Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[Aglet]

I have a little 'cheat sheet' for scientific publications that helps lay folks interpret what standard phrasing really means.

thanks for confirming you are a trained as a professional BS artist LOL

 

[arbitrage]

If I could put money on it, I'd be laying down a lot on the bet that these early RAWs will turn out to be an exact representation of the production, consumer bought sensor. I will have no problem and be happy for potential 6D2 customers if somehow the DR is up to 5D4 levels.

I believe you will see returned units if its turn out to be true.

I feel somewhat bad for the 6D owners who sold their cameras anticipating an upgrade.

I still think the 6D2 will be a decent upgrade from the 6D. If one was really looking for DR and high-ISO noise improvements then obviously it won't be anymore. But otherwise one will be getting way better AF module including f/8 AF if needed. Flip screen is useful, I really liked it on my 80D but mostly because I could flip it over and protect the screen when in my bag. Other improvements and features that have been brought into the entire Canon line over the past 5 years.

But I do agree if all these early tests turn out to be true then it is a disappointment compared to expectations (including my own) but will still be a nice little FF camera. IMO the price is too high based on these results but so is 5D4 and I ended up buying that.

 

[privatebydesign]

Private,
You are absolutely correct in all what you said. ND grads never worked 100% for me. There is not enough flexibility. I am not going to repeat all you have as you ar speaking from a solid, robust experience.
However, let me explain how I understand the situation:
Jopa enjoying the process. This what he is doing photography for. Hence loves his toys. Which is perfectly fine.
And for you getting from point A to point be in a most efficient and timely manner is utmost important since you are after results. Process is less important to you. Which is understandable again.
So let boys play with their toys and enjoy the process.
The passion for photography is what we all have in common and this is great.

^^ This. This for days. ^^

Why we shoot, what we shoot and how we shoot rarely devolves down to a single best practice. Some folks are output driven, other folks are complexity driven, process driven, gear driven, efficiency driven, etc. and I've learned it's best to respect those differences.

- A

Obviously I agree, which is why I started the body of my reply with "Do what you want, I don't care, and I hope you have fun doing it" and included "you take what you want with whatever you want however you want". It seems 90% of the time here people aren't even interested in the words written they just want to pick a fight with whichever poster is getting on their nerves.

 

[x-vision]

Funny how people get so defensive when negative news comes out and doubt everything, seeing conspiracies everywhere. If these results showed 5D4 DR everyone would be raving about it, no one would be saying the RAWs are fake, the RAWs are preproduction, the RAWs are from a prototype sensor or what else.

+1000

If I could put money on it, I'd be laying down a lot on the bet that these early RAWs will turn out to be an exact representation of the production, consumer bought sensor.

Exactly.

The production cameras will not show 1.5 EV stops better DR vs these pre-production RAW files.
So, when DxO does their thing, they will simply reiterate these results (within the margin of error).

Sorry for those who feel disappointed (myself included) - but what we are seeing is the real thing.

As I said in another post:
By the look of things, the 6DII sensor uses the the same sensor tech as the 5DS(R) and 7DII.
These are newer designs (vs the 5DIII and 6D) - and yet, they don't have on-sensor ADCs.

No idea why Canon went with the older sensor tech; most likely because it is somehow more cost-effective for them.

 

[SecureGSM]

I am sorry if I did harm your feelings, my intention was just a friendly ( the key word) conversation rather than fight. My undestanding is that majority of forum users (trolls aside) are here for a simple reason: to share photographic knowledge, skills and experience with like minded individuals.

Private,
You are absolutely correct in all what you said. ND grads never worked 100% for me. There is not enough flexibility. I am not going to repeat all you have as you ar speaking from a solid, robust experience.
However, let me explain how I understand the situation:
Jopa enjoying the process. This what he is doing photography for. Hence loves his toys. Which is perfectly fine.
And for you getting from point A to point be in a most efficient and timely manner is utmost important since you are after results. Process is less important to you. Which is understandable again.
So let boys play with their toys and enjoy the process.
The passion for photography is what we all have in common and this is great.

^^ This. This for days. ^^

Why we shoot, what we shoot and how we shoot rarely devolves down to a single best practice. Some folks are output driven, other folks are complexity driven, process driven, gear driven, efficiency driven, etc. and I've learned it's best to respect those differences.

- A

Obviously I agree, which is why I started the body of my reply with "Do what you want, I don't care, and I hope you have fun doing it" and included "you take what you want with whatever you want however you want". It seems 90% of the time here people aren't even interested in the words written they just want to pick a fight with whichever poster is getting on their nerves.

 

[Luds34]

And my DR concerns come mostly with church interiors when I travel,

...

If you guys have cameras that can do that or better in one shot, I'm impressed.

'One shot HDR' inside of churches becomes this 'how much can I abuse this RAW shadows/highlights sliders' sort of exercise. It's a bad habit, but, sometimes yours truly [cough] a friend I know has been known to do it. :

If you are shooting handheld, FF will get you more dynamic range at the higher ISOs you'll probably be using in low lit interiors. But as ajfotofilmagem said, no camera I can think of can one-shot churches perfectly -- it's an absurdly difficult ask of any camera's latitude. So I'd peg FF as a 1-2 stop better helper, but not a silver bullet.

Given that, I'd honestly take the T3i + a tripod over the 6D2 without one in this unique instance, but I appreciate that's rarely allowed for these venues.

- A

I don't want to disagree with ajfotofilmagem either, in my experience he knows his stuff. I agree with what was said... However, playing a bit of devil's advocate (and agreeing with ahsanford that there are less perfect ways) it does depend on the church and the outside lighting at the time. That shot looks like was probably a mid, bright, sunny day. Amazing what even cloud cover can do. It's not always easy, allowed, convenient to shoot an HDR shot done "right". Heck, I just came back from France and the nature of the trip was more run and gun, family snapshot photography. So if you can't "do it right" a good full frame camera with "as good as it gets" DR may just be enough to pull shadows and recover highlights to make a single shot work. Maybe not in this particular case, but for sure it can get the job done in some cases. I tooks shots inside at least 3 churches/cathedrals on this recent France trip with a crop sensor (Fuji Xtrans II) and was able to come away with a few usable shots.

 

[privatebydesign]

I am sorry if I did harm your feelings, my intention was just a friendly ( the key word) conversation rather than fight. My undestanding is that majority of forum users (trolls aside) are here for a simple reason: to share photographic knowledge, skills and experience with like minded individuals.

Private,
You are absolutely correct in all what you said. ND grads never worked 100% for me. There is not enough flexibility. I am not going to repeat all you have as you ar speaking from a solid, robust experience.
However, let me explain how I understand the situation:
Jopa enjoying the process. This what he is doing photography for. Hence loves his toys. Which is perfectly fine.
And for you getting from point A to point be in a most efficient and timely manner is utmost important since you are after results. Process is less important to you. Which is understandable again.
So let boys play with their toys and enjoy the process.
The passion for photography is what we all have in common and this is great.

^^ This. This for days. ^^

Why we shoot, what we shoot and how we shoot rarely devolves down to a single best practice. Some folks are output driven, other folks are complexity driven, process driven, gear driven, efficiency driven, etc. and I've learned it's best to respect those differences.

- A

Obviously I agree, which is why I started the body of my reply with "Do what you want, I don't care, and I hope you have fun doing it" and included "you take what you want with whatever you want however you want". It seems 90% of the time here people aren't even interested in the words written they just want to pick a fight with whichever poster is getting on their nerves.

No apology needed, your comments were on point and relevant and I thank you for them. I wasn't directing my reply to yours.

I felt the same way about this place, the idea was to share experience and knowledge, but it seems people are so close minded and dismissive of people who actually have experience, and actual experience seems to be in very short supply

I am an inveterate traveler and well know the joy is generally in the journey. But one thing that disappoints me in looking back at old images of mine taken during my photographic journey is the relative inexperience I had and the frustration at taking images I never can again but are flawed for so many reasons.

Oh well, back to DR arguments I suppose.

 

[privatebydesign]

And my DR concerns come mostly with church interiors when I travel,

...

If you guys have cameras that can do that or better in one shot, I'm impressed.

'One shot HDR' inside of churches becomes this 'how much can I abuse this RAW shadows/highlights sliders' sort of exercise. It's a bad habit, but, sometimes yours truly [cough] a friend I know has been known to do it. :

If you are shooting handheld, FF will get you more dynamic range at the higher ISOs you'll probably be using in low lit interiors. But as ajfotofilmagem said, no camera I can think of can one-shot churches perfectly -- it's an absurdly difficult ask of any camera's latitude. So I'd peg FF as a 1-2 stop better helper, but not a silver bullet.

Given that, I'd honestly take the T3i + a tripod over the 6D2 without one in this unique instance, but I appreciate that's rarely allowed for these venues.

- A

I don't want to disagree with ajfotofilmagem either, in my experience he knows his stuff. I agree with what was said... However, playing a bit of devil's advocate (and agreeing with ahsanford that there are less perfect ways) it does depend on the church and the outside lighting at the time. That shot looks like was probably a mid, bright, sunny day. Amazing what even cloud cover can do. It's not always easy, allowed, convenient to shoot an HDR shot done "right". Heck, I just came back from France and the nature of the trip was more run and gun, family snapshot photography. So if you can't "do it right" a good full frame camera with "as good as it gets" DR may just be enough to pull shadows and recover highlights to make a single shot work. Maybe not in this particular case, but for sure it can get the job done in some cases. I tooks shots inside at least 3 churches/cathedrals on this recent France trip with a crop sensor (Fuji Xtrans II) and was able to come away with a few usable shots.

It depends entirely on the difference between the interior and exterior light levels, if it is bright sun shining directly through the windows nothing short of a NASA camera will do it. If, however, there are some lights inside and it is cloudy and overcaste outside then the scene will fall within the range of a single shot.

 

[Jopa]

Obviously I agree, which is why I started the body of my reply with "Do what you want, I don't care, and I hope you have fun doing it" and included "you take what you want with whatever you want however you want". It seems 90% of the time here people aren't even interested in the words written they just want to pick a fight with whichever poster is getting on their nerves.

Pick a fight? Good trolling pal! Here is how you started your friendly conversation:

They suck 95% of the time they are inflexible and have several severe limitations, put the fact that blending gives a much better result 95% of the time and they look like a very poor investment.

People interested in knockout landscape images are far better spending $20-40 on a blending program/plugin than three to ten times that on ND grads.

I felt the same way about this place, the idea was to share experience and knowledge, but it seems people are so close minded and dismissive of people who actually have experience, and actual experience seems to be in very short supply

My open-minded friend, why would you think anybody would listen to your expert advise, if nobody ever saw your work? Yes, yes, I know, you're probably too busy working with blending plugins in PhotoShop and trolling on CR, so you can't post anything, right?

 

[SecureGSM]

Oleg, Private expressed rather an opinion and shared his personal experience. It could be of some value or not for yourself or other (less experienced) forum members. It is only an opinion. I feel that you have over reacted. Probably you may like to reconsider?
BTW, nice shot, my friend. And finally, see the image attached.

 

[Mikehit]

I have a little 'cheat sheet' for scientific publications that helps lay folks interpret what standard phrasing really means.

thanks for confirming you are a trained as a professional BS artist LOL

Speaking as a scientist I found it quite accurate.

 

[AlanF]

I have a little 'cheat sheet' for scientific publications that helps lay folks interpret what standard phrasing really means.

thanks for confirming you are a trained as a professional BS artist LOL

Speaking as a scientist I found it quite accurate.

None of those phrases would be allowed a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal without citations to back them up. To be fair to Claff, he explicitly stated that he is likely to be underestimating the DR in preliminary experiments, a caveat that I take to be in his favour.

 

[soloyc]

I have a little 'cheat sheet' for scientific publications that helps lay folks interpret what standard phrasing really means.

thanks for confirming you are a trained as a professional BS artist LOL

Speaking as a scientist I found it quite accurate.

None of those phrases would be allowed a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal without citations to back them up. To be fair to Claff, he explicitly stated that he is likely to be underestimating the DR in preliminary experiments, a caveat that I take to be in his favour.

Actually, to defend Neuro, knowing the issue with scientific publishing does not mean one is using the tricks.
I've also seen my share of such phrases ("it is believed", "we believe", etc) without any references in scientific papers. When I do see them when reviewing papers submitted to journals, I ask authors to list their references. But a lot of them go through nevertheless. The review process is time-consuming (and an act of scientific charity because unpaid), and some of us who review a large share of papers before acceptance can't keep up the pace imposed by editors nowadays. So I am sure there is indeed a lot of BS in papers, even some published in high-impact journals. Few reviewers dare asking their peer authors for better statistics, for example. And everyone knows that you can make stats say whatever you want... especially when stats refer to a case study (n=1).........
I'm not in the market for a 6DII (not until the price drops after a year or two), but I am hopeful that the DR will be improved from the 6D, especially if they used similar sensor tech as the 5D4 and 80D. But frankly, this is not the main thing I wanted improved in the 6D line. For me, the AF is the main issue, as well as the f/8 focussing (can't use extenders with f/5.6 lens on a 6D...) If weather sealing is also improved, then that's even better (do we have more detail on this BTW?) DR boost at base ISO is only icing, but I can understand how this can be critical for some shots.

 

[AlanF]

I have a little 'cheat sheet' for scientific publications that helps lay folks interpret what standard phrasing really means.

thanks for confirming you are a trained as a professional BS artist LOL

Speaking as a scientist I found it quite accurate.

None of those phrases would be allowed a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal without citations to back them up. To be fair to Claff, he explicitly stated that he is likely to be underestimating the DR in preliminary experiments, a caveat that I take to be in his favour.

Actually, to defend Neuro, knowing the issue with scientific publishing does not mean one is using the tricks.
I've also seen my share of such phrases ("it is believed", "we believe", etc) without any references in scientific papers. When I do see them when reviewing papers submitted to journals, I ask authors to list their references. But a lot of them go through nevertheless. The review process is time-consuming (and an act of scientific charity because unpaid), and some of us who review a large share of papers before acceptance can't keep up the pace imposed by editors nowadays. So I am sure there is indeed a lot of BS in papers, even some published in high-impact journals. Few reviewers dare asking their peer authors for better statistics, for example. And everyone knows that you can make stats say whatever you want... especially when stats refer to a case study (n=1).........
I'm not in the market for a 6DII (not until the price drops after a year or two), but I am hopeful that the DR will be improved from the 6D, especially if they used similar sensor tech as the 5D4 and 80D. But frankly, this is not the main thing I wanted improved in the 6D line. For me, the AF is the main issue, as well as the f/8 focussing (can't use extenders with f/5.6 lens on a 6D...) If weather sealing is also improved, then that's even better (do we have more detail on this BTW?) DR boost at base ISO is only icing, but I can understand how this can be critical for some shots.

I am a senior editor of a couple of scientific journals, which is a good education for not taking review sites and their measurements seriously (n = 1, undefined methods, lack of controls etc, apart from Roger C and Brandon D on Lensrentals).

 

[soloyc]

I have a little 'cheat sheet' for scientific publications that helps lay folks interpret what standard phrasing really means.

thanks for confirming you are a trained as a professional BS artist LOL

Speaking as a scientist I found it quite accurate.

None of those phrases would be allowed a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal without citations to back them up. To be fair to Claff, he explicitly stated that he is likely to be underestimating the DR in preliminary experiments, a caveat that I take to be in his favour.

Actually, to defend Neuro, knowing the issue with scientific publishing does not mean one is using the tricks.
I've also seen my share of such phrases ("it is believed", "we believe", etc) without any references in scientific papers. When I do see them when reviewing papers submitted to journals, I ask authors to list their references. But a lot of them go through nevertheless. The review process is time-consuming (and an act of scientific charity because unpaid), and some of us who review a large share of papers before acceptance can't keep up the pace imposed by editors nowadays. So I am sure there is indeed a lot of BS in papers, even some published in high-impact journals. Few reviewers dare asking their peer authors for better statistics, for example. And everyone knows that you can make stats say whatever you want... especially when stats refer to a case study (n=1).........
I'm not in the market for a 6DII (not until the price drops after a year or two), but I am hopeful that the DR will be improved from the 6D, especially if they used similar sensor tech as the 5D4 and 80D. But frankly, this is not the main thing I wanted improved in the 6D line. For me, the AF is the main issue, as well as the f/8 focussing (can't use extenders with f/5.6 lens on a 6D...) If weather sealing is also improved, then that's even better (do we have more detail on this BTW?) DR boost at base ISO is only icing, but I can understand how this can be critical for some shots.

I am a senior editor of a couple of scientific journals, which is a good education for not taking review sites and their measurements seriously (n = 1, undefined methods, lack of controls etc, apart from Roger C and Brandon D on Lensrentals).

I'm actually happy only reviewing papers occasionally for journals. As editor, I can only assume you've also seen your share of claims!! I always try to be objective when reviewing, but I often find that papers I review in which major flaws can be found were nevertheless going through the final cut because the other reviewers found them innovative. In this I cannot fight with other reviewers; just trying to convince authors to improve their papers is already difficult. This was in "top-of-their-field" journals too, which is sad IMHO...

BTW, sorry for the off-topic comment; this was not meant to debate who's right or wrong, just to vent out about how "bad" research (or at least, badly referenced) can still be published sometimes.

For the topic discussed here, I would not assume that DR tests were badly done or reported. But I'm curious if other base-ISO images will yield similar results, especially when taken with production units. That would be more convincing, and probably close the debate one way or another...

 

[BeenThere]

Yes, when production units are available for testing the debate will end (I hope). The pre-production DR measurement is just a piece of early data that we can have fun debating. I for one would rather have this data available than not available. It's amusing to me that some are applying Scientific journal publishing standards to an individual's web site.

DxO, cited in this thread a few times, is frequently kicked in the teeth in CR for their questionable methods of testing, or quantifying results.

 

[Woody]

If the 6D shows a return to the old Canon sensor DR, DPReview will have a field day making derogatory remarks about Canon's latest entry-level FF camera. ;D

 

[M42]

I am a senior editor of a couple of scientific journals, which is a good education for not taking review sites and their measurements seriously (n = 1, undefined methods, lack of controls etc, apart from Roger C and Brandon D on Lensrentals).

It's N=2 actually, the calculations were clearly detailed by multiple people but I can also share my Matlab code for you to read and replicate my results... There are at least three persons computing similar curves at the moment.

So, now that we have cleared this out, does your argument of authority make you a "good scientist"?

 

[Loswr]

I am a senior editor of a couple of scientific journals, which is a good education for not taking review sites and their measurements seriously (n = 1, undefined methods, lack of controls etc, apart from Roger C and Brandon D on Lensrentals).

It's N=2 actually, the calculations were clearly detailed by multiple people but I can also share my Matlab code for you to read and replicate my results... There are at least three persons computing similar curves at the moment.

So, now that we have cleared this out, does your argument of authority make you a "good scientist"?

If 50 people analyze the same image, it's not n ≠ 50.

Regardless, seems you missed that Alan was referring generally to lens testing sites, e.g. photozone, lenstip, TDP (although Bryan sometimes tests and shows qualitative results from multiple copies of a lens), etc.

 

[Pookie]

Obviously I agree, which is why I started the body of my reply with "Do what you want, I don't care, and I hope you have fun doing it" and included "you take what you want with whatever you want however you want". It seems 90% of the time here people aren't even interested in the words written they just want to pick a fight with whichever poster is getting on their nerves.

Pick a fight? Good trolling pal! Here is how you started your friendly conversation:

They suck 95% of the time they are inflexible and have several severe limitations, put the fact that blending gives a much better result 95% of the time and they look like a very poor investment.

People interested in knockout landscape images are far better spending $20-40 on a blending program/plugin than three to ten times that on ND grads.

I felt the same way about this place, the idea was to share experience and knowledge, but it seems people are so close minded and dismissive of people who actually have experience, and actual experience seems to be in very short supply

My open-minded friend, why would you think anybody would listen to your expert advise, if nobody ever saw your work? Yes, yes, I know, you're probably too busy working with blending plugins in PhotoShop and trolling on CR, so you can't post anything, right?

+1000 Jopa... I'm glad someone else can read through and see this BS. Being a contact of yours I know you actually are a photographer that takes real photos. This is the problem with this site in a nut shell, forum warriors with lots of opinions but when it gets down to brass tacks... not a whole lot of substance.