5DS-R DR test on DPReview

[Loswr]

Even if the opinion comes from a well known professional review site that posts a "Real World Dynamic Range" example. dynamic range we see from on-chip ADC architectures from Sony sensors in cameras from competitors like Nikon, Pentax, and Sony itself. Those shooting high dynamic

I guess reposting the DxO numbers just wasn't enough.

Seriously though, to me their summary seems to be spot on - it's not Canon bashing, but an objective conclusion:
That said, the 5DS cameras cannot compete with the massive base ISO dynamic range dynamic range we see from on-chip ADC architectures from Sony sensors in cameras from competitors like Nikon, Pentax, and Sony itself. Those shooting high dynamic range scenes...

I see. 12-stops is pitifully small and terribly limiting, but 14-stops is massive. Obviously, those who shoot high DR scenes always use base ISO. Yeah, that all makes since because a well-known professional review site says so.

 

[9VIII]

I just love the demonization of dynamic range here. It's an expanded capability. More dynamic range means less noise. How could that ever be a bad thing? You don't even have to lift the shadows to see improved IQ at ISO 100 from having 1/10th the read noise.

Have you actually fallen so far?
Have you actually forgotten that all of these comments are in the context of a constant barrage of absurd statements implying that a camera is useless without 14 stops of DR?

 

[meywd]

I just love the demonization of dynamic range here. It's an expanded capability. More dynamic range means less noise. How could that ever be a bad thing? You don't even have to lift the shadows to see improved IQ at ISO 100 from having 1/10th the read noise.

Tbh I want more DR, as much as I want more FPS, less noise at high ISO, and better AF, but unlike these other things, the cases where I need more DR can be dealt with using workarounds like HDR, Dual_ISO, Flash, blending multi-exposures

 

[Loswr]

I just love the demonization of dynamic range here. It's an expanded capability. More dynamic range means less noise. How could that ever be a bad thing? You don't even have to lift the shadows to see improved IQ at ISO 100 from having 1/10th the read noise.

Have you actually fallen so far?
Have you actually forgotten that all of these comments are in the context of a constant barrage of absurd statements implying that a camera is useless without 14 stops of DR?

I wonder if he considered donating his Canon 5DIII to a worthy charity, but decided against it for ethical reasons, much like donating clothing that's stained and ripped to shreds.

 

[ahsanford]

I just love the demonization of dynamic range here. It's an expanded capability. More dynamic range means less noise. How could that ever be a bad thing? You don't even have to lift the shadows to see improved IQ at ISO 100 from having 1/10th the read noise.

Have you actually fallen so far?
Have you actually forgotten that all of these comments are in the context of a constant barrage of absurd statements implying that a camera is useless without 14 stops of DR?

This thread, along with my prior 5DS DXO vigil:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25991.0

...walks that fine line between comedy and insanity. Start the thread in earnest and it becomes a joke. Start the thread in jest and people get serious. It's a wonderfully mad metamorphosis.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to shoot pictures of total darkness in a sensory deprivation chamber -- at ISO 100, handheld, of course. If my darkness comes out plaid after I push it 9 stops, I will smash my 5D3 to bits and leave Canon forever.

- A

 

[3kramd5]

I just love the demonization of dynamic range here. It's an expanded capability. More dynamic range means less noise. How could that ever be a bad thing?

I'm not sure I've ever witnessed a specification (or lab-based determination of related capability) be demonized here. Nor have I seen the notion that having more DR is a bad thing. Granted I can't bring myself to read the endless pages, but has even one person made the suggestion that lowering sensor noise or expanding DR in other ways is a bad thing?

I bet if you took a poll, "More Dynamic Range - Good or Bad," you'd see approximately 0% choose "bad" (and those who did would be trolling).

 

[Loswr]

I just love the demonization of dynamic range here. It's an expanded capability. More dynamic range means less noise. How could that ever be a bad thing?

I'm not sure I've ever witnessed a specification (or lab-based determination of related capability) be demonized here. Nor have I seen the notion that having more DR is a bad thing. Granted I can't bring myself to read the endless pages, but has even one person made the suggestion that lowering sensor noise or expanding DR in other ways is a bad thing?

I bet if you took a poll, "More Dynamic Range - Good or Bad," you'd see approximately 0% choose "bad" (and those who did would be trolling).

+1

No one is anti-DR. Some people recognize there's more to making images than low ISO DR.

 

[bdunbar79]

I think we need some clarification:

12 stops of DR at ISO 100 is horrendous. 14 stops is magical.

High ISO DR doesn't matter at all. Nobody shoots at high ISO or at least they shouldn't. They just don't know what they're doing if they do.

There I think that sums it all up.

 

[Loswr]

One more point of clarification about why DPR has a 6-stop push tool and rating. DPR is not a public service website, they exist because those who run it want more dimes. So they develop a new 'tool' to drive traffic to their site. DxOMark exists for exactly the same reason. So much the better if the tool makes the most popular brand look bad – the latest film/TV star scandal is always a lead-in teaser item on the nightly news.

 

[CaptureWhatYouSee]

The following is from a poll on the DPR site:

HAVE YOUR SAY
What's most important to you in a camera?
Dynamic range
23.8%
Resolution
18.1%
High ISO image quality
22.9%
AF performance
22.7%
Continuous shooting speed / buffer
10.5%
I don't care - I'm just putting pics on Facebook
1.9%
Total voters: 1,505

 

[msm]

One more point of clarification about why DPR has a 6-stop push tool and rating. DPR is not a public service website, they exist because those who run it want more dimes. So they develop a new 'tool' to drive traffic to their site. DxOMark exists for exactly the same reason. So much the better if the tool makes the most popular brand look bad – the latest film/TV star scandal is always a lead-in teaser item on the nightly news.

Oh so you are saying these tools are just there to make Canon look bad and produce more traffic and not because DR is actually a relevant property that has impact in real world photography?

 

[msm]

I just love the demonization of dynamic range here. It's an expanded capability. More dynamic range means less noise. How could that ever be a bad thing? You don't even have to lift the shadows to see improved IQ at ISO 100 from having 1/10th the read noise.

Have you actually fallen so far?
Have you actually forgotten that all of these comments are in the context of a constant barrage of absurd statements implying that a camera is useless without 14 stops of DR?

Yeah, who is making a constant barrage of absurd statements in this thread?

 

[Loswr]

The following is from a poll on the DPR site:
Total voters: 1,505

That's about 0.01% of the dSLRs sold per year.

 

[Loswr]

Yeah, who is making a constant barrage of absurd statements in this thread?

Here's a good example of an absurd statement in this thread:

Oh so you are saying these tools are just there to make Canon look bad and produce more traffic and not because DR is actually a relevant property that has impact in real world photography?

 

[msm]

Yeah, who is making a constant barrage of absurd statements in this thread?

Here's a good example of an absurd statement in this thread:

Oh so you are saying these tools are just there to make Canon look bad and produce more traffic and not because DR is actually a relevant property that has impact in real world photography?

It is not a statement, it is a question to what to me seems like an absurd post.

 

[CaptureWhatYouSee]

The following is from a poll on the DPR site:
Total voters: 1,505

That's about 0.01% of the dSLRs sold per year.

You don't have to poll everyone in order to get a statistically significant sample set.

This 'demonstrates' that DR is as important as AF and High ISO to a reasonable number of people. Which seems about right. I bet that these percentages will not change.

 

[Sporgon]

I just love the demonization of dynamic range here. It's an expanded capability. More dynamic range means less noise. How could that ever be a bad thing? You don't even have to lift the shadows to see improved IQ at ISO 100 from having 1/10th the read noise.

This is the danger of fixating on something: you start to see it everywhere.

I would happily throw down a challenge for you or anyone to pick which picture has been taken on Nikon out of ten, the remaining nine having been taken on Canon at 100 ISO.

 

[Sporgon]

The following is from a poll on the DPR site:
Total voters: 1,505

That's about 0.01% of the dSLRs sold per year.

You don't have to poll everyone in order to get a statistically significant sample set.

This 'demonstrates' that DR is as important as AF and High ISO to a reasonable number of people. Which seems about right. I bet that these percentages will not change.

I'm not at all surprised given how the whole DR thing is so Internet driven anyway.

 

[bdunbar79]

The following is from a poll on the DPR site:

HAVE YOUR SAY
What's most important to you in a camera?
Dynamic range
23.8%
Resolution
18.1%
High ISO image quality
22.9%
AF performance
22.7%
Continuous shooting speed / buffer
10.5%
I don't care - I'm just putting pics on Facebook
1.9%
Total voters: 1,505

Me personally, high ISO DR. In sports you don't get time to edit RAW files; only time to crop JPG's, if that.

 

[Loswr]

It is not a statement, it is a question to what to me seems like an absurd post.

My apologies, I will correct my earlier statement. Your post was a good example of an absurd rhetorical question.