What is the freaking big deal with just admitting Exmor sensors have more DR and that it can be useful both save one of messed up shots and, much more often, to allow you to expand your photographic possibilities, or even to simply save time in post processing at times and drop it all?
Without sorting through this entire mess of a thread...
* Exmor sensors do have
more DR, and it can be useful.
* Exmor sensors do not have
the amount of excess DR being claimed by fans or DxO.
* Canon sensors are not as limited
as they are claimed to be by Exmor fans.
* The impact on one's photography is simply not as great
as claimed by Exmor fans.
* The number of posts on this topic have far exceeded reason.
Canon users underexpose and then lift shadows all the time. I've done this with countless Canon RAW files. In ACR (Photoshop CS4) I am not limited by noise until about 60-70 on the Fill Light slider. With an Exmor sensor I could take that slider to 100. It would be nice. But it's not worth 20 page threads.
In terms of DR and impact on my photography, getting an 8 fps camera (my first 7D) had a greater impact on my shooting than an Exmor sensor would. Before that I could not easily hand hold 3 AEB frames for exposure blending / HDR. Now I regularly do this and AEB is on my user menu. When I do this I obtain greater DR then you could hope to achieve with a single Exmor frame. Which is good, because the scenes I use it with have a greater DR then an Exmor sensor could achieve in one frame. I don't know where the exact cut off is in terms of shooting speed and ability to hand hold for 3 identical frames, but I could never do it consistently before the 7D.
Do you see any 20 page threads from me about this technique? Do you see me constantly telling people with slower cameras that their cameras are trash? Do you see me berating Nikon because they can't achieve 8 fps, outside of their super expensive pro sports body, without battery grips and compromised bit depth? Do I flood the forum with comments about how Nikon users should not tolerate their crummy drive motors, crummy 12-bit limitations in high speed shooting, or Nikon's laziness in allowing Canon to out fps them?
No. And do you know why you don't see page after page of this from me?Because it would be ridiculous.
So is this Exmor nonsense. Right now Sony sensors have lower read noise and Sony has a patent on the technique. It results in a little bit more DR. The advantage will be there until Canon works around the patent or licenses it. Or possibly until other advances in sensor fabrication render the point moot. How much more needs to be said about it?
Why do so many have to make up lies about DxO?
Nobody is "making up lies" about DxO. DxO's methodology is flawed. So is their presentation. They publish IQ scores all over the place, but tuck away the note that says you can't compare scores between sensors of different resolutions. Then they produced normalized scores with obviously flawed normalization (i.e. >14 stops DR from a 14-bit pipeline).
Would you rather we all deny it and praise Canon and tell Canon we don't care since it doesn't matter and then have Canon be like hey why bother? Or would you rather the 5D4 maybe has the better low ISO DR???
Whether or not the 5D4 has better DR has nothing to do with these stupid threads, and everything to do with their engineers. I have little doubt they are working on it.
But it still isn't hard for me to hit situations where I am like man if it only it had exmor low ISO performance, man, man, man.
Your imagination is always greater than the real difference. I see this all the time in photography. People are always saying "man if I only had X or Y", not realizing they can do whatever they want with what they already have.
I just hope I don't and you are not helping us any (or helping to educate anyone when you constantly give out mixed-up misleading information on normalization).
What makes you think it's other people giving out "misleading information"?