5DS-R DR test on DPReview

[Sunnystate]

Of course that is the best you can do, very eloquent supported by facts answer...
Neuro is really derailing standards on this forum, to bad so many is following his example.

I am sorry but as an trained and professionally active for over 30 years artist, I have to say that this statement about classical art is ridiculous.

One of the first thing you learn studying classical paintings in the art school is to never use pure black straight from the tube, as well as pure white especially on large areas.
Please show me a classical, prephotography era, known painting with blown off highlights (like sky, white dresses, windows views, painted with pure white) or shadows painted with pure black without any details avail.

I am so sick of people here making completely false statements as needed counting on lack of knowledge of others just to make a false point.
Thank you.

Well before the days of photography artists generally exaggerated shadow depth and general contrast. These artists could of course have painted their shadows as light as they wished - but they didn't wish.

http://www.artble.com/artists/john_constable/more_information/style_and_technique

Well done Sunnystate, you'll fit into the DR debate on CR like hand in glove.

Pure black straight from the tube...

Pure white especially on large areas....

Blown off highlights...

Shadows painted pure black....

Without any details avail.....

 

[Sporgon]

Of course that is the best you can do, very eloquent supported by facts answer...
Neuro is really derailing standards on this forum, to bad so many is following his example.

I originally wrote 'artists generally exaggerated shadow depth" and gave a link to a famous English landscape artist, John Constable.

Just where precisely in any of that would you find your "shadows painted pure black, pure black straight from the tube" and other such drivel ?

Pitty that in those thirty years you didn't learn to read better.

 

[Loswr]

I guess if I had 20/10 X-Ray vision, maybe I'd be disappointed in Canon sensor output, too. :

As for being discredited, you accomplish that quite effectively on your own. Care to demonstrate how Canon's IQ is unacceptable?

The latter claim, about poor/sub-par/unacceptable IQ, however, isn't untennable. It can actually be demonstrated.

 

[Orangutan]

But I have seen people pointing out that Canon has lower DR than some other cameras and they should fix that. Something so wrong with that?

It's like pointing out to your amputee friend that he's missing a leg every time you see him.
Yes there is something wrong with that.

+10

Everyone here (including Neuro, I'd bet) wants more DR at all ISOs. However, we don't want to pay for it by losing other Canon advantages and, as we all know, tech improvements do not come free of cost. We do not need constant reminders that our gear is not perfect -- we already know that.

 

[Orangutan]

Dead black shadows lacking any detail and are not realistic. In real life, there are very few circumstances where you have shadows completely devoid of detail. The only reason shadows in photography often have no detail is because photographers are trying to hide noise.

I can tell you why I want more DR: when I photograph a dim forest scene with strong sunlit areas or sections of open sky, I want to expose the shadows properly (not equal to foreground, but I want some detail), without blowing out the sky. Cases like this are a regular frustration. However, I'm not sure 14 stops of DR will do it, it seems like often 16 or 17 would be required. Sure, 14 is better than 12, but the bright clouds are still blown out.

But Canon doesn't care about my single voice, nor the voices of all posters in all camera forums. I want more DR at all ISOs, it simply isn't worth getting upset about because it won't do any good. If it were important enough to me I'd go buy a D610 or a Sony MILC.

 

[Orangutan]

I wonder why this is so difficult to understand and accept ...

I don't really think it is. I think it is understood...it's just that we must be discredited.

From my perspective it's so well understood that when someone tries to explain it further it sounds condescending, as if they think I need to be taught how to tie my shoelaces.

I certainly do not discredit (most of**) those who want more DR, because I'm one of y'all, as are most on this forum. I'm also in the group that believes "OK, we've addressed that topic, can we move on to something else?"

**We've had a few who've ranted about the need for more DR in studio photography, and that blows my mind.

 

[Sunnystate]

Ok, did not meant to be rude.
In the end, I am glad you have brought classical art in to this discussion, for the reason that it would be rather crazy to accuse Rembrandt or Leonardo of reducing human eye natural DR to suit some strange theory that we not suppose to see details in the shadows when we see details in highlights or the opposite: if we see details in the shadows than we should have flat lacking details white highlights.

Of course that is the best you can do, very eloquent supported by facts answer...
Neuro is really derailing standards on this forum, to bad so many is following his example.

I originally wrote 'artists generally exaggerated shadow depth" and gave a link to a famous English landscape artist, John Constable.

Just where precisely in any of that would you find your "shadows painted pure black, pure black straight from the tube" and other such drivel ?

Pitty that in those thirty years you didn't learn to read better.

 

[jrista]

But I have seen people pointing out that Canon has lower DR than some other cameras and they should fix that. Something so wrong with that?

It's like pointing out to your amputee friend that he's missing a leg every time you see him.
Yes there is something wrong with that.

+10

Everyone here (including Neuro, I'd bet) wants more DR at all ISOs. However, we don't want to pay for it by losing other Canon advantages and, as we all know, tech improvements do not come free of cost. We do not need constant reminders that our gear is not perfect -- we already know that.

Why would innovation on the sensor front cost you other existing Canon advantages? That doesn't make any logical sense. ???

Canon already has those advantages...AF is covered, metering is covered, fps is covered, lenses are covered. They have been covered for years at this point. You aren't going to lose any of those if Canon invested more in sensor technology.

You already have them. Canon already spent the money to develop those improvements.

At this point, outside of some radical new way of thinking about AF (say lightfield, which not everyone cares for), I don't think you can have much more than evolutionary improvements to what Canon delivered in the 1D X. Which is exactly what we received with the 7D II...a handful more AF points. An increase in resolution for the RGB metering sensor in iTR. Maybe they could trickle down AF-linked metering to the whole pro line of bodies. Maybe they could increase FPS another frame or two per second. The advantages already exist...they aren't going to suddenly disappear if Canon spent some time on their sensor technology.

On the other hand, fairly significant improvements could be made on the sensor front. I am also still confused how saying that is taken as a "reminder that your gear isn't perfect." I mean, either you think your gear is fine, or your dissatisfied with it (and if you are dissatisfied...there are other options out there that could meet your needs). Since you already have all those other advantages...and they aren't going anywhere...why wouldn't you want Canon to focus their R&D on the thing where the most gains in IQ could be made? What else is there that is that Canon really needs to improve? (I mean, maybe I'm missing something...)

Personally, I no longer care that much. There are other brands that are already ahead of the curve and I can pick any one of them at any time. It just seems confusing to me that you guys take every mention of DR as a "constant reminder that your gear isn't perfect", rather than musings and hope that Canon could take the opportunity (now that they DO have AF, metering, FPS and lenses pretty solidly covered across the board) to take care of their weakest IQ factor, and deliver better IQ in the next generation of your preferred brand.

 

[Loswr]

However, I'm not sure 14 stops of DR will do it, it seems like often 16 or 17 would be required. Sure, 14 is better than 12, but the bright clouds are still blown out.

I've made this point before as well. Yes, I want more DR...but the situations where 12-stops is insufficient but 14-stops is sufficient are few and far between in my experience. It's been argued that that extra DR saves work in post. That's true...the extra two stops means only 2-3 shots are needed to bracket, vs. 3-4 shots, and that difference might save me a up to 30 seconds during capture and up to 10 seconds in post. Woo-hoo...sort of. :

 

[Loswr]

Why would innovation on the sensor front cost you other existing Canon advantages? That doesn't make any logical sense. ???

Canon already has those advantages...AF is covered, metering is covered, fps is covered, lenses are covered.

Your logical sense needs a reboot.

Let's look at recently announced products, and consider a choice between a 5Ds with 1-1.5-stops more DR or the EF 11-24mm f/4L lens.

I know which I'd pick....

 

[jrista]

Why would innovation on the sensor front cost you other existing Canon advantages? That doesn't make any logical sense. ???

Canon already has those advantages...AF is covered, metering is covered, fps is covered, lenses are covered.

Your logical sense needs a reboot.

Let's look at recently announced products, and consider a choice between a 5Ds with 1-1.5-stops more DR or the EF 11-24mm f/4L lens.

I know which I'd pick....

And Canon, since they don't NEED to also innovate a new AF system and metering system and ways to beat the competition on frame rate, is incapable of innovating both a better sensor and an 11-24mm lens? This monstrous company that rakes in more money than any other photography company, is only capable of innovating one kind of product at a time?

Who needs a logical reboot here?

 

[Loswr]

Why would innovation on the sensor front cost you other existing Canon advantages? That doesn't make any logical sense. ???

Canon already has those advantages...AF is covered, metering is covered, fps is covered, lenses are covered.

Your logical sense needs a reboot.

Let's look at recently announced products, and consider a choice between a 5Ds with 1-1.5-stops more DR or the EF 11-24mm f/4L lens.

I know which I'd pick....

And Canon, since they don't NEED to also innovate a new AF system and metering system and ways to beat the competition on frame rate, is incapable of innovating both a better sensor and an 11-24mm lens? This monstrous company that rakes in more money than any other photography company, is only capable of innovating one kind of product at a time?

Who needs a logical reboot here?

You.

Everything has an opportunity cost, but you're correct that they're capable of innovation on many fronts. Yet...they haven't made strides in low ISO DR. Given that, what does your logic tell you about their corporate view on the strategic importance of low ISO to their business?

 

[Orangutan]

But I have seen people pointing out that Canon has lower DR than some other cameras and they should fix that. Something so wrong with that?

It's like pointing out to your amputee friend that he's missing a leg every time you see him.
Yes there is something wrong with that.

+10

Everyone here (including Neuro, I'd bet) wants more DR at all ISOs. However, we don't want to pay for it by losing other Canon advantages and, as we all know, tech improvements do not come free of cost. We do not need constant reminders that our gear is not perfect -- we already know that.

Why would innovation on the sensor front cost you other existing Canon advantages? That doesn't make any logical sense. ???

Perhaps I could have been more clear. A sensor with more DR is not technically incompatible with those other advantages; however, it costs in two important ways: (1) If it's a real market advantage, it will be priced into the product. E.g. Canon is now (arguably) equal or better in all ways except DR; if Canon gains that position with DR as well it will create greater demand for the product and the price will rise. In that sense, I want Canon to remain perpetually about .6 ( ) stops behind its competitors. (2) More importantly, R&D funding, while not a zero-sum game, is also not an infinite pot of money. If Canon puts R&D (or fab) money into DR, it will have less for maintaining its lead in lenses, and all the other advantages Canon currently has. I've previously made the point that Canon's "poor" sensors would have cost it market share if only its competitors weren't so lame in so many other areas. We all have to bear in mind that Canon is, above all else, a for-profit business. Any improvement will have ripple effects on other parts of the brand: it's simply not possible for a product to be the best in everything and also price-competitive.

I am also still confused how saying that is taken as a "reminder that your gear isn't perfect." I mean, either you think your gear is fine, or your dissatisfied with it (and if you are dissatisfied...there are other options out there that could meet your needs).

I'm both satisfied and dissatisfied with my gear, and this is not a contradiction. I like my lenses, and I think my 70D does a great all-around job for the price. But I'm dissatisfied in that I can always imagine better. Money is always a constraint in the equation: if I were starting over maybe I'd buy Nikon. But for this hobby I can't justify buying multiple kits, or even selling my current kit to buy another brand. I'm aware of its limitations, and it just feels like I'm being told that if I were competent enough to fully appreciate its deficiencies I would be outraged. I don't want to be outraged, nor incited to outrage. I want to go take photos.

 

[Orangutan]

This monstrous company that rakes in more money than any other photography company, is only capable of innovating one kind of product at a time?

It's just business. I'd save the word "monstrous" for companies that pollute, cause harm to their employees or nearby people, bribe officials, etc. I have no interest in being outraged at Canon's camera division.

 

[jrista]

And Canon, since they don't NEED to also innovate a new AF system and metering system and ways to beat the competition on frame rate, is incapable of innovating both a better sensor and an 11-24mm lens? This monstrous company that rakes in more money than any other photography company, is only capable of innovating one kind of product at a time?

Who needs a logical reboot here?

You.

Everything has an opportunity cost, but you're correct that they're capable of innovation on many fronts. Yet...they haven't made strides in low ISO DR. Given that, what does your logic tell you about their corporate view on the strategic importance of low ISO to their business?

It tells me that Canon is currently lacking in the skill to innovate competitively in the current sensor market, not that it isn't of strategic importance. Canon has a certain momentum thanks to existing market share that can act as a buffer, but I don't think Canon sees the DR issue as one of no strategic importance. Canon has on a couple occasions stated they are working to address it, which implies they acknowledge that it's a key issue for many photographers. To date, it simply seems they have not yet succeeded in addressing it. I am not sure if their layered sensor technology will address it or not...it doesn't seem as though they are pursuing that technology with as much gusto as competitors in the sensor arena, given how many years it's taken a handful of layered sensor patents to trickle into the public eye (to the dozens of sensor patents per year by competitors.)

I don't see any shortcoming of people who want more DR from Canon cameras. It's probably one of the single most talked about thing on photography-related sites around the net particularly whenever a Canon camera is announced, including monsters like DPR. Only here on CR is there a significant dichotomy between members who really want more DR and those who don't seem to care or actively deny it's benefits. The rift is much more balanced elsewhere. It's also clear that Canon knows that, as much as they try to save face in their interviews and pretend the issue doesn't matter, or claim that their sensors are currently the best on the market (they would be naive to truly think that and I don't believe Canon is naive, saying it is just a matter of glossing over their shortcomings in public venues).

It doesn't really matter if all the people talking about DR are just a monstrous horde of idiots or not, either. It's something people talk about, are interested in and want, and logically, it would be naive for Canon to ignore the issue and give it no strategic importance in their business plans.

 

[3kramd5]

This monstrous company that rakes in more money than any other photography company, is only capable of innovating one kind of product at a time?

It's just business. I'd save the word "monstrous" for companies that pollute, cause harm to their employees or nearby people, bribe officials, etc. I have no interest in being outraged at Canon's camera division.

One definition of monstrous refers to size, which was clearly Jon's intent.

 

[Loswr]

I'd save the word "monstrous" for companies that pollute, cause harm to their employees or nearby people, bribe officials, etc. I have no interest in being outraged at Canon's camera division.

Young fool...only now, at the end, do you understand. Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the DaRk side.

 

[Orangutan]

This monstrous company that rakes in more money than any other photography company, is only capable of innovating one kind of product at a time?

It's just business. I'd save the word "monstrous" for companies that pollute, cause harm to their employees or nearby people, bribe officials, etc. I have no interest in being outraged at Canon's camera division.

One definition of monstrous refers to size, which was clearly Jon's intent.

I thought he meant it both ways.

 

[Loswr]

It tells me that Canon is currently lacking in the skill to innovate competitively in the current sensor market, not that it isn't of strategic importance.

Currently lacking? They've been behind on low ISO DR since 2009. Six years. An eternity in terms of technological development. Heck, they could have hired 20 chip design engineers away from Sony in a year.

>2000 patents per year for the past several years, but they lack the skill to improve low ISO DR??

You need to look harder for that reboot button. :

 

[jrista]

Why would innovation on the sensor front cost you other existing Canon advantages? That doesn't make any logical sense. ???

Perhaps I could have been more clear. A sensor with more DR is not technically incompatible with those other advantages; however, it costs in two important ways: (1) If it's a real market advantage, it will be priced into the product. E.g. Canon is now (arguably) equal or better in all ways except DR; if Canon gains that position with DR as well it will create greater demand for the product and the price will rise. In that sense, I want Canon to remain perpetually about .6 ( ) stops behind its competitors. (2) More importantly, R&D funding, while not a zero-sum game, is also not an infinite pot of money. If Canon puts R&D (or fab) money into DR, it will have less for maintaining its lead in lenses, and all the other advantages Canon currently has. I've previously made the point that Canon's "poor" sensors would have cost it market share if only its competitors weren't so lame in so many other areas. We all have to bear in mind that Canon is, above all else, a for-profit business. Any improvement will have ripple effects on other parts of the brand: it's simply not possible for a product to be the best in everything and also price-competitive.

I wonder if the price is more of "what the market can/will bear" and less of "this one thing cost us X% more to design, so we have to charge more for products X, Y and Z"... A LOT of people don't understand Canon's product pricing. I think they have a buffer with their DSLR markets, but it seems when it comes to their video products, people are less inclined to loyalty, and the XC10 was neither well received (everyone seemed to think it was an odd product at best), and the first review seemed to be rather...unimpressed. Some of the same goes for many of their other video products...priced extremely high relative to the competition, and yet less capable than the competition in many ways.

I honestly don't know why Canon is charging what they are charging, but it does seem a bit out of touch with the broader competitive marketplace. Is their R&D just less efficient than their competitors? How and why are their competitors able to produce extremely compelling products at amazing price points (i.e. A6000 or NX1), and yet Canon cannot seem to deliver even a mildly compelling EOS-M to American buyers? (I know that Americans are buying Sony mirrorless cameras and generally loving them.) Are they trying to over-leverage their existing market share and reputation? (I think that is a great way to lose customers.)

I think product pricing is more complex than "We innovated X things so we must charge Y price to cover the cost." As for exactly how Canon derives their product prices...I cannot say...however they do seem to be demanding a premium, and many of their customers seem to be confused by that.

I am also still confused how saying that is taken as a "reminder that your gear isn't perfect." I mean, either you think your gear is fine, or your dissatisfied with it (and if you are dissatisfied...there are other options out there that could meet your needs).

I'm both satisfied and dissatisfied with my gear, and this is not a contradiction. I like my lenses, and I think my 70D does a great all-around job for the price. But I'm dissatisfied in that I can always imagine better. Money is always a constraint in the equation: if I were starting over maybe I'd buy Nikon. But for this hobby I can't justify buying multiple kits, or even selling my current kit to buy another brand. I'm aware of its limitations, and it just feels like I'm being told that if I were competent enough to fully appreciate its deficiencies I would be outraged. I don't want to be outraged, nor incited to outrage. I want to go take photos.

I don't know about others, but in my case, I'm not trying to tell people their gear is inferior. It's more about trying to add my voice to the throng of people talking about and asking for better DR in Canon cameras, in hopes that Canon might actually respond to the needs of that particular user group. Well, that WAS what my goal was. I don't quite understand Canon these days, and I think it's a less dire and depressing situation finding alternative ways to fulfill my needs.

Having used a number of other camera brands now, the single biggest thing I enjoy about my Canon DSLRs is the ergonomics. Other brands just don't fit as well...but...that is also a personal thing. I have also found that I'm getting used to Sony control layout...I wouldn't call their cameras the most ergonomic design...they are rather square...but I am getting used to the layout.

On the other fronts...I have zero complaints about the IQ from other brands. It's phenomenal, I love the quality of the noise right down to the bottom of the signal (both with Exmor and the NX1 sensor), I have actually never seen any issues from Sony's 11+7 bit compression, etc. I am blown away by the 11fps frame rate of the A6000, and it actually performs very well at high ISO...so very soon here it is going to become my all-around all-the-time bird/wildlife and general photography camera. It's ultra light weight, the lenses are small and ultra light weight, yet they are Zeiss optics and the quality is excellent. I can't haul around my big 600mm lens all the time, and as a result, I miss shots. Canon simply doesn't have anything even remotely compelling as competition, either on the body front or the lens front.

I am not, however, replacing my kit. I'm augmenting my kit. It's probably the best option out there for those of us like you and I who know about the limitations of our Canon gear, but don't want to dump another six grand adding a Nikon D810 and a handful of new lenses "replacing" our Canon equipment. The other really nice thing about the A6000 is it shared the Sony E mount of the A7 series cameras, so I'll be able to use any FF E mount lenses on the A6000 as well once I pick up an A7r II. There is also the adaptability of the Sony E mount, since it's a mirrorless mount, just about any lens can be adapted to it, including Canon lenses. You won't necessarily get optimal behavior out of them, AF may be slower, but at least you can use them and not have to dump your kit.

In my own plans, I think I'll be moving away from Canon for landscapes, and I'll probably sell my 16-35, my 50mm, etc. and put the money from them into buying similar lenses for the E mount. I may pick up a Samyang wide angle lens for milky way imaging IF the Sony 11+7 compression causes problems with milky way imaging on the A7r II. Diversity is a great thing. I believe my DSLR and 600mm lens are the best option for my serious wildlife and bird photography, and I believe the A7r and some E-mount lenses are ideal for landscapes (their size and weight are perfect for hiking around the mountains, whereas I always feel lately I am lugging bricks around with my Canon kit sans 600 in a backpack). I think the A6000 is a perfect all around general purpose camera for everything, when I can't have one of the other two with me (and it's cheap enough that if someone were to steal it, I wouldn't be devastated by the loss.)