70D and Dxomark....
- Thread starter pedro
- Start date
- Status
I completely agree with this. I think that the primary benefit of the D800 comes in terms of what it allows you to do in PP. You can shove those sliders around with relative impunity where you probably need to be more careful with a Canon solution. The same could be said for the 36 MP where you can leave more room to crop and fiddle with the composition later in post (you pay the price for that in file size, download speed etc. but that has been kicked about forever as well). Incidentally, I saw this image series on DPR one other time you posted it and it was this set that I had in mind when making the post. The images are definitely usable, but I cannot say the same for a lot of the stuff we are entertained with. Bob has a good one of the girl in the red dress as well where I like the D800 available light shot better than the one he lit.horshack said:David Hull said:Just about anyone who knew what they were doing (and was actually trying to make a good, low noise image as opposed to a bad, noisy one) could have done a good job on this scene using either of these cameras. The fact that this guy did not only speaks for his choice of technique not for the quality of the equipment. These shots were made with a deliberate bias to make a specific point. However, in most of these “examples” it turns out to be a moot point because (in almost every case), not only could the image be made with either camera but a dramatically better image could be made with either camera if that were your goal (that is assuming you know how to use your camera correctly).
Based on the examples continually put up, the number of real images that actually demand application of a single shot technique with serious shadow lifting must be pretty few and far between (otherwise we would not be continually entertained with the junk we are always shown). In this particular case the guy went to Mono Lake and Yosemite and he shows a whole series of magnificent images shot with the Canon gear. Apparently he could not find a real world example in that usually very challenging environment where the Canon gear was not up to the task.
While this particular parameter provides plenty of fodder for the endless sabre rattling over which brand is superior to the other, in the real world of practical photography (save for a small number of specific applications executed over a pretty narrow range of the ISO capability of the equipment) it appears to be pretty much a nonstarter. I would guess that you could probably type out the screen names for everyone that has ever participated in these types of threads on one side of a single sheet of A size paper which is probably not enough to produce noticeable movement on the Canon/Nikon market share needle.
Incidentally, the example we are discussing has to do with pattern noise which has nothing whatsoever to do with the thing the DxO curve is reporting.
Hi Dave, nice to run into one of the other screen names that participates in these threadsI would agree that nearly every High DR scene can be captured using techniques that don't require a High DR sensor. But one benefit of such sensor is workflow time savings. Here is a recent example where I shot a home interior for a friend for his real estate listing (using a D800). I wanted maximum IQ so I used two-shot blends for all the shots which had windows, to exhibit the woodsy setting outside his home. In this example it took me 20 minutes to manually blend the image, which I did in PS using layers and masks around the windows. For kicks I also performed the same exposure adjustment using a single image, which took me about 3 minutes. The latter has more noise than the two-shot blend but it's still perfectly usable even at the native 36MP resolution...and much more so at the resolutions the images were displayed at for the MLS listing. If you multiply this by 10 photos then the time savings can be significant...compared to either blends or interior strobe set ups.
Full 36MP Images:
Orig lower exposure image: http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-pVMB6WN/0/O/i-pVMB6WN-O.jpg
Two-shot blend: http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-VBVhdth/0/O/i-VBVhdth-O.jpg
One-shot HDR/shadow push: http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-DGKLj57/0/O/i-DGKLj57-O.jpg
Upvote
0
LUMINANCE SNR MID-TONE:
Looking at DxO the luminance SNR seems to be between 1/3 and 2/3rds of stop better than the 7D, a decent improvement. And basically right up there with the D7100.
7D was relatively well behaved when it came to banding at high ISO so I don't know if you will notice as big of an effective help in that regard above what the SNR tells you as you did comparing 5D2 vs 5D3 though.
I haven't carefully looked into it, but it appears that the JPG engine for in cam developed photos might handle high ISO noticeably better than the 7D.
DYNAMIC RANGE:
The DR seems to be a trace worse (although mostly to a small enough degree to not be able to notice real world) than the 7D (although perhaps nearing 1/2 stop worse at ISO200 unless that is just a kink in the graph and within the error bar) until very high ISO where it is a tiny bit better than the 7D.
DR is vastly worse than the D7100 at low ISO and still noticeably worse even at high ISO this time too, in the past Canon usually at least kept up with DR at high ISO, not this time.
It is a shame that Canon is still living way in the past in terms of dynamic range with this sensor.
Once again the measure the masked area thing I did a few weeks back on it proved to be a reliable indicator of DR performance.
Early reports hint that it may have less banding than the 7D which may make the actual effectively usable DR somewhat higher than with the 7D even if it doesn't measure any better for engineering DR though.
COLOR STUFF, CHROMA SNR:
Color discrimination appears to be fairly close to the D7100 (a touch worse under outdoor lighting and a hair trace better under tungsten) and about the same as the 7D for outdoors and somewhat better for tungsten lighting.
Color noise appears to be much worse than with the D7100 and about the same as with the 7D (at least under natural lighting, there is a chance it might be noticeably improved compared to the 7D under tungsten lighting but I'm not sure DxO tests that, I have to check, but I think their color sensitivity only tests daylight conditions? and you can't necessarily extrapolate metamerism index to chroma SNR differences, although often they have tracked, the 70D doesn't necessarily seem to though so it's an open question).
The finer details of what produces better color is a very complex and tricky subject and may depend upon precisely what the question is (say skin tones, vs ocean tones, vs fall colors and whether lighting is outdoor or tungsten, or fluorescent or weak or strong, etc.). Someone who tried to look into things a bit claimed that in the past Canon has tended to avoid nasty peaks or other issues in skin tones for people with certain tones of skin better than Nikon under certain types of lighting often used for shooting people but also tended to be less accurate for colors and not distinguish quite as many overall especially in yellows/oranges. But it is a tricky topic and it surely varies model to model.
PIXEL LEVEL SHARPNESS:
Have not looked into personally, but I know the 7D was a trace on the softer side due in large part to heavily split greens on the CFA. Early reports hint that the 70D might have a bit better acutance than the 7D.
Looking at DxO the luminance SNR seems to be between 1/3 and 2/3rds of stop better than the 7D, a decent improvement. And basically right up there with the D7100.
7D was relatively well behaved when it came to banding at high ISO so I don't know if you will notice as big of an effective help in that regard above what the SNR tells you as you did comparing 5D2 vs 5D3 though.
I haven't carefully looked into it, but it appears that the JPG engine for in cam developed photos might handle high ISO noticeably better than the 7D.
DYNAMIC RANGE:
The DR seems to be a trace worse (although mostly to a small enough degree to not be able to notice real world) than the 7D (although perhaps nearing 1/2 stop worse at ISO200 unless that is just a kink in the graph and within the error bar) until very high ISO where it is a tiny bit better than the 7D.
DR is vastly worse than the D7100 at low ISO and still noticeably worse even at high ISO this time too, in the past Canon usually at least kept up with DR at high ISO, not this time.
It is a shame that Canon is still living way in the past in terms of dynamic range with this sensor.
Once again the measure the masked area thing I did a few weeks back on it proved to be a reliable indicator of DR performance.
Early reports hint that it may have less banding than the 7D which may make the actual effectively usable DR somewhat higher than with the 7D even if it doesn't measure any better for engineering DR though.
COLOR STUFF, CHROMA SNR:
Color discrimination appears to be fairly close to the D7100 (a touch worse under outdoor lighting and a hair trace better under tungsten) and about the same as the 7D for outdoors and somewhat better for tungsten lighting.
Color noise appears to be much worse than with the D7100 and about the same as with the 7D (at least under natural lighting, there is a chance it might be noticeably improved compared to the 7D under tungsten lighting but I'm not sure DxO tests that, I have to check, but I think their color sensitivity only tests daylight conditions? and you can't necessarily extrapolate metamerism index to chroma SNR differences, although often they have tracked, the 70D doesn't necessarily seem to though so it's an open question).
The finer details of what produces better color is a very complex and tricky subject and may depend upon precisely what the question is (say skin tones, vs ocean tones, vs fall colors and whether lighting is outdoor or tungsten, or fluorescent or weak or strong, etc.). Someone who tried to look into things a bit claimed that in the past Canon has tended to avoid nasty peaks or other issues in skin tones for people with certain tones of skin better than Nikon under certain types of lighting often used for shooting people but also tended to be less accurate for colors and not distinguish quite as many overall especially in yellows/oranges. But it is a tricky topic and it surely varies model to model.
PIXEL LEVEL SHARPNESS:
Have not looked into personally, but I know the 7D was a trace on the softer side due in large part to heavily split greens on the CFA. Early reports hint that the 70D might have a bit better acutance than the 7D.
Upvote
0
TeenTog
Fear no man, for he bleeds just like you.
ok, ok, people. Lets just all calm down a bit here. Instead of complaining about how the 70D isn't earth shattering, let's all go look at people's photography, give some C&C, and actually put our opinions to use helping somebody better their photography vs. trying to get the last word. : :
:
Upvote
0
Chosenbydestiny said:
That is missing the greater point. It does help you when you are taking a shot since you need to be able to judge whether a certain shot might have too much DR for the camera to handle and whether you need to get into multiple exposures or graduated filters etc., or when that is not possible which can be the case, to realize the shot may struggle to process well.
Sure better DR can be nice when it comes to rescuing blown shots or shots where the exposure wasn't quite dead on but it is mostly about much more than that. If a scene has a lot DR it may exceed the camera's ability no matter how perfectly you expose.
It's not at all just about people who make a mess of exposure all the time simply wanting to be able to escape that. It's rather little about that.
Upvote
0
After reading the rants and proclamations of everyone I am confused. As a photographer I am in charge of the DR, contrast, color, etc. in a photograph. This is the difference between taking photographs and making them. It is called technique. I have been using a trio of 40D's since they came out. On a recent visit to my local camera club, everyone assumed that I was using FF cameras. I didn't tell them about the "ancient" cameras that I was using. Nearly everyone at the club was using a FF camera. One tidbit I picked up from my mentor was that "A real photographer can make a good photograph with any camera." He was right. The first photographs I sold were taken with an adjustable 126 Instamatic! As I write this I am waiting for UPS to deliver my 70D's and I couldn't be happier. While everyone is making needless arguments and making excuses I will be making wonderful photographs with "substandard equipment."
Cheers!
Cheers!
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
ankorwatt said:
Not really remarkable. If I have 13 stops of DR in my scene, a sensor with more DR helps, and a better lens also helps. If I have 13 stops of DR in my scene, but need to shoot at ISO 3200 for a high enough shutter speed, the sensors have equivalent DR (not enough), and a better lens still helps. If I have 8 stops of DR in my scene, a sensor with more DR is of no benefit, but a better lens still helps.
Nor is it remarkable that some people seem to think their shooting needs are everyone's needs. Not remarkable, but rather pathetic.
Upvote
0
unfocused said:
Certainly for some shots that works better. Certainly there are shots I make where it looks more dramatic to leave large chunks really dark. But there are plenty of shots where that doesn't work better or where the DR is so extreme that you can't even reasonably get away with that high key look.
If you have a brilliant sunbeam shooting through a dark forest and the branches are blowing all over you can be in trouble without a high DR camera. To avoid blowing out the glowingly lit parts the trunks may become too dark even for artistically dark purposes and too noisy too look good at even moderate print size and the scene will be too complex for filters to fix up and the motion may make HDR frame combines get too many artifacts. Just one example. So you say what about slide film days? Well people simple skipped those shots or went to print film and even then often simply skipped them even though some of them could've been really cool.
Upvote
0
awinphoto said:
A real photographer is apparently only a studio type photographer then
. Kind of hard to use umbrellas to fix up the lighting in a shot covering 16 square miles or something no? ;D Or one where the scene changes second to second.In the other scenarios I mention a real photographer either decides to leave with a technically shaky shot or simply skips it and goes and shoot something that will work out awesome. But wouldn't it be much cooler to have to move on and shoot something else less often?
Upvote
0
douglas459 said:
Glad that works for you. Alternatively, I would say a good photographer can make a decent image out of most exposures. Where I "make my money" is taking really crappy exposures and making them into something nice. Does that make me an editor? Not any more than the other side of the coin simply makes you a cameraman. The best, most efficient photographers excel on both sides of the shutter actuation.
Upvote
0
zlatko said:Pi said:zlatko said:
Fair enough. I do not find to be a problem most of the time. But when I do, I wish it was not a problem
Some of those "anonymous know-it-alls" are John Sheehy, Bob (bobn2) and Joe James (Great Bustard); Joe posted here a few weeks ago. They also happen to be some of the most knowledgeable people there, with a few others who share their opinion but are less active.
Sorry, I don't know those people.
I was referring to anonymous people who can and do say whatever they want without any accountability — no one knows who they are or what, if any, photography experience they have. Such people can dominate a forum with their purported (but unseen) expertise. I just don't trust any anonymous person to give me a reliable opinion, let alone to instruct others about a camera's technical details.
The accountability is the logic of their arguments. And if you are not able to follow the arguments and explanation anyone gives then why does it make more sense to trust some random people with no credentials at all who simply always make Canon sound the best in all cases over those with some decent scientific/engineering backgrounds who say that sometimes Canon is the best at something and sometimes not, especially if the latter set are mostly agreeing upon what they are saying and the former set's claims seem more random?
Mr. Zla Tko(? or are you anon too
)
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
LetTheRightLensIn said:
I don't disagree. Certainly there are situations where the technical limits of the camera make it impossible to achieve the look I envision (although there are more situations where the technical limits of the photographer are more constraining).
I guess it boils down to the half-full/half-empty thing. What my DSLR is capable of is so far superior to what my F1 and film were capable of (and it can be done so much more simply and quickly thanks to RAW processing and Photoshop and plug-ins like Nik) that I don't really feel the need to complain.
Frankly, I get fed up with both sides on this forum. Those who act as though they can't possibly take a decent picture because of the limitations of the camera and those that hide behind sarcasm and try to change the topic ("but the lenses are better...blah blah blah)" to avoid acknowledging that there are limits to what any particular brand of cameras and sensors can do.
Similarly, I get tired of the full frame vs. APS-C debate for much the same reason. I'll happily concede that a larger sensor has advantages, but I also know that anyone who claims that an APS-C sensor is "crap" or can't produce excellent images is probably just not a very good photographer.
I kind of applaud your efforts to debate the topic intelligently and rationally, although I suspect it is futile.
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:awinphoto said:
A real photographer is apparently only a studio type photographer then
In the other scenarios I mention a real photographer either decides to leave with a technically shaky shot or simply skips it and goes and shoot something that will work out awesome. But wouldn't it be much cooler to have to move on and shoot something else less often?
I know that debating you of all people can be quite long and exhausting as you have a long reputation for hating canon sensors and loving nikons/sonys... but I will indulge you... Admittedly, I do not make my living as a landscape photography, I do however shoot architecture, portraiture, urban, etc for a living. I also do landscape work from time to time and architecture also at times can have extreme range... To be honest, I cannot think of a time where I've EVER thought, damn it, i CANT get this shot with my gear. also, whether it is post production or in camera, I know usually going into a shot or going into a series of shots what I want and how I can get it out of them. I just never have been in a situation where I COULDN'T get my ideal shot with my gear, ever. It could be my training and experience level, it could be I dont pixel peep at 500%, but I've always been taught not to see problems but to see solutions... So in this case, I dont fret about limitations, I get the shot I want every time and I dont blame my gear.
Upvote
0
celestyx said:
I've dabbled in it myself.
Anyway, yeah it doesn't have any immediately practicable connection to camera sensors in the way that would be readily helpful in this case and yes even very smart people can be wrong about things at any level of complexity, nobody is perfect. Even brilliant people have an embarrassingly foolish take on basic things every once in a while for a time.
That said string theory isn't the easiest subject matter in the world and the chances are pretty high that those who can get through and make major impacts in the field are pretty good at being able to understand and grasp technical concepts. And I don't particularly see how they fit the accusations of being phony know-it-alls who just run around trolling against Canon for fun or, to go by what was said the other day on another forum, are dumb cretins who actually know little about anything. Is it so wrong for us to point out the so-called know-nothings have had some pretty major accomplishments? I, along with the other guy, were just pointing out that that doesn't seem to be a very fair assessment.
Anyway you are free to go through what's been said and pick it apart for errors or go through the camera website the guy I was referring to above set up and pick it all apart for errors. It's all out in the open. Corrections are welcome in fact.
Anyway, if someone isn't able to follow the arguments anybody is making about sensors and DR does it make more sense to to tend to follow what those with technical backgrounds are saying, especially if they seem to be independently largely coming to similar conclusions and ones that sometimes favor a certain brand and sometimes not, over some other random people with no apparent background in anything technical who spout out various things that often don't agree with one another and who tend to always say whatever it is that needs to be said to make one brand always appear to be better at everything?
Upvote
0
douglas459 said:
Of course a good photographer can make great photos with any camera. You can make billions of amazing photos with an old 10D. That doesn't mean he can take great photos in every possible scenario with any old camera though or might not want expanded possibilities. And changing the topic to AF and body performance, you can take AWESOME sports shots with a 20D. But that doesn't mean you won't get frustrated with blown shots more often then when using a 1DX. Anyway you don't need anything fancy to be able to have fun taking awesome shots and even with simpler equipment you can even pull off great shots even with many tricky types of photography.
And of course when we go out and leave the forum and shoot we focus on what we can do well with our camera and have great fun doing that as best we can. We seem to be less the type to need their camera to be the best at everything to avoid sitting around depressed about it than those on the always defending a specific brand for everything actually. I badly wish my 5D3 had more DR at low ISO. But I also love using it and have great fun with it all the time.
But it isn't a crime to ask for expanded options when other brands have proven it to be quite possible. Canon seems to have shown in the past that the squeaky wheel eventually gets the grease otherwise they seem to tend to just keep milking their old tech of any given type.
Upvote
0
Even if it's only 2 points, it's nice that the camera performed on paper as well as it did. It's got plenty of great features that anyone with talent and skill could do quite well with. If I was getting my first camera, it would definitely be high on my list.
Upvote
0
so we have three generalities....
Nikon uses better sensors than Canon
Canon has better focusing than Nikon
Canon has a better lens selection than Nikon
and for the vast majority of people it is easier to tell that a picture is out of focus than to see the effects of a stop or two of dynamic range or ISO performance.... perhaps that's why Canon outsells Nikon....
Nikon uses better sensors than Canon
Canon has better focusing than Nikon
Canon has a better lens selection than Nikon
and for the vast majority of people it is easier to tell that a picture is out of focus than to see the effects of a stop or two of dynamic range or ISO performance.... perhaps that's why Canon outsells Nikon....
Upvote
0
- Status
