D7000 replacement in April...

[jrista]

I have much more money invested in Canon L lenses than Nikon , and I have a d800 since april last year.
Theres is no problem for me to have more than one system , and I do not understand you answers as long we are discussing DR, APS, sensors etc

one statement before was there is no APS with 14 stops DR- yes there are, Nikon and Pentax
you told us there will be a problem to use Sony sensors, patents etc - Nikon have used Sony sensors with there own color filter and micro lenses since D3x
there are lot of facts that are false and I think that should be corrected regardless of whether you use only Canon or not

Nikon has only used Sony Exmor technology when the sensor was fabricated BY SONY. You missed the point I was trying to make before regarding the D5200 sensor. But, I'm not going to explain it again.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I also encourage anyone who disputes that DXO is truly neutral to download DXO Optics Pro and test it out on Canon raw files. Of all the available CR2 RAW editors, DXO Optics Pro seems to fare the worst, by far...especially in the noise and NR department. (Lightroom performs significantly better with CR2 files and NR, as does DPP, obviously.) The poor performance of DXO Optics Pro with CR2 files makes me wonder whether DXO really knows how to process them correctly, and whether that may somehow factor into the growing rift between anything Nikon and anything Canon in their tests.

What does RAW processed images from DxO have to do with their sensor tests which test the RAW file, untouched, directly?

 

[Aglet]

As for the Canon 70-200 f4/L having "terrible bokeh"...I've had mine for 3 years, and I love the bokeh. It is very smooth, at least on my crop camera. I don't notice much bokeh at the wider end, but near to 200mm, it seems very smooth to me. (Closeups of wildflowers, etc...really "pop"). ..

I don't know about the f/4 Ls
I DO know the f/2.8 L II can have horrid bokeh, I posted an example in the lens gallery. It's far from the only one I've got.

 

[Aglet]

yes, You can believe that if its suits you.
this is my 5dmk2 and my d800, exposed in the same way to get the high lights in the sky intact
then the darker parts are lifted and adjusted the same. The results from the Canon is visible more pattern noise , banding, lower signal , less color information.

You should run the 5D II RAW image through Topaz DeNoise 5, and use the debanding feature. You might be surprised how much DR is recovered. The blacks may not be as rich, as Canon uses a bias offset which eats a chunk of shadow DR, but the noise would very likely disappear. DeNoise has shadow tone recovery features as well, which could restore or deepen some of those shadow tones. Once you eliminate the banding noise, Canon sensors fare a hell of a lot better against there competitors.

Skuze me for bein' cheeky but..

You otta try a camera from Nikon, Pentax, Fuji or Olympus then you won't have to try smearing the banding away with software plugins.

 

[jrista]

yes, You can believe that if its suits you.
this is my 5dmk2 and my d800, exposed in the same way to get the high lights in the sky intact
then the darker parts are lifted and adjusted the same. The results from the Canon is visible more pattern noise , banding, lower signal , less color information.

You should run the 5D II RAW image through Topaz DeNoise 5, and use the debanding feature. You might be surprised how much DR is recovered. The blacks may not be as rich, as Canon uses a bias offset which eats a chunk of shadow DR, but the noise would very likely disappear. DeNoise has shadow tone recovery features as well, which could restore or deepen some of those shadow tones. Once you eliminate the banding noise, Canon sensors fare a hell of a lot better against there competitors.

Skuze me for bein' cheeky but..

You otta try a camera from Nikon, Pentax, Fuji or Olympus then you won't have to try smearing the banding away with software plugins.

I've tried Nikon, Pentax, and Olympus. Can't stand the Pentax and Olympus cameras. They have good low ISO IQ, but that is where it all stops. Nikon cameras also have good low ISO IQ, and they have a hell of a lot better selection of lenses...but I can't stand their ergonomics. I'd also take Canon glass over any other glass, including Nikon's, any day! There is a hell of a lot more to IQ than simply sensor. Canon definitely lacks in that department, but they excel at everything else, and its the whole package that really leads to consistent IQ.

And if we are trying out each others ideas, I still say actually try DeNoise 5. When applied to the RAW, the debanding doesn't smear, and the results are pretty amazing. They might as well call it DR Recovery rather than Debanding, as that is basically what it does.

 

[jrista]

yes, You can believe that if its suits you.
this is my 5dmk2 and my d800, exposed in the same way to get the high lights in the sky intact
then the darker parts are lifted and adjusted the same. The results from the Canon is visible more pattern noise , banding, lower signal , less color information.

I find that very hard to believe, can you post the untouched RAW files please?

It is a contrived scenario. The D800 image has clearly been exposed better. The 5D II image has much deeper blacks, indicating it was underexposed relative to the D800, thus putting at a relative disadvantage (above and beyond any actual disadvantage it may actually have). The whole point of those shots is to purposely make the majority of the image "black", requiring multiple stops of shadow recovery. The bulk of the pixel area of Mikael's 5D bashing images are lifted 4, 5, 6 stops, which is a ludicrous comparison in any but the most extreme of the extreme circumstances. I think that is a bit of a DPReview Nikonian forums "fad"...they do that a lot over there, just for sh*ts and giggles.

 

[ishdakuteb]

yes, You can believe that if its suits you.
this is my 5dmk2 and my d800, exposed in the same way to get the high lights in the sky intact
then the darker parts are lifted and adjusted the same. The results from the Canon is visible more pattern noise , banding, lower signal , less color information.

well... number of people and i, in this forum, have been asking for your raw files but we have not seen anything yet. however, i do not know how good you are in photography? but if i have a chance to meet you, i must see how good you are in photography as well as operating dslr(s). this message is written by a person who uses dslr for just almost a year, feb 10, 2013 will be a year to be exact.

note: as canon already states, it offers only two stops recovery. and if you are a photographer who shoot under or over expose for more two stops, you should change your career. one thing that i should let you know that you should not think that i know nothing about nikon. in fact, i play around with nikon cameras every single time being at costco...

 

[CarlTN]

Jrista, I don't think I've given you the credit you deserve for your posts here. Very good. I especially like them on page 1 of this thread...I hadn't read it close enough.

You all seem to be doing well, but there's too much arguing. What is this, a pissing contest?

Regarding Pentax...um, I do know for a fact, that their sensor is the same as Nikon's crop sensor from the D7000. Is that the same as the D5200? I don't know or really care. Whether it's made by Sony, Toshiba...Minolta...Contax...Voigtlander...Ongaku...Koetsu...Feastrex...Mitsubishi...Tata Motors...Adrian Newey...Danicka Patrick kissing a nerd for charity...I don't know.

 

[neuroanatomist]

As always, if you want to 'prove' your point, it helps to design your 'test' with a bias toward your desired outcome (such as ETTL vs. ETTR).

 

[David Hull]

yes, You can believe that if its suits you.
this is my 5dmk2 and my d800, exposed in the same way to get the high lights in the sky intact
then the darker parts are lifted and adjusted the same. The results from the Canon is visible more pattern noise , banding, lower signal , less color information.

You should run the 5D II RAW image through Topaz DeNoise 5, and use the debanding feature. You might be surprised how much DR is recovered. The blacks may not be as rich, as Canon uses a bias offset which eats a chunk of shadow DR, but the noise would very likely disappear. DeNoise has shadow tone recovery features as well, which could restore or deepen some of those shadow tones. Once you eliminate the banding noise, Canon sensors fare a hell of a lot better against there competitors.

why would I do that? no software who eliminate banding etc are doing that with out that Im loosing resolution/details
it is much better if Canon improves theirs read out noise

True, but until they do there is an option for those using the later cameras that tend to produce a more unidirectional form of banding (and less of it at that). And… since this tends to be more evident in the shadow areas, any smearing is probably less obvious. The point is, there are several viable work-arounds for any low ISO deficiencies that the Canon sensors might have. At this point, I consider this to be a feature that Nikon has and Canon does not. Like any other "feature" one has to determine how important it is to what they want/need to do. For those who prefer Canon (for whatever reason that might be), there are options for the fairly limited number of real world cases where the read noise poses a significant problem. To me, this is a rational way to look at it which bypasses most of the hype.

Yes, I am the same guy from DPR. I have to sau that I like their UI a lot better it is harder to keep track of things here.

 

[jrista]

yes, You can believe that if its suits you.
this is my 5dmk2 and my d800, exposed in the same way to get the high lights in the sky intact
then the darker parts are lifted and adjusted the same. The results from the Canon is visible more pattern noise , banding, lower signal , less color information.

I find that very hard to believe, can you post the untouched RAW files please?

It is a contrived scenario. The D800 image has clearly been exposed better. The 5D II image has much deeper blacks, indicating it was underexposed relative to the D800, thus putting at a relative disadvantage (above and beyond any actual disadvantage it may actually have). The whole point of those shots is to purposely make the majority of the image "black", requiring multiple stops of shadow recovery. The bulk of the pixel area of Mikael's 5D bashing images are lifted 4, 5, 6 stops, which is a ludicrous comparison in any but the most extreme of the extreme circumstances. I think that is a bit of a DPReview Nikonian forums "fad"...they do that a lot over there, just for sh*ts and giggles.

I know, it was just an opening gambit. I'd still like to see the RAW files with full intact EXIF.

Just like Aglet and his "horrific banding" with the 5D MkII at base iso exposures, so bad and so regular he sold the camera, but he can't post a file without "asking the families permission" and "I have been busy".

Oh yes...the obfuscation is so thick you could drown in it. They don't want anyone to know they additionally underexposed the 5D II by another couple of stops to put it in particularly bad light relative to the Exmor cameras. Is that not the fundamental crux of bad science? Hide your data?

 

[jrista]

As always, if you want to 'prove' your point, it helps to design your 'test' with a bias toward your desired outcome (such as ETTL vs. ETTR).

HAH! Awesome! +1000000000

 

[jrista]

yes, You can believe that if its suits you.
this is my 5dmk2 and my d800, exposed in the same way to get the high lights in the sky intact
then the darker parts are lifted and adjusted the same. The results from the Canon is visible more pattern noise , banding, lower signal , less color information.

I find that very hard to believe, can you post the untouched RAW files please?

It is a contrived scenario. The D800 image has clearly been exposed better. The 5D II image has much deeper blacks, indicating it was underexposed relative to the D800, thus putting at a relative disadvantage (above and beyond any actual disadvantage it may actually have). The whole point of those shots is to purposely make the majority of the image "black", requiring multiple stops of shadow recovery. The bulk of the pixel area of Mikael's 5D bashing images are lifted 4, 5, 6 stops, which is a ludicrous comparison in any but the most extreme of the extreme circumstances. I think that is a bit of a DPReview Nikonian forums "fad"...they do that a lot over there, just for sh*ts and giggles.

Sorry! they have the exact same exposure, do you now what that means?

It means you've proclaimed something. That's all. You have yet to produce the original RAW files, WITH EXIF data, as many people have asked, so we can all verify that. Since none of you DPR guys have ever offered the original RAW files, it is hard to simply take you at your word, especially given that it is so apparent you have something against Canon (almost on a personal level).

No one here will ever take you seriously until you produce the untouched RAW files with metadata for these contrived examples. As has been mentioned before, when exposed properly on any camera, those photos could have been taken without any evidence of visible noise, even with a couple stops of shadow pushing if it was really, really necessary.

This is so interesting, Jrista and Neuro, explain please , I have done at least 50 different comparison and used the same exposure time and f-stop . WHY should it not be an adequate test?
Do you two mean that a Canons shall be richer exposed than other cameras regarding time or F-stop

Because you refuse to produce your source data. You only provide screenshots of two processed images in an image editor, and expect everyone to simply take your word on the "facts" as you proclaim them. Sorry, but that isn't good enough. Produce the RAWs with unmodified EXIF, or we'll continue to ridicule your little contrived examples of "evidence" of Canon's supposed raging inferiority.

 

[jrista]

You can ask David Hull, I have lent my raw files to many photographers at Dpreview (as to the famous Hans Kruse ), in the end all have agreed with me regarding the benefits of low read out noise.
You can defend Canon in absurdum, there are two different sensors and one is with a modern read out analog to digital chain, and one from 2004 with 14 times higher read out noise at base iso

Telling us you sent your RAW files to select individuals who already agree with you is just as absurd. It also does not extricate you from your current predicament. You are making bold claims that purposely put Canon sensors in atrociously horrible light, when everyone who has used a Canon camera knows intuitively that they could take the same photos without the noise problems. We have all asked you to PROVE your claims, or at least make it clear that you are purposely creating a contrived scenario for the sole purpose of exposing nature of read noise in the deep shadows of a Canon image. You have repeatedly refused to do so, as have other "brilliant minds" from DPR. Sorry bub...your hiding something, every one knows that, and yet you just keep digging yourself a deeper hole.

To be honest, I'm fine and dandy with you perpetually digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole...it just proves my case for me. So please, happily keep doing what your doing. :

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Oh yes...the obfuscation is so thick you could drown in it. They don't want anyone to know they additionally underexposed the 5D II by another couple of stops to put it in particularly bad light relative to the Exmor cameras. Is that not the fundamental crux of bad science? Hide your data?

Riiiiiight.
There you go again.
Everyone from sensor sites to Fred Miranda, to DxO, to Michael, to myself, to numerous posters on DPR, etc. are all in league in a conspiracy against Canon! Everyone get out your tinfoil hats, quick!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

As always, if you want to 'prove' your point, it helps to design your 'test' with a bias toward your desired outcome

Fair enough, nobody has ever argued that Nikon doesn't lack some lenses or doesn't have some negatives, many of us has said so ourselves too, repeatedly, the problem is that anytime someone mentions Canon is worse at that something the Canon fanboys go nuts and try to hide it.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

You can ask David Hull, I have lent my raw files to many photographers at Dpreview (as to the famous Hans Kruse ), in the end all have agreed with me regarding the benefits of low read out noise.
You can defend Canon in absurdum, there are two different sensors and one is with a modern read out analog to digital chain, and one from 2004 with 14 times higher read out noise at base iso

To be honest, I'm fine and dandy with you perpetually digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole...it just proves my case for me. So please, happily keep doing what your doing. :

Yeah sure, you'd come up with some other excuse then that he had manipulated his RAW files or something and how can you trust it unless he flies to the US and retakes the shots in front of you and there are three witnesses to track the file from his camera into your computer. You asked for my detailed DR procedure and went crazy that I was supposedly hiding it and then I quickly revealed it and.... it made no difference, you just made up 30 other excuses, until like two months later, you vaguely admitted it all before going back to more excuses.

Nikon has plenty of problems too but there is no need to try to hide the DR thing, if it never affects you fine, whatever, but every time it comes up do you need to extend every thread to thirty pages just to try to cover it up? You have even admitted yourself, in the past, that there is a difference.

 

[jrista]

Oh yes...the obfuscation is so thick you could drown in it. They don't want anyone to know they additionally underexposed the 5D II by another couple of stops to put it in particularly bad light relative to the Exmor cameras. Is that not the fundamental crux of bad science? Hide your data?

Riiiiiight.
There you go again.
Everyone from sensor sites to Fred Miranda, to DxO, to Michael, to myself, to numerous posters on DPR, etc. are all in league in a conspiracy against Canon! Everyone get out your tinfoil hats, quick!

I was not talking about Fred Miranda, DXO, or yourself. I was specifically talking about Mikael, and no one else and nothing more. He has regurgitated the same set of contrived comparison examples over and over all over the net, however only a few very select individuals have ever actually seen the original RAW images. Sorry, but yes...I stand by my statement about the obfuscation there being so thick you could drown in it, in explicit regard to Mikael's obfuscatory approach to proving his claims at the request of MANY members here.

I have also never said anything derogatory about Fred Miranda. I have great respect for the man, as I do many other individuals and organizations. I have no qualms about voicing my skepticism about DXO's results, approach, or the validity and usefulness of their tests and results. I am not alone in those sentiments, either. As for DPR, that place is a cesspool of religious brand wars, and to be frank, it is rather irksome that an increasing number of those tards have migrated here to push buttons and generally wreak havoc on what is otherwise supposed to be some fun and entertaining speculation about future Canon products. Mikael specifically, as he makes a lot of claims but never actually backs them up with verifiable fact.

I respect you, LTRL, for at least providing concrete evidence of your claims, as you did with the 5D III noise tests. I was very hopeful that Canon would have fixed something, and ultimately it was proven they did not. I don't believe the claims made about Canon sensors are as dire and severe as they are frequently made out to be, even by such as yourself, and I argue hard against such claims, even against you. But the same point stands. We are here to speculate about future Canon products and technology. I believe there IS hope for Canon, and I believe Canon DOES have some vastly superior (relative to itself) CMOS technology up its sleve that will begin to trickle into the market soon. At the very least, I HOPE that technology will trickle into the market soon, and that is kind of the point of CR, or at least part of the point. Is our right to be hopeful going to be banned (right along with all the other rights that have been or are being banned these days)? Are you, Mikael, and the rest of the DPR crew going to continue to stomp all over and purposely dash the hopes of Canon fans, just for sh*ts and giggles? (Because there does not seem to be any other viable reason for you guys to repeatedly bring out the same old diatribe again and again whenever anyone in these forums gets excited or hopeful about Canon's future or existing technology...)

 

[jrista]

Nikon has plenty of problems too but there is no need to try to hide the DR thing, if it never affects you fine, whatever, but every time it comes up do you need to extend every thread to thirty pages just to try to cover it up? You have even admitted yourself, in the past, that there is a difference.

Sure, I recognize that there is a difference. I've never denied that, not once multiple analyses of both the D800 and 5D III were out. But again, as I've said for over a year at this point...you guys are missing my point. The key point is that in the vast majority of situations, the added DR doesn't matter. It is one factor out of dozens that affect IQ. I've argued that I do not believe DXO's approach to describing DR with their "Print DR" statistic is entirely valid, or that it has any real meaningful bearing on what a camera can do at the hardware level. I'll stand by those claims until the end of time, but when it comes to the DPR crew here...you guys perpetually miss the point. I am not, and have not since the actual release of the 5D III, ever claimed that Canon's sensors have as much DR as the D800. You guys seem to think I am saying that, and why you can't let go of that nitpicky point is beyond me. My point is the difference is meaningless in the majority of cases, and when it does matter, it is only one factor out of many that affects IQ. In the cases where low ISO DR is critical, which is primarily landscape photography, hell yes! The D800 trounces the 5D III, walks all over pretty much every other camera on earth except a couple other Nikon cameras. But again...that's not my point. Not my current point. Wasn't the majority of my past points. Stop missing the point.

And last, but not least, one final point. You complain that I draw threads on pages and pages arguing with you guys. You seem to think I am solely at "fault" for those things. One, don't forget, you and the rest of the DPR crew are always involved in those threads as well. Two, you guys are usually the ones who instigate the debate in the first place. Three, you repeatedly instigate the same debate over and over about a single point...dynamic range...even when the prior discussion in the thread has NOTHING to do with DR, or even sensors. If you guys want to debate, I'm happy to debate. If multi-page long debates tick you off...stop starting them, or don't get involved and don't read them.

 

[well_dunno]

LOL!

Sorry guys, I have not been around for a couple of days so now I see the "D7000 replacement in April..." topic and open, read last two pages without seeing anything about the D7000 or its replacement. Going to read from the beginning to see how the topic developed but just had to suggest this: Perhaps we should have a "Canon sensors vs those in Nikons" board under gear talk? Or perhaps "Canon bashing" (I for one would go there every now and then for sure ;D)?

Cheers!