Dammit! I wish I had your lucky lotto numbers!Canon website lists -6 for the R5 and -6.5 for the R6 (with -5 for video).
Upvote
0
Dammit! I wish I had your lucky lotto numbers!Canon website lists -6 for the R5 and -6.5 for the R6 (with -5 for video).
Please refresh my teflon brain: what is PDR in this context?Of course we could get into the weeds with regards PDR
Photographic dynamic range, it is differentiated from engineering dynamic range in that it establishes a noise floor limit, SNR or signal to noise ratio, that is corrected for the sensor size. This means it gives a closer to ‘real world’ value.Please refresh my teflon brain: what is PDR in this context?
My big problem with this as a measure is that modern cameras denoise in camera.Photographic dynamic range, it is differentiated from engineering dynamic range in that it establishes a noise floor limit, SNR or signal to noise ratio, that is corrected for the sensor size. This means it gives a closer to ‘real world’ value.
Oh there is no doubt that personal testing or use is the only way to work out if a specific camera will work for you personally or not. I also agree it is frustrating that almost everybody now cooks their RAW files, something I think Canon was pushed into because others did it and those comparisons hurt and people don’t understand they are not true comparisons.My big problem with this as a measure is that modern cameras denoise in camera.
In the real world we also denoise in post.
Also not all noise looks the same.
Filmic noise might be perfectly acceptable.
Maybe I am just old fashion but it seems a lot easier to just try cameras out and pick the ones that suit me.
That does appear to be the case, although most photography websites are still perpetuating the notion that low resolution sensors (of same generation) have less noise and greater DR...Those advantages were more apparent five years ago or so. In real world use today the 45 mp sensor performs very well at high ISOs. At the same time the 1Dx III sensor’s 20mp sustains cropping much better than previous generations. We are fast approaching the point where the old assumptions are relevant only for theoretical debates on geek forums.
There is no point complaining about a corporation wanting to stay in business, certainly, but I don't understand why the price rises are to be expected (or at least price rises which do more than keep pace with inflation and currency fluctuations). Assuming Canon's R&D budget hasn't suddenly increased dramatically, and that cost of production of a mirrorless camera is similar to that of a DSLR, what's changed? There is a potentially shrinking market, but is there any evidence that the market for higher end cameras is shrinking? Was R&D cost previously shared over a wider range of gear (ie compact cameras, in particular) than now? I don't know to what extent R&D cost was shared, or is shared now (and not just with cameras specifially, but potentially with other things Canon makes in its various divisions), but it does seem possible this is an issue. On the other hand, the more Canon pushes up price, the more the market will likely shrink as people decide it's not worth the price to play. Pushing cameras into the realm of real luxury items which only a relatively small number of people are willing to pay for (which seems to me to be where Canon is heading) doesn't seem obviously a great strategy to me, but I can only assume Canon thinks (based on all of the market data it has, no doubt) that the increased profit per item will more than make up for the lower sales volume.If budget is an issue, maybe going for an Apple or BMW isn't the best idea in the first place.
I understand that the rise in prices is upsetting, but it is to be expected. The market is shrinking, so seeing such a great pace of progress both with the performance of the latest bodies and the glass that goes along with it is something that should be appreciated in itself. But as that R&D has to be payed for by fewer customers and the current world economy causes a bunch of issues from production, over logistics to inflation, a new price structure is inevitable. There's no point in complaining about a corporation wanting to stay in business.
I was looking for information regarding raw files being cooked, curious because of what Canon is doing with the R5, and somehow came across the DPR forums where Bill Claff is quite active. The discussion was around Canon's use of noise reduction in the raw R5 files at low ISO. Somebody asked Bill if he was aware of other camera manufacturers doing the same thing as Canon is with the R5 (and 1DXIII), adding noise reduction to the raw files. Bill's answer was that from the data he analyses he wasn't aware of any other camera manufacturer doing his. Now this really surprised me because I was / am pretty certain when looking at other raw files, that they are !Oh there is no doubt that personal testing or use is the only way to work out if a specific camera will work for you personally or not. I also agree it is frustrating that almost everybody now cooks their RAW files, something I think Canon was pushed into because others did it and those comparisons hurt and people don’t understand they are not true comparisons.
But I still find the measures useful for an initial assessment and have found the Bill Claff site .......
I think Canon are the manufacturer that cooks (uses built in noise reduction) in its RAW files at low iso numbers. Almost all manufacturers cook their high iso RAW files as can be seen by Bill's own graphs. Triangle down or diamond shape indicate noise reduction pre applied. But as you say, I wouldn't rule out limitations in his calculation strategy.I was looking for information regarding raw files being cooked, curious because of what Canon is doing with the R5, and somehow came across the DPR forums where Bill Claff is quite active. The discussion was around Canon's use of noise reduction in the raw R5 files at low ISO. Somebody asked Bill if he was aware of other camera manufacturers doing the same thing as Canon is with the R5 (and 1DXIII), adding noise reduction to the raw files. Bill's answer was that from the data he analyses he wasn't aware of any other camera manufacturer doing his. Now this really surprised me because I was / am pretty certain when looking at other raw files, that they are !
He was also asked how much noise reduction was being applied on the R5 and his reply was that is was reasonably significant but possibly only in the deep lowlights.
So I find this a bit of a mystery. Is Bill Claff right, and the others have unadulterated raws ? I can't believe it. Or is it limitations in his methodology that is not showing it ? I don't know.
Incidentally when I downloaded some R5 raws from somewhere, can't remember where, and really pulled up the deep shadows to an unrealistic and academic level, they didn't look too pretty to be honest. Certainly saw nothing that made me want to give up the 5DS.
First, I think it is a mistake to assume that the last year or two are typical, which they are not.There is no point complaining about a corporation wanting to stay in business, certainly, but I don't understand why the price rises are to be expected (or at least price rises which do more than keep pace with inflation and currency fluctuations). Assuming Canon's R&D budget hasn't suddenly increased dramatically, and that cost of production of a mirrorless camera is similar to that of a DSLR, what's changed? There is a potentially shrinking market, but is there any evidence that the market for higher end cameras is shrinking? Was R&D cost previously shared over a wider range of gear (ie compact cameras, in particular) than now? I don't know to what extent R&D cost was shared, or is shared now (and not just with cameras specifially, but potentially with other things Canon makes in its various divisions), but it does seem possible this is an issue. On the other hand, the more Canon pushes up price, the more the market will likely shrink as people decide it's not worth the price to play. Pushing cameras into the realm of real luxury items which only a relatively small number of people are willing to pay for (which seems to me to be where Canon is heading) doesn't seem obviously a great strategy to me, but I can only assume Canon thinks (based on all of the market data it has, no doubt) that the increased profit per item will more than make up for the lower sales volume.
Anyway, the thing which really gets me is that Sony's camera bodies aren't more expensive than Canon's now, and once you are in the Sony system there are a lot of great value lenses (albeit many are third party) which make the overall cost of ownership pretty similar to what it's been for DSLRs. So, it is possible to have current tech at a much more moderate cost than you can get it with Canon.
When I download sample raw files from say the Nikon Z7II for instance, in the low ISO samples there is definitely a very tiny, subtle smearing and smoothing of the data and suspicious lack of shot noise compared with the equivalent Canon, which is recording a tiny (and insignificant) amount of extra detail. This makes me think that with my raw converter programs at least, there is some kind of noise reduction somewhere, somehow, maybe not intended. For instance look how noiseless and smooth at the expense of detail the Fuji X trans raw files are when opened in ACR.I think Canon are the manufacturer that cooks (uses built in noise reduction) in its RAW files at low iso numbers. Almost all manufacturers cook their high iso RAW files as can be seen by Bill's own graphs.
I do not believe that for a second.Interestingly the only 'new' camera I could see that doesn't use noise reduction on the RAW files anywhere in the iso range is the Sony α1.
Personally I don't have a problem with baled in NR, I do have a problem with baked in lens corrections. To me the first is something that is going to be done anyway, the later is a way of working around poor lens design.
I thought the lens correction was just metadata in the RAW files.My true concern is if Canon applies the same baked-in lens correction to L-series glass,
Not for the 24-240mm, which is what PrivateByDesign was talking about. That lens doesn't cover the sensor at 24mm, so even the raw files have correction applied to appear to cover the sensor.I thought the lens correction was just metadata in the RAW files.
It obviously needs to be baked in JPEGs.
From what I've seen it isn't lens corrected in the RAW files, open one up with a tool like RawDigger and you should see un-lens-corrected data.Not for the 24-240mm, which is what PrivateByDesign was talking about. That lens doesn't cover the sensor at 24mm, so even the raw files have correction applied to appear to cover the sensor.
Edit: Looking at it again, I may me slightly mistaken. The 24-240 does cover the sensor at 24mm, but is actually closer to a 18-20mm fisheye look at 24mm, which is corrected even in the raw files to appear as 24mm.
From what I've seen it isn't lens corrected in the RAW files, open one up with a tool like RawDigger and you should see un-lens-corrected data.