Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[Aglet]

... if it is a pre-production camera, or pre-release software, the results may or may not be accurate. ...

If you're alluding to a technical analysis, such as Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR), this is a non-issue.

Is the RAW file being properly decoded? Until you are using the final release software, you don't really know.... as the release date gets closer and more of the variables get answered, the odds of the results being correct get better and better, but until you have images taken independently from multiple sources, using retail cameras, and decoded by final release software, you do not know for sure.

As a scientist, one can observe that the ship is filling up with water.... you can state that the probability of the ship sinking is increasing, but you have to wait until it has gone under to declare that it has sunk.

REALLY glad I got off that ship LONG time ago. LOL

 

[Aglet]

Bill understood me correctly
Mike did not
and ur completely off-target and heading for trolldom

Well if what Bill said is what you meant, then you should have said it.
No excuses, no complaining about people not being able to mind read. You should have said it and you can't whine when people read what you actually wrote.

So why not act like an adult rather than complain when people call you out.

seems some people have a propensity to read something incompletely when they're excited and perceive a message incorrectly.
Happens to everyone
BTW - where is that discrete audio tone coming from, anyway?... :

 

[Aglet]

Okay. A little rant, or vent, call it whatever you wish.

I'm not pissed about Canon's lack of low ISO DR in 6D II for technical reasons. I'm just disappointed that they have the means of producing FF sensor, that perfoms almost as good as competition (we've seen that in 80D, 5D IV or 1DX II), but choose not to in 6D II.

I'm sure that 6D II will be popular camera, it will take amazing pictures (just like 6D is capable of) and it will sell in good numbers. But I feel that something has been intentionally left out and it's a pity. So in the end, it's not about that they cannot do something. It's about that they can, but they won't. And that just bothers me. Okay. End of rant, but I just needed to say it out loud.

You know Khalai – this just about perfectly sums up why I’m so disappointed too.

It’s not that they couldn’t they just wouldn’t. And it’s just not good enough for one of your high end models to drop the ball on this and to be outclassed in (what has become) an important performance parameter by your entry level products.

Whether this camera sells by the truckload or not is – to me anyway – a moot issue. It should have been better than it is in this regard. Canon should have made sure of this.

I don’t attribute any of that emotive “evil, vindictive corporate” nonsense to it… Canon’s a company in business to produce products for profit just like any other and I know they have the market lead...etc, etc… But I personally do hope that sales of this model suffer and they get the message that “just good enough” isn’t good enough.

+1

 

[Mikehit]

Bill understood me correctly
Mike did not
and ur completely off-target and heading for trolldom

Well if what Bill said is what you meant, then you should have said it.
No excuses, no complaining about people not being able to mind read. You should have said it and you can't whine when people read what you actually wrote.

So why not act like an adult rather than complain when people call you out.

seems some people have a propensity to read something incompletely when they're excited and perceive a message incorrectly.
Happens to use all.
BTW - where is that discrete audio tone coming from, anyway?... :

So what part of "expectation-bait-and-switch. They're good at it. Lots of practice." did I misunderstand?
You quite clearly accused Canon of misleading people, promising one thing then delivering another.

 

[snoke]

Is the RAW file being properly decoded?

All of Canon's CR2 raw files are encoded the same way. From one CR2 file you can create 4 black and white TIF files. 1 for each of the RGBG. There's no magic required. Adobe updates its software to deal with new metadata fields in the CR2 file (that are unrelated to raw data) and to supply camera-specific color profiles plus lens + camera profiles. Decoding of CR2 raw data is the same for the 10D as it is for the 1DX Mark II.

 

[scyrene]

Dude I don't care what you say, I think you'll find your posts are being deleted because you are not allowed to use people's names if they don't use them themselves, it is written in the TOU.

Count yourself lucky just getting deleted, I got a ban when I unwittingly did it.

Crikey! Is that all it takes?!?
I've seen people can post stuff on here's that's grounds for a fist-fight (nor referring to you here in this case, merely a minor annoyance ) .. and it stays but addressing someone by name is a major no-no?...
Things must have been amended since I first signed up.
But they still haven't improved protocol where it would be most helpful. ???

Yep.

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy,

"Inaccurate"! Wow, a LOT of posts should be deleted in that case.

 

[Aglet]

Bill understood me correctly
Mike did not
and ur completely off-target and heading for trolldom

Well if what Bill said is what you meant, then you should have said it.
No excuses, no complaining about people not being able to mind read. You should have said it and you can't whine when people read what you actually wrote.

So why not act like an adult rather than complain when people call you out.

seems some people have a propensity to read something incompletely when they're excited and perceive a message incorrectly.
Happens to use all.
BTW - where is that discrete audio tone coming from, anyway?... :

So what part of "expectation-bait-and-switch. They're good at it. Lots of practice." did I misunderstand?
You quite clearly accused Canon of misleading people, promising one thing then delivering another.

YOU are clear on your own interpretation which I said x posts back was wrong, and you're erring again.
The other poster not only understood what I said but reiterated it very nicely.
I suggest you go back and read what he wrote as he understood it, hopefully it will help you understand what I meant.

edit: and somewhere between pgs 5 & 8 here:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33072.0
you'll find some quotes of misleading marketing info which i had not even alluded to previously.

 

[unfocused]

What I find most amusing (or very sad, actually) is that the original photos taken by Rob Dickinson that were posted on the Fred Miranda site that started this entire DR mania are fantastic! Anyone going to his blog post....

http://www.heroworkshops.com/blog/6d2

and thinks the 6D II is inadequate or can't take a good or even great photo, knows nothing about photography and is clueless about what a good camera is. Take a look at the photos people - it is all about the photos isn't it? Having briefly been a Sony A7 II owner, I, too was convinced by the DRMorons on this and other sites that my Canon 6D was so outdated and inferior to the Sony or Nikon Exmor alternatives, that I needed to switch. Then I took photos with both cameras and much to my confusion, the Sony photos were not better in any way. And in many ways, the Canon 6D was better, which is why I kept the Canon and returned the Sony.

This is the most intelligent post I've read in this whole discussion.

 

[Aglet]

What I find most amusing (or very sad, actually) is that the original photos taken by Rob Dickinson that were posted on the Fred Miranda site that started this entire DR mania are fantastic! Anyone going to his blog post....

http://www.heroworkshops.com/blog/6d2

and thinks the 6D II is inadequate or can't take a good or even great photo, knows nothing about photography and is clueless about what a good camera is. Take a look at the photos people - it is all about the photos isn't it? Having briefly been a Sony A7 II owner, I, too was convinced by the DRMorons on this and other sites that my Canon 6D was so outdated and inferior to the Sony or Nikon Exmor alternatives, that I needed to switch. Then I took photos with both cameras and much to my confusion, the Sony photos were not better in any way. And in many ways, the Canon 6D was better, which is why I kept the Canon and returned the Sony.

This is the most intelligent post I've read in this whole discussion.

It's missing a "don't like / cons" list therefore.... probably fanboy.

To repeat the big point, again, The 6d2 may be a good camera but it could have been a great camera with the better sensor tech that's available.
And while those blog photos are nice, they are like this big.... they could have been shot with an iPhone and you'd have a hard time telling at that size.

 

[rrcphoto]

Is the RAW file being properly decoded?

All of Canon's CR2 raw files are encoded the same way. From one CR2 file you can create 4 black and white TIF files. 1 for each of the RGBG. There's no magic required. Adobe updates its software to deal with new metadata fields in the CR2 file (that are unrelated to raw data) and to supply camera-specific color profiles plus lens + camera profiles. Decoding of CR2 raw data is the same for the 10D as it is for the 1DX Mark II.

Not exactly true. Canon started to used masked pixels for black level offsets around the 40D timeframe.

 

[Mikehit]

YOU are clear on your own interpretation which I said x posts back was wrong, and you're erring again.
The other poster not only understood what I said but reiterated it very nicely.
I suggest you go back and read what he wrote as he understood it, hopefully it will help you understand what I meant.

I did. Bill also said

They may not have promised ADC on board the 6DII sensor, but given Canon's camera releases over the part couple of years, on board ADC (or more precisely an equivalent DR level) was an understanable expectation. I know I expected it.

ie they did not promise anything about technology and spoke about quality of the output. Given that the quality of the output is still under discussion your accusations of 'bait and switch' still ring hollow.

Bill's interpretation does make sense, but as I say it is not what you wrote. Which was my point.

As for 'between pages 5 and 8' I see little that Canon has been proven to have lied about. It seems you have a problem not only expressing yourself accurately but also inferring things never claimed.

 

[Jopa]

What I find most amusing (or very sad, actually) is that the original photos taken by Rob Dickinson that were posted on the Fred Miranda site that started this entire DR mania are fantastic! Anyone going to his blog post....

http://www.heroworkshops.com/blog/6d2

and thinks the 6D II is inadequate or can't take a good or even great photo, knows nothing about photography and is clueless about what a good camera is. Take a look at the photos people - it is all about the photos isn't it? Having briefly been a Sony A7 II owner, I, too was convinced by the DRMorons on this and other sites that my Canon 6D was so outdated and inferior to the Sony or Nikon Exmor alternatives, that I needed to switch. Then I took photos with both cameras and much to my confusion, the Sony photos were not better in any way. And in many ways, the Canon 6D was better, which is why I kept the Canon and returned the Sony.

This is the most intelligent post I've read in this whole discussion.

I checked out the photos - they look very impressive. But who cares? DR is everything nowadays LOL. Just disregard what you see and start blaming Canon and insist that people must switch to Nikon, Sony, iPhone, etc...

 

[Dan Borg]

... if it is a pre-production camera, or pre-release software, the results may or may not be accurate. ...

If you're alluding to a technical analysis, such as Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR), this is a non-issue.

Is the RAW file being properly decoded?

Yes, properly decoded with 100% certainty. CR2 files are well understood and the cross-checks are obvious.

Actually Don is correct, as the tests were being carried carried out before adobe released an update to their raw engine so they converted to TIFF in DPP (the camera store facebook video said that the used DPP for conversion to TIFF) which isn't the same as looking at the RAW files; take a look at the samples that I posted on page 39 of TIFF conversion from my 6D files. Basically the TIFFs out of DPP are lacking the same latitude as a TIFF from PS or LR and they also have crushed blacks... so how can you judge a sensors dynamic range if the TIFF itself is lacking latitude??

However now LR and PS can now process the RAW files it'll be interesting to see the proper results, although I'm not getting my hopes up

 

[SecureGSM]

Luds34,

I have ran quick sharpness (QoF) Focal test analysis over individual RAW files I have downloaded on dpreview website. Test was conducted at the pixel level (1:1). here are the results (updated with 5D IV, 5DsR and 80D data on request):

Canon 80D: 1906.8 the best result but different lens was used so csnnot be compared directly.
Canon 6D II: 1808.4
Canon 5D III: 1806.6
Canon 6D: 1829.7 <<<<< better by 1%
Canon 5D IV: 1850.3 <<<<< approx. 3% better than 6DII, 5D III, or 2% better than 6D Original.

Canon 5DsR: 1699.8 <<< comes as a unexpected surprise to the downside
abdsolutely worst out of the bunch with 8% worse pixel level sharpness than 5D IV.

as F5.6 is not diffraction limited aperture for FF 50Mpix sensor of 5DsR, I have 3 reason that I can think of:

1. impossible to maintain top quality pixel level sharpness at such a high pixel density ( 50 Mp sensor, high density, small pixel size).
2. sensor out resolved the lens being 85mm F1.8 USM on the pixel level. I believe they should really use a sharper lens. Zeiss Otus / Milvus / Sigma 85 Art lenses come to mind.
3. perfect focus was not achieved in the test image.



there is NO sharpness advantage for 6D II at the pixel level, images appear sharper due to 6D II files are 30% larger than 6D files. (down sampling improves perceived screen image sharpness).

Lens EF85mm f/1.8 USM (1800 QoF is what Sigma 85 Art scores wide open and at its absolute worst (at MFD).
Focal Length 85.0mm
Test Aperture f/5.6
Test ISO 100
Distance to Target 7.4m

Canon 6D II:

QoF=1808.4

Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature 39C
Quality Measure 1808.4
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 36/31/33
Red Quality 1720.5
Green Quality 1881.7
Blue Quality 1834.5
HVR -2.5%

Canon 5D III:

QoF=1806.6

Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature 6203K
Camera Temperature 33C
Quality Measure 1806.6
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 34/33/34
Red Quality 1755.4
Green Quality 1852.4
Blue Quality 1813.2
HVR -1.4%

Canon 6D:

QoF=1829.7

Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature 6490K
Camera Temperature 29C
Quality Measure 1829.7
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 33/33/34
Red Quality 1783.6
Green Quality 1872.4
Blue Quality 1833.4
HVR -2.4%

Canon 5D IV

QoF=1850.3 << approx. 3% better than 6DII, 5D III, or 2% better than 6D Original.

Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature 36C
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 36/30/34
Red Quality 1807.8
Green Quality 1889.4
Blue Quality 1859.9
HVR -2.9%


Canon 5DsR:

QoF=1699.8
Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature 5200K
Camera Temperature 43C
Quality Measure 1699.8
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 34/33/34
Red Quality 1586.8
Green Quality 1794.0
Blue Quality 1721.9
HVR -2.3%

Canon 80D:

note: EF 50 F1.4 USM lens was used so results cannot be compared directly.
If this is a sign of what 5DsR II pixel level sharpness can be like, then I am very happy

Lens EF50mm f/1.4 USM
Focal Length 50.0mm
Test Aperture f/5.6
Test ISO 100


QoF=1906.8 <<Wow, just wow.. who would expect this result. canon 80D is sharper than 5D IV at pixel level.


Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature 38C
Quality Measure 1906.8
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 38/31/31
Red Quality 1818.6
Green Quality 1988.9
Blue Quality 1953.5
HVR 5.6%

absolutely! I was about to feed RAW test files from each camera into Focal for the sharpness analysis, but my Commercial License has just expired. I will get this sorted out in next few days.

..Continuing the discussion... The base ISO DR is more than adequate for 99% of real world shooting. If this sharpness improvement is accurate, that has far greater implications in real world shooting.

Excellent, I look forward to seeing your analysis!

I also look forward to further test shots as they come in from other sources as the camera becomes more available. Because I think we both were feeling, eluding to the fact that the sharpness improvement in those test shots look a little bit "too good to be true".

But if they indeed are representative of what we'll see with this camera than I am ecstatic and cannot wait for my copy to arrive. I keep hoping my pre-order gets out a bit earlier than the 27th estimated timeframe.

 

[Mikehit]

there is NO sharpness advantage for 6D II at the pixel level, images appear sharper due to 6D II files are 30% larger than 6D files. (down sampling improves perceived screen image sharpness).

I am far from technically gifted in these things but that sounds like a contradiction. Surely in real life you aim to reproduce your image at a certain size and no matter what image size you choose to use, the 6D2 puts more pixels there. And 'perceived' sharpness is what it is all about so the 6D2 does have a sharpness advantage.

 

[SecureGSM]

Mike,

there is no sharpness advantage for 6D II at the pixel level, when viewing image at 1:1 on screen.

5DSR images down sampled are even sharper, that does not mean that at pixel level they are as sharp.

there is NO sharpness advantage for 6D II at the pixel level, images appear sharper due to 6D II files are 30% larger than 6D files. (down sampling improves perceived screen image sharpness).

I am far from technically gifted in these things but that sounds like a contradiction. Surely in real life you aim to reproduce your image at a certain size and no matter what image size you choose to use, the 6D2 puts more pixels there. And 'perceived' sharpness is what it is all about so the 6D2 does have a sharpness advantage.

 

[jeffa4444]

Its NOT perceived sharpness, you cannot perceive resolution that was not there. At pixel level your comparing apples with oranges the 30% larger files matter.
Oversampling normally provides cleaner files but the sharpness has to be there.

 

[Mikehit]

Mike,

there is no sharpness advantage for 6D II at the pixel level, when viewing image at 1:1 on screen.

5DSR images down sampled are even sharper, that does not mean that at pixel level they are as sharp.

there is NO sharpness advantage for 6D II at the pixel level, images appear sharper due to 6D II files are 30% larger than 6D files. (down sampling improves perceived screen image sharpness).

I am far from technically gifted in these things but that sounds like a contradiction. Surely in real life you aim to reproduce your image at a certain size and no matter what image size you choose to use, the 6D2 puts more pixels there. And 'perceived' sharpness is what it is all about so the 6D2 does have a sharpness advantage.

Point taken.
My question could be rephrased as what is the real-world relevance of pixel sharpness if the image we produce is actually sharper?

 

[SecureGSM]

when I observed test swatches on DPR website, I initially thought that 6D II sample image swatch looked sharper.
oversampling or not, focal detects that 6D original files are sightly sharper

Its NOT perceived sharpness, you cannot perceive resolution that was not there. At pixel level your comparing apples with oranges the 30% larger files matter.
Oversampling normally provides cleaner files but the sharpness has to be there.

 

[SecureGSM]

6D II taken images will appear slightly sharper than 5D III or 6D if printed at the same size or viewed on screen at the same resolution.

Point taken.
My question could be rephrased as what is the real-world relevance of pixel sharpness if the image we produce is actually sharper?