DRones vs. anti-DRones: how to resolve the controversy

[V8Beast]

Sending more than one or two letters does do anything and might even be counter productive (unless maybe they just keep a running numerical tally and won't eventually notice if the same person sends the same letter 100 times ;D ? ). If lots of people bring it up all over the place maybe it spirals into enough attention for Canon to decide to go to a new fab sooner rather than another 15 years from now. And more attention can get more people to actually write in.

I think you greatly underestimate how seriously companies take customer complaint letters and over-estimate forum banter. Having worked lots of low-level customer service jobs when I was paying for college, I can assure you that it's much harder to ignore a complaint letter submitted directly to a company than it is to ignore forum banter or even a phone call. A random complaint letter makes it much higher up the totempole then you might think, especially when it bears some semblance of intelligence

Interestingly, one of those low-level customer service jobs was at Toshiba when Masaya Maeda was running the show. As soon as he took over, he demanded that the entire company begin transitioning to digitized documents because he felt paper was for cavemen. Considering that was 14 years ago, that doesn't sound like a person who's content resting on antiquated technology.

IMHO, Canon determined that the potential money to be made by improving sensor DR didn't, from a business perspective, justify the investment required to improve sensor DR. At least for this generation of bodies. Either that, or they don't have the technology to do it.

I'm sure many forum members have been asked to participate in Canon's surveys and market research studies. If the majority of those surveyed expressed gross dissatisfaction with DR, I don't see how they could ignore it.

 

[dak723]

It's not really that odd and confusing. Prior to there being good evidence, people could just shout louder about DR not being a problem. Since good evidence has been introduced, they are faced with admitting that they were wrong or continuing to shout loudly or even louder and nobody likes admitting that they were wrong.

I think this is the one point that those campaigning for more DR miss the point entirely. Yes, there is good evidence that other sensors have better DR than canon sensors.

That does not mean that there is a problem with Canon sensors.

If one sensor is about 90% as good as another, that does not mean the 90% sensor has any problems.

Would we all like more DR? Of course! Although I find it somewhat ludicrous that some folks believe that they can't take acceptable landscapes with a Canon camera. Perhaps they take landscapes only in the most demanding circumstances - such as sunsets or very low light. Perhaps they are blowing up these same images to 24" or more. For most of us, this is not the case, so "warning" people about the shortcomings of Canon's sensor is not necessary and totally misleading, in my opinion.

 

[Marsu42]

There were close to 14 million dSLRs sold last year. How many of those people do you think know what low ISO DR is, much less care about it?

I don't know, that's why I'm not putting up figures.

I do know that I though dr was not a big issue (well, far less than iso noise anyway) until I started shooting with the 14.5+ dr of Magic Lantern. Only then I realized how often some part of my old 60d shots was clipped because I couldn't ettl it w/o losing to much iq. With the 6d shadow noise has certainly gotten better and you can properly expose even with 90% of the data on the very left edge of the histogram, but this still loses resolution.

My guess is you can only really say how many people care about dr once they've shot with a high(er)-dr camera, otherwise there's no real choice and keeping to the old ways is the probable behavior.

The Architect: As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly ninety-nine percent of the test subjects accepted the program provided they were given a choice - even if they were only aware of it at a near-unconscious level.

 

[privatebydesign]

Here ya go, dilbert:

.... a blatantly contrived scenario merely to prove your point........

That's what is often considered passive aggressive behavior, dilbert seems to come by it naturally, don't call him on it though, that makes him really jiggy.

Get out and away from your computer. Go in search of locations and environments in the natural world that challenge you. Let me clue you in on something: nature isn't built with photographers in mind.

Had I of taken this image with an Exmor based camera ...

Please please dilbert, if you don't yet have an Exmor based camera, sell off all your Canon gear right now and buy one.

I'm already committing next year's tax return to buying Sony.

Hopefully, you'll lose all interest in things Canon and CR, should you then choose to grace us with your absence, the atmosphere here on CR can then lighten considerably.

Yes, then I'll be able to come back and taunt you all with pictures that your Canon cameras can't match

I suspect that once you start posting in Sonykon/Exmor forums, those folk will soon tire of your continued rants regarding build quality, lens choices, support issues, lack of conservative market stability, menus, ergonomics, flash systems, etc..

Lens choices? There's a huge expanse of lenses that can be used with Sony cameras, including many fine rangefinder optics.
Support Issues? Let me tell you about the time I had to send a lens to Canon 3 times to get it repaired ... now I just use 3rd parties as equipment is out of warranty.
Conservative market stability is not something that I desire. My camera and lenses are tools, not investments. A digital camera (like any other technology product) is obsolete the day it is announced.
Flash systems? For 99%+ of my shots I don't use a flash.

DRoners are very accomplished at rewriting history, forgetting they ever said that, outright denying they ever said that, saying a completely new idea or theory was what they were always going on about, quietly dropping an authoritatively stated equation when it is shown to be faulty, announcing they will provide 'proof' but never do, loudly decrying 'you just don't understand', saying 'but if the scene did have more DR than that I would have been in trouble', outright refuse to answer simple questions and just produce lengthy replies that repeat old positions and avoid any real discussion, etc etc, it seems to be a subset speciality of theirs.

P.S. And then bitch about how they are persecuted by the "antiDR crowd" (which is farcical because nobody has ever taken an anti DR position, just an anti DRoners position) whenever they are pushed into a corner because their self satisfying and ludicrous comments are questioned.

 

[Sporgon]

Yeah, keep blaming the gear, buddy. I've shot with heavy long lenses without tripod collars more times than I can count. A sturdy tripod, a cable release, and locking up the mirror works wonders.

Ain't that the truth, I have forgotten my 300 f2.8 IS collar before and used that perfectly well with the camera mounted on the tripod, I virtually never use the collar on my 70-200 f2.8 IS, just use the L-Plate on the body.

It seems the DRoners would benefit from using two L-plates, not just one. Preferably one on the back and one on the front to warn other photographers to give them a bit of room.

 

[Khalai]

What happens if Canon loses their place in the high end market? Do they even care? Or would they just be happy selling Rebels and EOS-Ms to the masses, because, well, you know...that's what makes the bottom line big and fat and black. It's what makes Canon the top DSLR seller in the world. Even if they lost a few hundred thousand high end DSLR sales, they would still be selling GOBS of the other stuff. The alternatives are not perfect...yet. However that is rapidly changing...Nikon's high end DSLRs, while they lack certain things I really like about Canon equipment, are still way up there. The A7 series has it's flaws, however Sony has been making progress on all fronts, not just the sensor front. Their new AF system has all the same capabilities, including tracking capabilities, as a Nikon or Canon AF system. Canon's older sensor technology, and history of providing the bare minimum features possible in any given device for as long as possible, are affecting them on other fronts as well. Video, an area where Canon exploded into only a couple years ago, is also an area where the competition is packing in the IQ and the features, in cheaper products, and gaining massive headway against not only Canon but some of the ancient established players. Red and Sony being two of those key competitors (with Red having raced past Canon now to challenge Arri.)

Let's just hope that Canon will not remain stationary and upgrade their sensors as well. Like you said, you dislike certain things Nikon does (or does not), Sony is not without its quirks. So Canon really needs only to step-up its sensor tech, everything else is pretty much matured - lens lineup (few primes due to upgrade, but apart from 35/1.4 and 50/1.4, nothing too urgent), flash system, autofocus tracking, UI and handling...

I personally think that you may be stressing the DR importance a bit too much. And if that's really your top no.1 priority, you just have to compromise - there is no ideal system out there...

 

[takesome1]

The latter group far and away outnumbers the former.

This has left me confused - how would you know that? Or are you just talking of the number of posters in this thread?

There were close to 14 million dSLRs sold last year. How many of those people do you think know what low ISO DR is, much less care about it?

I did forget to mention an intermediate (but still minority) group...those who know what it is, care about it, but do not think it's the most important factor in camera performance or even in image quality. Based on posts from members of this forum, I suspect even that group outnumbers those for whom DR means everything about IQ and camera performance.

Thinking of the percentage of DSLR owners I know personally (not on forums), I am going to go with about 5%, 700K. I would also guess that there are 12 million of them that never get past the point of using the running man, head or mountain settings.

It isn't surprising that most DSLRs sold are Rebel-style entry-level DSLRs. It also isn't surprising that the very vast majority of those DSLR buyers probably don't know about nor care about DR.

Btu why does that matter? Those are your average consumers looking for a better camera than their smartphone has. They have never been part of the group that cares about IQ. The group that cares about IQ is your avid enthusiast/hardcore hobbyist, semi-pro and pro users...high end users. Out of the 14 million DSLRs sold last year, how many do you think were Rebels and Dxxxx's and and the like? And how many do you think were high end models sold to people who fall into the group I just described? It's a SIGNIFICANTLY smaller number of people who buy higher end DSLRs, such as the 7D, 5D, 1D lines, or the Dx and Dxxx lines or the A7 line. Of those people, how many do you think know what RAW is, what dynamic range is and how it impacts IQ? Your percentages will change significantly.

The issue of DR shouldn't be applied to the grand total number of DSLRs sold. It should be applied to the sub group of photographers who fall into the "likely to buy high end" category. Canon could completely lose the high end market, and they would probably still have a profitable photography segment...because Rebels (and the remainder of P&S sales, and certainly EOS-M sales in Asia) make up a GIANT slice of their revenue pie. However...such a Canon would have lost the race as far as people like us, on this forum, go. IMHO they are already losing that race. For all the "sales numbers" and "majority numbers" being thrown around, there are a LOT of people who fall into the high end and cares about IQ category that are sick and tired of Canon's IQ. Certainly not on this forum...but the response to Canon's recent ad campaign on other sites is very telling. I don't think I've seen one positive comment about it outside of these forums. Nikon's ILC sales the year the D800 was released skyrocketed. The growth was attributed to some growth in mirrorless, and the D800/E. That camera helped spur 50% growth for Nikon's unit sales in one year.

What happens if Canon loses their place in the high end market? Do they even care? Or would they just be happy selling Rebels and EOS-Ms to the masses, because, well, you know...that's what makes the bottom line big and fat and black. It's what makes Canon the top DSLR seller in the world. Even if they lost a few hundred thousand high end DSLR sales, they would still be selling GOBS of the other stuff. The alternatives are not perfect...yet. However that is rapidly changing...Nikon's high end DSLRs, while they lack certain things I really like about Canon equipment, are still way up there. The A7 series has it's flaws, however Sony has been making progress on all fronts, not just the sensor front. Their new AF system has all the same capabilities, including tracking capabilities, as a Nikon or Canon AF system. Canon's older sensor technology, and history of providing the bare minimum features possible in any given device for as long as possible, are affecting them on other fronts as well. Video, an area where Canon exploded into only a couple years ago, is also an area where the competition is packing in the IQ and the features, in cheaper products, and gaining massive headway against not only Canon but some of the ancient established players. Red and Sony being two of those key competitors (with Red having raced past Canon now to challenge Arri.)

Maybe what you think the "High End Market" is and what Canon thinks the "High End Market" is are two different things. I have a feeling what you think the "High End Market" is, is different than what I believe it to be. IMO the high end market is the big whites.

Where DR matters on landscape photos I can sell all my gear and replace it with Nikon. I could completely retool for under $7K. Multiply that x4 for retooling my white lenses.

I might buy that Canon is loosing some of the higher end model camera sales because of this. But the margin isn't as big as some would like to claim. It is likely a small margin.

 

[dtaylor]

Canon does not seem to have a dynamic range problem, from what I can tell.

The problem appears to be, instead, a small group of people who hold strong opinions and won't shut up. They can remain safely hidden behind an anonymous identity and can never be held feet to the fire in the real world for their frothing at the mouth.

Which, to your point, always comes down to the Tools of the Trade for some people will never "good enough."

It's said that the third time's a charm. So here goes my last and final offer:
DRones, here's your opportunity to show me what your deep knowledge and carefully developed thoughts are worth. I bring super-large prints to a pub near me. The prints will include work from Sony's latest "wonder sensors" as well as from Canon's 6 year old sensor tech. You look real carefully at the prints and tell me which camera made which image. For every guess you get correct, I buy you a beer. For every guess you get wrong, you buy me a beer. Deal?

... DRones are anti-Canon as much as anything. There is no possibility of Canon making something good enough to satisfy them.

Easy and cheap way for you to get drunk

 

[dtaylor]

This is exactly right. Canon sensor IQ (the quality of the data in their RAW images) is poor relative to the current best sensor IQ of today. Canon sensor IQ isn't second, or third...in the grand scheme of things, overall, Canon sensors come in dead last...RELATIVE TO OTHER CAMERAS/SENSORS OF CURRENT CAMERAS TODAY.

False. Canon sensors come in 'dead last' on ONE SPECIFIC MEASUREMENT. And by 'dead last' I mean 'better then any color film and the majority of digital sensors historically, i.e. better then what we've had available to shoot for most of our lives.'

Most shots simply do not need to have their shadows pushed.

Most of the shots that do are well within the range of what you can do with any modern Canon sensor.

Most of what's beyond that needs HDR on ANY modern camera.

And that tiny sliver of leftover images...which are in between the limits of Canon's +3 stop shadow latitude and Exmor's +5 stop shadow latitude...can still be easily captured on Canon with a couple frames, or a single frame of Magic Lantern dual ISO.

Resolution? It's very hard to find the differences between the 5D3 and Sony's 36 MP sensor even in a 36" print. A 5D3 with Canon's best glass is not "dead last" in terms of actual resolved detail. In fact, it's near the top of the list. (Even DxO supports this statement in their lens scores.)

High ISO? The 5D3 hangs with pretty much anything FF except the Sony 12 MP A7S. The 70D hangs with anything APS-C. Initial shots from the 7D2 look phenomenal for crop.

Lenses? Canon is without question first. Nobody has the depth or breadth of their lens library, or of their lens design and manufacturing capabilities. Other companies have excellent glass and may have the better version of a particular lens, but taken as a whole Canon is top dog.

If I ran into situations where that +5 stop shadow latitude mattered, I wouldn't be here every day complaining about it. I would buy different equipment.

As is I can hike a location like Zion, shoot handheld, push shadows like an angry Sith Lord, and produce technically perfect 16x24 prints.

I can also hand hold a 3-frame bracket...with no IS...at 8 fps on my 7D. Give me IS and the 10 fps of the 7D2 and I just might be able to hand hold 7-frame HDR brackets. (Can't wait to try this.) Top that DR!

This is a purely impersonal debate about technology, and the merits of different technologies. Trying to turn it into an insult is just a smoke screen,

Is DEAD LAST a technical term?

 

[dtaylor]

The latter group far and away outnumbers the former.

And what does that matter?

Since the question of "meaningful difference" is subject to human opinion...quite a bit actually.

Do you honestly think that gives you a right to go around harassing the minority?

Implying it's not the other way around :

History is packed with episodes where the majority was dead wrong, and the minority, sometimes even just one man, was dead on.

Yeah...we're talking about read noise in digital camera sensors when shadows are pushed +3 to +5 stops. This is a truly miniscule first world issue, not a turning point in human history.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If I ran into situations where that +5 stop shadow latitude mattered, I wouldn't be here every day complaining about it. I would buy different equipment.

Wait...you're saying that instead of incessantly whining and complaining on an Internet forum where it doesn't really matter, you'd actually do something about it?? What a novel idea! :

Of course, just as R2-D2 was made on Naboo while C-3PO was made on Tattooine, there's more than one source of DRoids DRones. If that extra DR and shadow latitude mattered significantly to you, and if you then bought different equipment, you too could be a DRone if you came back to CR forums to 'teach' us all how poor Canon sensors were compared to the system to which you switched.

 

[DominoDude]

From some Spanish site that I can't understand (used and included on a Swedish photoforum), but it is a bit hard to draw the conclusion that the major segments are in direct relation to the worst image quality.

http://obj.fotosidan.se/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=136357&d=1412254066

 

[emko]

If I ran into situations where that +5 stop shadow latitude mattered, I wouldn't be here every day complaining about it. I would buy different equipment.

Wait...you're saying that instead of incessantly whining and complaining on an Internet forum where it doesn't really matter, you'd actually do something about it?? What a novel idea! :

Of course, just as R2-D2 was made on Naboo while C-3PO was made on Tattooine, there's more than one source of DRoids DRones. If that extra DR and shadow latitude mattered significantly to you, and if you then bought different equipment, you too could be a DRone if you came back to CR forums to 'teach' us all how poor Canon sensors were compared to the system to which you switched.

yea i don't understand the b***ing about the DR and MP that Canon clearly lacks if its important to you just sell the Canon and go with the company that offers what you need. I didn't switch yet i will see what happens with the next cameras if Canon does not improve i will switch to Nikon in the mean time i got a A7R for the DR and MP works great.

 

[neuroanatomist]

From some Spanish site that I can't understand (used and included on a Swedish photoforum), but it is a bit hard to draw the conclusion that the major segments are in direct relation to the worst image quality.

http://obj.fotosidan.se/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=136357&d=1412254066

But...but...Canon sensors have 'poor IQ' that is 'unacceptable' and 'sub-par'. How can it possibly be that by a wide margin the majority of photos winning a 2014 World Press Award were shot with Canon cameras? It was like that last year, too...it's really sad that all those award-winning image makers haven't read CR forums to learn how Canon's antiquated sensor technology prevents anyone from taking a decent picture with a Canon sensor.

:

 

[unfocused]

From some Spanish site that I can't understand (used and included on a Swedish photoforum), but it is a bit hard to draw the conclusion that the major segments are in direct relation to the worst image quality.

http://obj.fotosidan.se/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=136357&d=1412254066

Whenever this comes out, I am always looking to buy one of those "sin datos" cameras. They seem to always come out on top. They must have great dynamic range. Until I can buy one, I guess I'll just have to settle for Canon.

 

[DominoDude]

From some Spanish site that I can't understand (used and included on a Swedish photoforum), but it is a bit hard to draw the conclusion that the major segments are in direct relation to the worst image quality.

http://obj.fotosidan.se/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=136357&d=1412254066

Whenever this comes out, I am always looking to buy one of those "sin datos" cameras. They seem to always come out on top. They must have great dynamic range. Until I can buy one, I guess I'll just have to settle for Canon.

Si si, me no habla statistico, but "sin datos" sounds good indeedimucho.

 

[V8Beast]

Here ya go, dilbert:
...
Yes, then I'll be able to come back and taunt you all with pictures that your Canon cameras can't match
...

I don't see a vow anywhere in that text.

You've stated your intentions of taunting Canon users with pictures that our Canon cameras can't match. That's the point. Nitpicking over semantics is merely an attempt to divert focus from your stated intentions, which you claim you never stated: ie "taunt you all with pictures that your Canon cameras can't match."

Replacing "vow" with "state" or "express" doesn't change the context of you said in the least bit. Nice try, though.

 

[V8Beast]

Actually, what it will come with is a tripod mount that attaches to the lens, thereby shifting the center of gravity and the weight that the ball friction needs to keep horizontal. As it stands, in the 70-300 range, I'm only aware of the Canon 70-300L having a lens collar for tripods.

Yeah, keep blaming the gear, buddy. I've shot with heavy long lenses without tripod collars more times than I can count. A sturdy tripod, a cable release, and locking up the mirror works wonders.

I'm guessing that the gear you're using is completely different to that which I use on a regular basis as you have different regular operating requirements.

Possibly, but since you brought up a 70-300, I presume we're talking about long lenses, in which case my experience applying the aforementioned techniques (sturdy tripod, cable release, mirror lock) with a 70-300L, 70-200 f/2.8L, and 100-400L are still applicable to the discussion.

 

[RLPhoto]

I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.

Careful. I get flamed every time I make a similar observation. According to some of the most vocal DR "advocates," most people seeking more DR do indeed produce stunning images.......it's just that they keep those images top secret, and no one is allowed to see them.

I think you mistake that I want to be correct on that statement. I really hope that I'm wrong and a Droner can prove me wrong. IE: dilbert.

I'm probably just like everyone else where probably less than 3% of my images are what I'd call "postcard" quality.

That sounds like you have a lot of work on and DR would be the least of those things.

Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.

And I'm sure DR is only a miniscule part of making those photos.

No but it helps.

Not as much as a proper ball head.

 

[takesome1]

I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.

Careful. I get flamed every time I make a similar observation. According to some of the most vocal DR "advocates," most people seeking more DR do indeed produce stunning images.......it's just that they keep those images top secret, and no one is allowed to see them.

I think you mistake that I want to be correct on that statement. I really hope that I'm wrong and a Droner can prove me wrong. IE: dilbert.

I'm probably just like everyone else where probably less than 3% of my images are what I'd call "postcard" quality.

That sounds like you have a lot of work on and DR would be the least of those things.

Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.

And I'm sure DR is only a miniscule part of making those photos.

No but it helps.

Not as much as a proper ball head.

You know that if one person says it does not matter at all and the next says it is all important they become opposites.
In this case both are wrong.

One says that you make poor pictures because you do not have a body with more DR.
The other says you focus to much on DR and your pics are crap.

I read the arguments and think both of those individual's pics are probably lacking because neither concedes any ground and say that it is the combination of all things that make great pics.

There are work arounds for not having a good ball head, there are work arounds for DR.