The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]

[dslrdummy]

A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras,

I trust you know Andy was paid to switch. Some thing all major camera brands do as part of their advertising strategy. I doubt he has bought any Canon gear at all (just assuming here as I do not know the specifics on how these deals work);
"I was recently appointed a ‘Canon Explorer’ ... I’m an ambassador for the brand..."

Check out his website - he bought his two 1Dx's.

 

[StudentOfLight]

...
The D800/E are the best still cameras as far as dynamic range goes. That makes the difference 2.27 stops at best, or 2 1/4 stops.
...

The D600/610 are a little better than the D800/E in terms of screen DR.

 

[jrista]

...
The D800/E are the best still cameras as far as dynamic range goes. That makes the difference 2.27 stops at best, or 2 1/4 stops.
...

The D600/610 are a little better than the D800/E in terms of screen DR.

Indeed, you are right.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Man you just did it again, you can't fairly compare between cameras using Screen DR, you have to use Print DR. I'm start to doubt that you do get normalization after all, either that or are sneakily tricking people to make Canon look better in this scenario (also don't forget the banding differences where the 5D3 has tons more than D800 at low ISO).

I understand normalization perfectly. Normalization only works for certain things, though. It doesn't tell me everything, and quite specifically a normalized image that has 14.4 stops DOES NOT tell me the actual real-world editing latitude (i.e. the shadow lifting capability) of the D800. It EXAGGERATES it, unrealistically, by another two thirds of a stop at least. I am not trying to trick anyone. I believe DXO is tricking people when it comes to how they "sell" DR. They aren't technically incorrect, however they ARE practically incorrect.

Apparently you have fallen back into the trap where you no longer do understand normalization perfectly.

DxO is mostly used to compare sensor to sensor and in that case it is practically correct to use normalization and NOT practically correct to look at the Screen ratings that you keep pushing.

Screen DR/SNR is NOT useful whatsoever when comparing camera to camera and trying to determine which one has better SNR or DR comparatively. If you use Screen results then you are equating different frequencies of noise to be the same which is a totally false thing to do.

Screen results do tell you what you can get out of it if you chose to try to figure out what you can get out if it using the full resolution and detail of the camera.

Your still comparing equipment in an isolated, agnostic context.

How can you compare in isolation? The very fact you are comparing means you are no longer looking at things in isolation. The Screen results that you are so fond of are what you use when you are looking at things in isolation.

I'm comparing real-world image workability. There is a difference.

You are comparing energy scales at different levels as if they were the same and penalizing cameras more and more, the more MP they have, relative to cameras that have lower MPs. If you just want to know what you can get out of a camera using it's full resolution, then yeah, use Screen, but it's not fair to COMPARE ACROSS CAMERAS ONE TO ANOTHER using Screen results.

PrintDR is only useful within the context of DXO's web site. It has ZERO meaning outside of it.

Totally false. It gives a reasonably fair comparison between what you'd comparatively get out of cameras having different MP counts. I mean try this on for size. Say camera A is 100MP and camera B has 12MP and let us say that camera A compared pixel to pixel has worse SNR and DR than camera B but camera A binned to 12MP has much better SNR and DR than camera B. It would be ridiculous to knock camera A as having worse SNR and DR than camera A and yet that is just what you'd trick people into thinking by all your talk about how useless PrintDR is and how ScreenDR is where it's at.

It has ZERO meaning when it comes to actually editing your images. No one downsamples an image, THEN processes it. Everyone processes their images a RAW, in which case, you NEVER downsample, because you CANNOT downsample and still BE editing RAW.

Yeah it doens't tell you how it acts at full resolution, but it does tell you how things relatively compare on a fair basis and we are talking about COMPARING various sensors here.

The use of ScreenDR does not change the fact that the D800 has an advantage. Not at all. Screen DR still shows a significant advantage for the D800. This doesn't make the 5D III better, it just doesn't make the D800 even more better than it actually is. The difference is that Screen DR tells you the REAL WORLD editing latitude advantage. A real, tangible thing that, as a photographer, once you are no longer comparing cameras within the limited context of DXO, and actually USING it, you can actually REALIZE.

Once again you fail to understand how normalization works. Screen does tell you the real world editing latitude.... AT THE MAX RES OF EACH CAMERA, but that is not fair, since you penalize a camera then just for the ability to offer more max res/detail even though if you decide to not take advantage of the extra detail it might actually have better SNR/DR than the camera that is stuck and locked into offering less res/max detail.

All I care about is being realistic about the ACTUAL capabilities of these cameras.

Yes, ScreenDR tells you realistically what you can get out of the camera using it to it's full max res, but again when people talk about comparing how one camera can do compared to another it can potentially give a misleading take on real world differences.

But ScreenDR can tell you what to expect if you try to use the max res of the other camera and how workable the file would seem if you were to use the full res of both, so it can be useful, to get ideas of stuff like that in comparison, but it's not a fair way to comparatively say one camera does better than another.

I really don't care about endless, infinite camera comparisons in the unique, isolated, normalized world of DXO. Because when people bring it up here on these forums, they are actually taking photos with the D800, A7r, and 5D III, and sharing their edited results. Not one of the people sharing images will EVER realize the kind of additional editing latitude that Print DR is FALSELY leading them to believe they potentially could. That's what I care about. I'm not here to misslead anyone.

And yet you are misleading everyone.

And I see you just brought up sharing images, so let us say someone posts all their images at 1600x1000 regardless of what camera they shoot. So riddle me this.... are you claiming that shots the guy takes with a 100MP camera will look noisier than ones he takes with an 8MP camera when he posts at 1600x1200 to web just because the ScreenSNR rating says the 100MP camera has worse SNR???

I also guarantee you...when someone spits out test results showing that the next Canon camera, with some 57 megapixels, get 15.3 stops of DR with a 14-bit ADC, I'll be THE FIRST one to tell them they are completely, categorically WRONG. (I actually really hope it happens, because I'd just love to prove to everyone that I could care less about brand here. )

And, if you were talking about comparing them to 8MP normalized standard, you'd once again be wrong and this time you'd be being unfair to the Canon camera. In fact, we already have such a scenario, your comparison method makes the 5D3 look much poorer compared to the Nikon D700 than is fair.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I dunno...I'm just getting tired of having to debate all the time. Would be great to just...chat (fearlessly).

I value the thought and clarity you put into your posts, and the valuable information they provide.

But having watched many threads get sidetracked, and devolve into the same pointless arguments, I can't help think that part of the problem is you keep responding to the same trollish behaviour and flamebait posts.

We all know who the trolls are - if everyone just starts ignoring them, they might eventually get the hint and just go away.

Phil.

I've ignored a LOT of these threads that devolve into the DR debate. If it isn't me, it's definitely someone else, or usually a bunch of someone elses. Just search through these forums for all of the topics that somehow, eventually, devolve into the DR debate. I maybe participate in about a third of them. There are plenty more that I simply just don't get involved in at all, or leave when the debate starts. Sometimes I'm in a mood to debate and debunk the same old tired myths, but a lot more of the time, I'd rather work on my own photography.

To lay the blame for the entire problem at my feet is rather uncouth, and certainly ignorant of how deep the problem goes and how many people are involved (certainly more than just "the trolls"...there are certainly plenty of them, but there are plenty of others besides myself who hate to let the trolls have the last word.)

I apologise if you thought I was laying the blame on you - this was not my intent in any way.
The blame lies solely with the individuals who continue to post in a manner designed to antagonise and disrupt the forum threads.

I was only trying to suggest that responding at all, instead of just ignoring them, only plays into their hand and perpetuates the problem.

Phil.

I just have to ask though, what do you consider trolling? Simply telling the truth, even if at times it means not saying that Canon is the best (as many fanboys seem to think), or purposefully trying to agitate people for laughs?

 

[Loswr]

@ LTRLI – next time you're in Boulogne-Billancourt, stop by DxO HQ and ask to see their prints from the D800 with 14.4 stops of DR.

:

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

@ LTRLI – next time you're in Boulogne-Billancourt, stop by DxO HQ and ask to see their prints from the D800 with 14.4 stops of DR.

:

Neuro, I know you know better. So stop trolling.

 

[Loswr]

@ LTRLI – next time you're in Boulogne-Billancourt, stop by DxO HQ and ask to see their prints from the D800 with 14.4 stops of DR.

:

Neuro, I know you know better. So stop trolling.

DxO should know better. It's not 'trolling' to point out that the 'Print DR' value is misleading and ludicrous, as is a 'Sports Score' based on the sensor alone, as is insisting that the 70-200/2.8L IS is better than the MkII version that succeeded it, etc.

 

[jrista]

Man you just did it again, you can't fairly compare between cameras using Screen DR, you have to use Print DR. I'm start to doubt that you do get normalization after all, either that or are sneakily tricking people to make Canon look better in this scenario (also don't forget the banding differences where the 5D3 has tons more than D800 at low ISO).

I understand normalization perfectly. Normalization only works for certain things, though. It doesn't tell me everything, and quite specifically a normalized image that has 14.4 stops DOES NOT tell me the actual real-world editing latitude (i.e. the shadow lifting capability) of the D800. It EXAGGERATES it, unrealistically, by another two thirds of a stop at least. I am not trying to trick anyone. I believe DXO is tricking people when it comes to how they "sell" DR. They aren't technically incorrect, however they ARE practically incorrect.

Apparently you have fallen back into the trap where you no longer do understand normalization perfectly.

DxO is mostly used to compare sensor to sensor and in that case it is practically correct to use normalization and NOT practically correct to look at the Screen ratings that you keep pushing.

Screen DR/SNR is NOT useful whatsoever when comparing camera to camera and trying to determine which one has better SNR or DR comparatively. If you use Screen results then you are equating different frequencies of noise to be the same which is a totally false thing to do.

I understand normalization perfectly. I do not think it is valid in all contexts. Noise frequencies are one thing...but that does nothing to tell you about editing latitide in a RAW editor like Lightroom. YOU CAN NOT EDIT DOWNSAMPLED RAW. That's a misnomer. Downsampled RAW images do not exist.

Your talking noise frequencies. I'm talking editing latitude.

The problem here is not that I do not understand normalization. It's that you refuse to look at the problem of comparing cameras from a different angle than the one DXO has imposed upon you. ;P

Screen results do tell you what you can get out of it if you chose to try to figure out what you can get out if it using the full resolution and detail of the camera.

Your still comparing equipment in an isolated, agnostic context.

How can you compare in isolation? The very fact you are comparing means you are no longer looking at things in isolation. The Screen results that you are so fond of are what you use when you are looking at things in isolation.

Your misunderstanding. DXO's results are only meaningful when you are on DXO's site (i.e. isolated) comparing cameras that DXO has tested. Many of DXO's results and measurements have no relevance outside of their site, in the real world...such as, oh, say, lifting shadows in Lightroom. Lifting the shadows of a RAW image, an UNSCALED RAW image, in Lightroom?

What if I want to know how to cameras compare IN THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT? Well, Print DR is invalid, it doesn't have the capacity to answer my question in that context. Screen DR, on the other hand, DOES. It tells me the dynamic range of the full sized, unscaled RAW images. I WANT to COMPARE that between cameras. That is NOT an invalid goal. On the contrary, THAT IS WHAT EVERYONE CARES ABOUT WHEN THEY THINK ABOUT DR!!

Do you get it now?

I'm comparing real-world image workability. There is a difference.

You are comparing energy scales at different levels as if they were the same and penalizing cameras more and more, the more MP they have, relative to cameras that have lower MPs. If you just want to know what you can get out of a camera using it's full resolution, then yeah, use Screen, but it's not fair to COMPARE ACROSS CAMERAS ONE TO ANOTHER using Screen results.

When it comes to shadow lifting, the number of megapixels doesn't matter. The dynamic range of each and every pixel is what matters. I don't really care about the photon shot noise levels, which permeate the entire signal. I care about the READ NOISE levels, which only exist in the deep shadows. In that context, it is entirely fair to compare across cameras, because what I want to compare is only valid at full resolution. The frequencies of all noise are immaterial, the RMS level of the READ NOISE is what matters.

PrintDR is only useful within the context of DXO's web site. It has ZERO meaning outside of it.

Totally false. It gives a reasonably fair comparison between what you'd comparatively get out of cameras having different MP counts. I mean try this on for size. Say camera A is 100MP and camera B has 12MP and let us say that camera A compared pixel to pixel has worse SNR and DR than camera B but camera A binned to 12MP has much better SNR and DR than camera B. It would be ridiculous to knock camera A as having worse SNR and DR than camera A and yet that is just what you'd trick people into thinking by all your talk about how useless PrintDR is and how ScreenDR is where it's at.

You can only compare cameras using information produced the same way. Print DR, on DXOs site, is only valid when comparing cameras within the context of DXO. It is entirely invalid to use the Print DR value from DXO, and compare it to any dynamic range value derived anywhere else, say DPR. Print DR only gives you a numeric value with which to compare cameras in one specific context...DXO. It does not give you any real-world information beyond that context.

I am not trying to trick anyone. I believe DXO IS tricking people with their Print DR numbers...they are regurgitated all over the net, OUT OF CONTEX, ALL THE TIME...and that is exceptionally missleading. A D800, for example, ONLY gets 14.4 stops of DR when you assume the DXO formula is used to calculate DR, and you assume that the target image size is an 8x12" 300dpi "print". That's why I refer to Screen DR. When people talk about dynamic range, they are pretty much always (99% of the time) talking about the ability to lift shadows. Shadow lifting isn't really dynamic range...but it's what people interpret dynamic range numbers to mean. The only thing that give you an honest interpretation of the shadow lifting ability of a camera is a DR measurement from the actual RAW image.

It has ZERO meaning when it comes to actually editing your images. No one downsamples an image, THEN processes it. Everyone processes their images a RAW, in which case, you NEVER downsample, because you CANNOT downsample and still BE editing RAW.

Yeah it doens't tell you how it acts at full resolution, but it does tell you how things relatively compare on a fair basis and we are talking about COMPARING various sensors here.

True, for most things. Not true for shadow lifting.

The use of ScreenDR does not change the fact that the D800 has an advantage. Not at all. Screen DR still shows a significant advantage for the D800. This doesn't make the 5D III better, it just doesn't make the D800 even more better than it actually is. The difference is that Screen DR tells you the REAL WORLD editing latitude advantage. A real, tangible thing that, as a photographer, once you are no longer comparing cameras within the limited context of DXO, and actually USING it, you can actually REALIZE.

Once again you fail to understand how normalization works. Screen does tell you the real world editing latitude.... AT THE MAX RES OF EACH CAMERA, but that is not fair, since you penalize a camera then just for the ability to offer more max res/detail even though if you decide to not take advantage of the extra detail it might actually have better SNR/DR than the camera that is stuck and locked into offering less res/max detail.

It is fair! I can't lift shadows with a RAW image that's been downsampled...because I can't downsample a RAW image. I have to convert it to RGB pixels, then downsample it, then save it as, say, a TIFF. The TIFF doesn't have even remotely close to the same editing latitude.

I could care less about the rules DXO enforces on "comparing" cameras. I know what normalization is, and they provide useful details in some contexts. But that is not the context I am usually referring to. There is more to comparing a camera than ONLY comparing JUST the sensor, and JUST a normalized output at that. There are far more things and ways to compare than just the normalized image context. I'm not saying comparing in a normalized context is invalid...it's just incomplete.

All I care about is being realistic about the ACTUAL capabilities of these cameras.

Yes, ScreenDR tells you realistically what you can get out of the camera using it to it's full max res, but again when people talk about comparing how one camera can do compared to another it can potentially give a misleading take on real world differences.

It depends on the context. DXO's "Landscape" or "Print DR" numbers are used as the biblical dynamic range that you can ACTUALLY WORK WITH in real life...everywhere. There are some huge threads on DPR where people have debated the 14.4 stops DR thing with gobs of actual examples of shadow lifting in Lightroom. I've seen D800 images pushed 6 to 8 stops. By six stops, a lot of red, blue, and green color noise shows up in the shadows, indicating that you have lifted beyond the capabilities of the camera. That is exactly what I would expect based on the Screen DR measure. The Print DR measure, however, tells people that they can lift at least six stops, and more. THAT is what's missleading. THAT is what I have a problem with. DXO's Print DR numbers are only valid WHEN COMPARING WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF DXO's OTHER TESTED CAMERAS, ONLY USING DXO DATA.

Outside of that context, a dynamic range value of 14.4 stops of DR for the D800 is invalid. When people get into lengthy, extended debates about the shadow lifting range of the D800, they should be using 13.2 stops of DR as the reference...which would mean they could lift a bit over 5 stops without seeing noise in the shadows. That is exactly what a lot of the examples on DPR indicate...but the debate still rages on, why? Because DXO says 14.4 stops.

Anyway, were talking at perpendicular angles here. I understand normalization. Normalization has it's place. Normalization has it's use. When it comes to discussions of dynamic range an the shadow lifting ability of cameras, Print DR is invalid. Screen DR is valid. If you want to COMPARE the shadow lifting ability of cameras, then Screen DR is the value you have to use.

I'm done debating with you on this particular subject at this point. Were just talking in circles around each other. I concede the point about normalization for comparing "fairly" as you say. I've never denied it. But that is different than what I'm talking about, and it ignores the constant debate about WHAT DYNAMIC RANGE ALLOWS in cameras that have more of it (or, to be more precise, allows in cameras that have LESS READ NOISE...because that is primarily what were talking about here...the difference between the D800 and 5D III isn't sensor (pre-read) dynamic range...it's read noise levels (post-read).)

Well, I think most people know what I'm talking about. I believe most people don't think I'm intentionally trying to misslead them or make any particular camera "look bad"...I've praised the D800 for years around here, I have never said it is worse than it really is. I think people know that, and that's all I really care about.

Later.

 

[AvTvM]

DxO should know better. It's not 'trolling' to point out that the 'Print DR' value is misleading and ludicrous, as is a 'Sports Score' based on the sensor alone, as is insisting that the 70-200/2.8L IS is better than the MkII version that succeeded it, etc.

Full ACK.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

@ LTRLI – next time you're in Boulogne-Billancourt, stop by DxO HQ and ask to see their prints from the D800 with 14.4 stops of DR.

:

Neuro, I know you know better. So stop trolling.

DxO should know better. It's not 'trolling' to point out that the 'Print DR' value is misleading and ludicrous, as is a 'Sports Score' based on the sensor alone, as is insisting that the 70-200/2.8L IS is better than the MkII version that succeeded it, etc.

Come on man, I know you understand the hows and whys of normalization even if Jrisita does not. Don't play the troll game where you push an agenda only to admit the truth when really pushed later on, it makes into a pure fanboy.

And yeah the overall scores are of dubious nature, but what do they have to do with the individual plots and normalization?

And yeah DxO has had some issued with their lens data, but that is something else entirely. I've bashed them for some of their lens stuff as much as anyone.

 

[DRR]

A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras,

I trust you know Andy was paid to switch. Some thing all major camera brands do as part of their advertising strategy. I doubt he has bought any Canon gear at all (just assuming here as I do not know the specifics on how these deals work);
"I was recently appointed a ‘Canon Explorer’ ... I’m an ambassador for the brand..."

I believe he became a "Canon Explorer" after he switched. Also, I don't believe Canon actually pays the Explorers of Light photographers...at least, not directly. They may get equipment, but a LOT of high end photographers get free equipment from all the major brands, often simultaneously.

If you read Andy's blog, he seems like a pretty sincere guy. I don't think he switched because he was paid off, and if he was, you need to present solid proof of that. (I'm not one for hearsay and rumormongering about how pros can't have honest opinions.)

I know nothing about this case specifically but a friend of mine has a similar relationship with Panavision. He's a commerical DP and uses Panavision exclusively, and he can use their stuff in his own promotional materials.

He gets full access to all Panavision equipment, current and discontinued, basically anything they have, cameras, lenses, etc, he can simply ask for and they'll ship it to wherever he needs, for as long as he wants, but he does not own it.

He does not get paid for this. But obviously it adds to his appeal as a DP for production companies if he can provide all his own equipment for a shoot because the production company does not have to foot that bill. That keeps him working. As part of the relationship he did need to maintain a level of self-promotion but as long as he was working that requirement was basically met. He got a bunch of free t-shirts and other swag but no monetary compensation on a regular basis. If they decided to, for example, feature him and his work in their own promotional materials, he would be compensated for that.

I don't know how Canon handles their Explorers of Light program but my guess is it's something similar. You lose credibility as a company if you pay your brand ambassadors.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I understand normalization perfectly.

It seem like you do.

I do not think it is valid in all contexts. Noise frequencies are one thing...but that does nothing to tell you about editing latitide in a RAW editor like Lightroom. YOU CAN NOT EDIT DOWNSAMPLED RAW. That's a misnomer. Downsampled RAW images do not exist.

What does this have to do with fairly judging whether one camera is better, worse, same in regards to DR,SNR??

Your talking noise frequencies. I'm talking editing latitude.

Yeah because you need to take into the account the former if you are trying to make statements like one camera has better SNR or DR than another and what editing latitude you have when trying to take max advantage of MP account is something else entirely.

The problem here is not that I do not understand normalization. It's that you refuse to look at the problem of comparing cameras from a different angle than the one DXO has imposed upon you. ;P

No, it's that you don't understand why normalization must be carried out to make statements about what camera does better than another for certain things.

Your misunderstanding. DXO's results are only meaningful when you are on DXO's site (i.e. isolated) comparing cameras that DXO has tested. Many of DXO's results and measurements have no relevance outside of their site, in the real world...such as, oh, say, lifting shadows in Lightroom. Lifting the shadows of a RAW image, an UNSCALED RAW image, in Lightroom?

Relatively they do!

What if I want to know how to cameras compare IN THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT? Well, Print DR is invalid, it doesn't have the capacity to answer my question in that context. Screen DR, on the other hand, DOES.

100% misleading, who cares if some 1000MP camera can't pull the shadows well when images are viewed, in all 1000MP glory, at 100% view, compared to some 10MP camera viewed at 100% if if you viewed the image from the 1000MP camera at the same scale as you view the 10MP image the 1000MP camera gave you better SNR and DR???

It tells me the dynamic range of the full sized, unscaled RAW images. I WANT to COMPARE that between cameras. That is NOT an invalid goal. On the contrary, THAT IS WHAT EVERYONE CARES ABOUT WHEN THEY THINK ABOUT DR!!

That isn't fair to lower MP cameras. As I say, you may be able to maintain the same detail as a lower MP camera and have better SNR and DR even though viewed at a scale where you take advantage of all the extra detail it might, at 100% view, measure worse.

Yeah maybe you want to know how you'd do, taking full advantage of the new camera's resolution compared to what you were getting when you took full advantage of your old, lower MP camera and get a sense of that fine, but at the end of the day it's all the same not fair to slag off on the higher MP camera and say it is worse or not as fully better as it is, normalized to the same scale as your old camera. You might end up thinking that the new model flat out would give worse SNR and DR and perform worse than the old one when it really might not at all or you might minimize the amount that it is better and so on.

Do you get it now?

Now and before.

When it comes to shadow lifting, the number of megapixels doesn't matter. The dynamic range of each and every pixel is what matters. I don't really care about the photon shot noise levels, which permeate the entire signal. I care about the READ NOISE levels, which only exist in the deep shadows. In that context, it is entirely fair to compare across cameras, because what I want to compare is only valid at full resolution. The frequencies of all noise are immaterial, the RMS level of the READ NOISE is what matters.

so read shadow noise is magically invariant on scale???

You can only compare cameras using information produced the same way. Print DR, on DXOs site, is only valid when comparing cameras within the context of DXO. It is entirely invalid to use the Print DR value from DXO, and compare it to any dynamic range value derived anywhere else, say DPR. Print DR only gives you a numeric value with which to compare cameras in one specific context...DXO. It does not give you any real-world information beyond that context.

oh brother, yeah the exact numbers taken alone aren't generally useful but comparing the numbers relatively they are, the relative differences are absolutely generally useful in outside contexts that is the entire point of normalization!

I am not trying to trick anyone. I believe DXO IS tricking people with their Print DR numbers...they are regurgitated all over the net, OUT OF CONTEX, ALL THE TIME...and that is exceptionally missleading.

Maybe you are not trying to trick people, but you are misleading them by mistake then.
And yeah notice how basically everyone else does use those numbers? But nope, Jrista is the only person the world who actually 'understands' and 'gets' normalization. I mean, OK, here and there a few people make the mistake and assume those numbers are what you'd get just dealing with a RAW file at 100% alone, and it's true for that, to get the true number, in isolation, Screen DR is the one to go, and a few people mix it up and use Print DR for that too, but not that many from what I see.

True, for most things. Not true for shadow lifting.

Yes, because shadows are magical unicorns.

It is fair! I can't lift shadows with a RAW image that's been downsampled...because I can't downsample a RAW image. I have to convert it to RGB pixels, then downsample it, then save it as, say, a TIFF. The TIFF doesn't have even remotely close to the same editing latitude.

Who is talking about having to edit the TIFF afterwards???

I could care less about the rules DXO enforces on "comparing" cameras. I know what normalization is, and they provide useful details in some contexts. But that is not the context I am usually referring to. There is more to comparing a camera than ONLY comparing JUST the sensor, and JUST a normalized output at that. There are far more things and ways to compare than just the normalized image context. I'm not saying comparing in a normalized context is invalid...it's just incomplete.

Of course there is more to comparing than just the sensor, but we happen to be talking about just the sensor here.

Outside of that context, a dynamic range value of 14.4 stops of DR for the D800 is invalid. When people get into lengthy, extended debates about the shadow lifting range of the D800, they should be using 13.2 stops of DR as the reference...which would mean they could lift a bit over 5 stops without seeing noise in the shadows. That is exactly what a lot of the examples on DPR indicate...but the debate still rages on, why? Because DXO says 14.4 stops.

If they are viewing full detail at 100% then yes they should only expect to pull 13.2 stops. But if they want to know how many stops better it might do than say a 5D2 it would be the 3 stops relative difference not just the 2 (or whatever the exact numbers are, you get the idea).

Anyway, were talking at perpendicular angles here. I understand normalization. Normalization has it's place. Normalization has it's use. When it comes to discussions of dynamic range an the shadow lifting ability of cameras, Print DR is invalid. Screen DR is valid. If you want to COMPARE the shadow lifting ability of cameras, then Screen DR is the value you have to use.

No it's when you are relatively comparing that you must use the PrintDR. It's the ScreenDR that you use when you just want to know how much you can pull and lift when viewing the RAWs at 100% view.

I concede the point about normalization for comparing "fairly" as you say. I've never denied it.

You jsut spent the last 10 paragraphs denying it.

But that is different than what I'm talking about, and it ignores the constant debate about WHAT DYNAMIC RANGE ALLOWS in cameras that have more of it (or, to be more precise, allows in cameras that have LESS READ NOISE...because that is primarily what were talking about here...the difference between the D800 and 5D III isn't sensor (pre-read) dynamic range...it's read noise levels (post-read).)

Yeah keep trying to conflate what you can get out of a RAW image when working on it at 100% view and what to expect in that context with comparing how sensors do relative to one another. For the former, yeah it is the ScreenDR, for the latter though it is PrintDR.

 

[Skulker]

A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras,

I trust you know Andy was paid to switch. Some thing all major camera brands do as part of their advertising strategy. I doubt he has bought any Canon gear at all (just assuming here as I do not know the specifics on how these deals work);
"I was recently appointed a ‘Canon Explorer’ ... I’m an ambassador for the brand..."

i trust you can back up that claim. He specifically denied that and said he paid for his gear. But maybe you know better.

 

[Maui5150]

T6i!!!!

T6i!!!!


T6i!!!!


T6i!!!!


T6i!!!!


T6i!!!!


T6i!!!!

 

[Bennymiata]

It's available here

http://www.digidirect.com.au/camera_lenses/canon/wide_angle_zoom/canon_ef_16-35mm_f4l_is_usm

I was in one of their stores on Monday and saw it on display.
Shame, I bought a 16-35 F2.8 in January.
Mind you, I haven't needed IS with this lens.

 

[jrista]

I understand normalization perfectly.

It seem like you do.

yadda yadda blah blah

You keep missing the point. Your locked into your limited notion of what is "comparable" and what is not. I'm choosing to compare something you have decided is not comparable. Sorry, I disagree. I've always disagreed, I always will disagree. I suspect your in the same position, so this the last I'll say on it in this particular thread.

In the context I'm always referring to, the same context I've been referring to for years, I'm not interested in how the images look in the end. I'm interested in what I can do with the RAW files. I'm interested in the editing potential...the latitude with which I can push and pull exposure and white balance and color around. RAW files are not scaled. You always work with them at their native size. Scaling does not play a factor when it comes to editing RAW files. I don't care what the final outcome looks like. That is ARBITRARY. I can output the same images DOZENS of times at different sizes, for different prints, all with different amounts of dynamic range, all with different SNRs. But when I'm sitting in front of Lightroom, that's all the last thing on my mind. We ALL sit in front of lightroom, pushing exposure around...all the time, day in and day out, year in and year out.

Just because DXO says I get 14.4 stops of DR at an 8x12" 300dpi size specifically doesn't mean that's what your going to be sizing to in the end. You may downsample it more, you may downsample it less, you may ENLARGE! DXO's Print DR is an arbitrarily chosen standard FOR THE PURPOSES OF comparing ONLY within the limited context of DXO's web site. It doesn't tell you anything about actual, real-world results as if your sitting in front of your computer, using Lightroom to actually WORK with the RAW files those cameras output. It just tells you what you could get IF you downsampled to EXACTLY that size. That's all. And that's fine and dandy...when I'm browsing around DXO's site selecting cameras to compare with their little camera comparer, it gives me a contextually valid result.

It's impossible to edit RAW at an other size than 100%. So 100% size is all that matters when you want to know what you can do, as far as lifting shadows for the purposes of compressing 10, 12, 13.2 or 15.3 stops of dynamic range into the 8 stops of your screen, or the 5-7 stops of print. The output dynamic range is arbitrary...it depends on countless factors that ultimately affect it (which, yes, total megapixel count is one of them, but noise reduction routines, HDR merge/enfuse, etc. are others). You may end up with 14 stops of DR, you may end up with 16 stops of DR in a file you were able to perform some epic noise reduction on. The output isn't what matters when your actually sitting in front of Lightroom actually editing the RAW itself. The RAW file itself, at 100% size, is what matters.

 

[Loswr]

Come on man, I know you understand the hows and whys of normalization...

Sure. There are times when transformation and normalization of data are necessary...but it should be done rationally. I once reviewed a manuscript where the normalization of chemical constituents resulted in a negative solute concentration – you can't have less than zero of something dissolved in a solvent! When normalized values exceed the range of what is physically possible, the normalization method needs to be revised. Quite simply, DxO is BAD 'image science'.

 

[AvTvM]

DXO should
1. capture image of identical test target using 3 copies of purchased test cameras and the same optical bench
2. physically print the images using the same physical printer every time and exactly the same print settings
3. scan those Print-outs using the same scanner and scan settings every time
4. then present to us 100% views of the same, pre-defined image areas of those scans ... 1x Center, 4x halfway out along image diagonals and 4x corners

THEN i might start taking their test method seriously.

 

[Loswr]

DXO should
1. capture image of identical test target using 3 copies of purchased test cameras and the same optical bench

I came across this image of an unnamed DxO 'scientist' preparing their optical bench for a camera test.