Canon 5D Mark IV brings dramatic dynamic range improvements to the 5D line

[arthurbikemad]

Dearest Bob,

Hang on a mo, I don't visit DPR, shocking I know, and I have mates who....wait for it....have cameras and are not on the Internet, amazing I know..haha and one more thing who the hell is Rishi



I owe DPR and Rishi nothing and never will.

 

[Alex_M]

Absolutely, I tried to extend on what you have just said regarding DR Compression.. I am sorry for not making myself clear. Thanks

.

Yes, but most certainly not increase DR.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

That show exactly why Rishi's work has had such impact. He has been producing content with identically lit scenes so you can compare the results of various pushes for yourself across different cameras.


The fact is you have the choice to be a better informed consumer, directly due to the work he does.

You defend Rishi with such emotional vigor. You must either be Rishi...or his one and only fan.

 

[3kramd5]

Absolutely, I tried to extend on what you have just said regarding DR Compression.. I am sorry for not making myself clear. Thanks

.

Yes, but most certainly not increase DR.

Nothing to apologize for, you were clear! Adding, subtracking, and augmenting light serves numerous purposes. I have a camera with one of the renowned sensors when it comes to DR (a7r2), and it most certainly doesn't replace those techniques. It allows larger shadow pushes for sure, but the shadows when pushed are flat (which makes sense given the low signal recorded); it's much better IMO to augment the scene, whether lighting a person, filtering the skies, or something else.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

In my world, DR is not as much of an issue as noise is. Trying to recover from screw-ups or just going for a one shot HDR, the noise level in the dark shadows is the limit. The Mark IV looks to have made great strides in this.
Before I got my Mark III, the 7D was my "best" camera. I still have it, but it is a daylight only second body now. I bought DXO software to "fix" it's low light performance. While not a blazing fast workflow, it worked.
The 5D III rarely needed DXO processing but would allow a bit more creativity.
When my 5D IV arrives and DXO releases the software for it, I'll be looking at some new horizons for some subjects.
If DXO could find the color information in the near black areas of the old 7D, the Mark IV processing should be at least as good with less color noise and grain.

This is an old 7D shot where my strobe didn't recycle in time. The newspaper wanted it, so I ran it through DXO. There was enough color information in the dark shadows for there pupil colors to be evident!
DR figures for cameras are fine, but other things are more important to me- like features.

DXO test pulling shadows Canon 7D © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

 

[rishi_sanyal]

That show exactly why Rishi's work has had such impact. He has been producing content with identically lit scenes so you can compare the results of various pushes for yourself across different cameras.


The fact is you have the choice to be a better informed consumer, directly due to the work he does.

You defend Rishi with such emotional vigor. You must either be Rishi...or his one and only fan.

Yes, that is definitely the one and only possible explanation.

And such emotion - reminding people that we provide objective data but it's up to them to draw their own conclusions about whether or not said data is relevant. Such an unreasonable thing to say...

So much for rationality on the internet.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

The fact is you have the choice to be a better informed consumer, directly due to the work he does. Maybe you decide that you don't care about +5 stops of shadow pushing, but at least now you are making an informed choice with some real data.

Yes, that's what we try to provide - objective data for you to make evaluations. You can decide it doesn't matter to you, but we'll offer our opinion as to where benefits might matter, because it wouldn't be very helpful to have tests with no context. And that's where the trouble starts - when we suggest some feature or ability might help some type of photography, owners of cameras not (as) good at that particular feature or ability suddenly get defensive because it hasn't mattered for their photography. Which misses the point it could matter for other types of photography, or even that very type of photography if they were to use a new technique.

Technique articles devoid of any camera talk, OTOH, work better, and elicit less negative response from brand loyalists. It's unfortunate that we have to sit at the marriage of camera gear and the impact they have on photography/technique, because it ends up being hard to even have discussions of technique/impact because inevitably we're trying to tie it to the gear, which (some) people get religious about.

Thankfully, things usually work out in the long run. After we popularized the concept of 'ISO-invariance' 2 years ago by writing articles on it & designing a test to directly test it, a Google search of 'ISO-invariance' returns numerous hits and people actually talk about it & utilize now. Give it a few more years for CR to catch up, though they might not because there's a faction of people who now have to stick by their claim that DR doesn't matter since that's what they've been saying all these years... It's a similar story for object tracking: most impartial photographers can immediately see the potential for good subject/object tracking, especially as systems are finally getting really good at it, but those with cameras that don't do it well enough for them will continue to claim it doesn't matter. And those that haven't tried other systems will continue to claim theirs does it well enough, b/c it's all they really know.

And despite the negative feedback from a few loud voices, it always helps us at DPR to keep in mind that we're serving a different audience than brand loyalists: like the majority of photographers who care more about photography than the gear, or newcomers to photography who want to learn about cameras so they can choose. Or people like this guy, who saw these threads on CR and PMed me a nice note re: my 5D IV 1st Impressions and the fall-out here on CR:

"It absolutely amazes me the vitriol that some folks can show when they perceive their personal choices in camera technology are somehow slighted by a person offering a review. As I said, I'm heavily invested in Canon tech and it would take a lot for me to switch, but I have found your reviews nothing but helpful. When you describe any shortcomings of the Canon system in comparison to Nikon or Sony, I would like to think most Canon shooters' response is "That's good to know, I'll take that into consideration" instead of an immediately defensive posture about why your interpretation is wrong or misstated. I would much rather hear what I might be missing than have a review misleadingly confirm that I've bought the greatest camera ever that no other camera system could be possibly match."

 

[privatebydesign]

Blah blah blah,

Where is that dishonest 5DSR raw file Rishi?

 

[rishi_sanyal]

Not to mention, isn't the DR of prints much lower than what cameras routinely record anyway?

The DR of some prints is lower than what slide film can record. Does that mean no one ever chose negative film for its extended latitude?

It's called tone-mapping, and done properly, you can still retain the perception of contrast, while including tones from your scene you wouldn't have been able to include had you not had the capture dynamic range of negative film or higher dynamic range digital sensors.

Ansel Adams did it, Bruce Barnbaum did it, and some successful photographers today do it without producing ugly, flat HDR-ish images (usually by finding ways to still stretch out the histogram of the photograph across the entire range, unless that's not the artistic intent).

Furthermore, print / lighting technology continues to evolve. We now see prints capable of 9+ stops of output dynamic range. Digital displays of course can do far more and, arguably, are the future anyway. So over time tone-mapping will be less and less required, and you'll be able to better create the actual range of tones you literally saw with your eyes. But only if you captured all of it without blowing highlights or introducing too much noise into the 'shadows'.

(I put quotes around 'shadows' because the deep tones in your Raw files today may not even need any 'pushing' in order to be visible on the bright, HDR displays of tomorrow).

 

[scyrene]

Not to mention, isn't the DR of prints much lower than what cameras routinely record anyway?

The DR of some prints is lower than what slide film can record. Does that mean no one ever chose negative film for its extended latitude?

It's called tone-mapping, and done properly, you can still retain the perception of contrast, while including tones from your scene you wouldn't have been able to include had you not had the capture dynamic range of negative film or higher dynamic range digital sensors.

Ansel Adams did it, Bruce Barnbaum did it, and some successful photographers today do it without producing ugly, flat HDR-ish images (usually by finding ways to still stretch out the histogram of the photograph across the entire range, unless that's not the artistic intent).

Furthermore, print / lighting technology continues to evolve. We now see prints capable of 9+ stops of output dynamic range. Digital displays of course can do far more and, arguably, are the future anyway. So over time tone-mapping will be less and less required, and you'll be able to better create the actual range of tones you literally saw with your eyes. But only if you captured all of it without blowing highlights or introducing too much noise into the 'shadows'.

(I put quotes around 'shadows' because the deep tones in your Raw files today may not even need any 'pushing' in order to be visible on the bright, HDR displays of tomorrow).

I was replying to (largely in agreement with) a post saying that end clients don't ask about DR. Now, my experience of that kind of paid photographic work is limited, but I still doubt very much whether any non-photographic person has any inkling what that term means. Indeed, a minority of photographers know or care what it really amounts to. It's possible to be a great photographer and not worry about such technical aspects. People want photographs that look good, that do what they want (show off a product, record an event, capture a mood), and generally they are viewing a print (which despite recent improvements in technology you allude to, still record *far less* DR than a sensor) or a downsized jpeg on an uncalibrated display device. My point was, and remains, that while to some photographers, DR (low ISO shadow noise specifically) is important, in most practical situations it is NOT the be all and end all for paying clients. If you're gonna quote people, try not to take them out of context.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

I was replying to (largely in agreement with) a post saying that end clients don't ask about DR. Now, my experience of that kind of paid photographic work is limited, but I still doubt very much whether any non-photographic person has any inkling what that term means.

Of course they don't ask about DR, nor should they know about it. They might see a noisier image, but if you're a good photographer, you don't deliver a noisy image. I was still delivered noisy images from award-winning wedding photographers, and sure I happen to know it's b/c of limited DR, but even then - I didn't complain. Few do.

It's possible to be a great photographer and not worry about such technical aspects.

No one claims otherwise. But as I often find myself repeating: "It's also possible to be a great photographer and worry about such technical aspects that get you around camera limitations and open up creative doors."

My point was, and remains, that while to some photographers, DR (low ISO shadow noise specifically) is important, in most practical situations it is NOT the be all and end all for paying clients.

Not sure who suggested otherwise, but, yes, talk about DR is mostly directed at photographers, because clients should never even see the result of lower DR, because you as a photographer shouldn't deliver noisy images. And if you do, they won't know it's DR limitations, they'll just think it's a noisy (high ISO) shot.

 

[Aglet]

..And if you do, they won't know it's DR limitations, they'll just think it's a noisy (high ISO) shot.

or a feature filter like the picket-fence vertical banding of DigiC 4 bodies when pushing shadow areas.

 

[privatebydesign]

Blah blah blah,

Where is that dishonest 5DSR raw file Rishi?

This has to be the worst kind of discussion: you've found something that Rishi won't give you and you continue to jump up and down as if it is a complete disaster. Of course you've justified it to yourself and have already done so in previous posts, but to me it comes across as being completely unreasonable and more like being a child ("He won't share his toy with me mommy!" *CRY* *CRY* *CRY*) Get over it. And if you can't get over it, either work around it with your discussion or drop it. "but but but" you say. It doesn't matter. It's his raw file and he is under no obligation or requirement to share it with anyone, least of all you.

Or, I have found a genuine chink in the armour and I refuse to let him off the hook. I could roll over and be quiet, but why should I? Why should he be allowed to get away with lying and providing extremely misleading information?

And don't forget, we are not talking about a regular poster here, we are talking about the technical editor of one of the biggest online camera review sites.

He is being willfully disingenuous and deceitful and unless people point that out it will get worse.

 

[privatebydesign]

I can count a handful of people on CR that dislike Rishi with a passion because he doesn't write nice things about their favorite toys but that's the only safe inference that can be made.

No I dislike him with a passion because his professed job and reason to get out of bed is to help and inform the buying public, yet his writing is littered with lies, inconsistencies and falsehoods.

I point that out and I am the baddie? Get real, open your eyes. The last person I advised to buy a camera on here I said take a good look at the D810 ( http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30593.msg617482#msg617482 ). I am not biased, I have no skin in the game and don't have a parent company relying on buyers or go on company freebies paid for by manufacturers. If I am asked to explain or back up an opinion I do it. I have offered to apologize fully if I am wrong, yet I am the baddie in this?

I liken myself closer to a terrier than a baddie, I don't want to let go because I believe my concern is valid and my request is not onerous.

 

[Ozarker]

I think I will be a very happy 5D IV buyer in the next 3-5 years or maybe an even happier 5D V buyer instead.

The technology available to us just keeps getting more and more incredible. These are wonderful times to live in as far as camera technology goes.

With all the complaining I see going on, I still just have to step back and think, "Wow, there are some uniquely gifted individuals bringing some very extraordinary products to us."

I got my 5D mark III last fall and still find it to be a marvelous machine. If I were well to do I might go out and buy each and every iteration Canon releases, but I think that would be a waste of my money as a hobbiest... no matter how well heeled.

There are pros on these forums that don't go out and buy the latest release each time either. They know when they need to upgrade and when not to. While not seeing their work, though I have been privileged to view the work of a few (Pookie is one of the greats, and also a thoughtful and generous human being with his time and advice), I think they keep things in perspective for me.

No piece of gear can substitute for talent and studying the craft that makes these pros who they are. Going out and doing the work day after day has transformed them into the masters they are. A love of the craft and always attempting to improve on what they did the day before... that is the mark of men who will always overcome and conquer where others falter and blame ineptitude on gear.

They've learned to take the once in a while accidental good photo, learn, and make great photos consistently... causing greatness to be the norm and mediocrity to be the accidental.

Hats off to Canon for giving us the technology. Hats off and heads bowed to the dedicated professional photographers who show us what is possible with hard work a dedication.

 

[scyrene]

...
I liken myself closer to a terrier than a baddie, I don't want to let go because I believe my concern is valid and my request is not onerous.

You realize that he can't give in(it) to you, don't you? You're effectively demanding he do something and if he does, then he's opening the door for you to expect him to do whatever else you demand in the future which is why (on principal), he won't (and can't) give it to you - much like nobody gives terrorists what they demand.

I think comparing it to terrorism is a bit much even for you. Anyway, sometimes giving in is the better option (I can't make that judgment here, it's not my fight). By witholding the raw image, it could be spun as having something to hide - it's a judgment whether that is more damaging than being seen as giving in to pressure.

 

[neuroanatomist]

By witholding the raw image, it could be spun as having something to hide...

Such as claiming – repeated and emphatically – to be completely unbiased and not influenced by brand, then it turns out he was writing a Nikon-sponsored advertainment piece while making that claim.

 

[applecider]

PBD, What are you suspecting to see in the raw file? You probably say at some point in the forums, but could you repeat it if you would.

I've followed these threads and have no dog either way but am curious as to what is/may/could be found from having the raw file? I hope that it is published so whatever point there is can be made or refuted.

I do find it curious that the "formula" on written articles often about canon camera bodies start with images from cameras other than the one the article is ostensibly about to illustrate a point. Case in point the article about the "5D4 dramatic dynamic range improvements" begins with an image, the girl on the horse on the beach, shot with a Nikon 810 to illustrate a point about a canon camera.

 

[3kramd5]

PBD, What are you suspecting to see in the raw file? You probably say at some point in the forums, but could you repeat it if you would.

I've followed these threads and have no dog either way but am curious as to what is/may/could be found from having the raw file? I hope that it is published so whatever point there is can be made or refuted.

That the sky isn't nearly clipped, and that the foreground could have been significantly brighter without blowing any highlights.

 

[Jack Douglas]

So all the while I've been wondering. Now I know Scott is a terrorist (by analogy).

Jack