Some EOS 5D Mark IV Information [CR1]

[sanj]

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.

I am generally a peaceful, respectful guy but need to write this although I wish I was not:

F-ING pathetic post indeed! A CR moderator F-ING does not visit his own site!! That is so F-ING indeed. And does not visit because members are discussing technology? F-KUP!!!
So Moderator sir please give guidelines on what we can F-ING discuss here? How is DR discussion different than any other? Some F-ING thing is important to someone then some other F-ING thing to another. Pls give a proper list so we do not deviate.

And I do know that all cameras are not same, am F-ING surprised that Moderator on this forum don't know that. F-ING.

I had not made any posts on this thread earlier but was reading it and learning. Pathetic attitude sir! You do realize that CR stays afloat because of people posting...

Sporgon buddy please don't go.

 

[douglaurent]

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!

:

You don't seem to understand it. This scene is nearly pure black in the jpg, while being ISO100. It shows that in the shadows dynamic range is cut, and whatever you push in the Canon from what's left is pretty noisy and destroyed, while you can bring the Pentax to a usable level. The effect of such limitations on Canon DSLRs is the same when editing any raw file of any exposure that includes shadows that need to be boosted. It is 3 classes behind the Pentax and 1 class behind Nikon. In dark environments the image quality of a 5DsR is closer to the limited level of a GH4, than to a D810. I say that while i own and keep the 5DsR. Aside from the 1DC, everything Canon has released since 2008 (including the video mode) feels as if there has not been too much development. It's also a bit too much of Sony to come up with a new model of each series each and every year, but at least you constantly can see improvement. With Canon it feels as if this only happens every 4 years. This is why the next 5D4 needs to be a huge step, so it is not even further behind its competitors until the year 2020, when they release the 5D5.

 

[Maximilian]

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.

I am generally a peaceful, respectful guy but need to write this although I wish I was not:

F-ING pathetic post indeed! A CR moderator F-ING does not visit his own site!! That is so F-ING indeed. And does not visit because members are discussing technology? F-KUP!!!
So Moderator sir please give guidelines on what we can F-ING discuss here? How is DR discussion different than any other? Some F-ING thing is important to someone then some other F-ING thing to another. Pls give a proper list so we do not deviate.

And I do know that all cameras are not same, am F-ING surprised that Moderator on this forum don't know that. F-ING.

I had not made any posts on this thread earlier but was reading it and learning. Pathetic attitude sir! You do realize that CR stays afloat because of people posting...

Sporgon buddy please don't go.

+1 to sanj, thank you for putting it clear
and
+1 to "Sporgon buddy please don't go."

and bvukich,
then I'll have to ask you what has happened here. Did you have a bad day?
Of course that never ending DR discussion is tiring. But it is an issue nobody can deny.
Of course it is not that important as some think and of course it takes too much space here.

But please:
All mods of CR should be aware that such a performance is not good for anybody.
And it is discrediting your position in any way you could think about.

Moderator => moderare = to temper, to regulate, to put sb. in their place
but in a calm, polite, serious and respectful way

Thank you very much.

 

[romanr74]

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.

Holy, now I'm really really shocked...

 

[Loswr]

You don't seem to understand it. This scene is nearly pure black in the jpg, while being ISO100.

Oh, I understand quite well, thanks. Some sensors are certainly better than others when you egregiously f-up your exposure. :

 

[jeffa4444]

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.

Having witnessed how Zeiss test their lenses including on F Stop / T Stop machine I would say in that typical Germanic way they strive to be accurate, very accurate.

 

[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.

High ISO performance is more or less the same on most cameras. Nobody here uses speedlites because they all photograph at high ISO without a flash, so why would anyone talk about them?

Further, it isn't that there is a difference but rather that the difference has remained over time and that Canon hasn't improved their sensor in that area.

Who cares? Hasn't hurt my photography. I routinely shoot sports during the middle of the day and I've never had a problem. Could I use more DR? Sure, but nobody cares or notices. And the minute I raise ISO to say, 400, most of the DR is gone anyways. You're so fixated on just a very, very small part of the sensor tech.

 

[douglaurent]

Having witnessed how Zeiss test their lenses including on F Stop / T Stop machine I would say in that typical Germanic way they strive to be accurate, very accurate.
[/quote]
Yes, Zeiss lenses are great performers and have little sample variation, but they also have their downsides that people who don't own them don't see, or people who own them ignore (Disclaimer: I own the whole top lineup myself). Most Zeiss lenses for example are not to useful for landscape photography, as their focus infinity already starts at around 50 meters (like their 15/.28), while with Canon lenses you can easily distinguish and adjust the exact focus point among 50, 250, 500 or 1000 meters. Autofocus users and users who stop down or don't have a large monitor don't realize this Zeiss limitation, but it's a fact and i have it even confirmed in written form by Zeiss.

In general, all these DXO Mark values might also be correct based on their test system, but real world shows different results like regarding transmission/brightness. Example: DXO Mark lists the Red Dragon sensor as best performer. I own 2 Red Epic Dragon and know that the 5D3 will definitely deliver better and less noisy results after raw processing, which is no wonder as a Canon raw file is much larger than a Red raw frame. The cool thing about the Red is to have 100 frames a second in 6K, but the Canon image potential is way ahead, which makes the DXO Mark numbers pretty useless again.

Canon also has many fields where they outperfom competitors. Stabilized Canon lenses for example are a pleasure on MFT cameras like the GH4 when it comes to stabilization, which is much better than the Lumix' own system. I think if Canon wants to, they could be ahead of any competitor, and the forthcoming Canon expo will show what they are capable of (but unfortunately spread over 5-10 years).

Knowing this, the lack of bringing the quality into the products is what can make you angry as a customer. In the 5DsR they have finally built in an internal timelapse timer feature. But is it useful like in the competitors menus, where you can set a start time and a 4-digit number of images, so you don't have to wake up at night twice to start and stop your timelapse? No, Canon has implemented a 2(!) digit number only of photos your timelapse can do automatically, without a dedicated start time - which means you still need external equipment to do it right.

Same with the world premiere of the video autofocus function in the 5DsR, which lets even all non-STM lenses focus in video - other manufacturers would have cherished it, but Canon wants to avoid that anybody who is doing video buys a 5DsR and instead buys a second and more expensive dedicated video product. All this makes you think that Canon is not really interested in you as a customer at all, at least not like the feeling you can have with Sony or Panasonic at the moment.

 

[K]

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!

:

This is the PERFECT example to illustrate the point. While the shadow recovery of the Sony sensors is amazing, past a certain point that ability is wasted and useless since the image looks like crap anyway.

This is the point I made in several rants about Exmor in the past. Sure, doing a 3, 4 or 5 stop push from ISO 100 is possible, but the end result is NOT a usable photo. At least not if you're into quality photography. It's mostly an exercise in technical capabilities, rather than producing good photos.

I certainly am not saying that Exmor isn't better than Canon in this regard. It certainly is. Canon will introduce all kinds of noise and garbage when trying those same extremes. Sony has more reach in this regard.

For practical shadow lifting, we're talking 1 or 2 stops at most. While the Sony is still better than Canon even at the minimal adjustments, Canon does fine lifting shadows within the practical range and still produces top quality. The difference is very, very minor to the point of it not being discussion worthy.

This is why the Sonikon fanatics only discuss huge exposure adjustments. They champion this single, impractical "feature" as their one-up to Canon.


What the Exmorites don't understand is, there's only so much you can bump the shadows before the image as a whole degrades in quality. You can't lift exposure more than a little before you've lost too much color and quality to be considered upper level IQ.

Exmored photos either look:

FLAT

or

FAKE

Flat if the whole exposure was lifted too much
Fake if the shadows were lifted too much.


While at times it is cool to see all detail in the photo in all the range, in most photos this isn't visually appealing. Exmoring a photo isn't the same quality result as doing a good job of HDR with lots of careful post-processing selections. And most photography doesn't need HDR or shadow lifting.

To create depth, structure, and good feel - you need to show that range. This is what gives an image that pop. Look at top portrait pros. They're not scared of having parts of their image in shadow. Having totally dark areas with no detail isn't always a bad thing.

As a photographer, you need to SCULPT the subject with light.

Exmoring it flattens it out. Photos that have been Exmored look like bad print outs from a poor inkjet.



Bottom line, the whole appeal of the Exmor exposure lift is that it functions as a crutch for thousands of "natural light" Nikon shooters who can't expose correctly because they listen to and are convinced by all the web-gurus that if they don't use manual exclusively, they are newbies. Most are "natural light" not because this is the style they pursue, but because they are amateurs and haven't learned the real art of lighting, nor busted out the cash for good lighting gear.

 

[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.

I am generally a peaceful, respectful guy but need to write this although I wish I was not:

F-ING pathetic post indeed! A CR moderator F-ING does not visit his own site!! That is so F-ING indeed. And does not visit because members are discussing technology? F-KUP!!!
So Moderator sir please give guidelines on what we can F-ING discuss here? How is DR discussion different than any other? Some F-ING thing is important to someone then some other F-ING thing to another. Pls give a proper list so we do not deviate.

And I do know that all cameras are not same, am F-ING surprised that Moderator on this forum don't know that. F-ING.

I had not made any posts on this thread earlier but was reading it and learning. Pathetic attitude sir! You do realize that CR stays afloat because of people posting...

Sporgon buddy please don't go.

+1 to sanj, thank you for putting it clear
and
+1 to "Sporgon buddy please don't go."

and bvukich,
then I'll have to ask you what has happened here. Did you have a bad day?
Of course that never ending DR discussion is tiring. But it is an issue nobody can deny.
Of course it is not that important as some think and of course it takes too much space here.

But please:
All mods of CR should be aware that such a performance is not good for anybody.
And it is discrediting your position in any way you could think about.

Moderator => moderare = to temper, to regulate, to put sb. in their place
but in a calm, polite, serious and respectful way

Thank you very much.

Many thanks Guys. Sanj; you tell him ! ;D

As I said on another thread, I wouldn't leave CR as the cool guys & girls here easily outnumber the bad.

Bvukich: you abused your position as an administrator. In fact with that post I don't think you are fit to be one.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

ok, so, getting pissed! Yup. Been mostly reading and not posting because I am busy but now, let the rant rant!

I keep seeing comments like, canon is just milking us for the $$$$ with incremental modest updates in gear. But somehow Sony/nikon is not? Comments like this

All this makes you think that Canon is not really interested in you as a customer at all, at least not like the feeling you can have with Sony or Panasonic at the moment.

Lets think about it ---

So 2012 to now - In the FF segment canon has released the 1dx, the 5d3, the 6d and the 5ds/5dsr. that's 5 bodies, and it took them about 3 years to add the 5ds/r's on.

Now lets look at sony, they started in 2013 and they've put out the A7, A7r, A7s, a72 (refresh of the original after only a year on the market), and now the A7r2 (refresh of the original after only 2 years on the market). Similar to canon, in that it's 5 bodies, but the refresh time is so short that i just don't understand how any of you can make the claim that canon is milking us, looks moe like sony is milking folks with rapid refreshes of their bodies.

Now lets look at nikon -- 2012 they put out the d4, d800, d800e and the d600. A year later they release the d610 (quick refresh). A year later comes the d810, d750, and the d4s. That's 8 camera bodies in the same time period canon releases 5. Most of the nikon releases were - rapid refreshes of already existing products.

So again I ask, how is canon milking us but nikon especially isn't? Seems to me more like nikon is using it's customer base to beta test their products at a premium price. Sony too, but a little less than nikon (just thinking product life cycles) - at least sony has a more reasonable # of bodies to market in this 4 year window.

But of course, canon is evil and milking us...i means, the 5d3 came out in 2012 and 3.5 years later they tempt you with the 5ds - with the 5d4 on the way but it will be a full 4 years since the 5d3 came on the scene.

If canon was nikon, we'd have a 5d3 in 2012, a 5d3.2 in 2013, a 5dx in 2014 --- and oh yeah, a 6.5d followed by a 75d too. Seriously, would you rather have that? do nikon users have that much disposable cash on hand to buy new bodies every 1.5 years????

rant done....but

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!

:

Why? Why would either of these 2 pictures be taken, and why would anyone consider that pentak image usable? Just because you can do a thing that doesn't mean you should do a thing.

 

[douglaurent]

I think this thread can probably end here. The very very small chance that this discussion helps to lead to some improvements in a 5D4 won't become bigger. And all those Canon users who defend their brand even to a point where they like a completely destroyed Canon image result better than a clean result of a competitor for sure won't write anything to learn from either. In fact I don't even understand why people read a thread about 5D4 specs, when they already have a 5D3 which is perfect for them and doesn't seem to need any improvements. You might have started to read the wrong thread, if you don't care whatever improvements a 5D4 or other future Canon cameras could or should have.

 

[Loswr]

I think this thread can probably end here. The very very small chance that this discussion helps to lead to some improvements in a 5D4 won't become bigger. And all those Canon users who defend their brand even to a point where they like a completely destroyed Canon image result better than a clean result of a competitor for sure won't write anything to learn from either. In fact I don't even understand why people read a thread about 5D4 specs, when they already have a 5D3 which is perfect for them and doesn't seem to need any improvements. You might have started to read the wrong thread, if you don't care whatever improvements a 5D4 or other future Canon cameras could or should have.

Perhaps you chose to read and respond to the wrong thread. This is a discussion about a future camera, the 5D Mark IV, and there are all sorts of ways in which it could be an improvement over the 5DIII. Areas like metering, frame rate and buffer, AF system, direct RF flash triggering, etc.

Those who perseverate on low ISO DR should perhaps try to understand that there is more to a camera than a bare silicon sensor used only at base ISO, and those who believe that a 5-stop exposure push is the sine qua non of photography should perhaps recognize that they are in the minority...a very minor minority.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I think this thread can probably end here. The very very small chance that this discussion helps to lead to some improvements in a 5D4 won't become bigger. And all those Canon users who defend their brand even to a point where they like a completely destroyed Canon image result better than a clean result of a competitor for sure won't write anything to learn from either. In fact I don't even understand why people read a thread about 5D4 specs, when they already have a 5D3 which is perfect for them and doesn't seem to need any improvements. You might have started to read the wrong thread, if you don't care whatever improvements a 5D4 or other future Canon cameras could or should have.

Wow, Hyperbole maybe?

For one - we're close enough to release date that a bunch of forum chatter won't be making much a difference.

For 2 - If your using that night shot as your benchmark - then I don't know how you don't see that both images are horrid and unusable. When I am shooting I don't look at a scene and say, OK, at ISO 100, and f8, I need to have my tripod and expose at 2 seconds that is correct exposure - sorry, I just don't go the other way - screw the tripod I'm just gonna shoot it 1/50th and destroy the image by wildly pushing the darks 5 stops. (correct my math error here!!!!)

Again, most of us are reasonable and would never say no to more DR, we're just not sold on the idea that DR is everything!!!!!

Point #3 - you do realize that your bashing a camera that doesn't even exist yet! the 5d4 only exists in the land of rumor. It could very well be an amazing camera but as of now no one really knows what form it will take. I'm not too concerned because ----- I am actually still pretty damn happy with the 5d3 and I have been enjoying my 5ds rental. Then again, I shoot weddings so a ton of DR at ISO 100-800 doesn't make or break any decision for me as the vast majority of my shooting is at ISO 1000-4000. Here's my breakdown lol...In lightroom currently meta filtering ----for me total images between iso 800-4000 is 13,852- and for ISO 100-800 we have 12,412. If I streamline this down to just weddings though the ratio changes up a bit. Either way, my work runs across the ISO spectrum so freaking out about DR at such a small segment of the full range of the camera. Your work is obviously different, and has different needs and for you - canon probably isn't meeting those needs ----

and you know what?

That's fine! Each system has it's strengths and has it's advantages, and if system A doesn't work for you, then by all means move to system B or C or D... nothing stopping you.

The thing us reasonable folks get pissed with is this idea that your shooting needs must be all of our shooting needs and if you don't agree then you all must be just total batsh!t crazy/brainwashed/fanbois/etc...

 

[LonelyBoy]

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!

:

I thought about raising this point yesterday before realizing the Exmor Crusaders would say that it wasn't about the images themselves; images don't matter, what matters is that the Exmor pulled the image to super-bright. Quality doesn't matter.

I like the 5DSr image far more.

 

[LonelyBoy]

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.

Are you doing this? Right now you're just complaining on CR. What would actually count would be selling your Canon gear, not buying more, and writing a letter to Canon USA (and ideally Canon Japan) explaining what you did, and why, and how much you spent elsewhere because of it. Bitching on CR is not reminding Canon of anything.

 

[raptor3x]

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.

You know, I was probably wrong to imply you're intentionally lying as I'm forgetting Hanlon's razor, my apologies. With that said, you're still flat out wrong about Canon and Nikon being different by a stop at the same ISO. The fact that you have access to so much equipment just goes to show that you don't seem to be capable of conducting an experiment. I don't have any Nikon bodies on hand, but as the A7R has the same sensor as the D800 it should suffice. Below we have a 1DX and A7R both using the 70-200ii @ 200mm with both shot at 1/200s | f/2.8 | ISO 100.

What a shock, identical brightness given identical exposure. Maybe it happens at high ISO?

Still no difference, if anything the histogram of the Canon shows a bit more exposure than the Sony. Obviously Sony must be putting a 1-stop neutral density filter in their own sensor stacks to be more fair to Canon. I mean, if you're seeing a one stop difference that nobody else is seeing, then obviously everybody else must be keeping hushhush and it couldn't be that you're the one screwing up your measurements, right?

 

[Sporgon]

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.

You know, I was probably wrong to imply you're intentionally lying as I'm forgetting Hanlon's razor, my apologies. With that said, you're still flat out wrong about Canon and Nikon being different by a stop at the same ISO. The fact that you have access to so much equipment just goes to show that you don't seem to be capable of conducting an experiment. I don't have any Nikon bodies on hand, but as the A7R has the same sensor as the D800 it should suffice. Below we have a 1DX and A7R both using the 70-200ii @ 200mm with both shot at 1/200s | f/2.8 | ISO 100.

What a shock, identical brightness given identical exposure. Maybe it happens at high ISO?

Still no difference, if anything the histogram of the Canon shows a bit more exposure than the Sony. Obviously Sony must be putting a 1-stop neutral density filter in their own sensor stacks to be more fair to Canon. I mean, if you're seeing a one stop difference that nobody else is seeing, then obviously everybody else must be keeping hushhush and it couldn't be that you're the one screwing up your measurements, right?

Nice example, and a point that I have tried to make in the past: with (even moderately) accurate exposure there is no difference in IQ.

Your comparison is also a very good example of the typical difference off camera; the Canon has more 'brio' in it, and makes a short cut to the correct tonal response that (most of us) want in our pictures. Chuck on the 5Ds thread showed his wedding reception shots and said one of them was straight off camera. To a working pro this makes such a difference when dealing with hundreds of images from an event.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

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.

You know, I was probably wrong to imply you're intentionally lying as I'm forgetting Hanlon's razor, my apologies. With that said, you're still flat out wrong about Canon and Nikon being different by a stop at the same ISO. The fact that you have access to so much equipment just goes to show that you don't seem to be capable of conducting an experiment. I don't have any Nikon bodies on hand, but as the A7R has the same sensor as the D800 it should suffice. Below we have a 1DX and A7R both using the 70-200ii @ 200mm with both shot at 1/200s | f/2.8 | ISO 100.

What a shock, identical brightness given identical exposure. Maybe it happens at high ISO?

Still no difference, if anything the histogram of the Canon shows a bit more exposure than the Sony. Obviously Sony must be putting a 1-stop neutral density filter in their own sensor stacks to be more fair to Canon. I mean, if you're seeing a one stop difference that nobody else is seeing, then obviously everybody else must be keeping hushhush and it couldn't be that you're the one screwing up your measurements, right?

Nice example, and a point that I have tried to make in the past: with (even moderately) accurate exposure there is no difference in IQ.

Your comparison is also a very good example of the typical difference off camera; the Canon has more 'brio' in it, and makes a short cut to the correct tonal response that (most of us) want in our pictures. Chuck on the 5Ds thread showed his wedding reception shots and said one of them was straight off camera. To a working pro this makes such a difference when dealing with hundreds of images from an event.

TY Sporgon, here is another straight out of camera then 2 crops crop ---- this is from the pregame section of the event, but was in a darker part oft he room for this... 35mm sigma art @ 2.8 (going lower would have been too thin on DOF) ISO 3200, 1/80th.

If the 5d4 has any of the goodies from the 5ds in terms of IQ then the 5d4 will be a very good camera.

I do like the 5ds though. Seriously considering adding it.

 

[douglaurent]

The thing us reasonable folks get pissed with is this idea that your shooting needs must be all of our shooting needs and if you don't agree then you all must be just total batsh!t crazy/brainwashed/fanbois/etc...
[/quote]

My shooting needs consist of ALL techniques under all circumstances, which makes it very broad and targets parts of anybody's shooting needs. Canon, Sony, Panasonic etc have a certain product feature release history in the last 3 years that implies it might go on like this with a 5D4 and other Canon products, which implies you need to spend much more money on Canon and will need to carry around more gear to be able to get the same results with Canon gear, compared to other manufacturers. Anybody who is blind for these facts is welcome to do so. It is not about dynamic range or a certain test picture, it's all about Canon's marketing strategies and future impacts for us Canon users in daily real world. When you carry around your new 5D4, maybe at some point until the year 2020 you will realize what i meant.