Some EOS 5D Mark IV Information [CR1]

[douglaurent]

Probably anyone who is a 5D3 user should rent a Pentax 645z or D810 for a week and compare its dynamic range and noise levels.

Yawn.

So you have obviously done it. Let's see your comparisons at base ISO and how far you have had to push to produce a meaningful difference.

An example has been on page 3 of this thread, i attach it again. Exposure in the jpg was too nearly black. The sony sensor in the Pentax does recover everything with little noise, the 5DsR is just distorted. The D810 is not as good as the Pentax, but clearly better than the 5DsR or 5D3. With Canon we are stuck with the best lens lineup and the best body handling and AF, but a lot of the other features are not up to date for the price.

 

[privatebydesign]

...
You want under exposure to the point where everything is black, that's your prerogative. Just don't expect Canon to build a camera especially for you.
...

You don't get it.

The noise is always there. Always. It just depends on whether or not the exposure makes it perceivable.

Oh Lordi lordi Lord... :

Come on Sporgon,

Take the imperceptible noise seriously, all serious photographers take the imperceptible aspects of IQ seriously :

 

[scyrene]

Once again, we should bear in mind it is not fair to compare noise levels from different sensor sizes, as overall size makes such a huge difference. But in any case we're all talking at cross purposes anyway. We all know and concede the noise and DR differences exist (at base ISO yadda yadda) but some people remain to be convinced how crucial that is.

Incidentally I'd love a 645z. But a) it's too expensive for me and b) there are no super telephoto lenses that would give me the reach I need on medium format. Everything is a compromise.

PS the idea that (non-Canon) cameras are getting closer to doing everything perfectly is untrue. Because as they introduce features like 4K, so the top end specialist video cameras offer better bitrates and even higher resolutions. The goalposts keep moving.

 

[Sporgon]

...
You want under exposure to the point where everything is black, that's your prerogative. Just don't expect Canon to build a camera especially for you.
...

You don't get it.

The noise is always there. Always. It just depends on whether or not the exposure makes it perceivable.

Oh Lordi lordi Lord... :

Come on Sporgon,

Take the imperceptible noise seriously, all serious photographers take the imperceptible aspects of IQ seriously :

Just nobody tell dilbert the world's spinning else he'll feel dizzy and disorientated.

Or maybe that's where the problem comes from.

 

[LonelyBoy]

...
You want under exposure to the point where everything is black, that's your prerogative. Just don't expect Canon to build a camera especially for you.
...

You don't get it.

The noise is always there. Always. It just depends on whether or not the exposure makes it perceivable.

Can you honestly tell me you can see noise in this 100% crop of a sky shot at 100 ISO on the 5DII ?

It doesn't matter - "the noise is there". You're supposed to trust that the noise is there, hidden by the signal, and the fact that it exists means the image is ruined.

 

[douglaurent]

If you would do hundreds of tests under any circumstance and with any exposure, you will see that a 5D3 or 5DsR has far less dynamic range than a Pentax 645z, but also less than a D810 on both ends, shadows and brightness. And when blacks are pushed, the noise of Canon is just higher and not too far away to the levels of a GH4 micro four thirds camera. In a price range i would say its okay to pay 8000 for a Pentax and 3000 for a Nikon, but the Canon quality concerning dynamic range and noise is worth only 1500. For all like me who want to work with a Canon camera for many good reasons, that's just a sad fact. So on one side Canon has limited raw image qualities that require long exposure times and stacking to be on the same level as shooters of other brands in certain circumstances, on the other hand unfortunately Canon is also behind in features like 4K video, focus peaking, swivel screen and so on. I know for a manufacturer it is difficult, because if you give away all innovations over night - what innovative arguments will you have in future models and coming years? But the world and its pressure on innovations, prices etc is like it is, because its a globalized market. And the same way that pro photographers, journalists or musicians are under pressure with decreasing budgets and increasing service demands, Canon needs to compete as well and come up with more than they would like to in their ideal world.

 

[privatebydesign]

If you would do hundreds of tests under any circumstance and with any exposure, you will see that a 5D3 or 5DsR has far less dynamic range than a Pentax 645z, but also less than a D810 on both ends, shadows and brightness. And when blacks are pushed, the noise of Canon is just higher and not too far away to the levels of a GH4 micro four thirds camera. In a price range i would say its okay to pay 8000 for a Pentax and 3000 for a Nikon, but the Canon quality concerning dynamic range and noise is worth only 1500. For all like me who want to work with a Canon camera for many good reasons, that's just a sad fact. So on one side Canon has limited raw image qualities that require long exposure times and stacking to be on the same level as shooters of other brands in certain circumstances, on the other hand unfortunately Canon is also behind in features like 4K video, focus peaking, swivel screen and so on. I know for a manufacturer it is difficult, because if you give away all innovations over night - what innovative arguments will you have in future models and coming years? But the world and its pressure on innovations, prices etc is like it is, because its a globalized market. And the same way that pro photographers, journalists or musicians are under pressure with decreasing budgets and increasing service demands, Canon needs to compete as well and come up with more than they would like to in their ideal world.

That has never been in question.

That is simply not true. The highlights are technically the same, actually they are often less forgiving with Nikon files when relying on metered exposure. The midtone exposure is also the same with all 14 bit files, it is just the ability to lift shadows that is different, some find that more useful than others.

 

[bvukich]

Are you guys still fighting about DR? This is why I don't bother coming here anymore. Always the same old arguments, rehashed ad nauseam.

I don't know or care, how or why you choose a camera. It doesn't validate my choices to know you concur, just like it doesn't invalidate my choices to know you don't.

Grow up. Go buy a camera, any one, IT LITERALLY DOESN'T F-ING MATTER; and take some pictures.

 

[Sporgon]

Are you guys still fighting about DR? This is why I don't bother coming here anymore. Always the same old arguments, rehashed ad nauseam.

I don't know or care, how or why you choose a camera. It doesn't validate my choices to know you concur, just like it doesn't invalidate my choices to know you don't.

Grow up. Go buy a camera, any one, IT LITERALLY DOESN'T F-ING MATTER; and take some pictures.

What a pathetic post.

CR has thousands of visitors. One would assume that most are Canon users and many will have little experience with other systems. The continual stream of people who use CR as a platform to try and make Canon users feel that their equipment is in some way inferior to the rest requires refuting.

Anyway, with a response from like that from someone who I believe is a CR moderator it's time for CR and myself to part company.

 

[jeffa4444]

In a democracy debate whether in agreement or not is healthy lets just rejoice the fact we can beg to differ and our views are not sensored.
Politeness however costs nothing and the danger with the internet is hiding behind a screen and getting personal we all need to take onboard the fact that we dont always agree but hope to agree on some things and that whether its Canon or any other manufacturer constructive debate good or bad is the way products have improved and moved forwards for the benefit of everyone.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Are you guys still fighting about DR? This is why I don't bother coming here anymore. Always the same old arguments, rehashed ad nauseam.

I don't know or care, how or why you choose a camera. It doesn't validate my choices to know you concur, just like it doesn't invalidate my choices to know you don't.

Grow up. Go buy a camera, any one, IT LITERALLY DOESN'T F-ING MATTER; and take some pictures.

Gentlemen, please.

 

[douglaurent]

If you would do hundreds of tests under any circumstance and with any exposure, you will see that a 5D3 or 5DsR has far less dynamic range than a Pentax 645z, but also less than a D810 on both ends, shadows and brightness. And when blacks are pushed, the noise of Canon is just higher and not too far away to the levels of a GH4 micro four thirds camera. In a price range i would say its okay to pay 8000 for a Pentax and 3000 for a Nikon, but the Canon quality concerning dynamic range and noise is worth only 1500. For all like me who want to work with a Canon camera for many good reasons, that's just a sad fact. So on one side Canon has limited raw image qualities that require long exposure times and stacking to be on the same level as shooters of other brands in certain circumstances, on the other hand unfortunately Canon is also behind in features like 4K video, focus peaking, swivel screen and so on. I know for a manufacturer it is difficult, because if you give away all innovations over night - what innovative arguments will you have in future models and coming years? But the world and its pressure on innovations, prices etc is like it is, because its a globalized market. And the same way that pro photographers, journalists or musicians are under pressure with decreasing budgets and increasing service demands, Canon needs to compete as well and come up with more than they would like to in their ideal world.

That has never been in question.

That is simply not true. The highlights are technically the same, actually they are often less forgiving with Nikon files when relying on metered exposure. The midtone exposure is also the same with all 14 bit files, it is just the ability to lift shadows that is different, some find that more useful than others.

Yes, the highlights are not such a mess like the shadows, but the whole comparison starts with the shocking fact that Nikon cameras are app. one stop brighter than Canon cameras. Do mount any exact same lens that has a nikon mount (like an Otus) on a camera of both systems, and you will see under the same f-stop and iso settings, the Nikon images are much brighter. So technically you would have to set ISO of Canon cameras higher to get a real equal result, which then means the highlights could clip sooner. There are a lot of phenomenons you can see when you compare that nobody is talking about, like Zeiss lenses who do seem to have less transmission than other brands lenses. An Otus 55 seems to be as bright at f1.4 as a Sigma 501/1.4 at f2. Now stopped down to f2, the Sigma has nearly equalized most of the technical advantages the Otus had when you only compare both lenses wide open. It absolutely makes sense to compare products of all brands, and not just buy one expensive product and then hope and insist it is the best for as long as you personally own it.

 

[douglaurent]

Grow up. Go buy a camera, any one, IT LITERALLY DOESN'T F-ING MATTER; and take some pictures.[/b][/size][/color]
[/quote]

This website is called "Canon Rumors", not "Platform for Canon owners who are 100% happy the way things are and only want to shoot on the same level forever with the equipment they have". Canon Rumors is - as far as I could experience it so far - about future developments and new insights on existing products. This is why Canon users spend time on this forum, so they can improve their setups or techniques or learn more in general. I don't see that any Nikon fanboys or haters are wasting time on this platform. As a Canon owner of 100+ products and someone who prefers to work with Canon bodies and the Canon look, it is my personal sole interest to motivate Canon to implement features and qualities that other manufacturers or they themselve already have, for existing high or even premium prices. Right now before the release of a 5D4, 1DX2, C300II it is a historical turning point to remind Canon of the urgency to wake up. All the Canon consumers who are perfectly happy with their 5D3 also might not be the first buyers of a 5D4. It's the people who want and need more. And those consumers do see what features and qualities are possible now. This is why this is also no thread about dynamic range or noise in particular. It's a all about what happens in a 5D4, as this determines the positioning of all other future Canon photo products and their features, maybe even until the end of this decade.

 

[bdunbar79]

It's not features, plural. It's feature, singular. It's constantly the low ISO DR complaint. That is the absolute singular point that never ends. Those precious 2 stops that go away quickly that quite frankly matter little to others other than gear heads. Never mind the AF, lenses, high ISO performance, EF mount, speedlites, CPS service, none of that. It's always about that darn low ISO DR. Not to mention the comparison photos that most people got wrong. Remember the cave photo about a year ago or so? I remember people bitching about lack of resolution when the D800 was released. Oh good times.

 

[Dylan777]

Grow up. Go buy a camera, any one, IT LITERALLY DOESN'T F-ING MATTER; and take some pictures.[/b][/size][/color]

This website is called "Canon Rumors", not "Platform for Canon owners who are 100% happy the way things are and only want to shoot on the same level forever with the equipment they have". Canon Rumors is - as far as I could experience it so far - about future developments and new insights on existing products. This is why Canon users spend time on this forum, so they can improve their setups or techniques or learn more in general. I don't see that any Nikon fanboys or haters are wasting time on this platform. As a Canon owner of 100+ products and someone who prefers to work with Canon bodies and the Canon look, it is my personal sole interest to motivate Canon to implement features and qualities that other manufacturers or they themselve already have, for existing high or even premium prices. Right now before the release of a 5D4, 1DX2, C300II it is a historical turning point to remind Canon of the urgency to wake up. All the Canon consumers who are perfectly happy with their 5D3 also might not be the first buyers of a 5D4. It's the people who want and need more. And those consumers do see what features and qualities are possible now. This is why this is also no thread about dynamic range or noise in particular. It's a all about what happens in a 5D4, as this determines the positioning of all other future Canon photo products and their features, maybe even until the end of this decade.
[/quote]

Canon already handcuffed many Canon shooters with L lenses. Do you really think CR member voices would make any difference in their up coming releases?

 

[raptor3x]

Yes, the highlights are not such a mess like the shadows, but the whole comparison starts with the shocking fact that Nikon cameras are app. one stop brighter than Canon cameras. Do mount any exact same lens that has a nikon mount (like an Otus) on a camera of both systems, and you will see under the same f-stop and iso settings, the Nikon images are much brighter. So technically you would have to set ISO of Canon cameras higher to get a real equal result, which then means the highlights could clip sooner.

Are you accustomed to just going around lying without getting called on it? This is complete nonsense and completely eliminates any credibility you might have.

There are a lot of phenomenons you can see when you compare that nobody is talking about, like Zeiss lenses who do seem to have less transmission than other brands lenses. An Otus 55 seems to be as bright at f1.4 as a Sigma 501/1.4 at f2. Now stopped down to f2, the Sigma has nearly equalized most of the technical advantages the Otus had when you only compare both lenses wide open. It absolutely makes sense to compare products of all brands, and not just buy one expensive product and then hope and insist it is the best for as long as you personally own it.

That's because, based on this post, it seems that literally none of what you say is true. The Otus has a t-stop of t/1.5 while the Sigma 50 1.4 Art has a t-stop of f/1.7.

 

[scottkinfw]

And yet you need to write here to get validated?

Are you guys still fighting about DR? This is why I don't bother coming here anymore. Always the same old arguments, rehashed ad nauseam.

I don't know or care, how or why you choose a camera. It doesn't validate my choices to know you concur, just like it doesn't invalidate my choices to know you don't.

Grow up. Go buy a camera, any one, IT LITERALLY DOESN'T F-ING MATTER; and take some pictures.

What a pathetic post.

CR has thousands of visitors. One would assume that most are Canon users and many will have little experience with other systems. The continual stream of people who use CR as a platform to try and make Canon users feel that their equipment is in some way inferior to the rest requires refuting.

Anyway, with a response from like that from someone who I believe is a CR moderator it's time for CR and myself to part company.

 

[douglaurent]

Yes, the highlights are not such a mess like the shadows, but the whole comparison starts with the shocking fact that Nikon cameras are app. one stop brighter than Canon cameras. Do mount any exact same lens that has a nikon mount (like an Otus) on a camera of both systems, and you will see under the same f-stop and iso settings, the Nikon images are much brighter. So technically you would have to set ISO of Canon cameras higher to get a real equal result, which then means the highlights could clip sooner.

Are you accustomed to just going around lying without getting called on it? This is complete nonsense and completely eliminates any credibility you might have.

There are a lot of phenomenons you can see when you compare that nobody is talking about, like Zeiss lenses who do seem to have less transmission than other brands lenses. An Otus 55 seems to be as bright at f1.4 as a Sigma 501/1.4 at f2. Now stopped down to f2, the Sigma has nearly equalized most of the technical advantages the Otus had when you only compare both lenses wide open. It absolutely makes sense to compare products of all brands, and not just buy one expensive product and then hope and insist it is the best for as long as you personally own it.

That's because, based on this post, it seems that literally none of what you say is true. The Otus has a t-stop of t/1.5 while the Sigma 50 1.4 Art has a t-stop of f/1.7.

Maybe you should test all this on your own, before you call other people a liar. I own 30 cameras of all brands and 180 of the best lenses of all brands available and do test them many times against each other since years. My eyes are lasered and i have 13x 4K screens of all sizes and of all top reference brands to watch the results. All my Zeiss lenses including the CP.2 cinema primes have a darker transmission than you would expect. Any Canon body did deliver darker results with the same parameters than a Nikon body. No clue why nobody writes about it - maybe because nobody did test it, and the ones who test it brighten up images so you could compare them better, as lens tests are usually not about comparing the overall brightness of camera systems. Just rent a 5D3, D810, Otus 55 and Sigma 50/1.4 and see yourself. Maybe i just had bought defect copies of all and am wrong indeed? That would be good news for me. I am the last person on this planet that is happy that my 12.000 euro 1DC, 4.000 euro 5DsR and my 4.000 euro Otus have minor weaknesses in performance they should not have.

 

[unfocused]

Are you guys still fighting about DR? This is why I don't bother coming here anymore. Always the same old arguments, rehashed ad nauseam.

I don't know or care, how or why you choose a camera. It doesn't validate my choices to know you concur, just like it doesn't invalidate my choices to know you don't.

Grow up. Go buy a camera, any one, IT LITERALLY DOESN'T F-ING MATTER; and take some pictures.

What a pathetic post.

CR has thousands of visitors. One would assume that most are Canon users and many will have little experience with other systems. The continual stream of people who use CR as a platform to try and make Canon users feel that their equipment is in some way inferior to the rest requires refuting.

Anyway, with a response from like that from someone who I believe is a CR moderator it's time for CR and myself to part company.

And once again, Canon rumors drives away a knowledgeable. rational professional.

 

[Loswr]

An example has been on page 3 of this thread, i attach it again. Exposure in the jpg was too nearly black. The sony sensor in the Pentax does recover everything with little noise...

Thanks for this great example:

I've seen examples where the D810/a7R can take a severely underexposed scene and produce a flat, front-lit, low contrast, boring image. But the Pentax 645Z can do that at night!

: