Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[hbr]

I remember reading a few years ago that many wedding photographers with 5D3s were buying the 6D as a cheaper second body.
Not sure, but I think a lot of them did.

 

[LonelyBoy]

This is why I didn't say "the 6D2 cannot be used for weddings". Canon, though, I do not believe intended it for use for weddings, nor any other "serious professional" use. Which rather agrees with your second sentence, but is a point that bears repeating for all the people who said "why would Canon put just a single card slot on a professional camera?".

But they did put two slots in their professional cameras. 6D II is not one of professionals camera

Plenty of professionals have used the 6D and plenty will use the 6D MKII

Sure, but they will still be professionals using a camera, which is not intended for professional use. It's up to them obviously and marketing segmentation is rather arteficial, but the point is still valid.

A pro uses the appropriate tool for the task(s) at hand.... it does not always mean that the most expensive camera is the right tool. Sometimes you use a tool like a GoPro because of its superior sealing or tiny size, sometimes you use a camera that is disposable ( Ford does not mount a series of 1DX2s in a car for crash testing) Sometimes budget constraints restrict your choices....

Pro designation is marketing.....

It can also be design intention. If Canon is whitesheeting the 5D5 and says "this is a pro camera, we're going to put pro feature X on it", but they're whitesheeting the 6D3 and say "this is a FF Rebel, we're going to leave X off to save money", it's not an inaccuracy to describe the 6D3 as "not pro", at least for Canon's classification.

Pros can use Rebels too, but that doesn't mean that's what it's intended for.

 

[Cthulhu]

Whenever someone criticizes Canon he always there with his market arguments that Canon must be doing something right since they have market share.

This is false. He (and others) object to bad criticisms of Canon gear. You might wonder what's the difference between good and bad criticisms, so here's a simple rule of thumb: if you talk about your particular needs, wants, budget, hopes, etc. then it's generally legitimate. If you try to assert that you are representative of the full market for DSLR gear then that's not legitimate criticism. So if you limit your criticisms to your own situation I'll bet the Canon poltergeist Neuro will leave you alone.

Oh, thanks for informing me of what is "legitimate criticism" SMH...

Do you think it's legitimate for you to speak on behalf of other people whom you've never met? If so, then I SMH...

You're going to be doing that one way or the other if you want to talk about the camera market, I just have no interest in doing it from a fanboy perspective.

 

[unfocused]

Whenever someone criticizes Canon he always there with his market arguments that Canon must be doing something right since they have market share.

This is false. He (and others) object to bad criticisms of Canon gear. You might wonder what's the difference between good and bad criticisms, so here's a simple rule of thumb: if you talk about your particular needs, wants, budget, hopes, etc. then it's generally legitimate. If you try to assert that you are representative of the full market for DSLR gear then that's not legitimate criticism. So if you limit your criticisms to your own situation I'll bet the Canon poltergeist Neuro will leave you alone.

Oh, thanks for informing me of what is "legitimate criticism" SMH...

Do you think it's legitimate for you to speak on behalf of other people whom you've never met? If so, then I SMH...

You're going to be doing that one way or the other if you want to talk about the camera market, I just have no interest in doing it from a fanboy perspective.

I love it when people throw around the phrase "fanboy," like it is some huge insult.

If you are going to invest thousands of dollars in anything, you darn well should be a fan. In fact, what I can't figure out are the people who spend thousands on equipment they don't like. That just seems stupid to me. I've been a fan of Canon since the late 1970s, when I got a job as a newspaper photographer and bought an F1, an AT1 and a basic four lens kit, which at the time was way cheaper than Nikon (I was able to buy an extra lens with the savings).

I've stayed with Canon because it consistently meets my needs and does so today. I own an embarrassingly large amount of equipment but I certainly don't feel trapped. I love the equipment and I love what it helps me do. Although, I'm mature enough to know that no camera is going to make me a good photographer and I don't blame the camera for my own shortcomings. So yeah, I'm a fanboy (although I'm way past boyhood).

What makes me scratch my head are the people on this forum who are so filled with insecurity or self-loathing that feel compelled to come on this site and whine when Canon doesn't make exactly the toy they want. Wah...Wah...Wah.

And yes, pointing out that Canon dominates the market is relevant because it is a bottom line measurement of customer satisfaction and popularity. Well...at least for most people...I guess the ones who object are also those who go out and buy gear they don't like, rather than take responsibility for their own decisions.

 

[Orangutan]

Do you think it's legitimate for you to speak on behalf of other people whom you've never met? If so, then I SMH...

You're going to be doing that one way or the other if you want to talk about the camera market, I just have no interest in doing it from a fanboy perspective.

Not necessarily: rather than attempt to guess what "the market" wants based on the needs of people we know, we can look at what people actually buy. You can look at CIPA numbers, Amazon rankings, profitability. None of these is perfect, but I'd rather have imperfect understanding based on external/objective information than to have a more imperfect understanding based highly subjective information.

 

[Cthulhu]

Do you think it's legitimate for you to speak on behalf of other people whom you've never met? If so, then I SMH...

You're going to be doing that one way or the other if you want to talk about the camera market, I just have no interest in doing it from a fanboy perspective.

Not necessarily: rather than attempt to guess what "the market" wants based on the needs of people we know, we can look at what people actually buy. You can look at CIPA numbers, Amazon rankings, profitability. None of these is perfect, but I'd rather have imperfect understanding based on external/objective information than to have a more imperfect understanding based highly subjective information.

Well if consumption is your gauge than the iphone is the best camera in the world and you can't eat a better burger than mcdonalds.
Also Justin Bieber is a musical genius and we have come full circle...

Judging market wishes by consumption is also faulty in numerous ways, the market doesn't want a buggy version of windows that bsods randomly, but it consumes it in droves. It wants an iphone with a headphone jack and an macbook with usb ports, but buys them without them in record numbers.

 

[Aglet]

Do you think it's legitimate for you to speak on behalf of other people whom you've never met? If so, then I SMH...

You're going to be doing that one way or the other if you want to talk about the camera market, I just have no interest in doing it from a fanboy perspective.

Not necessarily: rather than attempt to guess what "the market" wants based on the needs of people we know, we can look at what people actually buy. You can look at CIPA numbers, Amazon rankings, profitability. None of these is perfect, but I'd rather have imperfect understanding based on external/objective information than to have a more imperfect understanding based highly subjective information.

Well if consumption is your gauge than the iphone is the best camera in the world and you can't eat a better burger than mcdonalds.
Also Justin Bieber is a musical genius and we have come full circle...

Judging market wishes by consumption is also faulty in numerous ways, the market doesn't want a buggy version of windows that bsods randomly, but it consumes it in droves. It wants an iphone with a headphone jack and an macbook with usb ports, but buys them without them in record numbers.

I like how your brought that around like that.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Well if consumption is your gauge than the iphone is the best camera in the world and you can't eat a better burger than mcdonalds.
Also Justin Bieber is a musical genius and we have come full circle...

Judging market wishes by consumption is also faulty in numerous ways, the market doesn't want a buggy version of windows that bsods randomly, but it consumes it in droves. It wants an iphone with a headphone jack and an macbook with usb ports, but buys them without them in record numbers.

If your Windows BSODs randomly, figure out what your issue is. Windows has been quite stable since Windows 2000, unless you have bad hardware or malware.

We, by the way, have not come full circle; you've just repeated your Bieber argument. You really think that just wins it for you, don't you?

 

[Orangutan]

Do you think it's legitimate for you to speak on behalf of other people whom you've never met? If so, then I SMH...

You're going to be doing that one way or the other if you want to talk about the camera market, I just have no interest in doing it from a fanboy perspective.

Not necessarily: rather than attempt to guess what "the market" wants based on the needs of people we know, we can look at what people actually buy. You can look at CIPA numbers, Amazon rankings, profitability. None of these is perfect, but I'd rather have imperfect understanding based on external/objective information than to have a more imperfect understanding based highly subjective information.

Well if consumption is your gauge than the iphone is the best camera in the world and you can't eat a better burger than mcdonalds.

Again, I think you're missing the point: as with biological evolution, there is no simple characteristic of "better," there is only "more suitable for a particular purpose." In your example, an iPhone need not have the best camera in the world, it need only be a device whose overall utility the user considers worth choosing over the others. Same with burger chains: they don't need to have the "best" food, but simply be cheap, fast and ubiquitous.

Going back to what I believe is your point, if you want a top-quality sensor, and other aspects of the camera are of little importance, then go medium format. Of course, they're more expensive, less portable, slower, have smaller selection of lenses and accessories, but you'll get the best picture.

"Best" simply doesn't exist; what exists is "meets my needs and budget."

 

[bdunbar79]

Do you think it's legitimate for you to speak on behalf of other people whom you've never met? If so, then I SMH...

You're going to be doing that one way or the other if you want to talk about the camera market, I just have no interest in doing it from a fanboy perspective.

Not necessarily: rather than attempt to guess what "the market" wants based on the needs of people we know, we can look at what people actually buy. You can look at CIPA numbers, Amazon rankings, profitability. None of these is perfect, but I'd rather have imperfect understanding based on external/objective information than to have a more imperfect understanding based highly subjective information.

Well if consumption is your gauge than the iphone is the best camera in the world and you can't eat a better burger than mcdonalds.
Also Justin Bieber is a musical genius and we have come full circle...

Judging market wishes by consumption is also faulty in numerous ways, the market doesn't want a buggy version of windows that bsods randomly, but it consumes it in droves. It wants an iphone with a headphone jack and an macbook with usb ports, but buys them without them in record numbers.

Hmmm. Wonder why then, despite all of the choices of cameras out there today, Canon still sells way more than the other companies? Nobody is saying for instance that the 6D is the best FF camera. But it sure as heck was the top selling FF camera. Wonder why that is? Maybe for the price it met the needs of those who purchased it? I'm guessing people entering FF for the first time don't give a rats behind about low ISO DR. Maybe they just want a camera that works, has a great lens selection behind it, and has great service behind those products. That seems to be the greater point that for some unknown reason, you cannot or will not understand. Nobody is saying the 6D2 is the best camera ever. The point you can't get is that its target audience doesn't care at all about the issues like low ISO DR or 4k video or a single card slot. It's not targeted at professional wedding or sports photographers. They'll sell like hotcakes.

 

[scyrene]

Do you think it's legitimate for you to speak on behalf of other people whom you've never met? If so, then I SMH...

You're going to be doing that one way or the other if you want to talk about the camera market, I just have no interest in doing it from a fanboy perspective.

Not necessarily: rather than attempt to guess what "the market" wants based on the needs of people we know, we can look at what people actually buy. You can look at CIPA numbers, Amazon rankings, profitability. None of these is perfect, but I'd rather have imperfect understanding based on external/objective information than to have a more imperfect understanding based highly subjective information.

Well if consumption is your gauge than the iphone is the best camera in the world and you can't eat a better burger than mcdonalds.

Again, I think you're missing the point: as with biological evolution, there is no simple characteristic of "better," there is only "more suitable for a particular purpose." In your example, an iPhone need not have the best camera in the world, it need only be a device whose overall utility the user considers worth choosing over the others. Same with burger chains: they don't need to have the "best" food, but simply be cheap, fast and ubiquitous.

Going back to what I believe is your point, if you want a top-quality sensor, and other aspects of the camera are of little importance, then go medium format. Of course, they're more expensive, less portable, slower, have smaller selection of lenses and accessories, but you'll get the best picture.

"Best" simply doesn't exist; what exists is "meets my needs and budget."

It's clear from the preceding, amusing discussion about music that Cthulhu believes in objective good and bad - and it seems he believes that his tastes are objectively good, so he can speak with authority (and all the millions who vote with their feet or wallets otherwise are idiots, misled, or masochistic) : : :

Cthulhu for avoidance of doubt, once again: there is NO SUCH THING as objectively 'good' or 'bad' in almost any area of life. There are only *subjective* judgments made by each person. And guess what - people differ on what they think is good and bad! I can hardly imagine how closeted a life you must lead for this to be news to you, but there you go.

 

[stevelee]

So what I have got out of this discussion so far was that if Arnold Schoenberg had looked cuter in his underwear, the masses would be listening to rather different music now.

 

[Cthulhu]

So what I have got out of this discussion so far was that if Arnold Schoenberg had looked cuter in his underwear, the masses would be listening to rather different music now.

Exactly.

And that if you compare Bieber and McDonalds to canon you can trigger a good number of CR contributors into defending utter garbage.

 

[jeffa4444]

This is why I didn't say "the 6D2 cannot be used for weddings". Canon, though, I do not believe intended it for use for weddings, nor any other "serious professional" use. Which rather agrees with your second sentence, but is a point that bears repeating for all the people who said "why would Canon put just a single card slot on a professional camera?".

But they did put two slots in their professional cameras. 6D II is not one of professionals camera

Plenty of professionals have used the 6D and plenty will use the 6D MKII

Sure, but they will still be professionals using a camera, which is not intended for professional use. It's up to them obviously and marketing segmentation is rather arteficial, but the point is still valid.

A pro uses the appropriate tool for the task(s) at hand.... it does not always mean that the most expensive camera is the right tool. Sometimes you use a tool like a GoPro because of its superior sealing or tiny size, sometimes you use a camera that is disposable ( Ford does not mount a series of 1DX2s in a car for crash testing) Sometimes budget constraints restrict your choices....

Pro designation is marketing.....

It can also be design intention. If Canon is whitesheeting the 5D5 and says "this is a pro camera, we're going to put pro feature X on it", but they're whitesheeting the 6D3 and say "this is a FF Rebel, we're going to leave X off to save money", it's not an inaccuracy to describe the 6D3 as "not pro", at least for Canon's classification.

Pros can use Rebels too, but that doesn't mean that's what it's intended for.

We supply equipment for some pretty big movies in fact the biggest and Ive seen everything from GoPros to Panasonic GH4 etc. used along with Arri Alexa SXT cameras. Right tool for the right job professionals would say its about the images not how or with what you got them with if we took the logic your suggesting literally a Canon C300 MKII would NEVER be used over say a Red 6K Dragon or an Alexa XT because it would not be "professional enough".

 

[IglooEater]

Well if consumption is your gauge than the iphone is the best camera in the world and you can't eat a better burger than mcdonalds.
Also Justin Bieber is a musical genius and we have come full circle...

Judging market wishes by consumption is also faulty in numerous ways, the market doesn't want a buggy version of windows that bsods randomly, but it consumes it in droves. It wants an iphone with a headphone jack and an macbook with usb ports, but buys them without them in record numbers.

If your Windows BSODs randomly, figure out what your issue is. Windows has been quite stable since Windows 2000, unless you have bad hardware or malware.

We, by the way, have not come full circle; you've just repeated your Bieber argument. You really think that just wins it for you, don't you?

The 95s and 98s I worked with were plenty stable. I've heard otherwise regarding XP, and especially Vista.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's clear from the preceding, amusing discussion about music that Cthulhu believes in objective good and bad - and it seems he believes that his tastes are objectively good, so he can speak with authority (and all the millions who vote with their feet or wallets otherwise are idiots, misled, or masochistic) : : :

Cthulhu for avoidance of doubt, once again: there is NO SUCH THING as objectively 'good' or 'bad' in almost any area of life. There are only *subjective* judgments made by each person. And guess what - people differ on what they think is good and bad! I can hardly imagine how closeted a life you must lead for this to be news to you, but there you go.

Scyrene, your post is good.

 

[Mikehit]

Hi Jeffa,
when you project images using that 4K projector, do you upscale them to the same 53ft screen size? if so, then 50 Mpix 5Ds/R images get upscaled to a lesser degree than, say 30 Mpix images of 5D IV. what it does mean is that when you view 5DsR images at the same screen size as 5D IV images you do get approx. 30% advantage (√50/30).
therefore even if at pixel level 5D IV images are 10% sharper, the projected / on screen viewed 5DsR images woul look sharper and not by a small ammount.

however, if you were to crop (not downscale) 50 Mpix 5DsR image to 30 Mpix size ( approx. 30% each side), and than project the resulting image and compare with uncropped 5D IV image, then you will notice a substantial sharpness advantage ov the 5D IV image over the 5DsR image.

to put this pixel sharpness difference into perspective:

An1850 Focal units sharp AFMA adjusted lens, would typicaly perform at 1700 unit sharpness level when is out of tune by +/- (5-7) AFMA points.

lets look at the bright side:

1. New generation Canon on-chip ADC sensors in 80D and 5D IV exibit improved sharpness at the pixel level. There is a very good chance that 7D III and 5DsR II sensor will be much, much shaper at pixel the level than their predecessors. that will result in even sharper on screen or large printed images. you should be able to print even larger or crop more whilst maintaining the same level of sharpness. what is not to like?

2. Canon 80D / 5D IV on-chip ADC sensors are equally sharp or slightly sharper at the pixel level than Sony flagship A9 or Nikon D750 (compared at ISO 100).

What is the point in pixel level sharpness reviews?
We shoot a CIPA high resolution chart using an even field illuminated sphere and project images using a 4K projector on a screen with a 53ft diagonal. Of DSLRs the 5DS / 5DSr give the sharpest images using a CN-E 85mm T1.3.
We will test the 6D MKII and see how it stacks up.

But that is a false comparison. What you are describing here is a cropped 5DSR image vs an uncropped 5DIV image. If I was wanting a picture of the Matterhorn from a certain perspective, I would take the picture from the same position with the same lens on both bodies. I would not take an image with a 5DSR using a wider lens so when I cropped it to the same FOV as the 5DIV I would compare the images. I am interested in both cameras under the same circumstances.

Therefore, in real world use, if you gave me the pixel level sharpness reading and the MP count of both cameras I would only be able to predict which gave the sharper image if one of those variables was the same on both models (but that is not allowing for noise differences and that has a huge influence). In other words the pixel level sharpness tells me zip. The sharpness of the output tells me everything I need to know.

You have measured pixel level sharpness in the 1890 region. Can you tell me what measurement another camera would have to have to be subjectively sharper? 1900? 1920? 1950? 2200?

 

[LonelyBoy]

Well if consumption is your gauge than the iphone is the best camera in the world and you can't eat a better burger than mcdonalds.
Also Justin Bieber is a musical genius and we have come full circle...

Judging market wishes by consumption is also faulty in numerous ways, the market doesn't want a buggy version of windows that bsods randomly, but it consumes it in droves. It wants an iphone with a headphone jack and an macbook with usb ports, but buys them without them in record numbers.

If your Windows BSODs randomly, figure out what your issue is. Windows has been quite stable since Windows 2000, unless you have bad hardware or malware.

We, by the way, have not come full circle; you've just repeated your Bieber argument. You really think that just wins it for you, don't you?

The 95s and 98s I worked with were plenty stable. I've heard otherwise regarding XP, and especially Vista.

XP? Seriously? XP was worshipped so hard I still know people who swear by it (and, scarily, run it). Vista had issues, but not BSOD issues. 95 and 98, the old 16-bit (partly) codebase, had issues and gained more over the life of an installation. I have never, ever, had 2000, XP, 7, 8, or 10 (the full 32-bit NT kernel) BSOD without an identifiable hardware or software issue to be resolved. The same things that affect Linux and Macs.

 

[LonelyBoy]

So what I have got out of this discussion so far was that if Arnold Schoenberg had looked cuter in his underwear, the masses would be listening to rather different music now.

Exactly.

And that if you compare Bieber and McDonalds to canon you can trigger a good number of CR contributors into defending utter garbage.

Are we defending the product, or defending Canon's business decision? If they make money, they've succeeded, just like Bieber and McDonald's.

Eff it, I love my GX460. The ES350 is a piece of crap sold to clueless masses who would be better served by a Camry (or better yet, Accord), but that doesn't mean I call all of Lexus crap. They just sell some products for my needs and some for other people's needs.

 

[Don Haines]

Eff it, I love my GX460. The ES350 is a piece of crap sold to clueless masses who would be better served by a Camry (or better yet, Accord), but that doesn't mean I call all of Lexus crap. They just sell some products for my needs and some for other people's needs.

None of them come with a decent roof rack that caries two canoes, or good tie-down points, or a class 3 trailer hitch, and since those are my needs, it indicates that Lexus is DOOMED!!!!!!