Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?

[jakeymate]

Seventeen pages of bashing and arguing like old hags on the marketplace

C'mon, bury this thread and go out shooting, it will be much more productive than measurebating, comparing and beating with "impenetrable" facts...

If only there was a way that you didn't have to read it.

I'm sorry I took some time and posted some information that is very lacking in these parts for those that may have wanted to see it.

I'll go now and think about the terrible thing I've done :-[

 

[raptor3x]

What exactly would you do to avoid read noise in the lower 36% of the image exactly? How would you expose to not have that problem?

I know people are probably getting sick of me harping on this but DualISO prettty much eliminates Exmor's dynamic range advantage. Below is a Vanilla 5D3 shot vs a DualISO 5D3 image with both pushed 6 stops.

 

[jakeymate]

jakey, we already know this. Canon people not only here know about worse shadow noise of their cams, but they are somehow locked to Canon systems, the same as I am. But you should realize that
1) It is not only shadow noise what should drive one to buy some cam
2) that not everybody can gain from this
3) there are other aspects, body ergonomics, but also things you cannot solve. Lets say I can borrow few L lenses for free. Do you believe some Sony sensor can overpower this advantage?
4) The rest of the system is usually more expensive outside Nikon and Canon
5) It might be some time, but wait for new Canon releases, as it really is about LAST company waiting for important releases. If it does well, there is not anything wrong, they do good, and you must realize there really isn´t any reason for 99% of population to jump on new sensor with higher DR every two or three years.

That way not only I would be very, VERY happy to have Canon sensors with APS-C 36Mpx and 15 stops of DR. Would jump on it immediately, but it doesn´t happen, and Sony sensors doesn´t save me from great pain with Sony cameras.

So what is it? What do you want to hear from us? I don´t understand....

I've acknowledged all of that.

What I've observed is people making claims that aren't true, most people not being fully aware of the facts, and thinking that Nikon can't do this, or can't do that.

Jon wanted examples and I posted some.

I don't want to hear anything from you. If it's useful information, use it, if it's not, ignore it.

The one thing that is frustrating is the talk of DR.

A clean sensor is far more than just DR. It's clean RGB channels from 0-100%, rather than 0-64% as I've shown on the Mk3.

I'll wager some didn't realise that read noise issue was so prevalent, so fast.

Take the info or leave it. Isn't it better 'out there' than not?

If not, and many think that way I'll happily leave for you.

 

[jakeymate]

I know people are probably getting sick of me harping on this but DualISO prettty much eliminates Exmor's dynamic range advantage. Below is a Vanilla 5D3 shot vs a DualISO 5D3 image with both pushed 6 stops.

That is a big improvement.

Shame it's needed in the first place to correct a problem that shouldn't exist.

 

[Orangutan]

I'm not a big fan of this test. Since each camera might handle differently, I'd want to identical framing and optimal exposure for some bright element of each, then we'd look at the shadows. My question is not how each looks at the same exposure, but which scenes can/can't be captured with reasonable use of each. If one handles highlights better, why is it wrong to increase exposure to make use of that? Setting equal exposure doesn't seem like a valid test to me.

You don't think how they look at the same exposure is a valid test? Wow.

What exactly would you do to avoid read noise in the lower 36% of the image exactly? How would you expose to not have that problem?

Expose to the right, with less dynamic range to start with? Why should you even have to?

Perhaps we have different definitions or understandings of ETTR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETTR

My understanding is that ETTR is the ideal exposure, which maximizes gathered information and DR of the desirable parts of the scene.

After 2 years with a Mk1, 3 years with a Mk2, and a month with a Mk3, over two years with a D800, and a month with a D810, I know there is no exposure that the Nikon won't outshine the Mk2/3 etc on.

Perhaps there are other photographers of equal or greater skill who have different experiences. The way to remove the personal experience variable from the equation is to do objective tests.

Canon's do not handle highlights better.

I've heard it both ways. Testing will answer the question.

My first cut at a test would be something like this:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Construct a test environment. It helps if there's a single brightest element.
[*]Determine which scene element is the brightest that must remain unclipped.
[*]Use LiveView to adjust the histogram to ETTR that element. Possibly use a dodging tool to verify that you have the correct element ETTR.
[*]Starting at that exposure, take a series of maybe 10 shots, increasing exposure by 1/3 or 1/2 stop each time. (Note: this is because many on-camera histograms are derived from the JPEG-rendered image rather than the RAW data.)
[*]In post-processing, choose the frame with maximum exposure that represents the scene without clipping the important bright element, and work with that one to best render shadow detail. That's your test frame.
[/list]

Then repeat the process for the other camera and compare your best images.

 

[crashpc]

Damn CR forum! My very long post is lost....

jakey: I take it, I agree, but it won´t help anything. If you have faster car, good! I´ll be looking forward to it for my self also. But it needs to be pointed out just once. If you ask again next week, I´ll say "GTFO of my lawn". It is the war still going on all forums around. And most funny thing is, that it can turn back and forth again and again. If canon releases some megapixel beast with greater DR and better shadow noise, expect the same thing. And from what Canon users encountered in the last year, expect great payback. It will be more like "hard f**k" many Sony and Nikon people deserve. And I ask why all this?

When I had my new SL1 back then, I was really happier man (as somebody posted funny story about this), and as I know more about this particular aspect, I wish Canon would be better and I´m less happy with it indeed. It was sweet time and now it´s gone. Will it make me do better images? Propably not...

Now that thing about 36% of noise - I really see it differently, that´s why I asked for further explanation. If I shoot finer text in a way that the shot has histogram data at 1/3 of its range, I might see some noise, but I see some good detail, and with slight denoise It looks great. Only when one realy pushes things, here it comes. This can be valid need and sometimes I need it also. I´d be very happy to be able to do this (noiseless) with Canon cams also, but it doesn´t ruin pretty anything. Wedding photographer with iPhone does..

 

[Loswr]

Ultimately, people vote with their wallets. Sales figures and market share for the past few years are ample proof that while low ISO DR is of paramount importance to a small minority, a difference of a couple of stops on that one single metric doesn't have any meaningful impact on the buying decisions of the majority of photographers.

True, and exactly the reason why I shoot canon, even though I really wouldn't mind having a bit more DR sometimes

I don't think anyone would say no to more DR. As I've said previously, there are occasions I've found DR limiting...but in the vast majority of those, two more stops would not have been enough.

But as I've also stated, there's more to a sensor than just low ISO DR, and there's more to a camera than just the sensor, and there's much more to a photographic system than just the camera.

Some people don't see it that way, which is fine for them. Barbecues, awnings, diet coke boxes, it's just more banging away on the same monotone DRum.

 

[David Hull]

This is very wide claim that can be viewed from different angles of view. From what I´ve seen, there is SOME noise in this part, but also it is clearly able (or my eye if I look at the output) to differentiate noise and detail. There is lots of detail there.

Well it's a claim supported by a grey gradation of the red channel that starts to fall apart at 36%.

Personally, I think the Canon red channel is horrible frankly. Losing detail that early in the tonal range is not acceptable to me.

If you're ok with that then that's fine. I've put the info up there, and that's all I can do.

Thanks for the info, I'll keep that in mind next time I submit a print of the "red channel" for a galleries show. I suspect galleries will start hanging "red channel" shots right after they begin accepting DxO curve prints.

Seriously, all of your Guitar shots look pretty nice and all seem to be acceptable -- I understand the nit picking and the relentless drive toward perfection but you have to admit that thousands of commercial photographers shoot this sort of thing day-in and day-out and somehow make nice images. This whole discussion seems a bit silly IMO.

 

[David Hull]

jakey, we already know this. Canon people not only here know about worse shadow noise of their cams, but they are somehow locked to Canon systems, the same as I am. But you should realize that
1) It is not only shadow noise what should drive one to buy some cam
2) that not everybody can gain from this
3) there are other aspects, body ergonomics, but also things you cannot solve. Lets say I can borrow few L lenses for free. Do you believe some Sony sensor can overpower this advantage?
4) The rest of the system is usually more expensive outside Nikon and Canon
5) It might be some time, but wait for new Canon releases, as it really is about LAST company waiting for important releases. If it does well, there is not anything wrong, they do good, and you must realize there really isn´t any reason for 99% of population to jump on new sensor with higher DR every two or three years.

That way not only I would be very, VERY happy to have Canon sensors with APS-C 36Mpx and 15 stops of DR. Would jump on it immediately, but it doesn´t happen, and Sony sensors doesn´t save me from great pain with Sony cameras.

So what is it? What do you want to hear from us? I don´t understand....

I've acknowledged all of that.

What I've observed is people making claims that aren't true, most people not being fully aware of the facts, and thinking that Nikon can't do this, or can't do that.

Jon wanted examples and I posted some.

I don't want to hear anything from you. If it's useful information, use it, if it's not, ignore it.

The one thing that is frustrating is the talk of DR.

A clean sensor is far more than just DR. It's clean RGB channels from 0-100%, rather than 0-64% as I've shown on the Mk3.

I'll wager some didn't realise that read noise issue was so prevalent, so fast.

Take the info or leave it. Isn't it better 'out there' than not?

If not, and many think that way I'll happily leave for you.

This sort of hype holds court on both sides of the issue. We have all seen the nonsense (as in the Northrup video) where the shot is zoomed in to 100% and pushed several stops "so we can see the problem better". Yet the resulting image would be a total mess for both cameras (if they bothered to show it). IMO, this fits quite nicely into a paraphrased version of your statement "What I've observed is people making claims that aren't true, most people not being fully aware of the facts. being told that Canon can't do this, or can't do that, when it clearly can when used properly".

All equipment has limitations. Some people have figured out how to work around them, for others these limitations are unimportant. Canon seems to have a limitation in this area, Nikon has limitations in other areas. This is mealy a feature of the Sony/Nikon architecture. If it is important to you, go buy the equipment. However, for many it apparently does not bring enough value to justify the cost of switching, is is just not that germane to what they do. So the problem is basically boils down to this:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

 

[dtaylor]

The angst is that while noise removal is ok, that doesn't bring back your detail that the sensor never saw in the first place.

The pattern you see in the box is inconsequential...when it survives at all...at anything less then pixel peeping. I also question whether it has anything at all to do with noise or is simply a result of 36 v 22 MP. When pixel peeping you will see tiny pattern and texture differences between the two. It's just never worth thinking about at <100%.

My issue was how Canon renders skin as it falls into shadow. It struggles with shadowed skin so much, and you don't want green blotches in skin.

I don't think I've ever seen green blotches in skin, even when lifting shadow detail 2-3 stops. But if I did, I would give the scene more exposure the next time around.

When I review work online or in print, I see a difference between old DSLRs (i.e. 10D / 20D) and modern DSLRs. I see a difference between cheap glass and really good glass. I see a difference between P&S sensors and m43 or larger sensors. I see a difference between people who know how to use HDR and GND filters, and those that don't use them at all.

I don't see a difference between D800 and 5D3 shots, or Sonikon/Canon in general.

If the differences ever become so great that they're apparent in real life photographs made for art and not pixel peeping, then I'll be one of the people arguing that Canon should catch up or buy Sony sensors. Until then...

 

[dtaylor]

I do know wedding togs that will get that D3s out when the lights go down though, even when they've got a D4 or a D800.

I know one who gave his D3s away after the D4 came out.

As for the D3s been a stop behind the Mk3, that does not fit with my experience of a Mk3.

Professional tests that control for all variables show otherwise.

 

[dtaylor]

I'm not a big fan of this test. Since each camera might handle differently, I'd want to identical framing and optimal exposure for some bright element of each, then we'd look at the shadows. My question is not how each looks at the same exposure, but which scenes can/can't be captured with reasonable use of each. If one handles highlights better, why is it wrong to increase exposure to make use of that? Setting equal exposure doesn't seem like a valid test to me.

You don't think how they look at the same exposure is a valid test? Wow.

If one has more highlight range then a "best possible" test would exploit that. That said, I'm not sure to what degree this is the case if at all. Just pointing out that it is something to consider.

Expose to the right, with less dynamic range to start with? Why should you even have to?

The dynamic range in your test is nearly identical. The exposure latitude is what's different. And ETTR is for every sensor, Exmor included. Having less read noise and therefore better shadows doesn't eliminate the fact that the last few bits have almost no tonal separation if you push them hard enough, an inherent fact of linear ADCs. With digital you want your exposure to the right without clipping highlights if you are going to maximize DR and latitude in post. (If you're not then none of this matters.)

When a Camera is not able to differentiate noise from detail in the lower 3rd of the tonal range, then no test is going to make it shine.

This is not an accurate evaluation or statement. If the noise were that bad you wouldn't have been able to push the Canon RAW 3 stops at all.

 

[jrista]

I don't think anyone would say no to more DR. As I've said previously, there are occasions I've found DR limiting...but in the vast majority of those, two more stops would not have been enough.

This is really another red herring. It doesn't matter if two more stops of DR isn't enough...it's still significant, and it simplifies whatever else you have to do to deal with any excess DR. In my recent landscape scenes, I was using five to six stops of GND filtration. That's a lot of filters to stack, and stacking that many filters affects IQ across the board (resin GND filters, even the really high end optical grade ones, affect resolving power and diminish IQ at every tonal level). With two more stops or so of DR, I could drop at least one filter. I might even be able to get away with a single three or four stop GND, eliminate the stacking all together.

In the cases where I could not use GND filtration (such as photographing a river within the trees, with only a V-shaped blown sky at the end), most of the time, I was about two, maybe two and a half stops short of being able to expose for the sky. Having two more stops of DR would have solved the very vast majority of that problem, more than enough to get away with the contrast I wanted with nice clean falloff into the shadows, while still preserving the sky. The 5D III, even though I wanted a contrasty image, does not have that clean falloff into the shadows...and the sky is STILL blown.

So, the whole notion that "it's still not enough" is a fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's not enough...it's still a LOT more dynamic range, and it results in cleaner data from the highlights right down into the deep, deep shadows. Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.

 

[JohanCruyff]

Yawn.

 

[Sporgon]

I don't think anyone would say no to more DR. As I've said previously, there are occasions I've found DR limiting...but in the vast majority of those, two more stops would not have been enough.

This is really another red herring. It doesn't matter if two more stops of DR isn't enough...it's still significant, and it simplifies whatever else you have to do to deal with any excess DR. In my recent landscape scenes, I was using five to six stops of GND filtration. That's a lot of filters to stack, and stacking that many filters affects IQ across the board (resin GND filters, even the really high end optical grade ones, affect resolving power and diminish IQ at every tonal level). With two more stops or so of DR, I could drop at least one filter. I might even be able to get away with a single three or four stop GND, eliminate the stacking all together.

In the cases where I could not use GND filtration (such as photographing a river within the trees, with only a V-shaped blown sky at the end), most of the time, I was about two, maybe two and a half stops short of being able to expose for the sky. Having two more stops of DR would have solved the very vast majority of that problem, more than enough to get away with the contrast I wanted with nice clean falloff into the shadows, while still preserving the sky. The 5D III, even though I wanted a contrasty image, does not have that clean falloff into the shadows...and the sky is STILL blown.

So, the whole notion that "it's still not enough" is a fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's not enough...it's still a LOT more dynamic range, and it results in cleaner data from the highlights right down into the deep, deep shadows. Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.

So tell me Jon, how do I get away using Canon gear ? Nearly all my pictures are shot either across or into the sun.

The only bit of kit I really need is a body and a 24-70 standard zoom. I could easily switch to Nikon in the blink of an eye, but there is no need, because there is not enough advantage to make it worthwhile.

12 stops is one hell of a range, and a two stop dodge or burn is a hell of a difference in exposure. When you move outside 12 stops Neuro is right, you need much more to make a significant difference to optimum processing techniques.

 

[KacperP]

Perhaps this "new technology" in 7D mk2 sensor can also mean different layout in sensor circuitry? Hopefully that would lead to lower noise.
I read somewhere that Canon sensor itself is not inferior to Sony offerings in sensitivity, but reading signals from sensor introduces significant noise, and that explained slightly higher noise in 7D compared to 60D with same sensor.

 

[Loswr]

I don't think anyone would say no to more DR. As I've said previously, there are occasions I've found DR limiting...but in the vast majority of those, two more stops would not have been enough.

This is really another red herring. It doesn't matter if two more stops of DR isn't enough...it's still significant, and it simplifies whatever else you have to do to deal with any excess DR.

Going from a single shot to >1 shot has a significant impact on workflow and processing time. Two, three, or six shots result in only marginal differences.

In my recent landscape scenes, I was using five to six stops of GND filtration. That's a lot of filters to stack, and stacking that many filters ... I might even be able to get away with a single three or four stop GND,

Speaking of stinky fish, you can use just one filter for 4 stops GND, but getting to 5-6 stops GND requires "a lot of filters" and "stacking that many filters" is a problem? Since when is two 'a lot of filters'? (EDIT: I'm sure you mean you had to stack several filters based on what you had available, but several filters aren't required to achieve 5-6 stops GND, if you've shopped appropriately.)

So, the whole notion that "it's still not enough" is a fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's not enough...it's still a LOT more dynamic range, and it results in cleaner data from the highlights right down into the deep, deep shadows. Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.

Sorry, Jon...but...really? Can you honestly tell me you think high scene-DR landscapes (or other genres) captured with Canon sensors can't look good printed larger than 8x10"? Because that's what you said. I hope you realize what a bullshit statement you made. I also hope you think about how such a statement sounds, and what it does for your credibility.

 

[raptor3x]

The 5D III, even though I wanted a contrasty image, does not have that clean falloff into the shadows...and the sky is STILL blown.

Have you tried DualISO yet?

 

[jrista]

I don't think anyone would say no to more DR. As I've said previously, there are occasions I've found DR limiting...but in the vast majority of those, two more stops would not have been enough.

This is really another red herring. It doesn't matter if two more stops of DR isn't enough...it's still significant, and it simplifies whatever else you have to do to deal with any excess DR. In my recent landscape scenes, I was using five to six stops of GND filtration. That's a lot of filters to stack, and stacking that many filters affects IQ across the board (resin GND filters, even the really high end optical grade ones, affect resolving power and diminish IQ at every tonal level). With two more stops or so of DR, I could drop at least one filter. I might even be able to get away with a single three or four stop GND, eliminate the stacking all together.

In the cases where I could not use GND filtration (such as photographing a river within the trees, with only a V-shaped blown sky at the end), most of the time, I was about two, maybe two and a half stops short of being able to expose for the sky. Having two more stops of DR would have solved the very vast majority of that problem, more than enough to get away with the contrast I wanted with nice clean falloff into the shadows, while still preserving the sky. The 5D III, even though I wanted a contrasty image, does not have that clean falloff into the shadows...and the sky is STILL blown.

So, the whole notion that "it's still not enough" is a fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's not enough...it's still a LOT more dynamic range, and it results in cleaner data from the highlights right down into the deep, deep shadows. Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.

So tell me Jon, how do I get away using Canon gear ? Nearly all my pictures are shot either across or into the sun.

The only bit of kit I really need is a body and a 24-70 standard zoom. I could easily switch to Nikon in the blink of an eye, but there is no need, because there is not enough advantage to make it worthwhile.

12 stops is one hell of a range, and a two stop dodge or burn is a hell of a difference in exposure. When you move outside 12 stops Neuro is right, you need much more to make a significant difference to optimum processing techniques.

I never said Canon cameras were not useful. That's what all the other DRones say. What I am saying is that the arguments put forth in defense of Canon are frequently fallacies or other tactics that mislead. Sure, you can get away with using Canon equipment. I do myself.

That does not change the FACT that Canon IQ in the lower eschelon of ISO settings (and maybe even at higher ISO settings...I need to rent a D800 myself and shoot stuff at high ISO) is a LOT worse than the competition. I never noticed it as much on the 7D...for as much as that camera is maligned by so many people, it actually has BETTER low ISO IQ than the 5D III. Now that I own the 5D III and have been shooting landscapes with it...I understand more completely now what all the DRones have been talking about.

We could completely ignore the whole shadow lifting aspect of things here. The the tonal grade falls off, the D800 is VASTLY superior to the 5D III. I could leave my images untouched, and the grade into the natural shadows as-shot is STILL worse. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing. That is exactly how the 5D II behaved back in 2008...were some six years on now, and the 5D III, while it has a little less banding, still has that nasty noisy, grungy, gritty falloff into the shadows.

I understand Canon focused on different things with the 1D X, 5D III, and 6D during the last major DSLR release cycle. They greatly improved high ISO performance, which is what people asked for. They have DIGIC 6 technology which can help they continue to compete at high ISO against the likes of the A7s, and I suspect the successor to the 1D X will trounce the A7s at high ISO. However...Canon has shown no clear initiative to improve their low ISO capabilities. Not everyone on the face of the planet shoots at high ISO. When you read articles like this:

http://www.mattk.com/2012/11/13/why-so-many-people-love-landscape-photography/

It makes you wonder if there really are millions of people who do landscape photography, if so many line up along a single ridge like that to photograph the same thing a hundred thousand people before them photographed. More red herrings? Not that many people shoot landscapes? I think there is actually a simpler question to ask, with a fairly simple means if determining a statistically relevant sampling of roughly what ISO setting is most commonly used by photographers who produce quality work that people like. I picked all the photos on the first two pages of 500px, and sorted them by those that use "low ISO" (below 400), vs. those that use "high ISO" (400 and above, which could be considered a VERY liberal use of the term "high ISO"...but, let's balance things in favor of Canon cameras as much as possible here, so I'm not seen as overly biased otherwise):

LOW ISO:
http://500px.com/photo/81524379/stegosaurus-peaks-by-martin-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81539443/blaze-away-by-timothy-poulton?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81528587/mirror-lake-by-george-papapostolou?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81523347/the-god's-anger-by-marko-koro%C5%A1ec?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81545155/looking-back-by-toby-harriman?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81549609/lake-moraine-by-andrea-auf-dem-brinke?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81531677/lighthouse-by-joseba-herrero?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81586119/last-light-by-alfon-no?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81548417/shy-by-vendenis-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81526325/blue-hour-of-glowe-by-andy-donath?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81524885/bovbjerg-lighthouse-by-ulli-b-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81586875/eiffel-tower-by-mohammed-abdo?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81572659/in-a-a-different-world-by-darko-gere%C5%A1?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81569725/three-of-a-kind-by-ram%C3%B3n-men%C3%A9ndez-covelo?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81568979/podere-belvedere-by-b%C3%A9la-t%C3%B6r%C3%B6k?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81542507/summer-evening-on-the-chowan-(of-)-by-ed-sanford?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81521763/anna-by-sergey-fedotov?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81569307/schwalbenschwanz-swallowtail-(papilio-machaon)-by-bernd-flicker?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81565399/national-falls-by-donald-goldney?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81557671/sky-horses-mongolia-by-gan-ulzii-gonchig?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81524347/little-buddha-by-philip-hens?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81574625/crossing-by-guy-cohen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81571421/surfeit-of-sunshine-by-ravi-s-r?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81529361/er-by-ahmad-al-msood?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81525829/heather-landscape-by-birgit-pittelkow?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81528575/-magic-mushrooms-by-martin-pfister?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81523129/blue-hawaii-by-grant-taylor?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81553163/lotus-flower-%EF%BD%9E%E8%8D%B7%E8%8A%B1-%EF%BD%9E-by-fuyi-chen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81522507/the-bridge-to-the-unknown-by-likehe_zen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81545347/the-lollipopper-(part-2)-by-joe@plasmatico-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81544711/le-minou-by-geoffroy-pasquier?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81532851/nature-takes-it-back-by-rolf-nachbar?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81526601/dubai-cloudscape-by-daniel-cheong?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81600117/smile-by-luis-valadares?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81566599/route-66-by-phil-buckle?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81529361/er-by-ahmad-al-msood?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81525829/heather-landscape-by-birgit-pittelkow?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81580993/to-the-beach-by-nico-zwanenburg?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81578537/in-this-silence-let-me-dwell-by-daniel-herr?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81577593/sunset-freedom-by-stefano-faraoni?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81556963/blooms-in-black-and-white-by-thomas-duffy?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81544955/the-cosiness-is-ready-by-jose-moreira?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81540951/heart-rock-slow-by-karl-nakasone?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81533445/poor-grazing-by-darko-ger%C5%A1ak?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81596915/adriatic-sea-(20)-sunset-by-vlado-ferencic?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81591361/flower-by-haru-digital-phot?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81582859/early-silence-by-daniel-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81561589/sunrise-by-reiniel-pasquin?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81530763/-laguna-sunset-by-bryce-keen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81530751/seaview-by-magic-med?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81530023/julia-coldfront-by-martin-k%C3%BChn?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81528189/sun-rays-over-medieval-castle-by-bozhidar-baychev?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81597477/illumination-v-by-roland-shainidze?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81595991/near-the-lake-by-id-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81578007/summer-afternoon-by-tam%C3%A1s-hauk?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81573761/singapore-supertrees-by-tom-anderson?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81575849/riera-de-santa-fe-(catalonia)-by-marc-garrido?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81572535/a-little-driver-by-julia-lezgovko?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81571537/the-bridges-are-golden-by-holger-glaab?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81545623/a-trot-on-the-beach-by-jem-salmon?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81531373/city-sunset-by-sara-stahley?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81523223/rocca-la-meja-sunset-high-valley-maira-ita-by-luca-ulivi?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81520873/colors-of-the-sun-by-justin-majeczky?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81597245/dragon!-by-chad-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81580841/addiction-by-eric-%22kala%22-forey?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81574603/nagy-fakop%C3%A1ncs-by-k%C3%A1roly-danyi?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81562585/bird-on-a-branch-by-laurie-rubin?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81557955/green-tree-python-by-henrik-vind?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81547989/energy-by-leopold-bloom?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81538369/new-york-sunset-by-kirit-prajapati?from=popular&only=

HIGH ISO:
http://500px.com/photo/81567071/the-dark-hedges-by-michael-kight?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81563645/mishroom-wishes-by-geert-weggen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81557065/young-monk-by-hamni-juni?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81581499/bridge-to-fall-by-lars-van-de-goor?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81592769/divided-by-mikko-lagerstedt?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81519615/forbidden-camp-by-davide-arizzi?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81559089/jungle-boy-by-budi-'ccline'?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81565619/good-morning-washington-mt-rainier-national-park-by-aaron-reed?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81534341/camping-under-the-stars-by-essam-monem?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81519171/snowy-owl-by-jose-albero?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81557593/red-feathers-by-don-a-nguyen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81606775/selling-the-drama-by-christian-lim?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81531329/shadows-land-by-pietro-bevilacqua?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81586877/driftwood-by-frank-jensen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81558493/international-whale-shark-day-by-ellen-cuylaerts?from=popular&only=

UNKNOWN:
http://500px.com/photo/81523047/little-pavarotti-by-pedro-garcia?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81534181/green-moravian-carpet-by-janek-sedlar?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81603821/-blue-phase-by-manita-goh?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81533137/the-golden-hour-by-nick-brundle-photography-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81579947/ev%C3%B8lve-by-silver-paul?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81567541/jane-by-anna-s-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81567915/early-morning-by-parag-thapa?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81557701/infinity-by-greg-gibbs?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81551393/dalmatian-pelican-by-mary-koutzarov?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81530869/crayfish-party-by-sari-tarvonen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81606151/aroundthecurve-by-coolor-foto?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81580691/tom-rider-corso-bikes-campaign-by-aisii-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81553751/sunset-at-lake-o'hara-by-shuchun-du?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81544539/rolleiflex-by-raymond-mottl?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81520883/surfing-by-parisa-salehi?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81523951/brutally-awesome-by-bsam-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81561157/kings-canyon-by-luc-busquin?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81519413/should-i-let-it-grow-by-frank-r%C3%B8nsholt?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81595897/say-h!-by-bug-eye-)?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81522201/the-morning-ridge-by-ed-rhodes?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81529073/paignton-pier-sunrise-by-george-johnson?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81574935/cloudy-yosemite-valley-by-dirk-seifert?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81535655/a-summer-in-the-countryside-by-arnaud-bratkovic?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81535387/beatrice-by-eivinas?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81530201/splashing-purple-by-johannes-klapwijk?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81529525/motion-by-sam-portraitsbysam?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81592659/shark-point-by-goff-kitsawad?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81574667/snowy-owl-by-linda-martin?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81572037/rocky-way-by-ilias-varelas?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81618535/a-man-by-silvia-s-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81594937/hasat-by-vildan-b%C3%9Cy%C3%9Ckkaya?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81577901/end-of-summer-by-sebastian-luczywo?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81575401/the-defender-by-les-forrester?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81572561/saxifraga-by-eva-lechner?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81566505/%D0%9E%D1%85-%D0%B8-%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC-by-svetlana-melik-nubarova?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81538981/timeless-by-luminous-impressions?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81600153/golden-sun-by-manuel-roger?from=popular&only=

 

[jrista]

Of the unknown, here is my best educated, honest guess as to which are low and which are high, which seem like HDR (and probably low ISO for the frames), and which are something else:

LOW ISO:
http://500px.com/photo/81533137/the-golden-hour-by-nick-brundle-photography-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81603821/-blue-phase-by-manita-goh?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81534181/green-moravian-carpet-by-janek-sedlar?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81567541/jane-by-anna-s-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81567915/early-morning-by-parag-thapa?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81530869/crayfish-party-by-sari-tarvonen?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81580691/tom-rider-corso-bikes-campaign-by-aisii-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81595897/say-h!-by-bug-eye-)?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81522201/the-morning-ridge-by-ed-rhodes?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81529073/paignton-pier-sunrise-by-george-johnson?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81535655/a-summer-in-the-countryside-by-arnaud-bratkovic?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81592659/shark-point-by-goff-kitsawad?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81594937/hasat-by-vildan-b%C3%9Cy%C3%9Ckkaya?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81577901/end-of-summer-by-sebastian-luczywo?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81575401/the-defender-by-les-forrester?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81538981/timeless-by-luminous-impressions?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81600153/golden-sun-by-manuel-roger?from=popular&only=

HIGH ISO:
http://500px.com/photo/81523047/little-pavarotti-by-pedro-garcia?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81579947/ev%C3%B8lve-by-silver-paul?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81557701/infinity-by-greg-gibbs?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81551393/dalmatian-pelican-by-mary-koutzarov?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81520883/surfing-by-parisa-salehi?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81519413/should-i-let-it-grow-by-frank-r%C3%B8nsholt?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81530201/splashing-purple-by-johannes-klapwijk?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81529525/motion-by-sam-portraitsbysam?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81574667/snowy-owl-by-linda-martin?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81572037/rocky-way-by-ilias-varelas?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81572561/saxifraga-by-eva-lechner?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81566505/%D0%9E%D1%85-%D0%B8-%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC-by-svetlana-melik-nubarova?from=popular&only=

COULD GO EITHER WAY:
http://500px.com/photo/81561157/kings-canyon-by-luc-busquin?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81523951/brutally-awesome-by-bsam-?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81535387/beatrice-by-eivinas?from=popular&only=
http://500px.com/photo/81618535/a-man-by-silvia-s-?from=popular&only=

HDR/TONEMAPPED (probably lower ISO, but not guaranteed)?:
http://500px.com/photo/81574935/cloudy-yosemite-valley-by-dirk-seifert?from=popular&only=

FILM?:
http://500px.com/photo/81544539/rolleiflex-by-raymond-mottl?from=popular&only=

Alright, that's a decent amount of photos. Even weighting the scales to favor high ISO, despite that, the vast majority of photos with known ISO are taken at low ISO. For those that are unknown, being as fair as I can in making educated guesses about which ISO they were shot at (and some may be wrong, I'm sure some will be disputed, but in the end, I don't think the number in dispute will change anything), the majority are STILL low ISO. Assuming that HDR/Tonemapped images tend to be shot at lower ISO than higher ISO, that brings the tally to:

88 known or likely LOW
27 known or likely HIGH
5 unknown

This puts the ratios at over 73% of popular photography uses low ISO, while less than 23% of popular photography uses "high" ISO. This is a fairly small sample set...however, I could do this all day, and if I went through another five, 10, 50 pages of 500px, or Flickr, or 1x, or pick any other photography site...and I truly do not think the ratio will change much. Maybe in the end we end up with around 65-70% of photography favors low ISO, and 30-35% favors high ISO.

That is all assuming "high ISO" starts at ISO 400! The Exmor cameras still has a lead at ISO 400, and the difference really narrows to general meaninglessness by ISO 800. If we rebalance the scales, use a more realistic cutoff point for "high ISO" at 800...then I believe the scales tip even more most "popular" photography being shot at lower ISO. You could pick any specific category...landscapes, architecture, portraiture, street, studio, macro, wildlife, birds, sports, etc. The trends will differ in each of those categories. Sports, wildlife, birds are likely going to be weighted towards more being shot at ISO over 800. Landscapes, architecture, macro are likely to be shot at lower ISO. Potraiture, studio and street could go either way...although, of all the popular portraiture I found, most of it was or seemed to be shot at lower ISO (and a quick run through the first page of popular People, the first page of popular Wedding and the first page of popular Celebrity on 500px strongly corroborates that fact...the majority of shots are ISO 400 and under, a handful are shot at ISO 640 and up.)

So...how many major assumptions are we making here about what matters and what does not, or who shoots at what ISO most often? If the statistics from 500px's discover categories are any indication..."popular" photography...or, as it could be termed, "good" photography done with good exposure, with a keen eye towards quality in every respect of the word (exposure, lighting, composition, processing)...photography that reflects the photographers know what they are doing...seem to use LOW ISO on a significant majority basis. If that's the case...then there IS value in having better low ISO IQ. I'm using a specific term here..."low ISO IQ". I honestly don't think it matters if you lift the shadows or not...the IQ from cameras that use Exmor sensors is superior period, thanks to the very clean, smooth way tonality falls off into the shadows, without any unsightly, patterned, scratchy electronic noise.

I do not believe it is wrong, or stupid, or idiotic, or just DRoning on, to want and expect Canon to deliver better IQ across the board with their next camera releases. To fight so vehemently AGAINST such a request is just plain strange, if you ask me. Who really, honestly, does not want better IQ, more editing latitude, or more versatility? Canon excels in most every other area...the key areas they lack in are really just sensor and probably metering. Do you guys really NOT want Canon to improve in the few areas where they have PLENTY of room to improve in?

Someone asked why I don't just jump ship. I don't want to jump ship...I like Canon gear, their lenses, their high frame rates and their technical support. I just don't like their noise. It's the one thing that, the more I look into it, UTTERLY SUCKS on Canon cameras. Is it such a crime to ask that Canon fix the areas where they are weak?