5DS-R DR test on DPReview

[jrista]

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.

I didn't mean they were an evil company. I meant they were a huge company. I tend to use the word diabolical for companies like Monsanto, though. ;D

 

[sanj]

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 visit the forum whenever I can. I have never seen anyone say that a camera is useless without 14 stops DR. 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.

Yes some of us need to be more sensitive.

 

[sanj]

I can't wait for the day when cameras have 15 or 16 stops of DR. All the techno-geeks will be overjoyed as they process their photos and remove all hint of shadow. And the real photographers who understand that contrast is more important than DR will be wondering why they have to process their photos so much to give them the "punch' that they used to have in the old days.

I understand that in certain situations, more DR would definitely be a plus, but having bought a Sony A7 II to compare with my Canon 6D, the Sony was returned because it did not - under any circumstance I shoot, which is landscapes under daylight conditions including sunsets - produce a single better photo than my Canon. It numerous cases, in my opinion, of course, the results of the Sony were sub-par as it produced photos that seemed washed out in comparison, both in terms of contrast and color. I realize that the image we get is the result of tone curves and other algorithms that may have nothing to do with the sensor, but all I can go by is the image (both RAW and JPG) that those algorithms give me. Sure, I like to bring up the exposure slightly in the shadows, too - but there was nothing within the range of adjustment that the Sony did better than the Canon.

So all the DR enthusiasts - no we do not all think the Sony Exmor is better. If you have tried both sensors, you are free to choose the one you think is better and wish Canon could equal the results. That is what i have done. I choose the Canon because 1) Contrast is more important. 2) I prefer the overall look of the pics from my Canon and need to do minimal or no post processing. 3) I don't need to print any larger than 8" x 12" in which case all the noise issues and banding have never, ever, been an issue.

This is not what DR advocates want, to remove all hint of shadow. That is a myth perpetrated by the die hard pro Canon fans on this forum as part of their mockery of those who don't see photography or camera technology the same way they do. It's a straw man.

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. The benefit of having more DR is that you can reveal detail IN the shadows, without them having unsightly noise characteristics (banding, blotch, salt & pepper, etc.) We want shadows to be shadows, we just don't want them to be dead and devoid of detail. The goal isn't to lift shadows to the point where they become highlights. ??? ??? The goal is to lift shadows so we can replicate what we see in real life.

DR advocates are frequently called out for bashing on the brand, as if doing so was some kind of personal insult to Canon users. (For the record, IT'S NOT! It's not intended as a personal insult, in general it should be taken as a critique on and frustration about Canon's sensor technology, and only that. This:

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.

This is a load of crap. It blows the entire situation WAAAY out of proportion.)

Canon advocates, upon hearing DR advocates bash on an inanimate object, then turn around and bash the DR advocates themselves. One group complains about unfeeling inanimate hardware, the other group insults, mocks and berates actual people. Now there is truly something wrong with that. There is a serious misunderstanding on these forums about dynamic range and why some people want it. It's truly sad. I mean, really, truly sad. This forum could be a really great place, but somehow the mention & discussion of, and yes often complaining about dynamic range became synonymous with "personal insult" on these forums. However that conflation occurred, I honestly do not know. (It's a rather disturbing conflation, that a brand choice for a camera becomes so important that when someone "insults" the brand, you take it deeply personally...as if someone was reminding you that your leg was amputated ???) Outside of a couple personalities who have shown up on these forums in the past and persistently hated on Canon just for the sake of hating on Canon, most DR advocates just want Canon to deliver competitive IQ on all fronts, and it should be understandable that they are frustrated after many, many years without much progress on the issue they personally consider most important. It's personal frustration with a brand 99% of the time...not some backhanded means of throwing around personal insults to all Canon fans on these forums. The blatant mockery and insults dished out to DR advocates (and yes the subsequent reciprocation, and reciprocated reciprocation, etc. etc. ad. inf.) is the true travesty here. There is such a thing as the high road, guys...

Anyway...this same old straw man, that DR "techno-geeks" just want to remove all hint of shadow, or the other common insulting mockery that "they don't know how to expose"...none of that has any shred of truth to it. That isn't the goal of wanting more DR, and those who want more DR are not automatically buffoons who can't expose properly. We know exactly how to expose, and our goal for having more DR really has nothing to do with removing all hint of shadow. Just for the record.

Yes yes yes. Perfectly said.

 

[sanj]

...
I understand that in certain situations, more DR would definitely be a plus, but having bought a Sony A7 II to compare with my Canon 6D, the Sony was returned because it did not - under any circumstance I shoot, which is landscapes under daylight conditions including sunsets - produce a single better photo than my Canon. It numerous cases, in my opinion, of course, the results of the Sony were sub-par as it produced photos that seemed washed out in comparison, both in terms of contrast and color.

Sounds like you needed to spend more time getting to know how to process the Sony files as those that I've seen on the 'net don't look washed out.

Of course they don't.

 

[sanj]

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

The point being?

 

[sanj]

"When I look at the world, I don't see a world of high contrast, clipped highlights, and crushed black shadows devoid of detail. That doesn't mean I don't see the world with contrast and color, but it doesn't seem to me as though the world is crushed into a very limited range of contrast...not nearly as limited as some photography might otherwise indicate."

Obvious fact.

 

[sanj]

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.

I do not and never will understand this.

 

[sanj]

I think the 1dx2 will end this friendly discussion.

 

[Loswr]

I'm not trying to tell people their gear is inferior.

Oh, I see. You're just trying to tell people that it can be demonstrated that Canon sensors deliver poor/sub-par/unacceptable IQ.

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

You tell people that Canon IQ sucks, but that's not anything like telling people who use Canon that their gear is inferior, oh no, not at all. :

It's more about trying to add my voice to the throng of people talking about and asking for better DR in Canon cameras...

A few people on Internet forums is a throng? Thanks, I needed a good laugh. ;D

 

[Orangutan]

Perhaps I could have been more clear.

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,

Yes, that's exactly the point. What it costs them is not as important to the price as what people will pay. On the other hand, the cost of R&D is related to the price.

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.

It may be out of touch with a consumer's view of the marketplace, but they seem to maintain both market share and price better than the competition. To me the obvious conclusion is that, from the purely business perspective, their pricing is perfectly in line with the market as a whole, just not in line with the needs of those with particularly demanding expectations.

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.

This, market research and reviews from popular sites are the only voices Canon will hear. Look after your own needs and don't wait for Canon.

Canon simply doesn't have anything even remotely compelling as competition, either on the body front or the lens front.

This is what affects markets and manufacturers, not much else does.

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

I can't really justify augmentation like that right now. I'm pretty much stuck with one body at a time.

 

[9VIII]

Constantly having people tell me (or for that matter, people similar to me) I'm an idiot who doesn't know how to expose or that I'm just looking for DR to save me from my laziness or that I'm just interested in turning all shadows into midtones...that gets rather tiresome and irksome after a while.

Right, everyone feels like they've been offended by everyone else because we all seem to empathize with a few people in heated conversation.
This is literally the same situation as the classical multi-generational family feud where people who have never met before automatically think they hate each other because some distant cousins got in an argument half a century ago.

 

[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.

I do not and never will understand this.

See my previous reply to jrista. Regards, O.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26325.msg520420#msg520420

 

[sanj]

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.

Fair enough.

 

[Aglet]

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.

Yes, an eternity. Which makes you wonder if Canon is capable of actually fixing the problem(s).

I don't think they can fix it .. yet.
Altho they've done a decent job of getting rid of the banding in the 7d2, 70d and, to some extent, the 6D. That makes all these cameras somewhat more useable.

 

[Aglet]

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. :

The salient point is that ABC cameras have shadow areas with less noise and certainly, with few exceptions, no banding and pattern noise. That alone significantly extends the usable shadow range that can be delivered, if desired, even if they don't have more actual DR.
E.G. A Pentax Q at base ISO appears to have more overall noise, but less pattern noise than a Canon sensor. The Q may even have less DR than a Canon sensor, but you can, if desired, lift the Q's shadow zones and end up with a more pleasing result than you could from a Canon sensor of the Digic 4 series or other bodies up to the 70D/7d2.

The Q is an extreme example but useful in that comparison.

Take another crop sensor camera, like an old Nikon D5100 and compare it to one of the Canon bodies notable for shadow noise patterns. Expose both systems to retain cloud detail at 100 ISO without clipping.
Process both system's raw files with similar settings and you'll get similar results. But if you want to open up the shadows that Nikon file is going to provide a lot more editing latitude and provide more options than the Canon file.
So if you need 18 stops of DR to capture a scene, 10 is not enough, 12 is not enough, but to say the merits of having 12 is irrelevant is just disingenuous.

 

[rs]

Dead black shadows are not realistic. In real life, there are very few circumstances where you have shadows completely devoid of detail. The benefit of having more DR is that you can reveal detail IN the shadows, without them having unsightly noise characteristics (banding, blotch, salt & pepper, etc.) We want shadows to be shadows, we just don't want them to be dead and devoid of detail. The goal isn't to lift shadows to the point where they become highlights. The goal is to lift shadows so we can replicate what we see in real life.

I have to disagree, when you look into a basement window on a sunny day you can't see anything inside until you shade your eyes and allow them to adjust.
Maybe looking into a hole in the Earth is an extreme example and not particularly applicable to general landscape photography, but there certainly are deep shadows in real life.The extent of which is debatable.

This is my point about output medium and its DR. Until a screen or a print can have you shade your eyes for you to see the shadows, recording this much DR at capture requires an out of the ordinary tone mapping to utilise it.

To all you DR advocates out there, I'm not saying more DR is bad. More of anything, if done correctly, is great. I definitely would not refuse to buy a new camera with more DR. It's just I feel too much emphasis is given to this one metric. It's as if photographic equipment has reached the level of maturity that now certain review sites are reduced to using one largely insignificant measurement to base an entire review on.

Photography is art, and we all have our own tastes. What one person sees as correct isn't necessarily what the next person thinks. Even with my taste, I have seen the odd photo taken with high DR mapped onto a low DR output which actually looks good. But for me, most HDR images (whether one shot from Exmor or multi shot) are very unnatural, and I'd rather just see shadows as shadows.

 

[Loswr]

Whilst it may have been "good enough" to keep some folks, they miscalculated on the competition angle and what they could get away with not doing.

I see. Your evidence for this miscalculation is....what? That you chose not to buy another Canon body? That a few people on Internet forums are whining about it? That Canon's market share is dwindling and they're no longer the market leader?

 

[Loswr]

Quite right. Canon is no longer the market leader where IQ is concerned. And world + dog knows that.

Yeah, and Betamax delivered better IQ than VHS.

 

[dak723]

Constantly having people tell me (or for that matter, people similar to me) I'm an idiot who doesn't know how to expose or that I'm just looking for DR to save me from my laziness or that I'm just interested in turning all shadows into midtones...that gets rather tiresome and irksome after a while. I regularly share my photography on these forums...every single one of you knows that I know how to expose, that I know how to create an artistic shot, and that I'm not some fumbling idiot who needs DR to save him from his "inexperience." I know what I'm talking about, and I know exactly what I want and why I want it when I say I want more dynamic range. I make no claim to be the world's greatest photographer by any means, but I do assert that I am a skilled photographer. Maybe I see the world differently than most of you guys...fine...but please, accept that you may not see the world the way I do, and please, accept that your goals for presenting the world through your photography are not the same as my goals. I don't want dead, crushed, formless black shadows in my work...and you guys should be mature enough to accept that, from me, or from anyone else who wants more dynamic range than Canon currently offers, to give them more freedom and opportunity to produce the kind of photography THEY want.

Fair enough. You are quite correct that each individual may have different needs and wants from their camera and what they are looking for in their images. I have said it many times that there are those that want and need more DR - legitimately. We should all respect those people's opinions.

On the other hand, however, we have the DR advocates who believe that more DR is a must, that Canon cameras can't compete with the other brands; that those who don't agree are considered fanboys, incompetent at post processing, or ignorant. All I ask is that we are afforded the same respect. That some of us have seen the results from the different cameras - and for what we do - the Canon sensors are at least the equal if not superior to the other brands.

I recall an interesting review of an older Olympus DSLR. The reviewer was happy to report that the new model had more DR than it's predecessors. But, the reviewer also noted that the images didn't seem to have the same punch and "look" that Olympus was known for. In other words - Look at the increase in DR!!...although your images won't look as good....

If you think more DR gives your pics a better look - by all means get a camera with a sensor with more DR or continue to hope that Canon delivers such a sensor. But there is no reason to insult those that think Canon cameras delivers the best looking pics.

 

[Sporgon]

I don't want dead, crushed, formless black shadows in my work...

Do you think I have dead, crushed, formless black shadows in my work then ?

http://www.buildingpanoramics.com

Just out of curiosity.