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.
They are not limited overall and can do great with many scenes, as almost all of us have said, but they are that much more limited at lower ISOs in higher DR scenes. For some that won't matter ever, for some only super rarely, for some from time to time, for some a fair amount, for some often. It hardly means you toss your Canon body into the swamp and then bash it with a sledgehammer but it sure would be nice if Canon paid attention to DR having not improved it for more than half a decade now.
* The impact on one's photography is simply not as great as claimed by Exmor fans.
Most of us have been saying it depends. YOu can take a nearly infinite # of photos were it won't matter at all or much. OTOH it's easy to find shots where it could help a lot too.
It's not the end of the world by any remote means but it is, real world, a lot nicer of a thing to have than many of the pure fanboys try to make it sound too.
* The number of posts on this topic have far exceeded reason.
Do note that most of the recent posts have been started by the DxO are liars, exmor is whatever crowd though.
Some of the same crowd goes on raves about how far behind Nikon was when Canon beats them by like just 1/2 stop SNR is a huge win that trashes Nikon and then says more than 3 stops difference at low ISO is very minor, too minor to even bother about at all.
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).
1. Most of us have said to ignore their overall scores and look at their charts and plenty try to pick apart and bash their charts.
2. There you go again, along with Jrista, and not having a clue about how normalization works and spreading misinformation.
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.
Did you know that another division of Canon sent a patent for better DR to the DSLR division and got told to get lost, DR, what?, why? bye. Apparently they didn't even let their engineers look at it! So maybe they do need to be woken up.
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.
really so I could have fit every high DR shot, that could not be done by fps or tripod work etc. if only I had freed my mind to possibilities and sang some songs?
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"?
Because some of you are totally wrong about some of the stuff you have been saying, especially when it gets to normalization and some other related topics.