August 22, 2014, 03:55:59 PM

Author Topic: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]  (Read 15046 times)

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3435
    • View Profile
Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #90 on: June 17, 2014, 05:50:02 PM »
@ LTRLI – next time you're in Boulogne-Billancourt, stop by DxO HQ and ask to see their prints from the D800 with 14.4 stops of DR. 

 ::)

Neuro, I know you know better. So stop trolling.

DxO should know better.  It's not 'trolling' to point out that the 'Print DR' value is misleading and ludicrous, as is a 'Sports Score' based on the sensor alone, as is insisting that the 70-200/2.8L IS is better than the MkII version that succeeded it, etc.

Come on man, I know you understand the hows and whys of normalization even if Jrisita does not. Don't play the troll game where you push an agenda only to admit the truth when really pushed later on, it makes into a pure fanboy.

And yeah the overall scores are of dubious nature, but what do they have to do with the individual plots and normalization?

And yeah DxO has had some issued with their lens data, but that is something else entirely. I've bashed them for some of their lens stuff as much as anyone.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #90 on: June 17, 2014, 05:50:02 PM »

DRR

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #91 on: June 17, 2014, 05:56:24 PM »
A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras,

I trust you know Andy was paid to switch. Some thing all major camera brands do as part of their advertising strategy. I doubt he has bought any Canon gear at all (just assuming here as I do not know the specifics on how these deals work);
"I was recently appointed a ‘Canon Explorer’ ... I’m an ambassador for the brand..."

I believe he became a "Canon Explorer" after he switched. Also, I don't believe Canon actually pays the Explorers of Light photographers...at least, not directly. They may get equipment, but a LOT of high end photographers get free equipment from all the major brands, often simultaneously.

If you read Andy's blog, he seems like a pretty sincere guy. I don't think he switched because he was paid off, and if he was, you need to present solid proof of that. (I'm not one for hearsay and rumormongering about how pros can't have honest opinions.)

I know nothing about this case specifically but a friend of mine has a similar relationship with Panavision. He's a commerical DP and uses Panavision exclusively, and he can use their stuff in his own promotional materials.

He gets full access to all Panavision equipment, current and discontinued, basically anything they have, cameras, lenses, etc, he can simply ask for and they'll ship it to wherever he needs, for as long as he wants, but he does not own it.

He does not get paid for this. But obviously it adds to his appeal as a DP for production companies if he can provide all his own equipment for a shoot because the production company does not have to foot that bill. That keeps him working. As part of the relationship he did need to maintain a level of self-promotion but as long as he was working that requirement was basically met. He got a bunch of free t-shirts and other swag but no monetary compensation on a regular basis. If they decided to, for example, feature him and his work in their own promotional materials, he would be compensated for that.

I don't know how Canon handles their Explorers of Light program but my guess is it's something similar. You lose credibility as a company if you pay your brand ambassadors.




LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3435
    • View Profile
Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #92 on: June 17, 2014, 06:13:06 PM »
I understand normalization perfectly.

It seem like you do.

Quote
I do not think it is valid in all contexts. Noise frequencies are one thing...but that does nothing to tell you about editing latitide in a RAW editor like Lightroom. YOU CAN NOT EDIT DOWNSAMPLED RAW. That's a misnomer. Downsampled RAW images do not exist.

What does this have to do with fairly judging whether one camera is better, worse, same in regards to DR,SNR??

Quote
Your talking noise frequencies. I'm talking editing latitude.

Yeah because you need to take into the account the former if you are trying to make statements like one camera has better SNR or DR than another and what editing latitude you have when trying to take max advantage of MP account is something else entirely.

Quote
The problem here is not that I do not understand normalization. It's that you refuse to look at the problem of comparing cameras from a different angle than the one DXO has imposed upon you. ;P

No, it's that you don't understand why normalization must be carried out to make statements about what camera does better than another for certain things.


Quote
Your misunderstanding. DXO's results are only meaningful when you are on DXO's site (i.e. isolated) comparing cameras that DXO has tested. Many of DXO's results and measurements have no relevance outside of their site, in the real world...such as, oh, say, lifting shadows in Lightroom. Lifting the shadows of a RAW image, an UNSCALED RAW image, in Lightroom?

Relatively they do!


Quote
What if I want to know how to cameras compare IN THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT? Well, Print DR is invalid, it doesn't have the capacity to answer my question in that context. Screen DR, on the other hand, DOES.

100% misleading, who cares if some 1000MP camera can't pull the shadows well when images are viewed, in all 1000MP glory, at 100% view, compared to some 10MP camera viewed at 100% if if you viewed the image from the 1000MP camera at the same scale as you view the 10MP image the 1000MP camera gave you better SNR and DR???

Quote
It tells me the dynamic range of the full sized, unscaled RAW images. I WANT to COMPARE that between cameras. That is NOT an invalid goal. On the contrary, THAT IS WHAT EVERYONE CARES ABOUT WHEN THEY THINK ABOUT DR!! :P

That isn't fair to lower MP cameras. As I say, you may be able to maintain the same detail as a lower MP camera and have better SNR and DR even though viewed at a scale where you take advantage of all the extra detail it might, at 100% view, measure worse.

Yeah maybe you want to know how you'd do, taking full advantage of the new camera's resolution compared to what you were getting when you took full advantage of your old, lower MP camera and get a sense of that fine, but at the end of the day it's all the same not fair to slag off on the higher MP camera and say it is worse or not as fully better as it is, normalized to the same scale as your old camera. You might end up thinking that the new model flat out would give worse SNR and DR and perform worse than the old one when it really might not at all or you might minimize the amount that it is better and so on.

Quote
Do you get it now?

Now and before.



Quote
When it comes to shadow lifting, the number of megapixels doesn't matter. The dynamic range of each and every pixel is what matters. I don't really care about the photon shot noise levels, which permeate the entire signal. I care about the READ NOISE levels, which only exist in the deep shadows. In that context, it is entirely fair to compare across cameras, because what I want to compare is only valid at full resolution. The frequencies of all noise are immaterial, the RMS level of the READ NOISE is what matters.

so read shadow noise is magically invariant on scale???

Quote
You can only compare cameras using information produced the same way. Print DR, on DXOs site, is only valid when comparing cameras within the context of DXO. It is entirely invalid to use the Print DR value from DXO, and compare it to any dynamic range value derived anywhere else, say DPR. Print DR only gives you a numeric value with which to compare cameras in one specific context...DXO. It does not give you any real-world information beyond that context.

oh brother, yeah the exact numbers taken alone aren't generally useful but comparing the numbers relatively they are, the relative differences are absolutely generally useful in outside contexts that is the entire point of normalization!

Quote
I am not trying to trick anyone. I believe DXO IS tricking people with their Print DR numbers...they are regurgitated all over the net, OUT OF CONTEX, ALL THE TIME...and that is exceptionally missleading.

Maybe you are not trying to trick people, but you are misleading them by mistake then.
And yeah notice how basically everyone else does use those numbers? But nope, Jrista is the only person the world who actually 'understands' and 'gets' normalization. I mean, OK, here and there a few people make the mistake and assume those numbers are what you'd get just dealing with a RAW file at 100% alone, and it's true for that, to get the true number, in isolation, Screen DR is the one to go, and a few people mix it up and use Print DR for that too, but not that many from what I see.
 
Quote
True, for most things. Not true for shadow lifting. :P

Yes, because shadows are magical unicorns.



Quote
It is fair! I can't lift shadows with a RAW image that's been downsampled...because I can't downsample a RAW image. I have to convert it to RGB pixels, then downsample it, then save it as, say, a TIFF. The TIFF doesn't have even remotely close to the same editing latitude.

Who is talking about having to edit the TIFF afterwards???

Quote
I could care less about the rules DXO enforces on "comparing" cameras. I know what normalization is, and they provide useful details in some contexts. But that is not the context I am usually referring to. There is more to comparing a camera than ONLY comparing JUST the sensor, and JUST a normalized output at that. There are far more things and ways to compare than just the normalized image context. I'm not saying comparing in a normalized context is invalid...it's just incomplete.

Of course there is more to comparing than just the sensor, but we happen to be talking about just the sensor here.



Quote
Outside of that context, a dynamic range value of 14.4 stops of DR for the D800 is invalid. When people get into lengthy, extended debates about the shadow lifting range of the D800, they should be using 13.2 stops of DR as the reference...which would mean they could lift a bit over 5 stops without seeing noise in the shadows. That is exactly what a lot of the examples on DPR indicate...but the debate still rages on, why? Because DXO says 14.4 stops.

If they are viewing full detail at 100% then yes they should only expect to pull 13.2 stops. But if they want to know how many stops better it might do than say a 5D2 it would be the 3 stops relative difference not just the 2 (or whatever the exact numbers are, you get the idea).

Quote
Anyway, were talking at perpendicular angles here. I understand normalization. Normalization has it's place. Normalization has it's use. When it comes to discussions of dynamic range an the shadow lifting ability of cameras, Print DR is invalid. Screen DR is valid. If you want to COMPARE the shadow lifting ability of cameras, then Screen DR is the value you have to use.

No it's when you are relatively comparing that you must use the PrintDR. It's the ScreenDR that you use when you just want to know how much you can pull and lift when viewing the RAWs at 100% view.

Quote
I concede the point about normalization for comparing "fairly" as you say. I've never denied it.
You jsut spent the last 10 paragraphs denying it.

Quote
But that is different than what I'm talking about, and it ignores the constant debate about WHAT DYNAMIC RANGE ALLOWS in cameras that have more of it (or, to be more precise, allows in cameras that have LESS READ NOISE...because that is primarily what were talking about here...the difference between the D800 and 5D III isn't sensor (pre-read) dynamic range...it's read noise levels (post-read).)

Yeah keep trying to conflate what you can get out of a RAW image when working on it at 100% view and what to expect in that context with comparing how sensors do relative to one another. For the former, yeah it is the ScreenDR, for the latter though it is PrintDR.

Skulker

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 362
  • PP is no vice and as shot is no virtue
    • View Profile
Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #93 on: June 17, 2014, 06:38:12 PM »
A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras,

I trust you know Andy was paid to switch. Some thing all major camera brands do as part of their advertising strategy. I doubt he has bought any Canon gear at all (just assuming here as I do not know the specifics on how these deals work);
"I was recently appointed a ‘Canon Explorer’ ... I’m an ambassador for the brand..."

i trust you can back up that claim. He specifically denied that and said he paid for his gear. But maybe you know better.
If you debate with a fool onlookers can find it VERY difficult to tell the difference.

Maui5150

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #94 on: June 17, 2014, 06:48:22 PM »
T6i!!!!

T6i!!!!



T6i!!!!



T6i!!!!



T6i!!!!



T6i!!!!



T6i!!!!

Bennymiata

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile
Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #95 on: June 17, 2014, 07:20:39 PM »
It's available here

http://www.digidirect.com.au/camera_lenses/canon/wide_angle_zoom/canon_ef_16-35mm_f4l_is_usm

I was in one of their stores on Monday and saw it on display.
Shame, I bought a 16-35 F2.8 in January.
Mind you, I haven't needed IS with this lens.

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3946
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #96 on: June 17, 2014, 07:54:41 PM »
I understand normalization perfectly.

It seem like you do.

yadda yadda blah blah

You keep missing the point. Your locked into your limited notion of what is "comparable" and what is not. I'm choosing to compare something you have decided is not comparable. Sorry, I disagree. I've always disagreed, I always will disagree. I suspect your in the same position, so this the last I'll say on it in this particular thread.

In the context I'm always referring to, the same context I've been referring to for years, I'm not interested in how the images look in the end. I'm interested in what I can do with the RAW files. I'm interested in the editing potential...the latitude with which I can push and pull exposure and white balance and color around. RAW files are not scaled. You always work with them at their native size. Scaling does not play a factor when it comes to editing RAW files. I don't care what the final outcome looks like. That is ARBITRARY. I can output the same images DOZENS of times at different sizes, for different prints, all with different amounts of dynamic range, all with different SNRs. But when I'm sitting in front of Lightroom, that's all the last thing on my mind. We ALL sit in front of lightroom, pushing exposure around...all the time, day in and day out, year in and year out.

Just because DXO says I get 14.4 stops of DR at an 8x12" 300dpi size specifically doesn't mean that's what your going to be sizing to in the end. You may downsample it more, you may downsample it less, you may ENLARGE! DXO's Print DR is an arbitrarily chosen standard FOR THE PURPOSES OF comparing ONLY within the limited context of DXO's web site. It doesn't tell you anything about actual, real-world results as if your sitting in front of your computer, using Lightroom to actually WORK with the RAW files those cameras output. It just tells you what you could get IF you downsampled to EXACTLY that size. That's all. And that's fine and dandy...when I'm browsing around DXO's site selecting cameras to compare with their little camera comparer, it gives me a contextually valid result.

It's impossible to edit RAW at an other size than 100%. So 100% size is all that matters when you want to know what you can do, as far as lifting shadows for the purposes of compressing 10, 12, 13.2 or 15.3 stops of dynamic range into the 8 stops of your screen, or the 5-7 stops of print. The output dynamic range is arbitrary...it depends on countless factors that ultimately affect it (which, yes, total megapixel count is one of them, but noise reduction routines, HDR merge/enfuse, etc. are others). You may end up with 14 stops of DR, you may end up with 16 stops of DR in a file you were able to perform some epic noise reduction on. The output isn't what matters when your actually sitting in front of Lightroom actually editing the RAW itself. The RAW file itself, at 100% size, is what matters.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #96 on: June 17, 2014, 07:54:41 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13852
    • View Profile
Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #97 on: June 17, 2014, 10:48:25 PM »
Come on man, I know you understand the hows and whys of normalization...

Sure.  There are times when transformation and normalization of data are necessary...but it should be done rationally.    I once reviewed a manuscript where the normalization of chemical constituents resulted in a negative solute concentration – you can't have less than zero of something dissolved in a solvent!  When normalized values exceed the range of what is physically possible, the normalization method needs to be revised.  Quite simply, DxO is BAD 'image science'.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

AvTvM

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 914
    • View Profile
Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #98 on: June 18, 2014, 01:52:33 AM »
DXO should
1. capture image of identical test target using 3 copies of purchased test cameras and the same optical bench
2. physically print the images using the same physical printer every time and exactly the same print settings
3. scan those Print-outs using the same scanner and scan settings every time
4. then present to us 100% views of the same, pre-defined image areas of those scans ... 1x Center, 4x halfway out along image diagonals and 4x corners

THEN i might start taking their test method seriously. :-)


neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13852
    • View Profile
Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #99 on: June 18, 2014, 10:06:29 AM »
DXO should
1. capture image of identical test target using 3 copies of purchased test cameras and the same optical bench


I came across this image of an unnamed DxO 'scientist' preparing their optical bench for a camera test.

EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

AvTvM

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 914
    • View Profile
Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #100 on: June 18, 2014, 12:06:30 PM »
Hehe!  ;D

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3435
    • View Profile
Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #101 on: June 19, 2014, 02:48:20 PM »
I understand normalization perfectly.

It seem like you do.

yadda yadda blah blah

You keep missing the point. Your locked into your limited notion of what is "comparable" and what is not. I'm choosing to compare something you have decided is not comparable. Sorry, I disagree. I've always disagreed, I always will disagree. I suspect your in the same position, so this the last I'll say on it in this particular thread.

In the context I'm always referring to, the same context I've been referring to for years, I'm not interested in how the images look in the end. I'm interested in what I can do with the RAW files. I'm interested in the editing potential...the latitude with which I can push and pull exposure and white balance and color around. RAW files are not scaled. You always work with them at their native size. Scaling does not play a factor when it comes to editing RAW files. I don't care what the final outcome looks like. That is ARBITRARY. I can output the same images DOZENS of times at different sizes, for different prints, all with different amounts of dynamic range, all with different SNRs. But when I'm sitting in front of Lightroom, that's all the last thing on my mind. We ALL sit in front of lightroom, pushing exposure around...all the time, day in and day out, year in and year out.

Just because DXO says I get 14.4 stops of DR at an 8x12" 300dpi size specifically doesn't mean that's what your going to be sizing to in the end. You may downsample it more, you may downsample it less, you may ENLARGE! DXO's Print DR is an arbitrarily chosen standard FOR THE PURPOSES OF comparing ONLY within the limited context of DXO's web site. It doesn't tell you anything about actual, real-world results as if your sitting in front of your computer, using Lightroom to actually WORK with the RAW files those cameras output. It just tells you what you could get IF you downsampled to EXACTLY that size. That's all. And that's fine and dandy...when I'm browsing around DXO's site selecting cameras to compare with their little camera comparer, it gives me a contextually valid result.

It's impossible to edit RAW at an other size than 100%. So 100% size is all that matters when you want to know what you can do, as far as lifting shadows for the purposes of compressing 10, 12, 13.2 or 15.3 stops of dynamic range into the 8 stops of your screen, or the 5-7 stops of print. The output dynamic range is arbitrary...it depends on countless factors that ultimately affect it (which, yes, total megapixel count is one of them, but noise reduction routines, HDR merge/enfuse, etc. are others). You may end up with 14 stops of DR, you may end up with 16 stops of DR in a file you were able to perform some epic noise reduction on. The output isn't what matters when your actually sitting in front of Lightroom actually editing the RAW itself. The RAW file itself, at 100% size, is what matters.

blah blah blah

you can't compare cameras that way and say that one is better than another, as I've pointed out that can lead to very misleading results.

You are basically saying that all you ever refer to is comparing cameras at 100% view, but then you talk in generalities, which badly confuses many I bet. It seems very misleading. Again, say some 100MP camera has worse SNR per photosite than some 6MP camera but, viewing images at the same scale from each the 100MP camera has MUCH better SNR, well it would not be fair to say that the 100MP has worse SNR than the 6MP camera, but with your 100% view RAW editing latitude only stance that is the impression you give.

Finding out what 100% view RAW editing latitude you have is fine and good, as a stand alone, but you shouldn't be using that in the context of comparing one camera to another and saying that it's overall better or worse for DR/SNR. That is simply wrong and misleading. There is a reason that you are one of the few people left who try to talk in such a manner.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3435
    • View Profile
Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #102 on: June 19, 2014, 02:51:25 PM »
Come on man, I know you understand the hows and whys of normalization...

Sure.  There are times when transformation and normalization of data are necessary...but it should be done rationally.    I once reviewed a manuscript where the normalization of chemical constituents resulted in a negative solute concentration – you can't have less than zero of something dissolved in a solvent!  When normalized values exceed the range of what is physically possible, the normalization method needs to be revised.  Quite simply, DxO is BAD 'image science'.

And how is it bad image science?
Because it makes Canon look worse for low ISO DR at this point in time?  ::)

(and I bet if the next gen from Canon has better DR than Exmor, that suddenly you will go back to not trying to obfuscate and hide the Print normalized data)

Once again you play sneaky tricks bringing up things like less than zero results or probabilities more than 100% and other various mistakes and then mentioning DxO and trying to trick people into thinking they are doing things of the same nature.

You'd make a good politician.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #102 on: June 19, 2014, 02:51:25 PM »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3435
    • View Profile
Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #103 on: June 19, 2014, 02:52:03 PM »
DXO should
1. capture image of identical test target using 3 copies of purchased test cameras and the same optical bench


I came across this image of an unnamed DxO 'scientist' preparing their optical bench for a camera test.




You remind me of Carl Rove....

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3946
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #104 on: June 19, 2014, 02:58:16 PM »
I understand normalization perfectly.

It seem like you do.

yadda yadda blah blah

You keep missing the point. Your locked into your limited notion of what is "comparable" and what is not. I'm choosing to compare something you have decided is not comparable. Sorry, I disagree. I've always disagreed, I always will disagree. I suspect your in the same position, so this the last I'll say on it in this particular thread.

In the context I'm always referring to, the same context I've been referring to for years, I'm not interested in how the images look in the end. I'm interested in what I can do with the RAW files. I'm interested in the editing potential...the latitude with which I can push and pull exposure and white balance and color around. RAW files are not scaled. You always work with them at their native size. Scaling does not play a factor when it comes to editing RAW files. I don't care what the final outcome looks like. That is ARBITRARY. I can output the same images DOZENS of times at different sizes, for different prints, all with different amounts of dynamic range, all with different SNRs. But when I'm sitting in front of Lightroom, that's all the last thing on my mind. We ALL sit in front of lightroom, pushing exposure around...all the time, day in and day out, year in and year out.

Just because DXO says I get 14.4 stops of DR at an 8x12" 300dpi size specifically doesn't mean that's what your going to be sizing to in the end. You may downsample it more, you may downsample it less, you may ENLARGE! DXO's Print DR is an arbitrarily chosen standard FOR THE PURPOSES OF comparing ONLY within the limited context of DXO's web site. It doesn't tell you anything about actual, real-world results as if your sitting in front of your computer, using Lightroom to actually WORK with the RAW files those cameras output. It just tells you what you could get IF you downsampled to EXACTLY that size. That's all. And that's fine and dandy...when I'm browsing around DXO's site selecting cameras to compare with their little camera comparer, it gives me a contextually valid result.

It's impossible to edit RAW at an other size than 100%. So 100% size is all that matters when you want to know what you can do, as far as lifting shadows for the purposes of compressing 10, 12, 13.2 or 15.3 stops of dynamic range into the 8 stops of your screen, or the 5-7 stops of print. The output dynamic range is arbitrary...it depends on countless factors that ultimately affect it (which, yes, total megapixel count is one of them, but noise reduction routines, HDR merge/enfuse, etc. are others). You may end up with 14 stops of DR, you may end up with 16 stops of DR in a file you were able to perform some epic noise reduction on. The output isn't what matters when your actually sitting in front of Lightroom actually editing the RAW itself. The RAW file itself, at 100% size, is what matters.

blah blah blah

you can't compare cameras that way and say that one is better than another, as I've pointed out that can lead to very misleading results.

You are basically saying that all you ever refer to is comparing cameras at 100% view, but then you talk in generalities, which badly confuses many I bet. It seems very misleading. Again, say some 100MP camera has worse SNR per photosite than some 6MP camera but, viewing images at the same scale from each the 100MP camera has MUCH better SNR, well it would not be fair to say that the 100MP has worse SNR than the 6MP camera, but with your 100% view RAW editing latitude only stance that is the impression you give.

Finding out what 100% view RAW editing latitude you have is fine and good, as a stand alone, but you shouldn't be using that in the context of comparing one camera to another and saying that it's overall better or worse for DR/SNR. That is simply wrong and misleading. There is a reason that you are one of the few people left who try to talk in such a manner.

Not comparing "cameras". Just comparing their editing latitude. For all the rest, existing results from DXO, DPR, etc. are sufficient. I JUST mean comparing editing latitude. Which is what all the DR debates are always about...how much can you lift the shadows. That's it. Please don't conflate that with your assumption that I'm "comparing cameras", I am not. You keep ignoring the fact that there is a CONTEXT within which the debate occurs. There is always a context. The context, here on CR, is that the DR debate always ends up referring to how much editing latitude....how much shadow lifting...you have with Camera A vs. Camera B. That's what I'm always referring to, because that's what the debate is always about.

You are personally concerned about total noise levels, and specifically total noise levels in a normalized context. That is COMPLETELY VALID! I'm not debating that. I don't think ANYONE has ever debated that. It's just a different context. Evaluating the total amount of noise in a downsampled image is different than evaluating the editing latitude of a RAW file.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« Reply #104 on: June 19, 2014, 02:58:16 PM »