DPReview Interview with Chuck Westfall of Canon USA

[Orangutan]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"
...

The 5D2/3 are measured at having a DR of 11-12 but having a usable DR of 10 due to noise and problems with shadows.

I don't understand your point, also usable is a subjective term.

I don't like using iso 200 or any NR, others are very happy with 10,000iso with masses of NR and masked sharpening, neither is 'right' both are just subjective. I don't crop to any significant degree from my 21MP FF sensor, others are happy to post 100% crops from their crop cameras, again, purely subjective.

P.S. Just saw your reply, Tatersall was only interested in video, and the 'usable' range is his personal and subjective opinion for the output he needed, and he only measured a 5D MkII, not a 5D MkIII.

And whose subjective opinion do you think carries more weight for professionals? Yours or his?

I think each pro would evaluate all the options, and formulate her/his own opinion. I can't imagine any pro buying purely based on the opinion of one (semi) famous person.

 

[privatebydesign]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"
...

The 5D2/3 are measured at having a DR of 11-12 but having a usable DR of 10 due to noise and problems with shadows.

I don't understand your point, also usable is a subjective term.

I don't like using iso 200 or any NR, others are very happy with 10,000iso with masses of NR and masked sharpening, neither is 'right' both are just subjective. I don't crop to any significant degree from my 21MP FF sensor, others are happy to post 100% crops from their crop cameras, again, purely subjective.

P.S. Just saw your reply, Tatersall was only interested in video, and the 'usable' range is his personal and subjective opinion for the output he needed, and he only measured a 5D MkII, not a 5D MkIII.

And whose subjective opinion do you think carries more weight for professionals? Yours or his?

I don't have an opinion on the DR of the 5D MkII and 5D MkIII, I don't use either. My point was the opinion, anybodies, is subjective, not that my opinion is worth anything more or less to anybody.

But you still are not making a point, 11-12 subjective usable 10, so what?

 

[sdsr]

I am sure I am not the only one who started using a7R with Canon lenses having tired of waiting Canon hi-res body with up to date sensor tech. And as I mentioned in another post I was not disappointed with that combination and what’s more some canon lenses are MUCH more easier and MUCH more convenient to use on a7R body than on Canon body as Canon does not provide anything to assist with manual focusing and Sony does that very well (EVF and focus peaking).
Conceptually and practically for me Sony a7R is just digital back for my Canon lenses and this combination allows me to use the best from both sides (Canon lenses tech and Sony sensor tech). But I would be much happier if I could be able to use better integrated one single system like 5Ds

I bought an a7r and a7s not so much because of resolution (obviously not in the case of the a7s) and dynamic range - nice though those occasionally prove to be - but because much of the time I prefer using old manual focus lenses and sometimes need to manually focus AF lenses; and, as you say, MF is incomparably easier with mirrorless cameras; and the Sony a7 line is, for now, the only way to get mirrorless FF - plus, there's a vast array of adapters for NEX mount. As almost all my AF lenses are Canon, it would make life simpler for me if Canon were to make a mirrorless FF camera and a suitable supply of adapters, whoever makes them, followed suit. I hope that eventually happens - though I doubt there's sufficient similar demand to push Canon towards doing so; until then I'll stick with my current rather eclectic mix of equipment. I would be surprised if the two new 50mp cameras aren't marvelous, but they don't really suit me - for reasons that have nothing to do with dynamic range....

 

[privatebydesign]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"
...

The 5D2/3 are measured at having a DR of 11-12 but having a usable DR of 10 due to noise and problems with shadows.

I don't understand your point, also usable is a subjective term.

I don't like using iso 200 or any NR, others are very happy with 10,000iso with masses of NR and masked sharpening, neither is 'right' both are just subjective. I don't crop to any significant degree from my 21MP FF sensor, others are happy to post 100% crops from their crop cameras, again, purely subjective.

P.S. Just saw your reply, Tatersall was only interested in video, and the 'usable' range is his personal and subjective opinion for the output he needed, and he only measured a 5D MkII, not a 5D MkIII.

And whose subjective opinion do you think carries more weight for professionals? Yours or his?

I don't have an opinion on the DR of the 5D MkII and 5D MkIII, I don't use either. My point was the opinion, anybodies, is subjective, not that my opinion is worth anything more or less to anybody.

But you still are not making a point, 11-12 subjective usable 10, so what?

Where is a brick wall so that I can beat my head against it.

At best all that Chuck is saying is that the usable DR of the Canon sensor is now equal to what it can be measured at, rather than being less than. His comment effectively agrees with those from Gale Tatersall with respect to historic performance.

Dilbert, you are being silly or obtuse, and you are throwing up strawman argument after strawman argument.

Here is a rundown of points:-[list type=decimal]
[*]Chuck Westfall did not say the DR of the 5DS and 5DS R was the same as the 5D MkIII, he said it was "equivalent"
[*]Neither you nor I know what that means in actual imaging terms
[*]Another Canon tech, Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK, said "equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"
[*] Neither you nor I know what that means in actual imaging terms
[*] The expanded comment says quite clearly more ability to pull out detail, that is not 'the same as'
[*]You say the 5D MkII and 5D MkIII are identical in DR because a guy who measured a 5D MkII says so.
[*] That guy never tested the 5D MkIII because they weren't out then.
[*] He only shot video with his.
[*] He says the usable DR of a 5D MkII in video is 10 stops
[*] That is subjective for him and the single video project he did with that 5D MkII in late 2010
[*] Chuck Westfall's comment about the equivalence of the 5DS/R DR to the 5D MkII DR has nothing to do with Gale Tatersall's subjective opinion of the DR of the video from a 5D MkII
[*] They do not 'agree with each other' because they are talking about different things in different cameras.
[*] I still don't understand what your point is
[/list]

DR range of 11-12 stops, with a subjective usable 10 for video in a 5D MkII means what in relation to the 5DS/R having DR "equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"?

 

[3kramd5]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"
...

By traditional I assume he means shooting a stop wedge, as opposed to the range where signal dominates noise.

If the noise floor is indeed improved, that's a good thing. We'll have to wait and see. I pre-ordered the S.

 

[privatebydesign]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"
...

By traditional I assume he means shooting a stop wedge, as opposed to the range where signal dominates noise.

If the noise floor is indeed improved, that's a good thing. We'll have to wait and see. I pre-ordered the S.

I agree. Though I didn't pre-order ;D

 

[3kramd5]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"
...

By traditional I assume he means shooting a stop wedge, as opposed to the range where signal dominates noise.

If the noise floor is indeed improved, that's a good thing. We'll have to wait and see. I pre-ordered the S.

I agree. Though I didn't pre-order ;D

I presume it will be as good as or better than my mk3, so I'll likely sell my A7R and be done with adapters and obnoxious ergo. No reason to wait

 

[K]

This is in reference to the article on DPreview about the D750 vs 5D3 dynamic range and all the dynamic range talk in this thread and others -

Having more dynamic range is a good thing, but people get a little too passionate about it. It isn't the most important factor in a DSLR.

Seriously, of what use is it to be able to crank up the exposure 3 or 4 stops or more? These are radical increases by my standards. The color is messed up even on the best Sony/Nikon. If you're that off, you shouldn't be concerned with dynamic range. HDR techniques are superior to moving sliders around in Camera Raw. Better IQ. Technique is what is needed for extreme situations that call for so much range. Not sliders in post production. Sensors love to have light. Light is what gets the best color, depth, resolution and detail. Nikon has great dynamic range at the lower ISO's. Wonderful. "Pushing" images with Nikon has less noise and issues than Canon. Wonderful. But guess what? - the image still looks like crap. Not usable. Thus, when real, practical and realistic photographic standards are applied - this isn't that critical. What? Crank up some party photos in bad lighting? Sure. No one cares about the quality there. To get real professional quality - demanding quality, one has to nail the exposure within 1/3 stop. This will maximize the quality of the image in many ways. RAW isn't a crutch for bad technique or failure to plan or prepare. RAW is for taking something good, and making it even better.

When I left the Nikon platform, I knew I was giving up slightly better dynamic range. I don't miss it in the sense that my photography is now crippled, hindered or in any way, shape or form negatively impacted. Either a photo is good or it is not. You're not saving anything even with the best Sony sensor. I've tried! It does better, but it still doesn't save the shot. Nor does it truly "enhance" images. Lifting up the shadows, still leads to bad looking shadow areas. Sorry, but that's the reality. But I do recognize that more dynamic range is a good thing. It's just no where near as important as is hyped. The proof is the tens of thousands of pro Canon shooters out there creating unbelievably amazing images with a sensor, that if one were to buy into all the internet nonsense about, would consider an inferior piece of junk not worthy of high end professional quality imaging.

Jeesh!

 

[3kramd5]

Let me make this simple by working though it...

The 5D2/5D3 are almost identical in terms of measurable DR.

Measured by what method?

This is all conjecture anyway, combining unrelated statements by unrelated people.

At the end of the day, the detail will likely be phenomenal, and the shadows probably don't be as liftable as Sony, but if the noise floor statement is to be believed, they'll be more liftable than the previous 5Ds. Personally, shadow lifting isn't something I do wish any regularity, regardless of whether I'm using Canon gear or Sony gear. I purchased the A7R primarily for resolution in the studio, where I control light entirely. I also shoot landscape, but never find the need the push shadows significantly unless I screw up the exposure.

 

[V8Beast]

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"

Nice catch. That certainly alludes to a potential improvement in DR.

I also like that Burnhill goes on to say that while the 5Ds may offer medium format resolution, it isn't an alternative for medium format in overall IQ. You can always count on the Brits to keep it real ;D

IMHO, comparing the two platforms is a dubious proposition at best. There's a time and place for both, and one complements (not replaces) the other.

 

[privatebydesign]

Let me make this simple by working though it...

The 5D2/5D3 are almost identical in terms of measurable DR.

Measured by what method?

This is all conjecture anyway, combining unrelated statements by unrelated people.

At the end of the day, the detail will likely be phenomenal, and the shadows probably don't be as liftable as Sony, but if the noise floor statement is to be believed, they'll be more liftable than the previous 5Ds. Personally, shadow lifting isn't something I do wish any regularity, regardless of whether I'm using Canon gear or Sony gear. I purchased the A7R primarily for resolution in the studio, where I control light entirely. I also shoot landscape, but never find the need the push shadows significantly unless I screw up the exposure.

Absolutely!

 

[PureClassA]

The iPhone 6 with an astonishing DR of 2. Happy Mardi Gras

 

[privatebydesign]

Let me make this simple by working though it...

The 5D2/5D3 are almost identical in terms of measurable DR.

Measured by what method?
...

Why don't you write an email or letter to Chuck and ask him how he measured the DR of the 5D3 and 5Ds in order to make the statement that he did? Come back and let us know what he replies with.

He, Chuck Westfall, didn't measure anything. Canon told him to say exactly what he said, and that was "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII" They also told Mike Burnhill to say exactly the same thing, and he did. I am sure every senior Canon tech around the world was told to use the same expression.

 

[3kramd5]

Let me make this simple by working though it...

The 5D2/5D3 are almost identical in terms of measurable DR.

Measured by what method?
...

Why don't you write an email or letter to Chuck and ask him how he measured the DR of the 5D3 and 5Ds in order to make the statement that he did? Come back and let us know what he replies with.

He, Chuck Westfall, didn't measure anything. Canon told him to say exactly what he said, and that was "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII" They also told Mike Burnhill to say exactly the same thing, and he did. I am sure every senior Canon tech around the world was told to use the same expression.

Well then why don't you ask Chuck to find out how Canon came to that conclusion?

There are two possibilities here:
(1) Canon measured the capabilities of the 5Ds/5D3 and came to the conclusion that is being mentioned by Chuck and others;
(2) Canon measured the capabilities of the 5Ds/R, have not told Chuck and others the truth and told them to spin a story that effectively means Canon is currently lying about the capabilities of the 5Ds/R.

Those are really the only two possibilities you can come up with?

As to why I don't contact chuck:

I don't know his email address, I wouldn't expect a reply, and it carries little consequence. The ranges of my 5D2 and 3 have been sufficient, and unless it contracts severely, therefore the range of the 5Ds will be sufficient Looking through my libraries of images sold versus not, it's hard to say "if only I had 2 more stops, this would have sold" with a straight face.

 

[privatebydesign]

Let me make this simple by working though it...

The 5D2/5D3 are almost identical in terms of measurable DR.

Measured by what method?
...

Why don't you write an email or letter to Chuck and ask him how he measured the DR of the 5D3 and 5Ds in order to make the statement that he did? Come back and let us know what he replies with.

He, Chuck Westfall, didn't measure anything. Canon told him to say exactly what he said, and that was "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII" They also told Mike Burnhill to say exactly the same thing, and he did. I am sure every senior Canon tech around the world was told to use the same expression.

Well then why don't you ask Chuck to find out how Canon came to that conclusion?

There are two possibilities here:
(1) Canon measured the capabilities of the 5Ds/5D3 and came to the conclusion that is being mentioned by Chuck and others;
(2) Canon measured the capabilities of the 5Ds/R, have not told Chuck and others the truth and told them to spin a story that effectively means Canon is currently lying about the capabilities of the 5Ds/R.

Because I am not the one worried by the DR of the new cameras, or the old ones come to think of it.

You can draw whatever conclusions you want from the comments, and unfortunately this is where you become tiresome because you don't make logical ones.

The only conclusion I have come to is that until I have a challenging RAW file to play with I can't make up my mind on how the new sensors perform in post processing.

As for your two possibilities, unfortunately you have gone so far off into Elbonia I fear we have lost you again.

 

[canonic]

Let me make this simple by working though it...

The 5D2/5D3 are almost identical in terms of measurable DR.

Measured by what method?
...

Why don't you write an email or letter to Chuck and ask him how he measured the DR of the 5D3 and 5Ds in order to make the statement that he did? Come back and let us know what he replies with.

He, Chuck Westfall, didn't measure anything. Canon told him to say exactly what he said, and that was "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII" They also told Mike Burnhill to say exactly the same thing, and he did. I am sure every senior Canon tech around the world was told to use the same expression.

Exactly:
"The sensor’s design also enables the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R to offer the same wide dynamic range as the EOS 5D Mark III."
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/inside_the_eos_5ds_and_eos_5ds_r.do?utm_content=buffer4aed0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[wyldeguy]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"

That is why I say wait and see, at this point we do not know. I for one won't pass judgement until I can see and play with RAW files.

Sorry for the burst of rationality, lynch mob continue...........

Thanks for that link, I missed that.

Interesting.....

The devil is always in the details!

I am sure DxO will rape it as it doesn't start with N or S, I am also sure many working photographers, pro and amateur, will absolutely love it.

At this point I kind of wish I had a need for one of them, I can't justify toys, but I believe these are the kinds of cameras that will separate the photographers from the gear junkies and weekend warriors, not dissing any group, but I believe this will push photographers techniques, I can't wait to print some of the 50MP files!

That is true.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it will be interesting to see real files of practical shoots. I never up graded the 5DII to a III; added a 6 D instead. Prefer the ergonomics of the 5. The 5Ds might be the next move as long as it has mRAW and sRAW options, which I am sure it will have.

Maybe I will get to shoot rope bound and suspended maidens in from of a medieval castle - a sort of medieval bondage theme perhaps ?

I like the way you think Sporgon!

 

[Hector1970]

His name always come up here but I never heard him speak before.
Maybe it's just his style but he didn't come across very enthusiastic or give any compelling reasons to buy the new cameras. He seemed to more recommend the 5D Mark III .
It has a feel of a last hurrah for Canon sensors. It's a maxed out full frame version of the 7D II sensor.
I'm not over enthusiastic so far with the picture quality of the 7D II .
Canon have gambled here that 50mp outweighs a total lack of any other improvements (in fact almost a downgrade from 5D III in some specs).
I'll be really curious to see detailed reviews on it.
I hope the detail is amazing or I won't be buying.
I am a typical Canon customer, heavily invested and looking for a compelling reason to upgrade . I had expected a little more than 50mp in the three years since the 5D III launched.

 

[zlatko]

His name always come up here but I never heard him speak before.
Maybe it's just his style but he didn't come across very enthusiastic or give any compelling reasons to buy the new cameras. He seemed to more recommend the 5D Mark III .
It has a feel of a last hurrah for Canon sensors. It's a maxed out full frame version of the 7D II sensor.
I'm not over enthusiastic so far with the picture quality of the 7D II .
Canon have gambled here that 50mp outweighs a total lack of any other improvements (in fact almost a downgrade from 5D III in some specs).
I'll be really curious to see detailed reviews on it.
I hope the detail is amazing or I won't be buying.
I am a typical Canon customer, heavily invested and looking for a compelling reason to upgrade . I had expected a little more than 50mp in the three years since the 5D III launched.

You expected a little more than 50mp? Why not check out the sample photos on Canon's web site to see if the detail is amazing enough for you.

 

[pharding]

This is a major disappointment! We wait all of this time for an upgrade and the Dynamic Range remains less than Nikon.