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

[eml58]

Anyone who really loves the TS-E 17mm and 24mm lenses could use 'em with the Metabones (although possibly with some added flocking, based on reviews I've read.)

I'm currently using the V4 Metabones for my a7r, larger diameter Barrel (for better use with Canon TSE) and additional black flocking (for reduced reflection), works exceptionally well, although I haven't had any real issues with the V3 either, except some vignetting with the TSE use, V4 resolves that issue for me.

Had the loan of a Pentax 645z for a week, just simply love this sensor, quite possibly the best I've ever encountered in any Camera I've used (Haven't tried Phase one yet), not too keen on the Camera style, but it works well (if someone gets this sensor into a dslr/1D form, I'm onboard in a new york second), let down like the a7r with poorish selection of Lenses, if Pentax fix the lens issue, adapt Leaf Shutter etc, it's a real nice set up for Landscape/Still Imaging.

 

[Loswr]

The simple point were trying to make is...why should you have to compromise at all? You wouldn't have to, if.....

Oh...IF. If Canon would make better sensors. If Sony would fix their RAW format. If Nikon had this lens or that one. The a8R will be the perfect landscape camera. I thought the D810 would be the perfect landscape camera, then I used one and now I know the D820 will be the perfect one.

Your 'simple point' is irrelevant in the real world. The real point is that we DO have to compromise.

Someday, someone will get it all right.

Not likely. Someone else will always get some part of it more right, making everything else imperfect. But hey, keep wishing...throw in wishes for world peace and an end to hunger while you're at it.

 

[raptor3x]

Although they have been moving along at a faster clip than Canon...so if the 5D IV ends up not being a high DR camera, I am sure Sony will have an ANr out at some point between the 5D IV and 5D V that solves some of the key issues). I do feel it would be stupid to buy the A7r before finding out what Sony has in store for January, though. (And stupid to buy it before trying a D810.)

At the rate Sony's been releasing bodies, I'd be shocked if there's not an A8R/A7Rii before the 5D4 is released.

 

[msm]

Although they have been moving along at a faster clip than Canon...so if the 5D IV ends up not being a high DR camera, I am sure Sony will have an ANr out at some point between the 5D IV and 5D V that solves some of the key issues). I do feel it would be stupid to buy the A7r before finding out what Sony has in store for January, though. (And stupid to buy it before trying a D810.)

At the rate Sony's been releasing bodies, I'd be shocked if there's not an A8R/A7Rii before the 5D4 is released.

The Sony rumor site is very confident there will be new full frame cameras out in beginning of next year with a new sensor with high DR and around 50mpix. They are not sure of what kind of model it will be though.

 

[msm]

...I think in the end the D810 is really going to be the Exmor-equipped camera for landscapes.

I'd personally dismiss it for the lack of an AA filter alone. I'd never be able to trust it for that reason.

Funny thing is, I get more moire on 5DIII and 1DX than on A7R with no AA filter. It has to do with lenses outresolving the first 2 cameras much more easily.

 

[Orangutan]

Someday, someone will get it all right.

Not likely. Someone else will always get some part of it more right, making everything else imperfect. But hey, keep wishing...throw in wishes for world peace and an end to hunger while you're at it.

You're partially correct: we can always point to a single feature of another product we'd like to have -- the "rising expectations" thing. It is, however, fair to expect all the components of a top brand not to lag the competition by a long way. E.g., how would you feel if your brand-new Acura SUV had a stereo with a cassette player that was not replaceable, and could not connect to your iToys? (yes, that's an exaggeration)

I'm sympathetic to jrista's perspective in that it would be baffling if Canon does not make significant landscape-friendly IQ improvements in the next couple of years. It doesn't affect me, really, because I won't choose to buy those products until they hit the refurb market. From the market perspective, Canon is right to set the priority on AF, both for stills and video, since an OOF shot is worthless regardless of the IQ.

Please dial-back the sarcasm a bit, though -- wouldn't want it to leak over to RL.

 

[Loswr]

Someday, someone will get it all right.

Not likely. Someone else will always get some part of it more right, making everything else imperfect. But hey, keep wishing...throw in wishes for world peace and an end to hunger while you're at it.

You're partially correct: we can always point to a single feature of another product we'd like to have -- the "rising expectations" thing. It is, however, fair to expect all the components of a top brand not to lag the competition by a long way. E.g., how would you feel if your brand-new Acura SUV had a stereo with a cassette player that was not replaceable, and could not connect to your iToys? (yes, that's an exaggeration).

Actually, I'm completely correct. The crux of your argument is the claim of 'lagging by a long way'. If Sony brings a 60 MP sensor with 20 stops of DR (real DR, not Sony's exaggerated marketing claim) and Canon's sensors are unchanged, that argument might make sense. But I'd say that falls clearly into the category of not likely.

Your "exaggerated" example is quite a good one. Much like the current situation between sensors, what some people perceive as major liabilities can be quite easily addressed in many cases. In this specific case of your example, there is a $5 solution:

 

[Orangutan]

Someday, someone will get it all right.

Not likely. Someone else will always get some part of it more right, making everything else imperfect. But hey, keep wishing...throw in wishes for world peace and an end to hunger while you're at it.

You're partially correct: we can always point to a single feature of another product we'd like to have -- the "rising expectations" thing. It is, however, fair to expect all the components of a top brand not to lag the competition by a long way. E.g., how would you feel if your brand-new Acura SUV had a stereo with a cassette player that was not replaceable, and could not connect to your iToys? (yes, that's an exaggeration).

Actually, I'm completely correct. The crux of your argument is the claim of 'lagging by a long way'. If Sony brings a 60 MP sensor with 20 stops of DR (real DR, not Sony's exaggerated marketing claim) and Canon's sensors are unchanged, that argument might make sense. But I'd say that falls clearly into the category of not likely.

Your "exaggerated" example is quite a good one. Much like the current situation between sensors, what some people perceive as major liabilities can be quite easily addressed in many cases. In this specific case of your example, there is a $5 solution:

Your "solution" occurred to me when I was writing the previous post, and I even started by using "8-Track" rather than cassette for this very reason. Have you ever used one of those "$5 dollar solutions?" At least when I used one it was clunky and imperfect: not only is managing the wire a hassle (depending on the layout of your dashboard) but there's background noise at low ISO volume. ;D

The crux of your argument is the claim of 'lagging by a long way'

No, the crux of my argument is that 'lagging by a long way' and 'major liability' are in the eye of the beholder. Canon's sensor tech is not a major liability in my eye right now, based on my type of shooting. Others are welcome to come to a different conclusion. If you would like to suggest better technique to improve their results, please do so. Belittling others does not help, nor does it reflect well on you.

 

[Orangutan]

They are far, far closer to having a DSLR that does everything generally right than Canon.

jrista, I think you underestimate Canon: I have no doubts that they already have the basic tech needed for higher DR and lower noise. For them it's almost certainly a business decision, both due to retooling costs (why make capital expenditures when the market doesn't demand it?) and also for the sales opportunities down the road. E.g., if Canon comes out with a 1DX Mark II that's nearly identical to the current 1DX, except for the improved sensor tech, you can bet Neuro will pre-order one. 8)

DR / low noise is not what the overall market demands now.

 

[unfocused]

...E.g., how would you feel if your brand-new Acura SUV had a stereo with a cassette player that was not replaceable, and could not connect to your iToys?...

Your "exaggerated" example is quite a good one. Much like the current situation between sensors, what some people perceive as major liabilities can be quite easily addressed in many cases. In this specific case of your example, there is a $5 solution:

Your "solution" occurred to me when I was writing the previous post, and I even started by using "8-Track" rather than cassette for this very reason. Have you ever used one of those "$5 dollar solutions?" At least when I used one it was clunky and imperfect: not only is managing the wire a hassle (depending on the layout of your dashboard) but there's background noise at low ISO volume. ;D

Sort of hate to jump into this, but actually, I think this is, for once, not a bad analogy.

I went for years driving a truck where the CD player was broken. Once you put a CD in there, it was pretty much there forever no matter how often you pushed the eject button. Once in a while, when the stars were aligned, you could eject it and then, of course, you dare not put another CD in.

But, the point is this: Did it stop me from driving wherever I wanted? Did I get to my destination late? Did I get more tickets? Did it, in fact, have the least bit of impact on the ability of me and my truck to get the job done and get to the destination we were headed for? No. Not in the least.

So, that's the way I look at the Dynamic Range debate. Would it be nice to have a little extra range? Sure. But like the sound system in any vehicle, it doesn't prevent your from getting to where you are going.

 

[unfocused]

DR / low noise is not what the overall market demands now.

This may be the most succinct and accurate explanation yet.

I hate to mess it up with any additional comment, but what the heck...

I wish people would just recognize the fact that the most bitter debates on this forum have been reduced to trivial matters – dynamic range, mirror or no mirror and more megapixels or no more megapixels seem to dominate.

If these are the biggest things we have to worry about in terms of the quality of technology today, I would say we are pretty darn lucky. Just once, I wish the naysayers would admit that none of these differences are significant or likely to have the least bit of impact on the success or failure of any camera manufacturer.

 

[Orangutan]

...E.g., how would you feel if your brand-new Acura SUV had a stereo with a cassette player that was not replaceable, and could not connect to your iToys?...

Your "exaggerated" example is quite a good one. Much like the current situation between sensors, what some people perceive as major liabilities can be quite easily addressed in many cases. In this specific case of your example, there is a $5 solution:

Your "solution" occurred to me when I was writing the previous post, and I even started by using "8-Track" rather than cassette for this very reason. Have you ever used one of those "$5 dollar solutions?" At least when I used one it was clunky and imperfect: not only is managing the wire a hassle (depending on the layout of your dashboard) but there's background noise at low ISO volume. ;D

But, the point is this: Did it stop me from driving wherever I wanted? Did I get to my destination late? Did I get more tickets? Did it, in fact, have the least bit of impact on the ability of me and my truck to get the job done and get to the destination we were headed for? No. Not in the least.

So, that's the way I look at the Dynamic Range debate. Would it be nice to have a little extra range? Sure. But like the sound system in any vehicle, it doesn't prevent your from getting to where you are going.

Agreed; however, this was your personal experience. For others it may be more or less tolerable. My point is that the importance of DR is a matter of personal taste and tolerance for the work-arounds. For me it's not a problem, for others it is. In some cases (e.g. that Gold Coast guy) I'm convinced better technique would help. Some posters here seem to have experience, technical chops and self-skepticism; for those I'm willing to accept their conclusions that more DR would help them, and don't feel a need to second-guess or demean them.

 

[Loswr]

All your snark aside, I think Nikon is extremely close to nailing it all. I don't like their ergonomics as much as I like Canon's, however it's much better than the A7 series ergos. Ergonomics is subjective anyway. If Nikon can solve their manufacturing issues, and avoid things like oil spots or hot pixels, then I think they WILL nail it. They are far, far closer to having a DSLR that does everything generally right than Canon.

So if Nikon fixes all those issues you listed before Canon fixes that one issue you're unhappy with, Nikon will have a dSLR that does everything generally right. At that point, will you change your earlier statement/decision about sticking with Canon and adding other brand(s), and instead sell your inferior Canon gear and switch to Nikon?

Or does the camera system matter more? Which is exactly what many of us have been saying all along...

What if by the time Nikon has 'the perfect dSLR', Sony has a 50 MP Exmor-on-steroids FF sensor with a 16-bit ADC and 15.9 stops of DR but in the same a7 body with the same lossy RAW...and they don't sell it to Nikon. I guess Nikon's perfect dSLR won't look so perfect...

The crux of your argument is the claim of 'lagging by a long way'

No, the crux of my argument is that 'lagging by a long way' and 'major liability' are in the eye of the beholder.

That's been my argument all along. As I've stated so often, everyone should choose the camera system that best meets their needs. But I just don't see the point in some people trying to convince everyone that their eye is better at beholding than everyone else's. "Canon's sensor IQ doesn't meet my needs," is very different than, "Canon sensors deliver poor IQ." Yet I see the latter posted far more often on these forums, in some cases by those who start out stating the former.

 

[Aglet]

But, the point is this: Did it stop me from driving wherever I wanted? Did I get to my destination late? Did I get more tickets? Did it, in fact, have the least bit of impact on the ability of me and my truck to get the job done and get to the destination we were headed for? No. Not in the least.

So, that's the way I look at the Dynamic Range debate. Would it be nice to have a little extra range? Sure. But like the sound system in any vehicle, it doesn't prevent your from getting to where you are going.

I nice analogy but, in scale and relevance, more akin to the neckstrap ring mounts on the camera than its sensor.

 

[Orangutan]

That's been my argument all along. As I've stated so often, everyone should choose the camera system that best meets their needs. But I just don't see the point in some people trying to convince everyone that their eye is better at beholding than everyone else's. "Canon's sensor IQ doesn't meet my needs," is very different than, "Canon sensors deliver poor IQ." Yet I see the latter posted far more often on these forums, in some cases by those who start out stating the former.

I see a lot of people talking past each other, which often derails what could be a cordial conversation.

 

[Loswr]

But, the point is this: Did it stop me from driving wherever I wanted? Did I get to my destination late? Did I get more tickets? Did it, in fact, have the least bit of impact on the ability of me and my truck to get the job done and get to the destination we were headed for? No. Not in the least.

So, that's the way I look at the Dynamic Range debate. Would it be nice to have a little extra range? Sure. But like the sound system in any vehicle, it doesn't prevent your from getting to where you are going.

I nice analogy but, in scale and relevance, more akin to the neckstrap ring mounts on the camera than its sensor.

You're right, the engine is likely a better analogy for the sensor. More specifically, comparing a pair of 6-cyl engines, one with 230 hp and one with 280 hp, and the latter has more torque (so it can lift tow more weight, provided you shoot RAW and post-process properly know how to properly hook up a trailer hitch). The extra hp and towing ability will benefit some owners...but really, the need to pass a car while driving up a steep hill is rare for most drivers, and only a small fraction of car owners pull trailers.

 

[Marsu42]

"Canon's sensor IQ doesn't meet my needs," is very different than, "Canon sensors deliver poor IQ."

Agreed.

Yet I see the latter posted far more often on these forums, in some cases by those who start out stating the former.

Did you count them, the posts vs. the posters? My view is that it's about psychology, namely "salience" and fact that strong stimuli leave a more accessible memory esp. if they trigger an emotional reaction (like in: "your 1dx is crappy"). It's part of neuroscience, should be right up your alley :->

My impression is that there are lots who think that there might be legit requirements for higher dr (example: daylight beach volleyball) and it's a smart idea to purchase your gear based on your requirements. After that, said posters usually go about doing their business *or* out of frustration that anything moderate tends to ignored in such a thread adopt a stronger position to be heard as you described above.

 

[gruhl28]

This thread is probably too long already, and I'm not sure if anyone has already made this point (I haven't seen it made in any other threads on this topic). I'm not denying that having extra dynamic range is nice, but think about all the beautiful pictures taken on Fuji Velvia and the fact that Velvia has only a few stops of dynamic range, far less than even the "worst" Canon available. Again, I'm not saying that there aren't times when I'd like more dynamic range or that it isn't an advantage, just pointing out that some of the most fantastic photos ever taken were done with something that had far less dynamic range than any current DSLR.

Thanks, jrista, for the photos.

 

[Orangutan]

This thread is probably too long already, and I'm not sure if anyone has already made this point (I haven't seen it made in any other threads on this topic). I'm not denying that having extra dynamic range is nice, but think about all the beautiful pictures taken on Fuji Velvia and the fact that Velvia has only a few stops of dynamic range, far less than even the "worst" Canon available. Again, I'm not saying that there aren't times when I'd like more dynamic range or that it isn't an advantage, just pointing out that some of the most fantastic photos ever taken were done with something that had far less dynamic range than any current DSLR.

Thanks, jrista, for the photos.

A similar point has been made. The standard reply is not to deny it, but to say that auto-focus, smart metering, high ISO IQ and high framerate have all contributed to higher "keeper rates." Also, high pixel count allows a bit more cropping, and PP software has made the job of "developing" your capture quicker and easier.

It's entirely true that great shots have been taken with simpler gear, but that does not at all detract from the legitimate desire for even better tech to make success more likely and less work to achieve.

 

[Neil1000]

May I thank both sides in this argument for some excellent technical insights. I have learned a lot over the last few weeks.

We are in the dark as to whether Canon is reluctant or unable to produce a D810 competitor.


So how quickly can Canon move to meet technical development? May I draw your attention to this excellent post from Digital Picture in 2012.

http://community.the-digital-picture.com/showthread.php?t=5865&highlight=daniel+browning

Does it sound familiar and current in this thread?