DPReview's turn to beat up the 5DS/5DSr results

[Orangutan]

So I typed into Google, "what is normal ISO".

In short, I was hoping you'd see that a better question is "what is normal ISO for each person's type of photography." As I (and others) have repeatedly said, you should choose the gear that's right for your type of photography, as I hope you'll choose to do so you're no longer frustrated by your Canon sensor. The question "what is normal ISO," when stripped of context, simply isn't very insightful.

A vain hope. This issue also speaks to one of DxO's biases, propagated on DPR - two of the three Subscores are measured only at base ISO.

If that's my worst vanity, so be it. ;D

Here's another vain hope: I hope Dilbert eventually comes to the understanding that you can't make a broad generalization based on your own life and experience. Growing up in England, a child can be forgiven for believing that the entire world is Anglican, though the experiences of adulthood should be enough to dissolve that illusion. I don't know how old Dilbert is, but more life experience may broaden his perspective.

 

[NancyP]

Wolverines and their fans live in Michigan, and hate Ohio.

 

[Loswr]

The very same remarks should be directed at people here: don't define what "normal ISO" means outside of the context of your own personal shooting habits.

The very same remarks should be directed at DxO/DPR: don't define what "normal ISO" means outside of the context of your own arbitrary selections of how to report your data.

 

[ahsanford]

This is a problem with Canon's sensor design that has persisted for quite some time now. In the ISO range 100-400, there is a significant gap in sensor performance between Canon and others and it isn't until 800 that they start to become close.

I hear you, Dilbert -- my fingers aren't in my ears when you bring up the low ISO difference. It surely exists, I concede that.

But that low ISO difference...

a) ...doesn't punish what I shoot that much -- I'm only shooting ISO 100-400 perhaps a quarter of the time, and I'm not wrestling with the histo too much there.

b) ...doesn't open up cosmic new opportunities for me to capture world-beating images.

c) ...doesn't affect my livelihood as I'm not a pro.

d) ...doesn't magically create a better AF system, lens portfolio, 3rd party ecosystem, etc. for Nikon users.

e) ...isn't worth me walking away from $10k worth of gear.

I think the rift between you any many others on these and similar threads is that (I believe that) you believe these differences are the beginning of the end, absolutely must be rectified, are unsustainable in the longer term, etc. while the rest of us don't see it so grave a situation.

Respectfully,
A

 

[Orangutan]

Here's another vain hope: I hope Dilbert eventually comes to the understanding that you can't make a broad generalization based on your own life and experience.
...

don't define what "normal ISO" means outside of the context of your own personal shooting habits.

I agree, that's why I don't make generalizations about whether a Canon sensor is appropriate for someone else's uses. For example, you've made clear that a Sony sensor is appropriate for your shooting needs, and I hope to hear your reports on how well yours works for you.

I will point out that it wasn't me that started this debate about what's normal, rather it was someone suggesting that "ISO 400" wasn't normal (if fact it would appear to be almost normal):

I'd have to see that in context: it's possible that person was referring to normal for them, rather than normal for the general population of photographers.

This graph reminded me why I don't give a (insert your favorite phrase here) about dynamic range. The difference between sensors only shows up at ISOs that I seldom shoot at. Once you get into a normal range the differences are so tiny as to be totally irrelevant.
...

So here we have it that "unfocused" is suggesting that the ISO levels where there is a measurable difference (100-400) are somehow "not normal."

He's quite clearly saying a "normal range" for his shooting: the previous sentence creates the context.

Now that the debate has decided that "there is no normal" (aside from what "normal" means for you personally), we get back to a situation where the performance of the Canon sensor doesn't respond in a linear fashion as do others (and as it should.) This is a problem with Canon's sensor design that has persisted for quite some time now. In the ISO range 100-400, there is a significant gap in sensor performance between Canon and others and it isn't until 800 that they start to become close.

The entire foregoing conversation leads to the conclusion that it's a problem only if this affects your shooting style.

 

[Loswr]

The entire foregoing conversation leads to the conclusion that it's a problem only if this affects your shooting style.

It clearly affects dilbert's shooting style. That's why he said he would said was going to have already said he might someday told us it was none of our business if he will buy an Exmor camera.

 

[unfocused]

I will point out that it wasn't me that started this debate about what's normal, rather it was someone suggesting that "ISO 400" wasn't normal (if fact it would appear to be almost normal):

This graph reminded me why I don't give a (insert your favorite phrase here) about dynamic range. The difference between sensors only shows up at ISOs that I seldom shoot at. Once you get into a normal range the differences are so tiny as to be totally irrelevant.
...

So here we have it that "unfocused" is suggesting that the ISO levels where there is a measurable difference (100-400) are somehow "not normal."

First, I wasn't aware that we were in sensor court and taking depositions. But, if that's the case, then please quit distorting and misquoting me.

As I have said, I absolutely consider ISO 400 to be "normal" for me.

On the chart, at 400 and above (and to some degree at 200 and above) the differences may be measurable, but they are insignificant. "Measurable" is your term. Not mine.

Many things are measurable, but still irrelevant (which is the term I used). The difference between six inches and six and an eighth inches may be measurable, but for the purpose of procreating, it's not relevant.

As I patiently explained before, 1/3 of a stop difference at ISO 400, is not significant for me. I know how to properly process an image and I routinely adjust various areas of a photograph by more than 1/3 stop.

 

[JBSF]

I have gotten fairly exhausted attempting to follow the slugfest here and in other threads. However in going to the DPReview article, I found the link to Ming Thein's review of the 5DSR. Maybe this is old news, again since I have gotten exhausted and not followed everything. His review of the 5DSR is grounded in ACTUAL USE of both that camera and the D810 while working on the same project. What a concept.

Link:

http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/07/02/canon-5dsr-review-part-1/

 

[Famateur]

The problem with the graph isn't that the red line is above the blue but rather that one line is almost straight and the other is not.

That the Canon line isn't straight indicates that Canon has not yet fixed the problems with their sensor.

So, if I understand what you've said, the problem with Canon is that it holds its max dynamic range for a few stops of ISO before falling? If Canon "solves" its problems, its max dynamic range would start falling immediately as you increase ISO, just like the Sony/Nikon? Hmm...interesting logic. That would be a nice straight line, but...

What if the graph started at the same max dynamic range as Sony/Nikon and kept the same non-straight shape? Wouldn't that be much better? You could boost the ISO a few stops before it falls off. I happen to like the shape of Canon's graph.

I think the only "problem" might be that Canon's max dynamic range starts a bit lower, but as others have said, the real-world effect for many (most?) shooters is not enough to twist panties over. :-X

 

[TeT]

The problem with the graph isn't that the red line is above the blue but rather that one line is almost straight and the other is not.

That the Canon line isn't straight indicates that Canon has not yet fixed the problems with their sensor. Shadow noise may be mostly gone, yes but the intrinsic problems ... are still there.

If you look at graphs that show "ideal" performance of a digital camera sensor then it will look more like that of the straight line (D810) than it will of the bent line.

This is Canon's problem......

I think that you are a little off in your summation...

The straight line indicates that Nikon damped certain aspects of their sensor or drastically jacked up the front end.
Straight lines are not natural they are contrived...

 

[Otara]

For me its just that when I read dpreview I feel like I'm reading a campaign and thats not what I used to see. It's not quite advertorial but its irritating enough Im going there less and less.

 

[Loswr]

The amount of light collected at ISO 100 is double that for ISO 200 at any given combination of shutter speed and aperture.

Changing the ISO affects the amount of light collected. Another 'fact' from dilbertland. :

 

[philmoz]

The amount of light collected at ISO 100 is double that for ISO 200 at any given combination of shutter speed and aperture.

 

[TeT]

...
The straight line indicates that Nikon damped certain aspects of their sensor or drastically jacked up the front end.
Straight lines are not natural they are contrived...

No, Nikon did nothing of the kind.

If you delve into the math and science, you'll find that the ideal ISO/DR response graph is a straight line.

You are probably correct, I was trying to not make a firm statement of fact. Just sounds wrong...

 

[3kramd5]

The amount of light collected at ISO 100 is double that for ISO 200 at any given combination of shutter speed and aperture.

The amount of light which hits the sensor is double that at ISO 100 than at ISO 200 if total exposure is held constant, not the combination of exposure time and aperture.

The amount of light a sensor can gather before saturating is half as much at 200 than as 100.

 

[tpatana]

This graph reminded me why I don't give a (insert your favorite phrase here) about dynamic range. The difference between sensors only shows up at ISOs that I seldom shoot at. Once you get into a normal range the differences are so tiny as to be totally irrelevant.
...

Uh, I think you'll find that almost everyone sees ISO 100-400 as being "normal" ISO.

High ISO is arguably from 800 onwards but most definitely from 1600 onwards.

This year, about 90% of my photos are at ISO 6400. So that's my normal level.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Shame on me, I actually read a few comments in this thread. That's enough jollies for me for a few days. Seriously though, too much of this and there could be permanent brain damage!

Jack

 

[ritholtz]

Are you going to argue with Google?

And here is the problem with Dilbert's logic so eloquently pointed out by himself... if it's on the internet it must be real

You should sign up on Matchcom. It's unreal, everyone is a model!!!!

There is a reason why DxO mark can print all their marketing crap like this.
"The DxO ONE camera’s score of up to 85 puts it on par with many DSLR cameras, such as the Nikon D7200 and the Sony A7S (both with a score of 87), and is well above such Canon DSLRs as the EOS 5D Mark III (81) and the 7D Mark II (70)"

 

[Hillsilly]

To say that image quality attributes between ISO100 to 1600 are irrelevant because those ISOs aren't normal is stretching credibility a bit. A significant portion of photographers who value the highest possible image quality that their camera can achieve do stay in the lower ISO ranges whenever they can. Is anyone seriously arguing otherwise?

Besides, what's wrong with just admitting that Sony/Nikon have an edge at lower ISOs but that Canon catches up reasonably quickly? It's not like we're talking about significant difference to a well exposed image at lower ISOs, anyway. Or are we?

 

[bwud]

Besides, what's wrong with just admitting that Sony/Nikon have an edge at lower ISOs but that Canon catches up reasonably quickly?

I can't recall anyone here suggesting otherwise. Certainly might have missed it, but most people have no problem admitting that sony sensors, toshiba sensors, aptina sensors, samsung sensors, etc, have a wider DR at low sensitivities than canon. The only recurring contention is how much it matters.

My canon cameras include the 40D, 5D2, and 5D3. Occasionally I wish I had cleaner shadows; there are maybe 50-100 photos in my library that I consider good, but would consider excellent with greater detail in the shadows. That's maybe 0.1%, but it's real. I decided to gamble on the A7R mk II. Statistically, the improvements will likely be in the noise (haha), but if I save one additional picture from an upcoming once-in-a-lifetime trip, it's worth the gamble. I'll also bring a 5D3 with me. May the most suitable camera win.