DXO uh-oh?

[sarangiman]

The kicker is that RAW editors don't have to honor Canon's bias offset. The entire RAW signal is stored in Canon's files, and the offset is calibrated with a border of masked pixels. Who knows if editors like Lightroom, or DXO, or Aperture actually adhere to Canon's recommended offset. Even if they do, there is still negative signal information that can be pulled up, and the full noise signal is there. With Nikon RAW images...all that negative (deep noise) signal is simply discarded.

I use DeepSkyStacker and PixInsight to calibrate Canon RAW files for integration into a "stack". I use a 200-frame master bias image to subtract the bias signal from each light frame before integrating it. When the bias is removed from Canon RAW files, the dynamic range jumps by almost two stops...which puts it in the same range as Nikon files...

As Horshack mentioned earlier, this has changed with some recent Nikon models. In fact, the D810 has a bias offset of 600 in a 14-bit Raw file at base ISO. This might make it more suitable for your astrophotography, no, jrista?

Also: jrista you mention averaged dark frame subtraction as increasing dynamic range (DR) by 2 stops for Canon DSLRs - putting it in the same range Nikon/Sony sensors. I'm sure averaged dark frame subtraction to remove bias and some forms of FPN can help for certain use-cases (e.g. astrophotography), but I'm confused why you mention this here as if it would help any typical, say, landscape shooter suddenly get as much DR with a Canon DSLR sensor as you would with, say, the Sony A7R sensor.

That's simply not true. And I think you admitted this in a later post, but I do think it's important to stress the point.

Now, I know you know this b/c clearly you have a grasp of all this, jrista (stunning image, by the way ), but for everyone else - downstream (of ISO amplification) read noise essentially randomly varies the signal, so you can't simply 'subtract' out this random variation to reduce shadow noise (well, not without the usual costs typical NR software pay). Shadows suffer more simply b/c a constant source of electronic noise varies a smaller signal much more than a larger one; hence, shadows pay a larger SNR cost.

The only way I know of recovering the 'sensor DR' (without the influence of downstream read noise) is to simultaneously shoot two ISOs and combine results. For example, what Magic Lantern does. One can show that a Canon 5D Mark III is - for most practical purposes - 'ISO-less' above ISO 3200. That means that if you simultaneously shoot different rows of pixels at ISO 100 & ISO 3200, you can effectively avoid the downstream read noise effects and get more of the actual sensor DR (which is quite good for modern Canon, and Nikon/Sony, sensors). But then there are all the downsides this method brings...

Also, I haven't yet seen evidence that the increased DR at base ISO on the D810 is due to 'cooking' the Raw file. In fact, DxO's full SNR curves suggest some sort of nonlinearity introduced into capture at the lowest ISO. The SNR at clipping - where the noise is dominated by shot noise - remains the same for ISO 64 and ISO 100. That indicates to me that for an increased

 

[jrista]

The kicker is that RAW editors don't have to honor Canon's bias offset. The entire RAW signal is stored in Canon's files, and the offset is calibrated with a border of masked pixels. Who knows if editors like Lightroom, or DXO, or Aperture actually adhere to Canon's recommended offset. Even if they do, there is still negative signal information that can be pulled up, and the full noise signal is there. With Nikon RAW images...all that negative (deep noise) signal is simply discarded.

I use DeepSkyStacker and PixInsight to calibrate Canon RAW files for integration into a "stack". I use a 200-frame master bias image to subtract the bias signal from each light frame before integrating it. When the bias is removed from Canon RAW files, the dynamic range jumps by almost two stops...which puts it in the same range as Nikon files...

As Horshack mentioned earlier, this has changed with some recent Nikon models. In fact, the D810 has a bias offset of 600 in a 14-bit Raw file at base ISO. This might make it more suitable for your astrophotography, no, jrista?

Also: jrista you mention averaged dark frame subtraction as increasing dynamic range (DR) by 2 stops for Canon DSLRs - putting it in the same range Nikon/Sony sensors. I'm sure averaged dark frame subtraction to remove bias and some forms of FPN can help for certain use-cases (e.g. astrophotography), but I'm confused why you mention this here as if it would help any typical, say, landscape shooter suddenly get as much DR with a Canon DSLR sensor as you would with, say, the Sony A7R sensor.

That's simply not true. And I think you admitted this in a later post, but I do think it's important to stress the point.

I think it's unfair to say it's "simply not true." It depends. I've shot landscapes that are perfectly still, with only a slight amount of motion in the sky. Now, usually I photograph at ISO 100. However, if your going to be integrating frames, you could get away with using a higher ISO, and taking more frames at a faster shutter speed. If you bumped up to, say, ISO 400, took a bunch of frames, then integrated them together (you can do that with Photoshop, but it's still better to use a tool like DSS to do it, as it can work on the RAW images themselves, rather than demosaiced results), you would very likely GAIN DR in the end.

Why? Because when you integrate multiple frames, even if you don't even do any kind of dark or bias frame subtraction to remove read noise, your averaging those frames together. Averaging reduces noise. So, let's say you have the option of shooting one ISO 100 shot at 1/10th of a second, or four ISO 400 shots at 1/40th of a second. Integrate the ISO 400 shots, and you reduce noise by averaging. You reduce ALL noise, including deeper shadow read noise. In a Canon camera, ISO 400 has as much DR as ISO 100, so your did not lose anything by doing that, but because you could use a higher shutter speed, in the end, after integration, you gain something.

At a shutter speed of 1/40th second, you could probably get away with eight ISO 400 shots. Eight integrated ISO 400 1/40th second frames are going to have 2.8x less noise than the single ISO 100 shot at 1/10th second.

Now, such a thing is completely unnecessary with a camera that uses a Sony Exmor sensor. However people who use D800's still do true HDR, and some of them will take a good dozen frames for an HDR merge. Firing off eight ISO 400 frames at a relatively high ISO is trivial in comparison.

So, "simply no true"? Really?

Now, I know you know this b/c clearly you have a grasp of all this, jrista (stunning image, by the way ), but for everyone else - downstream (of ISO amplification) read noise essentially randomly varies the signal, so you can't simply 'subtract' out this random variation to reduce shadow noise (well, not without the usual costs typical NR software pay). Shadows suffer more simply b/c a constant source of electronic noise varies a smaller signal much more than a larger one; hence, shadows pay a larger SNR cost.

You don't subtract it out. Of course not. ;P You AVERAGE it out! Averaging attenuates the standard deviation of noise. You actually literally CAN NOT subtract noise because subtraction actually enhances the standard deviation, making the noise worse (this is intensely obvious when you start doing astrophotography...I accidentally subtracted a master flat frame once, and the noise was terrible because both the flat and the light frame had random noise. You normally divide out flat frames to avoid that problem.)

The only way I know of recovering the 'sensor DR' (without the influence of downstream read noise) is to simultaneously shoot two ISOs and combine results. For example, what Magic Lantern does. One can show that a Canon 5D Mark III is - for most practical purposes - 'ISO-less' above ISO 3200. That means that if you simultaneously shoot different rows of pixels at ISO 100 & ISO 3200, you can effectively avoid the downstream read noise effects and get more of the actual sensor DR (which is quite good for modern Canon, and Nikon/Sony, sensors). But then there are all the downsides this method brings...

Shooting two ISOs is just a firmware hack to extract more dynamic range from Canon's whole readout pipeline. The best way to extract more dynamic range is averaging. Your basic noise reduction algorithm works by averaging. When you apply noise reduction to any single frame in Lightroom, or with Topaz Denoise, Nik Dfine, NoiseNinja, NeatImage, or any of those tools, you ARE increasing dynamic range. That's what noise reduction does. It increases dynamic range.

I know LTRLI disagrees, but what were really talking about here is not actually dynamic range. Were talking about editing latitude. I wish these two things, DR and editing latitude, weren't so intrinsically linked, but they are. Editing latitude, as in the ability to lift shadows, is only one benefit of having more dynamic range. Fundamentally, DR is about less noise. Not just read noise, which only exists in the shadows, but ALL noise, which exists at every level of the entire image...shadows, midtones, highlights, whites, blacks, everything. Denoise algorithms reduce noise, which means, by definition, they are concurrently increasing dynamic range.

While the ML Dual ISO technique is certainly one way of reducing Canon's nasty banded read noise, it's not the only way. I have used Topaz Denoise 5 for a few years now. It has both debanding and DR recovery features. The debanding works wonders. I've used it on some really heavily banded astrophotography images to great effect. I've used it to remove the 7D vertical banding as well (which is actually not that difficult to remove, it has a very strict 8-pixel wide repeating pattern, and Denoise allows you to configure the band width or separation.

There are a lot of ways of recovering dynamic range. Canon doesn't clip their signal, they offset instead, so all the image signal data is there. It can be recovered (which is actually NOT the case with Nikon and Sony cameras), by denoising and debanding. There are certainly caveats and limitations to post-process noise reduction (which, btw, could also be called dynamic range recovery...same thing!) Like any algorithm, push denoising too far, and you'll start getting artifacts. But usually it doesn't really take all that much to really improve an image. A light touch of full-image NR and maybe a pass of debanding, mask and scatter a very light bit of artificially generated noise in the really deep shadows (to get rid of posterization)...and voila. More DR!

Also, I haven't yet seen evidence that the increased DR at base ISO on the D810 is due to 'cooking' the Raw file. In fact, DxO's full SNR curves suggest some sort of nonlinearity introduced into capture at the lowest ISO. The SNR at clipping - where the noise is dominated by shot noise - remains the same for ISO 64 and ISO 100. That indicates to me that for an increased

You should search some of the astrophotography sites. There is a lot if information about how all the various DSLR manufacturers mess with their signals. Even Canon does, to a degree...Craig Stark from Stark Labs (maker of Nebulosity) actually wrote a fairly detailed article about an unexpected shift in Canon's noise curves as ISO is increased. Every DSLR maker cooks their signals...it's just that Nikon does it more. There is actually a Nikon hacker group that has been pounding away at Nikon's firmware in an attempt to remove their black point clipping, and recover the entire signal. They seem very close to cracking that nut as well, and they have found that Nikon does indeed to quite a bit of signal cooking.

 

[Aglet]

Why? Because when you integrate multiple frames, even if you don't even do any kind of dark or bias frame subtraction to remove read noise, your averaging those frames together. Averaging reduces noise. So, let's say you have the option of shooting one ISO 100 shot at 1/10th of a second, or four ISO 400 shots at 1/40th of a second. Integrate the ISO 400 shots, and you reduce noise by averaging. You reduce ALL noise, including deeper shadow read noise. In a Canon camera, ISO 400 has as much DR as ISO 100, so your did not lose anything by doing that, but because you could use a higher shutter speed, in the end, after integration, you gain something.

I'm gonna poke a small hole in this argument, even if i've made some math errors.
Otherwise, I know the basic premise is correct and I agree with you.

Averaging 4 at iso 400 vs 1 at iso 100 will not net as much of a return because the SNR of any sensor also gets worse at higher ISO by a ratio that's mathematically pretty close to the same as the benefit of the stacking, at the same ratio of iso to n images stacked.
Accordian tu Ducks-o-mark. 5.1 dB worth (39.7 - 34.6) on the 5d3, for instance, at 18% gray (screen) (similar for d800 as well)
stacking 4 gives about 6dB of benefit?? then, net 0.9dB improvement, not likely noticeable.
You'd need to stack more images at the same iso to get better results.

However, where it's needed most, in the deeper shadow areas, the SNR difference between 100 iso and 400 iso is much smaller and averaging 4 iso 400s will certainly make an improvement over 1 at iso 100. This is more a characteristic of Canon's sensors that can be exploited more effectively with this method.

Also, this is only applicable to random noise.
if theres FPN, then averaging can make it worse by reinforcing it unless you also apply a spacial shift to the images you're stacking and then realigning them later.

 

[sarangiman]

I think it's unfair to say it's "simply not true." It depends. I've shot landscapes that are perfectly still, with only a slight amount of motion in the sky. Now, usually I photograph at ISO 100. However, if your going to be integrating frames, you could get away with using a higher ISO, and taking more frames at a faster shutter speed. If you bumped up to, say, ISO 400, took a bunch of frames, then integrated them together (you can do that with Photoshop, but it's still better to use a tool like DSS to do it, as it can work on the RAW images themselves, rather than demosaiced results), you would very likely GAIN DR in the end.

Well of course. Image averaging increases SNR by the square root of the # of images averaged. You can mathematically derive this simply by knowing that noise adds in quadrature. Which is also why any additive or subtractive operations increase noise, as you mention later on.

But every camera benefits in this manner. And a camera that starts with a higher SNR (Nikon/Sony vs. Canon, assuming all else equal) will benefit just as much. So this is pretty irrelevant in the context of this discussion...

Actually, an easier way to understand all this averaging business is to think that - in terms of photon/shot noise - averaging 8 exposures that are each 1/8 shorter than one long exposure is very similar to just taking one long (8x as long) exposure to begin with. Or using a sensor w/ 8x the surface area. In reality, averaging n exposures is generally worse than taking one exposure n times as long (given you don't clip) b/c of the extra aggregate read noise of 8x as many read events.
[/quote]

Now, such a thing is completely unnecessary with a camera that uses a Sony Exmor sensor. However people who use D800's still do true HDR, and some of them will take a good dozen frames for an HDR merge. Firing off eight ISO 400 frames at a relatively high ISO is trivial in comparison.

That's correct. And, yes, even a D800/810 or A7R benefit from HDR or graduated neutral density filters even with scenes that technically fall within their Raw DR capabilities b/c HDR/GNDs allow you to expose shot-noise limited shadows more - thereby increasing their SNR. So even if using a GND flattens your image such that you have to darken your shadows in post, noise performance will still be better than underexposing those shadows - even for a sensor with no read noise (i.e. a theoretical shot noise-limited sensor). Now, whether it's necessary or not for any given scene/application is another matter entirely.

So, "simply not true"? Really?

Er, yes I still stand by that, even though we appear to be on the same page

You don't subtract it out. Of course not. ;P You AVERAGE it out! Averaging attenuates the standard deviation of noise. You actually literally CAN NOT subtract noise because subtraction actually enhances the standard deviation, making the noise worse (this is intensely obvious when you start doing astrophotography...I accidentally subtracted a master flat frame once, and the noise was terrible because both the flat and the light frame had random noise. You normally divide out flat frames to avoid that problem.)

Yes, b/c noise adds in quadrature. But my initial point still stands - it seems misleading to point out that image averaging can get you near Sony/Nikon levels of DR. B/c image averaging would also help the Sony/Nikon sensors. Each would keep pulling ahead, and we'll end up right where we began - with a base ISO DR advantage going to the Sony/Nikon architectures with low downstream read noise.

Shooting two ISOs is just a firmware hack to extract more dynamic range from Canon's whole readout pipeline. The best way to extract more dynamic range is averaging. Your basic noise reduction algorithm works by averaging. When you apply noise reduction to any single frame in Lightroom, or with Topaz Denoise, Nik Dfine, NoiseNinja, NeatImage, or any of those tools, you ARE increasing dynamic range. That's what noise reduction does. It increases dynamic range.

Actually, the higher ISO used when shooting two ISOs is just a way to get shadows well above the downstream read noise floor of Canon's architecture. It works, with the downsides of the resolution cost/artifacts, when image averaging is not an option. Also, with all this talk of image averaging, I feel compelled to point out that it's sometimes practically quite difficult to be thinking about image averaging when you're trying to shoot rapidly changing light, sometimes ND filters and long exposures to create motion, etc. It's essentially technology getting in the way of artistry, especially when you consider that there are better options out there for this particular purpose (base ISO DR).

Yes, you can technically say that NR can increase DR, but it comes at the cost of detail retention. Hence, IMHO, the best tests of DR are done on unfiltered data (or however unfiltered one can get it).

I know LTRLI disagrees, but what were really talking about here is not actually dynamic range. Were talking about editing latitude. I wish these two things, DR and editing latitude, weren't so intrinsically linked, but they are. Editing latitude, as in the ability to lift shadows, is only one benefit of having more dynamic range. Fundamentally, DR is about less noise. Not just read noise, which only exists in the shadows, but ALL noise, which exists at every level of the entire image...shadows, midtones, highlights, whites, blacks, everything. Denoise algorithms reduce noise, which means, by definition, they are concurrently increasing dynamic range.

Actually, since DR is defined as the range between clipping and some lower SNR threshold, DR is really not about ALL noise. Midtone/highlight noise is typically shot noise dominated (ignoring PRNU), but at this point the SNR is typically well above the lower SNR threshold people generally find acceptable. Save for very small sensors and/or very high ISOs.

While the ML Dual ISO technique is certainly one way of reducing Canon's nasty banded read noise, it's not the only way.

Just to be clear, I wasn't even talking about banding. I was talking about the downstream read noise that manifests itself as just random noise. The detrimental effects of this 'downstream' noise can be mitigated by amplifying the signal to the point at which the downstream read noise is irrelevant. This is precisely why Canon DSLRs can catch up in DR at higher ISOs... at these high levels of amplification, it's mainly sensor-level (upstream of the ISO amplifier) read noise that matters. And here, Canon is doing just as well as others.

There are a lot of ways of recovering dynamic range. Canon doesn't clip their signal, they offset instead, so all the image signal data is there. It can be recovered (which is actually NOT the case with Nikon and Sony cameras),

Again, this is no longer true. The D810 has an offset of 600.

Also, I haven't yet seen evidence that the increased DR at base ISO on the D810 is due to 'cooking' the Raw file. In fact, DxO's full SNR curves suggest some sort of nonlinearity introduced into capture at the lowest ISO. The SNR at clipping - where the noise is dominated by shot noise - remains the same for ISO 64 and ISO 100. That indicates to me that for an increased

[quote author=jrista]
You should search some of the astrophotography sites. There is a lot if information about how all the various DSLR manufacturers mess with their signals.

[/quote]

Yes, I know that manufacturer's can 'cook' Raw files to a certain extent, but my point was that there's no evidence so far that this 'cooking' is what is leading to the extra DR at base ISO for the D810. I was pointing out that the SNR curve is significantly more non-linear at base ISO compared to ISO 100 for the D810:

Almost like an emulation (albeit very tiny magnitude) of negative film's decreasing response with increasing exposure. I think that's quite interesting, and am trying to get to the bottom of it. It's literally like a roll-off at higher input luminosities. Would love to hear some thoughts from folks here.

 

[RLPhoto]

Jrista, that's quite a rant but agree that the d810 is what the d800 should have been when released. That would have really lit a fire under canon.

 

[candyman]

Он чувствует себя немного странно, что Canon больше не кажется, быть в состоянии конкурировать в таких областях, как качество изображения, шума датчика, даже сильных полях Nikon AF, кажется, догнал D810. немного волнуясь

Google translation: "It feels a little strange that Canon no longer seem to be able to compete in areas such as image quality, sensor noise, even strong fields Nikon AF, seems to be caught up with D810. a bit worrying"

I don't see it that way. But even if you do, be aware that it is a competition stepover.

 

[jrista]

Why? Because when you integrate multiple frames, even if you don't even do any kind of dark or bias frame subtraction to remove read noise, your averaging those frames together. Averaging reduces noise. So, let's say you have the option of shooting one ISO 100 shot at 1/10th of a second, or four ISO 400 shots at 1/40th of a second. Integrate the ISO 400 shots, and you reduce noise by averaging. You reduce ALL noise, including deeper shadow read noise. In a Canon camera, ISO 400 has as much DR as ISO 100, so your did not lose anything by doing that, but because you could use a higher shutter speed, in the end, after integration, you gain something.

I'm gonna poke a small hole in this argument, even if i've made some math errors.
Otherwise, I know the basic premise is correct and I agree with you.

Averaging 4 at iso 400 vs 1 at iso 100 will not net as much of a return because the SNR of any sensor also gets worse at higher ISO by a ratio that's mathematically pretty close to the same as the benefit of the stacking, at the same ratio of iso to n images stacked.
Accordian tu Ducks-o-mark. 5.1 dB worth (39.7 - 34.6) on the 5d3, for instance, at 18% gray (screen) (similar for d800 as well)
stacking 4 gives about 6dB of benefit?? then, net 0.9dB improvement, not likely noticeable.
You'd need to stack more images at the same iso to get better results.

However, where it's needed most, in the deeper shadow areas, the SNR difference between 100 iso and 400 iso is much smaller and averaging 4 iso 400s will certainly make an improvement over 1 at iso 100. This is more a characteristic of Canon's sensors that can be exploited more effectively with this method.

Also, this is only applicable to random noise.
if theres FPN, then averaging can make it worse by reinforcing it unless you also apply a spacial shift to the images you're stacking and then realigning them later.

Sorry, I said noise, but I meant read noise, which only exists in the shadows. I agree, there isn't going to be a significant improvement in the midtones up, but if you averaged a bunch of ISO 400 images together that fit in the space of a single ISO 100 image, you WOULD reduce read noise with the ISO 400 stack below the levels of a single ISO 100 image. This is because ISO 400 in Canon cameras have considerably less read noise than ISO 100. Even if all you do is achieve roughly the same amount of noise in the midtones through highlights, you still have a better image overall...and more dynamic range and editing latitude...because in a Canon camera, DR/editing latitude is limited by their read noise.

That's all I was saying.

 

[Sporgon]

Он чувствует себя немного странно, что Canon больше не кажется, быть в состоянии конкурировать в таких областях, как качество изображения, шума датчика, даже сильных полях Nikon AF, кажется, догнал D810. немного волнуясь

3eBaTb

(Yawn)

 

[Keith_Reeder]

That would have really lit a fire under canon.

And again: what the D810 does that's demonstrably better than what can be achieved by Canon bodies is of importance to only a tiny subset of the potential userbase out there.

It wouldn't have lit (and didn't light) a fire under Canon, because most users don't care about what is "superior" about the D810, and don't use their cameras in such a way as to make that "superiority" remotely relevant to them.

The D810 is arguably less of a one-trick pony than the D800, but it's still nothing like as versatile and useful for photography across the genres as the 5D Mk III.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

And for a small but vocal group of people, high ISO is all they care about.

Nope, nobody says that, and you know it.

High ISO gets cited purely as an example of something other than low ISO DR that also matters - because it's obvious that some people simply can't comprehend the notion that low ISO DR isn't the be-all-and-end-all.

 

[scyrene]

And for a small but vocal group of people, high ISO is all they care about.

Nope, nobody says that, and you know it.

High ISO gets cited purely as an example of something other than low ISO DR that also matters - because it's obvious that some people simply can't comprehend the notion that low ISO DR isn't the be-all-and-end-all.

Mostly those of us who value higher ISO are after shots we literally can't get at present. Usable ISO 3200-5000 means I can shoot small birds in flight at 1000mm f/10 in cloudy conditions (some ask why bother, but that's a separate point). Usable ISO 25600 would allow even greater flexibility for very fast exposures in poor light - whether it's birds or people at parties. People clamouring for low ISO improvements are after a much subtler thing, I would say. They want slightly better/easier to process shots of landscapes or studio subjects.

Both are valid, but for some reason the low-ISO proponents often reject that people wanting cleaner high ISO have a point (as you say).

 

[Loswr]

That would have really lit a fire under canon.

And again: what the D810 does that's demonstrably better than what can be achieved by Canon bodies is of importance to only a tiny subset of the potential userbase out there.

When the D800 came out, the usual suspects predicted doom for the 5DIII and for Canon in general, commented that with 36 MP Nikon had beaten Canon at their own MP game, that Canon was behind and needed to catch up, etc.

Here we are, a couple of years later, and has Canon released a 5DIII replacement to better compete with the D800? Nope, the 5DIII is doing fine. Instead, Nikon felt the need to release the D810 in an effort to better compete with the 5DIII by addressing some of the D800's shortcomings.

Of course, the same crew of usual suspects is now going on about how the D810 will 'light a fire under Canon' or whatever.

It's amusing, but also a little sad, that some people can't see beyond their own limited needs, particularly when those needs are shared with only a small minority. Fortunately for Canon, they apparently can see the big picture, which is one reason they've long been and remain the market leader.

 

[RLPhoto]

That would have really lit a fire under canon.

And again: what the D810 does that's demonstrably better than what can be achieved by Canon bodies is of importance to only a tiny subset of the potential userbase out there.

It wouldn't have lit (and didn't light) a fire under Canon, because most users don't care about what is "superior" about the D810, and don't use their cameras in such a way as to make that "superiority" remotely relevant to them.

The D810 is arguably less of a one-trick pony than the D800, but it's still nothing like as versatile and useful for photography across the genres as the 5D Mk III.

Pretty much. The mk3 was the D700 replacement everyone wanted from nikon and the D810 addressed alot of those issues. Alas, Alittle too late but It would have given a solid reason for some nikon users not to jump to the MK3's practicality. (Which quite a few did both ways.)

 

[jrista]

That would have really lit a fire under canon.

And again: what the D810 does that's demonstrably better than what can be achieved by Canon bodies is of importance to only a tiny subset of the potential userbase out there.

When the D800 came out, the usual suspects predicted doom for the 5DIII and for Canon in general, commented that with 36 MP Nikon had beaten Canon at their own MP game, that Canon was behind and needed to catch up, etc.

Here we are, a couple of years later, and has Canon released a 5DIII replacement to better compete with the D800? Nope, the 5DIII is doing fine. Instead, Nikon felt the need to release the D810 in an effort to better compete with the 5DIII by addressing some of the D800's shortcomings.

Of course, the same crew of usual suspects is now going on about how the D810 will 'light a fire under Canon' or whatever.

It's amusing, but also a little sad, that some people can't see beyond their own limited needs, particularly when those needs are shared with only a small minority. Fortunately for Canon, they apparently can see the big picture, which is one reason they've long been and remain the market leader.

Thing is, the D810 is actually a real competitor for the 5D III, as far as "general purpose DSLR" goes. It lacks in the ergo department, and is missing that 1 FPS, dunno about the AF system, although that was always pretty decent, but it is a LOT closer, and STILL has the better sensor IQ.

I agree, the D800 wasn't really a competitor for the 5D III...but the D810 is. I don't expect Canon to rush a 5D IV to market, simply isn't their style. I do expect the 7D II to have a better sensor with better low ISO IQ. It's needed and necessary for Canon to remain competitive. As I've said before...it doesn't really matter if it *really* matters or not. Perceptions have changed. It's pretty difficult to go to any photography forum these days, and not hear about DR. Everyone talks about it. I know I want more of it, and I've been patiently awaiting Canon to do something about it...but they have lost momentum.

The digital photography world is marching forward...and Canon is standing still. I like Canon, I like to defend them, I really don't like how DXO does things, and I don't think the DR issue is as all important as so many people make it out to be. I'll always be involved in those debates. But...the simple, honest truth is...I want my high res, high DR, full frame landscape DSLR...and I dont want to have to buy a Nikon to get it. I want to see the 7D II get a major sensor IQ boost...because if I don't...I'll lose faith in Canon to address their customer's primary concerns.

As much as you and I may be Canon fans, I think we still have to be realistic. You can't ignore the competition the D810 brings to the table. It's received meaningful improvements. Sadly, I agree with you. I don't think the D810 will light a fire under Canon...and quite honestly, I think that's sad. Canon's sensor IQ is rapidly becoming the worst in the industry, when it used to be the best. Even the medium format cameras, which used to have read noise as bad as Canons, are now using 50mp medium format Exmors... Half or more of Canon's DSLR and mirrorless competitors are using Exmors. Canon can only ride the wave for so long...

 

[candyman]

That would have really lit a fire under canon.

And again: what the D810 does that's demonstrably better than what can be achieved by Canon bodies is of importance to only a tiny subset of the potential userbase out there.

When the D800 came out, the usual suspects predicted doom for the 5DIII and for Canon in general, commented that with 36 MP Nikon had beaten Canon at their own MP game, that Canon was behind and needed to catch up, etc.

Here we are, a couple of years later, and has Canon released a 5DIII replacement to better compete with the D800? Nope, the 5DIII is doing fine. Instead, Nikon felt the need to release the D810 in an effort to better compete with the 5DIII by addressing some of the D800's shortcomings.

Of course, the same crew of usual suspects is now going on about how the D810 will 'light a fire under Canon' or whatever.

It's amusing, but also a little sad, that some people can't see beyond their own limited needs, particularly when those needs are shared with only a small minority. Fortunately for Canon, they apparently can see the big picture, which is one reason they've long been and remain the market leader.

Почему вы ложью, видео точно показывает, почему датчик от Sony лучше, чем Canon.
И почему эти продажи передать все это время? Это не имеет ничего общего с измерениями ДХО, результаты и видео я имею в виду.
Здесь, в России мы удивляемся, почему Canon постоянно отстают других производителей, когда речь заходит качеству изображения

Yuriy, no offense but can you translate your native language in Google translation and then post it? Thanks!

 

[Loswr]

Почему вы ложью, видео точно показывает, почему датчик от Sony лучше, чем Canon.
И почему эти продажи передать все это время? Это не имеет ничего общего с измерениями ДХО, результаты и видео я имею в виду.

Yuriy, no offense but can you translate your native language in Google translation and then post it? Thanks!

I believe "Yuriy's" native language is actually Swedish. For example, he might say:

Jag gillar att ta dåligt exponerade bilder av grillar, bodar och markiser.

 

[candyman]

Почему вы ложью, видео точно показывает, почему датчик от Sony лучше, чем Canon.
И почему эти продажи передать все это время? Это не имеет ничего общего с измерениями ДХО, результаты и видео я имею в виду.

Yuriy, no offense but can you translate your native language in Google translation and then post it? Thanks!

I believe "Yuriy's" native language is actually Swedish. For example, he might say:

Jag gillar att ta dåligt exponerade bilder av grillar, bodar och markiser.

;D

 

[mackguyver]

Почему вы ложью, видео точно показывает, почему датчик от Sony лучше, чем Canon.
И почему эти продажи передать все это время? Это не имеет ничего общего с измерениями ДХО, результаты и видео я имею в виду.

Yuriy, no offense but can you translate your native language in Google translation and then post it? Thanks!

I believe "Yuriy's" native language is actually Swedish. For example, he might say:

Jag gillar att ta dåligt exponerade bilder av grillar, bodar och markiser.

He must be from that Russian side of Stockholm or something as my Swedish friends don't use the Cyrillic alphabet...

I'd respond with the following (forgive the Google translation):
Дорогой друг, это форум Canon и все мы говорим на одном языке, что практически не что DxO не следует доверять и DR может быть хорошо на бумаге, но это не делает все другие камеры устарели. Кроме того, сколько людей на самом деле стрелять в темноте?

 

[Orangutan]

Почему вы ложью, видео точно показывает, почему датчик от Sony лучше, чем Canon.
И почему эти продажи передать все это время? Это не имеет ничего общего с измерениями ДХО, результаты и видео я имею в виду.

Yuriy, no offense but can you translate your native language in Google translation and then post it? Thanks!

I believe "Yuriy's" native language is actually Swedish. For example, he might say:

Jag gillar att ta dåligt exponerade bilder av grillar, bodar och markiser.

He must be from that Russian side of Stockholm or something as my Swedish friends don't use the Cyrillic alphabet...

I'd respond with the following (forgive the Google translation):
Дорогой друг, это форум Canon и все мы говорим на одном языке, что практически не что DxO не следует доверять и DR может быть хорошо на бумаге, но это не делает все другие камеры устарели. Кроме того, сколько людей на самом деле стрелять в темноте?

If so, props to Миша for the creativity.

 

[sarangiman]

Thing is, the D810 is actually a real competitor for the 5D III, as far as "general purpose DSLR" goes. It lacks in the ergo department, and is missing that 1 FPS, dunno about the AF system, although that was always pretty decent, but it is a LOT closer, and STILL has the better sensor IQ.

First of all, 'lacks in the ergo department' is very, very subjective. Yes the grip on the D810 is still too small & not fat enough for my hands, and the D-pad is not as good as Canon's joystick. OTOH, there are many more customization options on the D810 than on my 5DIII. So there's a greater chance I can configure the D810 to suit my needs over the Canon. And let's not forget the complete lack of EC in M mode w/ Auto ISO when it comes to Canon. The 1Dx's implementation is so nonsensical it's almost lacking - you either have to use the LCD screen to use EC in M mode, or dedicate the Set button to activate EC in M mode. The latter removes one of the largest advantages of Canon ergonomics in my opinion - the ability to press 'Set' even in shooting mode to instantly check focus on your last shot. Why you can't adjust EC using the dedicated EC button in M mode baffles me to no end...

Also - if you consider this an element of 'ergonomics' - programmable Auto ISO itself enough reason to choose Nikon. When I'm switching primes during a wedding shoot, I don't want to have to remember to go in there and change my minimum shutter speed (and Canon's choice of 'minimum shutter speed' is often unsuitable). With Nikon, I simply choose slower to faster in 5 increments based on if I'm shooting static vs. moving subjects. Game-changing for the types of photography I do.

I agree, the D800 wasn't really a competitor for the 5D III...but the D810 is.

Now this I'd love some clarification on. Most people are pointing out how the D810 is not much of an improvement over the D800. DxO's own scores on image quality show this. So what suddenly makes the D810 a competitor to the 5DIII, but not the D800? The half-a-stop extra DR? The electronic 1st curtain [EFC] that can only be activated with mirror-up? Just curious exactly why you feel this way.

If I were to venture a guess - I'd say the EFC? I do wish, though, that Nikon had an option to implement EFC in all shooting modes with a short delay to allow mirror vibrations to dampen out. EFC only working in Mup mode is a bit silly - especially in Live View.

My bigger point here is that the D800 was just as big a contender. Not only b/c of its superior image quality, but also b/c of Programmable Auto ISO, Exposure Compensation in M mode, spot-metering linked to AF point, and 3D AF tracking. The latter allows one to simply use the center AF point to initiate focus on a desired subject, and allow the camera to track that subject across the frame, as well as along the Z/depth-axis. This (1) obviates the need to select the proper focus point, which is time consuming, and (2) tracks moving subjects like running brides across the frame. With every Canon save for the 1Dx, I have to manually select the AF point when I can't focus and recompose (24/1.4 and 35/1.4). Try doing that with a 4 month old baby that constantly moves around. For this particular scenario, I believe my focus hit rate went from something like 10% to 80% simply going from a 5DIII to the D810.

Canon's complete lack of a separate sensor for AF tracking in all but the 1Dx is rather egregious. And I, personally, find it difficult to use a 1Dx b/c of its weight/size that, with serious glass, puts it north of what I'm willing to tolerate. The 5D III uses some tricks to track subjects to make up for its lack of dedicated hardware - e.g. I believe it cross-references data from AF sensors to check if a subject at some depth moved from one focus point to another, and I think it also uses some info from its 63 zone metering system to help track subjects. But none of these approaches come near the (lateral, X-Y plane) tracking accuracy of a dedicated 91,000 pixel meter, or the entire imaging sensor itself in Sony SLT designs.

It's funny, if anything, I think the Nikon system is somewhat less desirable now than it was a few years ago when the D800 was released. Why? B/c now Canon has some very, very fine lenses for it's system. The 16-35 f/4L IS & the 24-70 f/4L IS are great lenses for landscape photographers.