5DS-R DR test on DPReview

[Loswr]

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

Wait a minute, are you actually suggesting that DR is important at anything other than base ISO? Then again, we are in the midst of a discussion about absurd statements (or was that questions?).

 

[3kramd5]

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

Sorta a silly poll, though. I can't prioritize one single thing in a system, and I don't see how anyone else can either.

For example, does choosing "resolution" mean that I'd prefer a camera whose 1,000MP sensor musters 2 stops of dynamic range, has a single contrast detect AF point, only operates at ISO160, and turns out a rate of 5sec/frame, to one with only 20MP, but 14 stops of DR, a host of phase detect AF, capable of 52,000 ISO at 12FPS?

Maybe they're reading it as: all else being equal, where you would like to see an improvement. If that's the case, maybe 23.8% of responders use Canon cameras and 22.7% use Sony

 

[rs]

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.

While improved DR performance at ISO 100 is not something worth turning down, DR captured by DSLR's at base ISO has for a long time exceeded the DR of current generation output medium, be that screen or paper. Making use of the expanded DR offered by Exmor sensors at base ISO either compensates for a shot taken where the metering system misses by a large margin, the photographer selects the wrong setting, or more usually to create the weird washed out HDR mush effect. While I can see the need for certain types of specialist photography (e.g. astro), it is certainly not a mainstream problem with photography.

I bet you if you show a selection of prints to a non-trained eye showing typical problems caused by lack of base ISO DR, high ISO noise, AF tracking issues, frame rate/buffer issues (resulting in missing the decisive moment) and resolution, the chances are missing the moment would be number one noticed problem (if its an action shot), focus issues would be number two, high ISO noise would be number three, and no-one would pick up on a typical lack of resolution or lack of DR if exposed correctly.

 

[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.

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.

Are you suggesting that a self-selected population of 0.01% of the market is a statistically significant sample set that accurately represents the views of that entire market?

I guess that means we have conclusive evidence that Canon makes the top rated cameras:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/top-rated/photo/3017941/ref=zg_bs_tab_t_tr

 

[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.

While improved DR performance at ISO 100 is not something worth turning down, DR captured by DSLR's at base ISO has for a long time exceeded the DR of current generation output medium, be that screen or paper. Making use of the expanded DR offered by Exmor sensors at base ISO either compensates for a shot taken where the metering system misses by a large margin, the photographer selects the wrong setting, or more usually to create the weird washed out HDR mush effect. While I can see the need for certain types of specialist photography (e.g. astro), it is certainly not a mainstream problem with photography.

I bet you if you show a selection of prints to a non-trained eye showing typical problems caused by lack of base ISO DR, high ISO noise, AF tracking issues, frame rate/buffer issues (resulting in missing the decisive moment) and resolution, the chances are missing the moment would be number one noticed problem (if its an action shot), focus issues would be number two, high ISO noise would be number three, and no-one would pick up on a typical lack of resolution or lack of DR if exposed correctly.

+1

 

[LOALTD]

DR is measured on a logarithmic scale, not a linear scale.


So yes, 2-stops is quite a big difference over 14-stops.


Not to worry, if the 1Dx Mk II ends up having class-leading DR, the spec will finally matter again. I cannot wait!

 

[Loswr]

DR is measured on a logarithmic scale, not a linear scale.
So yes, 2-stops is quite a big difference over 14-stops.
Not to worry, if the 1Dx Mk II ends up having class-leading DR, the spec will finally matter again. I cannot wait!

So, f/1.2 lenses are massively awesome, and f/2.8* lenses are practically useless. Good to know.


(*Yes, that difference is more than two stops. However, it was painfully and laboriously explained to me sometime back that when I round the DR of a Canon sensor up to 12 stops from 11.7, I am drastically under representing the true superiority of Exmor's 14-stops of pure awesomeness.)

 

[msm]

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

Wait a minute, are you actually suggesting that DR is important at anything other than base ISO? Then again, we are in the midst of a discussion about absurd statements (or was that questions?).

I think the topic is absurdness. Speaking of which, how much time of your life have you spend reading these topics and making 16000 posts which seems to be mostly in threads like this?

 

[rs]

Not to worry, if the 1Dx Mk II ends up having class-leading DR, the spec will finally matter again.

Base ISO DR of Canon DSLR's already exceeds the DR of all output medium I know of. If the next batch of Canon sensors make Exmor sensors look prehistoric from the DR point of view, I fail to see the advantage for 99% of photographers. While it is a metric which cameras can be measured by, and improvements don't hurt, this aspect of camera performance has been blown out of all proportion.

 

[msm]

DR is measured on a logarithmic scale, not a linear scale.
So yes, 2-stops is quite a big difference over 14-stops.
Not to worry, if the 1Dx Mk II ends up having class-leading DR, the spec will finally matter again. I cannot wait!

So, f/1.2 lenses are massively awesome, and f/2.8* lenses are practically useless. Good to know.

Nice comparison, that really made sense!

 

[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.

Are you suggesting that a self-selected population of 0.01% of the market is a statistically significant sample set that accurately represents the views of that entire market?

I guess that means we have conclusive evidence that Canon makes the top rated cameras:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/top-rated/photo/3017941/ref=zg_bs_tab_t_tr

Typically, population based polls only require a few thousand responses in order to be statistically accurate.
I'm not really trying to say that the DPR poll is accurate. It's too general to draw any real conclusions other than that a bunch of people think that DR, AF and High ISO IQ are important.

I wonder how many DPR readers would think that the differences between Canon and Sony low ISO DR is important? Probably a lot, but, only because they read about it every day.

Canon probably does offer the best cameras when you look at the whole pie: IQ, software, support, build quality, etc.

 

[Orangutan]

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.

I guess I missed it, I don't see any demonization. Everyone here would like more DR, that's not the question. The question is under what conditions the Sonikon advantage is significant. We have a great many people saying it's significant for them; we also have others saying they've shot both in DR-limited circumstances and don't find the difference compelling. I've heard others say they agree Canon DR is worse, but that Nikon color rendition is worse, and that's more important for them than DR.

All of us with Canon glass will be happier when we can buy bodies with better sensors (for all reasonable definitions of "better"). My frustration with the pro-DR crowd is that I feel like I'm being called stupid (not by you) for not recognizing the obvious inferiority of Canon sensors. I see a bit of a difference, but it just doesn't make that much difference for my shooting style and budget -- I can only justify buying crop sensors now anyway, so wouldn't get full benefit.

 

[Loswr]

While it is a metric which cameras can be measured by, and improvements don't hurt, this aspect of camera performance has been blown out of all proportion.

How can you say such a thing? We're talking about DR, for crying out loud. For all intents and purposes, DR is photography!

 

[roguewave]

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.

Where do you see me drawing that distinction? All I said is that I agree with the reviewers on the additional DR being useful in some situations. But obviously neither test numbers nor real-world samples matter when neuronatamist says that 12-stops is enough for any real photographer. That makes sense, who cares about these reviews coming from people who make their living reviewing camera gear.

In your own words, it's not like f/2.8 lenses are useless and f/1.2 are massively awesome - so anyone claiming that faster glass may be useful in some situations is a DOF troll?

 

[Loswr]

Typically, population based polls only require a few thousand responses in order to be statistically accurate.

First, 1500 is not a few thousand. Second, and more importantly, for that to be valid the respondents must be randomly selected. I will certainly accept that the poll numbers adequately represent the views of frequent visitors to the DPR website, but not the general population of dSLR buyers.

 

[jrista]

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?

Fallen so far? What the hell does that mean?

More DR means better IQ. It's a simple equation. Yet everyone here takes every mention of dynamic range as some personal affront. That is just...incomprehensible to me. It's a technological aspect, as important as any other. Anywhere else on the web, everyone recognizes that. Anywhere else on the web, people are happy to have more DR.

Here on CR? It's a personal insult to even mention DR. ONLY HERE could that ever be possible. And it's only possible because Canon has persistently had LESS. Well, have fun with your war, guys. Glad I stopped posting on this site.

 

[CaptureWhatYouSee]

Typically, population based polls only require a few thousand responses in order to be statistically accurate.

First, 1500 is not a few thousand. Second, and more importantly, for that to be valid the respondents must be randomly selected. I will certainly accept that the poll numbers adequately represent the views of frequent visitors to the DPR website, but not the general population of dSLR buyers.

You brought up the notion of 'DSLR buyers'. It's a poll of DPR users who (it's assumed) randomly decided to answer the poll.

As for 'a few thousand', that is for a population of a country. When we are talking about a population of English speaking DSLR users who happen to have logged onto DPReview, 1500 is sufficient.

 

[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?

Fallen so far? What the hell does that mean?

Demonization of DR? Please...provide some examples of people here stating that more DR would be a bad thing. Can you? If not, then you've clearly fallen into the hell of hyperbole and false accusation.

 

[Loswr]

Typically, population based polls only require a few thousand responses in order to be statistically accurate.

First, 1500 is not a few thousand. Second, and more importantly, for that to be valid the respondents must be randomly selected. I will certainly accept that the poll numbers adequately represent the views of frequent visitors to the DPR website, but not the general population of dSLR buyers.

You brought up the notion of 'DSLR buyers'. It's a poll of DPR users who (it's assumed) randomly decided to answer the poll.

As for 'a few thousand', that is for a population of a country. When we are talking about a population of English speaking DSLR users who happen to have logged onto DPReview, 1500 is sufficient.

In that case, let's revisit your earlier statement and correct it:

This 'demonstrates' that DR is as important as AF and High ISO to a reasonable number of people English speaking DSLR users who happen to have logged onto DPReview. Which seems about right. I bet that these percentages will not change.

I completely agree with the revised statement.

 

[Loswr]

This 'demonstrates' that DR is as important as AF and High ISO to a reasonable number of people English speaking DSLR users who happen to have logged onto DPReview. Which seems about right. I bet that these percentages will not change.

I completely agree with the revised statement.

Because as we know, American's can't speak English to save themselves.

Apparently Australians can't punctuate it.