DPReview Interview with Chuck Westfall of Canon USA
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
dilbert said:
All manufacturers come out with different MTF charts for lenses. What's stopping them from doing something similar for dynamic range.
PureClassA did say that the traditional measurement remark was not made by Chuck Westfall.
Upvote
0
They said it was similar. Not better. If they wanted to rig it, yes, they would rig it to say "better" but they didnt say that. By traditional measures it is similar to the 5D3 (possible subtext given this new information) but at Low IsO alone we are pushing 2 stops better than the 1DX. Im just putting the puzzle together based on what data we have. But it seems very suggestive
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
The black frame test and getting an exact score is what an engineer would do, not what a photographer would do. I presume the person was a photographer and used DPP to make actual photos.
Upvote
0
I would be 100% satisfied if the 5Ds had the same DR in terms of pushing shadows as the 6D. I have heard the 7D mark II is better, but I have never used that camera. I have the 5D3, 6D & 1DX and there is a huge difference between the 6D and the 5D3.
Take an underexposed image and push it 5+ stops and the 6D still looks pretty good while the 5D3 looks terrible. When I go look at the actual measurements from DXO it says that the 5D3 is rated at 11.7 for DR and the 6D is only marginally better at 12. Something is not right there, or there is a huge difference in whatever scale they are using between 11.7 and 12.
If there is similar low shadow noise in the 5Ds sensor as there is in the 6D, with the added resolution of 50mp, it seems like there could be a lot done with a 5Ds raw file. Just speculation thought.
Take an underexposed image and push it 5+ stops and the 6D still looks pretty good while the 5D3 looks terrible. When I go look at the actual measurements from DXO it says that the 5D3 is rated at 11.7 for DR and the 6D is only marginally better at 12. Something is not right there, or there is a huge difference in whatever scale they are using between 11.7 and 12.
If there is similar low shadow noise in the 5Ds sensor as there is in the 6D, with the added resolution of 50mp, it seems like there could be a lot done with a 5Ds raw file. Just speculation thought.
Upvote
0
Eldar said:
Regarding the screen in the camera: on your 5DIII fitting with the standard screen, have you tried manual focusing with the camera AF activated and focus to the point where both the chosen AF point briefly flashes red and the green focus confirmation light comes on ? I've been trying this with a 5DII and standard screen with an f/1.4 lens and it seems to be perfectly accurate.
Upvote
0
PureClassA said:
Not really. Even taking it as fact, that would give it roughly the usable range of an A7R, which I expect an 5Ds will be replacing in my kit anyway.
My interest is the same.
PureClassA said:
Have we ever known canon to specify dynamic range? I know they've used the phrase, but have they ever written it as a specification? I don't think they have. I'm sure they know what the noise floor is, but I wonder if they would tend to consider it in expressing DR, or whether they'd simply point to bit-width of the registers as the fundamental constraint.
Upvote
0
There are two problems with that. First, a high precision screen brings you to nearly perfect focus a lot faster and the second is that the 5DIII, nor the 5DS have illuminated focus confirm indication, which are makes it difficult to see in poor light.Sporgon said:
Often when I use manual focus lenses, I want to focus on something off-center. With a high precision screen, that is fairly easy, whereas with a standard screen you need to focus, with the focus confirm placed in the center and recompose. At f1.4 that is often enough movement to miss focus where you wanted it.
Focus is no problem with dead subjects. But with people or animals, you need to be more dynamic and adapt focus a lot faster. When I use the focus indicators in the camera, my speed goes down and I'm distracted from composing properly, so my keeper rate goes down.
But if the 5Ds is using the same focusing screen as a 5DIII, I can use my custom built screen from Focusing Screens. Only problem is that I can't change it in the field and, since it is not supported, I have a challenge with exposure control.
Upvote
0
I will admit I was disappointed to hear that the 5DS/R would have the same DR performance as the Mark iii but if they did a better job with noise when lifting shadows that would be enough reason to consider this model again. Until reviews come out I will turn my focus to the 11-24mm and the 100-400 mkii.
Upvote
0
jaayres20 said:
And surely this is the point Canon CPS are making. Measure DR and the 5Ds will stay roughly in the same ball-park as other current sensors. But you'll be able to lift shadows better through lower read noise.
There is little more to it than that, which is why Canon have not made a big fanfare for it.
But perhaps more back to the point. Canon wants to keep Canon people using Canon. They're not rolling out anything other than iterations to sensors - no step change. For many Canon shooters, that's enough to upgrade based on all other elements. For some, it may be enough for them to change.
It it were solely about quality / DR, then we'd all be using MF bodies. It's about what you have, what it might cost you to swap and what Canon needs to expend it order to release something that will hopefully make you buy a new body, but at worst not defect.
I think Tom Hogan is correct in that matter.
Everyone has to decide whether current DR with lower read noise is enough for them given the other things the 5Ds brings and the Canon ecosystem. If not, sit this one out. But please, don't expect any step changes in the 5d IV or 1Dx II. Not happening...
My only disappointment in the announcement is that nothing ships till June, rather than April. YMMD.
Upvote
0
zlatko said:
I'm glad to see wedding talk. I recall almost universal agreement as to why 36MP was worse of weddings in every respect because it was huge, not necessary, and didn't go to ISO 500K. I predicted the tunes would change as soon as canon went higher. I'm not saying you changed your view and I'm not applying this to you, but I'm amazed as to how suddenly 50MP is just right for weddings because they are canon MP
. Many Photographers are so brand dishonest with their statements that it is sad to see how they flip 180 just on a logo. I was all along on board that 36 was never too much, and I'm still on board that 50 isn't too much either. It's basically 8K vs 7K. I'm interested to know if Sony will go for a sweet spot of 40s or if they'll go for marketing and push into the 60s and beyond. That may make me question if we have reached the limits of oversampling and bayer demosaic benefits. I've often heard 80-100 is where we need to be in order to start thinking about oversampling being part of what you buy into, not just the sheer pixel count for 1:1 manipulation.However as for the DR concerns, I finally watched the video and I don't know if much can be made from it. However IF it is indeed the case that the 5Ds offers no DR improvements, and that its video image quality is a step back from the 5DIII, I think clearly this camera wasn't ready but was rushed out to try to beat whatever it was Sony is working on. It feels that management came and saw the D800 announcement 2 years ago, and tasked the team to ship more MP ASAP, everything else be damned. So they did (it seems).
I really expected 4K and high DR with dual pixel AF and all the canon goodies into one bad ass mo-fo body. I guess the 5Dmk4 will have to raise to the occasion.
Upvote
0
psolberg said:
Then you completely misunderstood the reason Canon made the camera and the market they made it for.
Upvote
0
psolberg said:I'm glad to see wedding talk. I recall almost universal agreement as to why 36MP was worse of weddings in every respect because it was huge, not necessary, and didn't go to ISO 500K. I predicted the tunes would change as soon as canon went higher. I'm not saying you changed your view and I'm not applying this to you, but I'm amazed as to how suddenly 50MP is just right for weddings because they are canon MP
Your memory is a bit selective. Before it became en vogue to bash Canon's DR performance, tons of people were complaining that 22 megapixels wasn't enough right after the 5D3 was announced. Sure, the only reason why some fanboys made such statements is because they were envious of the D800's 36 megapixels, but there were also plenty of Canon shooters claiming they needed at least 40 megapixels to update their flickr pages. As a proud Nikon shooter, I'm sure you noticed some people in the Nikon camp converting from the "low-light, high ISO" religion to the "slow FPS, high megapixel" religion during the D700 - D800 model update
No disagreement here. Unless the 5Ds offers some improvement in IQ other than resolution, it's definitely seems like it was rushed to market. It won't be long until Sony releases its 50 megapixel sensors, at which point it won't be surprising at all if Nikon puts it an all-around superior body.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
