind that occurred in sensors prior to the 5D III and 1D X. The more random, "natural" appearance of the noise, rather than a patterned, unnatural appearance, greatly helps in it's elimination.

As for DXO, while I admit I may be doing something wrong, I have found their software to be the worst of all the available options for editing RAW files. DXO seems to produce the noisiest results, PARTICULARLY for Canon files (they do much better with Nikon files). Compared to LR, DXO tools result in what I would call about two thirds of a stop WORSE noise performance strait out of camera. Compared to DPP, it is more like a stop worse (I do have to say, as much as I hate DPP's UI, it produces the cleanest noise output for Canon RAW files of ANYTHING, free or for pay...it's really too bad Adobe has't looked into Canon's own RAW demosaicing algorithms.)

I don't know if it is an intentional bias, or just a fundamental lack of interest in properly supporting Canon. I have given DXO's tools several dedicated tries, but in general they are lacking, they seems to be far slower than Lightroom or DPP, and specifically in Canon's case, the output is just terrible. All things being equal, that isn't surprising. Canon is not a DXO supporter, DXO has never given Canon much time or interest (it is often months or even years before DXO will test certain Canon cameras, whereas they will test Sony and Nikon cameras right out the gate, as soon as they can get their hands on a few copies.)

If you want the cleanest RAW conversions, DPP can't be beat. It's standard deviation of noise is about two thirds to half that of LR, and a full order of magnitude better than anything I've tried from DXO. (The only thing I DON'T like about it is it doesn't deal with aliasing as well as LR...edges come out of LR with this clean, crisp look, whereas you can clearly see stairstepping and in some cases moire a lot more often with DPP.)

Because they DPP have a lot of noise reduction going on for the Canon cameras, take a look at noise reduction and real resolution and  you see the difference between DXO and DPP.  DPP are masking off a lot of resolution in different frequencies.

And your statement that DXO doesn't handle Canon files  good as Nikon are pure nonsense, it requires a clean signal from the beginning and Canons CDS are not good as Sony/Nikon due the read out.

Um, DPP doesn't do any NR at all unless you apply it yourself. DPP, fundamentally, is just a basic RAW demosaicing engine. It's demosaicing isn't even all that great, and the results are usually more detailed/sharper than Adobe Lightroom, however that comes at the cost of some increase in demosaicing artifacts and some aliasing.

DXO, on the other hand, while it can be sharp, is NOISY as hell. It is clearly not a Canon issue, because both LR and DPP produce less noisy results than DXO without any additional processing, with DPP being the least noisy and sharpest. The problem with DPP is it doesn't do much...it isn't an image processor, it is really just a raw converter. You demosaic, maybe tweak a few basic sliders here and there, and save to TIFF, then process, but you lose a LOT of editing latitude that way.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« Reply #82 on: December 11, 2013, 12:16:47 AM »