5DS-R DR test on DPReview

[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.

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.

I hope that is not 100% true, losing a source of very helpful and educational posts is a loss to this forum, and I understand, this debate is becoming more and more fruitless, I am sure this will be ignored but I think I understand both parties, the below is not targeted at jrista, but to all.

So yes Sony has the best low ISO DR, but hold it, Canon has the best high ISO performance, then again the a7s can't be beaten, but wait its doesn't have the resolution for high detail landscapes, nor the FPS and AF for sports, but the 1DX is very expensive, while the Sony MLCs has high FPS, lightweight, and the Sony sensor, still Canon's lens collection is the best, while the 5D3 is the best all rounder, the 6D is the best at low light, and the 7D II is the best at action under a budget.

Yes i know you all know that each System has its merits and each camera has it pros and cons, yet you dream of the ultimate camera that is under $1k, well wish as much as you want, still that will not happen, at least not in your lifetime, do you think that Sony got to this result - the higher DR sensor - easily, or they don't protect it with patents?, mostly Sony had to do serious investing on R&D to reach it, and they ignored other things or at least didn't priorities it, while Canon focused on AF\Video\Cinema, Samsung on BSI, and Sigma on affordable high IQ lenses.

I know this forum is here to debate rumors and discuss wishes, but really, discuss without predicting the DOOM of Canon, or declaring Canon cameras obsolete, because first, this is a Canon related forum, and second this is just your opinion, its not a fact, it may be or may not be.

And one question to those anti-current-Canon-sensors do you think that if you rally enough people to change sides, that Canon will listen and change their strategy? if yes, then what will you do when that happen, say its too late now - which is pointless as you can switch without all this - or will you switch back and betray all those who converted because of you? again I don't say its an unreasonable request, but you are debating it to current OWNERS of Canon cameras, and not to Canon it self, its like when you debate that a football/soccer player is good or bad, you just get more angry, and he keeps playing with the team.

 

[jrista]

Glad I stopped posting on this site.

I hope that is not 100% true, losing a source of very helpful and educational posts is a loss to this forum, and I understand, this debate is becoming more and more fruitless, I am sure this will be ignored but I think I understand both parties, the below is not targeted at jrista, but to all.

No, not entirely. I just don't like to bother with these threads anymore. Not worth it.

Regarding the rest of your post...Canon will do what Canon does. Who knows what would make them change, but personally I no longer care. The only thing anyone can do is change their own purchasing choices. If you want better DR, it's easy to get. If you want a faster frame rate, it's easy to get. If you want a bigger sensor, it's easy to get.

In my case, I tend to buy a new body every couple/three years. I'm more interested in diversifying and getting the best camera for the job, than trying to find the single most ultimate camera. I couldn't give up my 600mm f/4 lens for anything, and I'll be using Canon cameras for birds/wildlife as long as that lens lasts, and since most of that photography is at high ISO, I'm not suffering in any way. However I'm adding Sony and Samsung to my kit as well. The A6000 just gives me far more portability and excellent IQ in a package that Canon doesn't compete with. I can't always haul my big kit around, and I miss shots...plus, that camera delivers great IQ across the board. The Samsung NX1, if/when they deliver a nice supertele prime (a 300mm f/2.8 is in the works, which with a 1.4x TC would put the NX1 on par with a FF+600mm f/4), would be a better camera for my purposes than the 7D II. Even though it "only" does 12 bit at 15fps, that's better than Canon's effective 11-11.5 bits worth of DR. A Sony A7r II would fit right in for landscapes, and with an EF adapter, I could repurpose my Canon lenses, so it's a fairly cheap way to get better IQ without having to buy a bunch of lenses as well (plus, the A6000 shares the E mount, so I could build up a collection of lenses for those cameras over time.)

Three years down the road, I'll replace these cameras with whatever delivers the best capabilities at that time. If that so happens to be Canon, cool. If it's Samsung, cool. It may even be Nikon, although they have so much parity with Canon for the most part that I don't see that really happening unless it's something smaller. I generally no longer care about brand. The only way I'm locked into Canon is for use with my 600mm f/4 lens, but outside of that, it's open game.

 

[K]

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.

With the exception of a few fanatical Canon fanboys here who will defend Canon no matter what the situation - I think the vast majority of people here, all agree that more DR is a good thing. It is these few Canon zealots that generate the most noise on the subject, and yes - it is for no other reason other than the fact that Canon is indeed behind in this area.


ON the other hand...

DXO, DPP and the Exmorites, have a radical bias and they are literally propagandizing the web in favor of Sony/Nikon with downright misleading reviews and articles.

While they do not lie on a single individual statement - the whole of their reviews and focus, the emphasis they place on DR at low ISO and the OMISSION of other other valid concerns constitutes a huge bias.

To put it simply, they are taking Sony's ONE advantage and making it into 90% of the story. This is misleading to anyone interested in good IQ. In reality, and where anyone knowledgeable and reasonable agrees - higher DR is merely one part of improved IQ. The fact that these sites are obsessed with low-ISO DR indicates a bias. To those without critical thinking skills as well as the facts and a balanced perspective - they end up becoming these Exmor fanatics spewing their idiotic drivel across the web about how they can crank an underexposed image at ISO 100 over 4 stops. They are bragging about something not nearly as significant as they think it is, and they don't not realize how sophomoric this makes them appear.


All that said...


I personally would appreciate the amount of low-ISO DR that the Sony sensor has, because it can't possibly hurt or hinder my photography. However, it just isn't that big of a piece of the total IQ pie to justify switching to Nikon or Sony camera platforms. Not only is it not that critical in IQ, but it is even less significant when you weigh in other factors that one considers when buying into a camera system. Such as lens selection. Ergonomics. Features and much more.


DPP is fixated on DR. DXO skews their weighting on sensor scores to the point that the D3300 is superior to the 1DX, which to anyone with EYES to SEE, just isn't true on IQ. The Exmorites are just Nikon/Sony fanboys who are just as juvenile and hostile as the Canon fanboys who instantly swarm to attack anyone or anything that might even suggest that Canon is weak in any area.


Most people are grounded in reality and realize that the Exmor isn't leaps and bounds better. If it were that much better, it would translate to that much better IQ and photos. It would be visibly noticeable. If this were truly the case, there would be a mass exodus from Canon to Nikon/Sony. This simply hasn't happened. Does anyone here challenge this? Does anyone here not believe that if the major photography sites started filling up with noticeably superior images due to low-ISO high DR that everyone would jump ship?

Because this has not happened, and because there just isn't a stark difference in IQ advantage is proof that the DR advantage just does not translate entirely into improved IQ. You can say the DR is 2x better than Canon. Great! The image quality is NOT 2x better.

So you can lift the shadows 4-5 stops? Big deal. Who does that anyway? In a high quality image, nothing is being pushed more than 1 stop at best. If that. Anymore than that, and it looks like crap. Exmor or not. It just looks bad.

99% of Exmorites are not world-class landscape photographers looking for a few percentage points less noise in shadow areas pushed up 2 stops for images they will print 8 feet wide for a gallery showing. What a load of bull crap. Yet, this is the common message spread by them all.

The reality is, the Exmorites are a gang of amateurs who either:

1. Cannot expose images consistently or correctly, and huge exposure adjustments are used as their crutch to salvage ruined exposures.
2. Are people who do not light their subject properly and they substitute cranking the shadow adjustment for a proper lighting setup.

3. A combination of 1 and 2 above.

The result is bizarre, unrealistic, flat looking images. Low detail shadow areas. Poor color. Bad contrast. The worst is the Exmorites that don't even care about shadows. They use the Exmor sensor as a substitute for a fast prime in a natural light situation and just crank up dark scenes. They think their images look good, but they really are awful.


My advice to the Exmorites. You have a great sensor. However, it's no substitute for mastering lighting. Don't be cheap. Don't fear the lights. Jump in and learn. Others have, and they aren't geniuses.


My advise to the Canon fanboys. You people need to relax. You completely undermine your own position with your vicious pouncing on anyone saying anything remotely negative of Canon, even when it is 100% accurate and completely justified. Sometimes pointing out flaws or weaknesses is a good thing. Generates awareness and assists in progress. If every single consumer was a blind zealot worshiper like them, Canon could be put out total junk and stay in business. That's not how a market place ought to work.

 

[ritholtz]

Comparing at +3EV and +6EV...

The extra noise present in the 6D/5DsR images is characteristic of why many people are critical of Canon's sensor development over the last 7 or more years. And that's considering that the 6D is now considered to be Canon's leading example of a "better" sensor than is in the 5D3.

Canon still has a long way to go to catch up to the other guys.

Hi Dilbert,
Can you please let me know how to copy these comparisons from dpr into jpeg file.

 

[jarrodeu]

Uh Oh. Looks like K just laid out a well thought out map of the DR debate. Things are going to be boring around here now. (not!)

Jarrod

 

[3kramd5]

I personally would appreciate the amount of low-ISO DR that the Sony sensor has, because it can't possibly hurt or hinder my photography. However, it just isn't that big of a piece of the total IQ pie to justify switching to Nikon or Sony camera platforms.

I agree. I only use my A7R sparingly, and when I do it's because I want higher resolution than my 5D bodies. I still try to shoot landscapes when the light is right and, when I can't, the wider DR of the Sony sensor doesn't particularly change anything I do.

The reality is, the Exmorites are a gang of amateurs who either:

1. Cannot expose images consistently or correctly, and huge exposure adjustments are used as their crutch to salvage ruined exposures.
2. Are people who do not light their subject properly and they substitute cranking the shadow adjustment for a proper lighting setup.

3. A combination of 1 and 2 above.

Nonsense. Dynamic range is a perfectly acceptable (indeed perhaps the best) measure of sensor output capabilities. Wanting/demanding/appreciating the best available capability in your I/O device is a reasonable position, and it doesn't mean you're incapable or lazy.

Within the imaging industry (i.e. discounting some specialized low resolution sensors), whomever builds the sensor in the Epic Dragon provides the widest DR and thus is the most capable of accurately digitizing scenes with extreme brights and dark shadows. The Sony exmor line is arguably the runner up (not sure where Samsung, Toshiba, etc. lie since I don't particularly care).

The situations in which the difference between the 30-ish dB of a Canon system and the 40-ish of a Sony system would make a difference for ME are few and far between, and therefore I prioritize other things. But assuming people who want wider DR do so because they are incompetent and rely on crutches or don't want to light scenes is unfounded.

 

[Moulyneau]

Since DPR married DXO, I have been a bit skeptical about the full objectivity of their testing results and reports. I'd suspect they took the more advanced tech of the Sony sensors over Canon as their benchmark. Now, people like me who'll stick to Canon for their awesome lens line and overall system which I think has no equivalent, should agree that Canon should take up the DR challenge very seriously. Super high DR and its 6eV shadow recovery corollary might be overblown, but it's time to see significant improvement in this department. And Canon should stop saying - or worse, thinking - that they don't see any difference between their sensors and the competition.

It goes beyond our desire to have better cameras overall, it's a matter of sustainability in this shrinking market. Some and not the least testing sites seem to be all out to kill the big giant (hidden sponsoring, daddy issues, generating traffic, who knows...) and at the end, if Canon fails to deliver what the masses are brainwashed to want, this spells trouble, well, for us. In terms of research funding, cost, distribution, support and all. Please, don't let us with Sony only on the shops shelves. Yuk!

 

[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.

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.

In the DR debate the s**t hits the fan when people refer to Canon as having 'low dr'. 11.7 stops is far from low in photographic terms; it's actually high. 13.8 is higher still. You then have to set up contrived parameters to show the advantage in that difference. Consider that in a sunlit landscape scene with the sun behind you the EV range in the scene will be in the region of 6 stops, and that includes the white clouds.

As virtually everyone who uses both 11.7 Canon and a '14 stop' capable sensor has stated, there's not as much difference in range as you might think. In fact highlight headroom advantage seems to be with the Canon, shadow range advantage to the Exmor. I put '14' in inverted comas because I think that in practical terms the dynamic range of both sensors is about the same but the Exmor has more latitude in the shadows.

Perhaps we could start a "Show your low DR (sarcasm) shots" thread, where we can post images that we have taken using the full range of the Canon sensor, and the images will make a mockery of 'low DR'.

 

[rs]

...
So yes Sony has the best low ISO DR, but hold it, Canon has the best high ISO performance, then again the a7s can't be beaten, but wait its doesn't have the resolution for high detail landscapes, nor the FPS and AF for sports, but the 1DX is very expensive, while the Sony MLCs has high FPS, lightweight, and the Sony sensor, still Canon's lens collection is the best, while the 5D3 is the best all rounder, the 6D is the best at low light, and the 7D II is the best at action under a budget.
...

The advantage Sony has at low ISO dwarfs that of Canon at high ISO. At ISO 100, Sony has 1 or 2 stops, if not more, of an advantage. At high ISO, the difference is maybe half a stop, if that.

It's all about relevance. Yes, the high ISO noise difference is not as big as the low ISO DR difference. But which is more useful for most people?

It's like saying a car from brand A gets 50% more MPG (half a stop) than a car from brand B, but then for some reason some people keep harking on about car B having a dry sump system to allow the engine to operate at 4 times the angle of car A (2 stops). OK, it's a bigger difference, and 4 times the angle is indisputably better. This would be a major advantage if the inclines or corners motorists tackle cause car A to not pick up oil, but presuming it's good enough to handle any ordinary road driving already, an improvement there would be of no concern to the average motorist. It's all about relevance.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Can someone tell me how applicable / useful / relevant pushing an ISO 100 shot by six stops is? I am not a sensor aficionado -- so this may be a normal sensor review sort of comparison -- but I have never needed to do that with my shots.

Clearly, you're not a real photographer. Real photographers need to do it all the time. For example, say you're shooting with the lens cap on, like a real photographer. A 6-stop push can really save that shot. Or say you want that flat, washed out, front-lit, shadowless look for your photography, like a real photographer. Again, that 6-stop push really helps.

Rolf! Like a "real" photographer....dial in M mode without a clue....just use random settings (like a real pro) and that 6 stops push will make your image work!

 

[Corneria]

Not that we talk about Canon sensors falling behind in some aspects...

This has been going on for years already. But it's not that Canon has lost sales to Nikon because of these facts, as far as I know. My idea was that Canon keeps this strategy as long as they can sell sufficiently, but with a significant profit margin. And since Canon develops their own sensors (and already has set up the R&D for this), they can have higher profit margins (regarding the sensors of course) than Nikon, who buys most of the sensors nowadays. If this "lack of quality" was truly an (economical) issue for a company as big as Canon, they would have done something about it. What do you think?

 

[Eldar]

My idea was that Canon keeps this strategy as long as they can sell sufficiently, but with a significant profit margin.

Well, they are not. They maintain market share, but volume and profitability is down a lot more than any company would be comfortable with.

And just for the record, these threads, which always ends up in the stupid and sarcastic discussions about why no real photographer needs more than what Canon can supply, because they don´t have a clue on how to set exposure, or alternatively Canon will go bankrupt unless they produce >14.8 stop DR at 100 ISO, are totally pathetic and it is difficult to comprehend that grownups actually participate in them ... But please continue, I´ll just ignore them, while I wait for my 5DSR.

 

[Loswr]

Not that we talk about Canon sensors falling behind in some aspects...

This has been going on for years already. But it's not that Canon has lost sales to Nikon because of these facts, as far as I know. My idea was that Canon keeps this strategy as long as they can sell sufficiently, but with a significant profit margin. And since Canon develops their own sensors (and already has set up the R&D for this), they can have higher profit margins (regarding the sensors of course) than Nikon, who buys most of the sensors nowadays. If this "lack of quality" was truly an (economical) issue for a company as big as Canon, they would have done something about it. What do you think?

Exactly...and a point I have been making for years.

 

[K]

One has to wonder....

If Canon released a camera with a sensor having 16 stops of DR, would DXO, DPP and all the Exmorites champion the Canon sensor as they have the Sony? Would DXO rate the T7i sporting that sensor as superior to the Nikon D810 or D4S?

Would they flood the Camera gear Internet world with the same kind of vociferous enthusiasm promoting Canon and its superior sensor? Would there be all these articles, blogs, posts, tests of 6+ stop pushes at ISO 100? Would there be masses of whiners and complainers stating they can't lift a shadow on a D810 as well as the Canon, and begin tearing Nikon and Sony down as a company?

I think not...


I think they would change the subject to something else. I think they would start saying that 14 stops is plenty enough for what they need.

Notice how with the announcement of the 5DS, the megapixel bashing has stopped. Prior to the 5DS, Canon not only got bashed over low ISO DR, but for not having more than 22.3 megapixels. We all heard how superior Nikon/Sony is for having 36mp. Where are these megapixel braggers to come out of their caves and give credit and praise to Canon for making a huge leap over Nikon/Sony? *silence* *sound of crickets*

With 50mp, the Nikon trolls have abandoned that subject entirely. It vanished from the web. It will come back when Nikon/Sony release a sensor with as many or more megapixels. Until then, it is mighty quiet on that front.

Anyhow,

There is a degree of insincerity in the "DR is everything" crowd. Everyone wants more DR, and they do too. But that's not the whole story. There is a bit of Canon hate in there. It's not uncommon for people to want to tear down the big dog. Intel, Microsoft and other market leaders experience the same thing.

 

[tron]

I would love much higher DR. In the meantime I am busy getting new Canon lenses for my 5DMkIIIs to save them from boredom ;D ;D ;D

 

[Orangutan]

There is a degree of insincerity in the "DR is everything" crowd. Everyone wants more DR, and they do too. But that's not the whole story. There is a bit of Canon hate in there.

I don't think this is it. It seems pretty clear to me that many of the vociferous DR advocates are upset for basically one reason: they think Canon is intentionally hobbling new cameras with older sensor tech using its market dominance, taking extra profit and planning to up-sell its customers later. The arguments I hear repeatedly are (1)other companies are making "better" sensors in reasonably-priced bodies, so if Canon can do the same, why don't they? (2)If Canon can't make "better" sensors at reasonable prices, why don't they just buy from someone who does?

I understand these arguments, and even think they might be true. I just don't think it's any different from business practices in any other commodity market. Any market leader in their position would do the same, there's nothing illegal about it, and the shareholders like the extra profit. In other words, even if it's true it's my problem. I have the option to buy from another brand if I choose, and that's pretty much the only choice I have. I wish it were different, but I've got more important things to be upset about.

 

[3kramd5]

One has to wonder....

If Canon released a camera with a sensor having 16 stops of DR... Would DXO rate the T7i sporting that sensor as superior to the Nikon D810 or D4S?

If the constituent measurements making up their composite score were higher, then yes. I doubt very much they'd adjust their weighting to minimize dynamic range just to spite canon.

 

[Sporgon]

I would think that if you were able to extrapolate out the percentage of interchangeable lens camera's users who actually want to lift shadow detail by an enormous amount in post it would be minuscule.

For a start I would say that most people that I come across are shooting in jpeg anyway, and that includes many professionals - event photographers, wedding etc. So if we are going to talk reality an important feature for most people is OOC jpeg quality. Not something you hear much about here on CR.

There are also many, many photographers using Canon who shoot for high quality at low ISOs, and some of the comments made on here regarding ''low ISO IQ'' are downright insulting to their integrity. But then of course this is the internet, so there is so much b*****ks anyway. However you could argue that unlike most other things, as a pastime, profession, or anything else, photography and the internet are inextricably linked, so maybe in time enough of this mud will stick, but I would think that by that time Canon will have moved on anyway.

The well known digital guy Roger N Clark of Clarkvision fame made a brief appearance on CR and was soon bemused by posters here being "obsessed with DR & Noise".

 

[Orangutan]

...
So yes Sony has the best low ISO DR, but hold it, Canon has the best high ISO performance, then again the a7s can't be beaten, but wait its doesn't have the resolution for high detail landscapes, nor the FPS and AF for sports, but the 1DX is very expensive, while the Sony MLCs has high FPS, lightweight, and the Sony sensor, still Canon's lens collection is the best, while the 5D3 is the best all rounder, the 6D is the best at low light, and the 7D II is the best at action under a budget.
...

The advantage Sony has at low ISO dwarfs that of Canon at high ISO. At ISO 100, Sony has 1 or 2 stops, if not more, of an advantage. At high ISO, the difference is maybe half a stop, if that.

It's all about relevance. Yes, the high ISO noise difference is not as big as the low ISO DR difference. But which is more useful for most people?

Using random picture selection from flickr, retter DR between ISO 100 and 400 will benefit people the most (or the most people.)

Could you share your sampling and analysis methods?

 

[jrista]

One has to wonder....

If Canon released a camera with a sensor having 16 stops of DR, would DXO, DPP and all the Exmorites champion the Canon sensor as they have the Sony? Would DXO rate the T7i sporting that sensor as superior to the Nikon D810 or D4S?

Would they flood the Camera gear Internet world with the same kind of vociferous enthusiasm promoting Canon and its superior sensor? Would there be all these articles, blogs, posts, tests of 6+ stop pushes at ISO 100? Would there be masses of whiners and complainers stating they can't lift a shadow on a D810 as well as the Canon, and begin tearing Nikon and Sony down as a company?

I think not...

I believe this is incredibly naive. While I don't agree with everything DXO does, I do believe they in their way try to be as scientific as they can be. I think they leave some things too obscure, and I believe they improperly weight certain bits of data.

However, if Canon ever released a 16-bit camera that scored somewhere in the 15.x stops DR range, I think DXO would be quite delighted. Same goes for DPR.

They are not impressed with Canon sensor quality because both groups have been testing their sensors for over a decade now, and at a low level, Canon sensors still perform more closely to where they were a decade ago than to where their competitors are today. I'd be a little bored with testing their sensors too, if that's what I did.

When Canon finally delivers something intriguing, I think testers will be intrigued. That doesn't necessarily mean a huge increase in low ISO DR either. I think that DXO and DPR would both be intrigued with Canon's cameras if/when they finally release their layered sensor technology, even if it does not topple DR records. I think layered sensor technology (especially the kind Canon owns) would be something new and different and interesting to talk about, rather than "more of mostly the same old thing".

I think they would change the subject to something else. I think they would start saying that 14 stops is plenty enough for what they need.

Notice how with the announcement of the 5DS, the megapixel bashing has stopped. Prior to the 5DS, Canon not only got bashed over low ISO DR, but for not having more than 22.3 megapixels. We all heard how superior Nikon/Sony is for having 36mp. Where are these megapixel braggers to come out of their caves and give credit and praise to Canon for making a huge leap over Nikon/Sony? *silence* *sound of crickets*

With 50mp, the Nikon trolls have abandoned that subject entirely. It vanished from the web. It will come back when Nikon/Sony release a sensor with as many or more megapixels. Until then, it is mighty quiet on that front.

Anyhow,

There is a degree of insincerity in the "DR is everything" crowd. Everyone wants more DR, and they do too. But that's not the whole story. There is a bit of Canon hate in there. It's not uncommon for people to want to tear down the big dog. Intel, Microsoft and other market leaders experience the same thing.

Of course the megapixel bashing has stopped. Canon finally did something about it. It would be entirely illogical to continue bashing Canon over MP count when they hold the record by a good solid margin. Of course it will come back if/when someone creates something with significantly more than 51mp. The same thing goes for DR. Why would anyone continue to bash a brand for a problem when the problem no longer exists?

There is one guy I would say for sure had pure Canon hate, and wasn't just looking for more DR. He still spouts his drivel on other forums, same old thing. For most people who complain about DR, I think it's that they see better IQ from other brands, but are or feel "locked into" Canon because they own a collection of Canon equipment and can't or can't justify dumping their kit (even though that is not necessary, a simple augmentation with adapters and mirrorless will usually do.)

It's the whole greener grass syndrome. People want the things they don't have. In Canon land, we used to not have either the DR or the resolution. Well, Canon has solved the resolution issue, leaving only DR. When the day comes that Canon solves the DR issue, people will obviously stop complaining about it...but they will find something else to complain about. AF-linked metering or something. Not enough frame rate. Whatever. The Nikon crowd has the DR and has had the pixels for a while...but they still complain about what they don't have. A high FPS crop body, for example.

There may indeed be a rare individual who just plain and simply hates Canon (or whatever brand). Again I think it is naive to think that everyone who wants more DR is just plain and simply a Canon hater. It's not about hating anything for most people, IMHO...it's about wanting the things you do not have. That is just plain and simple human nature.