AF might be way better, sensor barely at all, video mode only half fixed(?)

[briansquibb]

Difference between a pro and an amateur

The amateur will do anything for the right photo
The pro will do anything for the right money

You have it all wrong. I see lots of amateurs that have much nicer gear than many of my pro photog buddies. That must mean that the main difference between a pro and an amateur is that amateur has more money ;D

I am trying to work out how to get a modified golf cart with my gear to the locations. They are too big to go under the Winebago - perhaps in a trailer behind then - and the gear would be locked away at the same time. Then I have the problem of the boat.

Perhaps the chauffeur can drive a big truck with all the stuff and this means that the butler and maid would not have to sit up front with us

: : :

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Ah man. I thought we were going to continue our discussion on Ferrari's F1 program, but if you insist on talking cameras....

it probably would have been more fun and productive to talk about F1 ;D

It's not the end of the world, but it's ridiculous to say it's pixel-peeping geek nonsense whenever it is something Canon is not best at, and absolutely critical when it's something Canon is best at.

Please. You're speaking to someone who ordered up a D800. Granted I will probably cancel it on Monday, but my point is that fixating on lab tests to the point where it takes precedence over judging an image based on overall execution, image quality, and artistic value is nonsense. I pity the fool who thinks his camera is great or thinks it's junk based not on the quality of the images it captures, but someone else's lab findings.

Seriously, that kind of fixation can't be healthy. The last time I was that fixated on something, someone ended up slapping a restraining order against me ;D

1. saying it's NOT the end of the world, means you are not fixated or at least not entirely ;D
(and the better part of my original post here was actually about nothing more than trumpeting the early AF reports....)

2. Those of us asking for more dynamic range didn't just decide to ask it because we saw a difference on some test chart. Believe it or not the desire was not to be able to post a more impressive graph on our walls. I shoot in the real world and if I run up against some issue THEN I look into it to see what the deal is and if anything else might not have the issue. And I know from real world experience what the charts imply to what I could do in the real world. And I whine and cry about it like crazy not actually to be annoying, but because anything less than a total huge tremendous whine fest of a deal never catches the attention of Canon. I do regularly hit scenarios where I really wish I had the 3 more stops DR (although certainly for many shots it won't make any difference at all, as well). And I think the same goes for most doing the same. And anything less than making a huge production about it means Canon won't even think of paying for patents or building a new fab, etc.

Many people are now raving about the awesome 5D3 AF, and quite a few of the ones who are now going on about how awesome it is are the very same people who called those of us who called out the prior non-1 series AF stuff like pathetic Nikon trolls or silly little people who just need to learn how to shoot properly or told us that is was absurd to ask for top AF in something that wasn't a 1 series. So us know-nothing Nikon trolls perhaps helped get them the very thing they are raving about now and said was impossible to even think of hoping for.

This is the body rumor forum, not a serious how to take better photos forum, so I don't know that it is a bad thing to call Canon out here (plus I was actually tossing them a ton of praise about the AF for the better part of my post), maybe enough gets said, the next cam is better. Maybe if we all kept quiet and said the 5D2 was 10% perfect the 5D3 would have had the 5D2 AF system again or maybe the 7D AF at best?

 

[V8Beast]

Those of us asking for more dynamic range didn't just decide to ask it because we saw a difference on some test chart.

That might apply to you, but not everyone else. There are tons of posts on here where people are going poo poo over the 5DIII based not on how poorly it performed in the field, and how its poor DR was the difference between capturing a great image and coming home with a junk image, but based on the DxO findings alone. Am I the only one that finds that bizarre?

I do regularly hit scenarios where I really wish I had the 3 more stops DR (although certainly for many shots it won't make any difference at all, as well). And I think the same goes for most doing the same.

I'd venture to say all photographers run up against situations like this. I do all the time. My point is that there's always a disconnect between lab tests and field results, and right now, I'm having hard time actually seeing the 3 stop DR advantage of the D800 in the sample images that are rolling out. Your results may vary Come on, three stops of DR is HUGE. The difference should be very obvious outside of the lab, should it not?

Getting back to F1, Ferrari has gone from mopping everyone one up in the early '00s to struggling to keep up with McLaren and team Red Bull since the FIA banned off-season and in-season testing. They have their own freakin' track in Fiorana, Italy that they can't even use anymore. I'm sure if they could get back to doing some on-track, real world testing, their F1 program would be much more competitive. Furthermore, one of the new scrub F1 teams designs their cars entirely on computer. They don't do much testing at all, because they don't have the funds to do so. And guess what? They suck, and are always getting lapped within the first half of a race.

Whether it's in photography or F1, there needs to be a balance between lab testing and field testing. Unfortunately, the only thing many people seem to care about are lab results, and last I checked, you don't hang lab results on your wall and you sure as hell don't sell lab results to a client.

Many people are now raving about the awesome 5D3 AF, and quite a few of the ones who are now going on about how awesome it is are the very same people who called those of us who called out the prior non-1 series AF stuff like pathetic Nikon trolls or silly little people who just need to learn how to shoot properly or told us that is was absurd to ask for top AF in something that wasn't a 1 series. So us know-nothing Nikon trolls perhaps helped get them the very thing they are raving about now and said was impossible to even think of hoping for.

This is the body rumor forum, not a serious how to take better photos forum, so I don't know that it is a bad thing to call Canon out here

I have no problem calling Canon out when it needs to be called out. Before the karma system went away, I had the smites the prove it I just find it odd that people are talking about the 5DIII like it's something to wipe your @ss with when you run out of toilet paper based solely on the lab tests conducted by a single group of tech heads. That's not to say lab tests are useless, but rather they're not nearly as useful as determining the strengths and shortcomings of your equipment based on how you actually use it in the field.

I'm sorry, but when some posts images that they took of their girlfriend's hairy arm pit, and marvels at how much detail they can see in every last pungent follicle at 100%, I can't take them seriously. The D800 appears to be a terrific camera, but I doubt that's the intended use Nikon engineers had in mind when they designed it. Maybe that's your idea of creating art if you have a strange armpit hair fetish, but I other strange fetishes to attend to that don't involve photography ;D

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'd venture to say all photographers run up against situations like this. I do all the time. My point is that there's always a disconnect between lab tests and field results, and right now, I'm having hard time actually seeing the 3 stop DR advantage of the D800 in the sample images that are rolling out. Your results may vary Come on, three stops of DR is HUGE. The difference should be very obvious outside of the lab, should it not?

It is a big difference and there are demos comparing the exmor vs the the other sensors, real world demos, and it does show up easily (if your scene has more than 10 or stops of dynamic range, certainly plenty don't and then it makes no difference at all, of course plenty do), that is my point, my point is also that the DR tests I, others and DxO do, DO very much match up to real world use. I don't know why you don't see the difference. I've seen some pretty stunning demonstrations of the difference.

Getting back to F1, Ferrari has gone from mopping everyone one up in the early '00s to struggling to keep up with McLaren and team Red Bull since the FIA banned off-season and in-season testing. They have their own freakin' track in Fiorana, Italy that they can't even use anymore. I'm sure if they could get back to doing some on-track, real world testing, their F1 program would be much more competitive. Furthermore, one of the new scrub F1 teams designs their cars entirely on computer. They don't do much testing at all, because they don't have the funds to do so. And guess what? They suck, and are always getting lapped within the first half of a race.

1. on track testing, is still testing, not 'real world' races and sure it is important, once you get down to a car on the road and drivers you are into a super complex scenario, far beyond measuring single things which is more like what dynamic range is

2. you can bet all the teams would be wayyyy behind where they are if not for lab tests, so many more parts and specific little bits would take so much longer and waste sooo much more money to develop

Many people are now raving about the awesome 5D3 AF, and quite a few of the ones who are now going on about how awesome it is are the very same people who called those of us who called out the prior non-1 series AF stuff like pathetic Nikon trolls or silly little people who just need to learn how to shoot properly or told us that is was absurd to ask for top AF in something that wasn't a 1 series. So us know-nothing Nikon trolls perhaps helped get them the very thing they are raving about now and said was impossible to even think of hoping for.

This is the body rumor forum, not a serious how to take better photos forum, so I don't know that it is a bad thing to call Canon out here

I have no problem calling Canon out when it needs to be called out. Before the karma system went away, I had the smites the prove it I just find it odd that people are talking about the 5DIII like it's something to wipe your @ss with when you run out of toilet paper based solely on the lab tests conducted by a single group of tech heads. That's not to say lab tests are useless, but rather they're not nearly as useful as determining the strengths and shortcomings of your equipment based on how you actually use it in the field.

I'm sorry, but when some posts images that they took of their girlfriend's hairy arm pit, and marvels at how much detail they can see in every last pungent follicle at 100%, I can't take them seriously. The D800 appears to be a terrific camera, but I doubt that's the intended use Nikon engineers had in mind when they designed it. Maybe that's your idea of creating art if you have a strange armpit hair fetish, but I other strange fetishes to attend to that don't involve photography ;D

Not quite sure how this came onto hairy armpits, just recall which of the two of us is the only one to have mentioned "hair armpits" and "fetishes" ;D.

I hardly think the 5D3 is some trash to chuck in the garbage!
I did spend half of my original post hear going on about all of the early positive reports about the AF.

But the low ISO dynamic range is wayyy behind Exmor sensors though and even quite a bit behind the best non-Exmor stuff Nikon is doing (D4), I really thought they'd have at least gotten it to D4-level.... I do find that quite disappointing. For the landscape-type shooter, the 5D3 really adds virtually nothing over the 5D2 (for stuff relying on AF or better body response it should be much better than the 5D2 though). Some won't care, but some will and there is nothing any less valid about their caring about that than someone not caring about it. (and once again, I DO see a very large difference real world that matches what the lab results suggest)

And the video is in some ways awesome now, free from moire and aliasing messes, but it still ain't the promised 1920x1080p, every video blog I read is getting on it like crazy for this which is not what Canon needed to continue the low-end film-making domination.

It has less reach than stuff like 7D/1D4/D800 for wildlife/sports.

But yeah the 6fps are not bad for the class and the AF is sounding better and better, it's no doubt a better cam the 5D2, no doubt, it certainly has a lot of great stuff going for it.

But their sensor tech does appear to be falling behind, in ways that may matter for some and appear to be doing a bit of video protectionism for the C300 now, which is a shame, why not a C300 2x2 sampled crop video for 5D3 at perfect 1920x1080 if they can't do that over the entire frame? Probably to not step on the C300.... although it's hard to know for sure.

But once again the improved AF does sound pretty awesome going by early reports and coupled with 6fps that's not a bad thing at all! If the old sensor did what you need, then it should be awesome. 22MP, FF, 6fps, top of the line AF, small form factor, video without moire/aliasing, great user interface, certainly not a bad mix. I think it is one step shy of great though, as is, plus more MP, or plus noticeably more dynamic range, or at least with true 1920x1080p video then it's great IMO for $3500, without at least one of those added in $3500 seems steep. It'll be interesting to see if it drops to nearer $3000 in a couple months.

 

[wickidwombat]

V8Dude

Your best skill seems to be name calling in laughable manner. ;D ;D ;D ;D
You are kind of a funny guy. ;D

Believe it or not you are not the only person who has ever used a camera. I've shot the men's NCAA basketball tourney (and no, not from the stands ) among other things.

And believe it or not I'm not the only person who thinks more dynamic range would be nice to have at times. And believe it or not, some of them are actually full-time pros.

And it's a bit hard to use reflectors to fill in the interior of a redwood forest, maybe for some scenes, if you spend 15 hours rigging and thousands in expenses for a single shot, perhaps, sometimes, but then try it for a landscape expanding over a a few hundreds acres and it's a bit trickier still and then try that for every single possible such situation you may come across anywhere and.... and yes, sometimes a tripod a multi-snaps will do and sometimes a grad ND filter will do it, but not always. especially if you want details and not a wax-look.

It's not the end of the world, but it's ridiculous to say it's pixel-peeping geek nonsense whenever it is something Canon is not best at, and absolutely critical when it's something Canon is best at.

Could you show us some work photographed by you ?
I have read most of your post and like I said before your really must be the best photographer in the world.
Just wondering if all your numbers knowledge can be found back in your pictures.

Not sure about the best but he is pretty bloody good at what he does IMO

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

Difference between a pro and an amateur

The amateur will do anything for the right photo
The pro will do anything for the right money

You have it all wrong. I see lots of amateurs that have much nicer gear than many of my pro photog buddies. That must mean that the main difference between a pro and an amateur is that amateur has more money ;D

Or higher credit card debts!

 

[briansquibb]

Difference between a pro and an amateur

The amateur will do anything for the right photo
The pro will do anything for the right money

You have it all wrong. I see lots of amateurs that have much nicer gear than many of my pro photog buddies. That must mean that the main difference between a pro and an amateur is that amateur has more money ;D

Or higher credit card debts!

What is a credit card

 

[V8Beast]

1. on track testing, is still testing, not 'real world' races and sure it is important, once you get down to a car on the road and drivers you are into a super complex scenario, far beyond measuring single things which is more like what dynamic range is

A race track is hardly a lab. It's where you see if all the theoretical elements of the car you designed on computers, on the dyno, and in the wind tunnel stands up in real life. Track testing is very much a real world scenario, as it eliminates all the other factors outside of vehicle performance (driver skill, pit crew performance, tire degradation, pit strategy, good ol' luck) that can affect which position a car finishes the race in. How quickly you can bust off a single lap in qualifying is largely viewed by engineers as the ultimate yardstick of performance.

2. you can bet all the teams would be wayyyy behind where they are if not for lab tests, so many more parts and specific little bits would take so much longer and waste sooo much more money to develop

Very true, which validates the importance of off-track R&D. Like I said before, the trick is finding an ideal balance of lab and track testing Ferrari - along with some camera tech heads - seem to lack this balance

But the low ISO dynamic range is wayyy behind Exmor sensors though and even quite a bit behind the best non-Exmor stuff Nikon is doing (D4), I really thought they'd have at least gotten it to D4-level.... I do find that quite disappointing. For the landscape-type shooter, the 5D3 really adds virtually nothing over the 5D2 (for stuff relying on AF or better body response it should be much better than the 5D2 though).

That's fair enough. Let's just say that the D800 is the king of resolution and DxO DR, while for some the 5DIII is a better all-arounder. I can see how the 5DIII might be a disappointment if you're a landscape shooter, but then again I can see how the D800 would be a disappointment if you're a Nikonian who was expecting it to be a baby D4. At any rate, both are great cameras that will far exceed the abilities of many photographers.

Based on DxO perhaps Canon is falling behind on sensor tech. Maybe Nikon stole all of Canon's best engineers Who knows. I supposed the 1Dx is the wild card right now, and maybe it will have some pleasant surprises up its sleeves for the pixel-peeping faithful

 

[jrista]

@V8Beast: I'd save your breath, man. LTRLI, regardless of how he may have started out on this forum, has essentially become a troll. Ironically, he's not really trolling for responses from the likes of us, he is hoping to evoke a response from the great gods of Canon themselves, in a largely futile effort to get them to improve DR, at a single ISO setting, four years down the road from where we are now. There isn't any winning with him, and ultimately all you'll really end up doing is making yourself look like an ass (or worse) in the end for arguing with him. Let the beast lie. (And save yourself a little face.)

Your photography is excellent, and I can only imagine it getting better with a 5D III over a 5D II. THAT, excellent photography, is really what matters to photographers. One stop, two stops, even five stops of DR, at a SINGLE ISO setting, are really not going to change things all that much. It would be nice of LTRLI would recognize that fact at some point...this thread is starting to get a little hostile.

 

[V8Beast]

@V8Beast: I'd save your breath, man. LTRLI, regardless of how he may have started out on this forum, has essentially become a troll.

It's all good. He makes some good points, and I make some bad jokes, so it's a good tradeoff

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

@V8Beast: I'd save your breath, man. LTRLI, regardless of how he may have started out on this forum, has essentially become a troll. Ironically, he's not really trolling for responses from the likes of us, he is hoping to evoke a response from the great gods of Canon themselves, in a largely futile effort to get them to improve DR, at a single ISO setting, four years down the road from where we are now. There isn't any winning with him, and ultimately all you'll really end up doing is making yourself look like an ass (or worse) in the end for arguing with him. Let the beast lie. (And save yourself a little face.)

Your photography is excellent, and I can only imagine it getting better with a 5D III over a 5D II. THAT, excellent photography, is really what matters to photographers. One stop, two stops, even five stops of DR, at a SINGLE ISO setting, are really not going to change things all that much. It would be nice of LTRLI would recognize that fact at some point...this thread is starting to get a little hostile.

I am troll and yet there you go again with just having to toss in subtle little personal insults with your "photography, is really what matters to photographers" trying to imply that anyone who mentions, an actual fact, that the 5D3 has less DR is NOT a REAL photographer, or anyone who mentions they didn't put in a cropped 2x2 block video mode for true 1920x1080 sharpness is not a real videographer, etc.

I'm not saying that everyone has to care about ISO100-400 dynamic range, but it's a fact Canon has fallen behind there. (and wouldn't you rather Canon know that people notice stuff like less DR or worse AF? If everyone said they were 100% satisfied with the 5D2 AF do you think the 5D3 would have gotten the apparently superb system it did now? This isn't the photographic skills forum or the landscape photographer's forum or the wedding photographer's forum. It's the go on about body specs rumors forum) OTOH, the early reports about the new AF are super positive and I've been forwarding those claims, but you never want to get into talk about that. I spent the first half of my posts here going on about how the new AF sounded so awesome. We did get the histogram outlines so you can see it shooting outdoors, we did get radically better AF, we did get a 50% increase in fps, so maybe they do listen over time. The body performance is great this time.

With you, if anyone dares to mention any aspect about any Canon that is not perfect, you bury them in posts and insults and try everything under the sun to discredit their methods and claims (and note DxO measured the D800 just as we had predicted, a prediction which you spent about 500 posts, half the time insulting ones, trying to discredit) to the ends of the earth and turn simple threads that may have done with after three posts into endless page after page.... But what it really means is that I am the fool for falling into your baited traps again and again so I do get blame for that and it makes it easier to become overly negative trying to right back against that and it turns into a vicious circle.

 

[Aglet]

V8 Beasts photos look really good. Simple, he's knows how to use his equipment within its limitations and, despite the outdoor environment, can often use fill light to compress dynamic range to where his camera can record a dynamic looking image without having to push the dark areas very far in post. That's what pro photographers do when they can. Those are great images for the purpose intended.

LetTheRightLensIn continues to drive home the same point a few of us have legitimate complaints about, Canon's overall DR is pith-poor at low ISO and hasn't improved much since they first came out with their CMOS sensors. And I'm in total agreement with this.

Not many people take photos of landscapes or other scenes with high DR and then try to recover and represent those extreme dark or bright details in a finished image.
Some of those who do photograph such high DR scenes do so without trying to retain those extreme details, that's their creative choice.

For those of us who want to retain and display that detail, Canon SLRs are, unfortunately, a poor choice, as I've painfully become aware of in the past few years after investing a lot of time, effort and $ into their product. At the time I was getting into Canon gear, Nikon was still not offering anything more compelling.
Things have certainly changed a lot in the past few years!

Prior to the Exmor sensors arrival, and their impressive DR ability, we had to rely on EV bracketed shots and combine them in post to try achieve what SHOULD have been possible in the first place with one well-exposed 14 bit raw file.

LetTheRightLensIn is correct in pointing out that this should not be necessary when the system works as it should to provide us with more dynamic range, which includes clean shadow areas we can bring up in post as much as needed.

That you two are still arguing around this point puzzles me greatly. You both have valid arguments and understand the limitations of the equipment. From my point of view, you both are in agreement, even if it's from different perspectives.

Like LetTheRightLensIn, I'm disappointed the 5D3 offers minimal improvement in this one area we're hoping it would have; low iso DR.

Like V8 Beast, I'm happy Canon addressed many of the other shortcomings of the 5D/5D2 in this latest camera. The 5D3 is now a better tool than the 5D2 and I'm sure it will help a lot of photographers make better images in more varied conditions than ever before.

The 5D3 won't do ME any good tho.
Perched on a tripod, carefully manually focused, mirror locked up and manually metered for optimal capture of dynamic range, the 5D3 gives me no more than the 5D2 could. All I would get from buying the 5D3 is a light feeling in my wallet.

OTOH, if I put that money into a D800 to sit on that tripod, I'm likely to be rewarded with a flat-looking raw image that I can massage in post to bring out tonality and detail that 5D? cannot ever achieve without the dark areas having patterns added to them by the confounded noise it continues to suffer from.


I have some shots from my 7D that I cannot use, due to shadow noise, because this low-iso pattern noise shows up in darker areas of the image even with only +17 fill-light being applied in LR3! That's pretty pathetic when I can take a similar image shot with a $650 Nikon D5100 and push it 4 or 5 stops and still not see any pattern noise!

I wish I had a FF Canon body that performed like that cheap little Nikon for low ISO IQ!
If V8 Beast had such a camera, he could simplify his shooting by being able to leave some of those reflectors in the van.
If LTRLI has such a camera, he wouldn't have to spend as much time as he does on this board writing about it.
And I would spend less time on this site reading about it. Oh, wait. I have the D5100! I'm going to go use it!

 

[V8Beast]

That you two are still arguing around this point puzzles me greatly. You both have valid arguments and understand the limitations of the equipment. From my point of view, you both are in agreement, even if it's from different perspectives.

I have no beef with LetTheRightLensIn. Anyone who can tolerate my bad jokes on the internet if cool in my book Seriously, though, he makes some good points even if we have to agree to disagree on other points.

I wish I had a FF Canon body that performed like that cheap little Nikon for low ISO IQ!
If V8 Beast had such a camera, he could simplify his shooting by being able to leave some of those reflectors in the van.

Nonsense. I quite enjoy trying to train an assistant on how to catch the sun at the correct angle with a reflector without having it get blown away in the wind Good times.

 

[briansquibb]

I am getting bored with the endless discussions about theoretical dr.

The only important matter is the image that is created at the end of pp

The difference between 12 and 14 stop DR is irrelevant to the vast majority of large prints that come from the camera capture. The difference is only really apparent when the image is played with.

 

[Aglet]

I am getting bored with the endless discussions about theoretical dr.

At the risk of being repetitive, it's not theoretical.

The difference is only really apparent when the image is played with.

Then maybe you're either not pushing your gear or your compositions to where these problems become evident?

Some of us do, and we're finding the limitations disappointing compared to the competition's products.

 

[Alker]

I am getting bored with the endless discussions about theoretical dr.

At the risk of being repetitive, it's not theoretical.

The difference is only really apparent when the image is played with.

Then maybe you're either not pushing your gear or your compositions to where these problems become evident?

Some of us do, and we're finding the limitations disappointing compared to the competition's products.

Show us !!!!!'
Show us any Nikon picture which a canon DSLR cannot do.
Please please stop this DR saga.

 

[briansquibb]

Are you getting 14 stop DR at the moment?

 

[jrista]

I am getting bored with the endless discussions about theoretical dr.

At the risk of being repetitive, it's not theoretical.

Actually, it is theoretical, and subjective at that. That is the "print" DR, one of DXO's most subjective measurements (although it is still more "accurate" than step wedge measurements from DPR). From a technical standpoint, a 14-bit sensor can only provide 14 stops of DR from a mathematical standpoint (every additional bit is a doubling of the numeric space over the previous bit, same as every "stop" of aperture, shutter, or ISO setting is a "doubling"....so 14 bits effectively limits you to 14 stops of DR.)

The screen (native RAW) DR of the D800 is 13.23, and seems to be right on the mark and entirely valid. The print DR is a bit of a curiosity, and I wish DXO would explain that value a bit more, as exactly how they achieve that number becomes much more meaningful if its possible to extract MORE DR than the camera is physically capable of with post processing (or better, simply downscaling to "8x12 print size".) Reducing contrast can technically increase DR while lowering tonal fidelity, but thats not exactly the same thing (and I certainly hope DXO is not doing something like that with their print DR measurements...that would really kind of invalidate them.) If it is possible to extract more DR than the sensor itself is capable of, then we should be able to do the same thing with Canon raw images...yet...DXO numbers don't seem to indicate that (at least, not anywhere close to what they seem to be claiming is possible with Nikon raw images.)

@LetTheRightLensIn:

I don't really mean to be insulting, however I've just been reading threads in the background for almost a week now, and every time I come across one of your posts, its always the same thing: whining and complaining about a couple stops of DR at one ISO setting (maybe two if you account for ISO 200, as at ISO 400 you can't get much more than about 12 stops regardless, and even on Sony sensors its around 11.7). Gets really old after a while, especially when you largely agree (yes, I DO want better DR), but realize the complaining is mostly ineffectual here at CR...its just antagonistic at this point (when people would much prefer to ENJOY their shiny new 5D III, not hear about how it might possibly be incomparably inferior.)

If you really want to CHANGE things, you gotta bark up the right tree. CR forums is not exactly a big time Canon rep hangout, its more the hangout of antsy trawlers looking for news about the next canon gear release, and a few tech heads who like to spout technical specifications and math every so often. I don't fault you for trying to light a fire under Canon's collective ass and get them to improve DR...your just in the wrong place. I don't think they are really going to hear you from here. If you want to be effective, if you want to be a voice that is heard over the noise of rumormongering...i.e. if you want your SNR relative to the average Canon chatter to be clearly and audibly above the noise floor...you should find the right official Canon forum and make your voice heard there. At least then, your jihad against Canon DR limitations might actually produce a valuable outcome.

 

[Aglet]

Are you getting 14 stop DR at the moment?

I doubt I'd get anywhere near 14 usable stops, even with the best SoNikon has to offer.
But it should provide me with more shadow pushing ability than Canon product in some images shot at base ISO.

I just bought this little Nikon toy a couple weeks ago, so don't have the shots from it I've accumulated with years of shooting with Canon. But I'm very much looking forward to putting it to the test to see what it can do and how it compares! Running a studio test shot is, for now, likely the best option I'll have availble for direct and controlled comparison.

Show us !!!!!'
Show us any Nikon picture which a canon DSLR cannot do.
Please please stop this DR saga.

I would LOVE to stop this saga.
What would it take to convince people?

I think that the best way to stop the low iso DR argument is to have a good smackdown set of results to show the difference.

If I can put up some test shots comparing a Nikon body to one from Canon that will show the difference in final image quality that's possible in post-processing, would that be useful?

I don't know if you've seen a recent posting of mine on another thread here but I've been working on gathering raw files from various cameras. I now have files from 12 or more cameras. Mostly Canon, a couple Nikon. These files are simply DARK shots, no images at this time.

My intent is to exhibit the differences in dark noise levels and also the subjective quality of the dark noise in a very bold manner; by pushing the exposure in post to bring up the dark levels so they are clearly visible.
This kind of push is more than I'd do in normal, even extreme, levels of post on actual images but the end result is you will see that it takes a few more stops of push before the noise levels from some sensors matches what's coming from those other sensors. You'll also be able to see the different types of noise quality, and how it could impair an image if you have to push the shadow areas too far.

I've been working at this for about a month, it'll take a while longer for me to compile it all and make it presentable.
If you have some suggestions of what you'd like to see from it, send me a message and I'll try to accomodate it if it makes sense to do so.

All I can say in summary at this time, it's been quite an eye-opener!

Although I was initially quite miffed with banding from my 5D2, smack in the midtones of a normally exposed image no less, it's improved considerably, likely from firmware updates and better NR in post software. I can use the camera now.

My 7D, however, sometimes vexes me with strong banding - but not consistently.

Let me know what you shoot with, I'll see if I can get dark files from the same model to compare as well.


@ jrista

Agreed, all the DR squawkin goin' on here is not likely to make much of a ripple where it counts, the engineering department in Japan. I've had some good chats with smart people at Canon's service call center, and things have been fixed, altho it did take nearly a year in one instance and it's still not totally resolved. (a problem with a bug in DPP's internal tone curves which only affects Digic 4 EOS bodies)

However, if I can put up some material to show the differences in sensor dark noise, as they can actually affect an image, I'm happy to do so for educational purposes. And a thank-you in advance for anyone willing to contribute to the effort.

I've got too much invested to slam Canon for this shortcoming, unhappy as I may be that it still exists while the competitors are making improvements. I like using Canon gear. I'd prefer not to have to invest in another platform. But I like using the best tool for the job instead of compromising. The research I've been doing has showed me how some of my tools are not as good for certain jobs as some other tools are.

And knowledge itself is a mighty useful tool.

 

[briansquibb]

I think we all know that the 7D hasn't got the best IQ in the world - it is a consumer sports camera. The pro models are a different kettle of fish.

Perhaps the DPP issue you refer to would explain why the image from my 1Ds3 is better than my 5D2.