DPR reviews d5500 and says it is a ISO-invariant camera.

[privatebydesign]

Sanj, "Here is a shot which was 'under exposed' around 2 stops" underexposed relative to what?

Relative to the light source on the subject it looks like a darn good exposure to me, don't get a reflected light metered reading confused with an incident light metered reading. Besides, you have masses of edit ability in there if you want it, obviously I don't know what the scene actually looked like but a Canon RAW file is plenty able to give you a quality result like this rework of your jpeg.

P.S. Nobody has ever argued they don't want the best of all worlds, just some of us are more pragmatic about the real world attainability of that. Personally I shoot with lenses nobody else make, if the difference in DR was important enough to me then I'd look at a Sony body Canon lens combination, but it just isn't important enough to me to seriously consider that. I have printed a lot of Nikon files and a lot of Canon files and I am more impressed with Canon lenses than Exmor DR.

 

[sanj]

Sanj, "Here is a shot which was 'under exposed' around 2 stops" underexposed relative to what?

Relative to the light source on the subject it looks like a darn good exposure to me, don't get a reflected light metered reading confused with an incident light metered reading. Besides, you have masses of edit ability in there if you want it, obviously I don't know what the scene actually looked like but a Canon RAW file is plenty able to give you a quality result like this rework of your jpeg.

P.S. Nobody has ever argued they don't want the best of all worlds, just some of us are more pragmatic about the real world attainability of that. Personally I shoot with lenses nobody else make, if the difference in DR was important enough to me then I'd look at a Sony body Canon lens combination, but it just isn't important enough to me to seriously consider that. I have printed a lot of Nikon files and a lot of Canon files and I am more impressed with Canon lenses than Exmor DR.

Thank you for all the info! I am sure super lenses translate into super pictures.

 

[Aglet]

I have printed a lot of Nikon files and a lot of Canon files and I am more impressed with Canon lenses than Exmor DR.

Perfectly valid statement but it doesn't invalidate the fact that all mainstream lens requirements are pretty well covered by every system except, perhaps, for Sony's mounts (so far) and the Pentax Q system could use a couple more, so could Fuji.
Canon certainly has some great niche lenses but I wouldn't use that as the basis for the other 90+% of what I (& others) shoot, tho it works well for you. Except for the niche and some new products, Canon's lenses aren't all that special, I've been disappointed with the performance of as many as I was pleased.

IMO, being pragmatic means choosing the best gear for the vast majority of one's work and that can vary from your special lens requirements to my desire for cleaner raw files. If someone's critical need is a special Canon lens, then use it. If you're satisfied with the rest of the system, great. Many of us do not find the rest of the Canon system to be good enough to warrant sticking with it for everything.
Lots of other very good, and some ways superior, options are out there if you can afford to employ them. If you can't afford them, you should at least consider them.
If anything, Canon lenses are a good investment if you started there. All the used ones I bought I sold for profit, the new ones didn't lose too much.

 

[benperrin]

I'm just surprised that so many photographers nowadays seem to have a need for 5 stops of exposure correction. Just how badly are you messing up your photos? ;D

 

[sanj]

I'm just surprised that so many photographers nowadays seem to have a need for 5 stops of exposure correction. Just how badly are you messing up your photos? ;D

Need is not necessarily the word. 3 to 4 stops can come really handy to some photographers who work in very uncontrolled environments. 'Handy' is the word.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have printed a lot of Nikon files and a lot of Canon files and I am more impressed with Canon lenses than Exmor DR.

Perfectly valid statement but it doesn't invalidate the fact that all mainstream lens requirements are pretty well covered by every system except, perhaps, for Sony's mounts (so far) and the Pentax Q system could use a couple more, so could Fuji.
Canon certainly has some great niche lenses but I wouldn't use that as the basis for the other 90+% of what I (& others) shoot, tho it works well for you. Except for the niche and some new products, Canon's lenses aren't all that special, I've been disappointed with the performance of as many as I was pleased.

IMO, being pragmatic means choosing the best gear for the vast majority of one's work and that can vary from your special lens requirements to my desire for cleaner raw files. If someone's critical need is a special Canon lens, then use it. If you're satisfied with the rest of the system, great. Many of us do not find the rest of the Canon system to be good enough to warrant sticking with it for everything.
Lots of other very good, and some ways superior, options are out there if you can afford to employ them. If you can't afford them, you should at least consider them.
If anything, Canon lenses are a good investment if you started there. All the used ones I bought I sold for profit, the new ones didn't lose too much.

I think we have gotten to the stage where base iso can be considered as niche a shooting situation as many specialist lenses, especially once you add up the number of niche lenses Canon actually have and the fact that the f4 zooms are such high quality, so practical, comparatively light, and cheap.

Maybe you are more fickle than I, maybe you just buy a lot more stuff, but I haven't been disappointed with a single Canon lens I have ever bought, though the 16-35 f4IS is a quantum leap in IQ over my older 16-35 f2.8 MkI, that f2.8 still made some very good images.

So we are talking about DR differences in a very narrow range of relatively uncommon, for many users, ISO ranges, vs a good enough for most people lens selection, that isn't quite as compelling a position as Canon RAW files are unworkable, FPN this, midtone shadow noise that.

 

[Aglet]

I think we have gotten to the stage where base iso can be considered as niche a shooting situation as many specialist lenses, especially once you add up the number of niche lenses Canon actually have and the fact that the f4 zooms are such high quality, so practical, comparatively light, and cheap.

While modern gear has vastly improved hi ISO performance, most outdoor daytime shooting is gonna land you in the 100 to 800 iso range. I think that's more than a niche and this is the iso range where Canon is behind the competition. 800 and 1600 and up they're all quite similar altho some (ahem) will still exhibit more pattern noise than others.

And yes, I really like f/4 zooms. I use my 70-200 f/4 Nikon most of all. A low cost, light weight lens with very high optical performance that allows handheld shooting in what used to be tripod-only conditions and it delivers some of the best d800/e output you can get. The excellent OIS system allows lower ISO use for more raw file quality for all static subjects. Same with the stabilized midrange and wide angle zoom options. Stabilization helps use maximize DR potential unless we're shooting active scenes, further expanding the limits of that low iso niche.

Maybe you are more fickle than I, maybe you just buy a lot more stuff, but I haven't been disappointed with a single Canon lens I have ever bought, though the 16-35 f4IS is a quantum leap in IQ over my older 16-35 f2.8 MkI, that f2.8 still made some very good images.

I do buy a lot of gear and I do a lot of research on it. I'd found Canon's older WA zooms were real turkeys. i never bothered with the overpriced under-performers. the 17-40L was enough and had OK performance/cost. It regularly delivered mush in FF corners and borders (hi field curvature?) unless stopped down to f/11 or more and still left plenty of CA to correct. Their newer offerings look to be considerably improved.
I'm still waiting for a good Nikon lens in this range but for now, I have a nice Tokina 17-35 f/4 FF lens that performs adequately and the 14-24 nikon is also decent if not fabulous. Niche products. Their consumer-grade 24-85mm variable f# is a very good value lens that can deliver hi-rez FF images when properly used.
Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 L 2 is a good handling and capable lens but, in some situations, provides some of the very worst transition-zone bokeh I've ever seen! Noticeable CA in FF corner areas too. Sold it, it didn't deliver the kind of IQ I wanted from such a lens. I has great center area sharpnesss and contrast but it's not a lens that has a good balance of sharpness and bokeh performance. Tamron versions win that handily. My Nikon f/4 can also deliver some ugly bokeh too but not as bad as the Canon did for me.
Fuji's new 50-140 shows how to do that properly - no aspheric elements AFAIK.

So we are talking about DR differences in a very narrow range of relatively uncommon, for many users, ISO ranges, vs a good enough for most people lens selection, that isn't quite as compelling a position as Canon RAW files are unworkable, FPN this, midtone shadow noise that.

I have to disagree, at least partially. 100, 200, and 400 iso are not niche if you're outdoors, especially if using faster apertures, and that's where you're likely to run into some real benefit from higher usable DR ability if you're shooting and working your files in post to get the most out of them. Greater proiferation of stabilized lenses can make it even more common to shoot lower ISO.
There's no dearth of decent lenses covering all major systems for non-niche applications. The only lenses in the Canon collection that I'd like to see comparable in Nikon's are the newer tilt-shifts, it looks like the new 11-2x is gonna outperform the old 14-24 benchmark Nikon and Canon's new little 11-18 crop UWA is a good value option. Super long zooms?.. I don't need 'em but think Nikon likely has a few available. Everything else is pretty much equivalent and many of Nikon's newer G-series are very good performers. AND we have the same 3rd party options.
Canon has better lenses argument doesn't quite wash with me. Canon has some DIFFERENT lenses that are desireable but does that impact as many people as would improved raw file quality?.. I doubt it.

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon has better lenses argument doesn't quite wash with me. Canon has some DIFFERENT lenses that are desireable but does that impact as many people as would improved raw file quality?.. I doubt it.

It might not wash with you, but the only independent figure we can look to is sales, and those don't support your opinion.

 

[Aglet]

Canon has better lenses argument doesn't quite wash with me. Canon has some DIFFERENT lenses that are desireable but does that impact as many people as would improved raw file quality?.. I doubt it.

It might not wash with you, but the only independent figure we can look to is sales, and those don't support your opinion.

marketing and strategy = success, no dispute Canon's a leader in that area.

but sales figures ≠ technical superiority in this market much the same as in, for example, the automotive market.

So is Canon the Ford F-150 of the camera world?... Gets the job done, almost everybody has one, but they wish it was a little bit better?..