Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data

[zlatko]

I get it that the D810 sensor is nifty.
But, why didn't you use a fill flash on that? It would have solved all of your problems, and you should probably have a flash on your camera at all times for outdoor portraits, especially weddings.
Were you just trying to rescue a bad error?
This is a legitimate question. Fill flash for outdoor portraits, pretty standard.

Huh? Who set that standard?

I had two 600EX-RT flashes on me and an emitter. I chose not to use it here (but used it later) b/c I didn't want unnatural lighting for this particular shot.

You do realize that fill & flashes create the sense of a separate light source that doesn't make that much sense when you have the sun behind your subjects, right?

That said, it can still create some cool & dramatic lighting, which I've used for environmental portraits.

I just didn't want it in this shot.

Why you're asking something so OT to my original point, is a better question.

Fill flash is a very, very common technique. Set properly, it adds very little light and doesn't create an unnatural look.

As I mentioned last year on this forum, Ansel Adams had a similar issue in his "Martha Porter, Pioneer Woman" portrait. Adams was a master of the technical aspects of photography, but for this portrait he didn't use a reflector or flash. Even so, he made a strong and memorable portrait by exposing for his subject (in shadow) and letting the highlights overexpose.

 

[Loswr]

My *point* is that I wouldn't have had to with a good sensor.

Huh? Who set that standard?

 

[sarangiman]

Now a sensor comes along that lets you underexpose your subjects and then completely fix that underexposure, which you also combine with full software correction of extreme corner vignetting of a wide angle lens shot at f/1.4. So you now define that sensor as a "good" sensor and all other sensors as, well, not good sensors. Sorry, but that self-serving re-definition doesn't work. Canon makes perfectly "good sensors" — good for photographers who don't rely on radical underexposure. For whatever reason, Canon has aligned their product with the priorities of other photographers.

Also - when one sensor outperforms another in every measurable aspect, it is, by definition, a 'better' sensor.

There's no self-serving redefining going on here...

Shooting around ISO 2000 is more than acceptable to me with cameras like the 5D3 and 6D with basic processing in Lightroom. ISO 2000 looks sweet and definitely does't show the artifacts you're showing in that crop. But then I'm not underexposing by 1.5 stops and then fixing 3 stops of vignetting.

With a Canon, you have to actually shoot at ISO 2000 to *not* get the sort of artifacts I'm showing. With an Exmor sensor, you can keep the shutter speed/aperture at whatever ISO 2000 would've required, but just dial the ISO down to, say, ISO 400, and give yourself 2.5 EV highlight headroom, with little to no noise cost. If you did that with Canon, you'd have more noise than if you'd shot ISO 2000 to begin with.

In other words, ISO 400 + 2.5 EV in post is noisier than ISO 2000. With Exmor, it's generally not. Again, assuming shutter speed/aperture are the same (shooting Manual).

What this means is that you can have far more highlight headroom under situations requiring higher ISOs (faster shutter speeds, smaller apertures). B/c with Exmor, there's very little difference in underexposing by X stops and then pushing the exposure in post.

You do realize that ISO 2000 generally deprives the sensor of 4.5 stops of light compared to ISO 100, yes? So if you think that shooting ISO 2000 (full-frame) is fine, how can you think that shooting ISO 100 at -4.5 EV is unreasonable if the camera shows similar performance with ISO 100 + 4.5EV vs ISO 2000?

 

[sarangiman]

Fill flash is a very, very common technique. Set properly, it adds very little light and doesn't create an unnatural look.

As I mentioned last year on this forum, Ansel Adams had a similar issue in his "Martha Porter, Pioneer Woman" portrait. Adams was a master of the technical aspects of photography, but for this portrait he didn't use a reflector or flash. Even so, he made a strong and memorable portrait by exposing for his subject (in shadow) and letting the highlights overexpose.

Right, which is what I did, as I explained earlier:

And if you must know - I shot multiple exposures & have one shot with 2 stops more exposure where the noise is acceptable in the subjects, but of course the sky is completely blown. My *point* is that I wouldn't have had to with a good sensor.

Still doesn't detract from my original point: I wouldn't have even had to 'bracket'. And I'm sure no one has ever, ever accidentally underexposed an image b/c the meter overreacted to a backlight and the photographer didn't have time to check the image amidst the action he/she was trying to capture. No, I bet that never happens.

And as for choosing between shallow DOF or vignetting - it's always been one or the other with primes, right, so that's how it should remain forever of course!

But seeing that argument you just made makes me realize you're simply arguing against progress, so there's really no point in me continuing this line of conversation.

You're essentially saying that Ansel Adams worked around the limitation, so so should we. Even when technology is available that allows us to not have to work around it. And completely ignoring the fact that Ansel Adams developed many of his own techniques to get around input/output DR limitations.

But I'm sure if back then a new film came out with higher DR and *no* other disadvantages, that he'd have said 'nah, I'll just use the old film and work around the limitations.'

Right...

Suggesting I stop my prime down to f/2.8 was particularly comical. You're saying I'm expecting too much of technology, yet the the D810 meets those expectations, and I'm just making that known, but you're still saying I'm expecting too much of technology.

Except... I'm not, b/c there's already tech out there that meets (at least those) needs.

At this point it's just like arguing with fundamentalist conservatives: I just can't understand the anti-progress sentiment, so I give up.

 

[bdunbar79]

"You do realize that ISO 2000 generally deprives the sensor of 4.5 stops of light compared to ISO 100, yes?"

No. Only shutter speed and aperture determine how much light reaches the sensor. ISO is just reading.

1/100s, f/4, ISO 2000 or 1/100s, f/4, ISO 100: Same amount of light hit the sensor.

 

[zlatko]

The same sunlight and the same contrast range has existed since the beginnings of photography. Fortunately, photographers developed various good techniques for handling the very same problems that you encountered. For 150+ years, underexposing by 5 stops was never one of them.

Right, exactly, and that's the wonder of technological progress. It opens up freedom and opportunities.

Or are you one of those that still thinks slide film had enough (input) DR?

Now a sensor comes along that lets you underexpose your subjects and then completely fix that underexposure, which you also combine with full software correction of extreme corner vignetting of a wide angle lens shot at f/1.4. So you now define that sensor as a "good" sensor and all other sensors as, well, not good sensors. Sorry, but that self-serving re-definition doesn't work. Canon makes perfectly "good sensors" — good for photographers who don't rely on radical underexposure. For whatever reason, Canon has aligned their product with the priorities of other photographers.

No, they haven't 'aligned' anything. They just have chosen not to update their sensor fab/design.

When something introduces noise into your signal, it's not 'aligning' with those people who don't need cleaner signals. It's just not evolving.

You wouldn't say a noisier analog tape back in the day was 'aligning' with any particular crowd, now, would you?

I understand how these sensors/cameras work well enough *not* to make fundamentally bad decisions that lead to the problem you're showing in that crop. I certainly wouldn't switch systems over a self-created and easily avoidable problem.

You still just don't fundamentally understand the idea of better technology opening up creative potential. I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of those that looks at light field technology and is like 'who needs to refocus?' - ignoring all the revolutionary possibilities that tech brings.

Using reflectors/flash and changing your the nature of the light is one way to deal with this problem, sure. Overexposing and just letting the sky blow is another one (which is what I did, in this situation, in a separate shot). Switching systems for this and many other benefits is another.

All are valid solutions. You really can't argue that the last option above doesn't open up doors, though.

And all of you with your solutions and suggestions - have you never, ever had an underexposed image by mistake b/c of, say, strong backlight? And you were shooting so fast to capture the moment that you didn't have a chance to correct the exposure on the spot?

If you've never encountered this situation, you're either unreasonably good, or a liar.

Also - you do realize a flash/reflector would've done nothing for the noise and banding in the background, right?

First of all, that's such a patronizing post, making all sorts of presuppositions about my understanding. I don't have time to address the personal insults. Save them for somebody else.

Canon's sensors have most certainly gotten better with each new generation of camera, and those improvements are well-aligned with my needs and apparently with the needs of many other photographers. When you say they have "chosen not to update their sensor fab/design" — what you mean is that they haven't made a sensor that meets your needs for extreme exposure fixes.

Of course I've made exposure mistakes, but I didn't switch systems over them. The problem with that philosophy is that with each system one makes new or different mistakes and then runs out of systems to switch to. On the list of things that matter in a system, the ability to fix gross errors is somewhere low on the list. Dynamic range at low ISO is important and I'm not against progress in that area, but it's just one of a few hundred things that are important in a system.

Now you're last point is seriously questionable. Fill flash or a reflector would raise the exposure on your subject, bringing it closer to the exposure for the sky. Subject and sky are the two elements that were seemingly important in your exposure deliberations. So why are you software-boosting the exposure on a dark background? That's like banging your head against the wall and then complaining to the doctor that your head hurts.

 

[zlatko]

You do realize that ISO 2000 generally deprives the sensor of 4.5 stops of light compared to ISO 100, yes? So if you think that shooting ISO 2000 (full-frame) is fine, how can you think that shooting ISO 100 at -4.5 EV is unreasonable if the camera shows similar performance with ISO 100 + 4.5EV vs ISO 2000?

Because at ISO 2000 I don't get the noise you're showing in your ISO 100 example. I don't.

 

[takesome1]

Fill flash is a very, very common technique. Set properly, it adds very little light and doesn't create an unnatural look.

As I mentioned last year on this forum, Ansel Adams had a similar issue in his "Martha Porter, Pioneer Woman" portrait. Adams was a master of the technical aspects of photography, but for this portrait he didn't use a reflector or flash. Even so, he made a strong and memorable portrait by exposing for his subject (in shadow) and letting the highlights overexpose.

Right, which is what I did, as I explained earlier:

And if you must know - I shot multiple exposures & have one shot with 2 stops more exposure where the noise is acceptable in the subjects, but of course the sky is completely blown. My *point* is that I wouldn't have had to with a good sensor.

Still doesn't detract from my original point: I wouldn't have even had to 'bracket'. And I'm sure no one has ever, ever accidentally underexposed an image b/c the meter overreacted to a backlight and the photographer didn't have time to check the image amidst the action he/she was trying to capture. No, I bet that never happens.

And as for choosing between shallow DOF or vignetting - it's always been one or the other with primes, right, so that's how it should remain forever of course!

But seeing that argument you just made makes me realize you're simply arguing against progress, so there's really no point in me continuing this line of conversation.

You're essentially saying that Ansel Adams worked around the limitation, so so should we. Even when technology is available that allows us to not have to work around it. And completely ignoring the fact that Ansel Adams developed many of his own techniques to get around input/output DR limitations.

But I'm sure if back then a new film came out with higher DR and *no* other disadvantages, that he'd have said 'nah, I'll just use the old film and work around the limitations.'

Right...

Suggesting I stop my prime down to f/2.8 was particularly comical. You're saying I'm expecting too much of technology, yet the the D810 meets those expectations, and I'm just making that known, but you're still saying I'm expecting too much of technology.

Except... I'm not, b/c there's already tech out there that meets (at least those) needs.

At this point it's just like arguing with fundamentalist conservatives: I just can't understand the anti-progress sentiment, so I give up.

I think Ansel Adams would have waited for the magic moment where all the light reach the dynamic range where there was not 5 stops difference between the light and dark areas.
I would speculate that he would do the same whether he had the latest greatest new film or the same old film and not rely on the crutch that this new film is somehow better.

More dynamic range is a good thing, but the examples and arguments you have laid out are not sound. Your examples flawed with poor technique and understanding of your gear. The sweet spot of the 24mm f/1.4 L II is at f/2 shooting at f/1.4 you deserved to have a bad picture.

Perhaps you should find a better example to make your point.

 

[Loswr]

But I'm sure if back then a new film came out with higher DR and *no* other disadvantages, that he'd have said 'nah, I'll just use the old film and work around the limitations.'

Please do let me know when I can pop a roll of Exmor 'film' into my Canon camera, so I can have great AF with my handholdable 600mm f/4 lens, use my radio controlled flash system, etc.

 

[sarangiman]

You do realize that ISO 2000 generally deprives the sensor of 4.5 stops of light compared to ISO 100, yes? So if you think that shooting ISO 2000 (full-frame) is fine, how can you think that shooting ISO 100 at -4.5 EV is unreasonable if the camera shows similar performance with ISO 100 + 4.5EV vs ISO 2000?

Because at ISO 2000 I don't get the noise you're showing in your ISO 100 example. I don't.

And I don't get the noise I showed in my example at ISO 100 w/ Exmor, but I get 4.5 EV of additional headroom compared to ISO 2000 (on either Canon or Nikon).

And that's the entire point. B/c with Canon's read noise, you're *required* to pre-amplify your data rather than amplify it in post-processing. And this costs you highlights.

I don't think I'm going to be able to explain this to you in forum posts.

Dynamic range at low ISO is important and I'm not against progress in that area, but it's just one of a few hundred things that are important in a system.

Now you're last point is seriously questionable. Fill flash or a reflector would raise the exposure on your subject, bringing it closer to the exposure for the sky. Subject and sky are the two elements that were seemingly important in your exposure deliberations. So why are you software-boosting the exposure on a dark background? That's like banging your head against the wall and then complaining to the doctor that your head hurts.

But my example is all about DR at low ISO... how can you say you do care about low ISO DR and then say my example is completely invalid? The background trees/grass that have noise/FPN is a classic example of low DR. I'm honestly completely perplexed at your thinking.

Why am I boosting exposure on a dark background? B/c trees aren't black in real life. The background is dark b/c I *chose* to underexpose in that example to keep the sky from clipping.

More dynamic range is a good thing, but the examples and arguments you have laid out are not sound. Your examples flawed with poor technique and understanding of your gear. The sweet spot of the 24mm f/1.4 L II is at f/2 shooting at f/1.4 you deserved to have a bad picture.

Perhaps you should find a better example to make your point.

What's not sound is telling someone who wants the shallowest DOF and most subject isolation he can get to shoot one stop stopped down - bringing you half of the way from that prime to an f/2.8 zoom. Negating literally half of the prime's advantage when it comes to DOF.

I completely understand my gear - perhaps a bit too well - which is why I also understand it doesn't meet my needs.

Sweet spot? Sweet spot for what? Resolution? Vignetting? I want the most subject isolation I can get and you're telling me to stop down my lens, effectively to that of a zoom (to whoever mentioned to go down to f/2.8 )? So then remind me why I'm carrying 3 primes on a belt & constantly swapping between them rather than just slapping on a 24-70 f/2.8L II? For a marginal increase in sharpness - an attribute I'm not trying to optimize for?

 

[zlatko]

Fill flash is a very, very common technique. Set properly, it adds very little light and doesn't create an unnatural look.

As I mentioned last year on this forum, Ansel Adams had a similar issue in his "Martha Porter, Pioneer Woman" portrait. Adams was a master of the technical aspects of photography, but for this portrait he didn't use a reflector or flash. Even so, he made a strong and memorable portrait by exposing for his subject (in shadow) and letting the highlights overexpose.

Right, which is what I did, as I explained earlier:

And if you must know - I shot multiple exposures & have one shot with 2 stops more exposure where the noise is acceptable in the subjects, but of course the sky is completely blown. My *point* is that I wouldn't have had to with a good sensor.

Still doesn't detract from my original point: I wouldn't have even had to 'bracket'. And I'm sure no one has ever, ever accidentally underexposed an image b/c the meter overreacted to a backlight and the photographer didn't have time to check the image amidst the action he/she was trying to capture. No, I bet that never happens.

And as for choosing between shallow DOF or vignetting - it's always been one or the other with primes, right, so that's how it should remain forever of course!

But seeing that argument you just made makes me realize you're simply arguing against progress, so there's really no point in me continuing this line of conversation.

You're essentially saying that Ansel Adams worked around the limitation, so so should we. Even when technology is available that allows us to not have to work around it. And completely ignoring the fact that Ansel Adams developed many of his own techniques to get around input/output DR limitations.

But I'm sure if back then a new film came out with higher DR and *no* other disadvantages, that he'd have said 'nah, I'll just use the old film and work around the limitations.'

Right...

Suggesting I stop my prime down to f/2.8 was particularly comical. You're saying I'm expecting too much of technology, yet the the D810 meets those expectations, and I'm just making that known, but you're still saying I'm expecting too much of technology.

Except... I'm not, b/c there's already tech out there that meets (at least those) needs.

At this point it's just like arguing with fundamentalist conservatives: I just can't understand the anti-progress sentiment, so I give up.

Adams did not like the blown highlights or the fact that he didn't have any fill light that day. But he didn't trash the photo and blame Kodak. Instead, he made a good photo under the circumstances. No doubt he used a sensible processing technique.

I'm all in favor of progress in photographic technology, but very shallow depth of field with zero vignetting seems like your personal definition of progress. The ability to watch television and drive a car at the same time might be a version of progress too, but it's not exactly a priority for most drivers.

Stopping down to f/2.8 to avoid the vignetting that you so dislike is "comical"? I would describe it as sensible, obvious, reasonable, etc. ... maybe not comical. And this is "comical" because it's a prime lens and prime lenses should not be stopped down? OK ... again, I think you have some personal definitions of these things that don't match mine. It's great that the D810 serves your needs, however.

 

[sarangiman]

Adams did not like the blown highlights or the fact that he didn't have any fill light that day. But he didn't trash the photo and blame Kodak. Instead, he made a good photo under the circumstances. No doubt he used a sensible processing technique.

And so have I. I've worked around the limitations for years, having shot Canon for 2 decades. I even shot slide film and worked around that with multiple GNDs. What's your point? Exmor still makes my life much, much easier so I can focus on other aspects of my creative work.

I'm all in favor of progress in photographic technology, but very shallow depth of field with zero vignetting seems like your personal definition of progress.

You're taking my one example in isolation. I've quoted many advantages of low base ISO DR; this is just the one I've posted here. My definition of 'progress' is an advancement that only offers advantages and no disadvantages. That's what Exmor offers over a Canon sensor (notice I said 'sensor', not 'system').

My definition of 'progress' here is entirely sound.

Stopping down to f/2.8 to avoid the vignetting that you so dislike is "comical"? I would describe it as sensible, obvious, reasonable, etc. ... maybe not comical. And this is "comical" because it's a prime lens and prime lenses should not be stopped down? OK ... again, I think you have some personal definitions of these things that don't match mine. It's great that the D810 serves your needs, however.

B/c obliterating the *only* reason I bought the prime, and shoot with 3 primes rather than one zoom lens, is, yes, 'comical'.

Perhaps you don't know of photographers who buy primes solely b/c of their shallow DOF capabilities (tied in with their light gathering abilities)?

And yes, people do have different needs - imagine that. I buy primes to shoot them primarily near wide open (within reason: I won't shoot people dancing on a dance floor in the dark at f/1.4, where I have no control over where they'll be in the next instant, for example).

 

[takesome1]

You do realize that ISO 2000 generally deprives the sensor of 4.5 stops of light compared to ISO 100, yes? So if you think that shooting ISO 2000 (full-frame) is fine, how can you think that shooting ISO 100 at -4.5 EV is unreasonable if the camera shows similar performance with ISO 100 + 4.5EV vs ISO 2000?

Because at ISO 2000 I don't get the noise you're showing in your ISO 100 example. I don't.

And I don't get the noise I showed in my example at ISO 100 w/ Exmor, but I get 4.5 EV of additional headroom compared to ISO 2000 (on either Canon or Nikon).

And that's the entire point. B/c with Canon's read noise, you're *required* to pre-amplify your data rather than amplify it in post-processing. And this costs you highlights.

I don't think I'm going to be able to explain this to you in forum posts.

Dynamic range at low ISO is important and I'm not against progress in that area, but it's just one of a few hundred things that are important in a system.

Now you're last point is seriously questionable. Fill flash or a reflector would raise the exposure on your subject, bringing it closer to the exposure for the sky. Subject and sky are the two elements that were seemingly important in your exposure deliberations. So why are you software-boosting the exposure on a dark background? That's like banging your head against the wall and then complaining to the doctor that your head hurts.

But my example is all about DR at low ISO... how can you say you do care about low ISO DR and then say my example is completely invalid? The background trees/grass that have noise/FPN is a classic example of low DR. I'm honestly completely perplexed at your thinking.

Why am I boosting exposure on a dark background? B/c trees aren't black in real life. The background is dark b/c I *chose* to underexpose in that example to keep the sky from clipping.

More dynamic range is a good thing, but the examples and arguments you have laid out are not sound. Your examples flawed with poor technique and understanding of your gear. The sweet spot of the 24mm f/1.4 L II is at f/2 shooting at f/1.4 you deserved to have a bad picture.

Perhaps you should find a better example to make your point.

What's not sound is telling someone who wants the shallowest DOF and most subject isolation he can get to shoot one stop stopped down - bringing you half of the way from that prime to an f/2.8 zoom. Negating literally half of the prime's advantage when it comes to DOF.

I completely understand my gear - perhaps a bit too well - which is why I also understand it doesn't meet my needs.

Sweet spot? Sweet spot for what? Resolution? Vignetting? I want the most subject isolation I can get and you're telling me to stop down my lens, effectively to that of a zoom (to whoever mentioned to go down to f/2.8 )? So then remind me why I'm carrying 3 primes on a belt & constantly swapping between them rather than just slapping on a 24-70 f/2.8L II? For a marginal increase in sharpness - an attribute I'm not trying to optimize for?

Sweet spot in most aspects, yes. If you knew the lens you would know that.

If you are using Nikon's 24mm f/1.4 perhaps you are seeing the difference in lenses since it has 2 less stops of vignetting. The argument could be made that the lens is superior and it has nothing to do with the sensor.
But the comparison you wanted to make was sensors wasn't it.

 

[zlatko]

You do realize that ISO 2000 generally deprives the sensor of 4.5 stops of light compared to ISO 100, yes? So if you think that shooting ISO 2000 (full-frame) is fine, how can you think that shooting ISO 100 at -4.5 EV is unreasonable if the camera shows similar performance with ISO 100 + 4.5EV vs ISO 2000?

Because at ISO 2000 I don't get the noise you're showing in your ISO 100 example. I don't.

And I don't get the noise I showed in my example at ISO 100 w/ Exmor, but I get 4.5 EV of additional headroom compared to ISO 2000 (on either Canon or Nikon).

And that's the entire point. B/c with Canon's read noise, you're *required* to pre-amplify your data rather than amplify it in post-processing. And this costs you highlights.

I don't think I'm going to be able to explain this to you in forum posts.

Dynamic range at low ISO is important and I'm not against progress in that area, but it's just one of a few hundred things that are important in a system.

Now you're last point is seriously questionable. Fill flash or a reflector would raise the exposure on your subject, bringing it closer to the exposure for the sky. Subject and sky are the two elements that were seemingly important in your exposure deliberations. So why are you software-boosting the exposure on a dark background? That's like banging your head against the wall and then complaining to the doctor that your head hurts.

But my example is all about DR at low ISO... how can you say you do care about low ISO DR and then say my example is completely invalid? The background trees/grass that have noise/FPN is a classic example of low DR. I'm honestly completely perplexed at your thinking.

Why am I boosting exposure on a dark background? B/c trees aren't black in real life. The background is dark b/c I *chose* to underexpose in that example to keep the sky from clipping.

My highlights are OK, thank you. Not the problem you make it out to be.

Yes, your example is all about DR at low ISO ... that's why I said I'm not against progress in this area. I just don't see it as this big system-switching issue when it's so easy to deal with in situations like the one you described in your crop. That's assuming one doesn't have extreme requirements like shooting a wide lens at f/1.4 with no vignetting, no blown highlights, nothing black in the background, not using any fill, etc.

You seem determined to deal with that situation with an Exmor sensor and no other way. It's good that you have found your solution.

 

[sarangiman]

And I never said I hated vignetting. I very much like it, when appropriate.

I just thought it'd be particularly poignant to point out that sometimes simply enabling the profile corrections for your lens' vignetting in ACR will lead to FPN/noise with Canon systems. In the photo above, simply enabling profile corrections will show visible FPN, even without the exposure push.

And btw, the photo could've used even more underexposure to actually save all of the sky: a large patch is still blown and unrecoverable by ACR.

 

[sarangiman]

Sweet spot in most aspects, yes. If you knew the lens you would know that.

If you are using Nikon's 24mm f/1.4 perhaps you are seeing the difference in lenses since it has 2 less stops of vignetting. The argument could be made that the lens is superior and it has nothing to do with the sensor.
But the comparison you wanted to make was sensors wasn't it.

But I bought the lens to use it for shallow DOF, not use it at it's sweet spot. Can you appreciate/understand that?

I know very well the Canon 24/1.4 needs a massive update. It's resolution & vignetting are sub-par next to other offerings, *especially* what I'm sure Sigma will offer in an Art series lens. The 35mm Sigma Art blows away the rather outdated Canon 35L, for example.

This is not about a lack of understanding, it's about *choices*.

 

[sarangiman]

My highlights are OK, thank you. Not the problem you make it out to be.

Yes, your example is all about DR at low ISO ... that's why I said I'm not against progress in this area. I just don't see it as this big system-switching issue when it's so easy to deal with in situations like the one you described in your crop. That's assuming one doesn't have extreme requirements like shooting a wide lens at f/1.4 with no vignetting, no blown highlights, nothing black in the background, not using any fill, etc.

You seem determined to deal with that situation with an Exmor sensor and no other way. It's good that you have found your solution.

Yes, b/c it helps in this regard, as well as in other regards. Like for my landscapes. Like for significantly higher high ISO DR than what Canon offers when you shoot 'ISO-less' with Exmor.

And like I said earlier, the other major reason was the AF system, along with a number of other features which were icing on the cake.

Making it sound like I switched systems just so I could not get vignetting at f/1.4 is obtuse and unreasonable, and you know that.

 

[takesome1]

Sweet spot in most aspects, yes. If you knew the lens you would know that.

If you are using Nikon's 24mm f/1.4 perhaps you are seeing the difference in lenses since it has 2 less stops of vignetting. The argument could be made that the lens is superior and it has nothing to do with the sensor.
But the comparison you wanted to make was sensors wasn't it.

But I bought the lens to use it for shallow DOF, not use it at it's sweet spot. Can you appreciate/understand that?

I know very well the Canon 24/1.4 needs a massive update. It's resolution & vignetting are sub-par next to other offerings, *especially* what I'm sure Sigma will offer in an Art series lens. The 35mm Sigma Art blows away the rather outdated Canon 35L, for example.

This is not about a lack of understanding, it's about *choices*.

I can appreciate that, but that doesn't mean you are not compromising by using it at f/1.4. Knowing what those compromises is important.
Your example is poor, perhaps if you had started with a different lens in a different situation you could demonstrate your point.

 

[zlatko]

My highlights are OK, thank you. Not the problem you make it out to be.

Yes, your example is all about DR at low ISO ... that's why I said I'm not against progress in this area. I just don't see it as this big system-switching issue when it's so easy to deal with in situations like the one you described in your crop. That's assuming one doesn't have extreme requirements like shooting a wide lens at f/1.4 with no vignetting, no blown highlights, nothing black in the background, not using any fill, etc.

You seem determined to deal with that situation with an Exmor sensor and no other way. It's good that you have found your solution.

Yes, b/c it helps in this regard, as well as in other regards. Like for my landscapes. Like for significantly higher high ISO DR than what Canon offers when you shoot 'ISO-less' with Exmor.

And like I said earlier, the other major reason was the AF system, along with a number of other features which were icing on the cake.

Making it sound like I switched systems just so I could not get vignetting at f/1.4 is obtuse and unreasonable, and you know that.

Well then I misunderstood. Given the strong emphasis you placed on that unusual requirement, I thought it was the major reason for your switch.

 

[zlatko]

@zlatko:

I understand your arguments, that other factors of the system as a whole are important, often more important. However, as everyone here so often states...Canon's system is already excellent. In many ways, it's second to none. Canon already has a stellar AF system, they now have a superb full-color meter that links into the AF system for full tilt tracking, their ergonomics and menu system are excellent.

There are only a few areas where Canon could really realize significant gains. Sensor design is one of them. Canon keeps improving the AF system...45pt to 61pt to 65pt....diminishing returns. Keeps "improving" video (DPAF is the biggest innovation there, overall video capabilities seem to have stagnated though.) Canon currently has one of, if not the, best flash system on the planet for DSLRs. They already have excellent ergonomics, button placement, menu systems. They already had an excellent 100k pixel RGB meter, how much more does a 150k pixel RGB meter really improve things?

Canon has even addressed many of the firmware concerns of many customers, such as having "proper" Auto ISO implementation (seems it's finally "done right"...although right is rather subjective here...and should finally quell complaints.) However most of the issues like that could have been addressed with firmware updates for many cameras many, many years ago, and probably shouldn't have been pressing feature concerns for new camera models.

OK, but you left out the improvement in high ISO performance and that has something to do with sensor design. That for me has been very real and very valuable. I'm more interested in that than in low ISO dynamic range and fixing extreme underexposure. Of course I'm in favor of improved dynamic range too. But in the meantime, I'm very happy with what they are making.