Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data

[Loswr]

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.

Still a cop out. It would have been nice to see the full image as well as the crop you showed. Notice how PBD showed full images, then crops, and offered to make RAWs available. Of course, it's your right to not show the full image.

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.

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...

Well, one person argued...and several people agreed that the Nikon 14-24/2.8 delivers better IQ than the Canon 16-35/2.8 II, particularly in the corners of the frame. Oh, and you're the only one who brought up flare.

Do you see a general pattern here? Where one system has a particular technical advantage over another, most people acknowledge that advantage. They may question the relevance of that advantage to themselves or to most people, or they may question the relative importance of that particular technical advantage compared to other aspects of system performance. The are then treated to repeated examples demonstrating that particular technical advantage, which they've already acknowledged.

Unsubscribing from this thread.

Evidently not.

Regardless, it doesn't change the fundamental points. Exmor sensors deliver more dynamic range and can tolerate more shadow lifting than Canon sensors. A shot with the lens cap on that's pushed 5 stops in post will look better from an Exmor sensor than a Canon sensor. (Almost) no one argues those points, certainly I don't argue them... What I argue is the relevance of those issues to general photograpy by typical shooters, even advanced shooters. What I vehemently disagree with is the claim that those differences between Canon and SoNikon sensors mean Canon sensors are 'poor', produce images generally unsuitable for delivery to clients, etc.

In the context of this thread, if more DR was so critically and broadly important to a majority of photographers, then Canon would almost certainly no longer be the market leader. But they remain the market leader. Conclusion: while DR and hard pushing of shadows is important to some people some of the time, and perhaps to a very few people most of the time, it's not the most important thing to most people buying dSLRs. Period.

 

[raptor3x]

*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).

I thought this was what you were getting at. This was literally one of the first things I tried when I first bought an A7R and unfortunately, this is not very useful at all. Because middle grey will be buried so deep within the shadows, color noise, posterization, and horizontal banding (yes, Exmor has banding noise as well if you dig deep enough) all become major issues. Even when emulating ISO 1600.

 

[sarangiman]

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.

There weren't any mocking comments of photographers using 'age-old techniques'. There was the simple pointing out of the fact that there are different, arguably better, ways of doing it now, and that you were clearly not understanding the entire basis of my argument. It's now mocking for me to point out that there might be better ways to do things than what you consider the standard? For pointing out technological progress, which I believe were my exact words that you considered mocking? I then asked if you were one of those that considered the DR of slide film enough. Honest question.

What's actually insulting and mocking is being told I've made bad decisions and am myself to blame for the poor understanding of my own equipment, stop down my lens to the f-stop of a zoom rather than just use better equipment, yada yada, when my entire point all along is that a better alternative exists.

And you're still not getting it - which is why I feel the need to keep re-iterating myself. It's no longer unsound to underexpose your image if you want to save highlights b/c of how far technology has come. It's no more unsound than shooting at ISO 1600, when it comes to almost any sensor save for Canon & Aptina (e.g. what's in the Nikon 1-series), and to a lesser extent, the new Sony A7S.

Don't believe me? Read my next post.

 

[sarangiman]

I thought this was what you were getting at. This was literally one of the first things I tried when I first bought an A7R and unfortunately, this is not very useful at all. Because middle grey will be buried so deep within the shadows, color noise, posterization, and horizontal banding (yes, Exmor has banding noise as well if you dig deep enough) all become major issues. Even when emulating ISO 1600.

Demonstrably untrue. Demonstration below (right-click image to get link to full-size image):

A7R: ISO 1600 | 1/30s | f/8

A7R: ISO 100 + 4EV | 1/30s | f/8

And now, for closer crops:

A7R: ISO 1600 | 1/30s | f/8

A7R: ISO 100 + 4EV | 1/30s | f/8

And here's the original ISO 100 JPG:

I'm sorry; not seeing any color noise, posterization, and banding. Not really seeing much of a noise cost at all to shooting ISO 100. Meanwhile, the ISO 100 image has 4 EV highlight headroom compared to the ISO 1600 shot, affording detail in the sky through the window that is hopelessly blown in the ISO 1600 file. Actually, some channels are blown even in the ISO 100 file.

Btw, the black patch in that color chart at ISO 100 is L=0.9, or RGB = 5,5,5. The areas in the lower right carpet (view the full images) are RGB = 2,1,1, or Raw values of between 15-20 in the green channel, and even less in the other channels.

And some people wonder why I try to make it a point to dispel these fallacies?

P.S. Yes I know the ISO 100 shot could've been processed better, but I only spent 30s processing just to try & waste as little time as possible with this. Window lighting is pretty challenging and requires proper use of masks in PS if you want to do it right. Doesn't change my point.

 

[sarangiman]

Do you see a general pattern here? Where one system has a particular technical advantage over another, most people acknowledge that advantage. They may question the relevance of that advantage to themselves or to most people, or they may question the relative importance of that particular technical advantage compared to other aspects of system performance. The are then treated to repeated examples demonstrating that particular technical advantage, which they've already acknowledged.

OK, sometimes that's true, but I usually only step in to make a point or post examples when someone makes a false claim or misleading generalization. I've already pointed out that this is my motivation.

It's why I brought up the 14-24 vs. 16-35 comparison in that ultra wide-angle thread, the D800 vs 5D3 examples 2 years ago in the thread about DxO's D800 sensor scores, the focus tracking stuff when someone outright claimed the 5D3 AF system is better than the D800, etc. etc.

If what you're saying is generally true, then that's great. But some people here tend to perpetuate myths and fallacies, and then when someone points out some fallacy is unsound, he/she gets hounded - and generally by people who haven't extensively used both systems in question.

 

[privatebydesign]

"I'm sorry; not seeing any color noise, posterization, and banding. Not really seeing much of a noise cost at all to shooting ISO 100."

I think we should all be able to agree that there is also no color noise, posterization, or banding in my "real world" 100% crop as well, though that does only have an approximately three+ stop lift.

 

[zlatko]

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.

There weren't any mocking comments of photographers using 'age-old techniques'. There was the simple pointing out of the fact that there are different, arguably better, ways of doing it now, and that you were clearly not understanding the entire basis of my argument. It's now mocking for me to point out that there might be better ways to do things than what you consider the standard? For pointing out technological progress, which I believe were my exact words that you considered mocking? I then asked if you were one of those that considered the DR of slide film enough. Honest question.

What's actually insulting and mocking is being told I've made bad decisions and am myself to blame for the poor understanding of my own equipment, stop down my lens to the f-stop of a zoom rather than just use better equipment, yada yada, when my entire point all along is that a better alternative exists.

And you're still not getting it - which is why I feel the need to keep re-iterating myself. It's no longer unsound to underexpose your image if you want to save highlights b/c of how far technology has come. It's no more unsound than shooting at ISO 1600, when it comes to almost any sensor save for Canon & Aptina (e.g. what's in the Nikon 1-series), and to a lesser extent, the new Sony A7S.

Don't believe me? Read my next post.

Mocking, ridicule, etc. Plenty of it! Saying it was "comical" to stop down a prime lens. Repeatedly questioning my understanding — that one you like to repeat. Saying I have an anti-progress sentiment. Saying this is "just like arguing with fundamentalist conservatives." I don't have time to quote more.

I did *not* blame your for "poor understanding of your own equipment" — that seems to be your favorite tactic: ridiculing people for not understanding, for not "getting" the technology or your arguments, as if people who disagree with you just lack understanding. I did blame you for intentionally underexposing that photo, as I presumed you knew the equipment well enough to know that would give poor results.

I also pointed out that:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Your goals for that crop of a photo were unusual in that massive underexposure is usually a mistake, not a technique.
[*]There are various and very common ways of dealing with the same situation, *not just your way*; and
[*]Considering points 1. and 2., meeting your specific goal (fixing massive underexposure) is not the test of what is or isn't a good sensor. [/list]

Now you're not only defending your unusual approach of fixing massive underexposure, but you're also claiming it's a "better way", a "better alternative", etc. You're claiming this as proof you have "BETTER EQUIPMENT". That's a huge stretch considering that it's built on a series of unusual personal rules or theories, such as (paraphrasing): the essential point of a prime lens is to shoot at its widest aperture, so stopping down to avoid vignetting is "comical"; photos shot at a lens's widest aperture should still show zero vignetting and thus must have all vignetting removed in software; portraits should not have any black shadows in the background because black doesn't exist in the real world; detail in clouds and skies must be saved at the expense of portrait subjects, even when not using any flash or a reflector; etc.

It was never Canon's job to provide a solution for mistaken — or intentional — massive underexposure. If they do provide that someday, great, I will applaud. In the meantime, it's great that you've found equipment that lets you practice this as a technique right now.

Now I'm going to sign out here and get really busy on a Nikon forum telling them about how they don't understand some unique Canon features, technologies and products and how they're being held back by Nikon's lack of progress in all of those areas.

 

[raptor3x]

And some people wonder why I try to make it a point to dispel these fallacies?

P.S. Yes I know the ISO 100 shot could've been processed better, but I only spent 30s processing just to try & waste as little time as possible with this. Window lighting is pretty challenging and requires proper use of masks in PS if you want to do it right. Doesn't change my point.

Not all of the issues will show up the moment you try to do this for ISO 1600, although even in your own example I can already see shadow areas that have a significant magenta cast compared to the ISO 1600 version. Additionally, I can almost guarantee that if you post the histogram for the ISO 100 image you'll already see the signature of posterization in the shadows. Once you get up to ~6400 though you end up with very nice highlights and garbage midtones and shadows. This was an idea I was quite excited about when the A7R first came out, but in practice it's just not that useful.

 

[sarangiman]

Mocking, ridicule, etc. Plenty of it! Saying it was "comical" to stop down a prime lens. Repeatedly questioning my understanding — that one you like to repeat. Saying I have an anti-progress sentiment. Saying this is "just like arguing with fundamentalist conservatives." I don't have time to quote more.

I did *not* blame your for "poor understanding of your own equipment" — that seems to be your favorite tactic: ridiculing people for not understanding, for not "getting" the technology or your arguments, as if people who disagree with you just lack understanding. I did blame you for intentionally underexposing that photo, as I presumed you knew the equipment well enough to know that would give poor results.

I didn't say people who disagree with me lack understanding, I just said that you (still, by the way) don't understand that it's no longer the case that - for certain sensors - that underexposing an image and recovering it isn't valid. +4 EV at ISO 100 is no less valid than actually shooting at ISO 1600 for certain sensors, above certain extremely, extremely low tones (that may still suffer from quantization error and remnant downstream read noise).

Now you're not only defending your unusual approach of fixing massive underexposure, but you're also claiming it's a "better way", a "better alternative", etc. You're claiming this as proof you have "BETTER EQUIPMENT". That's a huge stretch considering that it's built on a series of unusual personal rules or theories, such as (paraphrasing): the essential point of a prime lens is to shoot at its widest aperture, so stopping down to avoid vignetting is "comical"; photos shot at a lens's widest aperture should still show zero vignetting and thus must have all vignetting removed in software; portraits should not have any black shadows in the background because black doesn't exist in the real world; detail in clouds and skies must be saved at the expense of portrait subjects, even when not using any flash or a reflector; etc.

I'm not saying it's ridiculous to ever stop down a prime. I'm saying I choose not to for artistic effect, and in those instances where I don't want vignetting, many other sensors offer me a much better alternative to the limiting solutions you and a couple others suggested.

Seriously, please don't make my argument comical.

It was never Canon's job to provide a solution for mistaken — or intentional — massive underexposure. If they do provide that someday, great, I will applaud. In the meantime, it's great that you've found equipment that lets you practice this as a technique right now.

No, you're right, it wasn't. But many others have provided this benefit anyway.

Now I'm going to sign out here and get really busy on a Nikon forum telling them about how they don't understand some unique Canon features, technologies and products and how they're being held back by Nikon's lack of progress in all of those areas.

Sure, go ahead. Do make sure you have some evidence though before you go off about Nikon's supposed inaccurate exposure (which even if it were true, their sensors would withstand much better) and white balance errors (which, again, even if true, doesn't matter for RAW). I've never experienced either of things. There are, however, many other valid complaints you could make about Nikon. Many of which I've scattered throughout my posts.

 

[raptor3x]

"I'm sorry; not seeing any color noise, posterization, and banding. Not really seeing much of a noise cost at all to shooting ISO 100."

I think we should all be able to agree that there is also no color noise, posterization, or banding in my "real world" 100% crop as well, though that does only have an approximately three+ stop lift.

To see the banding you have to lift shadows ridiculous amounts, 6+ stops. The posterization though can be seen in histograms relatively early on though but only really becomes a problem when, again, making silly shadow lifts. The color noise surprises me though, as this is something I see when lifting ~4 stops or so. Maybe an A7 vs A7R thing.

 

[sarangiman]

And some people wonder why I try to make it a point to dispel these fallacies?

P.S. Yes I know the ISO 100 shot could've been processed better, but I only spent 30s processing just to try & waste as little time as possible with this. Window lighting is pretty challenging and requires proper use of masks in PS if you want to do it right. Doesn't change my point.

Not all of the issues will show up the moment you try to do this for ISO 1600, although even in your own example I can already see shadow areas that have a significant magenta cast compared to the ISO 1600 version. Additionally, I can almost guarantee that if you post the histogram for the ISO 100 image you'll already see the signature of posterization in the shadows. Once you get up to ~6400 though you end up with very nice highlights and garbage midtones and shadows. This was an idea I was quite excited about when the A7R first came out, but in practice it's just not that useful.

Wait, you want to see the histogram to prove posterization when you can't see posterization in the 100% view of the image itself? And I thought I was quantitative...

So you're saying you want more than 4 EV pushes? B/c I just showed a +4 EV push from ISO 100, showing acceptable image data from data right near the floor of the sensor. I'm not sure how you can keep arguing that there's going to be garbage down there. If you insist, please provide actual images rather than word-of-mouth.

The magenta cast in shadows could be an ACR thing - luckily, it's easy to remove. I mean you don't see it in my images, b/c I removed it by adjusting the ACR calibration shadows slider.

 

[sarangiman]

"I'm sorry; not seeing any color noise, posterization, and banding. Not really seeing much of a noise cost at all to shooting ISO 100."

I think we should all be able to agree that there is also no color noise, posterization, or banding in my "real world" 100% crop as well, though that does only have an approximately three+ stop lift.

To see the banding you have to lift shadows ridiculous amounts, 6+ stops. The posterization though can be seen in histograms relatively early on though but only really becomes a problem when, again, making silly shadow lifts. The color noise surprises me though, as this is something I see when lifting ~4 stops or so. Maybe an A7 vs A7R thing.

Ok, keep in mind that at 6+ stops you need to expect noise levels of ISO 6400 and above. C'mon. Let's be reasonable.

And yes, more than 5 stops of pushing and you might see some effects of downstream read noise or quantization error, compared to the ISO 6400 or higher (not pushed) shot.

And, yes, different sensors will perform slightly differently here. I believe the A7 is a slightly older sensor, but it shouldn't be accounting for the drastic differences in your experience vs. what I just showed above.

 

[Kahuna]

It was never Canon's job to provide a solution for mistaken — or intentional — massive underexposure. If they do provide that someday, great, I will applaud.

Intelligence in a sea of garbage....amazing.

 

[raptor3x]

"I'm sorry; not seeing any color noise, posterization, and banding. Not really seeing much of a noise cost at all to shooting ISO 100."

I think we should all be able to agree that there is also no color noise, posterization, or banding in my "real world" 100% crop as well, though that does only have an approximately three+ stop lift.

To see the banding you have to lift shadows ridiculous amounts, 6+ stops. The posterization though can be seen in histograms relatively early on though but only really becomes a problem when, again, making silly shadow lifts. The color noise surprises me though, as this is something I see when lifting ~4 stops or so. Maybe an A7 vs A7R thing.

Ok, keep in mind that at 6+ stops you need to expect noise levels of ISO 6400 and above. C'mon. Let's be reasonable.

And yes, more than 5 stops of pushing and you might see some effects of downstream read noise or quantization error, compared to the ISO 6400 or higher (not pushed) shot.

And, yes, different sensors will perform slightly differently here. I believe the A7 is a slightly older sensor, but it shouldn't be accounting for the drastic differences in your experience vs. what I just showed above.

A 6+ stop push is where I'm most interested because most of my shooting is above ISO 3200. Once you get to this point the midtones look noticeably worse for an ISO 100 shot pushed up than a native high ISO shot; this is the issue I have with the claim that you keep all the dynamic range. You can keep the highlights but the shadows and midtones turn to garbage. The reason I mentioned the histogram is because while you can't really see the posterization at ISO 1600 in the image, you can see it in the histogram already and it becomes visible in the pictures once you start trying this same technique at even higher ISO values.

 

[sarangiman]

"I'm sorry; not seeing any color noise, posterization, and banding. Not really seeing much of a noise cost at all to shooting ISO 100."

I think we should all be able to agree that there is also no color noise, posterization, or banding in my "real world" 100% crop as well, though that does only have an approximately three+ stop lift.

To see the banding you have to lift shadows ridiculous amounts, 6+ stops. The posterization though can be seen in histograms relatively early on though but only really becomes a problem when, again, making silly shadow lifts. The color noise surprises me though, as this is something I see when lifting ~4 stops or so. Maybe an A7 vs A7R thing.

Ok, keep in mind that at 6+ stops you need to expect noise levels of ISO 6400 and above. C'mon. Let's be reasonable.

And yes, more than 5 stops of pushing and you might see some effects of downstream read noise or quantization error, compared to the ISO 6400 or higher (not pushed) shot.

And, yes, different sensors will perform slightly differently here. I believe the A7 is a slightly older sensor, but it shouldn't be accounting for the drastic differences in your experience vs. what I just showed above.

A 6+ stop push is where I'm most interested because most of my shooting is above ISO 3200. Once you get to this point the midtones look noticeably worse for an ISO 100 shot pushed up than a native high ISO shot; this is the issue I have with the claim that you keep all the dynamic range. You can keep the highlights but the shadows and midtones turn to garbage. The reason I mentioned the histogram is because while you can't really see the posterization at ISO 1600 in the image, you can see it in the histogram already and it becomes visible in the pictures once you start trying this same technique at even higher ISO values.

(1) Amazing that no one's complaining about raptor3x trying to a 6+ stop push, isn't it? Oh, perhaps it's b/c he's complaining about Sony, not Canon, so it's totally OK.

(2) I didn't say 'all' the dynamic range. I said 'nearly'. Consistently. You can't obliviously push 7, 8, 9 stops, b/c of finite downstream read noise and quantization error. That said, you'll often see very little benefit to shooting above what's known as 'unity gain ISO' (typically ~ISO 400ish for FF sensors, although this'll vary based on a number of factors), b/c quantization error won't be a factor.

So what you can do is shoot ISO 400 instead of ISO 6400 or 12.8k and push 4-5 stops, and get 4-5 EV highlight headroom. That's still like 12.5 stops, with an effective ISO 6400 image, which is still significantly more than even the base ISO DR of any Canon DSLR.

And even if you do push 7, 8, or 9 stops, it's still not going to result in the ugly read noise or banding you'll see with gentle pushes of Canon DSLR files. So I still have no idea about the banding, color noise, posterization, and whatnot raptor3x was talking about from a 4 EV push. Which he's now, apparently, changed to a 6+ stop push - but even then, I don't see anything near ugly posterization, banding, or even significant noise. A tiny bit more noise than native ISO when you're pixel-peeping, yes, but hardly worth raising a fuss about.

 

[raptor3x]

I think the simple point is, when you need to push 6 stops...you can. And you can work the data to recover lost color fidelity. With a Canon camera, you can't. Well, you can push 6 stops, but as PBD's (and many other's examples, and hopefully soon my own, as I just rented an A7r and Metabones EF adapter) images demonstrate, the shadows are so riddled with noise that is so bad, no matter how much you work it, it isn't going to get any better.

With Sarangiman's window example, you could HDR that...but your almost guaranteed to get integration artifacts, and removing ghosts isn't always the solution...sometimes you have to manually work it, sometimes you have to excessively bracket (one of the original videos demonstrating ACR's 32-bit 20-stop TIFF HDR toning used 15 shots in bracket to handle an HDR of the interior of a darkened plane with a very bright window...the 15 shots weren't for DR, they were to avoid artifacting around and in that window.)

It isn't generally a common situation to need to push 6+ stops. There are cases where it could be very useful, and for certain kinds of photography, it could be more useful than in other kinds of photography. PBD's example images are far from extreme. Before the shadow lift, the shadows under the awning were not pitch black and buried deep. They were light shadows, you could see into them...and even lifting that, in a realistic edit, produced very clean, usable results on the Exmor camera, and some heavy banding and not much detail (recoverable or otherwise) on the Canon camera. Canon's banding and read noise reaches up to the lower midtones. The 7D II may prove to have solved the banding issue, if so, WONDERFUL! That's a good sign. There is still the random read noise, though, and that's still going to eat away at detail...possibly right up into the lower midtones. NOT having that problem would just be...wonderful.

The whole point was that even Exmor RAW files can't be pushed 6 stops without trouble. Sarangiman's original claim was that you could shoot at high ISO and retain almost all of the dynamic range by shooting at ISO 100 and underexposing, which implied you're better off shooting underexposed at ISO 100 and then pushing however many stops to get to your desired emulated ISO. This works quite well up to ISO 1600 where you start seeing some minor color splotches and a slight magenta cast, but nothing major. As you try to push further though it starts falling apart pretty quickly. What did surprise me though is that a 4 stop push from ISO 400 looks much better than the six stop push from ISO 100. I was under the assumption than an ISO 100 file underexposed by 2 stops was essentially identical to an ISO 400 file, but that's clearly not the case as shown below.

 

[raptor3x]

And even if you do push 7, 8, or 9 stops, it's still not going to result in the ugly read noise or banding you'll see with gentle pushes of Canon DSLR files. So I still have no idea about the banding, color noise, posterization, and whatnot raptor3x was talking about from a 4 EV push. Which he's now, apparently, changed to a 6+ stop push - but even then, I don't see anything near ugly posterization, banding, or even significant noise. A tiny bit more noise than native ISO when you're pixel-peeping, yes, but hardly worth raising a fuss about.

This is what I mean when I'm talking about posterization and banding. It's obviously an extreme case but it is there if you dig deep enough. Edit: I'm surprised you wouldn't think posterization would be an issue with underexposing using ISO 100, that's not even a property of the sensor.

 

[sarangiman]

The whole point was that even Exmor RAW files can't be pushed 6 stops without trouble. Sarangiman's original claim was that you could shoot at high ISO and retain almost all of the dynamic range by shooting at ISO 100 and underexposing, which implied you're better off shooting underexposed at ISO 100 and then pushing however many stops to get to your desired emulated ISO. This works quite well up to ISO 1600 where you start seeing some minor color splotches and a slight magenta cast, but nothing major. As you try to push further though it starts falling apart pretty quickly. What did surprise me though is that a 4 stop push from ISO 400 looks much better than the six stop push from ISO 100. I was under the assumption than an ISO 100 file underexposed by 2 stops was essentially identical to an ISO 400 file, but that's clearly not the case as shown below.

Key word here: implied. You assumed, despite me explicitly saying 'almost' and also pointing out that there are limitations due to quantization error. Which is exactly why I said some posts ago that ISO 400 is the 'magic' ISO above which there's not much benefit to hardware ISO amplification for full-frame cameras, b/c this is where one electron is counted by one digital increment in your RAW file ('unity gain ISO').

That's why I explicitly said you can choose ISO 400 rather than 6400 or 12.8k some posts above, remember?

No, ISO 100 pushed is not always going to be the same as ISO 400, for tones below a certain threshold where quantization error is an issue (or where downstream read noise is somewhat more significant b/c you're only counting every 3-4 photoelectrons per digital increment).

I alluded to all of these from the very beginning, but I can't always write a novel every time I'm talking about a concept.

Also, careful about resampled views in Lightroom. I actually do see a tiny bit of banding in your image - perhaps the A7 sensor is more outdated compared to the A7R? The magenta blotching can be reduced typically with the Shadows Tint slider under Camera Calibration. Also, magenta noise does seem to be more of an issue with the A7 than A7R, if I remember correctly.

The D810 surpasses even the A7R.

Also, that's a +5 EV push. Your initial claim that ISO 100 + 4EV falls apart to posterization and banding and noise compared to ISO 1600 is just not true - at least not with an A7R or D810. But, yes, quantization error and the effects of non-zero downstream read noise *will* have some effect at some extreme point. But even when it does, it's very easy to remove. It's usually as subtle as the noise that comes with higher ISOs. Not the magenta blotchiness and banding your example shows. Only time I see magenta blotchiness is in the JPEG preview, b/c of the limited quality/bit-depth of some of the preview JPEGs LR uses. There can be some significantly smaller faint magenta blotchiness for signals down in the RGB = 1,1,1 area, and those can easily be removed with color NR which thankfully rarely kills much actual image detail.

Also, realize LR's histogram is not the best judge b/c of the way it actually works. I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to when you're talking about 'posterization', but as long as your sampling is such that shot/statistical noise is sampled by at least one digital increment in your Raw file, the dithering effect of the noise will take care of posterization. If we do a little math and use some approximations, a signal of 16 photoelectrons varies by +/- 4 b/c of shot noise, and that signal is represented by, say, roughly 4 at ISO 100. The noise is represented by 1 digital increment, so you're fine. Yes, below this, you're not sampling the noise properly, so you may run into issues. That's where you'll benefit from using ISO 400. But if you're seriously trying to use image data from 16 photons and below... well, now, *there's* an extreme case.

And like I said, above ISO 400, most of these issues are obviated, as you yourself have seen. From that point onward, you can do huge pushes and literally see no noise cost compared to shooting at the higher ISO.

Actually, you can perform quantitative tests to figure out exactly where this 'magical ISO' is.

Overall, I'm not sure what your point is though. You can generally use the technique I mentioned, save for ridiculously low signals of I'm guessing like 30 photoelectrons or less. I thought I was OK leaving that edge case out, at the risk of writing the novel I just wrote above.

And all that said, it does seem your A7 is not performing up to the level of the A7R or D800/810. Which is not too surprising - again, it's an older sensor.

 

[raptor3x]

It actually works well (usually without trouble) up to 5 1/3 to 5 2/3 stops. You may start seeing some issues starting at around 5 stops...depends on the exposure and how deep your really going (you can still ETTR with an Exmor camera). Push an Exmor raw that far, and with a good exposure you still won't see color noise, and those sensors are entirely devoid of any kind of banding unless your utterly cracked (there are guys on DPR who have used the brush to boost exposures from the D800 up to 10 stops, where they eventually finally to notice extremely minor banding amongst all the random color noise.) The Exmor advantage is a little over five stops, so that's generally what you can get with a strait exposure-slider and highlight/shadow-slider push in LR. Doing so does not result in anything remotely resembling the kind of noise you get when you push a Canon image a mere couple of stops, let alone three or four or more on top of some explicit shadow pushing with the shadow slider.

I've never been quite comfortable with the results from the A7 I have now pushed any more than 4 stops. Then again, I never push my 5D3 shadows more than a stop without using MagicLantern.

You can work the data more...you can tweak it more carefully and preserve and enhance color. It's more work...and it may or may not be important to the ultimate goals. Simple fact of the matter is...you have the option with a camera built around an Exmor sensor. You don't have the option with a Canon sensor.

Just to clarify, this was never a Canon vs Sony issue. Just a difference in my experience with Exmor vs what was being claimed.

I see banding and color noise, but no posterization. Posterization is basically "cartoonization", which results in the effect you see in this image:

The spikey behavior in the histogram represents posterization. This isn't even really a function of the sensor at all, just that we don't have enough information to provide continuous color contours. It's not going to appear as clearly as your exampe though due to the random noise. In any case, Sarangiman clarified that he meant that higher ISOs were emulated with higher base ISO rather than always sticking with ISO 100 which, surprisingly to me, actually makes a huge difference.

The pinkish-red and blue blotchiness of the shadows in the image you have shared is a form of color noise. That could very likely be due to the lossy compression Sony employs in their raw files...which is one of the things I truly DO NOT like about their cameras. I cannot fathom why Sony would gimp their own cameras by using a non-raw "raw" image format...it aint RAW if your throwing away data. Bleh. :-\

The severity of it is actually exaggerated slightly by LR's downsampling method but the blotchiness shown is very real. This is also the same kind of behavior I was mentioning in the other thread where I was complaining about the A7 not responding well to noise reduction at high ISO.

 

[raptor3x]

Key word here: implied. You assumed, despite me explicitly saying 'almost' and also pointing out that there are limitations due to quantization error. Which is exactly why I said some posts ago that ISO 400 is the 'magic' ISO above which there's not much benefit to hardware ISO amplification for full-frame cameras, b/c this is where one electron is counted by one digital increment in your RAW file ('unity gain ISO').

That's why I explicitly said you can choose ISO 400 rather than 6400 or 12.8k some posts above, remember?

The way you phrased it implied that you could almost keep the entire (ISO 100) dynamic range at high ISO when the reality is that you can almost keep then entire ISO 100 DR up until ISO 1600 at which point you lose ~1 stop DR per stop increase in apparent ISO (not quite sure how this will actually scale). But fair enough, it was your comment that prompted me to test using ISO 400 instead of ISO 100 so yes, I do remember.

No, ISO 100 pushed is not always going to be the same as ISO 400, for tones below a certain threshold where quantization error is an issue (or where downstream read noise is somewhat more significant b/c you're only counting every 3-4 photoelectrons per digital increment).

I alluded to all of these from the very beginning, but I can't always write a novel every time I'm talking about a concept.

The magnitude of this difference surprised me a bit, I didn't expect such a large difference. Pleasant surprise.

Also, careful about resampled views in Lightroom. I actually do see a tiny bit of banding in your image - perhaps the A7 sensor is more outdated compared to the A7R? The magenta blotching can be reduced typically with the Shadows Tint slider under Camera Calibration. Also, magenta noise does seem to be more of an issue with the A7 than A7R, if I remember correctly.

You're correct about the resampling, it exaggerates the effect slightly but it's definitely there. This is actually similar to the pattern of purple blotches I see in the A7 files at high ISO that don't respond well to noise reduction that I complained about in the other thread.

The D810 surpasses even the A7R.

I've been very tempted to rent one of these to try out both the new AF system and the supposedly improved grip.

Also, that's a +5 EV push. Your initial claim that ISO 100 + 4EV falls apart to posterization and banding and noise compared to ISO 1600 is just not true - at least not with an A7R or D810. But, yes, quantization error and the effects of non-zero downstream read noise *will* have some effect at some extreme point. But even when it does, it's very easy to remove. It's usually as subtle as the noise that comes with higher ISOs. Not the magenta blotchiness and banding your example shows. Only time I see magenta blotchiness is in the JPEG preview, b/c of the limited quality/bit-depth of some of the preview JPEGs LR uses. There can be some significantly smaller faint magenta blotchiness for signals down in the RGB = 1,1,1 area, and those can easily be removed with color NR which thankfully rarely kills much actual image detail.

The initial claim was poorly phrased; +4 stops is where I start seeing blotchiness and extra color noise and is generally the limit of how far I push Exmor files. I generally have to push 6 stops to see the banding and posterization issues.

Also, realize LR's histogram is not the best judge b/c of the way it actually works. I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to when you're talking about 'posterization', but as long as your sampling is such that shot/statistical noise is sampled by at least one digital increment in your Raw file, the dithering effect of the noise will take care of posterization. If we do a little math and use some approximations, a signal of 16 photoelectrons varies by +/- 4 b/c of shot noise, and that signal is represented by, say, roughly 4 at ISO 100. The noise is represented by 1 digital increment, so you're fine. Yes, below this, you're not sampling the noise properly, so you may run into issues. That's where you'll benefit from using ISO 400. But if you're seriously trying to use image data from 16 photons and below... well, now, *there's* an extreme case.

This is exactly why I had issue with your initial claim that you could maintain high ISO dynamic range by just underexposing ISO 100 files. I suppose we have different definitions of high and extremely high ISO.

And like I said, above ISO 400, most of these issues are obviated, as you yourself have seen. From that point onward, you can do huge pushes and literally see no noise cost compared to shooting at the higher ISO.

Actually, you can perform quantitative tests to figure out exactly where this 'magical ISO' is.

Overall, I'm not sure what your point is though. You can generally use the technique I mentioned, save for ridiculously low signals of I'm guessing like 30 photoelectrons or less. I thought I was OK leaving that edge case out, at the risk of writing the novel I just wrote above.

And all that said, it does seem your A7 is not performing up to the level of the A7R or D800/810. Which is not too surprising - again, it's an older sensor.

Yes, switching to ISO 400 seems to give much nicer pushes up to ISO 6400.