Posting about sensors and DR!

[Sporgon]

Let's just be civil, okay?

You expect much.

These DR arguments end up with both sides pissing in the wind.

With that attitude, these discussions will never be civil. I tried to start a thread dedicated to DR discussion, didn't push any kind of agenda, and the thread was still derailed...primarily by the anti-DR crowd. So long as no one tries to react differently to the DR discussion (which is not going to go away...it's the only real issue Canon cameras have, so OF COURSE people are going to bring the subject up), then nothing will ever BE different.

How can it be derailed by people posting examples of the latitude the Canon sensor is capable of ? Actually something has come out of these discussions; there has been less talk of greater DR and more talk of being able to pushing 0 data. That in itself is a step towards understanding what Exmor really offers over the current Canon sensors. You want to push 0 data then I think we are all in agreement that Canon is not your camera of choice.

 

[J.R.]

Let's just be civil, okay?

You expect much.

These DR arguments end up with both sides pissing in the wind.

With that attitude, these discussions will never be civil. I tried to start a thread dedicated to DR discussion, didn't push any kind of agenda, and the thread was still derailed...primarily by the anti-DR crowd. So long as no one tries to react differently to the DR discussion (which is not going to go away...it's the only real issue Canon cameras have, so OF COURSE people are going to bring the subject up), then nothing will ever BE different.

Discussions about DR have never been civil to my knowledge. I try hard not to wade too deep in it. I know well enough what the D800 sensor can do having shot with it for a couple of months (borrowed it from a friend). I too could give head to head comparisons but for what? It is generally accepted that the DR of the Exmorr sensors is better, hardly anyone denies it. Only that most people around here claim that they don't find themselves overly limited by it. The immediate response one gets with such a claim is being told off that using Canon cameras tantamounts to accepting poor IQ. You shouldn't be surprised that such comments are not going to find too much favor in a Canon gear forum. People get riled up with such silly comments and so we find the posts that are made here.

It's basic common sense to me, nobody wants to hear that the gear they are using is crap. if someone says that then they should be prepared for a riled up answer. To expect anything else is sticking your head in the sand.

TBF, I did mention both sides

 

[privatebydesign]

Let's just be civil, okay?

You expect much.

These DR arguments end up with both sides pissing in the wind.

With that attitude, these discussions will never be civil. I tried to start a thread dedicated to DR discussion, didn't push any kind of agenda, and the thread was still derailed...primarily by the anti-DR crowd. So long as no one tries to react differently to the DR discussion (which is not going to go away...it's the only real issue Canon cameras have, so OF COURSE people are going to bring the subject up), then nothing will ever BE different.

How can it be derailed by people posting examples of the latitude the Canon sensor is capable of ? Actually something has come out of these discussions; there has been less talk of greater DR and more talk of being able to pushing 0 data. That in itself is a step towards understanding what Exmor really offers over the current Canon sensors. You want to push 0 data then I think we are all in agreement that Canon is not your camera of choice.

It seems to me Sporgon and I are the only two who ever bother to post rebuffing Canon images and we are treated exactly the same way the DR's are. But yes it is very interesting the tone has now changed to the low end lifting capabilities rather than outright DR. It is also interesting to foresee the next battle ground about low end tonality, basically I don't see any whereas others suggest there is "massive amounts of useful data" down there, I then say 'there might be depending on your definition of "massive amounts of useful data" but there isn't any tonality'.

I know many consider me to be as rude and bad tempered as anybody, I don't, not really, I am reactionary by nature and need provocation to rise to make a counterpoint and bother with the time to post, and my posts virtually always come from the perspective of hands on experience or personal observation. I also post if I just like people, I post to genuinely help people often hence my hundreds of strictly illustrative image posts and several videos.

 

[J.R.]

Let's just be civil, okay?

You expect much.

These DR arguments end up with both sides pissing in the wind.

With that attitude, these discussions will never be civil. I tried to start a thread dedicated to DR discussion, didn't push any kind of agenda, and the thread was still derailed...primarily by the anti-DR crowd. So long as no one tries to react differently to the DR discussion (which is not going to go away...it's the only real issue Canon cameras have, so OF COURSE people are going to bring the subject up), then nothing will ever BE different.

How can it be derailed by people posting examples of the latitude the Canon sensor is capable of ? Actually something has come out of these discussions; there has been less talk of greater DR and more talk of being able to pushing 0 data. That in itself is a step towards understanding what Exmor really offers over the current Canon sensors. You want to push 0 data then I think we are all in agreement that Canon is not your camera of choice.

Exactly. Every time a head to head comparison shot is made, the images are so hopelessly underexposed that it is bound to show Canon in poor light. Real world imaging narrows the differences considerably.

 

[J.R.]

I know, it isn't about both sides or not. I KNOW both sides go at it. But it's an issue, DR is an issue with Canon cameras. It's THE issue with Canon cameras for many people. It's a topic of discussion. DIS-CUS-SION. We CAN be civil about this issue. It's a choice we have to make. It's a difficult choice to make, though, when the anti-DR crowd regularly insults the pro-DR crowd. It's usually the anti-DR crowd who throws the first insult, or gets mocking and derogatory, or what have you...that's where the discussion always takes a really bad turn. That's where it gets personal, dirty, mean...that's where it becomes a war rather than a discussion.

It's not really that simple. A great number of posters see this course of insults the other way round. You see what you want to see.

 

[privatebydesign]

Yes you have the "right to discuss the topic" you do not have the right to turn every single thread, DR related or not, into your personal crusade, and in your calmer moments you would have to admit you have done that on too many occasions.

Also, you must see how "anti-DR crowd" is in itself an inflammatory comment, just like DRoners (which is at least accurate), not one person here, ever, has been "anti DR", they just are not as pro it as you are.

You have brought a lot of this negativity about the whole subject on yourself, with your lengthy diatribes berating anybody that questions any "fact" you surmise from data. No hands on experience until very recently, just data, meanwhile there have been many here who have had hands on owner experience, respected people like Mount Spokane and eml58 and others, and you have just ignored their input. Personally I print for several Nikon and Canon shooters and I just don't have the issues with either files that you seem to have.

It takes two to make a war, it takes two to make peace, and I have tried several times. Drop the insults and inaccurate epithets like "anti DR crowd", the hijacking of everybody's threads, the lengthy repetitive replies and the shouting, and we might gain some trust.

Like Sporgon said, we have moved on, the "issue" is not specifically DR, it is low end lifting and tonality along with the associated shadow noise. Shoot some step wedges and tone strips and lets see the comparative tonal lifting abilities. Drop the insanity that Canon sensors are breaking down at midpoints, because nobody believes that from looking at thousands of their own images, and concentrate on the truly weak points. But if you can't come up with illustrative images from realistic scenes that demonstrate real world problems from two optimally exposed RAW files (and that isn't where the histogram says you are about to clip highlights) you will always run in to serious push back from people that just don't have the issues you hypothesis about.

To be sure, this is not "yet another dig at the DRoners" it is a concerted effort to illustrate where a vocal rebuffer is coming from and what you need to do to better illustrate, and thus make, your point, not just to me, but to others watching the cat fights from the hills next to the CNN crew.

 

[jdramirez]

Here's my stance on the whole dr issue. I'm not a good enough photographer to where I notice and consequently would miss the mysterious dynamic range. When I shoot with a Canon xs, I managed some good did. Ditto with the 60d and now my 5d mkiii. I've even managed some really nice shots with an old xti that I have to my daughter.

So the shots are out there... it's my job to find them... and gear plays a part... but not so much that I blame my gear over my personal ineptitude... but that's just me. I don't miss this emperor's clothes... not because I am part of the blind masses, but rather because I'm looking at the peasant girl with the big cans wondering if she will let me paint her with light.

 

[Sporgon]

I know, it isn't about both sides or not. I KNOW both sides go at it. But it's an issue, DR is an issue with Canon cameras. It's THE issue with Canon cameras for many people. It's a topic of discussion. DIS-CUS-SION. We CAN be civil about this issue. It's a choice we have to make. It's a difficult choice to make, though, when the anti-DR crowd regularly insults the pro-DR crowd. It's usually the anti-DR crowd who throws the first insult, or gets mocking and derogatory, or what have you...that's where the discussion always takes a really bad turn. That's where it gets personal, dirty, mean...that's where it becomes a war rather than a discussion.

This is an issue. It's an issue that people who don't think it's an issue are just going to accept. Some of us want more DR in Canon cameras. We have VERY good reasons for wanting CANON to do it, rather than someone else (and having used the A7r myself now for a few days, absolutely LOVING the IQ, I want Canon to do it even more now.) Having to worry about being insulted or starting the same old never-ending DEBATE every time I want to say something about DR is really shitty. I'm a Canon fan, just like everyone else here. I shouldn't have to worry that five specific members here are going to get excessively irate over the mere mention of a camera feature.

However, as long as no one puts any effort into trying to change their reaction to this particular topic, this particular issue...it really is never going to change. I made an active choice to reevaluate my stance, my reactions, to this topic about a month ago, when we had a nasty spat between a long-time member and a new member who just decided to go at each others throats. It's possible to change...even if you don't change your opinion, it's possible to change your reactions.

No one likes the DR debate, but it's not necessarily because they don't care about DR. It's because they don't like how the discussion turns into a hatefest. (I know this for a fact, as since posting my thread sharing RAWs from the 5D III and A7r, I've received a lot of thank you PMs, most of which mentioned that specifically...that they like to know the facts about DR, but don't like how the discussions on these forums go when DR is brought up.) The tone of the conversation here has to change. The insults need to stop. This IS an issue that some people care about. It doesn't matter if they are the majority or not, for some people it matters. For a lot of those people, they have specific reasons for staying with Canon, which only emphasizes their reasons why they want Canon to improve DR, and their frustrations in reaction to how Canon has not improved DR for so many years. Those people, including myself, have the right to discuss the topic without having our throats ripped out. You don't like that? Well...you can always ignore the discussion...or just ignore the members, then you'll never see their posts again.

Here we go again: "Canon has not improved DR for so many years". Statement of fact. Did you ever use a 5D, then a II and finally the III ? Oh of course, DxO graphs say there has been little improvement.

If you want to keep the discussion civil, which I agree we should, say I believe that...... or I have found that....... It is your opinion, not fact. The facts are disputed. Also don't post absurd statements such as "Canons are only any good for producing landscapes up to 10x8".

I'm pleased that you have taken the initiative and rented a Sony. Good for you, that's putting your money where your mouth is. But when talking about keeping things civil bear in mind that it is the highly inflammatory nature of your statements that have led to things getting rough.

(As I've typed this the site has flagged up two more posts. I see PBD has made a very similar post, but as I've typed this Ill still post as is.)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It seems to me Sporgon and I are the only two who ever bother to post rebuffing Canon images and we are treated exactly the same way the DR's are. But yes it is very interesting the tone has now changed to the low end lifting capabilities rather than outright DR. It is also interesting to foresee the next battle ground about low end tonality, basically I don't see any whereas others suggest there is "massive amounts of useful data" down there, I then say 'there might be depending on your definition of "massive amounts of useful data" but there isn't any tonality'.

I don't get this. Dynamic range is dynamic range and it's always about the least bits and whether they are noise or signal. (or for displays about how much darker the deepest black it can show it compared to the brightest white) I don't see how anything has changed.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Let's just be civil, okay?

You expect much.

These DR arguments end up with both sides pissing in the wind.

With that attitude, these discussions will never be civil. I tried to start a thread dedicated to DR discussion, didn't push any kind of agenda, and the thread was still derailed...primarily by the anti-DR crowd. So long as no one tries to react differently to the DR discussion (which is not going to go away...it's the only real issue Canon cameras have, so OF COURSE people are going to bring the subject up), then nothing will ever BE different.

How can it be derailed by people posting examples of the latitude the Canon sensor is capable of ? Actually something has come out of these discussions; there has been less talk of greater DR and more talk of being able to pushing 0 data. That in itself is a step towards understanding what Exmor really offers over the current Canon sensors. You want to push 0 data then I think we are all in agreement that Canon is not your camera of choice.

Exactly. Every time a head to head comparison shot is made, the images are so hopelessly underexposed that it is bound to show Canon in poor light. Real world imaging narrows the differences considerably.

You are missing the point. People are talking about real world images that are not under exposed. If you have highlights that are bright and need to be saved then the rest of the image may get pushed very dark, but that is not underexposure. That is proper exposure.

 

[Khalai]

Let's just be civil, okay?

You expect much.

These DR arguments end up with both sides pissing in the wind.

With that attitude, these discussions will never be civil. I tried to start a thread dedicated to DR discussion, didn't push any kind of agenda, and the thread was still derailed...primarily by the anti-DR crowd. So long as no one tries to react differently to the DR discussion (which is not going to go away...it's the only real issue Canon cameras have, so OF COURSE people are going to bring the subject up), then nothing will ever BE different.

How can it be derailed by people posting examples of the latitude the Canon sensor is capable of ? Actually something has come out of these discussions; there has been less talk of greater DR and more talk of being able to pushing 0 data. That in itself is a step towards understanding what Exmor really offers over the current Canon sensors. You want to push 0 data then I think we are all in agreement that Canon is not your camera of choice.

Exactly. Every time a head to head comparison shot is made, the images are so hopelessly underexposed that it is bound to show Canon in poor light. Real world imaging narrows the differences considerably.

You are missing the point. People are talking about real world images that are not under exposed. If you have highlights that are bright and need to be saved then the rest of the image may get pushed very dark, but that is not underexposure. That is proper exposure.

If you end up with e.g. 70% of histogram crammed into last 25% that'S underexposure whether you want to call it that or not. Technically, proper exposure is averaging all the tones to the 18% gray, but I'm sure you're fully aware of that.

 

[J.R.]

Let's just be civil, okay?

You expect much.

These DR arguments end up with both sides pissing in the wind.

With that attitude, these discussions will never be civil. I tried to start a thread dedicated to DR discussion, didn't push any kind of agenda, and the thread was still derailed...primarily by the anti-DR crowd. So long as no one tries to react differently to the DR discussion (which is not going to go away...it's the only real issue Canon cameras have, so OF COURSE people are going to bring the subject up), then nothing will ever BE different.

How can it be derailed by people posting examples of the latitude the Canon sensor is capable of ? Actually something has come out of these discussions; there has been less talk of greater DR and more talk of being able to pushing 0 data. That in itself is a step towards understanding what Exmor really offers over the current Canon sensors. You want to push 0 data then I think we are all in agreement that Canon is not your camera of choice.

Exactly. Every time a head to head comparison shot is made, the images are so hopelessly underexposed that it is bound to show Canon in poor light. Real world imaging narrows the differences considerably.

You are missing the point. People are talking about real world images that are not under exposed. If you have highlights that are bright and need to be saved then the rest of the image may get pushed very dark, but that is not underexposure. That is proper exposure.

Not really. I'm not missing the point at all. I'm simply saying that the sample images usually posted on forums don't lead to a valid comparison. See OP's first post in this thread. The real world images prove that the difference is not as great as some would have me believe.

I don't say that more DR is not welcome, only that the 2 stop difference comes into play only for my landscapes shooting. For landscapes where DR is usually crucial, I take my time and blend in bracketed exposures. It is easier with a Nikon (yes, I have used the d800 and am speaking from experience) but then, it doesn't bother me much.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I know, it isn't about both sides or not. I KNOW both sides go at it. But it's an issue, DR is an issue with Canon cameras. It's THE issue with Canon cameras for many people. It's a topic of discussion. DIS-CUS-SION. We CAN be civil about this issue. It's a choice we have to make. It's a difficult choice to make, though, when the anti-DR crowd regularly insults the pro-DR crowd. It's usually the anti-DR crowd who throws the first insult, or gets mocking and derogatory, or what have you...that's where the discussion always takes a really bad turn. That's where it gets personal, dirty, mean...that's where it becomes a war rather than a discussion.

It's not really that simple. A great number of posters see this course of insults the other way round. You see what you want to see.

are you sure though? Do you see people saying that if you never shoot high DR scenes at low ISO and have no need for it that they are morons or incompetent at photography? If you see someone discussing framing and composition and capturing peak action or whatnot do you see people jump into those threads and call them morons because they are talking about the artistic side of things and say they must be a bunch of simple-minded fools not smart enough to discuss the only thing that matters, tech, and berate them for not concentrating on engineering discussions in photo critique threads? (you can, of course, focus more on the art on forums and be brilliant or talk a lot about tech and yet have a crazy extensive photo portfolio)

Just in the last two days alone there has been a lot of: LOL at these lens cap shooting dweebs, only dweebs like that who have never taken a real photo in their life care about silly shadows and dynamic range; only morons with no clue about how to take a photography or do post-processing have any need for Exmor-type sensors; just lazy people who can't bother to set an exposure care; why are you talking about engineering and tech [in a tech thread] you lab geeks, go outside and take a picture for the first time in your life, etc.

And it's been like for years and some people slowly got sick of it over time and perhaps started fighting back more (the ones who didn't just get fed up and quit posting).

Yeah going on about sensors or this or that maybe can be annoying, but the talk is limited to the equipment forums.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Here we go again: "Canon has not improved DR for so many years". Statement of fact. Did you ever use a 5D, then a II and finally the III ? Oh of course, DxO graphs say there has been little improvement.

If you want to keep the discussion civil, which I agree we should, say I believe that...... or I have found that....... It is your opinion, not fact. The facts are disputed.

Those are facts and they are not disputed. They have been replicated by many others doing tests and shooting in the real world it's been seen as well.

Saying that you don't care, have no need for it, haven't noticed it in what you shoot, it only matters to you very rarely so it's not a big deal for you, etc. that is something else entirely and that may well be so.

Saying that you don't care is fact. Saying that nobody cares is not a fact. Saying that everyone cares is not a fact.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Let's just be civil, okay?

You expect much.

These DR arguments end up with both sides pissing in the wind.

With that attitude, these discussions will never be civil. I tried to start a thread dedicated to DR discussion, didn't push any kind of agenda, and the thread was still derailed...primarily by the anti-DR crowd. So long as no one tries to react differently to the DR discussion (which is not going to go away...it's the only real issue Canon cameras have, so OF COURSE people are going to bring the subject up), then nothing will ever BE different.

How can it be derailed by people posting examples of the latitude the Canon sensor is capable of ? Actually something has come out of these discussions; there has been less talk of greater DR and more talk of being able to pushing 0 data. That in itself is a step towards understanding what Exmor really offers over the current Canon sensors. You want to push 0 data then I think we are all in agreement that Canon is not your camera of choice.

Exactly. Every time a head to head comparison shot is made, the images are so hopelessly underexposed that it is bound to show Canon in poor light. Real world imaging narrows the differences considerably.

You are missing the point. People are talking about real world images that are not under exposed. If you have highlights that are bright and need to be saved then the rest of the image may get pushed very dark, but that is not underexposure. That is proper exposure.

If you end up with e.g. 70% of histogram crammed into last 25% that'S underexposure whether you want to call it that or not. Technically, proper exposure is averaging all the tones to the 18% gray, but I'm sure you're fully aware of that.

That is 100% absolutely not true. The proper exposure depends upon the scene.
The ideal exposure exposes as much as you can without clipping anything that you need saved on the bright end (although there could be issues with exposing to the right too much if you use twisted color profiles and it might require and unusual tone curve might make processing tricky for some). In many cases that will lead to an 18% avg, but there are plenty of cases where that won't be the case at all.
(it also gets tricky since people may talk about JPG histogram 18% gray, which depends upon the tone curve, and different makers set the midpoint at different places along the linear RAW capture line)

 

[J.R.]

I know, it isn't about both sides or not. I KNOW both sides go at it. But it's an issue, DR is an issue with Canon cameras. It's THE issue with Canon cameras for many people. It's a topic of discussion. DIS-CUS-SION. We CAN be civil about this issue. It's a choice we have to make. It's a difficult choice to make, though, when the anti-DR crowd regularly insults the pro-DR crowd. It's usually the anti-DR crowd who throws the first insult, or gets mocking and derogatory, or what have you...that's where the discussion always takes a really bad turn. That's where it gets personal, dirty, mean...that's where it becomes a war rather than a discussion.

It's not really that simple. A great number of posters see this course of insults the other way round. You see what you want to see.

are you sure though? Do you see people saying that if you never shoot high DR scenes at low ISO and have no need for it that they are morons or incompetent at photography? If you see someone discussing framing and composition and capturing peak action or whatnot do you see people jump into those threads and call them morons because they are talking about the artistic side of things and say they must be a bunch of simple-minded fools not smart enough to discuss the only thing that matters, tech, and berate them for not concentrating on engineering discussions in photo critique threads? (you can, of course, focus more on the art on forums and be brilliant or talk a lot about tech and yet have a crazy extensive photo portfolio)

Just in the last two days alone there has been a lot of: LOL at these lens cap shooting dweebs, only dweebs like that who have never taken a real photo in their life care about silly shadows and dynamic range; only morons with no clue about how to take a photography or do post-processing have any need for Exmor-type sensors; just lazy people who can't bother to set an exposure care; why are you talking about engineering and tech [in a tech thread] you lab geeks, go outside and take a picture for the first time in your life, etc.

And it's been like for years and some people slowly got sick of it over time and perhaps started fighting back more (the ones who didn't just get fed up and quit posting).

Yeah going on about sensors or this or that maybe can be annoying, but the talk is limited to the equipment forums.

There have been enough mashed potatoes flying from everywhere on these boards. Nevertheless, I did say that both parties were at fault to which Jon replied that the "anti-DR" crowd was responsible, which made me make the comment that you quoted above. We can agree to disagree though.

 

[StudentOfLight]

The photo-educator Eileen Rafferty always asks her students a very important question: "What is the subject in your image?"

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Not really. I'm not missing the point at all. I'm simply saying that the sample images usually posted on forums don't lead to a valid comparison. See OP's first post in this thread. The real world images prove that the difference is not as great as some would have me believe.

I don't see any images in the first post in this thread.

I don't say that more DR is not welcome, only that the 2 stop difference comes into play only for my landscapes shooting.

For your shooting maybe not, and that's great for you if that is the case, but for other people's shooting it may and the difference demonstrated absolutely is entirely realistic as to how it works out in the real world.
If you shoot scenes in the real world that have enough DR then it does matter and it's a perfectly realistic demonstration and it has nothing to do with no exposing properly.

 

[J.R.]

Not really. I'm not missing the point at all. I'm simply saying that the sample images usually posted on forums don't lead to a valid comparison. See OP's first post in this thread. The real world images prove that the difference is not as great as some would have me believe.

I don't see any images in the first post in this thread.

Oops ... That would mean here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22999.0;topicseen

 

[privatebydesign]

It seems to me Sporgon and I are the only two who ever bother to post rebuffing Canon images and we are treated exactly the same way the DR's are. But yes it is very interesting the tone has now changed to the low end lifting capabilities rather than outright DR. It is also interesting to foresee the next battle ground about low end tonality, basically I don't see any whereas others suggest there is "massive amounts of useful data" down there, I then say 'there might be depending on your definition of "massive amounts of useful data" but there isn't any tonality'.

I don't get this. Dynamic range is dynamic range and it's always about the least bits and whether they are noise or signal. (or for displays about how much darker the deepest black it can show it compared to the brightest white) I don't see how anything has changed.

I know you don't.

"Dynamic range" in this arena has a definition that is based on certain base levels, and people will set their own base levels of how much tonality and contrast before x amount of noise. Think about it, in a given bit depth the measurement variable is the same, we are talking about 14 bit files, they all have the same potential, what we actually end up arguing about is the floor level at which the signal is no longer useful, people say Exmor has masses of useful data very low down, which I dispute, they also say Canon files floor, the point at which noise overwhelms the signal, is much higher than an Exmor, which I agree with.

Our dispute boils down to how useful and necessary that bottom bit of signal is, I contend that the low Canon signal is useless because of noise and that the Exmor signal is useless because it contains no tonality. They maintain the Canon signal is useless much higher than I do and the Exmor floor is much lower than the Canon. These are all personal decisions, they are not scientific measurements. What I can sell is different to what you can sell.

If jristas image had shown he could take a single shot of an interior and hold exterior detail I would have ordered an A7s this morning, but it turned out that in my opinion, my personal one, that both files are unusable, the Canon because of the noise and the Sony because of the complete lack of tonality and blooming.

Let's just be civil, okay?

You expect much.

These DR arguments end up with both sides pissing in the wind.

With that attitude, these discussions will never be civil. I tried to start a thread dedicated to DR discussion, didn't push any kind of agenda, and the thread was still derailed...primarily by the anti-DR crowd. So long as no one tries to react differently to the DR discussion (which is not going to go away...it's the only real issue Canon cameras have, so OF COURSE people are going to bring the subject up), then nothing will ever BE different.

How can it be derailed by people posting examples of the latitude the Canon sensor is capable of ? Actually something has come out of these discussions; there has been less talk of greater DR and more talk of being able to pushing 0 data. That in itself is a step towards understanding what Exmor really offers over the current Canon sensors. You want to push 0 data then I think we are all in agreement that Canon is not your camera of choice.

Exactly. Every time a head to head comparison shot is made, the images are so hopelessly underexposed that it is bound to show Canon in poor light. Real world imaging narrows the differences considerably.

You are missing the point. People are talking about real world images that are not under exposed. If you have highlights that are bright and need to be saved then the rest of the image may get pushed very dark, but that is not underexposure. That is proper exposure.

Yes that is what they always talk about, but never post. They always say "but what if the scene had more DR then it would have been DR limited", then we get a post like jristas where the DR of the scene actually vastly outstrips even the Exmor.

It turns out it is incredibly difficult to find these actual "real world examples" where the difference in sensor performance makes any real difference to the end image. That is why the "issue" perpetuates. Start posting dozens of real world images where there is a genuine real difference to the actual output image and there will be no dispute, but the pro DR base can't do that.