Canon U.S.A. Announces New 120 MP Ultra-High Resolution and 2.7 MP Ultra-High Sensitivity CMOS Sensors

Timedog

EOS R
Aug 31, 2018
50
28
If you want really crisp images with great texture and tonal detail across the tonal range, little noise and great colors for pixel peeping (because for ordinarily-sized prints it very rarely matters), you need to apply extra work in postprocessing,
What type of processing techniques are you talking about? Like stuff beyond what you can do on Lightroom? I want to get really good at postprocessing and will take all the advice I can get.
 

keithcooper

EOS 7D MK II
What type of processing techniques are you talking about? Like stuff beyond what you can do on Lightroom? I want to get really good at postprocessing and will take all the advice I can get.
For myself a true understanding of sharpening (inc. when/where it's not needed) at all stages in my workflow, from RAW to printing has contributed greatly to my own photography (that's using PS - lightroom doesn't cut it for big prints IMHO)

A couple of articles about the importance of print that I've put together that might be of relevance?


 

CanonFanBoy

O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,557
2,369
Irving, Texas
True. But it doesn't mean there's a good substitute for good DR. Exposure blending and HDR are not a good substitute for images taken in one shot. I always prefer to minimise the amount of shots needed to produce one image, and ideally it's just one shot.
And no, knowing and using HDR and blending DOESN'T make you a better photographer. If your car often breaks and you know how to fix it and work around its issues, it doesn't make you a better driver on the road.
Except that we aren't just drivers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

Pape

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 31, 2018
496
294
True. But it doesn't mean there's a good substitute for good DR. Exposure blending and HDR are not a good substitute for images taken in one shot. I always prefer to minimise the amount of shots needed to produce one image, and ideally it's just one shot.
And no, knowing and using HDR and blending DOESN'T make you a better photographer. If your car often breaks and you know how to fix it and work around its issues, it doesn't make you a better driver on the road.
You dont need to be better driver to reach your goal . roads are full of sucky drivers who get everyday to their destination :p i dont quite know what this is to do with photographing
Or do we talk again about those so called good drivers who take needles risks on road and underexpose their pics :p.
 
Last edited:

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,476
952
I'm no troll, but since I added an A7R III, I now know what we've been missing out on for years. While Canon lenses area amazing, Canon sensors SUCK. They really do. The difference between a Canon and a Sony sensor is literally day and night (as far as shadow detail is concerned).
I would ask for examples proving this but we all know they would never be posted.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,476
952
True. But it doesn't mean there's a good substitute for good DR. Exposure blending and HDR are not a good substitute for images taken in one shot.
For still scenes they are a better. Properly exposed shadows have better fine detail and tonality than shadows pushed hard. And multiple exposures can capture a wider DR than any sensor can in a single shot.

Motion can be an issue, but for still scenes blending and HDR can produce superior images.
 

Diko

7 fps...
Apr 27, 2011
433
5
37
Sofia, Bulgaria
True. But it doesn't mean there's a good substitute for good DR. Exposure blending and HDR are not a good substitute for images taken in one shot. I always prefer to minimise the amount of shots needed to produce one image, and ideally it's just one shot.
And no, knowing and using HDR and blending DOESN'T make you a better photographer. If your car often breaks and you know how to fix it and work around its issues, it doesn't make you a better driver on the road.
What kind of f**** images do you take?!?!?

Recently I posted a photo of harsh sunny day light and deep shadows and I got all out that looked almost like an HDR from a single image....

I really don't understand what more do you expect?!?!? If I go to a club event dark with lasers (no flash)- I go with 50mm f1.4 and with some bearable ISO (means with noise that is OK for LR to remove) @1/200s I get all the fun.

Already we have awesome DR. What comes next is a bonus and if you can't manage to get all the light from 5D4 @moment, I suggest you might consider moving to another job/hobby.
 

Cochese

EOS 80D
Oct 22, 2014
130
62
What kind of f**** images do you take?!?!?

Recently I posted a photo of harsh sunny day light and deep shadows and I got all out that looked almost like an HDR from a single image....

I really don't understand what more do you expect?!?!? If I go to a club event dark with lasers (no flash)- I go with 50mm f1.4 and with some bearable ISO (means with noise that is OK for LR to remove) @1/200s I get all the fun.

Already we have awesome DR. What comes next is a bonus and if you can't manage to get all the light from 5D4 @moment, I suggest you might consider moving to another job/hobby.
Whoa there. Calm down. Take a breather. I've never had an issue with the DR of the 5DMIV, except the banding that happens when I photograph fire works (not present in any other canon camera I've used for the last 9 years), but if you think this is the end all and be all of DR, you're seriously kidding yourself. The current Sony sensors perform amazingly, and if you actually got to use one and compared the same shots side by side, you'd immediately notice the difference in favor of the Sony.
That's not to say the Canon sensor is bad, just that the Sony is clearly leaps and bounds ahead.
You'll pry my 5DMiv out of my cold dead hands, but better is better. And anything that would make life easier is definitely better. The Sony will pull shadows and highlights that will impress you just as much as going from a 5DII to a 5DIV at times.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
799
643
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
What kind of f**** images do you take?!?!?

Recently I posted a photo of harsh sunny day light and deep shadows and I got all out that looked almost like an HDR from a single image....

I really don't understand what more do you expect?!?!? If I go to a club event dark with lasers (no flash)- I go with 50mm f1.4 and with some bearable ISO (means with noise that is OK for LR to remove) @1/200s I get all the fun.

Already we have awesome DR. What comes next is a bonus and if you can't manage to get all the light from 5D4 @moment, I suggest you might consider moving to another job/hobby.
From your message I gather you're awesomely cool, but I'm not sure how what you said it's related to my message.
I discussed HDR and exposure blending, do you understand what it is? Do you understand the difference between scenes that require high DR and dark scenes such as club environment?

My point was, I'd better get one image from one shot rather than from multiple shots+exposure blending.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,476
952
I discussed HDR and exposure blending, do you understand what it is? Do you understand the difference between scenes that require high DR and dark scenes such as club environment?
Club environment? You never brought that up. Wouldn't that be at ISO 3200, 6400, or higher? DR is pretty much the same for a given generation and sensor format in that case because of the prevalence of shot noise. DR differences appear in deep shadows at ISO 100 where read noise is dominant.

Speaking of your older post...

And no, knowing and using HDR and blending DOESN'T make you a better photographer. If your car often breaks and you know how to fix it and work around its issues, it doesn't make you a better driver on the road.
That's quite the false analogy. HDR and blending are examples of photographic technique, not "fixes" for a "broken" camera. They can make you a better photographer if they improve the technical quality of your work. They're not applicable in all cases, but they're fairly useful in landscapes, especially landscapes which exceed the DR of any sensor.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
799
643
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Motion can be an issue, but for still scenes blending and HDR can produce superior images.
Even for still scenes, the less blending the better. Of course HDR produces better images in cases where the sensor doesn't cope, still it's better to have less blending/merging.

Club environment? You never brought that up.
I was responding to this post https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/canon-u-s-a-announces-new-120-mp-ultra-high-resolution-and-2-7-mp-ultra-high-sensitivity-cmos-sensors.37271/post-780301


That's quite the false analogy. HDR and blending are examples of photographic technique, not "fixes" for a "broken" camera. They can make you a better photographer if they improve the technical quality of your work. They're not applicable in all cases, but they're fairly useful in landscapes, especially landscapes which exceed the DR of any sensor.
HDR is a technique, but it's not a creative technique but a workaround for technology imperfection. Better sensor means less HDR in terms of taking multiple shots.
Dodging/burning on the other hand is an example of a creative technique.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,254
1,879
Canada
I don't know, that sounds a lot like trolling.

Technically, wouldn't a camera with literally no dynamic range not be a camera at all? As in it could generate only one on/off response? Could it even do that? Trying to figure out what a camera with no DR would actually be is beyond me.
Having just on/off would be one stop of DR.

Zero? That would be an array where all elements were set to the same number, and could not be changed from that number
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,254
1,879
Canada
Whoa there. Calm down. Take a breather. I've never had an issue with the DR of the 5DMIV, except the banding that happens when I photograph fire works (not present in any other canon camera I've used for the last 9 years), but if you think this is the end all and be all of DR, you're seriously kidding yourself. The current Sony sensors perform amazingly, and if you actually got to use one and compared the same shots side by side, you'd immediately notice the difference in favor of the Sony.
That's not to say the Canon sensor is bad, just that the Sony is clearly leaps and bounds ahead.
You'll pry my 5DMiv out of my cold dead hands, but better is better. And anything that would make life easier is definitely better. The Sony will pull shadows and highlights that will impress you just as much as going from a 5DII to a 5DIV at times.
“These sensors help expand the company’s lineup of industrial vision products”

These are for industrial imaging. Things like security cameras, car back up displays, etc. You are about as likely to see these in a “photography camera” as you are likely to see the Oly medical sensors.....

We can debate the relative merits of Sony or Canon DSLR sensors all we want, but it has no relevance here. It is like debating the relative merits of a screwdriver and a hammer, they are different tools designed for different tasks.
 

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
57
52
What type of processing techniques are you talking about? Like stuff beyond what you can do on Lightroom? I want to get really good at postprocessing and will take all the advice I can get.
I doubt Lightroom itself is enough - for this we need a tool that can do some advanced work with layers and masking. I never really used Lightroom primarily and don't use it at all any longer (I used DxO PhotoLab and now almost exclusively use Capture One), but as Lightroom improves, I can imagine that new useful features come up and might even allow for this kind of postprocessing.

For example, I mean stuff like exposure blending - let me give an example: Let me have a high dynamic range scene, and decide to take 3 images of it: First, I take a slightly underexposed shot (underexposed so that the significant highlights do not get overexposed). Second, I take a normally exposed shot. Third, I take an overexposed shot (by 2 stops or so). Note that you can take more and more heavily overexposed shots; based on your needs. Once I have these shots, I develop them into 16-bit TIFF files in such way that I normalize the exposure levels down to the level of the underexposed shot to make it easier to work with later in the postprocessing (NOTE: the overexposed images will most likely have a lot of areas blown out in it once brought down by 3+ stops). After developing the images, I import all three into my image processing program (currently Affinity Photo, previously Photoshop), as layers of a single image. Then I align those images; and start to stack them using luminosity masks - so that I keep highlights from the underexposed shot, brought-down shadows from the overexposed shot, and the rest from the normal shot. Sometimes the luminosity masks won't work on their own (e.g., when having moving objects like grass, trees, etc.), so that I will have to do manual tweaks there; or use something like Photoshop's edge detection (maxing it out on each blended layer, basically), which tends to help. Lastly, I adjust the blended image's parameters like exposure, contrast, color curve, etc. to the levels I want for my final image. I find this technique very capable, and one that tends to yield very natural results of the resulting image (unlike traditional HDR...). On the downside, it can add quite a bit of work, depending on the volatility and complexity of the scene (too many small moving portions with high contrast tends to be quite a challenge).

If you have a very static scene (in which things don't move) and don't want to have to deal with luminosity masks (or even more laboriously doing the masking manually), you can do mean stacking by taking e.g. four exposures with the same settings, which you either directly in the camera, or in postprocessing, can merge using pixel-level averaging. The effect of this will be drastically reduced noise levels in the final, stacked, image. Note however, that (1) this can cost some sharpness; and (2) shadowy areas will have less detail compared to the method described above (exposure blending); because our digital sensors are simply incapable of capturing as much texture detail in shadows as they can close to the values of sensor saturation (highlights that are not overexposed). Hence, I would say that exposure blending tends to be a superior method compared to mean stacking - exposure blending gives more detail across the tonal range, even in the shadows; and is more applicable for more volatile scenes. One scenario in which mean stacking wins over exposure blending is when you e.g. have a busy road, a brige or so; and want to take enough exposures so that you can then in postprocessing mask out parts of them so as to remove moving objects like people, cars, bikes, boats, waves, etc.

Lastly, there is traditional HDR, but that one I generally would do not advise - it is way too easy to do and often produces way too cheap and unrealistically looking images compared to exposure blending. One type of scenario in which HDR might be OK tends to be architectural photography; but I believe that you can always achieve greater results with more control by exposure blending. There actually are HDR features in most image processors - Lightroom, Photoshop, Affinity Photo, as well as dedicated HDR tools like Photomatix Pro, Aurora HDR... but again; HDR is a last resort solution to me.
 

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
57
52
True. But it doesn't mean there's a good substitute for good DR. Exposure blending and HDR are not a good substitute for images taken in one shot. I always prefer to minimise the amount of shots needed to produce one image, and ideally it's just one shot.
And no, knowing and using HDR and blending DOESN'T make you a better photographer. If your car often breaks and you know how to fix it and work around its issues, it doesn't make you a better driver on the road.
For e.g. portrait shots; having too low dynamic range might mean a problem, for which I would need more light control - and that is another thing that is always great to have. E.g., when having to shoot in the middle of the day and harsh sunlight, I might need to go for a polarizing filter mounted on the lens, and a light diffuser placed above the model to make the light softer and so reduce the contrast (lower the DR of the scene) on the model's face and body.

Knowing the techniques helps me overcome these problems more cheaply than buying a more capable camera. Consider also that some scenes are so contrasty that no photographic digital sensors can capture the full DR to a satisfactory degree. Knowing this stuff is never a downside.

I'd also claim that knowing how to fix my car makes me a better and safer driver on the road. If my car is half-broken so that it can't operate in a reliably safe manner and can fail badly, resulting in loss of control and injury or death of someone or damage to property; knowing how to fix the car prior to a mishap, will make me a better and safer driver. :)
Not to say that the shear knowledge of how my tools operate has the potential of making me a better operator (that applies to both cars and cameras), because I know the limits of my tools better than someone who has no clue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB