Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data

[Loswr]

Incorrect, they will buy a body for the lenses and flash units they already have (even if it is only a few).

I disagree. The Rebel kit lens adds $50 to the price, and notice how Canon "updates" the 18-55 lens quite frequently (even though those updates are often insignificant as far as lens performance, it sounds new). The typical consumer doesn't buy an external flash (why? the camera has one!), and doesn't buy more lenses than came with the body.

But in fact, neither of us have data on buying habits of young or first-time dSLR buyers vs. people already owning other system components or other brands. But you know who does have those data? Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc., who collect that info, along with demographic data, salaries, occupations, etc., every time someone registers a new purchase. History has shown Canon to be quite adept at catering to their market.

Right now Canon are living off past glories, but unless they get off their backsides all their glory will be in the past.

YAPODFC :

 

[V8Beast]

Right now Canon are living off past glories, but unless they get off their backsides all their glory will be in the past.

If this were true, then who cares? I've been shooting Canon for a very long time not out of brand loyalty, but because it offers the best system of bodies, lenses, accessories, and service for my needs. The day they can no longer do that is the day I'll give another company my business and not think twice about it.

Camera equipment are merely tools that facilitate in capturing images. To invest so much emotional attachment into whether or not "your team" is or isn't on top of the heap technologically or financially is merely a distraction in the quest to produce great images.

Now go shoot, already

 

[Diko]

Actually I am also interested in those numbers ;-)

I haven't read the whole 10 pages (yet). However I strongly believe that SONY is to eat quite some market from both NIKON and SONY and more likely from NIKON since they are not so much keen of the MILCs.

 

[sarangiman]

You can certainly talk the talk, but after all this typing and in put from others I don't see this can continue until you post the full, original image as many of us have requested. Mask the faces if necessary as suggested by PBD. You've made all sorts of allegations against the 5DIII not coping with the situation: let's see the full picture.

What, and risk having his claims invalidated? Why would he do that? :

I'd do that if it were even remotely possible that something constructive would come out of any of this. I've done it in the past and it's just like arguing with fundamentalists - you always have an answer for everything. I remember when I presented side-by-sides of the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II vs. the Nikon 14-24 on the same body, clearly showing huge differences in edge sharpness, and it was argued that the entire test was invalid b/c the Canon lens had too much flare. (1) Ok, that's a characteristic of the lens then in that scenario; (2) despite flare, the difference in sharpness was so obvious you'd have to be blind not to see it. Yet people argued away... and now that the 16-35 f/4L is out, it's OK to say that's much better at the edges/corners than the f/2.8 II (as many people/sites have said/shown), but, no, it's not OK to say the *gasp* Nikon is better, now is it? Obviously there was something wrong with my test. Like Canon's design that led to more flare that still didn't change any of the conclusions...

Oh and about your constant making fun of lens cap shots - one would've thought that as a scientist you might understand controlled testing. It gives you the stdev for the lowest signal, which allows you to extrapolate certain things.

If you don't understand it, move along.

I made my point ages ago. Some get it, some don't. That's fine. Unsubscribing from this thread.

 

[Loswr]

You can certainly talk the talk, but after all this typing and in put from others I don't see this can continue until you post the full, original image as many of us have requested. Mask the faces if necessary as suggested by PBD. You've made all sorts of allegations against the 5DIII not coping with the situation: let's see the full picture.

What, and risk having his claims invalidated? Why would he do that? :

I'd do that if it were even remotely possible that something constructive would come out of any of this.

Nice cop out, way to go.

 

[Aglet]

I'm talking about normalized Raw performance, which has seen very, very small gains. Save for at the highest ISOs (e.g. 25.6k and above), where lowering sensor-level (upstream) read noise actually affects image quality, since you're amplifying the raw signal off the sensor so much (b/c the signal is so, so small).

Otherwise, ISO performance is largely dictated by sensor size these days.

I'd like to throw an orange into this nice comparison of apples. A nice tasty tangerine of a sensor.

I was curious about comparing Canon's best-to-date crop sensor, the 70D (until we know what the 7d2 can do) so had a look at DxOmark's data on it and compared it to a sensor with 2-thirds the surface area. (OMD EM10)

I thought that the larger surface area and decent hi ISO performance of the 70D might actually have an edge in hi ISO performance.... BUT I WAS WRONG.

The tiny MFT sensor of the Olympus EM10 completely smokes the 70d in SNR at every ISO and every signal level.
So, despite the physics advantages of larger sensors, comparing the performance means you do have to consider the underlying technology used to collect the data from those sensors.

The ~220 sq mm of the MFT sensor outperforms the ~330 sq mm of the Canon 70D at all ISO.

(no wonder I'm enjoying the little snapper! )

Now I am really hoping the 7d2 sensor can perform at least as good as my micro-four-thirds sensor. Then the 7d2's advanced AF system and other benefits will be better appreciated.

 

[privatebydesign]

EDIT: I "mislabeled" the "Nikon" file, it is a single shot from a 2007 1Ds MkIII processed very simply in LR.

To reiterate, both images are from a single Canon file, the "good" one used a basic ETTR technique and very simple LR processing, the "bad" file was slightly underexposed and done as part of a bracketing sequence and also had simple LR processing.

Ok, interesting situation here. I recently had a friend stay and he had a D800 and 24-70, he tagged along on a commercial shoot of mine and I had a chance to shoot comparative images, I'll post the RAW files in a few days when I get back to internet that runs more than a few kb!

Anyway, as some of you know I have been a fairly strong advocate of the "well more DR would be nice but I really can get along fine with what I have at the moment" school of thought. I have never denied the Exmor advantage, I just felt it was portrayed as way more important than I felt it was, I also pointed out that I, personally, shoot very high DR scenes regularly and even the mighty Exmor wouldn't help in those situations.

So, time to eat crow. Here are two images (that unfortunately bare a strikingly similar scenario to long departed dear Mikael's comparison images) that I ETTR'd to get optimal exposure, that is I didn't blow the highlights completely on either image:
First two are unprocessed full image.
Second two processed full image.
Third two 100% crop of unprocessed image.
Fourth two 100% crop of processed full image (with no NR applied).

Now we can argue the rights and wrongs of exposure, the amount of light (or lift) I want under the shades, that I could have bracketed, that "they don't look properly exposed to me" (I heavily bracketed and chose the best exposure for highlights) etc etc, but there can be no denying there is a stunning amount of detail under the shade, and that is real detail in the stucco, not some made up noise giving the impression of detail. Now of course I could apply a big gob of NR, but there isn't going to be any detail there however powerful the program.

What can I say...........

 

[Sporgon]

As I've always said, if you want to lift data by this amount the Exmor is substantially better. ( Though if you were comparing your 1DsIII the latest Canons are better).

However I never do so for myself it's not an issue.

 

[sarangiman]

As I've always said, if you want to lift data by this amount the Exmor is substantially better. ( Though if you were comparing your 1DsIII the latest Canons are better).

However I never do so for myself it's not an issue.

Fair enough. Just realize that anyone who says 'I don't need to lift shadows' cannot also say: 'I want more high ISO DR'.

B/c underexposing by dialing down the ISO is *exactly* how to get higher DR at higher ISOs. Just not with Canon.

 

[sarangiman]

I'd do that if it were even remotely possible that something constructive would come out of any of this.

Nice cop out, way to go.

Yes, that's it, I'm copping out. It couldn't possibly be that I've chosen to stop responding to certain people who are quicker to retort than to re-evaluate their position. That will come up with any justification so as to not have to change their long held tenets.

Let's take a look at some examples of this illogical, unreasonable sentiment over the years... kind of like a 'Greatest Hits.' This is literally stuff from 2-3 years ago:

• 
  I present clear full-resolution side-by-sides images of a Nikon 14-24 vs. Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II showing just how much better the 14-24 is. Which, actually, has been well known for a while - nothing ground-breaking here. And yet it was claimed it was an invalid comparison b/c the shots were taken minutes apart & the lighting had changed. Yes, b/c the lighting would've totally reversed these results:
  
  
  
  
  The Canon gets better by f/11, but still can't keep up with the Nikon at f/2.8:
  
  
  
  
  
  But that was just impossible to believe, so any excuse was made to invalidate the claim. Then I even backed it up with data from lenstip that I plotted, showing that they found that the Canon lens' extreme performance can never, at any aperture, catch up to the Nikon's extreme performance wide open:
  
  
  
  
  
  Hmm... sounds strangely reminiscent of the real-world images I presented. But, hey, I'm still wrong, you know b/c the lighting was a little off. Or something.
  
  Oh, and btw, now it's totally OK to say the new Canon 16-35 f/4L rocks compared to the old f/2.8L. B/c Canon can beat Canon, but Nikon can't. No way.

• 
  Oh, and remember this whole fiasco?
  
  
  
  Apparently, that was all wrong, according to jrista, b/c the highlights weren't close enough to clipping in the G/B channels and ACR could've recovered more had I exposed more. That made it worthy of comments like 'DON'T BUY INTO THIS BULL PPL!!'. Yes, b/c giving it a half stop more exposure before the red channel completely blew would've *totally* changed the outcome of this test - which was designed to show that the Nikon still gives you more highlight headroom for scenes with more DR than this one. And believe it or not, the above isn't even a high DR scene. A higher DR scene is when clouds light up 20 minutes *after* sunset, glowing bright (and requiring shorter exposures) from the last light of the sun, while the foreground is dark b/c there's no direct light hitting it. You know, what landscape photographers always like to shoot. But I guess I should waited months, years, until I happened to sample that sunrise/sunset, before I posted my results, right? Because *that* would've made the comparison valid. And this is entirely invalid, and *doesn't* demonstrate that the Nikon gives you significantly more room for brighter highlights and higher DR scenes. No, this doesn't demonstrate that at all. Again, any argument you can find so you can continue to engage in your confirmation bias.

• 
  I'm not even going to get into the vehement back and forth when I pointed out that a Nikon or 1D X with a separate color sensor can stay locked onto subjects in more robust scenarios than a 5D3. Apparently, I was mistaken b/c I didn't RTFM, not b/c an actual separate sensor that can 'see' color/subjects could actually help track subjects better than a system simply working off of a depth map of the AF points.
  
  Silver lining there was that some people did come out & say something to the effect of 'that's really cool, my 5D3 can't do that'. And I'll be glad if even one person learned what I learned there when I first discovered it - a new tool that seriously helped my work and creative spark.
  

Do you see a pattern here? I don't have an agenda for one brand or the other here. I'm just pointing out the things I discovered about other systems (Nikon and Sony) as I explored them, having been a Canon shooter for decades. You can argue that Canon offers other benefits. I argue that myself, like the wireless flash, the cross-type AF points, lenses, etc. But that's not even what most of you argue. You argue that my entire demonstration or point is invalid, b/c then at least you can rest in comfort knowing that the system you love has not adequately been challenged by this farce of "evidence". You say I should've stopped down my prime to zoom-level apertures, or underexposing images by 4 stops has never been sound practice in the history of photography*. All of which miss my point: better technology opens up creative doors and, yes, challenges the status quo of what's existed for years.

Me? I can accept when my equipment fails in certain respects. I accepted it for years with Canon, until I found both Nikon and Sony work better for me. And now I have to accept the shortcomings for these systems which, fortunately, are less serious than what I dealt with when it came to Canon. Do I not realize the shortcomings of my new systems? Nope. A7R shutter shock & lossy compressions are serious issues, nevermind its focus compared to pro-level DSLRs. Nikon's lack of cross-type points leads to serious hunting at times with off-center points. I suppose if I posted these comments on Sony & Nikon forums, I'd be told to RTFM. But I guess you guys here will just eat it up. B/c as long as it's 'point: Canon', it's A-OK.

You can't say anything against your god (Canon) when it comes to certain people in this crowd. There is no room for debate or conversation with you folks. So I choose to stop.

What's incredibly stupid on my part is expending as much effort as I already have. Perhaps it'll be of some benefit to bystanders reading the thread who are otherwise mislead by people's assertions that:

• Underexposing by 3 stops or more has never been sound in the history of photography, and so never will (Reality: It is now, especially if it's done by only changing the level of ISO amplification. Not only is it sound, it's the only sensible thing to do if you want stops and stops of highlight headroom).
• Did you process your file in DPP? B/c that magically gives you more DR! (Reality: No it doesn't, it just applies more NR, which you could do to Nikon files as well - so the DR differences predicted by DxO really are real...)
• Canon still has the advantage when it comes to ISO performance (Reality: Nope, that would be Sony and medium format now).
• Yeah but the 1D X and 6D still have more high ISO DR than Exmor, so there! (Reality: Nope, not if you know how to use your camera appropriately... Exmor can maintain its low ISO DR at higher ISOs)

.

Innocent bystanders: don't buy these myths. Try stuff out for yourself. Push technology. Push horizons. Discover. Have fun.

And now, Neuro, go ahead and keep bullying people asking for lens cap shots, even though those are the simplest, quickest way to get an idea of sensor-level read noise for a newly released camera without asking some unknown person to actually set up a controlled test. I know you can't imagine how that might be valuable, so you should continue making fun of people who actually know how to utilize that data to determine early on if a camera is worth pre-ordering. That's totally an acceptable form of behavior, on the internet anyway.

*And yet shooting at ISO 1600 - which deprives the sensor of 4 stops of light compared to ISO 100 in the traditional sense - is OK... hmm perhaps zlatko didn't understand that changing the ISO setting on your camera doesn't actually change the native sensitivity of the sensor. All it does is amplify the data. Well, me raising the exposure +4 stops is 'amplifying the data' - just at a different step of signal processing. Why is one valid and the other not? And that's the point - it *is* valid for Nikon/Exmor, just not for Canon, where you have to amplify early on. So this requires a shift in thinking, and it doesn't change my point: being able to amplify later is advantageous b/c it gives you stops and stops of highlight headroom, essentially giving you the full DR of the sensor at higher ISOs (there are limitations at extremely high ISOs, but I won't go into that here).

 

[zlatko]

Ok, interesting situation here. I recently had a friend stay and he had a D800 and 24-70, he tagged along on a commercial shoot of mine and I had a chance to shoot comparative images, I'll post the RAW files in a few days when I get back to internet that runs more than a few kb!

Anyway, as some of you know I have been a fairly strong advocate of the "well more DR would be nice but I really can get along fine with what I have at the moment" school of thought. I have never denied the Exmor advantage, I just felt it was portrayed as way more important than I felt it was, I also pointed out that I, personally, shoot very high DR scenes regularly and even the mighty Exmor wouldn't help in those situations.

So, time to eat crow. Here are two images (that unfortunately bare a strikingly similar scenario to long departed dear Mikael's comparison images) that I ETTR'd to get optimal exposure, that is I didn't blow the highlights completely on either image:
First two are unprocessed full image.
Second two processed full image.
Third two 100% crop of unprocessed image.
Fourth two 100% crop of processed full image (with no NR applied).

Now we can argue the rights and wrongs of exposure, the amount of light (or lift) I want under the shades, that I could have bracketed, that "they don't look properly exposed to me" (I heavily bracketed and chose the best exposure for highlights) etc etc, but there can be no denying there is a stunning amount of detail under the shade, and that is real detail in the stucco, not some made up noise giving the impression of detail. Now of course I could apply a big gob of NR, but there isn't going to be any detail there however powerful the program.

What can I say...........

That's not an entirely fair comparison. The entire Canon shot starts out darker before processing, and ends up brighter after processing. So you're obviously giving the Canon shot more of an exposure boost in processing.

With such a heavy shadow boost, I seems you are trying to create an "HDR look" without actually using HDR (combining different exposures). That's valuable if you really want or need to substitute one technique for another, i.e. boosting shadows instead of combining exposures.

The Nikon/Sony sensor certainly has an advantage if you really need to do this: shoot a high contrast static scene with maximum shadow detail but without using any of the techniques that photographers have used for such scenes in the past, such as blending bracketed exposures, adding light, choosing a time of day with less contrast, etc. That sensor advantage matters to some photographers, but not to others. I understand it's important enough to some to make a switch. At the same time, it's not evidence of a flaw in Canon's sensors, which perform quite well for photographers who don't need to do what you've shown.

 

[privatebydesign]

That's not an entirely fair comparison. The entire Canon shot starts out darker before processing, and ends up brighter after processing. So you're obviously giving the Canon shot more of an exposure boost in processing.

With such a heavy shadow boost, I seems you are trying to create an "HDR look" without actually using HDR (combining different exposures). That's valuable if you really want or need to substitute one technique for another, i.e. boosting shadows instead of combining exposures.

The Nikon/Sony sensor certainly has an advantage if you really need to do this: shoot a high contrast static scene with maximum shadow detail but without using any of the techniques that photographers have used for such scenes in the past, such as blending bracketed exposures, adding light, choosing a time of day with less contrast, etc. That sensor advantage matters to some photographers, but not to others. I understand it's important enough to some to make a switch. At the same time, it's not evidence of a flaw in Canon's sensors, which perform quite well for photographers who don't need to do what you've shown.

There is around 1/3 stop difference in exposure, this was from a series of bracketed shots and is the longest exposure that didn't blow the highlights. Yes I might have got a fractionally different result with a different image, but in fairness there is considerably more than 1/3 stop difference in the processed crop!

 

[zlatko]

As I've always said, if you want to lift data by this amount the Exmor is substantially better. ( Though if you were comparing your 1DsIII the latest Canons are better).

However I never do so for myself it's not an issue.

Exactly. It's not as if all photographers need to do this data lifting thing.

 

[privatebydesign]

As I've always said, if you want to lift data by this amount the Exmor is substantially better. ( Though if you were comparing your 1DsIII the latest Canons are better).

However I never do so for myself it's not an issue.

Exactly. It's not as if all photographers need to do this data lifting thing.

But this was a commercial job from which the images have already been sold and used. I did need to lift like that because that is the look the client wants, I couldn't do it at a different time of day because I needed no people, I could have blended but that is time and money. There is always a counterpoint, but there is no denying there is a big difference in the files.

 

[sarangiman]

That's not an entirely fair comparison. The entire Canon shot starts out darker before processing, and ends up brighter after processing. So you're obviously giving the Canon shot more of an exposure boost in processing.

With such a heavy shadow boost, I seems you are trying to create an "HDR look" without actually using HDR (combining different exposures). That's valuable if you really want or need to substitute one technique for another, i.e. boosting shadows instead of combining exposures.

The Nikon/Sony sensor certainly has an advantage if you really need to do this: shoot a high contrast static scene with maximum shadow detail but without using any of the techniques that photographers have used for such scenes in the past, such as blending bracketed exposures, adding light, choosing a time of day with less contrast, etc. That sensor advantage matters to some photographers, but not to others. I understand it's important enough to some to make a switch. At the same time, it's not evidence of a flaw in Canon's sensors, which perform quite well for photographers who don't need to do what you've shown.

He's not trying to create a HDR look without doing HDR. He's trying to map the real world brightnesses of those objects into the compressed space of the L(ow) DR device that is your monitor. This is known as tone-mapping. And when your sensor is as clean as Exmor is, you don't need HDR. HDR was 'invented' to overcome the shortcomings of noisy sensors (and film, you could say). It's not some 'standard technique' everyone should use. It is and was a crutch for less-advanced technology. Once you have sensors with no noise, and with full-well capacities (FWC) so high that even shot noise is mitigated (b/c you're just sampling so many photons), there won't even be a need for HDR. Ever. The D800 got rid of most of the noise, and the D810 took us one step closer to this by extending the FWC. It's only a matter of time. Meanwhile, Canon's FWC and read noise are stuck where they were more than 6 years ago. And that's fine; they're prioritizing other things. Maybe they'll catch up, maybe they won't. But that doesn't change the creative opportunities that noise-free technology in almost every other brand affords, and there's no point in arguing against that. You might not need it, but many do, and many more don't even know they'd benefit from it.

What was that Steve Jobs quote again? 'People don't know what they want until you show it to them.'

In the future, with HDR displays, you won't even need to do any of this tone-mapping. You'll see those Exmor shadows b/c the white point will be extended and the entire brightness scale will be shifted (towards brighter). The shadows will automatically become more visible b/c they're brighter on your monitor. You won't need to do as much tonemapping, and so the 'HDR-look' will be mitigated.

And if you're looking at old Canon files on those sorts of devices (which already exist), you'll be looking at noise even before you raise the shadows.

 

[zlatko]

That's not an entirely fair comparison. The entire Canon shot starts out darker before processing, and ends up brighter after processing. So you're obviously giving the Canon shot more of an exposure boost in processing.

With such a heavy shadow boost, I seems you are trying to create an "HDR look" without actually using HDR (combining different exposures). That's valuable if you really want or need to substitute one technique for another, i.e. boosting shadows instead of combining exposures.

The Nikon/Sony sensor certainly has an advantage if you really need to do this: shoot a high contrast static scene with maximum shadow detail but without using any of the techniques that photographers have used for such scenes in the past, such as blending bracketed exposures, adding light, choosing a time of day with less contrast, etc. That sensor advantage matters to some photographers, but not to others. I understand it's important enough to some to make a switch. At the same time, it's not evidence of a flaw in Canon's sensors, which perform quite well for photographers who don't need to do what you've shown.

He's not trying to create a HDR look without doing HDR. He's trying to map the real world brightnesses of those objects into the compressed space of the L(ow) DR device that is your monitor. This is known as tone-mapping. And when your sensor is as clean as Exmor is, you don't need HDR. HDR was 'invented' to overcome the shortcomings of noisy sensors (and film, you could say). It's not some 'standard technique' everyone should use. It is and was a crutch for less-advanced technology. Once you have sensors with no noise, and with full-well capacities (FWC) so high that even shot noise is mitigated (b/c you're just sampling so many photons), there won't even be a need for HDR. Ever. The D800 got rid of most of the noise, and the D810 took us one step closer to this by extending the FWC. It's only a matter of time. Meanwhile, Canon's FWC and read noise are stuck where they were more than 6 years ago. And that's fine; they're prioritizing other things. Maybe they'll catch up, maybe they won't. But that doesn't change the creative opportunities that noise-free technology in almost every other brand affords, and there's no point in arguing against that. You might not need it, but many do, and many more don't even know they'd benefit from it.

What was that Steve Jobs quote again? 'People don't know what they want until you show it to them.'

In the future, with HDR displays, you won't even need to do any of this tone-mapping. You'll see those Exmor shadows b/c the white point will be extended and the entire brightness scale will be shifted (towards brighter). The shadows will automatically become more visible b/c they're brighter on your monitor. You won't need to do as much tonemapping, and so the 'HDR-look' will be mitigated.

And if you're looking at old Canon files on those sorts of devices (which already exist), you'll be looking at noise even before you raise the shadows.

If he's not trying to create an HDR look, then why does the processed version have such an HDR look? That's not a real world look. That's one interpretation of a real world look.

It's great that you've found a sensor that meets your particular photographic needs. That's great! At the same time, meeting your particular needs is not the definition of a "good sensor" or of "creative opportunities".

Further, it's rather odd that having moved on to Nikon, you would spend so much effort on a Canon forum demonstrating how a Nikon sensor meets your particular needs. Photographers can easily pick out unique advantages in *each* system, and demonstrate how they meet some specific needs.

For example, now that the 7D Mark II has been introduced, should I go over to Nikon forums with posts demonstrating how this camera has a unique anti-flicker feature that helps sports photographers who shoot action in fluorescent light? Should I post examples of clean 7DII shots vs. "less advanced technology" Nikon shots that show awful exposure and white balance shifts from shot to shot and even within a shot? Or should I go to Nikon forums to demonstrate other advantages of the Canon system (flash features, specific lenses, dual pixel AF for video, etc.), all the while mocking Nikon users for not "understanding" these Canon products and the "creative opportunities" they are missing? Short answer: no.

 

[sarangiman]

If he's not trying to create an HDR look, then why does the processed version have such an HDR look? That's not a real world look. That's one interpretation of a real world look.

That's a tough sell. On the one hand, it *is* a real-world look b/c you would've seen all those shadows & highlights in the real world. OTOH, it's *not* b/c you've compressed that DR into the space of the tiny DR of your monitor, which shrinks brightness differences between objects compared to the real world. Which is why it looks flat. Add artifacts to that, and it starts looking "HDR-is". But realize that mostly a limitation of your monitor, at this point. That's a very subtle point, but an important one.

Further, it's rather odd that having moved on to Nikon, you would spend so much effort on a Canon forum demonstrating how a Nikon sensor meets your particular needs. Photographers can easily pick out unique advantages in *each* system, and demonstrate how they meet some specific needs.

Er, I didn't just come here suddenly. I've used these forums many times over many years. And been misled by some of these very people by gross generalizations like 'Canon's AF is much better than Nikon' or 'Canon's ISO performance is better than Exmor'. Having learned some of the things I've learned in trying out other systems, I feel somewhat compelled to battle misleading generalizations.

And if there are things that are dramatically better about the 7D II vs. what Nikon offers, yes, actually, I'd very much encourage you to show those differences. Especially if it's helped you with your work - sharing your experience is valuable... why do you think people write articles on 'why I chose this system' or 'why I switched'? People might actually learn something, since many people stuck to one system either don't know about or don't fully appreciate some of the things other systems and technologies offer.

Not always, but often.

 

[Sporgon]

That's not an entirely fair comparison. The entire Canon shot starts out darker before processing, and ends up brighter after processing. So you're obviously giving the Canon shot more of an exposure boost in processing.

With such a heavy shadow boost, I seems you are trying to create an "HDR look" without actually using HDR (combining different exposures). That's valuable if you really want or need to substitute one technique for another, i.e. boosting shadows instead of combining exposures.

The Nikon/Sony sensor certainly has an advantage if you really need to do this: shoot a high contrast static scene with maximum shadow detail but without using any of the techniques that photographers have used for such scenes in the past, such as blending bracketed exposures, adding light, choosing a time of day with less contrast, etc. That sensor advantage matters to some photographers, but not to others. I understand it's important enough to some to make a switch. At the same time, it's not evidence of a flaw in Canon's sensors, which perform quite well for photographers who don't need to do what you've shown.

He's not trying to create a HDR look without doing HDR. He's trying to map the real world brightnesses of those objects into the compressed space of the L(ow) DR device that is your monitor. This is known as tone-mapping. And when your sensor is as clean as Exmor is, you don't need HDR. HDR was 'invented' to overcome the shortcomings of noisy sensors (and film, you could say). It's not some 'standard technique' everyone should use. It is and was a crutch for less-advanced technology. Once you have sensors with no noise, and with full-well capacities (FWC) so high that even shot noise is mitigated (b/c you're just sampling so many photons), there won't even be a need for HDR. Ever. The D800 got rid of most of the noise, and the D810 took us one step closer to this by extending the FWC. It's only a matter of time. Meanwhile, Canon's FWC and read noise are stuck where they were more than 6 years ago. And that's fine; they're prioritizing other things. Maybe they'll catch up, maybe they won't. But that doesn't change the creative opportunities that noise-free technology in almost every other brand affords, and there's no point in arguing against that. You might not need it, but many do, and many more don't even know they'd benefit from it.

What was that Steve Jobs quote again? 'People don't know what they want until you show it to them.'

In the future, with HDR displays, you won't even need to do any of this tone-mapping. You'll see those Exmor shadows b/c the white point will be extended and the entire brightness scale will be shifted (towards brighter). The shadows will automatically become more visible b/c they're brighter on your monitor. You won't need to do as much tonemapping, and so the 'HDR-look' will be mitigated.

And if you're looking at old Canon files on those sorts of devices (which already exist), you'll be looking at noise even before you raise the shadows.

If he's not trying to create an HDR look, then why does the processed version have such an HDR look? That's not a real world look. That's one interpretation of a real world look.

It's great that you've found a sensor that meets your particular photographic needs. That's great! At the same time, meeting your particular needs is not the definition of a "good sensor" or of "creative opportunities".

Further, it's rather odd that having moved on to Nikon, you would spend so much effort on a Canon forum demonstrating how a Nikon sensor meets your particular needs. Photographers can easily pick out unique advantages in *each* system, and demonstrate how they meet some specific needs.

Odd or not, his feedback was and continues to be rather useful, at least to me. This coming from a long time Canon user (AE-1).

It's puzzling how users of this board take sometimes constructive criticism as an affront.

For example, now that the 7D Mark II has been introduced, should I go over to Nikon forums with posts demonstrating how this camera has a unique anti-flicker feature that helps sports photographers who shoot action in fluorescent light? Should I post examples of clean 7DII shots vs. "less advanced technology" Nikon shots that show awful exposure and white balance shifts from shot to shot and even within a shot?

If it's within context and in a civic manner, why on Earth shouldn't you?

Or should I go to Nikon forums to demonstrate other advantages of the Canon system (flash features, specific lenses, dual pixel AF for video, etc.), all the while mocking Nikon users for not "understanding" these Canon products and the "creative opportunities" they are missing?
Short answer: no.

If you're mocking whomever, that wouldn't be very helpful towards your arguments now would it?
I didn't find anything offensive in sarangiman's posts, on the contrary, i find them informative and surprisingly calm, considering the fact that pointing Canon's shortcomings is such an anathema here.

Agreed it's not the 'look' I would go for, but I have to say the data from the lifted second image, the Exmor, is superb and I can't really see why anyone would want more than this. Makes me wonder how sensors are going to improve upon this in the future.

 

[zlatko]

That's not an entirely fair comparison. The entire Canon shot starts out darker before processing, and ends up brighter after processing. So you're obviously giving the Canon shot more of an exposure boost in processing.

With such a heavy shadow boost, I seems you are trying to create an "HDR look" without actually using HDR (combining different exposures). That's valuable if you really want or need to substitute one technique for another, i.e. boosting shadows instead of combining exposures.

The Nikon/Sony sensor certainly has an advantage if you really need to do this: shoot a high contrast static scene with maximum shadow detail but without using any of the techniques that photographers have used for such scenes in the past, such as blending bracketed exposures, adding light, choosing a time of day with less contrast, etc. That sensor advantage matters to some photographers, but not to others. I understand it's important enough to some to make a switch. At the same time, it's not evidence of a flaw in Canon's sensors, which perform quite well for photographers who don't need to do what you've shown.

He's not trying to create a HDR look without doing HDR. He's trying to map the real world brightnesses of those objects into the compressed space of the L(ow) DR device that is your monitor. This is known as tone-mapping. And when your sensor is as clean as Exmor is, you don't need HDR. HDR was 'invented' to overcome the shortcomings of noisy sensors (and film, you could say). It's not some 'standard technique' everyone should use. It is and was a crutch for less-advanced technology. Once you have sensors with no noise, and with full-well capacities (FWC) so high that even shot noise is mitigated (b/c you're just sampling so many photons), there won't even be a need for HDR. Ever. The D800 got rid of most of the noise, and the D810 took us one step closer to this by extending the FWC. It's only a matter of time. Meanwhile, Canon's FWC and read noise are stuck where they were more than 6 years ago. And that's fine; they're prioritizing other things. Maybe they'll catch up, maybe they won't. But that doesn't change the creative opportunities that noise-free technology in almost every other brand affords, and there's no point in arguing against that. You might not need it, but many do, and many more don't even know they'd benefit from it.

What was that Steve Jobs quote again? 'People don't know what they want until you show it to them.'

In the future, with HDR displays, you won't even need to do any of this tone-mapping. You'll see those Exmor shadows b/c the white point will be extended and the entire brightness scale will be shifted (towards brighter). The shadows will automatically become more visible b/c they're brighter on your monitor. You won't need to do as much tonemapping, and so the 'HDR-look' will be mitigated.

And if you're looking at old Canon files on those sorts of devices (which already exist), you'll be looking at noise even before you raise the shadows.

If he's not trying to create an HDR look, then why does the processed version have such an HDR look? That's not a real world look. That's one interpretation of a real world look.

It's great that you've found a sensor that meets your particular photographic needs. That's great! At the same time, meeting your particular needs is not the definition of a "good sensor" or of "creative opportunities".

Further, it's rather odd that having moved on to Nikon, you would spend so much effort on a Canon forum demonstrating how a Nikon sensor meets your particular needs. Photographers can easily pick out unique advantages in *each* system, and demonstrate how they meet some specific needs.

Odd or not, his feedback was and continues to be rather useful, at least to me. This coming from a long time Canon user (AE-1).

It's puzzling how users of this board take sometimes constructive criticism as an affront.

For example, now that the 7D Mark II has been introduced, should I go over to Nikon forums with posts demonstrating how this camera has a unique anti-flicker feature that helps sports photographers who shoot action in fluorescent light? Should I post examples of clean 7DII shots vs. "less advanced technology" Nikon shots that show awful exposure and white balance shifts from shot to shot and even within a shot?

If it's within context and in a civic manner, why on Earth shouldn't you?

Or should I go to Nikon forums to demonstrate other advantages of the Canon system (flash features, specific lenses, dual pixel AF for video, etc.), all the while mocking Nikon users for not "understanding" these Canon products and the "creative opportunities" they are missing?
Short answer: no.

If you're mocking whomever, that wouldn't be very helpful towards your arguments now would it?
I didn't find anything offensive in sarangiman's posts, on the contrary, i find them informative and surprisingly calm, considering the fact that pointing Canon's shortcomings is such an anathema here.

Apparently you missed the mocking comments directed toward me -- I certainly won't go back to quote them. Or the mocking comments about photographers who use common and well known techniques to deal with age-old issues of high contrast. Apparently the only solution he accepts is pushing shadow sliders in post-production, and that is his primary test of a "good sensor". Everyone else is using "less advanced technology" and missing out on "creative opportunities".

As for going to Nikon forums and demonstrating the unique advantages of the Canon system -- well, wow, what a waste of time that would be! Photographers who need solutions to certain photographic issues seek them out and find them. Information about virtually any topic is readily available or can easily be inquired about -- any detail about a camera, lens, technique, solution, etc. If someone needs Canon's unique anti-flicker tech to photograph action under flourescent lighting, they will find out about it; they don't need to hear me bashing Nikon for not having it.

Photographers aren't benefitted by someone going on and on about how a sensor is out-of-date "less advanced technology" because it doesn't deal with one rather extreme situation that a photographer only encounters because he refuses to accept any solution (stopping down a lens, adding fill, etc.) other than the *one* method that makes a sensor fail (pushing very underexposed shots by 4.5 stops or more).

I don't see that posting Canon's shortcomings is anathema here. Everyone finds some shortcomings, everyone can find room for improvement -- that's completely normal. The problem here is someone having a very narrow solution (pushing sliders) to a problem that they themselves create (radical underexposure) and then describing that as a fault of the sensor, in addition to mocking people who don't encounter that problem because they use other techniques in the same situation.

 

[zlatko]

If he's not trying to create an HDR look, then why does the processed version have such an HDR look? That's not a real world look. That's one interpretation of a real world look.

That's a tough sell. On the one hand, it *is* a real-world look b/c you would've seen all those shadows & highlights in the real world. OTOH, it's *not* b/c you've compressed that DR into the space of the tiny DR of your monitor, which shrinks brightness differences between objects compared to the real world. Which is why it looks flat. Add artifacts to that, and it starts looking "HDR-is". But realize that mostly a limitation of your monitor, at this point. That's a very subtle point, but an important one.

Further, it's rather odd that having moved on to Nikon, you would spend so much effort on a Canon forum demonstrating how a Nikon sensor meets your particular needs. Photographers can easily pick out unique advantages in *each* system, and demonstrate how they meet some specific needs.

Er, I didn't just come here suddenly. I've used these forums many times over many years. And been misled by some of these very people by gross generalizations like 'Canon's AF is much better than Nikon' or 'Canon's ISO performance is better than Exmor'. Having learned some of the things I've learned in trying out other systems, I feel somewhat compelled to battle misleading generalizations.

And if there are things that are dramatically better about the 7D II vs. what Nikon offers, yes, actually, I'd very much encourage you to show those differences. Especially if it's helped you with your work - sharing your experience is valuable... why do you think people write articles on 'why I chose this system' or 'why I switched'? People might actually learn something, since many people stuck to one system either don't know about or don't fully appreciate some of the things other systems and technologies offer.

Not always, but often.

Rembrandt (and other painters) also failed to capture all of the shadow detail in the real world.

Canon has already described the advantages of their unique anti-flicker feature:
http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2014/eos7dmkii_antiflicker.shtml
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/eos_7dmkii_feature_img
Reviews describe it too:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiA.HTM

Indoor sports photographers will likely post some examples when the camera comes out. With this info already out there, I don't see the point of going on a Nikon forum bashing Nikon for being out of date in not providing this feature, or mocking Nikon users for using other techniques to deal with this problem (heavy flash, converting to black & white, etc.). The fluorescent lighting problem is not an issue for my work, although I and other parents have frequently encountered it in photographing our kids' indoor sports — it looks bad and makes people initially wonder whether their camera is defective. The problem is not at all perceptible by the eye in the real world, but is easily seen in photos. It goes away if shooting at a slow shutter speed that captures the entire flicker cycle, but that's not an option for photographing action.