Who said Canon cameras suck?!?

[Fishnose]

D800 complaints? Sure, plenty regarding the large MPs slowing things down, it's just unnecessary resolution for most. And of course the AF not being as stellar, and noise at high ISOs. I've seen one used Mk3 out of tons of electronic shops I've been checking out, and oh look there's a couple D800 s, and a D800E.

So where did you read about these 'problems'? On a forum I suppose.  Especially the AF one is repeated over and over....

NO, the D800 has bloody marvellous AF. Fast and accurate. This rumor is a leftover of the QC problem they had with left focus alignment in the beginning. It's gone now. Get over it.
NO, it does very well indeed with high ISOs. Not compared to a 1Dx of course, but that's not a reasonable comparison, is it.
NO, the big files don't slow things down (unless you have a shitty computer or you're a sports photographer)

As to the OP's question - 'Who said Canon cameras suck?' - Well it sure wasn't me. They're excellent cameras. Get over it.

[Fishnose]

In comparison to my 7D, the D800 is 2.3 stops better. Period. I don't downscale my photos...on the contrary, I tend to upscale them, so there is no benefit of any kind of the D800 above and beyond the hardware's native 2.3 stops. In comparison to the 1D IV, the difference is only 1.7 stops.

Uh, now I'm not with you. If you tend to upscale your 7D images, you REALLY need a D800. If 18MP doesn't do it then 36 is going to be a WHOLE lot better, because then you can generally gain IQ rather than lose it when downscaling a D800 image rather than upscaling a 7D image.
And DR will in fact be more than 2.3 stops better, since one gains DR with increasing resolution and vice versa. So yes, there IS a benefit of the D800.

[jrista]

In comparison to my 7D, the D800 is 2.3 stops better. Period. I don't downscale my photos...on the contrary, I tend to upscale them, so there is no benefit of any kind of the D800 above and beyond the hardware's native 2.3 stops. In comparison to the 1D IV, the difference is only 1.7 stops.

Uh, now I'm not with you. If you tend to upscale your 7D images, you REALLY need a D800. If 18MP doesn't do it then 36 is going to be a WHOLE lot better, because then you can generally gain IQ rather than lose it when downscaling a D800 image rather than upscaling a 7D image.
And DR will in fact be more than 2.3 stops better, since one gains DR with increasing resolution and vice versa. So yes, there IS a benefit of the D800.

Your missing my point. I'm not saying the 7D will produce better upscales. I'm saying that upscaling a D800 image will not magically fabricate another 2 stops or more dynamic range. Dynamic range is a HARDWARE TRAIT!! Why don't people get that? The friggin sensor has an average read noise level of around 3 electrons, and a maximum saturation point (at ISO 100) of 44972 electrons. Those FACTS about the D800 sensor DO NOT CHANGE, no matter what you do with software.

Lets just screw comparisons for a moment. Let me ask a simple question:

If you photograph a scene with 14.4 stops of dynamic range with a D800...can you capture every distinct level of luminance in that scene with the D800?

Most people would say YES. Simple fact of the matter is, your 1.2 stops short!! I don't really give a damn how software wizardry, with a bit of dithering in a clever scaling algorithm can mimic a higher dynamic range when scaling my beautiful 36.3mp images down to the native size of a late 1990's DSLR. What I care about is whether I can photograph a scene with 14.4 stops of real-world DR, and GET IT ALL. Simple fact of the matter is the D800 CAN NOT DO THAT. It could capture the entire dynamic range of a real-world scene that contained 13.2 stops between its brightest and darkest points, but not one that contained 14.4 stops. If I try to capture the 14.4 stop scene, I have to give up something. Either I give up 1.2 stops worth of shadow detail, or 1.2 stops of highlight detail...or perhaps 2/3rd of a stop of both shadow and highlight detail...but the damnable hardware aint gonna capture it all. If I upscale in post, so I can print at say 40x30 or 60x40, I'm not doing a damn thing to minimize noise (on the contrary, I'm scaling noise up as well, so it's going to become more apparent...particularly on my computer screen), so the benefit of using the D800 over the 7D is...well, still 2 stops.

BTW, FYI...upscaling does NOT normalize noise...it exacerbates it because you sample the same source pixel to generate multiple output pixels. You can only produce anemic output pixels (in the destination space) that are sourced from insufficient original information. You can't average noise during upsampling (as a matter of fact, you actually distribute it.) Only when downscaling can you normalize noise, because you reference many noisy input pixels to produce a less noisy single output pixel. You sample multiple inputs, average their values, and produce a better output pixel (in the destination space) that contains rich information. Even with downscaling though, it doesn't take a particularl intelligent mind to realize you can't generate more than TWICE THE LUMINANCE RANGE (1.2 stops worth) in a downsampled image from a source image that only contains 13.2 stops to start with.

[studio1972]

NO, the big files don't slow things down (unless you have a shitty computer or you're a sports photographer)

[/quote]

That's just silly, as somebody who processes thousands of images per weak, I can assure you, image size makes a big difference, and if you don't need more than about 20MP, double that is a waste.

[thepancakeman]

C'mon, do I really have to put <sarcasm> or <tongue-in-cheek> or <yuk it up, these are the jokes> tags all over my posts?  Really?!?

Wait, I'm confused--is this a serious question or are you being sarcastic?   

[Chuck Alaimo]

D800 complaints? Sure,

NO, the D800 has bloody marvellous AF. Fast and accurate. This rumor is a leftover of the QC problem they had with left focus alignment in the beginning. It's gone now. Get over it.
NO, it does very well indeed with high ISOs. Not compared to a 1Dx of course, but that's not a reasonable comparison, is it.
NO, the big files don't slow things down (unless you have a shitty computer or you're a sports photographer)

As to the OP's question - 'Who said Canon cameras suck?' - Well it sure wasn't me. They're excellent cameras. Get over it.

that's the hyperbole talking, to bring this down to earth here's a quote from a wedding forum, a nikon owner advising another nikon owner -

"As an owner of the D800, it never comes out at weddings, I stick to the D3s.   As Brady said, it is just far too slow of a shooter. Plus, the files sizes are too much of a hassle to drag around and edit. A 16 bit one layer tiff is 289.2 mb per file. I would be looking at a D700, D3 or D3s."

[cliffwang]

D800 complaints? Sure,

NO, the D800 has bloody marvellous AF. Fast and accurate. This rumor is a leftover of the QC problem they had with left focus alignment in the beginning. It's gone now. Get over it.
NO, it does very well indeed with high ISOs. Not compared to a 1Dx of course, but that's not a reasonable comparison, is it.
NO, the big files don't slow things down (unless you have a shitty computer or you're a sports photographer)

As to the OP's question - 'Who said Canon cameras suck?' - Well it sure wasn't me. They're excellent cameras. Get over it.

that's the hyperbole talking, to bring this down to earth here's a quote from a wedding forum, a nikon owner advising another nikon owner -

"As an owner of the D800, it never comes out at weddings, I stick to the D3s.   As Brady said, it is just far too slow of a shooter. Plus, the files sizes are too much of a hassle to drag around and edit. A 16 bit one layer tiff is 289.2 mb per file. I would be looking at a D700, D3 or D3s."

I think file size is not a problem for nowadays computer system.  For wedding you need to shoot many photos in low light.  I doubt D800 can handle low light as well as 5D3.  I believe many wedding photographers would like use 5D3, not D800.  However, if you are not taking photos in low light, D800 do give more advantage than 5D3.

[dtaylor]

NO ONE says that Canon suck, but the read noise , pattern noise and banding should not be there if Canon has a  modern sensor tech linje.
I do not understand why you are so upset, see the truth and stop denying that Canon's sensors are not up to date and Canon produces  sensors in the old 180nm  tech machines when others use 110nm or less and use column vise ADC  at the sensor edge.

It's called a patent, and it's owned by Sony 

It's kind of hard to work around. Ask a Samsung executive. And when you do, make sure you're holding an iPhone.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

anyway i have sooooooo many shots to edit and am growing tired of this thread, so i will go

Lair, liar, pants on fire.



Am I serious this time?  Hmmmm...better have a fire extinguisher handy and look down - right now - just in case.

Dang it! This time I thought you were joking and now I'm suffering second degree burns. 
I'm always wrong!

[verysimplejason]

NO, the big files don't slow things down (unless you have a shitty computer or you're a sports photographer)

That's just silly, as somebody who processes thousands of images per weak, I can assure you, image size makes a big difference, and if you don't need more than about 20MP, double that is a waste.
[/quote]

D600 is already out.  That might help Nikon users with a lot of photos to process.

[Quasimodo]

I for one find this discussion both entertaining and useful in aquiring knowledge that I did not previously have.

I have a question: Am I understanding the statements in this thread correctly if I say that you cannot increase the DR in your image because it is a hardware limit? The reason for my question is that I have been looking at videos @ youtube for good tips on black and white conversion in photoshop, and in several of these videos they claim that you can increase the DR by using layers and tweaking Levels and Curves....

[pasghik]

I for one find this discussion both entertaining and useful in aquiring knowledge that I did not previously have.

I have a question: Am I understanding the statements in this thread correctly if I say that you cannot increase the DR in your image because it is a hardware limit? The reason for my question is that I have been looking at videos @ youtube for good tips on black and white conversion in photoshop, and in several of these videos they claim that you can increase the DR by using layers and tweaking Levels and Curves....

If you use raw - no. you get what you get.
If you use jpg - yes, because jpeg by definition has smaller DR than raw and you have to squeeze more information into smaller DR of jpeg file.
Jpeg has 8bit per channel 2^8=256 gradations of each color, 256*256*256=16,7 millions color combinations, raw has 12, 14 or even 16 bits per channel. Of course not all of DR of raw file is used (depends on the scene), but it is much bigger anyway.

[elflord]

Same thing with a 14.4 DR from a 14-bit ADC.  WTF, that's impossible. 

I don't see why that's impossible -- range is determined by bounds, not cardinality. If I have 2 bits, I can represent levels as high as 6 and as low as 0 by mapping 0->0, 1->2, 2->4, 3->6. That's a linear map, and the "dynamic range" (log2(6)/log2(1)) is about 2.6. It does "miss" the levels 1,3 and 5, but then if I were to throw in an extra bit I would still miss the levels 0.5, 1.5, etc.

Is there something about the physical equipment that mandates that toggling the lowest order bit of the ADC changes the measured output level by exactly "1" and not for example 0.9 or 1.1 ?

To put this another way -- if I use a sensor with the same sensitivity characteristics but I use a 13 bit ADC, can I still represent the lowest and highest output level of the sensor ? If I do this, isn't the dynamic range of the sensor unchanged ? (it might affect other performance characteristics but, it seems to me, not DR)
 

[elflord]

You sample multiple inputs, average their values, and produce a better output pixel (in the destination space) that contains rich information. Even with downscaling though, it doesn't take a particularl intelligent mind to realize you can't generate more than TWICE THE LUMINANCE RANGE (1.2 stops worth) in a downsampled image from a source image that only contains 13.2 stops to start with.

Why not ? How much precisely can you generate ? If you have a little over 4x as many pixels (as the destination), what multiple does that reduce noise by ?[edit: if your measure of noise is standard error, and your noise is gaussian, I'd expect it to be inversely proportional to sqrt(N), so in this case I'd expect an extra stop or so for 4x as many megapixels given those assumptions]

btw, I hope you're not suggesting that DxO's primary results should be reported on a per pixel basis (what would that do to SNR measurements of high megapixel cameras ? Would the 5DIII get better results than a 5DC on a per pixel basis for example ?)

[jrista]

What you can do in software doesn't matter. Dynamic range benefits what you do in-camera. It doesn't matter if you can use clever software algorithms to massage the 13.2 stops of DR in an original image to fabricate artificial data to extract 14.0, 14.4, or 16 stops of "digital DR" (which is not the same thing as hardware sensor DR). I'll try to demonstrate again, maybe someone will get it this time.

"I am composing a landscape scene on-scene, in-camera. I meter the brightest and darkest parts of my scene, and its 14.4 stops exactly! HA! I GOT 'DIS! I compose my scene with the D800's live view, and fiddle with my exposure trying to get the histogram to fit entirely between the extreme left edge and the extreme right edge. Yet, for the life of me, I CAN'T. Either my histogram rides up the right edge a bit (the highlights), or it rides up the left edge a bit (the shadows). This is really annoying. DXO said this stupid camera could capture 14.4 stops of DR!! Why can't I capture this entire scene in a single shot?!?!?!!!1!!11 I didn't bring any ND filters because this is the uberawesomedonkeyshitcameraoftheyearpureawesomeness!!!!!"

The twit trying to capture a landscape with 14.4 stops of DR in a single shot CAN NOT because the sensor is only capable of 13.2 stops of DR! The twit of a landscape photographer is trying to capture 1.2 stops (2.4x as much light) in a single shot and his camera simply isn't capable of doing so. He could take two shots, offset +/- 2 EV and combine them in post with HDR, but there is no other way his camera is going to capture 14.4 stops of DR.

THAT ^^^^^ UP THERE ^^^^^ IS MY POINT about the D800. It is not a 14.4 stop camera. It is a 13.2 stop camera. You can move levels around in post to your hearts content, dither and expand the LEVELS YOU HAVE. But if you don't capture certain shadow or highlight detail TO START WITH....you CAN'T CREATE IT LATER. All your doing is averaging and dithering the 13.2 stops you actually captured to SIMULATE more DR. Ironically, that doesn't really do anyone any good, since computer screens are, at most, capable of about 10 stops of DR (assuming you have a super-awesome 10-bit RGB LED display), and usually only capable of about 8 stops of DR (if you have a nice high end 8-bit display), and for those of you unlucky enough to have an average $100 LCD screen, your probably stuck with only 6 stops of DR. Print is even more limited. An average fine art or canvas print might have 5 or 6 stops. A print on a high dMax gloss paper might have as much as 7 stops of DR.

There is little benefit to "digital DR" that is higher than the sensor's native DR. Your not gaining any information you didn't start out with, your simply redistributing the information you have in a different way by, say, downscaling with a clever algorithm to maximize shadow DR. But if you didn't record shadow detail higher than pure black to start with, no amount of software wizardry will make that black detail anything other than black. And even if you do redistribute detail within the shadows, midtones, or highlights...if your image has 14 stops of DR you can't actually SEE IT. Not on a screen. Not in print. You have to compress it, merge those many stops into fewer stops, and thus LOSE detail, to view it on a computer screen or in print.


In my original example that started this thread...my camera DID record the information I recovered. I am not, have not, and will not claim that my 7D is capable of anything more than 11.12 stops of DR, because that's what the sensor gets (at least according to DXO.) My original post was simply noting that one can make the BEST USE of that hardware DR but exposing to the right. Canon cameras offer a lot of highlight exposure latitude, and based on my accidental overexposure of a dragonfly, I've learned you can not only ETTR a little...you can ETTER a LOT with a modern Canon camera (i.e. 7D, 5D III, 1D IV, 1D X). You can really pack in the highlights and recover a tremendous amount of information in post.

However the same facts of reality regarding hardware DR that exist for the D800 also exist for the 7D. DXO Mark lists their "Print DR" for the 7D at 11.73 stops. Same as with the D800 above, if I try to photograph a landscape with 11.73 stops of DR, I'm going to either block the shadows a small amount, or blow some of the highlights a small amount. No way around that. I am going to have to compromise on about 2/3rds of a stop one way or another.