October 21, 2014, 03:07:55 PM

Author Topic: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?  (Read 39881 times)

Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 986
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #90 on: September 27, 2012, 02:24:03 PM »
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.

 Note, the quote I was using there was from a nikon user, who shoots weddings and owns a d800, this person was giving upgrade advice to another wedding shooter.  I personally believe that the size of d800 files would be hard to work with when your trying to move quickly through 3000 shots, I also own a 5d3 and for wedding work its freaking fantastic.  Again though, you may feel at that file sizes are not too big, the point of the matter is that NIKON users feel the files are too big for wedding work --- again as the quote says "As an owner of the D800, it never comes out at weddings, I stick to the D3."  And likewise that's where the mk3 shines. 
Owns 5Dmkiii, 6D, 16-35mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 1-600RT, 2 430 EX's, 1 video light

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #90 on: September 27, 2012, 02:24:03 PM »

cliffwang

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 491
    • View Profile
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #91 on: September 27, 2012, 02:54:28 PM »
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.

 Note, the quote I was using there was from a nikon user, who shoots weddings and owns a d800, this person was giving upgrade advice to another wedding shooter.  I personally believe that the size of d800 files would be hard to work with when your trying to move quickly through 3000 shots, I also own a 5d3 and for wedding work its freaking fantastic.  Again though, you may feel at that file sizes are not too big, the point of the matter is that NIKON users feel the files are too big for wedding work --- again as the quote says "As an owner of the D800, it never comes out at weddings, I stick to the D3."  And likewise that's where the mk3 shines.
I won't say the file size is not a problem if you point out people need to deal with thousands of shots regularly.  Moreover, picking D800 is a big mistake for a wedding photographer IMO.  I think that's nothing need to arguer here.  5D3 is good for high ISO, and D800 is good for low ISO.  The argumentation is about DR.
Canon 5D3 | Samyang 14mm F/2.8 | Sigma 50mm F/1.4 | Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 VC | Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS MK2 | Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro L | Canon Closed-up 500D | 430EX | Kenko 2x Teleplus Pro 300 | Manfrotto Tripod

marekjoz

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 945
    • View Profile
    • marekjoz @flickr
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #92 on: September 27, 2012, 03:40:44 PM »
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....
DR means different things to different people.

If the highlights are clipped, and the shadow details are buried in noise, then information is lost. If a pair of pixels "should" have been [256, 257] but were clipped to [256, 256], then information is lost, and no clever software (or clever photoshop operator) can reliably know if the true values were [256, 257] or [256, 256].

And if you would see how big is the difference in numbers of photons aquired by a sensor between values converted later to numbers 256 and 257, you would get a headache :)
flickr | youtube | 5D2, 50 F/1.4, 24-105 F/4 L IS, 300 F/4 L IS, x1.4 II

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 948
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #93 on: September 27, 2012, 03:54:13 PM »
The "M" Mediocre Mirrorless SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS! Big Time.
...but I love my 5DIII.
Canon is a love hate for this photographer.  :-)
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma Art, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4461
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #94 on: September 27, 2012, 04:15:56 PM »
Same thing with a 14.4 DR from a 14-bit ADC.  WTF, that's impossible.

Not at all, Nikon D3x has a column wise 12 bit ADC and the readings from the sensor are more than ones .

Actually, thats incorrect. The Nikon D3x has a 14-bit ACD. This is a quote directly from DXO's own review of the D3x:

Quote
Key sensor characteristics
The Nikon D3X features a very high resolution full-frame format CMOS sensor with 24.6Mpix. The D3X and the Sony A900 are the only two cameras at that level of resolution within the professional D-SLR category, but the D3X features a 14-bit Analog/Digital (A/D) converter which, as shown below, plays a significant role in boosting its capture performance when compared to the Sony A900 (with only a 12-bit A/D converter).

The D3X’s lower ISO setting (down to ISO 78) compared to other Nikons certainly help as some dxomark metrics such as dynamic range are considered at lowest ISO values.

Key performance factors
The D3X sensor shows exceptional dynamic range with a max DR of 13.7 bits in “Print” mode. And it is quite an amazing performance compared to all other cameras with similar sensor technologies (Canon 1Ds MKIII, 5D MKII, Sony A900). Interestingly, the Nikon D3X sensor does follow the theoretical rule of plus 1 f-Stop of dynamic range when ISO sensitivity is divided by 2. Compared to A900, dynamic range is better by about 1 stop across the whole ISO range (50-6400).

It is the first DSLR CMOS sensor with more than 12-bit effective depth of information! Its 14-bit A/D makes a difference and we can expect exceptional tone scale reproduction with such a camera.
Further the D3X’s Color Depth is also exceptional, with a maximum value of 24.7 bits of color discrimination performance (in normalized “Print” mode). As the D3X color responses are pretty close to those of the D3, we can expect the same high quality color rendering.

The Nikon D3X has some limitations at high ISO sensitivity, and its dynamic range is lower than, for instance, the Canon 5D MKII for speeds above 800 (manufacturer value).

Overall, however, Nikon D3X definitely takes the lead within its category and will be remembered as the first camera clearly demonstrating more than 12-bit effective depth of information.

Nikon D3X DxOMark review - January 15, 2009
Reference: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/DxOMark-review-for-the-Nikon-D3X

@Mikael: You, sir, really need to start getting your facts strait. You keep publishing information that is either inaccurate, misleading, or flat out wrong. That's not helping your arguments at all, and its just regurgitating a lot of the misleading and inaccurate data DXO piles up all over these forums. Please get your facts strait first, then post.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 04:18:26 PM by jrista »

zim

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 737
    • View Profile
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #95 on: September 27, 2012, 04:19:13 PM »
jrista…. I really want to thank you for this topic and the other fascinating posts over the last days regarding DR, the debate has I think on the whole been excellent. I don’t even begin to understand the science being discussed hell I don’t even know what ADC stands for but I do get your point « Reply #95 on: Today at 01:33:15 PM » you don’t need to be a scientist to understand that.

Anyway to my question(s) I’ve read many times about exposing to the right but have been reluctant to try it as I would prefer if anything to expose to the left to lift my shutter speed and reduce camera shake. I’m just amazed by the example you posted though so I want to try this for myself. I understand that once a highlight is clipped it’s gone so therefore simply setting exposure for a dark area and letting the highlights take care of themselves (over expose) isn’t enough. Is the easiest way to do this in a fast changing situation to bracket say 0, +1, +2 or +1, +2, +3 and use the highest non-clipped file, is the histogram the best way to do it or is there another way?
Also when you talk about amazing highlight recovery in Lightroom 4.1 with -4 EV exposure correction and 60% highlight recovery what would be the equivalent options in say DPP or Photoshop?

The Hobbyist

  • Guest
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #96 on: September 27, 2012, 04:24:16 PM »
So the Mark III has less DR than the D800.  Does this really affect everyone THAT much?  Seems to be really exaggerated.  I guess if a scene demands it, I like to do an HDR.  I try to process it as minimally as possible, with the goal of only trying to reproduce what my eyes saw during that scene.  This seems to work well for me.  It just seems everyone arguing about a few digits of DR is pointless.  IDK maybe i just dont get it.

Have enjoyed reading  jrista's posts.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #96 on: September 27, 2012, 04:24:16 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4461
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #97 on: September 27, 2012, 04:33:53 PM »
jrista…. I really want to thank you for this topic and the other fascinating posts over the last days regarding DR, the debate has I think on the whole been excellent. I don’t even begin to understand the science being discussed hell I don’t even know what ADC stands for but I do get your point « Reply #95 on: Today at 01:33:15 PM » you don’t need to be a scientist to understand that.

Thanks. I've been trying to explain that since the D800 came out, and no one seemed to understand my point. Hopefully that little narrative gets it across now.

Anyway to my question(s) I’ve read many times about exposing to the right but have been reluctant to try it as I would prefer if anything to expose to the left to lift my shutter speed and reduce camera shake. I’m just amazed by the example you posted though so I want to try this for myself. I understand that once a highlight is clipped it’s gone so therefore simply setting exposure for a dark area and letting the highlights take care of themselves (over expose) isn’t enough. Is the easiest way to do this in a fast changing situation to bracket say 0, +1, +2 or +1, +2, +3 and use the highest non-clipped file, is the histogram the best way to do it or is there another way?

Well, if you really want to start ETTR, its best to experiment for a while. Whatever it is that you photograph most, experiment a lot and learn where your highlights blow out. You could try to just take a bunch of shots each time you photograph something, with EV 0, +1, +2, +3, +4, etc. But that is really time consuming to do as a matter of practice. It WILL be helpful to do that when you first start, as you will simply need a variety of samples to figure out where...for the kinds of things you photograph, your highlights really to tend to blow the highlights (such that they are unrecoverable). You should also use the in-camera highlight warning feature. That feature in Canon cameras is based on the JPEG previews, so it will usually start the blinkies a little before you actually do overexpose so much that you can't recover. I've learned that with RAW, you can usually handle at least a small amount of highlight warning blinks when previewing your photos in-camera. In some cases, a LOT of the photo may blink (as was the case with my original sample image of the dragonfly.) You really can't know ahead of time if you've actually blown or not. If I think I have, I pull back some...maybe 1/3rd to 2/3rd of a stop.

Another excellent tool is the in-camera histogram. USE THIS! Its really your best tool. When you photograph something, check the histogram. That should really be a matter of practice, actually. You'll start to get a feel for what the histogram means, and when it indicates you've blown out your highlights. Again, the histogram is based on a JPEG conversion of the photo taken, rather than the RAW, so it won't be 100% accurate. You can usually get away with a little bit of the histogram riding up the right-side edge of the histogram display. How much it can ride up will depend on the camera, the scene, and the overall key of the photo (high key, low key, etc.)

It will take time and experimentation, but you'll eventually just get a "feel" for what your camera is telling you, and you'll start to intuitively know when you have or have not actually blown your highlights from the in-camera preview with highlight warning and the in-camera histogram. Also, if you ever feel that you've gone too far, you should always pull exposure down a bit, by at least 1/3rd of a stop, and take another shot. If you are photographing action that only occurs once, its better not to push ETTR that far. You can still expose to the right, but you don't want to go so far that your histogram is riding the right edge. Its better to keep the histogram a couple pixels away from the right edge at least, and probably a little more than that. The key difference between shadows and highlights is that with shadows, you just didn't capture enough, but lacking shadow doesn't mean your photograph is unusable. You can always lift shadows, sometimes a lot, and even if there is noise, FPN, banding, whatever...there are ways to clean that up and get good shadow detail. On the flip side, if you blow your highlights...they are gone, for good. You can't recover them, and if you overexpose enough, you might just blow more than highlights. So when you aren't sure you'll be able to re-take a shot, play it safe. Either just expose normally, or if you are comfortable with your ETTR skills, just ETTR less...give those highlights some physical headroom on the sensor. You usually only need 1/3rd to 2/3rds of a stop, but if you have a lot of bright daylight pounding down on a baseball player in a white jersey, you might want to drop exposure by a whole stop or so.

(Note: The true benefit of the D800 is not really that it doesn't have any noise...its that you don't have to spend time cleaning that noise up. On the flip side, having shadow noise doesn't mean your photograph is throw-away or that you can't recover shadows...it just means you DO have to spend time cleaning up all the noisy junk in the shadows before your photo is finally acceptable. ;)

Also when you talk about amazing highlight recovery in Lightroom 4.1 with -4 EV exposure correction and 60% highlight recovery what would be the equivalent options in say DPP or Photoshop?

Photoshop, yes...since that uses ACR, which ultimately uses exactly the same RAW processing engine as Lightroom. As for DPP, I couldn't say. It uses a different RAW processing engine, developed by Canon. Technically speaking, I would kind of expect Canon's own RAW processor to produce better results...although that's not always proven true. I think DPP is able to extract more DR out of the average .CR2 file, however its demosaicing algorithm is somewhat wanting (it tends to leave jagged edges and color artifacts around, where as ACR/LR's demosicing algorithm is AHDD-based and produces very clean results.)

DPP might be able to do even greater wonders with exposure recovery, and work even greater magic than -4 EV recovery, if you can put up with the demosaicing.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 04:41:09 PM by jrista »

The Hobbyist

  • Guest
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #98 on: September 27, 2012, 04:46:10 PM »
Quote
One problem appears is if you are allready doing work-arounds for other problems (focus stacking, stitching,...). Having several "layers" of time-consuming, error-prone work-arounds can detract from the experience of photography, and a loss of "good shots".

I get what you are saying.  I guess for me, i know that if i am going to go out and do some landscape shots, that some of them may require me doing some bracketed shots, or focus stacking like you mentioned.  In that case, its usually not a time crunch, because my subject matter really isnt going anywhere.  And for me, I dont mind post processing some of those things.

I guess its just a situational thing.

Quasimodo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 915
  • Easily intrigued :)
    • View Profile
    • 500px.com
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #99 on: September 27, 2012, 04:53:59 PM »
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.


Again, and I agree with Zim, I have learned a lot of this discussion about hardware capabilities, screen capabilities, as well as print capabilities. I am waiting for my Pixma Pro 1 printer, and because of this latest information from you, I will go straight to check the stops it has. So my uninformed question yielded even more information :)

Thank you.
1Dx, (7D II) 5x600 EX RT, ST-E3
Canon:16-35L II,  24-105L , 70-200L IS II, 135L, 100L, 2x III TC, EF 25II, 40 F2.8 STM, 50 F1.4. Sigma 35 F1.4 Art, Sigma 50 F1.4 Art, Sigma 85 F1.4, Sigma 150-500.
www.500px.com/gerhard1972

Fishnose

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
« Reply #100 on: September 27, 2012, 05:34:57 PM »
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.


About IQ/Noise: You're agreeing with me. I said that downscaling a 36MP image will improve IQ, upscaling an 18MP image will lose IQ - and that's what you're saying too.

About DR: According to DxO, doubling sensor resolution gives 0.5 bit increase in DR.
Quoted from DxO:

" As can be seen, high-resolution sensors will gain more SNR, DR, TR and CS when reduced to a lower reference resolution. For DxOMark Sensor Overall Score and Metrics, we chose a reference resolution equal to 8 Megapixels, which is a bit less than a 12" x 8" print with a 300dpi printer. However, any other resolution can be chosen, as doing so only shifts the normalized values by a constant (because the reference resolution appears only as a logarithm in the formulas above).
What should be remembered is that doubling the resolution adds:

    3dB to the normalized SNR
    0.5 bit to the normalized DR
    0.5 bit to the normalized TR
    1.5 bit to the normalized CS"


Incidentally, this text also addresses one of the things people scream most about - the 8MP thing. In point of fact the actual resolution chosen makes no difference, 16MP or 20MP would give the same relative values.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4461
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
« Reply #101 on: September 27, 2012, 05:49:19 PM »
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.


About IQ/Noise: You're agreeing with me. I said that downscaling a 36MP image will improve IQ, upscaling an 18MP image will lose IQ - and that's what you're saying too.

About DR: According to DxO, doubling sensor resolution gives 0.5 bit increase in DR.
Quoted from DxO:

" As can be seen, high-resolution sensors will gain more SNR, DR, TR and CS when reduced to a lower reference resolution. For DxOMark Sensor Overall Score and Metrics, we chose a reference resolution equal to 8 Megapixels, which is a bit less than a 12" x 8" print with a 300dpi printer. However, any other resolution can be chosen, as doing so only shifts the normalized values by a constant (because the reference resolution appears only as a logarithm in the formulas above).
What should be remembered is that doubling the resolution adds:

    3dB to the normalized SNR
    0.5 bit to the normalized DR
    0.5 bit to the normalized TR
    1.5 bit to the normalized CS"


Incidentally, this text also addresses one of the things people scream most about - the 8MP thing. In point of fact the actual resolution chosen makes no difference, 16MP or 20MP would give the same relative values.

Please read my answer at #95. Maybe then you'll finally get my point. All your doing when scaling images in software is manipulating existing levels, which really doesn't improve DR. It might mitigate noise, making detail in the shadows appear more accurate....but that has nothing to do with the camera. That has everything to do with software, and software is effectively an infinitely subjective thing. Lets eliminate the subjectivity here, and focus on what the physical device we put in our hands and use to take a photograph can do.

BTW, quoting DXO's own theory to a guy who has serious doubts about that company in the first place, and serious doubts that they even understand the terrible effect their own "Print DR" ratings are having on a community of potential camera buyers, doesn't bring a lot of weight with it. I believe DXO has it entirely wrong with "Print DR", I believe those statistics are extremely misleading, very inaccurate, and the fact that they are a key factor in their scoring makes me have very little trust in their scores. This has nothing to do with being a Canon user. I don't particularly have any specific brand loyalties, and I proclaim the wonders of the D800 plenty myself. I just don't like inaccuracies and misleading information...and DXO is chock-full of both. I strongly believe using post-process scaling to measure the HARDWARE capabilities of a camera is a terrible idea, and should be stopped. As such, I only reference DXO's "Screen DR" numbers when discussing dynamic range (except in the context of arguing about how absurd their 14.4 Stops Print DR number for the D800 is!)
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 05:57:17 PM by jrista »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3919
    • View Profile
Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
« Reply #102 on: September 27, 2012, 05:57:11 PM »
Please read my answer at #95. Maybe then you'll finally get my point. All your doing when scaling images in software is manipulating existing levels, which really doesn't improve DR. It might mitigate noise, making detail in the shadows appear more accurate....but that has nothing to do with the camera. That has everything to do with software, and software is effectively an infinitely subjective thing. Lets eliminate the subjectivity here, and focus on what the physical device we put in our hands and use to take a photograph can do.

You are missing the point about how to carry out a fairer relative comparison. But if you want to believe a 1DX tech based 36MP FF sensor would do much worse for high ISO noise than a 10D tech based 4MP FF sensor be my guest....

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?
« Reply #102 on: September 27, 2012, 05:57:11 PM »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3919
    • View Profile
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #103 on: September 27, 2012, 06:06:33 PM »
So the Mark III has less DR than the D800.  Does this really affect everyone THAT much?  Seems to be really exaggerated.  I guess if a scene demands it, I like to do an HDR.  I try to process it as minimally as possible, with the goal of only trying to reproduce what my eyes saw during that scene.  This seems to work well for me.  It just seems everyone arguing about a few digits of DR is pointless.  IDK maybe i just dont get it.

Have enjoyed reading  jrista's posts.

3+ stops usable looking difference can be noticed in the real world (it is funny that some have raved about 1/2 stop better SNR than Nikon a times as a huge deal and then toss off 3ish stops of DR at ISO100 as nothing, will it still be nothing if the rumors about the new cam having great DR turn true?)

You can take two shots but:
1. If the subject is moving, sometimes even just branches swaying or if mists are moving about or it's a person etc. it doesn't always work so well, or even at all, sometimes you can try to get it away with fixing modest motion and combining and masking various parts and so on but with hours of post processing and a long struggle and waste of time and it doesn't always work out all that well anyway.

(2. That won't help for the times the exposure was way off on a one of shot.)
(3. It is nicer to grab a shot with less effort, if lighting is changing maybe you can have more time to get more nice shots or you can simply have more fun and not bog down as much, not 100% tripod locked into either.)


That said you can't get TOO carried away, I mean you can take millions of great shots without any issue at all with a 5D3 and it's a very nice cam to use, just there are some shots it won't do as well, which is quite a shame for some at times but not that big a deal for others.

I like it a lot, it is a very good camera, but i really do wish they had improved the DR since i very much could be making use of it.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 06:08:07 PM by LetTheRightLensIn »

RuneL

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #104 on: September 27, 2012, 06:13:53 PM »
whatever did we do back when we had to properly expose.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« Reply #104 on: September 27, 2012, 06:13:53 PM »