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

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Apparently, now, theories and math and known facts are all useless and pointless...only the experience of a "handful of pros matters, and what a pro says goes. "

They're not pointless but this kind of stuff boils down to whether theory and facts show whether a measurable difference exists and then the next question after that is whether any difference found actually matters, ie is meaningful.

The test of 'do the people demanding this actually seem to be ending up with better pictures when they have it' is trying to find a way to address the meaningful aspect. It isnt perfect, but nor is focussing on measurement alone.

The only reason many got into the theories in math is because they noticed stuff in their photography. Stuff like shadow banding and not enough dynamic range. So it actually started, for many, in the so-called 'real' world.

 

[Otara]

Apparently, now, theories and math and known facts are all useless and pointless...only the experience of a "handful of pros matters, and what a pro says goes. "

They're not pointless but this kind of stuff boils down to whether theory and facts show whether a measurable difference exists and then the next question after that is whether any difference found actually matters, ie is meaningful.

The test of 'do the people demanding this actually seem to be ending up with better pictures when they have it' is trying to find a way to address the meaningful aspect. It isnt perfect, but nor is focussing on measurement alone.

Sure, but that's why I included "evidence" in my list. There has been some evidence provided for this debate, some of it very good, on a number of occasions.

'Evidence' is again in the measurable category, not really in the 'meaningful' category. This whole thread shows that in regards to how important the two images were to you compared to many others.

To put it one way, you can see these differences very clearly and think they are highly important. Twenty years from now they probably will mean squat and probably be invisible compared to the overall progress made in that time. The magnitude wont have changed, but how meaningful that difference is probably will have.

 

[Loswr]

I don't mind talks about dynamic range, and how it can/should be improved. What I do mind is that it has had a habit of showing up in just about any kind of threads. No matter what they was about in the first place.

That derailing of threads, combined with the repeated posting of the exact same arguments and images in multiple threads, is what gave rise to the term DRoning.

What generally fires me up on these things is some goofball making a statement like "Canon needs to improve their IQ" as if there were a problem with Canon IQ in some general sense. If there were any truth in that statement at all it would be evident in every image out there, which it clearly is not. I really doubt that any one could distinguish which images were shot by which system given that they were well produced and presented in a proper blind test.

Exactly.

They're not pointless but this kind of stuff boils down to whether theory and facts show whether a measurable difference exists and then the next question after that is whether any difference found actually matters, ie is meaningful.

In fact, there is general agreement on the technical differences. Whether or not the differences are meaningful is an individual decision. But when people make blanket statements about 'poor IQ' from Canon sensors, that's essentially imposing their value judgements on others.

English might not be my first language, but at least give me the benefit of being at least twice as smart as you expect. Don't read anything into my posts that I haven't insinuated very clearly from the start. If I want you to feel like you are the target, you will know because it says so in clear text.

Some people have a tendency to assume a general statement is specific to them, or assume a specific statement ambiguously referring to someone else actually refers to them, and if that statement is negative they take it as a personal affront. It's not the first time that's happened here recently...

 

[Loswr]

Is that the goal - to make people feel less satisfied with the cameras they have spent their hard earned money on?

Probably not the goal in most cases. Perhaps a happy coincidence for some who post such comments.

Please, be smart enough to know that people are tired of the negativity. And smart enough to know that if you really want change, this forum is not the place where your message will reach the decision makers at Canon.

That would be nice, and it's been suggested in several occasions to no avail.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

But why do you come onto canon Rumors and complain? Why do you come onto Canon Rumors to demonstrate the lack of DR in sample photos? Why do you bring up the subject on Canon Rumors in thread after thread? What are you trying to prove? What is the purpose of your complaining, or demonstrating?

It gets brought up, mostly, in threads where it is relevant.

People chat about tech, good and bad, be it computer, cameras, cars, etc. and compare various models of this or that.

Sometimes people notice a problem and wonder what causes it.

Why not take every minute and every word you write and send it to Canon in an email or a letter? Why waste your time debating here on this site - hammering the DR theme over and over again in multiple threads?

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.

It took a firestorm for them to add manual exposure control to 5D2 video or to fix 1D3 AF and so on and going to a new fab is an ever bigger deal for them than that stuff.

Anyway, I doubt that you will hear about it a real lot for much longer as it's gotten to the point where if Canon hasn't already started taking some steps it's almost too late for anything to arrive in any reasonable time frame at this point. So either they have and people who care will have their needs met soon or they won't and it will be clear it will be yet another 4-5, if not 10-15 years which will be too long to wait for many at this point so they finally will all leave or go deeply into split systems.

Some of the ones bringing it up the most actually really like a lot about Canon, which is why they bring it up so much. They really were hoping to make it so that they wouldn't eventually have to leave. And since sensors take a long time, they started the fire well ahead of the time when they'd feel they didn't want to wait any longer. If you wait until that point it's too late, since it takes a long time for action to happen.

Why not accept the fact that some folks will defend Canon in all cases.

That is a point. Sometimes it seems a shame though to leave a thread and have it seem like all the tech stuff they wrote was technically correct and/or that you were just some troll who slunk off after getting 'exposed'. It's one thing if they say the DR stuff doesn't really affect them. It's another when they say stuff like more DR actually make a sensor worse, or that DxO is all BS even their charts and the numbers on the charts (not just the overall scores) are pure BS, or that 1+1=9, or that nobody but a lens cap shooting dweeb could ever need more dynamic range for any shot. I guess you feel that if you don't response some random reader might tune in and think those who didn't bother responding back were tacitly agreeing.

Why not accept the fact that not everyone thinks that DR range is the most important aspect of a sensor?

I think most of us do and for sure more of us accept that than the Canon defenders accept that some people have a legit, real world desire for more dynamic range.

Why not accept the fact that by pointing out Canon's sensor shortcomings, you make people feel more negatively about their photographing experience?

Hopefully they don't. Some people might not be used to tech/science discussions and take it the wrong way though I guess.

Is that the goal - to make people feel less satisfied with the cameras they have spent their hard earned money on?

no

If you have a BMW and I have a Toyota, would you rub it in my face 10 times every day how my car could be better? Even if I am perfectly happy with my Toyota?

That is not the point (and it's unfortunate it if it ends up seeming that way) and many who point a flaw in the Toyota own only the Toyota themselves.

 

[David Hull]

Most of this DR stuff (not all of it but a great deal of it) is nothing more than hype.

I'm curious to know how many people who say that DR is mostly just hype have actually played with enough Exmor-based RAW files to really understand the differences.

There is this notion that the only thing more dynamic range offers is additional shadow pushing. That's not the case. Shadow pushing is by far the most obvious benefit, but on a normalized basis, more dynamic range improves IQ across the board. I've provides some RAW files people can download...I really encourage them to. They aren't phenomenal works of art...but they do demonstrate the differences.

I also encourage anyone who downloads to not just compare the differences at 100%. Doing that doesn't reveal as much of a difference, and that is primarily because your comparing 36mp @ 100% to 22.3mp @ 100%. That means the frequency of the finest detail elements and the frequency of noise are different. The primary difference at 100% is the shadow pushing. Once you normalize, you start to see the full benefits of an Exmor sensor...which means lower noise across the board (not just in the shadows), sharper detail, better color fidelity, etc.

I have played quite a bit with images from Sony based cameras and I am not denying the advantages that are there for certain specific applications. When I said hype, I am really referring to the way these demos are usually presented. Take a look at the recent bologna from Tony Northrup for example. This sort of thing can be quite misleading IMO.

 

[fragilesi]

I actually don't see jrista as a problem at all. Having read through some of his posts (apologies his stamina for writing exceeds mine for reading so I won't claim to have read them all) I can see his knowledge dwarfs mine but he's presented enough evidence to convince me of the point.

The thing that I find irksome is the posts that often follow his and the more reasonable DR aficionados by others saying things like the following (emphasis is mine):-

- Canon cameras or systems are years behind their competitors.
- Canon need to do something now or it's all over for them.

That's just opinion and in my mind a long way from the truth. I think the 7D2 which has suffered a lot from this debate due to timing is going to be a stunning camera for the intended audience. It will capture images, situations and moments that many other cameras that it is in the same price bracket as will simply miss altogether. Does that mean those other cameras are years behind? No, they just have different strengths and weaknesses.

I, and possibly a number of others, take exception to how this issue is raised to above all others by some. And once again I refer people to jrista's post about renting the Sony. He made his point about DR and backed it up but was already recognising that the Sony had other problem areas that could be significant. For what he was doing it was better, for what some others do it won't be.

It's a relative weakness for certain types of photography, it isn't make or break any more than the Sony's weaknesses are. Canon spends its money on a variety of things, maybe it's been outdone in sensors but I think it's ahead of most in other areas. It seems, you just can't have it all wherever you look.

 

[Sporgon]

Let's just be clear; no one here is anti dynamic range per se. It is a fundamental part of photography, and a genuine lack of it in the medium is limiting.

There are plenty who are 'anti-DRones though, myself included. Someone who states on this forum that they personally find Canons DR limiting compared to Exmor is not a DRone, until that is, the drone on and on about it, whereupon they may well qualify to join the DRone club.

But a real DRone, as has been pointed out by fragilesi above, is someone who makes the most asinine and ridiculous assertions as to their perceived limitations of Canon's IQ, to the extent that one assumes that whenever they look at a technically brilliant image shot on a Canon they think " imagine what the noise would be if those shadows were lifted four stops". Or they look at a well executed HDR shot on a camera using Exmor and think " wow, if only I had a Sony I could take images like that".

Unfortunately the recently self appointed King of the DRones has made some of the most inflammatory statements that I've seen on CR, bringing the forum down to the worst level of Internet 'expert discussion'. Cut out those sort of statements and everyone will get along a lot better.

 

[David Hull]

I actually don't see jrista as a problem at all. Having read through some of his posts (apologies his stamina for writing exceeds mine for reading so I won't claim to have read them all) I can see his knowledge dwarfs mine but he's presented enough evidence to convince me of the point.

The thing that I find irksome is the posts that often follow his and the more reasonable DR aficionados by others saying things like the following (emphasis is mine):-

- Canon cameras or systems are years behind their competitors.
- Canon need to do something now or it's all over for them.

That's just opinion and in my mind a long way from the truth. I think the 7D2 which has suffered a lot from this debate due to timing is going to be a stunning camera for the intended audience. It will capture images, situations and moments that many other cameras that it is in the same price bracket as will simply miss altogether. Does that mean those other cameras are years behind? No, they just have different strengths and weaknesses.

I, and possibly a number of others, take exception to how this issue is raised to above all others by some. And once again I refer people to jrista's post about renting the Sony. He made his point about DR and backed it up but was already recognising that the Sony had other problem areas that could be significant. For what he was doing it was better, for what some others do it won't be.

It's a relative weakness for certain types of photography, it isn't make or break any more than the Sony's weaknesses are. Canon spends its money on a variety of things, maybe it's been outdone in sensors but I think it's ahead of most in other areas. It seems, you just can't have it all wherever you look.

- Canon cameras or systems are years behind their competitors.
- Canon need to do something now or it's all over for them.

That is the sort of stuff that prompts my "Hype" remark.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Loswr]

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.

There was good evidence right from the start. The existence of a difference in low ISO DR between Exmor and Canon sensors is not in question. The general significance and impact of that difference is the issue...for some, it means everything whereas for others, it means little to nothing. The latter group far and away outnumbers the former.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

There was good evidence right from the start. The existence of a difference in low ISO DR between Exmor and Canon sensors is not in question. The general significance and impact of that difference is the issue...for some, it means everything whereas for others, it means little to nothing. The latter group far and away outnumbers the former.

Also, even the loudest DRones are happy to talk of "the detail in the shadows is wonderful, and the shadow falloff is really clean and smooth. " when they think they are talking about an Exmor file, even if they aren't..............

 

[Marsu42]

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?

 

[V8Beast]

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'd love to be proven wrong. dilbert has vowed to post images that makes Canon shooters envious once he switches to SoNikon.

Strange, I don't recall ever making any such vow.

Conveniently short memory, eh? I recall you mentioning you were going to spend your next tax return on a SoNikon, and come back and post images that you can never take with a Canon to make all Canon shooters on here envious.

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

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.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[V8Beast]

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.

 

[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.