70D and Dxomark....

[zlatko]

No the "example" you posted is a perfect example of why actual photographers don't understand why some of you have such issues.

First, this scene does not have a wide dynamic range! There is very little DR in that scene, probably around five or six stops, a decent P&S can cover that range at 400iso.

You might be right about the decent P&S. But a Canon dSLR can't.

Second, you didn't ETTR, you did use +0.33 EC but that wasn't enough for an optimal RAW exposure.

Are you kidding me? This is a live subject. What ETTR?

Third, your post processing exposes the fact that you just don't know what you are doing. Try this, I just did to your jpeg file. Exposure up 1.35 (that is where you should have been exposing by the way) Highlights down -37. That is how to post process your image, you have detail where you wanted it, but you have zero noise and banding even at 300% (with zero noise reduction).

The guy would not stay still, you know.

Fourth, even at 100% and badly processed the banding is not serious enough to destroy the image, a little noise reduction and it is gone anyway, try +35 NR in Lightroom and it disappears.

100% chroma NR does not put a dent on it. 80% lumina hides most of it. 35% lumina hides the random noise but leaves the pattern noise in place.

Your "example" is not an example of failing Canon sensor capabilities, it is an example of you not knowing what you are doing at exposure time and in post. What you have illustrated is if you expose incorrectly, then process badly, then don't take any steps to mitigate those errors you can end up with slight noise and banding, you will forgive me for not taking your demonstration of Canon sensor issues seriously.

Nonsense. But even if I was guilty of not exposing correctly ("Hey, you, would you stay still for a moment? Thank you!") so what? I posted the "unprocessed" image. It is not 4 stop underexposed, right? Any modern non-Canon sensor would not have a problem with that image.

I could have used ISO 800 vs. 400. The read noise penalty is likely worse with ISO 400. But the only reason ISO 800 would have helped, maybe, is the deficiency of the sensor. With any other modern sensor, the ISO would not matter much.

The unprocessed image is fine. You can't blame the camera for your processing. To even see this supposed problem with the sensor, one has to raise the darkest parts of the image to exaggerate it, and one has to turn the monitor brightness all the way up.

By the way, ETTR has nothing to do with asking the subject to remain still. It sounds like you are thinking of HDR?

 

[Sporgon]

I'll post 100% crops of your jpeg processed with competence if you want to labour the point even further.

I think Pi produced a photographic faux pas.

There's little doubt that with current technology you're better off with Nikon or Sony if you don't know what you're doing

I'd post it.

 

[zim]

The unprocessed image is fine. You can't blame the camera for your processing. To even see this supposed problem with the sensor, one has to raise the darkest parts of the image to exaggerate it, and one has to turn the monitor brightness all the way up.

By the way, ETTR has nothing to do with asking the subject to remain still. It sounds like you are thinking of HDR?

+1 I think the unprocessed file is rather good, If anything I'd be darkening the background a little to get rid of the slightly distracting drum set in the background

I think the subject remaining still thing is about shutter speed, ETTR would force a slower speed and therefore subject movement, the subject doesn't look like much of a speedy gonzales to me but you never know! isn't that what better high iso performance is for though?

 

[Pi]

The guy is standing in front of a stand mic with another set up for his acoustic guitar, did he have a roadie moving the stand for him too?

This is completely irrelevant. Did you even pay attention what post I replied to? Somebody posted a high ISO image, processed who knows how, and asked "where is the banding"? I posted a real world image, not pushed by 4 stops which shows banding. I could have posted a shot of an empty stage to make that point.

Now, everybody who claims that you cannot see banding unless you put the cap on an push exposure by 4 stop has to say - well, I saw it once, and it was not pushed by 4 stops (the adjustments in RAW conversion cannot be so simply described in stops).

BTW, are you sure you understand what ETTR means? In light limited situations like this, the only benefit of ETTR may have is ... well, to compensate for the deficiency of the sensor (with minor, probably invisible tonality gain which diminishes greatly for low light)

I shoot concerts, I shoot M and take some exposure tests shots, it is digital and takes less than five seconds, not AV in spot metering with EV comp, again, you are just making excuses for the fact you messed up, the sensor did not let you down.

I did take the next shot in M but then the light changed. In concerts, light changes quickly all the time. But again, that is irrelevant. His forehead has some hot spots before the push. The exposure is not 4 stops below what should have been.

I'll post 100% crops of your jpeg processed with competence if you want to labour the point even further.

Why would you "process with competence" shots from a sensor which has no problems with the shadows? Shouldn't t the banding be not there in the first place? You are missing the point again. This is not a thread about pp techniques.

 

[Pi]

So what kind of shutter speed are we talking?
Low ISO in extremely dark places, sounds like pictures where you have the time to setup a tripod or lean on something to take a picture.
Wouldn't you also have the time to take 7 pictures then? and make an HDR for some extra DR.....

Sure it is nice to have , but the 'need' for it may be overrated?

You chose to ignore the example I posted, so convenient.

I did look at it, but I didn't think it was worth saying anything about.

To me the 'processed' shot looks a lot worse than your RAW shot.

But I could have taken 7 shots with a tripod, right? Why do you have to change the topic?

 

[Pi]

The unprocessed image is fine. You can't blame the camera for your processing. To even see this supposed problem with the sensor, one has to raise the darkest parts of the image to exaggerate it, and one has to turn the monitor brightness all the way up.

By the way, ETTR has nothing to do with asking the subject to remain still. It sounds like you are thinking of HDR?

+1 I think the unprocessed file is rather good, If anything I'd be darkening the background a little to get rid of the slightly distracting drum set in the background

I think the subject remaining still thing is about shutter speed, ETTR would force a slower speed and therefore subject movement, the subject doesn't look like much of a speedy gonzales to me but you never know! isn't that what better high iso performance is for though?

@ Zim: ETTR has everything to do with the subject staying still. The point of ETTR is to allow more light to hit the sensor. A moving subject is a problem. Now, at ISO 400, choosing slower SS, say 1/60 vs. 1/125, is not really ETTR. It is just increasing exposure. It would be ETTR at this ISO only. But the reason why the ISO plays a role is ... because it is a Canon sensor. With any other sensor, ETTR only makes sense at base ISO, aside from the minor tonal differences at higher ISO I mentioned above.

@ zlatko: I tried to reveal some of the color of the background, I did not like it black. It is not important what you like or not - this is an example of banding that you said you have never seen. Now, you have.

The noise there is read noise. Higher exposure would have helped, indeed to raise the signal relative to the read noise. But with a modern sensor, higher exposure would not be needed. So all of you are saying - you should have exposed it by 1 stop more (more than that, his face would have had blown highlights, and BTW, what happened to the 4 stops?) - you are basically saying: well, you know you are shooting with a Canon, you should not be shooting as if it were a Nikon...

 

[Pi]

I'll post 100% crops of your jpeg processed with competence if you want to labour the point even further.

I think Pi produced a photographic faux pas.

There's little doubt that with current technology you're better off with Nikon or Sony if you don't know what you're doing

I'd post it.

So 1 stop underexposure can get you in trouble? Don't say! I always thought you had to underexpose by 4 stops to see the benefit of the Sony sensors?

EDIT: The EV comp in the "processed shot" is 0.73 and this already creates hot spots, fixed with Highlight adjustments.

 

[Etienne]

I'd like my Canon DSLR to do everything better than any other camera on the market: ergonomics, weather proofing, durability, auto-focus, resolution, speed, battery life, etc,etc ... including DR .

Unfortunately no manufacturer has a camera that wins at everything, and yet somehow an army of Canon users are pumping out award-winning photographs and films.

I shoot regularly with two photographers using D800's, and I've yet to see either of them produce an image I like as well as what I get from my 5dIII. ... and they can't touch me on video.

 

[zim]

@Pi: I’m only here to learn not to bait but I only have a Canon sensor so the only thing I’m interested in is how to use it to get the best out of it i.e. not how bad it is but how good can I make it – hope that makes sense!

My understanding of ETTR is simply to get to histogram as far to the right as possible without clipping the highlights, in manual mode I can either reduce shutter speed, use a wider aperture or increase iso so I don’t understand “Now, at ISO 400, choosing slower SS, say 1/60 vs. 1/125, is not really ETTR”

I have to admit I’ve been trying to expose to the right for some time and I do struggle not to get clipped highlights so hopefully I’m missing something here!

 

[Sporgon]

So 1 stop underexposure can get you in trouble? Don't say! I always thought you had to underexpose by 4 stops to see the benefit of the Sony sensors?

EDIT: The EV comp in the "processed shot" is 0.73 and this already creates hot spots, fixed with Highlight adjustments.

One full stop of EV error is a lot actually. And long may it remain so.


But that's not the point. The faux par is your unskilled attempts to improve on the raw capture.

And regarding your reply to zlatko: yes I do expose current Canon slightly differently to Nikon (Sony).

 

[Pi]

So 1 stop underexposure can get you in trouble? Don't say! I always thought you had to underexpose by 4 stops to see the benefit of the Sony sensors?

EDIT: The EV comp in the "processed shot" is 0.73 and this already creates hot spots, fixed with Highlight adjustments.

One full stop of EV error is a lot actually. And long may it remain so.


But that's not the point. The faux par is your unskilled attempts to improve on the raw capture.

You do not "improve" on the RAW capture, you convert it. BTW, this image in my computer is with black background. I am not a fan of pattern noise, and yes, I can see it even without 100% zoom. It was an example meant to counter the funny talk about 4 stop push, and "what, 4 stops only?" remarks, etc. It shows that read noise can be a problem in reality.

BTW, is it too much to ask you to refrain from personal insults?

And regarding your reply to zlatko: yes I do expose current Canon slightly differently to Nikon (Sony).

Why, is there a problem? I hope you are not confusing metering with exposure.

 

[zlatko]

The unprocessed image is fine. You can't blame the camera for your processing. To even see this supposed problem with the sensor, one has to raise the darkest parts of the image to exaggerate it, and one has to turn the monitor brightness all the way up.

By the way, ETTR has nothing to do with asking the subject to remain still. It sounds like you are thinking of HDR?

+1 I think the unprocessed file is rather good, If anything I'd be darkening the background a little to get rid of the slightly distracting drum set in the background

I think the subject remaining still thing is about shutter speed, ETTR would force a slower speed and therefore subject movement, the subject doesn't look like much of a speedy gonzales to me but you never know! isn't that what better high iso performance is for though?

@ Zim: ETTR has everything to do with the subject staying still. The point of ETTR is to allow more light to hit the sensor. A moving subject is a problem. Now, at ISO 400, choosing slower SS, say 1/60 vs. 1/125, is not really ETTR. It is just increasing exposure. It would be ETTR at this ISO only. But the reason why the ISO plays a role is ... because it is a Canon sensor. With any other sensor, ETTR only makes sense at base ISO, aside from the minor tonal differences at higher ISO I mentioned above.

@ zlatko: I tried to reveal some of the color of the background, I did not like it black. It is not important what you like or not - this is an example of banding that you said you have never seen. Now, you have.

The noise there is read noise. Higher exposure would have helped, indeed to raise the signal relative to the read noise. But with a modern sensor, higher exposure would not be needed. So all of you are saying - you should have exposed it by 1 stop more (more than that, his face would have had blown highlights, and BTW, what happened to the 4 stops?) - you are basically saying: well, you know you are shooting with a Canon, you should not be shooting as if it were a Nikon...

I wouldn't process it that way, so I would not have that problem. The unprocessed version is fine. You're taking an OK photo and then trying to add light & detail where there isn't any.

Even the processed version is not a problem. One has turn the monitor brightness up to maximum to see any hint of anything.

 

[Sporgon]

You do not "improve" on the RAW capture, you convert it. BTW, this image in my computer is with black background. I am not a fan of pattern noise, and yes, I can see it even without 100% zoom. It was an example meant to counter the funny talk about 4 stop push, and "what, 4 stops only?" remarks, etc. It shows that read noise can be a problem in reality.

BTW, is it too much to ask you to refrain from personal insults.

Why, is there a problem? I hope you are not confusing metering with exposure.

Apologies: the faux pas is your attempts to improve upon the raw capture.

Sorry I didn't fully state improve upon the raw capture after you have first converted it into a visual form.

Would I confuse metering with exposure after 30 years in photography ? Is there a problem ? In a sense. The Canon responds best to slight over exposure when possible, and bringing bown in post. I don't see this with Sony in the same way. Is this a real problem ? Not for me.

 

[zlatko]

And regarding your reply to zlatko: yes I do expose current Canon slightly differently to Nikon (Sony).

Agreed. When I used a pair of Nikons for a few months, I had to be more careful not to overexpose. Whether because of the metering or the sensor, I don't know. On balance, these are not big differences. You just learn and make slight adjustments.

 

[dgatwood]

I shoot regularly with two photographers using D800's, and I've yet to see either of them produce an image I like as well as what I get from my 5dIII. ... and they can't touch me on video.

Bear in mind that Canon's FF sensors are a different universe than its crop sensors DR-wise. Before I moved to a FF camera, DR was a sore spot for me on an ongoing basis. Now, it is much less so.

My attitude about photography—and technology in general—is that even though hardware can't always know the right thing to do by a subjective definition, it should always do something that is at least acceptable by default. For example, in an ideal world, you should only need to do manual metering if you are trying to achieve a particular effect—deliberately forcing a wide aperture in ample light to get a shallow depth of field, deliberately forcing a narrow aperture and low ISO to get motion blur, etc. When you aren't, the camera should have enough DR to get a decent quality image of whatever part of the image you care about in any real-world environment. It certainly should not have wildly inconsistent dark levels with banding or other artifacts.

My old XTi wasn't even close to that ideal, and from what I've read, the 60D and 70D are only slightly better. My 6D gets me most of the way there. YMMV.

 

[Pi]

I wouldn't process it that way, so I would not have that problem. The unprocessed version is fine. You're taking an OK photo and then trying to add light & detail where there isn't any.

No detail, but there is light. A purple background is much better than a black one.

BTW, with a color managed viewer and screen, the banding is visible.

I have more example I can post. Night scenes with blown highlights and noisy shadows taken at ISO 100, when multiple shots are not an option. What would be the best exposure then? I can see that 2+ stops would be enough.

 

[zlatko]

I wouldn't process it that way, so I would not have that problem. The unprocessed version is fine. You're taking an OK photo and then trying to add light & detail where there isn't any.

No detail, but there is light. A purple background is much better than a black one.

BTW, with a color managed viewer and screen, the banding is visible.

I have more example I can post. Night scenes with blown highlights and noisy shadows taken at ISO 100, when multiple shots are not an option. What would be the best exposure then? I can see that 2+ stops would be enough.

My point is: the camera produced a technically fine image. You can't fault it for that. You didn't expose for the shadows and didn't need to. But in post, you decided the shadows were important after all, and you processed it in a way that created a problem for you.

I calibrate my monitor and I only begin to see the problem created by your post-processing when I turn the brightness all the way up to maximum (which I normally don't do). I'm reminded of a Henny Youngman joke ... A guy goes to a doctor and says, "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." The doctor replies, "Don't do this!!".

It seems like you expect the camera to have ideal dynamic range for any and every situation, and to tolerate any adjustment in post. But cameras/films have never done that and photographers have never expected them to. Perhaps some day that ideal camera will be invented. Until then, we make pictures with the equipment we have.

If a film photographer had tried to raise the black portions of an image, he would have discovered nothing but the haze of the film base. This problem would have been very well known to Ansel Adams. He tested and knew the abilities of his films and chemical formulas, and made amazing photos working within their limits.

So perhaps Nikon gives some extra room for lifting the shadows. Good to have when you need it. Perhaps Canon gives some extra room for pulling the highlights. Also good to have. Not a big deal either way, and neither prevents a photographer from making great photos.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

where is the banding?
5D3
ISO 4000
extreme cropped

It is at LOW ISO in the very darkest tones where it has more banding than Exmor not at high ISO. At very high ISO it does even a trace better than D800.

So what kind of shutter speed are we talking?
Low ISO in extremely dark places, sounds like pictures where you have the time to setup a tripod or lean on something to take a picture.
Wouldn't you also have the time to take 7 pictures then? and make an HDR for some extra DR.....

Sure it is nice to have , but the 'need' for it may be overrated?

Not low ISO in extremely dark places as extremely dark places usually don't have a lot of DR (although they could if it was a cave with a sunbeam entering it or something) and bright conditions tend to make it more likely that you need more DR. It is simply for scenes that have a lot of DR. The shutter speed doesn't have to be remotely slow at all.

Sometimes you can get out the tripod and take multiple exposures if the subjects are still and you are allowed to use a tripod or have one and don't mind getting bogged down and other times you can use a special filter if the scene is very, very simple as to where the brighter and darker parts are. Other times things are moving too much, blowing around too much and the scene is very complex or you may be in some place where tripods are not allowed. (as a bonus with more DR you might be able to avoid slower tripod work in which case it would be purely a convenience thing, obviously no longer critical but convenience never hurt it might also potentially give time to get in more shots if conditions are changing fast; or be able to rescue a blown shot)

The thing is Canon very much seems to have become a company that simply won't give about anything unless forced to, look at some of the user surveys and listen to the old we are kings of hill and need not move forward speech one of their big management guys gave half a decade ago, so until everyone makes a big stink they will just toss us old, old tech sensors when it comes to low ISO performance for who knows how many more years or half decades.

If the next round of cameras don't deliver then it's not like you'll just have been stuck with old tech for DR for a few months or a few years but for more than a decade. Just think of how much you have shot how many places you have been to over a decade. Who wouldn't want the option to have had expanded photographic possibilities for a whole decade?

Maybe some people barely ever need them, but even so it's only a plus if you have the option even if just a few times here or there and other people might be able to make use of it on quite a semi-regular basis.

 

[zlatko]

If the next round of cameras don't deliver then it's not like you'll just have been stuck with old tech for DR for a few months or a few years but for more than a decade. Just think of how much you have shot how many places you have been to over a decade. Who wouldn't want the option to have had expanded photographic possibilities for a whole decade?

Yes, I would want the perfect camera that gives me the option to do anything and everything with any image in any situation. So I'm 100% in favor of technical advancements in sensors and everything else about cameras. But I'm not going to be perpetually disappointed when each camera is introduced and somehow falls short of that ideal goal. Cameras today are capable of doing a lot.

 

[Pi]

It seems like you expect the camera to have ideal dynamic range for any and every situation, and to tolerate any adjustment in post. But cameras/films have never done that and photographers have never expected them to. Perhaps some day that ideal camera will be invented. Until then, we make pictures with the equipment we have.

I expect to be as good (as far as DR is concerned) as Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Oly, Panasonic.... Did I miss something? Ideal - no. I do not want anything better than any other brand can do, in terms of DR.