November 22, 2017, 08:10:45 AM

Author Topic: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR  (Read 169290 times)

SecureGSM

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 742
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #420 on: July 17, 2017, 02:27:41 AM »
you have missed the point (as I initially have as well). Neuro's point is:  5DIII was more expensive at release (in dollar equivalent) than it's predecessor (5D II), but 6DII is cheaper than it's predecessor (6D original) at the time of release.


I was actually comparing the 5DII to the 5DIII, an upgrade which is shaping up to be similar to the 6D vs 6DII.  ..Except the 6DII got cheaper instead of more expensive.

good comparison

but is the 6d2 actually showing up cheaper than the original 6d?
did you adjust for inflation and currency exchange rates?
Or do you just expect us to believe what you say without showing us the proof? ;)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #420 on: July 17, 2017, 02:27:41 AM »

Khalai

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • In the absence of light, darknoise prevails...
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #421 on: July 17, 2017, 02:41:45 AM »
all the accolades given by various reviews and fan boys in agreement are less useful to some of us than the negative issues expressed by far fewer people whose use is actually impacted by some technical issue.

That's because everything HAS reached a point where it's all very good. But the minor issues that don't bother the majority of users can be critical to others.
So those negative voices ARE worth listenting to if you are one of those who is trying to decide and have specific requirements.

The, "Don't worry. Be happy," type advice is soothing to amatuers but disguises possible problems some may encounter if they want to get a little more creative.

That is true only to a certain point. One must read all reviews, both negative and positive and apply critical thinking in the process. Otherwise, you'll end up confused and misinformed, because many reviews, either positive or negative, tend to augment their point by exagerrrating either pros or cons of certain camera. So people need to read both types of reviews and apply their own reason to them. Every review needs to be taken with a smaller or larger grain of salt because reviews are written by humans and thus more or less subjective.

from available data, that's true at 800 iso and higher so... tradeoff, not superior

All this low ISO DR argument is becoming really absurd. There is no holy grail, there is no magic bullet and there are very little scenarios, when 12 EV is not enough but 14 EV is. Nobody will suddenly become better photographer just because they have 1-2 EV DR advantage. You can either use easily almost any modern camera on a scene of you have to bracket and exposure blend in the post anyway. Apart from landscapers, who else is using exclusively ISO 100-200? Studio shooters? They control the light like no tomorrow and DR is not a problem. Good luck shooting sports, weddings, reportage or any fast paced stuff with fixed ISO 100.

E.g.. my usual ISO is around 400-1600 (3200) at which any DR advantage of any brand is insignificant. Don't get me wrong. If it's proven that Canon deliberately put inferior sensor in 6D II (without any tradeoff such as exceptional high ISO performance or other bonuses), thnt I'll not hesitate to say, that that's quite outrageous. But instead of immediately bashing a camera which has not been released yet, I'm patiently waiting for multiple reviews and tests before I'll make any conclusion. These anectodal tests, using all over the same RAWs, are not proving or disproving anything just yet.
6D | Zeiss 21/2.8 ZE | 24-70/2.8L II | 35/1.4L | 50/1.2L | Zeiss 50/2 ZE Makro | Zeiss 85/1.4 ZE | 70-200/2.8L II

Mikehit

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2160
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #422 on: July 17, 2017, 03:26:27 AM »
Given a choice between 80D with on-chip DAC and 6D2 with off-chip DAC I would choose the 6D2 every time. The 6D beats the 80D in image quality so I see no reason the 6D2 would not.

from available data, that's true at 800 iso and higher so... tradeoff, not superior

Dynamic range - yes. But dynamic range is a small part of the image quality. The 6D images are more malleable and can take greater processing.

How many people shoot ISO800 and below all the time? Limiting your argument to ISO 800 and below is a rather pathetic attempt to ignore facts that don't suit your argument.

Aglet

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1610
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #423 on: July 17, 2017, 04:24:50 AM »
Given a choice between 80D with on-chip DAC and 6D2 with off-chip DAC I would choose the 6D2 every time. The 6D beats the 80D in image quality so I see no reason the 6D2 would not.

from available data, that's true at 800 iso and higher so... tradeoff, not superior

Dynamic range - yes. But dynamic range is a small part of the image quality. The 6D images are more malleable and can take greater processing.

more dynamic range is what makes the file more malleable
color precision is another but it's also related to SNR and, therefore, DR

so if DR is a small part of image quality (really? /incredulous ) and 6D images are more malleable (really? under what circumstances?) , how do you substantiate YOUR argument?...

Quote
How many people shoot ISO800 and below all the time? Limiting your argument to ISO 800 and below is a rather pathetic attempt to ignore facts that don't suit your argument.

Plenty.  Especially those of us who shoot ABC cameras that actually have increasing IQ as you go down the ISO scale.  As a Canon shooter you would not know that advantage unless you're shooting 5d4, 80d or 7d2.

And the point is that the 80d's files, technically, should outperform the 6d/2's files below 800 iso.
What facts am I ignoring?... the ones you haven't presented and are hoping will change?

If you're gonna accuse someone of a weak argument, don't make a weaker one and expect to be taken seriously. :)

Still - this is all awaiting real examination of production 6d2 files.  The information could change and, for the sake of stubborn Canon shooters, I actually hope the shipping 6d2 is a better performer than what we have seen so far.  Partly because I have friends who've been looking fwd to it as an IQ upgrade path from the 6d and 5d3.
 ... i'm not holding my breathe in anticipation of a pleasant surprise.

Aglet

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1610
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #424 on: July 17, 2017, 04:28:57 AM »
all the accolades given by various reviews and fan boys in agreement are less useful to some of us than the negative issues expressed by far fewer people whose use is actually impacted by some technical issue.

That's because everything HAS reached a point where it's all very good. But the minor issues that don't bother the majority of users can be critical to others.
So those negative voices ARE worth listenting to if you are one of those who is trying to decide and have specific requirements.

The, "Don't worry. Be happy," type advice is soothing to amatuers but disguises possible problems some may encounter if they want to get a little more creative.

That is true only to a certain point. One must read all reviews, both negative and positive and apply critical thinking in the process. Otherwise, you'll end up confused and misinformed, because many reviews, either positive or negative, tend to augment their point by exagerrrating either pros or cons of certain camera. So people need to read both types of reviews and apply their own reason to them. Every review needs to be taken with a smaller or larger grain of salt because reviews are written by humans and thus more or less subjective.

from available data, that's true at 800 iso and higher so... tradeoff, not superior

All this low ISO DR argument is becoming really absurd. There is no holy grail, there is no magic bullet and there are very little scenarios, when 12 EV is not enough but 14 EV is. Nobody will suddenly become better photographer just because they have 1-2 EV DR advantage. You can either use easily almost any modern camera on a scene of you have to bracket and exposure blend in the post anyway. Apart from landscapers, who else is using exclusively ISO 100-200? Studio shooters? They control the light like no tomorrow and DR is not a problem. Good luck shooting sports, weddings, reportage or any fast paced stuff with fixed ISO 100.

E.g.. my usual ISO is around 400-1600 (3200) at which any DR advantage of any brand is insignificant. Don't get me wrong. If it's proven that Canon deliberately put inferior sensor in 6D II (without any tradeoff such as exceptional high ISO performance or other bonuses), thnt I'll not hesitate to say, that that's quite outrageous. But instead of immediately bashing a camera which has not been released yet, I'm patiently waiting for multiple reviews and tests before I'll make any conclusion. These anectodal tests, using all over the same RAWs, are not proving or disproving anything just yet.

I think we're mostly in agreement here. :)
And yes, I'm also waiting on more reviews of shipping hardware before I can make any recommendations on this product.
As it is, I'm prepared to be customarily Canon-airily disappointed.

Talys

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
  • Canon 6DII
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #425 on: July 17, 2017, 05:40:21 AM »
I was actually comparing the 5DII to the 5DIII, an upgrade which is shaping up to be similar to the 6D vs 6DII.  ..Except the 6DII got cheaper instead of more expensive.

good comparison

but is the 6d2 actually showing up cheaper than the original 6d?
did you adjust for inflation and currency exchange rates?
Or do you just expect us to believe what you say without showing us the proof? ;)

Ermmm... so confusing.  The 6D definitely launched at a higher price than 6DII.  It's an easy one, because the 6D launched about $2100, 5 years ago and inflation just widens that gap.  But if you must have the numbers..

The 6D launched at $2,099 in 2012 dollars.
The 6DII is going to launch at $1,999 in 2017 dollars.

It's not like the launch price of the 6D is any secret; if you don't remember it, bing or google it.

Using a USD inflation calculator, $2100 in 2012 => $2237 in 2017.
http://www.in2013dollars.com/2012-dollars-in-2017?amount=2100

So, to just make it easy numbers, the 6DII is launching about 10% cheaper than 6DI, in inflation-adjusted dollars in the US market. 

I think that the price is a psychological price point; Canon thinks it will sell a lot more sub-$2k cameras than $2k+ cameras.  But hey, $200+ in my pocket is better than in Canons :D


Regarding DR -- Yes, it would be sucky if 6D2 underperformed 80D at ISO 100 or 160 for DR.  In actuality, however, I won't go from a theoretical numbers.  Being someone who takes a huge number of photos (nearly all of the ones that matter to me) at ISO 200 and lower, I will know on day 1 if the photos I take look better, worse, or about the same than a 80D.

My suspicion is about the same, and that will be just fine for me -- I'm perfectly happy with the pictures that come out of 80D, and what I want out of 6D2 is basically an 80D that has a larger sensor so that my EF lenses can cover 1.6x more area (ie get wider shots out of tighter spaces).  If these photos come out inferior -- and I don't mean super-analyzing multiple shots in software, but in a way where I feel they are inferior, then Houston, we have a problem.  In that case, I'll almost certainly sell it -- because I won't often use it.

On the bright side, I'm sure 6D2 will retain its value very well for quite some time, should that be the case.

Sure, I will appreciate low light, high ISO performance, and no doubt many other things, but all I've really wanted since T3i was for Canon to make a FF camera with tilty-flippy that wasn't many thousands of dollars; and all I ever really wanted after I bought an 80D, was to have the same thing, in FF.

Maybe one day the things I shoot and my level of photography will make me yearn for something else, or I'll be so amazed by some future tech that will instantly give me so much better photos that I can't help to buy it -- kind of like the Samsung HDR QLED TV demos, where the difference is so startling that my only comment is, "can I afford this?" -- but I just don't see that now.

Like a lot of people here, I'll reserve judgement either way for when the production models come out.  However, I'm happy and willing to buy a 6D2, and to figure out a way to get rid of it if the IQ is unbearably inferior, which I really hope isn't the case.

Joules

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #426 on: July 17, 2017, 06:21:48 AM »
All this low ISO DR argument is becoming really absurd. There is no holy grail, there is no magic bullet and there are very little scenarios, when 12 EV is not enough but 14 EV is. Nobody will suddenly become better photographer just because they have 1-2 EV DR advantage. You can either use easily almost any modern camera on a scene of you have to bracket and exposure blend in the post anyway. Apart from landscapers, who else is using exclusively ISO 100-200?
As a T3i user who mainly wants to upgrade to Full Frame for low light performance, I think your on point. I have tried to get a grip on the rough dimensions these measurements really change when looking at pictures and stumbled over this YouTube Video, which shows that very nicely for my needs (Slight shadow lifting when shooting ISO 400 and up):

- https://youtu.be/UN8Tuurx3b4?t=2m50s

The 5DIII should be fairly representative of the 6DII (Hopefully minus the banding FPN) according to:

- http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
- http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm

Seeing that the 6DII should be almost equal or slightly better than the 5DIII in terms of Dynamic Range and Read Noise according to these Photons To Photos graphs, I can put my concerns and hesitations to rest. My comment about being probably more exited if it had on-chip ADC still is true, but I'm no longer frustrated that it likely doesn't have it. The banding and magenta cast the T3i displays when lifting shadows are more concerning in most of my shots than general detail and one would hope that Canon has that under control now, since even the 6D outperformed the 5DIII in that regard as far as I know.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 07:07:25 AM by Joules »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #426 on: July 17, 2017, 06:21:48 AM »

Mikehit

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2160
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #427 on: July 17, 2017, 06:39:47 AM »
Quote
How many people shoot ISO800 and below all the time? Limiting your argument to ISO 800 and below is a rather pathetic attempt to ignore facts that don't suit your argument.

Plenty.  Especially those of us who shoot ABC cameras that actually have increasing IQ as you go down the ISO scale.  As a Canon shooter you would not know that advantage unless you're shooting 5d4, 80d or 7d2.

I shoot the 7D2 and the 6D and have borrowed my wife's 80D so am speaking from experience. 
On DxO,  above ISO 400 the 7D2 matches the 80D in every measure and the 6D beats them both.

And the point is that the 80d's files, technically, should outperform the 6d/2's files below 800 iso.
What facts am I ignoring?... the ones you haven't presented and are hoping will change?

'...technically should...'
So no facts then.
The facts i was saying you were ignoring was that you were limiting your claims of superiority of the 80D based on below ISO 800 and claimed that 'plenty' of photographers who limit their photography to those ISOs should drive the design of a mass market product.


neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21770
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #428 on: July 17, 2017, 08:05:06 AM »
but is the 6d2 actually showing up cheaper than the original 6d?
did you adjust for inflation and currency exchange rates?
Or do you just expect us to believe what you say without showing us the proof? ;)

I expect most people can read camera announcements, compare two numbers, and figure out which is bigger.  I expect most people can grasp the fact that inflation makes things cost more, so an item that's cheaper 5 years later is the opposite of inflation.  I expect currency exchange rates matter only to those buying gray market...which is few people, or people who care how much revenue Canon HQ gets for a given unit, which is even fewer people (and doesn't include me), and many of those people fail to consider things like tariffs and local costs for distribution, marketing and warranty service. 

Based on your question, it's clear you're not 'most people'.   ;)
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

stevelee

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #429 on: July 17, 2017, 10:57:40 AM »
Just the other day a friend and I were looking at a beautiful picture. Composition was great, exposure was perfect, it was sharp where it was sharp and blurred in the distance. It really captured a mood. But something was wrong. We both looked at it more closely and realized the problem at the same time. The sensor didn't have on-chip ADC! What a shame.

(Pardon my silly mood this morning.)

CanonCams

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #430 on: July 17, 2017, 10:59:03 AM »
Just the other day a friend and I were looking at a beautiful picture. Composition was great, exposure was perfect, it was sharp where it was sharp and blurred in the distance. It really captured a mood. But something was wrong. We both looked at it more closely and realized the problem at the same time. The sensor didn't have on-chip ADC! What a shame.

(Pardon my silly mood this morning.)

The horror!!

sebasan

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • Portfolio
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #431 on: July 17, 2017, 11:15:33 AM »
It's strange that some people who seem to shot other brands, don't know anything about IQ and probably don't have any picture of good quality to show, spend so much time in canon forums...

Khalai

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 708
  • In the absence of light, darknoise prevails...
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #432 on: July 17, 2017, 11:19:09 AM »
Just the other day a friend and I were looking at a beautiful picture. Composition was great, exposure was perfect, it was sharp where it was sharp and blurred in the distance. It really captured a mood. But something was wrong. We both looked at it more closely and realized the problem at the same time. The sensor didn't have on-chip ADC! What a shame.

(Pardon my silly mood this morning.)

Oh dear. Lack of ADC, or Awesome Dynamic range Contraption, must've been the reason why you have to delete the file immediately and then flush your eyes with concetrated sulphuric acid, right? :D
6D | Zeiss 21/2.8 ZE | 24-70/2.8L II | 35/1.4L | 50/1.2L | Zeiss 50/2 ZE Makro | Zeiss 85/1.4 ZE | 70-200/2.8L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #432 on: July 17, 2017, 11:19:09 AM »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6547
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #433 on: July 17, 2017, 11:42:08 AM »
Just the other day a friend and I were looking at a beautiful picture. Composition was great, exposure was perfect, it was sharp where it was sharp and blurred in the distance. It really captured a mood. But something was wrong. We both looked at it more closely and realized the problem at the same time. The sensor didn't have on-chip ADC! What a shame.

(Pardon my silly mood this morning.)

Oh dear. Lack of ADC, or Awesome Dynamic range Contraption, must've been the reason why you have to delete the file immediately and then flush your eyes with concetrated sulphuric acid, right? :D

I have said this before. I have seen big prints in galleries that have clearly been taken with Canon cameras and have been pushed so far in post I wouldn't show at a local camera club. However on enquiring it turned out it was the photographers best selling shot.

So who is the fool?
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.

jeffa4444

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1232
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #434 on: July 17, 2017, 12:32:30 PM »
100% agree. Now you can even simulate shallow DoF in PP, so no need to use fast lenses anymore ;) The only problem - it takes a lot of time to process the image correctly otherwise it'll look like cheap fake :)

Not true, just look at some of the tutorials on the link I provided. A ND Grad is a sledgehammer, great if you take pictures of railroad spikes, far too limited for much else.

I guess people like Joe Cornish are idiots then taking all those landscape shots with ND grads and making thousands of dollars doing so. One person perfume is another person poison and arrogance about one method over another is one of the stupidities of forums. Lets judge the image not the method.
Canon 5DS, Canon 6D, Canon 6D MKII,16-35 f4L IS USM, 17-40 f4L USM, 28 f2.8, 24-70mm f4L IS USM, 24-105 f4L IS USM, 100mm f2.8L IS USM, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM II, 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM, 50 f1.8 STM, 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM II, 1.4EX III, EOS 760D, EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM & others.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #434 on: July 17, 2017, 12:32:30 PM »