December 11, 2017, 02:28:37 PM

Author Topic: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]  (Read 131522 times)

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #150 on: January 11, 2014, 11:52:43 PM »
Your PP skills aren't lacking...trust me. I think you not only have the skills, but I've always found your work to be rather artistic. I love how you enhanced the glare of the sun...not every part of a photo needs to be contrasty and highly detailed.

Some portrait and wedding photographers THRIVE on low contrast sun glare...it's what they use to give their work that artsy fartsy flair...and personally, I think it looks great. That's what I mean about DR...sometimes, I wonder if people might discover a whole new world of ART if they would look past the "Damn, I've only got 12 stops DR!" and look at the image they have in their hands...they might be amazed with it just how it is... ;)

I appreciate the kind words. It's definitely not the easiest way the shoot, as you're always fighting lens flare, yet you often have to use a bunch of filters get the contrast under control, which only further increases the potential for flare and additional IQ degradation. This isn't as bad with Canon's long lenses since they have beastly hoods, but my 24-105 is a hopelessly flare-prone piece of glass.

Honestly, I think I'm using only 5-10 percent of what Photoshop has to offer. I can usually accomplish what I want to in PP, but I'm certain that there are more efficient methods of accomplishing the same thing. There are just so many freakin' tools in Photoshop that I have never even used before. My primary motivation for painstakingly trying to get things right in camera is that I don't particularly enjoy editing images. I'd rather be watching internet porn ;D

For your style of shooting, I really don't think more dynamic range is really going to help much. You tend to shoot strait into the sun. Doesn't matter whether you have 14 stops or 16 stops of DR...your scene, from deepest shadows to the sun itself, is going to have well more than 20 stops of DR. For your style, lighting the scene manually is probably the best and maybe only way to do it. But, thats photography. Photo-graphy, light painting. It's ALL about the light, and you can't do any better than directly controlling as many aspects of the light that illuminates your scene yourself. I think your results speak volumes to that.

I just love digging through the portraiture groups on Flickr, 500px, and 1x...you can REALLY TELL the difference when a good portrait photographer skillfully uses light...the differences are phenomenal, and the quality is beyond stunning. Doesn't matter how much dynamic range you have, or how noisy the images are (hell, some still use film!) The difference between portrait shots that did not add and control light, or only minimally controlled it, rarely have the same impact and artistic flare as portrait shots that finely control every aspect of light and shadow in a scene. I've been digging through Flickr's portraits since the days of the 5D classic...and even that camera never seemed to have any problems producing phenomenal results, despite its DR handicap (which is at least two thirds of a stop worse than the 5D III.)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #150 on: January 11, 2014, 11:52:43 PM »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6588
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #151 on: January 12, 2014, 01:04:06 AM »


I levy the question again...how many of your shots are at ISO 100, and more importantly, of those ISO 100 shots, in how many did you desperately NEED to push shadows more than two or three stops?

Privatebydesign offered part of the answer:

That is an interesting question that illustrates why there are so many diverse opinions about th same piece of equipment, we all use them differently.

As for me I took a look, of my last 19,500 images, 9,000 were at 100iso, 7,500 at 200iso, 2,000 at 400 iso and 1,500 at 800 and other random intermediate iso stops.

I'd like higher low iso image quality. But I am not going to spit my dummy out waiting for it.

We know how many he takes at low ISO. He takes a lot, but that doesn't address my actual question, and the question that actually pertains to having more than 12 stops of DR at ISO 100: How many of those 9000 ISO 100 images needed to be pushed by four, five, or six stops? I would guess VERY FEW. Practically none, unless PBD shoots exceptionally difficult scenes with massive dynamic range on a regular basis/for a living. If that is the case, then hell, I highly recommend a D800 for him. In the grand scheme of things, though, I doubt most photographers even think about pushing shadows that much (or could even find a legitimate reason to.)

I do, and the number of images I have shot at 100 iso and had to bracket to blend is well in the hundreds, could even be in the thousands. To preempt the question of why don't I use a Nikon instead? Well two more stops would still require a blend and they don't have a TS-E 17.

I am not going to become the new Mikael here, as I already said I am happy to work with what I have even thought here are "better" alternatives available now, but I do find it rather funny that whilst you, jrista, constantly go on about how you, and you seem convinced everybody else too, will benefit from many more MP's, you seem very reluctant to accept peoples opinions when they present exactly the same argument about DR.

I, for instance, do not want many more MP, I do want increased low iso performance, a lot of my shooting requires it. I appreciate that my requirements might put me in the minority here, but I only speak for myself.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

sanj

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2916
Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #152 on: January 12, 2014, 01:29:40 AM »


I will always welcome more DR, but even when the day comes when it's possible to lift the shadows by 5 stops, I will still take the same approach to shots like this and bust out the monolights. If I have to choose between good light and lifting shadows, I'll go with good light every single time.

[/quote]

Shhhh. You will soon create enemies here.

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #153 on: January 12, 2014, 01:45:55 AM »
I do, and the number of images I have shot at 100 iso and had to bracket to blend is well in the hundreds, could even be in the thousands. To preempt the question of why don't I use a Nikon instead? Well two more stops would still require a blend and they don't have a TS-E 17.

I'd never ask why you don't go to Nikon. ;P And the TS-E 17 is a damn good reason to pick Canon.

I am not going to become the new Mikael here, as I already said I am happy to work with what I have even thought here are "better" alternatives available now, but I do find it rather funny that whilst you, jrista, constantly go on about how you, and you seem convinced everybody else too, will benefit from many more MP's, you seem very reluctant to accept peoples opinions when they present exactly the same argument about DR.

I happily accept cogent arguments for more DR. My issue is that, across a multitude of forums, it seems MOST canon shooters have started complaining about DR. Ironically, it seems many of them who shoot at high ISO don't quite seem to understand that improved low ISO DR won't actually do a damn bit of good for them. Perhaps I levy my counterarguments too broadly, I don't mean to belittle anyone's legitimate need. I totally understand the desire for more DR when you have a legitimate need. (Hell, I have a legitimate need, and I've held off buying a new Canon camera because I too am interested in seeing what Canon does.)

But I do think the ratio between the volume of Canon shooters who complain about not having the same DR as "that Nikon guy over there", and the number who actually need it (or, for that matter, would understand how to use it if they had it) is far higher than it should be. Perhaps some people are just complaining to get Canon to do something about it...guess there is nothing wrong with that...but still, it feels people complain about it more because "that other guy has it, so I want it too" rather than for a truly legitimate reason. As I mentioned before (or maybe in another thread)...I kind of loath that mentality, always having to one-up the other guy, or bitching and moaning about how the other guys stuff is better than yours. It comes off as so childish. I'm certain I am not the only one who gets that feeling from the DR crowd either (I know for a fact Neuro does.)

I'll try to filter a bit more, debate the "children" when they complain just because they want to scream "me too" without actually having a need, and back up the guys who have a demonstrated need for more DR.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 03:01:54 AM by jrista »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6588
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #154 on: January 12, 2014, 02:36:25 AM »
100% agree.

My personal problem area for low iso DR, and one which would only be mitigated, not entirely overcome, with 14 or even 16 stops, is real estate and architecture. Yes, for part of my portfolio I shoot a niche, and I have tried just about every technique out there from tone mapping, blending, layer masks, PS 32bit, Enfuse, HDR, speedlites, studio flash etc etc and still, after all that, I haven't found one that works in every situation.

For everything else, and I am a generalist, I have very few problems with low iso DR.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

V8Beast

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1127
    • Stephen Kim Automotive Photography
Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #155 on: January 12, 2014, 02:43:33 AM »


Shhhh. You will soon create enemies here.

I've marveled at your portfolio quite often, and considering the types of subjects that you shoot, if you stated that more DR would be beneficial for the subjects that you shoot, I would certainly wouldn't doubt it. Cars don't care if you flash 2000ws worth of monolights in their faces. I wouldn't dare do the same with zebras and rhinos who would most definitely get scared off, or lions that might get pissed off and decide to eat me :o
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 11:55:07 AM by V8Beast »

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #156 on: January 12, 2014, 03:06:08 AM »
100% agree.

My personal problem area for low iso DR, and one which would only be mitigated, not entirely overcome, with 14 or even 16 stops, is real estate and architecture. Yes, for part of my portfolio I shoot a niche, and I have tried just about every technique out there from tone mapping, blending, layer masks, PS 32bit, Enfuse, HDR, speedlites, studio flash etc etc and still, after all that, I haven't found one that works in every situation.

For everything else, and I am a generalist, I have very few problems with low iso DR.

I do wonder if we will see 20-24 stops of DR in a stills camera at some point. I know that 20stop plus cinema sensors have been developed by Red. Granted, that is pretty cutting edge and extremely expensive high end 4k cinema gear. But knowing that it's been done, one can't help but wonder if that kind of dynamic range will eventually find it's way into photographer hands.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #156 on: January 12, 2014, 03:06:08 AM »

sanj

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2916
Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #157 on: January 12, 2014, 03:41:14 AM »


I will always welcome more DR, but even when the day comes when it's possible to lift the shadows by 5 stops, I will still take the same approach to shots like this and bust out the monolights. If I have to choose between good light and lifting shadows, I'll go with good light every single time.


Shhhh. You will soon create enemies here.

I've marveled at your portfolio quite often, and considering the types of subjects that you shoot, if you stated that more DR would be beneficial for the subjects that you shoot, I would certainly wouldn't doubt it. Cars don't care if you flash 2000ws worth of monolights in their faces. I wouldn't dare do the same with zebras and rhinos who would most definitely get scared off, or lions that might get pissed off and decide to eat me :o
[/quote]

Hahahaha. :)
DR helps people when they cannot fill in with bounce boards or flash, or bracket exposures and fix in post because of handheld situations or moving subjects. I believe there will be lots of such photographers.
DR is not relevant when shooting in controlled situations. I believe there are fewer such photographers.
(But of course you know this and have stated it above).

Pls be clear: I am not complaining about current DR in Canon sensors, just saying that better DR would be nicer.

100

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 170
Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #158 on: January 12, 2014, 06:40:20 AM »
For the bulk of those years, Nikon went from about 10 stops to about 12 stops. It was only when they decided to stop making their own sensors and use Sony Exmor that they jumped almost another two stops (the D800 and D600 don't actually get 14+ stops of native DR...if you look at the Screen DR measures on DXO, the actual DR, the "hardware" DR before any post processing mucks up the numbers, is 13.2 stops.) Actually, I think the D3x had about 12.8 stops. Sony Exmor gave Nikon that extra 1.2-1.4 stops of DR on average over the ~12 stops they had on average before.

The D3x has 13,65 EV of dynamic range according to DxO and that’s a 2008 camera…
The big leap was made before 2009, after that it’s “only” about 1 stop. Canon never made the big leap.

I'd point out that it is still just Sony Exmor that has that much of a dynamic range edge. There are few other sensors on the market that get that much dynamic range at ISO 100. The vast majority, including big name medium format sensors, are still in the 10-12 stops range. It isn't like Canon is lagging behind the whole industry. On the contrary, the whole industry is lagging behind Sony. (Just to keep things in proper perspective.)

I beg to differ. Nikon uses all kind of sensors. The D7100 has one by Toshiba (13.72 EV) for instance. It’s not only Nikon and Sony, the Pentax K3 has a 13.41 EV sensor and those aren’t even full frame pro camera’s.
Medium format is a niche market Canon doesn’t compete in, not yet anyway, so let’s leave medium format out of it for now.   

I  would offer that this kind of photography is considerably less common than landscape photography, so it isn't exactly indicative of the most common user. Canon tackles the problems the greatest majority need first. Increasing dynamic range, at least up through the 1D X/5D III, wasn't on the top of most people's lists. I guess the one good thing out of "people being people" and complaining about what they don't have and the other guy does is it might light that fire under Canon and get them to address dynamic range sooner rather than later.

I agree.

BTW, one question. You mentioned you used 7 frames separated by 2/3rds of a stop for that HDR shot. I'm curious why you didn't simply use -3 stops and +3 stops around 0 EC? Would that not have effectively achieved the same thing, with less work?

You get a smoother transition particularly in the highlights in night shots if you use more frames closer together. I combine the frames in photoshop to a 32 bit image and “develop” that in ACR. A 32 bit files in ACR let me play with 20 stops DR (-10 to +10). I develop the result to a 16 bit tiff file and tweak that in photoshop. It takes more time but gives me more control over the results than I get with dedicated HDR software like Photomatix Pro.

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #159 on: January 12, 2014, 04:57:33 PM »
For the bulk of those years, Nikon went from about 10 stops to about 12 stops. It was only when they decided to stop making their own sensors and use Sony Exmor that they jumped almost another two stops (the D800 and D600 don't actually get 14+ stops of native DR...if you look at the Screen DR measures on DXO, the actual DR, the "hardware" DR before any post processing mucks up the numbers, is 13.2 stops.) Actually, I think the D3x had about 12.8 stops. Sony Exmor gave Nikon that extra 1.2-1.4 stops of DR on average over the ~12 stops they had on average before.

The D3x has 13,65 EV of dynamic range according to DxO and that’s a 2008 camera…
The big leap was made before 2009, after that it’s “only” about 1 stop. Canon never made the big leap.

That is after downsampling. Downsampling doesn't do you any good when you are editing RAW images. Dynamic Range improves editing latitude. Since you can only ever edit RAW images at full size, the Print DR spec from DXO is meaningless. You have to look at the Screen DR spec from DXO. Screen DR tends to be a stop or more less than the downsampled statistics.

Downsampling is only useful for comparing image results from different cameras on a normalize basis. It doesn't actually tell you anything about your RAW post-process editing latitude, and can actually GREATLY exaggerate how flexible your camera's images will be in post.

I'd point out that it is still just Sony Exmor that has that much of a dynamic range edge. There are few other sensors on the market that get that much dynamic range at ISO 100. The vast majority, including big name medium format sensors, are still in the 10-12 stops range. It isn't like Canon is lagging behind the whole industry. On the contrary, the whole industry is lagging behind Sony. (Just to keep things in proper perspective.)

I beg to differ. Nikon uses all kind of sensors. The D7100 has one by Toshiba (13.72 EV) for instance. It’s not only Nikon and Sony, the Pentax K3 has a 13.41 EV sensor and those aren’t even full frame pro camera’s.
Medium format is a niche market Canon doesn’t compete in, not yet anyway, so let’s leave medium format out of it for now.

I'll keep medium format in the mix if I please, thank you very much! :P With the likes of the D800 and A7r, it becomes ever more relevant to include medium format, which used to be the ONLY way to get 30-40 megapixels. As for your DR numbers, read my response above...that is only when downsampling. Actual hardware DR as it pertains to real-world editing latitude is much less. There are only a couple cameras on the market that actually break the 13-stop DR barrier, and none yet, to my knowledge, that actually reach 14 stops exactly. It is impossible to have more than 14 stops of actual real-world DR with DSLRs because we only have 14-bit AD converters. To achieve a true 14-stop DR at ISO 100, you would literally have to have zero noise (which isn't even possible at -80°C). I think there may be a medium format camera or two that uses a 16-bit ADC, however that clearly hasn't done them any good, as they are all still limited to around 11-12 stops of DR due to read noise.

It looks like the D7100 actually does get up there, though. ScreenDR is 12.9 stops, which is actually pretty impressive for a non-Exmor sensor. The K3 gets 12.6 stops, which is getting there.

BTW, one question. You mentioned you used 7 frames separated by 2/3rds of a stop for that HDR shot. I'm curious why you didn't simply use -3 stops and +3 stops around 0 EC? Would that not have effectively achieved the same thing, with less work?

You get a smoother transition particularly in the highlights in night shots if you use more frames closer together. I combine the frames in photoshop to a 32 bit image and “develop” that in ACR. A 32 bit files in ACR let me play with 20 stops DR (-10 to +10). I develop the result to a 16 bit tiff file and tweak that in photoshop. It takes more time but gives me more control over the results than I get with dedicated HDR software like Photomatix Pro.

Hmm, so you are actually creating a 32-bit float TIFF, then passing it through ACR? Any chance you have or could write a tutorial on that? As in how you actually combine the frames and all. Using ACR to tonemap sounds WAY better than using that crummy little HDR tool Photoshop has, which makes tonemapping a real PITA. I stopped bothering with HDR a while ago because of how difficult it is to use either Photoshops HDR or Photomatix Pro and really get the kind of results I want from tonemapping. ACR is far more intuitive with its controls, and would be immensely more effective, I think. I'd love to get back into making HDR landscapes, especially if I can extract the same kind of quality you did with that bridge shot.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 04:59:40 PM by jrista »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6588
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #160 on: January 12, 2014, 09:46:43 PM »
I use the 32bit technique a lot.

Shooting and creating photo real HDR

You can edit them in LR5 too, all the power and controls of ACR with 100% history.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 10:22:09 PM by privatebydesign »
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #161 on: January 13, 2014, 12:17:35 AM »
I use the 32bit technique a lot.

Shooting and creating photo real HDR

You can edit them in LR5 too, all the power and controls of ACR with 100% history.

Thanks! That's actually really awesome, and extremely strait forward. I had no idea ACR would open a 32bit TIFF and give you 20 stops of editing latitude. Well, I'm going to have to play with that once spring and summer roll around, and I'm able to get back into landscapes. This is basically the kind of HDR editing I've always wanted, ironic that it was right at my fingertips...

GMCPhotographics

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1339
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #162 on: January 13, 2014, 04:45:35 AM »
I do something a little different. I try to contain the whole contrast range in a single frame if possible.
If not, I'll shoot two or three frames to contain the range needed and then edit in LR, 16 bit files exported into CS5. These I lay over each other as layers and then I use a large soft eraser / brush and work on the layers until I get an image with no blown highlights or blocked up blacks....but still looks natural and simualr to how my eye remembers the scene.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #162 on: January 13, 2014, 04:45:35 AM »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6588
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #163 on: January 13, 2014, 08:13:41 AM »
It isn't a panacea, and as I said in my reply a few days ago, I use it along with many other techniques. The key is to capture the information at the highest quality you can, then find the best way to present that information.

My top three methods for interiors with problematic exterior light levels are; 1, bring the light up in the room with strobes, this can look ok if the room is smaller and the architectural lighting is not a key element to the actual space. 2, layer mask in PS. 3, PS 32bit.

I often end up using a combination of all three but will bracket the hell out of the scene to guarantee I have all the information in front of me.

On one thread about HDR techniques many months ago I wrote about all the different kinds of blending, HDR, etc techniques and posted a same image comparison, but it is one of many hundreds of my posts that disappeared for no known reason. It was funny, the thread was basically about Photomatix and how horrible it was, yet my Photomatix HDR rendition, not the blend, was very popular and showed none of the comedy HDR look we are all so familiar with. Photomatix is an extremely powerful program and has recently been updated, skilful use of it can make remarkably subtle images now.

This again highlights another aspect of forum anxiety, I regularly shoot in situations where I am severely low iso DR limited, not just by my Canon's DR range even the mighty D800 wouldn't help much, because of that I have fully explored all the techniques available to mitigate that and am aware of how to work around it. Meanwhile other posters are adamant there is no DR "issue". However, I am not placing myself on a higher plane, I am a noise Haters, can't stand it, as far as I am concerned even a 7D at base is too noisy, but only because I haven't fully explored every noise reduction technique to satisfy myself, because it is not a priority for me. For the birders out there who have to shoot at >800iso they do prioritise that technique so don't understand my frustration at low levels of noise. Yes I have Topaz etc, but you can't know everything about every technique, and as far as end result, what is acceptable to one person might not be to another.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 08:19:33 AM by privatebydesign »
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #164 on: January 13, 2014, 01:19:37 PM »
It isn't a panacea, and as I said in my reply a few days ago, I use it along with many other techniques. The key is to capture the information at the highest quality you can, then find the best way to present that information.

My top three methods for interiors with problematic exterior light levels are; 1, bring the light up in the room with strobes, this can look ok if the room is smaller and the architectural lighting is not a key element to the actual space. 2, layer mask in PS. 3, PS 32bit.

I often end up using a combination of all three but will bracket the hell out of the scene to guarantee I have all the information in front of me.

On one thread about HDR techniques many months ago I wrote about all the different kinds of blending, HDR, etc techniques and posted a same image comparison, but it is one of many hundreds of my posts that disappeared for no known reason. It was funny, the thread was basically about Photomatix and how horrible it was, yet my Photomatix HDR rendition, not the blend, was very popular and showed none of the comedy HDR look we are all so familiar with. Photomatix is an extremely powerful program and has recently been updated, skilful use of it can make remarkably subtle images now.

This again highlights another aspect of forum anxiety, I regularly shoot in situations where I am severely low iso DR limited, not just by my Canon's DR range even the mighty D800 wouldn't help much, because of that I have fully explored all the techniques available to mitigate that and am aware of how to work around it. Meanwhile other posters are adamant there is no DR "issue". However, I am not placing myself on a higher plane, I am a noise Haters, can't stand it, as far as I am concerned even a 7D at base is too noisy, but only because I haven't fully explored every noise reduction technique to satisfy myself, because it is not a priority for me. For the birders out there who have to shoot at >800iso they do prioritise that technique so don't understand my frustration at low levels of noise. Yes I have Topaz etc, but you can't know everything about every technique, and as far as end result, what is acceptable to one person might not be to another.

Well, there can most definitely be DR issues in many kinds of scenes. Photographing interiors is probably the best way to exacerbate dynamic range to the ultimate limits. If that's what you do, you should be screaming for Canon to reduce read noise to less than 1e-, and demand full 16-bit output with 20 stops of DR. :P

As for the 7D, by todays standards, there isn't any question it's a noisy little bugger. It's sweet spot is ISO 400-1600, it does rather poorly at ISO 100 and pretty badly at ISO 3200. It isn't TERRIBLY far behind modern APS-C cameras, however it really lags pretty far behind modern FF cameras. Between the 7D and 5D III or 6D, the difference in noise is so massive, it's almost painful. Part of that is due to the 7D having smaller pixels, part of it has to do with the strong AA filter (softer detail is more prone to being perceptually noisier, vs. sharper detail with is perceived as less noisy, even when they technically have the same amounts of noise)...however the 7D's pixels seem to have a particularly low full well capacity. At 4.3µm the FWC is 20187e-, where as the 70D with even smaller pixels has a FWC of 26726e-. The difference in Q.E. is a mere 4%, where as the difference in full well capacity is 32%! I am not sure what Canon did with the 70D sensor, but they have clearly made some fairly significant advancements with their sensor fabrication as far as efficiently utilizing the minimal amount of space they have. I would love to see ChipWorks break down the 70D sensor design...a die shrink to 180nm from 500nm could account for the necessary increase in surface area to support a higher FWC.

Even more impressive is the D7100, which as a FWC of 29236e- for pixels that are even smaller than the 70D. Again, the difference in Q.E. is relatively small, 11%, but the difference in charge capacity is huge, 45%! Canon's 18mp APS-C sensor simply wasn't really a thing of wonder...never really has been. It's surprising it's survived as long as it has in as many cameras as it has, given it's rather lackluster low-level specs. I am hoping the 70D sensor becomes the new standard for low end DSLRs and the EOS-M. I also sincerely hope the 7D II gets a sensor with a FWC in the 30,000e- range at 24mp...that would help immensely with the noise issues.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
« Reply #164 on: January 13, 2014, 01:19:37 PM »