5DS-R DR test on DPReview

[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.

I like the compositions and the colors but find them a touch too saturated and many of the images are a bit too contrasty (also a bit too local-contrasty) for printed display in anything but ideal lighting. Even electronic display looks a bit too contrasty but it's your style so carry on. It obviously appeals to many.
SoNikon performance is obviously not required for this kind of end result.

All my pictures are produced for printing, the vast majority being on canvas, and I only use a high quality cotton medium. All pictures should be lit one way or another, but I think it is fair to say mine are based on ideal lighting.

Regarding saturation, it's what the vast majority of people want to see, it's as simple as that, but I do try to avoid being 'chocolate box'. There are a few artistic connoisseurs out there who like low saturation, but my market is the majority. Same with contrast; most people want to see a little punch in the pictures, so that's what I give. Bear in mind that these were originally produced for the tourist trade around England's ancient monuments.

You wouldn't see any difference if they were shot on Nikon. Indeed, one of them might have been

 

[Sporgon]

+1 for the comments, +106 for your images.

+1, really amazing images

Neuro and meywd: Many thanks for those comments.

 

[Speedster]

Absolutely fabulous pictures by Sporgon! I love the Rievault Abbey scene.

 

[Loswr]

Regarding saturation, it's what the vast majority of people want to see, it's as simple as that, but I do try to avoid being 'chocolate box'. There are a few artistic connoisseurs out there who like low saturation, but my market is the majority. Same with contrast; most people want to see a little punch in the pictures, so that's what I give.

Just look at the default calibration (color profile) for most monitors/displays - high saturation and contrast, that's what people expect. I've had people ask why my Apple Thunderbolt Display looks so 'flat' (it's properly calibrated).

 

[Orangutan]

Canon is no longer the market leader where IQ is concerned.

You and I seem to have different definitions for the term "market leader."

Dilbert's definitions of many things are utterly inconsistent with reality. He thinks some lenses are cameras, for example.

Heard this like 10 thousand times before. Wondering how many more times I will hear this again.

I agree: it's time to let that one go.

What do they say about old dogs and new tricks? I think we'll see more of that comment again in the future.

It would also be nice if you were to acknowledge when you are in error.

 

[Sporgon]

Regarding saturation, it's what the vast majority of people want to see, it's as simple as that, but I do try to avoid being 'chocolate box'. There are a few artistic connoisseurs out there who like low saturation, but my market is the majority. Same with contrast; most people want to see a little punch in the pictures, so that's what I give.

Just look at the default calibration (color profile) for most monitors/displays - high saturation and contrast, that's what people expect. I've had people ask why my Apple Thunderbolt Display looks so 'flat' (it's properly calibrated).

It is all a personal preference. I should have added that the images on the website are the exact files for producing the canvas prints, reduced in size and converted to sRGB etc. To be fair, if I'm printing them on a different medium, say art paper, they are too dense and need a little alteration. That's the beauty of the high quality canvas; although you inevitably lose resolution due to the weave, the pictures just shine on them.

 

[Sporgon]

Absolutely fabulous pictures by Sporgon! I love the Rievault Abbey scene.

Thanks Speedster ! That is one of my favourites and I've tried to produce something similar at other places but have never managed it.

Incidentally in the flavour of this topic, the area inside the remains of the little chapel on the far right were totally black on the original frames.

Aglet will say I got away with it because it was shot on the original 5D

 

[Loswr]

Canon is no longer the market leader where IQ is concerned.

You and I seem to have different definitions for the term "market leader."

Dilbert's definitions of many things are utterly inconsistent with reality. He thinks some lenses are cameras, for example.

Heard this like 10 thousand times before. Wondering how many more times I will hear this again.

I agree: it's time to let that one go.

What do they say about old dogs and new tricks? I think we'll see more of that comment again in the future.

It would also be nice if you were to acknowledge when you are in error.

Ding ding – we have a winner! But, I guess that old dogs can be stubborn…

 

[sanj]

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.

The point being? Do not get it even after reading it many times before. Because it sounds like you saying better technology fails... Don't understand.

Actually, in the long run the "best" technology usually does fail. There has been quite a bit of research on this very topic and generally speaking, in the marketplace "good enough" technology displaces "best" technology. Betamax is only one example of that.

There are multiple reasons for this, some (greatly simplified) are:

The incremental cost of moving from "good enough" to "best" is very high. Some companies succeed by offering the "best" to a very small niche market, but there are many more that fail because they miscalculate the demand for the "best."

Mass marketers (like Canon and Nikon) need to target their products to the bulk of the market, which means balancing price with a host of other criteria and features. They cannot price themselves out of the market.

Most consumers don't want the "best" (Or at least, they don't want it bad enough to pay for it.) CDs don't produce the "best" music, but it was good enough. MP3 isn't as good as CDs, but it is good enough. There are a handful of audiophiles who will spend large sums of money to get the "best" but Apple doesn't cater to them because they don't represent a large enough market.

The demand for quality is price-sensitive. Yeah, I'm sure I could hire someone to completely design and hand-build my ideal car, but not at a price I would be willing to pay for it. If the choice is between a perfect product that you can't afford to buy and an imperfect product that is affordable, no one will pick the unaffordable product.

There are always trade-offs. In some respects, Direct Current was a better technology than Alternating Current. But the disadvantages ultimately outweighed the advantages. Similarly, the internal combustion engine was not the best technology, but it's advantages outweighed its disadvantages and, on balance, the market found it to be "good enough." This whole silly and interminable debate over Dynamic Range always ignores the tradeoffs. The small (and they are very, very small) differences in Dynamic Range among all camera manufacturers are concentrated at the low end of the ISO range. For me personally, Canon sensors are more than "good enough" because I need and want improved high ISO performance for my work.

Yeah you sound so correct. All u say is so true. Sad truth!!!

 

[unfocused]

...
The incremental cost of moving from "good enough" to "best" is very high. Some companies succeed by offering the "best" to a very small niche market, but there are many more that fail because they miscalculate the demand for the "best."

With time the "best" usually finds its way down to mere mortals.

Not really. Technology advances. And sometimes what once was the "best" may eventually become the "normal." But, not always. Once a technology plateaus, the incremental cost of providing the "best" may still price it out of the typical consumer market.

 

[unfocused]

This whole silly ... debate over Dynamic Range always ignores the tradeoffs.

I don't think it's silly to want to want more DR and reduced shadow noise: those are legitimate interests for particular circumstances. What is silly is that some refuse to see Canon's sensor choice as a pure business decision. In business, if a particular product change does not have a net positive effect on profit then there is no reason to make that change. It's really that simple, and I don't understand why so many take personal offense at Canon's business choices.

Agreed. But, actually what I was referring to was the silliness of cherry picking certain characteristics of sensor performance.

Sure, no one would refuse more dynamic range, if it meant no other sacrifices.

But, from all the sites that compare sensor performance I see the same thing – the trade-off for greater dynamic range at base ISO is more noise at higher ISOs.

So, what frustrates me is that the "DR" fans only look at base ISO, which for me is irrelevant. I don't have the luxury to shoot at base ISO. I have to shoot at high ISO. So if improved dynamic range comes at a price of more noise at higher ISOs, I don't want it.

 

[Aglet]

But, from all the sites that compare sensor performance I see the same thing – the trade-off for greater dynamic range at base ISO is more noise at higher ISOs.

So, what frustrates me is that the "DR" fans only look at base ISO, which for me is irrelevant. I don't have the luxury to shoot at base ISO. I have to shoot at high ISO. So if improved dynamic range comes at a price of more noise at higher ISOs, I don't want it.

sensor metrics on the recently tested d7200 blow that completely out of the water, it excels across the entire ISO range - tho I've not yet examined the files from one myself to discover any caveats.
And, to put the cherry on top, it's also got much better CFA results than anything else in its class.

 

[Aglet]

Aglet will say I got away with it because it was shot on the original 5D

HAHA! Hey, I happen to know you're matching the pattern noise to the weave of the canvas to hide the problem!

But kudos to you for knowing what sells and producing the product that gets you the best returns, that's what it comes down to in most cases. Art-critics don't necessarily buy much and they rarely agree with consumers' tastes.

 

[jrista]

But, from all the sites that compare sensor performance I see the same thing – the trade-off for greater dynamic range at base ISO is more noise at higher ISOs.

So, what frustrates me is that the "DR" fans only look at base ISO, which for me is irrelevant. I don't have the luxury to shoot at base ISO. I have to shoot at high ISO. So if improved dynamic range comes at a price of more noise at higher ISOs, I don't want it.

sensor metrics on the recently tested d7200 blow that completely out of the water, it excels across the entire ISO range - tho I've not yet examined the files from one myself to discover any caveats.
And, to put the cherry on top, it's also got much better CFA results than anything else in its class.

You beat me to it.

I was just talking with a friend who was out photographing birds at one of our local haunts not 20 minutes ago. He rented a D7200, and as shooting birds at ISO 3200 and 6400 with a 300mm f/4 prime. The IQ was excellent. The only drawback we saw was the frame rate...Nikon still really doesn't have a high FPS crop body to compete with the 7D II...but at 6fps, it was good enough to get some BIF shots of Swallows, which are a pretty tough, erratic subject. In every other respect, the IQ across the ISO range was excellent.

 

[Orangutan]

But, from all the sites that compare sensor performance I see the same thing – the trade-off for greater dynamic range at base ISO is more noise at higher ISOs.

So, what frustrates me is that the "DR" fans only look at base ISO, which for me is irrelevant. I don't have the luxury to shoot at base ISO. I have to shoot at high ISO. So if improved dynamic range comes at a price of more noise at higher ISOs, I don't want it.

sensor metrics on the recently tested d7200 blow that completely out of the water, it excels across the entire ISO range - tho I've not yet examined the files from one myself to discover any caveats.
And, to put the cherry on top, it's also got much better CFA results than anything else in its class.

You beat me to it.

I was just talking with a friend who was out photographing birds at one of our local haunts not 20 minutes ago. He rented a D7200, and as shooting birds at ISO 3200 and 6400 with a 300mm f/4 prime. The IQ was excellent. The only drawback we saw was the frame rate...Nikon still really doesn't have a high FPS crop body to compete with the 7D II...but at 6fps, it was good enough to get some BIF shots of Swallows, which are a pretty tough, erratic subject. In every other respect, the IQ across the ISO range was excellent.

Competition is (usually) good for the consumer.

 

[jrista]

Competition is (usually) good for the consumer.

Indeed. Some pretty good competition in the photography segment these days.

 

[Aglet]

You beat me to it.

I was just talking with a friend who was out photographing birds at one of our local haunts not 20 minutes ago. He rented a D7200, and as shooting birds at ISO 3200 and 6400 with a 300mm f/4 prime. The IQ was excellent. The only drawback we saw was the frame rate...Nikon still really doesn't have a high FPS crop body to compete with the 7D II...but at 6fps, it was good enough to get some BIF shots of Swallows, which are a pretty tough, erratic subject. In every other respect, the IQ across the ISO range was excellent.

good to hear the d7200's AF system's decent and yes, many Nikonians are really itchin' for this kind of performance in a body that can also deliver higher frame rates.
I'm wondering how much action-AF-capable competition is coming from the ML gang too, with the new Pany G7 and Fuji's latest updates to the XT1 and even the new XT10 body.

Fuji looks to be taking up the challenge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaoIZXA5RMM

not sure what the G7 will do, but it looks nice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNwmiLPHMFE

 

[Aglet]

SoNikon performance is obviously not required for this kind of end result.

Care to share an example of a photo which you believe the performance of a sony sensor in a nikon body was required to produce the end result? It would be even better if you have side-by-side shots from a SoNikon, a non-SoNikon, and a Canon, showing conclusively that the SoNikon was required.

maybe you missed this, it was nearly 3 yrs ago.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8105.msg161888#msg161888

plenty of other side-by-side comparo's out there for you to explore, I don't need to rehash it.

 

[bwud]

SoNikon performance is obviously not required for this kind of end result.

Care to share an example of a photo which you believe the performance of a sony sensor in a nikon body was required to produce the end result? It would be even better if you have side-by-side shots from a SoNikon, a non-SoNikon, and a Canon, showing conclusively that the SoNikon was required.

maybe you missed this, it was nearly 3 yrs ago.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8105.msg161888#msg161888

plenty of other side-by-side comparo's out there for you to explore, I don't need to rehash it.

I rarely (maybe never) post out of the shared images forums, but this one has me curious. Nice photo you linked to, but I'm skeptical you couldn't have achieved it with canon camera, regardless of the Dynamic Range disadvantage. Had the foreground been shadowed (blocked) and contained a lot of detail, maybe. But I shot at a similar moment yesterday. It's not particularly good, but it has a similar amount of foreground detail (notwithstanding the forward side of the cliff, but metering suggested I needed about 4 stops to expose it roughly as it appeared). Single exposure of a 5Dmk3.

 

[Aglet]

I rarely (maybe never) post out of the shared images forums, but this one has me curious. Nice photo you linked to, but I'm skeptical you couldn't have achieved it with canon camera, regardless of the Dynamic Range disadvantage. Had the foreground been shadowed (blocked) and contained a lot of detail, maybe. But I shot at a similar moment yesterday. It's not particularly good, but it has a similar amount of foreground detail (notwithstanding the forward side of the cliff, but metering suggested I needed about 4 stops to expose it roughly as it appeared). Single exposure of a 5Dmk3.

5d3's marginally better than 5d2 for shadow noise.
My early 5d2 may have been worse for noise than some later models but it was exactly this kind of shot it could not do to my satisfaction because it left stripes all over the shadow areas and even lower midtones of non-pushed shots + visible banding in normally exposed blue sky.
I shoot a good number of intense sunsets and this is why I dumped the 5d2, 7d, & 60d and went Nikon and ABC. I don't have the time and patience to fix problem areas in photoshop and then defend the method as part of a normal workflow; I just get better tools to work with.

I've got another shot from a 7D, posted in a different area, that's OOC jpg. I wanted to put some light into the foreground to change the feeling of depth. no-can-do w-o a lot of NR in post. Same shot would have been a simple fill-light slider adj in LR if it was shot with ABC.
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9299.msg169599#msg169599

another shot the next evening is further down the page and is even worse for banding noise preventing any push to change the feel of the image. My catalog is full of such shots taken with Digic 4 bodies that can only be rescued with NR methods that seriously soften the shadow details.

NOW... if I'd have made those shots with a 70D or 7d2, or even the 6D, the lack of pattern noise would have made it a LOT easier to process those images the way I want to. It looks like the new 5Ds series will also benefit from reduced pattern noise so, despite still having an absolute low iso DR disadvantage compared to ABC, at least users of these latest Canon bodies will no longer be frustrated by excessive FPN issues.

If Digic 4 had performed as well as Digic 3 I'd still be a Canon fan...now I'm just pragmatic.