EOS 5D Mark IV Testing Has Begun [CR2]

[Loswr]

I'm just following your lead.

Feel free to point out factual errors that I've posted, where I have not acknowledged my error when it was pointed out.

You never acknowledge your errors, you just go quiet and disappear.

So...no, you apparently can't point out such an example, but you're quite willing to post yet another factual error of your own to toss on the ever-growing pile.

I even have the courtesy to acknowledge my errors when you are the one pointing them out (link).

So...who went quiet and disappeared?

Go find your post where you said that all of Canon's L series lenses have autofocus.

I find no such post, would you mind providing a link (as you'll notice I did)?

There's 13,000 posts by you and not even Google makes it easy to find the right one.

Oh, I see. Well, given your demonstrated inability to recall and/or confirm facts prior to posting, your credibility supporting such unsupported assertions is quite weak.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Meanwhile...in another galaxy...some 5DIII users are still using their current gear and shooting great landscapes using time tested techniques for expanding DR and controlling contrast

Um, what's the time-tested method for correct hdr merging if there's a horse or other animal running through this scene? It's not like anyone is disputing bracketing works just fine for static scenes and even grass or leaves movement often doesn't show a lot.

If it's got a horse in it...then it aint a landscape and doesn't count! it's social commentary and who cares about that?

Seriously...one exposure for the grass...no movement...one exposure for the sky...no movement unless intended....One exposure fore the middle zone....three shots and 10 seconds in Photoshop. Very easy...no fuss, just needs a careful eye with the exposure and a stable tripod.
I've been doing this for about 8 years now and I sold all my Lee filters as a result. The results are more natural and I really like the technique.

Here's another example with a 2 shot blend with LOTS of movement in the foreground:

 

[Don Haines]

Meanwhile...in another galaxy...some 5DIII users are still using their current gear and shooting great landscapes using time tested techniques for expanding DR and controlling contrast:

Canon 5DIII, 16-35IIL @31mm f22 @ 1/5th sec @ iso 200

A three shot exposure blend, merged in photoshop.

Despite not having the 21839 stops of DR required to capture the shadows and the sun, it's a nice picture

You're welcome to your opinion. It's a good try, but the bark on the trees facing the camera is far too dark with too little detail. Those shadows really need a lot of lifting, and that's where Canon's poor IQ really limits creativity. Sure, you could try blending 10+ exposures, but there's still no way to make this image truly Exmortastic. As it is, the image is far too natural-looking.

This is just personal opinion and as such, has no scientific merit, but I find that on shots like this, if one does go through the multiple exposures and heroic measures to restore all the detail into the shadows, that one has ruined the feel or mood of the picture... At some point we transit from improving the image to ruining the image. This one (at least for me) is a good balance...

and yes, I do recognize the Neuro humour in your comments... "As it is, the image is far too natural-looking" and wonder how many will take you literally instead of tongue-in-cheek.....

 

[Eldar]

Meanwhile...in another galaxy...some 5DIII users are still using their current gear and shooting great landscapes using time tested techniques for expanding DR and controlling contrast:

Canon 5DIII, 16-35IIL @31mm f22 @ 1/5th sec @ iso 200

A three shot exposure blend, merged in photoshop.

Despite not having the 21839 stops of DR required to capture the shadows and the sun, it's a nice picture

You're welcome to your opinion. It's a good try, but the bark on the trees facing the camera is far too dark with too little detail. Those shadows really need a lot of lifting, and that's where Canon's poor IQ really limits creativity. Sure, you could try blending 10+ exposures, but there's still no way to make this image truly Exmortastic. As it is, the image is far too natural-looking.

This is just personal opinion and as such, has no scientific merit, but I find that on shots like this, if one does go through the multiple exposures and heroic measures to restore all the detail into the shadows, that one has ruined the feel or mood of the picture... At some point we transit from improving the image to ruining the image. This one (at least for me) is a good balance...

and yes, I do recognize the Neuro humour in your comments... "As it is, the image is far too natural-looking" and wonder how many will take you literally instead of tongue-in-cheek.....

Sarcastic humour is often funny and it often makes me laugh. It may even make me laugh second time around. But when it is repeated countless times, with the same angle, it is rather boring. And this repeated sarcastic humour and persistent misinterpretation of what people want to use lower read noise and improved DR for is totally boring. If you don´t want it and don´t need it, be happy and enjoy your gear.

Yes, I am in the heap of idiots who ask for more DR from Canon. I have also given examples. Notably the sarcastic humour suddenly left that thread when we got a number of examples posted, where it was very easy to see why lower read noise and improved DR would matter. No, I do not want these improvements to LIFT the shadows into something unnatural, but to have clean shadows, with natural structures, without having blown highlights in the other end.

For the record, I also make images as the one posted here, when it is possible. But when things are moving in the images, as in people, birds, animals, wind in the trees etc. etc. I does not look good.

 

[privatebydesign]

Sarcastic humour is often funny and it often makes me laugh. It may even make me laugh second time around. But when it is repeated countless times, with the same angle, it is rather boring. And this repeated sarcastic humour and persistent misinterpretation of what people want to use lower read noise and improved DR for is totally boring. If you don´t want it and don´t need it, be happy and enjoy your gear.

Yes, I am in the heap of idiots who ask for more DR from Canon. I have also given examples. Notably the sarcastic humour suddenly left that thread when we got a number of examples posted, where it was very easy to see why lower read noise and improved DR would matter. No, I do not want these improvements to LIFT the shadows into something unnatural, but to have clean shadows, with natural structures, without having blown highlights in the other end.

For the record, I also make images as the one posted here, when it is possible. But when things are moving in the images, as in people, birds, animals, wind in the trees etc. etc. I does not look good.

Pretty much everybody here is in agreement, nobody doesn't want more, it is just the veracity and importance that differs.

CAn you point me to the thread with a number of examples?

 

[Don Haines]

Yes, I am in the heap of idiots who ask for more DR from Canon. I have also given examples. Notably the sarcastic humour suddenly left that thread when we got a number of examples posted, where it was very easy to see why lower read noise and improved DR would matter. No, I do not want these improvements to LIFT the shadows into something unnatural, but to have clean shadows, with natural structures, without having blown highlights in the other end.

Count me in too....

My first digital camera stored 8 bit jpgs.... I am guessing at around 5 stops of DR.... we have come a long way and I expect everyone to eventually level out between 14 and 15 stops... and yes, I will always welcome more, but it is still only one aspect of imaging, a field where I have so much more to learn.....

 

[bdunbar79]

Again, for some reason, there is some critical DR value, like critical velocity, somewhere between 11.5 and 13.4 stops where you go form not enough to enough. Where that value is nobody really knows.

Why has it suddenly become important? Not sure, but maybe it's only because another company offers more DR at base ISO, relatively speaking. I wonder if it would be necessary if all manufacturers were about 11.5 stops at ISO 100.

 

[Eldar]

Sarcastic humour is often funny and it often makes me laugh. It may even make me laugh second time around. But when it is repeated countless times, with the same angle, it is rather boring. And this repeated sarcastic humour and persistent misinterpretation of what people want to use lower read noise and improved DR for is totally boring. If you don´t want it and don´t need it, be happy and enjoy your gear.

Yes, I am in the heap of idiots who ask for more DR from Canon. I have also given examples. Notably the sarcastic humour suddenly left that thread when we got a number of examples posted, where it was very easy to see why lower read noise and improved DR would matter. No, I do not want these improvements to LIFT the shadows into something unnatural, but to have clean shadows, with natural structures, without having blown highlights in the other end.

For the record, I also make images as the one posted here, when it is possible. But when things are moving in the images, as in people, birds, animals, wind in the trees etc. etc. I does not look good.

Pretty much everybody here is in agreement, nobody doesn't want more, it is just the veracity and importance that differs.

CAn you point me to the thread with a number of examples?

Scott, it started when I posted this:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26325.msg520996#msg520996
(and like all other threads, it kind of derailed again a little later ...)

 

[Eldar]

Again, for some reason, there is some critical DR value, like critical velocity, somewhere between 11.5 and 13.4 stops where you go form not enough to enough. Where that value is nobody really knows.

Why has it suddenly become important? Not sure, but maybe it's only because another company offers more DR at base ISO, relatively speaking. I wonder if it would be necessary if all manufacturers were about 11.5 stops at ISO 100.

What you don´t have, you don´t have. What nobody can give you, you can´t have and don´t spend much time worrying about. But when your neighbour has it and you see what it can do, you want it. Rather simple.

I do not know who much dynamic range we can use in the future, given all the other limitations we have. Right now I would be ecstatic to have D810 read noise and DR at low ISO on a 5DIV or 1DX-II, without wrecking high ISO performance.

 

[3kramd5]

What you don´t have, you don´t have. What nobody can give you, you can´t have and don´t spend much time worrying about. But when your neighbour has it and you see what it can do, you want it. Rather simple.

I don't visit Sony or Nikon forums, but are those users clamoring for Red Epic Dragon performance? Or is that not considered a neighbor?

(Not sarcasm, legitimate question)

 

[Eldar]

What you don´t have, you don´t have. What nobody can give you, you can´t have and don´t spend much time worrying about. But when your neighbour has it and you see what it can do, you want it. Rather simple.

I don't visit Sony or Nikon forums, but are those users clamoring for Red Epic Dragon performance? Or is that not considered a neighbor?

(Not sarcasm, legitimate question)

I don´t visit those forums either, but from what I hear, they have so much else to complain about, so this is not on their radar ... Eeeehhh ..., probably not true. That´s the one area they beat Canon, so they tend to make a point out of that.

 

[Loswr]

What you don´t have, you don´t have. What nobody can give you, you can´t have and don´t spend much time worrying about. But when your neighbour has it and you see what it can do, you want it. Rather simple.

Simple and easy aren't the same. You may covet your 6-burner Viking range (even if it isn't dynamic), but can you afford the kitchen remodel it would take to make space? Would you trade houses with your neighbor to get that range, even if it also meant you'd get his outdated, leaky plumbing?

 

[meywd]

What you don´t have, you don´t have. What nobody can give you, you can´t have and don´t spend much time worrying about. But when your neighbour has it and you see what it can do, you want it. Rather simple.

Simple and easy aren't the same. You may covet your 6-burner Viking range (even if it isn't dynamic), but can you afford the kitchen remodel it would take to make space? Would you trade houses with your neighbor to get that range, even if it also meant you'd get his outdated, leaky plumbing?

But Neuro, its clear that he doesn't want to do that, that's why he is asking for it in a Canon body.

 

[privatebydesign]

What you don´t have, you don´t have. What nobody can give you, you can´t have and don´t spend much time worrying about. But when your neighbour has it and you see what it can do, you want it. Rather simple.

I don't visit Sony or Nikon forums, but are those users clamoring for Red Epic Dragon performance? Or is that not considered a neighbor?

(Not sarcasm, legitimate question)

The Sony and Nikon forums have their own issues. Sony have many QC issues and a frustration with available lenses, funnily enough Nikon forums are full of the same complaints!

I agree the comparative lack of DR performance at low iso can be a frustration for some Canon shooters sometimes, but I'll take the lens selection, service, radio flash and all the other good things I get with Canon every time over more DR at base iso.

Following on from that we must remember the Exmor DR advantage is only at base iso and decreases fast until, at what are now relatively modest iso values, there is no appreciable difference. We need to stop saying 'Exmor has two stops more DR' and start including the caveat 'at base iso', truthfully how often do you shoot at base iso? Banding in the lifted shadows has certainly been mitigated in the latest Canon sensors, the 5DS/R files look very very good, so lets not lose track of what we are all talking about.

We all want more DR, the difference between Exmor performance and Canon performance can be a big one but only at base iso and only in specific situations with some subjects. If you shoot those subjects and situations regularly I can feel your frustration, but revel in the 7D MkII and 200-400 with built in TC, because if you were shooting Nikon you'd be using the D7200 and the antiquated and almost universally hated 200-400 without the built in TC, and the actual DR difference at 320iso between the two is a much more modest 1 stop.

 

[Eldar]

What you don´t have, you don´t have. What nobody can give you, you can´t have and don´t spend much time worrying about. But when your neighbour has it and you see what it can do, you want it. Rather simple.

Simple and easy aren't the same. You may covet your 6-burner Viking range (even if it isn't dynamic), but can you afford the kitchen remodel it would take to make space? Would you trade houses with your neighbor to get that range, even if it also meant you'd get his outdated, leaky plumbing?

But Neuro, its clear that he doesn't want to do that, that's why he is asking for it in a Canon body.

You got it!

 

[Loswr]

What you don´t have, you don´t have. What nobody can give you, you can´t have and don´t spend much time worrying about. But when your neighbour has it and you see what it can do, you want it. Rather simple.

Simple and easy aren't the same. You may covet your 6-burner Viking range (even if it isn't dynamic), but can you afford the kitchen remodel it would take to make space? Would you trade houses with your neighbor to get that range, even if it also meant you'd get his outdated, leaky plumbing?

But Neuro, its clear that he doesn't want to do that, that's why he is asking for it in a Canon body.

You got it!

You can keep on asking, although no one here can help. No doubt Canon is aware that other sensors deliver more DR, and that's been true for >5 years. Clearly, there are things they felt were more deserving of R&D expenditures. Like a new paint color for their white lenses.

 

[msm]

...Clearly, there are things they felt were more deserving of R&D expenditures.

Or much more likely, they just aren't capable with their 20year old semiconductor technology...

 

[privatebydesign]

...Clearly, there are things they felt were more deserving of R&D expenditures.

Or much more likely, they just aren't capable with their 20year old semiconductor technology...

That would be a remarkably naive assessment.

They probably look at it that they can make the money they are with the tech they are selling, ergo how much more revenue would they generate if they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new sensor fabrication line? Probably a wiser investment to diversify (cinema, security, etc) and bring a unique twist to their DSLR system like lens selection and flashes. Probably closer to the truth.......

 

[Marsu42]

Again, for some reason, there is some critical DR value, like critical velocity, somewhere between 11.5 and 13.4 stops where you go form not enough to enough. Where that value is nobody really knows.

As I shoot with dual_iso a lot, I have some grasp on how much dr I need for my general all-day outdoor shooting when I want to capture everything with one frame. It's indeed 13.5-ish *if* you expose perfectly and fill the whole historgram, so realistically add 1ev for some breathing space.

Of course there are scenes that require more (like shooting into the noon sun and wanting to capture shadow details from an object in front of it), but's that not the standard case. Imho everything above 15ev is simply for easy exposure.

Why has it suddenly become important? Not sure, but maybe it's only because another company offers more DR at base ISO, relatively speaking. I wonder if it would be necessary if all manufacturers were about 11.5 stops at ISO 100.

I'd say that that's - if someone else dangles some tech in front of your nose and you see it's possible, you want to use it yourself. Goes for all kinds of products, not just dslrs.

The other reason is what you wrote above: The "enough dr" sensor is nearly feasible so you start thinking about "what if", while in the past it was always clear that there's no way around hdr bracketing so it didn't matter if your sensor had 8,9,10 or 11 ev dynamic range.

 

[msm]

...Clearly, there are things they felt were more deserving of R&D expenditures.

Or much more likely, they just aren't capable with their 20year old semiconductor technology...

That would be a remarkably naive assessment.

They probably look at it that they can make the money they are with the tech they are selling, ergo how much more revenue would they generate if they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new sensor fabrication line? Probably a wiser investment to diversify (cinema, security, etc) and bring a unique twist to their DSLR system like lens selection and flashes. Probably closer to the truth.......

Regardless of their fab, there could be patent issues preventing them from doing it. I could have formulated myself better, but making statements that assume they are able to is just speculation and should be formulated as such not as facts.