Who said Canon cameras suck?!?

[jrista]

Perhaps we are on different pages. Once an image is digitized, its digitized. It has a fixed bit depth. In the case of modern DSLR's, the 14-bit output of a RAW is fixed,

The part that you seem to not quite get here is that if you have a noise level of "8" and your scale goes from 1-16384, you don't really have 16384 distinct levels in your output signal. Nor do you have 16384 - 8 levels. You have 16384 / 8 levels (2048).

however since it is in the "lower order bits", or in the darkest tonal levels of an image, the gain is minima
. Were not talking about a huge difference overall, we are talking about a very small difference overall.

I don't think you understood my previous post. Losing the lower order bits is equivalent to throwing away the bottom two bits. If you throw away the bottom two bits, you don't subtract the lowest 4 points from your range of values, you essentially divide everything by 4.

But anyway, this focus on number of levels is a big red herring, because as we all understand well, dynamic range in the highlights is interchangeable with dynamic range in the shadows. A stop of dynamic range is a stop of dynamic range (and a stop of dynamic range in the shadows can be a stop in the highlights if you want it to be)

I still have a problem with your terminology and context. You keep using the word signal. I agree that what you've said above is true when we are working with an analog signal. I am not sure its true if we are working with a digital image. I believe those two things are distinct contexts, but you seem to keep conflating the two, and as long as that is the case, I don't see the point in continuing the discussion.

I don't understand why you keep going on about analog and saying he is conflating two different contexts.

This discussion started pages ago regarding whether downscaling an image in post could result in a gain of more than double the number of tones (levels of luminance) than you originally started with. The context of that discussion was explicitly related to a digital image on a computer, not an analog signal on a sensor in a camera. The nature of an analog signal is quite different than the discrete, integer nature of a digital image post-ADC.

Most of Elflord's recent posts discuss DR in the context of camera hardware...sensor signals and metering and how you can change exposure to shift the tone of an analog signal around within the dynamic range of the sensor. I don't disagree with that at all...its an analog signal, with near infinite precision and the ability to be fluidly redistributed. I disagree that a digital image of discretely recorded luminance levels for each channel of an RGB image can be treated the same way, and I wanted to get back to the discussion about scaling a digital image. But whatever. This thread is so far off track now it doesn't matter.

 

[elflord]

I still have a problem with your terminology and context. You keep using the word signal. I agree that what you've said above is true when we are working with an analog signal. I am not sure its true if we are working with a digital image. I believe those two things are distinct contexts, but you seem to keep conflating the two, and as long as that is the case, I don't see the point in continuing the discussion.

I don't use the word "analog" or discuss analog anything anywhere. Since I'm discussing a value represented by a 14 bit integer, it should be clear that I am NOT referring to analog anything. In particular, when I discuss your table, I am referring to a digital signal.

I agree that there's not much point continuing the discussion not because I'm conflating anything, but because you don't appear to understand what I've posted.

 

[RLPhoto]

If you want better DR, Spend some Dosh on a filter set. :

 

[nightbreath]

If you want better DR, Spend some Dosh on a filter set. :

Absolutely

 

[Kernuak]

I still have a problem with your terminology and context. You keep using the word signal. I agree that what you've said above is true when we are working with an analog signal. I am not sure its true if we are working with a digital image. I believe those two things are distinct contexts, but you seem to keep conflating the two, and as long as that is the case, I don't see the point in continuing the discussion.

I don't use the word "analog" or discuss analog anything anywhere. Since I'm discussing a value represented by a 14 bit integer, it should be clear that I am NOT referring to analog anything. In particular, when I discuss your table, I am referring to a digital signal.

I agree that there's not much point continuing the discussion not because I'm conflating anything, but because you don't appear to understand what I've posted.

Several people seem to be in some sorts of post Canon deppresion and they slowly begin to understand that Canon is no longer the best in the world and some will surely enter the acceptance stage by knowledge but many will live in a denial stage and hope for a miracle.

While others of us simply have other priorities than dynamic range .

 

[Razor2012]

I still have a problem with your terminology and context. You keep using the word signal. I agree that what you've said above is true when we are working with an analog signal. I am not sure its true if we are working with a digital image. I believe those two things are distinct contexts, but you seem to keep conflating the two, and as long as that is the case, I don't see the point in continuing the discussion.

I don't use the word "analog" or discuss analog anything anywhere. Since I'm discussing a value represented by a 14 bit integer, it should be clear that I am NOT referring to analog anything. In particular, when I discuss your table, I am referring to a digital signal.

I agree that there's not much point continuing the discussion not because I'm conflating anything, but because you don't appear to understand what I've posted.

Several people seem to be in some sorts of post Canon deppresion and they slowly begin to understand that Canon is no longer the best in the world and some will surely enter the acceptance stage by knowledge but many will live in a denial stage and hope for a miracle.

While others of us simply have other priorities than dynamic range .

+1

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

all this tech talk has gotten us away from the point, that being canon sucks (sarcasm)!!!. Come on now, we all knowthere was no such thing as a good picture before the d800 came out, I mean forget the wonderful images taken by photogs and letys just study charts and graphs...or...wait...no...I'm gonna go shoot a wedding with my mk3 and maybe my 7d might get some action too!

 

[nightbreath]

... forget the wonderful images taken by photogs and letys just study charts and graphs...or...wait...no...I'm gonna go shoot a wedding with my mk3 and maybe my 7d might get some action too!

You'd better say "sorry, may I take a low dynamic range shot of you?" before shooting anyone with those cameras ;D

 

[RLPhoto]

all this tech talk has gotten us away from the point, that being canon sucks (sarcasm)!!!. Come on now, we all knowthere was no such thing as a good picture before the d800 came out, I mean forget the wonderful images taken by photogs and letys just study charts and graphs...or...wait...no...I'm gonna go shoot a wedding with my mk3 and maybe my 7d might get some action too!

I Know Let's post our horrible photos out of our horrible canon Cameras! ;D

Feel free to join in if you like. 8)

 

[jrista]

all this tech talk has gotten us away from the point, that being canon sucks (sarcasm)!!!. Come on now, we all knowthere was no such thing as a good picture before the d800 came out, I mean forget the wonderful images taken by photogs and letys just study charts and graphs...or...wait...no...I'm gonna go shoot a wedding with my mk3 and maybe my 7d might get some action too!

I Know Let's post our horrible photos out of our horrible canon Cameras! ;D

Ah! Great shots, RL. I particularly love that last one...AWESOME WORK!

EDIT: Derp. The one with the sombrero is gone. :'(

 

[RLPhoto]

all this tech talk has gotten us away from the point, that being canon sucks (sarcasm)!!!. Come on now, we all knowthere was no such thing as a good picture before the d800 came out, I mean forget the wonderful images taken by photogs and letys just study charts and graphs...or...wait...no...I'm gonna go shoot a wedding with my mk3 and maybe my 7d might get some action too!

I Know Let's post our horrible photos out of our horrible canon Cameras! ;D

Ah! Great shots, RL. I particularly love that last one...AWESOME WORK!

EDIT: Derp. The one with the sombrero is gone. :'(

Thank you. Some people get carried away with Tech specs and honestly I could do all these photos with a Canon G2 if i wanted too. ;D

The 3rd one is back, I uploaded the wrong version.

 

[bdunbar79]

That 3rd photo's me.


WHAT?? ARE YOU TALKIN' TO ME?? YOU BETTER NOT, BE TALKIN'......TO ME!

8)

 

[Kernuak]

And some to show off the low DR.


Upper Cascade by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Red Admiral Head-on by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Large Goldfish Projection by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Watchet Summer Sunset by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

 

[jrista]

And some to show off the low DR.


Upper Cascade by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Red Admiral Head-on by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Large Goldfish Projection by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Watchet Summer Sunset by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

That last one is great. Lot of DR in that scene. Can't say I see any banding though!

 

[nightbreath]

Low DR shots from me

 

[Kernuak]

Thanks jrista. It's an example of why the reported increased DR of the D800 isn't of interest to me. I'm of the opinion that you need a full tonal range, including shadows that only hint at detail. Also, the scene is probably close to 17-18 EV overall, so beyond what any camera can achieve. I basically compressed the dynamic range by using 6 stops of graduated filters. I haven't increased the shadows beyond shadow recovery in LR4 (probably around 0.5 EV, but could be as much as a full stop). For me it's all about using the available tools to get the desired look. If I can't achieve what I want, then I look for something that I can achieve.

 

[elflord]

all this tech talk has gotten us away from the point, that being canon sucks (sarcasm)!!!. Come on now, we all knowthere was no such thing as a good picture before the d800 came out, I mean forget the wonderful images taken by photogs and letys just study charts and graphs...or...wait...no...I'm gonna go shoot a wedding with my mk3 and maybe my 7d might get some action too!

I totally agree that the whole thing is a bit academic. I have a 5DII that I'm quite happy with and aren't planning to upgrade any time soon.

Before then, I was quite happy with Rebel XS I was using, though the 5DII is in a different class when the ISO goes up. For the pictures I take (mostly family shots), dynamic range at low ISO isn't my main concern.

However, I do take exception to the knee-jerk criticism of DxO by "camera fans". The simple fact of the matter is that DxO have to implement raw conversion algorithms and therefore actually know what they are talking about and understand details and subtleties that escape most of the critics. The critics for the most part, while often very competent at using cameras and software tools, often get some very fundamental technical issues completely wrong that they really need to get right before second guessing DxO's methods.

 

[nightbreath]

And some to show off the low DR...

That last one is great. Lot of DR in that scene. Can't say I see any banding though!

And the picture looks much more natural than the shadows push show-cased by all Sony sensors fans

 

[Kernuak]

Cant it be because you can not do that with a Canon? There are to much noise and pattern noise.

Nope, it's because I have no desire to. Besides, the dynamic range that was present in the scene would have been beyond the capabilities of any camera without grad filters or HDR (which usually looks unnatural). As for being able to do it with an iPhone, it pretty much proves my point that you need shadows to create a more dramatic photograph. However, the shadows in the foreground are too blocked up and the dynamic range in the scene is nowhere near as great. In fact, the sky is unnaturally dark too. But you're missing the point anyway. The point is, that it doesn't matter what camera you have, you can still get memorable photos, including with an iPhone, you simply work with what you have available to get the best image possible. It's more about skill, than what the camera can or can't do, it doesn't matter whether it's a Nikon or Canon, medium format or camera phone.

 

[Kernuak]

iPhone 4s

This one is much better compositionally and is much more memorable.