Do Sensors Make the Camera?

[Don Haines]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

I think it's more a commitment to getting the most money out of an investment in facilities. As I've written before, I'm certain that Canon can and will deliver better sensors when the market requires it. They may walk backwards into that better sensor tech if their P&S line is forced to reduce output, and they re-purpose those facilities for DSLRs. (mentioned by someone else earlier, I forget who)

That was me.... and it is pure speculation..... absolutely NO inside knowledge.... call it a CR0

 

[MichaelHodges]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

It's essentially an emergency recovery tool for badly underexposed photos. High quality landscape work...where extended DR is often needed...is simply not produced this way. You bracket and blend/HDR, or use GND filters.

IS? High quality work is produced with a telephoto lens on a sturdy tripod. Auto focus? Nah. If you don't have the skills to work the focus ring in a timely fashion, you can't produce good work.

I find that the problem is not Canon sensor noise, but the simple fact that the tonality and detail is sub par vs. a properly produced shot.

Tonality and detail is sub-par if you're lifting shadows with a sensor that can't handle it.

 

[Policar]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them? They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up. While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.

It's essentially an emergency recovery tool for badly underexposed photos. High quality landscape work...where extended DR is often needed...is simply not produced this way. You bracket and blend/HDR, or use GND filters.

This goes back to the reason for the common advice to ETTR: there are few tonal values in the deep shadows. Sometimes I am surprised and find that I can process a single file where I shot expecting to HDR. But if I have to push shadows more then 2...maybe 2.5 stops...I find that the problem is not Canon sensor noise, but the simple fact that the tonality and detail is sub par vs. a properly produced shot.

The need for extended DR in landscape photography confuses me. Velvia, long the standard for 4x5 color photography, had 4-5 stops of DR and produces the most beautiful images.

Even the zone system (the first incarnation of tone mapping) works within a ten stop range.

Printed images only have 4-5 stops of contrast.... if the scene has a huge dynamic range as shot it probably won't look good printed now matter how you shoot and process it.

 

[jvhigbee]

I couldn't say they make the camera but the low noise level of the 6D is the main reason I bought one. It will also likely be one of the primary concerns when I consider the 7D Mkll.

 

[dtaylor]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

It's essentially an emergency recovery tool for badly underexposed photos. High quality landscape work...where extended DR is often needed...is simply not produced this way. You bracket and blend/HDR, or use GND filters.

IS? High quality work is produced with a telephoto lens on a sturdy tripod. Auto focus? Nah. If you don't have the skills to work the focus ring in a timely fashion, you can't produce good work.

All false analogies.

I find that the problem is not Canon sensor noise, but the simple fact that the tonality and detail is sub par vs. a properly produced shot.

Tonality and detail is sub-par if you're lifting shadows with a sensor that can't handle it.

It doesn't matter what sensor you are using. The way tonal values are converted from analog to digital and encoded means that the lower stops of exposure have fewer possible tones.

See: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

 

[dtaylor]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

The need for extended DR in landscape photography confuses me. Velvia, long the standard for 4x5 color photography, had 4-5 stops of DR and produces the most beautiful images.

I would actually place it at 5-6, but regardless slide landscapes often used GND filters. Galen Rowell was one of the innovators here.

Printed images only have 4-5 stops of contrast.... if the scene has a huge dynamic range as shot it probably won't look good printed now matter how you shoot and process it.

I would have to disagree with this. You're obviously compressing the scene luminance range down to something that can fit on paper, but done properly it looks very good and closer to what the human eye would see. Adam's original Zone System itself was a system for predictably doing this.

 

[Orangutan]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

I think it's more a commitment to getting the most money out of an investment in facilities.

Wow, not the best marketing pitch:

Canon: When you choose one of our DSLR's, you know we've made a commitment to getting the most money out of an investment in facilities.

That's the artist's view.

The business view is:

Canon: we'll be a viable company for years to come, and can invest in longterm technology development projects.

 

[Orangutan]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

The need for extended DR in landscape photography confuses me. Velvia, long the standard for 4x5 color photography, had 4-5 stops of DR and produces the most beautiful images.

I would actually place it at 5-6, but regardless slide landscapes often used GND filters. Galen Rowell was one of the innovators here.

Printed images only have 4-5 stops of contrast.... if the scene has a huge dynamic range as shot it probably won't look good printed now matter how you shoot and process it.

I would have to disagree with this. You're obviously compressing the scene luminance range down to something that can fit on paper, but done properly it looks very good and closer to what the human eye would see. Adam's original Zone System itself was a system for predictably doing this.

I never shot/developed film, but my understanding is that there's a difference between digital "dynamic range" and film "exposure latitude." Maybe someone who knows something of this can chime in...

 

[dtaylor]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

I never shot/developed film, but my understanding is that there's a difference between digital "dynamic range" and film "exposure latitude." Maybe someone who knows something of this can chime in...

There was a difference between those terms in the film world before digital. Also: "dynamic range" didn't really take hold in the film word until scanners became common place. Sometimes "exposure latitude" was used to describe what we would call DR today. Other times it might be called exposure range or luminance range.

Strictly speaking, exposure latitude is how far the film can be pushed/pulled during printing to render correct tones given an underexposed/overexposed scene that was still within the film's total exposure or dynamic range.

So if you have a 10 stop film and you shoot a 4 stop scene underexposed by 3 stops, can you make a successful print?

I would argue that exposure latitude is more appropriate to describe what we observe with Exmor sensors. Time and again examples show that Canon sensors are recording similar shadow detail, it's just marred by noise. If that noise can be successfully cleaned up, the IQ differences are minimal. In very deep shadows it is often difficult or impossible to clean up. In either case, Exmor clearly has more exposure latitude at the hardware level.

 

[jrista]

The 5D III can be used for landscapes. It's just a lot more work to clean up each image in post than I had expected it to be. Based on the raving reviews and everyone who said the 5D III noise was much better, I expected the 5D III low ISO noise to be a lot better than it is. Even a +3 stop shadow recovery is actually asking a bit much of the 5D III...you still get vertical banding when you do that, and the 5D III banding does not seem to clean up as well as the 7D did. I put off landscapes for a while, as I did not like dealing with the shadows on the 7D at ISO 100 (and, because the frame size in the 7D is just not large enough for the kinds of landscapes I like to do.) Now that I have the 5D III, it's still not capable of doing quite what I want to do...so I'm considering buying a D810 and a 14-24mm f/2.8.

If the 5D III is not cleaning up as well as your 7D, there is something very wrong with your 5D III, or there's a setting off in your software. I use Lightroom for processing, and with the most recent version, the difference between Canon FF and 7D detail recovery is massive.

Although I will say the shadow recovery on my 6D is quite good. Maybe not Nikon/Sony level, but certainly superior to APS-C.

The problem isn't noise in general. The 5D III photon shot noise cleans up VERY well, much better than my 7D. The noise I was referring to was the read noise. I knew it, theoretically, that it was worse on the 5D III...35e- vs. 8e- on the 7D. I was just surprised at how bad it really was. The 7D has vertical banding when lifted, but it was never quite so, intrusive, as with the 5D III. The 7D's banding was also VERY patterned, every eight pixel columns...so cleaning it up with Topaz DeNoise 5 was a lot more successful. The 5D III's banding has actually proven to be pretty difficult to clean up with DeNoise...and it does not seem to be very consistent...the banding changes a bit from frame to frame...as if it is a mix of fixed and semi-random patterns.

Anyway, lifting deep shadows out of the 7D was better, although cleaning up poisson noise was harder. Cleaning up poisson noise with the 5D III is easier, however it's ISO 100 and 200 read noise in the deep shadows is really, truly hideous.

I could wait for Canon to do something with the 5D IV...but, I don't really think they will. I think the 5D IV will arrive with the same old kind of read noise, they will still be losing two stops of dynamic range...and I don't think it's worth waiting any longer.

Yeah, I think it's clear Canon is going to sit tight with their conservative designs. More and more they are becoming like Toyota, competent and comfortable, but living off their peak of 2001-2005.

That would be a really sad outcome. Toyota is another example of a phenomenal company that has lost their edge, and isn't fairing as well in the modern environment. They used to make flawless cars, and were cranking out new car models faster than anyone. Now, they have had recalls recently, and their newer car designs aren't all that great.

I really hope Canon doesn't become another relic in a museum of companies that failed to compete, or worse, failed outright because they weren't competitive enough when and where it mattered. (I know that there is no market evidence yet to show a shift...however, I was looking around, and the last concrete DSLR market details we have are from 2010. We have a little bit from 2011 and 2012, but there is no real concrete, detailed, full market analysis from 2012 or 2013...so we really don't know how the fundamentals of the market, specifically the DSLR market, have fared since the introductions of the 5D III, D800, 1D X, etc.)

 

[jrista]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them? They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up. While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.

A lot of people do just that, yes. However, I have been showing examples where underexposing was a necessity. I'm an "afternoon landscaper"...I can never get up early enough in the morning (which is really early, like 3:30am), in order to be able to drive out to the kinds of beautiful landscapes I want to photograph, but get there in time to set up and be ready to go by the time the rising sun lights the clouds afire with color.

So, I'm stuck taking my photos in the afternoon, when the setting sun washes the clouds in color. Problem is, all the mountains are to my west, same direction as the sun. Even if I keep the sun itself out of my frame, I'm still trying to photograph scenes with MASSIVE dynamic range. It isn't under-exposing if your trying to avoid clipping the highlights.

I was just out again today, trying to find some good mountains with colorful sunset clouds (largely a bust...the clouds just never got colorful). Anyway, it's always the same problem for me...every landscape has massive amounts of dynamic range. Even WITH stacking three GND filters (Lee 0.9, 0.6, and 0.3, or 3, 2, and 1 stop...that's SIX STOPS of GND filtration, and it still isn't enough!!) When you stack that much filtration, if the clouds are still bright enough, or if you have any kind of uneven horizon (usually the case with mountains), you end up with an inverse gradient to shadow...the mountains get darker and darker as they get higher.

I haven't done landscapes in a while...but nothing's changed now that I'm shooting them again with the 5D III. I'm not underexposing my shots by 4-5 stops....I'm exposing for the highlights. I always bracket, of course...but, all the problems still exist...the inverse mountain gradients when using GNDs, the massive amounts of scene DR. These are real-world situations where I'm encountering too much DR for Canon sensors to handle, and it's proving to be a hell of a lot of work to merge an HDR that doesn't have posterization problems around the bright areas, doesn't have motion ghosting problems around wind-blown grass and trees, etc.

With two more stops of sensor DR, or to be more specific...with two more stops of shadow-lifting ability, with a sensor that has read noise in the deep shadows that has a nice random appearance without any banding of any kind, I could probably get away with my GND filters, some hefty shadow lifting, and one single shot...instead of bracketing 5, 7, 9 shots and having to deal with some frustrating HDR mergers. Things aren't quite as bad when I'm west facing east at sunset, or east facing west at sunrise...however, even in those circumstances, many of my older shots, taking with my 450D and 7D, still have problems with detail in the shadows...those cameras still have 11 stops or less of DR. Having two extra stops would have meant I could pull out much cleaner, more colorful detail from the shadows.

I'd really be curious to know, how many people run into the same situation? I've been spending a lot of time browsing through landscapes at 500px. There are a LOT of people who photograph landscapes. I think landscapes might be 500px's largest category.

 

[Aglet]

The 5D III's banding has actually proven to be pretty difficult to clean up with DeNoise...and it does not seem to be very consistent...the banding changes a bit from frame to frame...as if it is a mix of fixed and semi-random patterns.

When I was studying the nature of the FPN I could find on my 40D there was indeed a fixed pattern noise and another pattern noise structure that was not fixed but varied in location.
I shot some bursts at full speed and when I looked at the noise from those there was a pattern which was the same on all frames and another pattern which traveled vertically from frame to frame yet looked otherwise similar.
I'm guessing these traveling bands of noise patterns are due to high frequency interference from internal circuitry, probably some of the internal switch-mode power supplies. It could also be ground loop type issues allowing the digital side to contribute noise to the analog side or a few other design/build compromises producing this problem. Fortunately, my 40D's base noise levels are quite low, allowing me to push shadows quite hard w-o requiring NR but it's still not nearly as clean as a little Nikon D5100.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

The need for extended DR in landscape photography confuses me. Velvia, long the standard for 4x5 color photography, had 4-5 stops of DR and produces the most beautiful images.

I would actually place it at 5-6, but regardless slide landscapes often used GND filters. Galen Rowell was one of the innovators here.

Printed images only have 4-5 stops of contrast.... if the scene has a huge dynamic range as shot it probably won't look good printed now matter how you shoot and process it.

I would have to disagree with this. You're obviously compressing the scene luminance range down to something that can fit on paper, but done properly it looks very good and closer to what the human eye would see. Adam's original Zone System itself was a system for predictably doing this.

I never shot/developed film, but my understanding is that there's a difference between digital "dynamic range" and film "exposure latitude." Maybe someone who knows something of this can chime in...

DTaylor explained it in his post. I'd like to stress the important fact that film is not equal to film. Here is a general rule that fits it more or less well. Standard slide films e.g. are made for high contrast, they are made to shine through them a lot of bright projector's light. The price for this high contrast is that they can't be pushed much when they are developed without losing highlight details. Prints on paper on the other side have always only low DR (in terms of digital age), so if they are made from classic film, you can push those films much more. This article might help you a bit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography

 

[justaCanonuser]

I am really appreciative of the replies coming in. Trying to make sense out of something to make a big purchase. Coming from a background in film with a storehouse of Nikon, Mamiya, and Sinar gear. Sinar still in use. So I know my way around a camera. Got a Canon 300D in 2003. But my studio work was with Nikon D4s and D5s when I shot 35. So my love affair with the 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 were actually addictions. I had the Nikon D90 and D7000. And used the D700 when I had a Canon 5D then 5DII. I rent D800s. At low ISOs a monster. But there is something sweet about skin tones and tonal gradations rolling off the Canon sensors that you can't measure. Then I used a 6D and 1Dx. I am so confused. My wife says its too easy to resolve. Buy nothing!
Thanks Antono. I know for a fact that Leibovitz uses Canon when she is not using Hassleblad digital. She used Nikon back with the D3 maybe 4 years ago. Her primary lens has been the 24-70/2.8. I was a bit shocked to learn
that Bensimon even used a DSLR. He was always a bit obsessed about image detail. He's using the 5DIII.

This is a very interesting story, thank you very much for sharing. I am just an amateur (but really no beginner), so here my 50 cents from this viewpoint. As some other posters here I think it is the whole gear, the complete camera + lens combo, what counts. I remember the shock wave rolling through Leica forums when DXO published that the Leica M9's sensor was sort of the worst one in the world - compared with sensors of other brands of that time. But this couldn't change the fact that some wonderful images had been made with a M9 and fine Leica glass. DXO also found in an extended lab review with a bigger lens line, that a 5D3's average resolution wasn't worse than a D800's. I personally think that all cameras today are so good that ergonomics is most important (everyone grown up in the 35 mm film age might share my opinion). They have to serve you as tool that allows for a smooth creative workflow. I personally love Canon's 2-wheel-ergonomics, but that's because I am so much used to it I could be awakened from sleep and immediately use my camera - and that's what really counts I think (as an amateur).

 

[Loswr]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them? They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up. While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.

A lot of people do just that, yes. However, I have been showing examples where underexposing was a necessity. I'm an "afternoon landscaper"...I can never get up early enough in the morning (which is really early, like 3:30am), in order to be able to drive out to the kinds of beautiful landscapes I want to photograph, but get there in time to set up and be ready to go by the time the rising sun lights the clouds afire with color.

So, I'm stuck taking my photos in the afternoon, when the setting sun washes the clouds in color. Problem is, all the mountains are to my west, same direction as the sun.

As I stated, there are valid reasons, albeit very rare ones. In your case, not strictly a necessity, since you could get up at 3:30a but don't want to.

Consider the USA – what states are immediately to the east of large mountain ranges? Yours, Nevada, etc. Tiny fraction of the US population, so even if there are the same per capita number of landscape shooters, that's not many people.

That's really the whole point here...the number of people who require (or believe they require) that kind of shadow lifting capability is minuscule relative to the dSLR market.

 

[scyrene]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

Which is exactly the point. You use the sensor every time you take a shot, so if Canon sensors were so inferior, Canon would not have remained the market leader.

Right now, Canon sensors are absolutely inferior at low ISO. This is fact.

I'm not really interested in who sells the most hamburgers. If I was, I'd be shooting grizzlies with iPads and you probably wouldn't hear from me soon.

How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them? They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up. While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.

Fortunately, technological improvements aren't based on this.

The low ISO DR of the Exmor's is extremely beneficial for landscape and wildlife shooters. I know a few shooters who even tossed their GND's. Simply expose for the sky and lift your shadows later on with minimal penalty.

This is a good thing.

I'm genuinely intrigued, would you say wildlife work is mostly low-ISO? I find the opposite.

 

[jpaana]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

With two more stops of sensor DR, or to be more specific...with two more stops of shadow-lifting ability, with a sensor that has read noise in the deep shadows that has a nice random appearance without any banding of any kind, I could probably get away with my GND filters, some hefty shadow lifting, and one single shot...instead of bracketing 5, 7, 9 shots and having to deal with some frustrating HDR mergers. Things aren't quite as bad when I'm west facing east at sunset, or east facing west at sunrise...however, even in those circumstances, many of my older shots, taking with my 450D and 7D, still have problems with detail in the shadows...those cameras still have 11 stops or less of DR. Having two extra stops would have meant I could pull out much cleaner, more colorful detail from the shadows.

I'd really be curious to know, how many people run into the same situation? I've been spending a lot of time browsing through landscapes at 500px. There are a LOT of people who photograph landscapes. I think landscapes might be 500px's largest category.

This might be a case where Magic Lantern's dual iso mode (and auto ETTR) helps, at least that's how I've used it in challenging situations, letting auto ETTR expose iso 100 to not clip (or let them clip a bit) highlights and then have iso 800 or so help with shadows.

 

[3kramd5]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

with two more stops of shadow-lifting ability, with a sensor that has read noise in the deep shadows that has a nice random appearance without any banding of any kind, I could probably get away with my GND filters, some hefty shadow lifting, and one single shot...instead of bracketing 5, 7, 9 shots and having to deal with some frustrating HDR mergers.

If you're looking for two more stops in the shadows, why are you bracketing 5, 7, 9 shots? Just bracket 2, one for the highlights and one two stops brighter. That would significantly mitigate the frustration of merging (fewer options for ghosting to occur, less labor, etc). You're still left dealing with the GND gradient, but that's true in both of your scenarios.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

Which is exactly the point. You use the sensor every time you take a shot, so if Canon sensors were so inferior, Canon would not have remained the market leader.

Right now, Canon sensors are absolutely inferior at low ISO. This is fact.

I'm not really interested in who sells the most hamburgers. If I was, I'd be shooting grizzlies with iPads and you probably wouldn't hear from me soon.

How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them? They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up. While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.

Fortunately, technological improvements aren't based on this.

The low ISO DR of the Exmor's is extremely beneficial for landscape and wildlife shooters. I know a few shooters who even tossed their GND's. Simply expose for the sky and lift your shadows later on with minimal penalty.

This is a good thing.

I'm genuinely intrigued, would you say wildlife work is mostly low-ISO? I find the opposite.

Wildlife chooses the appropriate ISO setting. I find myself shooting from ISO 100 to 12,800 in RAW (yes, the 6D can handle this).

This shot was recently picked up for an international textbook run. It was *cold*, and I had to expose for the sky. I'm happy with what the 7D did here, but it could have been much cleaner. This was either ISO 100 or 200:

I had to lift the bison/foreground by a couple stops. The pattern noise and lack of detail in the lower third of the frame has prevented me from printing this image as large as I would like, unfortunately.

For my preferred shots (animalscapes) low ISO dynamic range is incredibly important.

 

[David Hull]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

All of this Sensor Hype is probably meaningless to that crowd as well just the same as it is to 90% of those buying Sony and Nikon equipment. If this were all that important, Nikon cameras would be selling a lot better than Canon and that is not what we really see.

The problem with that comparison is you use the sensor every single time you take a photo, and not "the system".

So... it would seem that what you are saying is that it is the overall "system" that matters and not only the sensor or the camera. I don't think too many here will argue with that.