Dynamic Range - Try it for yourself, conclude for yourself: 5D III vs. A7r

[K-amps]

Hi Jon: Thanks for tackling this polarizing topic. Canon makes a great system, and it will be obviously greater still of they used exmors in some regards...

But sensors apart.... as a novice not being able to be as articulate as you guys, I have always felt, that where Canon got beat on DR, was not the sensor, rather the footprint and subsequent processing of the raw file. Whatever algorithms Canon uses to build the RAW file and construct shadow (i.e. half missing) data; needs a re-haul.

This is quite obvious in banding... this is a digital artifact, not an analog output issue form the sensor...

What say you?

 

[JohanCruyff]

@jrista


After carefully examining your picture, my question is:
Why don't you (replace your armchairs and) switch to Ikea instead of switching sensor?

 

[DarioVE]

my 1st post
lurking on this site since 40d released times, started in the '78 with a canon AT1
i felt the urge to post to thank jrista for his tenacity and imho the honest approach to this delicate argument.
after years of reading reviews and looking at examples at various sites i decided to take a further and deeper look at this DR problem, and i have to say that with my workflow (converted to dng - LR 4) the differences, with jrista provided raw files, are huge in the shadows (noise and detail) and to me the highlights too seems to recover better.
To me the AR7 file also need to be pushed 1/2 stop more, i suppose because of the iso base 80, it has a different color cast, adjustable.
For my typical photo needs (landscape, vacation and a bit of everything else) since i don't have the priviledge to wait the perfect light, rarely have a tripod with me, this sensor improvement would be the primary spec to upgrade my already fantastic 5D3 (hopefully in a 5D4).
I'll stay tuned for the promised next file from Jrista and hopefully other contributors.

P.s. i'm not english native speaker, so sorry for any mistakes and in any way i don't intend to be offensive to anyone.

 

[Khalai]

@Khalai: No, there are no screens that can natively display 14 or more stops at once. However, it is for that very reason that we push shadows. A RAW is rendered to the screen with a tone curve. That tone curve compresses the information in a RAW, crushing the blacks and bleeding out the highlights. The middle part of the image fits on the screen...the middle 8 stops.

The purpose of shadow recovery is to bring back the shadows that were crushed and the highlights that were bleed out. The highlights aren't clipped, they are just rendered such that they appear clipped. The shadows aren't pure black...they are just rendered such that they appear pure black or nearly so. In the actual RAW file, in linear space, all that information is decidedly NOT black or white. It's all non-zero/non-clipped information that can be utilized.

Having more dynamic range, such as you get with an Exmor, means that more of that information that falls outside the display range of your computer screen is recoverable. Canon sensors are eating away at a large chunk of that information, then scattering banding (a semi-random or non-random factor) into the signal that reaches right up into the lower midtones, which are already displayed on the screen.

So, no, there are no screens that can natively display 14 stops of DR, which is the very reason we push shadows. I took some photographs of what appears to be a dark room. In reality, the room was not dark at all, it was much more like the second set of photos I shared. The information all those "blacks" as rendered in the first set of photos was all there, in the raw. My 8-bit screen, your 8-bit screen, most people's screens, cannot display the entire range of information found within the RAW, so I had to push the shadows up to make it fit. I compressed a wider dynamic range into a narrower dynamic range. In the third set of photos, I compressed the data even more, bringing in another stop of recoverable information in the A7r file that simply wasn't there in the 5D III file. (Hell, the 5D III file doesn't even have three stops of recoverable data, let alone four or five.)

It's actually because of the limitations of display devices and print media that we push and pull the digital signals of our RAW images around. Even when 10-bit computer screens become common, and 12-bit screens start hitting the marketplace, we will still be pushing shadows for print.

I see the point. But the scene you used as demostrated is quite extreme, wouldn't you agree? From a technical standpoint I understand what your point is, but a better job about that scene would be to HDR blend it anyways, regardless of sensor.

Also, there seems to be extreme approach from those using Exmor - underexposing generally while maintaining highlights, then pushing shadows. But with e.g. landscape, you can expose for shadows and control highlights with filters (as I do) to tame the dreaded Canon shadows (which I'm yet to see, pushed my 6D files up to 2 stops, with no banding and only little noise, which does not impede the general quality).

I see the problem in the DR debate being one camp strongly advocating (quite narrow in my opinion) way of pushing shadows (and everything else is blasphemy/wrong/you-name-it), while the opposing extreme opinios is acting like there is no difference whatsoever. The truth will lie (as usual) in the middle. Yes, there is difference, but not groundbreaking and there is always more than one way of accomplishing your goals.

Also what I find rather ironical is your A7r evaluation, that while the sensor is superior, ergonomics, AF, viewfinder and need for an adapter/lack of broad lineup of lenses have also to be considered and are clearly not satisfactory for you. I guess it's always a compromise, there is no ideal system and all that matters is, where you put your priorities.

In my case, I gladly give up 2 EV of DR for all the other things that makes my photography easier (OVF, supreme ergonomics and intuitive UI, great lenses etc.). But that's for everyone to decide, where their priorities lie.

(And there will always be constant complainers, unhappy with camera encompassing 30 EV of DR, lightspeed AF covering whole sensor and magical unicors carrying their 14-600/1.4 lens around )

 

[tcmatthews]

Looks like the a7r will be your landscape cam. Now you can shorten your posts to a link to this thread when the issue rises.

As for Lee jay, I would say a bounce flash.

Yes, as should be quite obvious, a flash is often a great way to control scene contrast. That was a 550EX fired into the ceiling.

You do realize the whole point was to demonstrate DR, right? Oh, and um...I don't have a flash for the A7r...so, doing a comparison with flash just wasn't an option.

Do you have a flash for your Canon or Nikon cameras? If so you can use one of those flashes in manual mode. I use my 430Ex II on my NEX 6 quite often.

 

[Lee Jay]

Yes...in a situation where it is not needed.

In fact, in all my years of shooting, I've never once come across a situation where I couldn't get enough DR from a Canon camera at base ISO. Well, except once, and in that case I needed around 30 stops or so, and I don't think even the lens could manage that due to flare.

I need more DR at high ISO all the time. Fortunately, Canon delivers there.

You have never come across a situation where you couldnt get enough DR from a Canon camera at base ISO??!! I come across this limitation almost every single time I go out shooting a sunrise/sunset scene.

For multiple reasons, I don't shoot landscapes.

Most landscapes I've seen that were shot with 15 stops of DR look ridiculous and unnatural anyway.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

it amazes me that peoples first reaction was oh no Canon is under attack, circle the wagons!

Another wilfully wrong-headed misinterpretation of what's happening.

Everybody accepts that - in the margins, and particularly (actually, almost only) with incompetently shot or ridiculously contrived scenes like this one - Exmor gives more chances to get the image back (especially if you insist on using the wrong converter and inadequate PP techniques).

What this thread is, is yet more utterly unnecessary, stuck-record, DR zealot trolling - and that's what the reactions are reacting to.

Seriously: if Jon is so bad at what he does with a camera that he routinely gets images which are so screwed up that he needs to rely on the "miracle" Exmors as a matter of course to get something half-useful out of, then he doesn't need a new sensor, he needs lessons.

But if - and I'll bet all my hair this is the truth of the thing - in fact most of his images aren't ridiculously under-exposed, then the only purpose which this thread serves is to demonstrate an unhealthy obsession with something which doesn't really matter, and to continue the pointless argument about what - for most (including some of the DR zealots, if they were remotely honest with themselves) - is a bloody irrelevance in the Real World.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I know there are a few options of accessories for Sony cameras... But is there not match any flash available?

Understand the scientific motivation for this comparison, and see the superiority of EXMOR sensor in this case. But in the real world these photo could only be made ​​as dark as well because of a terrible mistake photographer.

On the other hand, I ask if anyone can repeat this test at ISO 6400, and let's see if EXMOR still leading. :

 

[Lee Jay]

I know there are a few options of accessories for Sony cameras... But is there not match any flash available?

Understand the scientific motivation for this comparison, and see the superiority of EXMOR sensor in this case. But in the real world these photo could only be made ​​as dark as well because of a terrible mistake photographer.

On the other hand, I ask if anyone can repotir this shooting at ISO 6400 test, and see if EXMOR still leading. :

This isn't under exposed. If he exposes properly for the indoor environment, the windows would be totally white and unrecoverable. If you want to preserve the outside view through the windows, you have to shoot it like this or use artificial lighting to more closely match the two lighting environments.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I know there are a few options of accessories for Sony cameras... But is there not match any flash available?
Understand the scientific motivation for this comparison, and see the superiority of EXMOR sensor in this case. But in the real world these photo could only be made ​​as dark as well because of a terrible mistake photographer.
On the other hand, I ask if anyone can repotir this shooting at ISO 6400 test, and see if EXMOR still leading. :

This isn't under exposed. If he exposes properly for the indoor environment, the windows would be totally white and unrecoverable. If you want to preserve the outside view through the windows, you have to shoot it like this or use artificial lighting to more closely match the two lighting environments.

In the real world, if the purpose of this photo was the view through the windows, the photographer would open the windows first. ??? If he just wanted to see only silhouettes of furniture, there is no reason to lift the shadows in PP. :

 

[Lee Jay]

I know there are a few options of accessories for Sony cameras... But is there not match any flash available?
Understand the scientific motivation for this comparison, and see the superiority of EXMOR sensor in this case. But in the real world these photo could only be made ​​as dark as well because of a terrible mistake photographer.
On the other hand, I ask if anyone can repotir this shooting at ISO 6400 test, and see if EXMOR still leading. :

This isn't under exposed. If he exposes properly for the indoor environment, the windows would be totally white and unrecoverable. If you want to preserve the outside view through the windows, you have to shoot it like this or use artificial lighting to more closely match the two lighting environments.

In the real world, if the purpose of this photo was the view through the windows, the photographer would open the windows first. ??? If he would only see silhouettes of furniture, there is no reason to lift the shadows in PP. :

Here's real world. This is inside a hotel and the windows are open. The sky was blue and I didn't want to turn it to solid white or for all of that light to wipe out the ceiling structure. Forget the annotations.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I do not have a flash for the A7r.

No kidding. ???
You should buy a flash for Sony camera. :-X

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I know there are a few options of accessories for Sony cameras... But is there not match any flash available?
Understand the scientific motivation for this comparison, and see the superiority of EXMOR sensor in this case. But in the real world these photo could only be made ​​as dark as well because of a terrible mistake photographer.
On the other hand, I ask if anyone can repotir this shooting at ISO 6400 test, and see if EXMOR still leading. :

This isn't under exposed. If he exposes properly for the indoor environment, the windows would be totally white and unrecoverable. If you want to preserve the outside view through the windows, you have to shoot it like this or use artificial lighting to more closely match the two lighting environments.

In the real world, if the purpose of this photo was the view through the windows, the photographer would open the windows first. ??? If he would only see silhouettes of furniture, there is no reason to lift the shadows in PP. :

Here's real world. This is inside a hotel and the windows are open. The sky was blue and I didn't want to turn it to solid white or for all of that light to wipe out the ceiling structure. Forget the annotations.

A polarizing filter also help greatly in this case. :
Even a graduated ND filter would help a lot. 8)

 

[Dylan777]

@ jrista

The RAW files from a7s are very to work with. Not much room to crop though.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

Keith, you speak several very accurate truths here. Bravo and well spoken, sir.

Who On Earth would take such a lousy photo in the first place? Just to prove a point? Hell, let's grab a beer and argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, instead. It'd serve as much purpose as starting with something so ridiculously bad.

If people are this obsessed with unimportant minutiae, no wonder there are so few incredible images in the world. Some people are obviously too busy fetishizing what their camera equipment can or cannot do. Working at these kinds of extremes will ALWAYS turn up something, won't it?

Put the other way around: If people spent this kind of energy in making images instead of Grandstanding just think of how many wonderful things there would be to share with the world. Gods! People might actually perk up, set down their TV remotes, stop their Twittering, and pay attention to you!! You might actually become famous, rich and recognized during your lifetime for outstanding work!!!

it amazes me that peoples first reaction was oh no Canon is under attack, circle the wagons!

Another wilfully wrong-headed misinterpretation of what's happening.

Everybody accepts that - in the margins, and particularly (actually, almost only) with incompetently shot or ridiculously contrived scenes like this one - Exmor gives more chances to get the image back (especially if you insist on using the wrong converter and inadequate PP techniques).

What this thread is, is yet more utterly unnecessary, stuck-record, DR zealot trolling - and that's what the reactions are reacting to.

Seriously: if Jon is so bad at what he does with a camera that he routinely gets images which are so screwed up that he needs to rely on the "miracle" Exmors as a matter of course to get something half-useful out of, then he doesn't need a new sensor, he needs lessons.

But if - and I'll bet all my hair this is the truth of the thing - in fact most of his images aren't ridiculously under-exposed, then the only purpose which this thread serves is to demonstrate an unhealthy obsession with something which doesn't really matter, and to continue the pointless argument about what - for most (including some of the DR zealots, if they were remotely honest with themselves) - is a bloody irrelevance in the Real World.

 

[luckydude]

My 8-bit screen, your 8-bit screen, most people's screens, cannot display the entire range of information found within the RAW, so I had to push the shadows up to make it fit.

In case anyone else is scratching their head over the 8 bit thing when your screen reports 24 bits, it's 8 bits for each of red, green, blue. Which does sort of make me wonder why they haven't gone to 30 bits, you'd get 10 bits for each color in a 32 bit word.

 

[privatebydesign]

I know there are a few options of accessories for Sony cameras... But is there not match any flash available?
Understand the scientific motivation for this comparison, and see the superiority of EXMOR sensor in this case. But in the real world these photo could only be made ​​as dark as well because of a terrible mistake photographer.
On the other hand, I ask if anyone can repotir this shooting at ISO 6400 test, and see if EXMOR still leading. :

This isn't under exposed. If he exposes properly for the indoor environment, the windows would be totally white and unrecoverable. If you want to preserve the outside view through the windows, you have to shoot it like this or use artificial lighting to more closely match the two lighting environments.

In the real world, if the purpose of this photo was the view through the windows, the photographer would open the windows first. ??? If he would only see silhouettes of furniture, there is no reason to lift the shadows in PP. :

Here's real world. This is inside a hotel and the windows are open. The sky was blue and I didn't want to turn it to solid white or for all of that light to wipe out the ceiling structure. Forget the annotations.

What the hell does "approximate EVF view" mean, is it the base exposure pre processing or not?

 

[luckydude]

it amazes me that peoples first reaction was oh no Canon is under attack, circle the wagons!

Another wilfully wrong-headed misinterpretation of what's happening.

Everybody accepts that - in the margins, and particularly (actually, almost only) with incompetently shot or ridiculously contrived scenes like this one - Exmor gives more chances to get the image back (especially if you insist on using the wrong converter and inadequate PP techniques).

What this thread is, is yet more utterly unnecessary, stuck-record, DR zealot trolling - and that's what the reactions are reacting to.

Seriously: if Jon is so bad at what he does with a camera that he routinely gets images which are so screwed up that he needs to rely on the "miracle" Exmors as a matter of course to get something half-useful out of, then he doesn't need a new sensor, he needs lessons.

But if - and I'll bet all my hair this is the truth of the thing - in fact most of his images aren't ridiculously under-exposed, then the only purpose which this thread serves is to demonstrate an unhealthy obsession with something which doesn't really matter, and to continue the pointless argument about what - for most (including some of the DR zealots, if they were remotely honest with themselves) - is a bloody irrelevance in the Real World.

Um, I'm heavily invested in Canon (4 bodies including the 5DIII and about $30K in Canon glass) so I'm not a Nikon or Sony fan boy. But you are coming off as a Canon apologist.

I understand exactly why the DR people are bitching, more DR is just more goodness. Is anyone going to argue that they want *less* dynamic range? It's just another tool that you can use.

The Sony sensors are clearly better than the Canon sensors right now. Sitting around and making excuses for Canon isn't going to help encourage Canon to get their shit together and give us some new sensors. The 7DII (which I was really hoping would be a 5DIII in crop form) is giving us a warmed over 70D sensor. Say what you will about reduced noise in jpegs (which I like, that's nice) but I was really disappointed to wait 5 years and get a recycled sensor. That's just a bummer. Canon needs to step up and apologizing for them and denying the value that the DR brings to the table isn't going to help Canon step up. I think we all like our Canon equipment and we'd all be happier with a better sensor.

It's one thing to wish for something that doesn't exist, it's quite another to see clearly better technology in a different brand. Come on Canon, step it up. Please.

 

[Lee Jay]

What the hell does "approximate EVF view" mean, is it the base exposure pre processing or not?

Default raw conversion, much like the out-of-camera JPEG or the camera's output to an EVF.

 

[V8Beast]

Put the other way around: If people spent this kind of energy in making images instead of Grandstanding just think of how many wonderful things there would be to share with the world. Gods! People might actually perk up, set down their TV remotes, stop their Twittering, and pay attention to you!! You might actually become famous, rich and recognized during your lifetime for outstanding work!!!

I see you're point, and I am in complete agreement with you, but personally sometimes I have to take a step back and remind myself that Canon Rumors is a "gear forum." Hence, most the talk revolves around gear.

There are plenty of other photography forums that I visit where 99% of the focus is on imaging technique and sharing beautiful photography. Gear is rarely discussed. When I get sick of the DR debates, I just visit those sites at marvel at the wonderful images talented photogs produce with all types of different gear.