# 70D and Dxomark....



## pedro (Aug 28, 2013)

70D and Dxomark... As far as I have learned here on this forum, their assessment is not the last verdict...;-)

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52066617


----------



## pedroxha1 (Aug 28, 2013)

I can't say I worry TOO much about shadow detail and I hate the way Nikon cameras feel, so I'm not worried


----------



## qwerty (Aug 28, 2013)

pedro said:


> 70D and Dxomark... As far as I have learned here on this forum, their assessment is not the last verdict...;-)
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52066617



You are in violation of one of the 10 commandments of CR (and I probably am in violation of my own commandment for responding...)

Here is at least a link to their actual test results (instead of the not-very-meaningful numeric scores)
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/895|0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28appareil2%29/663|0/%28brand2%29/Canon

(Click on "measurements" then, e.g. "SNR 18%" or "tonal range" to see the results; you can of course add whatever other cameras you want to compare too.)


Looks like a small (not really noticeable) improvement over the 60d. Nothing groundbreaking as far as improvements in the image quality, but the 70d is all about the improved AF, which is outside the realm of what DxO tests. I don't see the big deal, or anything to make a fuss about.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 28, 2013)

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this and maybe I'm missing something here, but when I compare the D7100 to the 70D and 7D on the graphs there doesn't seem to be all that much difference. 

I admit I'm not a dynamic range freak, and I'm more interested in ISO performance, but it doesn't seem like there is any real world difference between the Nikon and Canon sensors. 

My conclusion: The 70D sensor offers an almost imperceptible improvement over the 7D and the D7100 might be an equally imperceptible improvement over both the Canon's but not enough to make buying a camera based on the sensor alone worthwhile. 

For all the talk about how antiquated Canon's sensor tech is, I'm not seeing it in these results. Even their summary (if I read it correctly) says the Canon and Nikon sensors are only about a fifth of a stop different in ISO performance. One-fifth of a stop?

Okay...I'm waiting for the flaming to start.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 28, 2013)

unfocused said:


> I'm sure I'll get flamed for this and maybe I'm missing something here, but when I compare the D7100 to the 70D and 7D on the graphs there doesn't seem to be all that much difference.
> 
> I admit I'm not a dynamic range freak, and I'm more interested in ISO performance, but it doesn't seem like there is any real world difference between the Nikon and Canon sensors.



There's a small real world difference in terms of IQ when you have to dig really deep into the shadows. It's blown up into a huge difference by...

* Shooting a wall in the dark.
* Shoving the exposure slider to +5 EV.
* Turning off all NR on the Canon sample.

If you normally shoot this way, Nikon is your first choice.


----------



## Pi (Aug 28, 2013)

Sad...


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure I'll get flamed for this and maybe I'm missing something here, but when I compare the D7100 to the 70D and 7D on the graphs there doesn't seem to be all that much difference.
> ...


And if you forget to take your lens cap off, Nikon will produce a cleaner image...


----------



## poias (Aug 28, 2013)

Canon just does not seem to be able to break that 11 point DR. If only their customers make fuss about it... but Canon customers are not demanding sensor quality and Canon is gladly shipping out decade old technology.


----------



## poias (Aug 28, 2013)

Cognitive dissonance is very high with Canon customers who just shelled out a couple of Gs on their imaging equipment. They will try to justify by saying that "I always expose properly, so who cares about pulling shadows", "I shoot JPG anyway", "I like how Canon feels in my hands", or "Canon sells way more cameras".


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2013)

poias said:


> Cognitive dissonance is very high with Canon customers who just shelled out a couple of Gs on their imaging equipment. They will try to justify by saying that "I always expose properly, so who cares about pulling shadows", "I shoot JPG anyway", "I like how Canon feels in my hands", or "Canon sells way more cameras".


And some say that canon does X better while Nikon is better at Y, and since X is more important to me, I went with Canon.


----------



## meli (Aug 29, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure I'll get flamed for this and maybe I'm missing something here, but when I compare the D7100 to the 70D and 7D on the graphs there doesn't seem to be all that much difference.
> ...



I was already on FF when 7d came out but through the years i had a chance to review files from assistants, friends & gfs from either 7d 60d or d7000 (have to find one with a pentax now ;D ). 
The IQ difference isn't that tiny really. First you can get really nice files out of those sony sensors below 400. You can get FF quality easily, whereas 7d really has noise all over the spectrum. You can see a quantitative difference with local adjustments of about 1-2 stops and what happens to color and noise. 
Obviously you can see a massive difference if you want to salvage shoots where flash or strobes didnt fire; basically those sony sensors are isoless, you could push an underexposed iso100 all the way to 3200 and there isnt much difference from a native 3200, plus the tonality will be actually greater.
From someone coming from compacts or cameraphones the difference is nonexistent but from someone who wants too squeeze every possible drop of quality from an apsc sensors, then you'll find canon isnt your best bet.


----------



## zlatko (Aug 29, 2013)

poias said:


> Cognitive dissonance is very high with Canon customers who just shelled out a couple of Gs on their imaging equipment. They will try to justify by saying that "I always expose properly, so who cares about pulling shadows", "I shoot JPG anyway", "I like how Canon feels in my hands", or "Canon sells way more cameras".


Not exactly. I push and pull exposures as much as I ever need to with Canon cameras and never have a problem with shadows or anything else relating to sensor. And I have thousands of raw files from the D800, D7100 and D7000 and the color is never as good as Canon's.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 29, 2013)

poias said:


> Cognitive dissonance is very high with Canon customers who just shelled out a couple of Gs on their imaging equipment. They will try to justify by saying that "I always expose properly, so who cares about pulling shadows", "I shoot JPG anyway", "I like how Canon feels in my hands", or "Canon sells way more cameras".



Maybe. But after owning a 5DII for a while and thinking it might be nice to own a Nikon as well, I shelled out a few hundred and rented a D800e and D600 and 5DIII and 6D before buying a 5DIII and 6D and neither a D800e nor D600 - because, for my purposes, the photos I took with the Nikons didn't look any better than the photos I took with the Canons (not quite as good, if anything, but for the most part probably indistinguishable, allowing for lens differences), there's probably only one Nikon lens for which I have any sort of lens envy, and I dislike Nikon's ergonomics. I suspect one or two others have had similar experiences.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2013)

poias said:


> Cognitive dissonance is very high with Canon customers who just shelled out a couple of Gs on their imaging equipment. They will try to justify by saying that "I always expose properly, so who cares about pulling shadows", "I shoot JPG anyway", "I like how Canon feels in my hands", or "Canon sells way more cameras".



Cognitive dissonance is very high with Nikon customers who just shelled out (more than) a couple of Gs on their imaging equipment. They will try to justify by saying that, "I don't really focus on anything in the left side of the field," and, "The sharpness of my images isn't affected by the CA endemic to my lenses, that can be fixed in post," and, "I like lots of buttons," and, "A smaller, less successful, non market-leading company like Nikon treats me better (and no, I don't mind waiting almost a month for a service when needed)."


----------



## Pi (Aug 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> "A smaller, less successful, non market-leading company like Nikon treats me better[...]"



That is often true, actually. In the audiophile world, big companies are not big, for example.


----------



## Pi (Aug 29, 2013)

zlatko said:


> Not exactly. I push and pull exposures as much as I ever need to with Canon cameras and never have a problem with shadows or anything else relating to sensor.



If by that you mean - shadow noise is there but I do not find it to be a problem, I can believe you. But if you are trying to say that you do not know what just about everybody else is talking about - I am skeptical.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 29, 2013)

meli said:


> I was already on FF when 7d came out but through the years i had a chance to review files from assistants, friends & gfs from either 7d 60d or d7000 (have to find one with a pentax now ;D ).
> The IQ difference isn't that tiny really. First you can get really nice files out of those sony sensors below 400. You can get FF quality easily, whereas 7d really has noise all over the spectrum.



I own a 7D and have shot tens of thousands of frames with it and made several hundred 16x20" prints. And you're wrong. 

I've also in the past taken the time to put up 100% crop tests from FF and APS-C, Canon and Nikon bodies to see if FF or Nikon fanboys could reliably tell me which was which. They always fail, but it also always ends up a waste of my time since they continue to spout their nonsense no matter how many times they fail.



> You can see a quantitative difference with local adjustments of about 1-2 stops and what happens to color and noise.



Sure you can...when you turn off NR on one camera and not the other.



> Obviously you can see a massive difference if you want to salvage shoots where flash or strobes didnt fire; basically those sony sensors are isoless, you could push an underexposed iso100 all the way to 3200 and there isnt much difference from a native 3200, plus the tonality will be actually greater.



Sure you can. You can also leave the lens cap on and get perfect images, or so a Nikon fan told me.

"ISOless"...priceless...thanks for the laugh.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 29, 2013)

Pi said:


> If by that you mean - shadow noise is there but I do not find it to be a problem, I can believe you. But if you are trying to say that you do not know what just about everybody else is talking about - I am skeptical.



If by "everybody else" you mean "a couple people who frequent canonrumors and dpreview forums" then...yeah...I guess everybody else is talking about it.

DR, shadow noise, and color have never come up in a "Canon vs. Nikon" context in any conversation I've ever had with my friends who shoot both, or at local photo clubs, or with professionals I happen to meet who shoot one or the other. Weird...you would think more people would be part of the "shoot a wall in the dark and +5 EV the RAW file with no NR" art movement...


----------



## Pi (Aug 29, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> If by "everybody else" you mean "a couple people who frequent canonrumors and dpreview forums" then...yeah...I guess everybody else is talking about it.
> 
> DR, shadow noise, and color have never come up in a "Canon vs. Nikon" context in any conversation I've ever had with my friends who shoot both, or at local photo clubs, or with professionals I happen to meet who shoot one or the other. Weird...you would think more people would be part of the "shoot a wall in the dark and +5 EV the RAW file with no NR" art movement...



Then, I guess, you do not know what "a couple people who frequent canonrumors and dpreview forums" talk about. Do you?


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 29, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > If by that you mean - shadow noise is there but I do not find it to be a problem, I can believe you. But if you are trying to say that you do not know what just about everybody else is talking about - I am skeptical.
> ...



That's because the professionals you talk to have probably never tried to shoot amateur drama productions with a crop body. That's the one situation in which I consistently run into problems trying to get decent shots because of insufficient dynamic range. Think curtain call with half the people in almost no light and half the people under massive floods.


----------



## poias (Aug 29, 2013)

I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

unfocused said:


> I'm sure I'll get flamed for this and maybe I'm missing something here, but when I compare the D7100 to the 70D and 7D on the graphs there doesn't seem to be all that much difference.
> 
> I admit I'm not a dynamic range freak, and I'm more interested in ISO performance, but it doesn't seem like there is any real world difference between the Nikon and Canon sensors.
> 
> ...



Not much for luminance SNR. It's right there with the best of the best D7100. Whatever differences there are you'd never spot.

Tons for DR though and now it's also at high ISO where it is behind for that not just low ISO. The D7100 utterly whomps it for dynamic range. Also considerably for color sensitivity (very oddly though, despite that, the metamerism index is only 2 #s apart this time for daylight and the Canon is actually one number ahead for indoor lighting in terms of color discrimination, I guess somehow it manages to have about the same color discrimination and yet still a lot more chroma noise, in the past when the canon had worse chroma noise it also had noticeably worse color discrimination. Looks to have the same chroma noise as the old 7D but better color discrimination indoors by four points (whatever exactly four points means, that's a tricky element).)

So the 70D seems to be more or state of the art for luminance SNR, reasonably solid for passes for solid these days for daylight color discrimination (although weaker than old stuff), quite strong for tungsten/artificial lighting color discrimination, wayyyyy behind state of the art for low ISO dynamic range, solidly behind the state of the art for high ISO dynamic range, solidly behind state of the art for chroma SNR.

Compared to the 7D alone it appears to improve tungsten lighting color discrimination a fair bit, improves luminance SNR somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3rds of a stop, slightly improves DR at very high ISO (although oddly 1/2 stop worse at ISO200, otherwise appears to be within margin of error for DR), has about the same chroma SNR. It probably has a lot less banding than the 7D though for both low ISO deep shadows and vertical gain banding in the lighter shades. But the random noise at low ISO shadows are still very circa 2007 quality.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Cognitive dissonance is very high with Canon customers who just shelled out a couple of Gs on their imaging equipment. They will try to justify by saying that "I always expose properly, so who cares about pulling shadows", "I shoot JPG anyway", "I like how Canon feels in my hands", or "Canon sells way more cameras".
> ...



Back in the day I recall many a Nikon user readily admitting that their sensors were well behind Canon and some were getting antsy and upset although they did like that their bodies had more features. Today Canon users go insane if anyone suggests that anything about their cameras in any even hint of a practical way is not the best.

Nikon picked up their game for sensors.
Canon does not.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> "ISOless"...priceless...thanks for the laugh.



What pray tell is laughable about "ISOless"???????
The only thing I can find laughable is that you find the suggestion laughable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2013)

poias said:


> I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):



I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what having a 5x macro lens as part of the system can mean (5DII + MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro on top, no competiton on the bottom):








I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what having a 12 fps-capable body and *handholdable* 600mm f/4 lens as part of the system can mean (1D X + EF 600mm f/4L IS II on top, no competiton on the bottom):


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Nikon picked up their game for sensors.



I think you mean Sony picked up their game, and Nikon came along for the ride.


----------



## Pi (Aug 29, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Tons for DR though and now it's also at high ISO where it is behind for that not just low ISO. The D7100 utterly whomps it for dynamic range. Also considerably for color sensitivity (very oddly though, despite that, the metamerism index is only 2 #s apart this time for daylight and the Canon is actually one number ahead for indoor lighting in terms of color discrimination, I guess somehow it manages to have about the same color discrimination and yet still a lot more chroma noise, in the past when the canon had worse chroma noise it also had noticeably worse color discrimination. Looks to have the same chroma noise as the old 7D but better color discrimination indoors by four points (whatever exactly four points means, that's a tricky element).)



Yes, color sensitivity is directly affected by noise, both shot and read noise. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/Color-sensitivity


----------



## Daniel Flather (Aug 29, 2013)

Dxo threads are the BEST read on this forum.


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what having a 5x macro lens as part of the system can mean (5DII + MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro on top, no competiton on the bottom):


Sweet picture of the water on the web. What is that reflected in the water?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2013)

wsmith96 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what having a 5x macro lens as part of the system can mean (5DII + MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro on top, no competiton on the bottom):
> ...



Thanks! It's a ground cover plant with very tiny leaves and yellow flowers, but I have no idea what specific plant.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 29, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure I'll get flamed for this and maybe I'm missing something here, but when I compare the D7100 to the 70D and 7D on the graphs there doesn't seem to be all that much difference.
> ...



Thanks. Not sure I understand all this, but I appreciate the time you spent and your summation seems very reasonable. 

I'm not one of those who needs to convince the world that Canon is perfect and frankly, I'm getting a little tired of the argument that better lenses (which frankly I doubt) and better ergonomics (which is pretty individualized) should trump everything else. 

I'm always looking forward to the next generation of improvements and recognize that someone must always be slightly ahead. The manufacturers tend to leap frog one another, so I know that if Nikon is leading in one area now, Canon will overtake them and then they will overtake Canon and so on and so forth.

The truth is, this idea that Canon is greatest in the world is all pretty foreign to me. I bought my first Canon in the 1970s while working on a small newspaper. In those days, Canon was considered a distant second by virtually every professional photographer. It was Nikon or nothing and if you shot Canon you were looked down upon.

It didn't really bother me. I always identified with underdogs and the lower price of Canon enabled me to pick up an extra lens for the cost of what I would have spent buying the same kit from Nikon. When I finally sold the F1 and converted to digital I was stunned to learn that Canon was now considered better than Nikon by some. 

Honestly, I don't get how fiercely some people on both sides of the equation hold to these beliefs. Frankly, the differences are so slight these days, I wonder why anyone cares.


----------



## Pi (Aug 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


>



It is the first time I see pattern noise in the form of diagonal lines. 

Cool shot!


----------



## David Hull (Aug 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Cognitive dissonance is very high with Canon customers who just shelled out a couple of Gs on their imaging equipment. They will try to justify by saying that "I always expose properly, so who cares about pulling shadows", "I shoot JPG anyway", "I like how Canon feels in my hands", or "Canon sells way more cameras".
> ...


You forgot to mention those "artsy" oil spots on the sensor and how nice they look in the images. Canon can't even come close to that.


----------



## zlatko (Aug 29, 2013)

Pi said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Not exactly. I push and pull exposures as much as I ever need to with Canon cameras and never have a problem with shadows or anything else relating to sensor.
> ...



I do not find it to be a problem — ever. The files have plenty of tolerance for exposure error. I don't believe "everybody" is talking about shadow noise. 

I know these topics get pushed on DPReview, where anonymous know-it-alls try to convince everyone that Canon cameras suck. It is as if people seek out some trivial imperfection and then harp about it as if it were the utmost measure of a camera's performance. It's like saying Kodak or Fuji really need to reduce the graininess of their 8x10" sheet film because that's such a problem that everyone is talking about it.

I've talked about all sorts of technical topics with other professional Canon users, and the topic of shadow noise never comes up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2013)

Pi said:


> It is the first time I see pattern noise in the form of diagonal lines.
> 
> Cool shot!



LOL. Thanks!


----------



## David Hull (Aug 29, 2013)

poias said:


> I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):


All this really proves that even two of the best cameras currently made are each capable of producing suboptimal images when used incorrectly.


----------



## Pi (Aug 29, 2013)

zlatko said:


> I do not find it to be a problem — ever.



Fair enough. I do not find to be a problem _most of the time_. But when I do, I wish it was not a problem , and that happens often enough to be a problem. 



> I know these topics get pushed on DPReview, where anonymous know-it-alls try to convince everyone that Canon cameras suck.



Some of those "anonymous know-it-alls" are John Sheehy, Bob (bobn2) and Joe James (Great Bustard); Joe posted here a few weeks ago. They also happen to be some of the most knowledgeable people there, with a few others who share their opinion but are less active.


----------



## Woody (Aug 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what having a 5x macro lens as part of the system can mean (5DII + MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro on top, no competiton on the bottom):
> 
> I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what having a 12 fps-capable body and *handholdable* 600mm f/4 lens as part of the system can mean (1D X + EF 600mm f/4L IS II on top, no competiton on the bottom):



These are beautiful images. I really like them a lot.


----------



## Woody (Aug 29, 2013)

Pi said:


> Some of those "anonymous know-it-alls" are John Sheehy, Bob (bobn2) and Joe James (Great Bustard); Joe posted here a few weeks ago. They also happen to be some of the most knowledgeable people there, with a few others who share their opinion but are less active.



There's no denying that John Sheehy and Joe James are knowledgeable. I don't really trust Bob (bobn2) because his views are highly prejudiced.

Anyway, the truth is that the so-called 'deficiencies' in Canon sensors are not as severe for real photographers as what we are led to believe. They are there... but just not that bad.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> MPE



Yeah Canon does have some good ones like MPE, 70-300L and 17 TSE of which nothing equivalent exists elsewhere and others like the 24mm TSE II which Nikon doesn't really truly have a solid clone of and the 24-70 II which probably could resolve the edges of a D800 shot unlike the 24-70 Nikon.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

unfocused said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Yeah Canon used to make it a lot easier to get into big time lenses. You could get a 300 2.8 from Canon for like $3400 when it was more like $5500 or something from Nikon, pretty darn rough and bit much. That was a big advantage for Canon. Recently the pricing has sort of swapped though (not that the high priced recent glass from Canon hasn't been mostly top notch though).

yeah UI is a personal thing. I know it actually used to be looked down upon to admit you liked the Canon-way better (I always did), although it seems these days that probably more people do admit to preferring current Canon UI to Nikon UI. Of course still plenty prefer the Nikon UI.

(Yeah way back in film days, in FD film days, I've heard that Nikon was considered the serious brand, the pro brand and Canon the serious consumer brand. The EF mount helped flip that around. Their big supertele, their IS lenses. And then the better Canon DSLR sensors in the early days. Every side line was filled with white lenses. Every newspaper, every PJ school seemed to recommend Canon as the way to go. It was all Canon, Canon, Canon. You'd run into a Getty photographer shooting Nikon and he'd spot even just your little 20D and act all jealous and talk about how he was just about done with Nikon and their stinking sensors. And then the 1D3 AF disaster hit and people realized that any sub-1 series Canon really could not AF all that well and the superior sensors were starting to no longer be enough, Canon kept top AF only for 1 series and then they even started falling behind in some ways for sensors and not kept not putting in as many features in most bodies, all the bodies but 1 series were stripped down in performance and so on and so on and then Nikon came back and you'd no longer see newspaper pool equipment totally dominated by Canon all over the place, or PJ schools categorically recommend going with Canon. Sidelines would have a lot of big black lenses again. You'd read blogs from the Olympics where PJs would trash Canon cameras for having terribly unreliable AF compared to Nikon. Sidelines were starting to get almost more black lenses than white. The 1D4 and 1DX and 5D3 seemed to stem that a lot though, especially the latter two. The D800 had the left side AF issue. It seems things are now in a pretty evenly mixed stage at this point in terms of what you see being used.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

David Hull said:


> All this really proves that even two of the best cameras currently made are each capable of producing suboptimal images when used incorrectly.



That statement implies that you don't know how to use a camera correctly actually .


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

Pi said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > I do not find it to be a problem — ever.
> ...



+1
;D



> > I know these topics get pushed on DPReview, where anonymous know-it-alls try to convince everyone that Canon cameras suck.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those "anonymous know-it-alls" are John Sheehy, Bob (bobn2) and Joe James (Great Bustard); Joe posted here a few weeks ago. They also happen to be some of the most knowledgeable people there, with a few others who share their opinion but are less active.



and others are physics guys, at least one of word class level (responsible, in part, for one of the great advances in string theory)


----------



## Apop (Aug 29, 2013)

I don't really get why canon users need to defend their far inferior sensor.....Envy?

It is what it is, and apparently most of the sensors are inferior to the nikon's(or sony) in almost every aspect.
Whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is not really that relevant.

It only matters that you are happy with the images you are getting, despite maybe not having the best equipment out there....

Looking at it from a canon users perspective (now) , I am just happy that Nikon is totally destroying canon in the sensor department , It means canon will sooner or later have to follow with better sensors.

All the time some of you spend trying to bash Nikon or defend canon, you better spend that time working so you can add a d800 with 14-24 to your kit


----------



## Apop (Aug 29, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Sheldon cooper?

or maybe edward witten


----------



## zlatko (Aug 29, 2013)

Pi said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > I do not find it to be a problem — ever.
> ...



Sorry, I don't know those people. 

I was referring to anonymous people who can and do say whatever they want without any accountability — no one knows who they are or what, if any, photography experience they have. Such people can dominate a forum with their purported (but unseen) expertise. I just don't trust any anonymous person to give me a reliable opinion, let alone to instruct others about a camera's technical details.


----------



## zlatko (Aug 29, 2013)

Apop said:


> It is what it is, and apparently most of the sensors are inferior to the nikon's(or sony) in almost every aspect.
> Whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is not really that relevant.



For a photographer, whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is _absolutely_ relevant.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 29, 2013)

Well, as innovative as the 70D's new dual-sensel pixels for continuous AF are, the overall signal to noise ratios, as reported by DxOmark, have changed very little. Hopefully there'll be less banding in dark shadow for those who need to push it but I thought I'd put together some animated gifs to compare the difference between the 70D and the 60D and then the 70D compared to the Nikon D5200.
I hope DxOmark will allow this editorial use of their material here. If not, it can be removed easily enough.
I find the complete SNR graphs are more useful to see where the low ISO deep shadow SNR limits are and what the highlite end shows for difference, which combined can help indicate DR and more. Switching between them is a useful way to quickly see the differences.


----------



## Apop (Aug 29, 2013)

zlatko said:


> Apop said:
> 
> 
> > It is what it is, and apparently most of the sensors are inferior to the nikon's(or sony) in almost every aspect.
> ...



No it's not, because you apparently stopped reading, here is what it said.


it is what it is, and apparently most of the sensors are inferior to the nikon's(or sony) in almost every aspect.
Whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is not really that relevant.

It only matters that you are happy with the images you are getting, despite maybe not having the best equipment out there.... ///////

If your not happy you will probably try out a different camera/brand or lens(es) 
I was not happy with the d800 because of the 4fps, missing too many moments, Canon had the 1dmkiv as an interesting alternative, where i felt nikon did not offer something similar, hence I am now shooting canon and more happy with the images i get. Despite them lacking the resolution, DR etc that the d800 had, and it's quite noticeable on a retina screen.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Aug 29, 2013)

Apop said:


> Looking at it from a canon users perspective (now) , I am just happy that Nikon is totally destroying canon in the sensor department , It means canon will sooner or later have to follow with better sensors.



Yeah well, sooner or later has been going on for like, how many years now? At least 4, and looking at the 70D it's hard to tell if the 7DII will be slightly above that, or leaps and bounds beyond. Since sensor technology in the global market has been improving in so many ways with a number of other manufacturers the past few years it's easy to question how much effort Canon has given. Or Canon genuinely doesn't care, as their focus is with the casual consumers whom the majority repeat what the sales rep said about their toy and are into whatever that's cool and new, like the super-amzing-hi-tech AF in the 70D, oh and that it has more megapixels, everyone loves megapixels... but if that were the winning factor then Canon still loses anyways...


----------



## insanitybeard (Aug 29, 2013)

Apop said:


> I don't really get why canon users need to defend their far inferior sensor.....Envy?
> 
> It is what it is, and apparently most of the sensors are inferior to the nikon's(or sony) in almost every aspect.
> Whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is not really that relevant.
> ...



I think a majority are not trying to 'defend' their 'inferior' sensors, many are happy to concede at the present time Nikon/Sony sensors have some superior characteristics, myself included. What I am sick of is that it keeps being shoved in our faces *again and again and again* like it's the only damn thing that matters.


----------



## celestyx (Aug 29, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> and others are physics guys, at least one of word class level (responsible, in part, for one of the great advances in string theory)



String theory has nothing to do with camera sensors. I am also doing research in string theory, this does not make me more competent to express my opinion on dynamic range of camera sensors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2013)

Nishi Drew said:


> Since sensor technology in the global market has been improving in so many ways with a number of other manufacturers the past few years it's easy to question how much effort Canon has given. Or Canon genuinely doesn't care, as their focus is with the casual consumers whom the majority repeat what the sales rep said about their toy and are into whatever that's cool and new, like the super-amzing-hi-tech AF in the 70D, oh and that it has more megapixels, everyone loves megapixels... but if that were the winning factor then Canon still loses anyways...



Define "lose". Does it mean selling more dSLRs than the competition, having and maintaining the largest market share of the segment, or just not making 'the best' sensor? It seems the last one has had no meaningful impact on the first two, and it's the first two that Canon cares most about - and in fact, Nikon cares most about them, too (as would any publicly held company), it's just that Nikon is "losing" where it really matters (to their shareholders, I mean, not to people who think DR is the most important thing in a camera system).


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2013)

celestyx said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > and others are physics guys, at least one of word class level (responsible, in part, for one of the great advances in string theory)
> ...



Have any of these string theory guys ever done an experiment to test the theory?


----------



## docsmith (Aug 29, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> Dxo threads are the BEST read on this forum.



I know....when I see one coming...I stop reading...go pop a big bowl full of popcorn...find a bunch of Milk Duds and come back to finish reading.....


----------



## sandymandy (Aug 29, 2013)

Every new body such a thread comes out. And its always the same like Canon reasults are not good. 3 years later: remember the 70D? i still own one...fucking nice cam


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2013)

sandymandy said:


> Every new body such *a thread* comes out.



If only that were true. But there've already been at least 5 threads like this on the 70D, and no doubt there will be more DRivel to come...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2013)

Mikael : DxOMark thread :: moth : flame

How good/fast is the AF on that Sigma 500mm. Besides, 500mm isn't long enough for me. Where's the Sigma 600/4?

As usual, your points lack relevance.


----------



## simonxu11 (Aug 29, 2013)

Not as clean as D7100 even @iso100  

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_70D/RAW_noise.shtml


----------



## mkabi (Aug 29, 2013)

Get whatever... do whatever...

Dont' be fooled by numbers, if you like Nikon... get it!

Just don't go around on forums complaining... friggin... you bought a camera, right?
Stop bitchin and go f-ing use it!

Its the art you create with it that matters.
No painter complains or bitches about one paint brush over another...

Yes, I'm a canon guy... I did my research... and I recently (meaning within the last 2 weeks) got myself a 7D.
I knew it had its problems in terms of low light, but didn't care.

By the way, Im more into video than photos, yet 70D didn't cut it for multiple reasons, especially the SD slot.
If you have to know, one of the main reasons I chose 7D cause ML unlocked 2.5K.
I would have gotten a 5D Mark 3 cause thats closer to 4K, but I can't afford it.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 29, 2013)

simonxu11 said:


> Not as clean as D7100 even @iso100



Yet I look at those two images, and I prefer the one from the 70D.


----------



## Apop (Aug 29, 2013)

Well sensor superiority is not on top of the list for everyone I guess.
Let me try to join in on the trashing and bashing, it could be fun

I like the pictures i am getting now, even though i know the d800 can take better pictures, but i found it quite awkward when handholding a d800 with 200-400 f4, to change the ISO settings (top left of the camera), I could not find how to assign it to any of the other buttons.
The same to change autofocus points, hard to reach that switch.... and the smaller mount from the nikon's don't make you feel more secure holding such a lens by the camera body.

The af-on switch needs too much pressure and is often awkward placed for people with normal hands, the body doesn't feel like an extension but something you really need to grab tightly to hold on to , Sucks when you have carpal tunnel syndrome( I don't but imagine you do :/)

Did anyone ever hold a nikon tele? did you look at the laughable filter holder which is situated in some poorly glued on weather sealing attempt , I've seen several where the filter holder had to be reglued.
After 2 weeks of using my newly purchased 200-400 it was already moving about and the glue actually had melted a bit.

4fps? really? that just sucks for wildlife, so you look at the d600 5.5 fps , could do.... , oh wait that has some old auto focus system, no dedicated af on button, and only SD card slots... It's ergonomics are a bit better than the d800 even tho it's smaller

Luckily there is a newly introduced d7100 ! with state of the art 24mp DX sensor...
Amazing image quality out of that AA filter lacking sensor, superb dynamic range...
More fps than the d600, it actually has 6!, you start shooting and after 1 second the buffer is full :/
Even with the fasted 95mb sd card it drops to around 3 fps afterwards, need to change to 12 bit to achieve somewhat better results ( or jpg!!!).

The FPS and buffer , placement of the ISO/AF buttons makes me think they don't consider people shooting wildlife in raw format with reasonably heavy lenses


----------



## meli (Aug 29, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> meli said:
> 
> 
> > I was already on FF when 7d came out but through the years i had a chance to review files from assistants, friends & gfs from either 7d 60d or d7000 (have to find one with a pentax now ;D ).
> ...


Perhaps you have lower standards or you just dont care, in my case i've always seen noise from that 18mp sensor even at base iso.



dtaylor said:


> I've also in the past taken the time to put up 100% crop tests from FF and APS-C, Canon and Nikon bodies to see if FF or Nikon fanboys could reliably tell me which was which. They always fail, but it also always ends up a waste of my time since they continue to spout their nonsense no matter how many times they fail.


I bet you liked also that test between iphone & dslr.
Explain to me though, do you believe that in some cases with the right subject, under some circumstances, the output from any dslr might be indinstiguisable from another, or do you maintain that this is the case generally?
If its the 1st one then congratulations Captain Obvious you won the party hat, if its the 2nd then by all means, please do create a separate thread and post your thesis about how dslrs have the same output regardless brand or format, im sure it 'll be highly entertaining.



dtaylor said:


> meli said:
> 
> 
> > You can see a quantitative difference with local adjustments of about 1-2 stops and what happens to color and noise.
> ...


You got me there, silly me.



> > Obviously you can see a massive difference if you want to salvage shoots where flash or strobes didnt fire; basically those sony sensors are isoless, you could push an underexposed iso100 all the way to 3200 and there isnt much difference from a native 3200, plus the tonality will be actually greater.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you can. You can also leave the lens cap on and get perfect images, or so a Nikon fan told me.


Yep sure you can and hyperboles wont help your case.



> "ISOless"...priceless...thanks for the laugh.


Indeed isoless and no doubt, with the proper amount of ignorance, its laughable and "priceless". Take care.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2013)

Apop said:


> Well sensor superiority is not on top of the list for everyone I guess.
> Let me try to join in on the trashing and bashing, it could be fun
> 
> I like the pictures i am getting now, even though i know the d800 can take better pictures, but i found it quite awkward when handholding a d800 with 200-400 f4, to change the ISO settings (top left of the camera), I could not find how to assign it to any of the other buttons.
> ...



Clearly, you don't understand the benefits of more DR. If you did, you'd know that trumps all those petty concerns that you mention. :


----------



## Pi (Aug 29, 2013)

zlatko said:


> I just don't trust any anonymous person to give me a reliable opinion, let alone to instruct others about a camera's technical details.



I disagree with that statement, see also next paragraph. It is up to you to decide whether to "trust" it or not. The source does not matter - you either agree with the logic, or you do not. To put it in more bluntly - you either get it or not. It is not trust, it is understanding. Now, it is another thing whether you trust DXO measurements or nor because you cannot repeat them with just a mental experiment. 

On the other hand, people without "technical" skills need to trust somebody. Nothing wrong with being the artistic type; photography is an art, after all, and the world would be a very boring place without those people.


----------



## Apop (Aug 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Clearly, you don't understand the benefits of more DR. If you did, you'd know that trumps all those petty concerns that you mention. :




Owww, so more DR will make up for missed shots ? 
more DR will make up for shooting at the wrong ISO? (maybe even 2 high, that costs DR you know )
more DR will make up for the ergonomics and lens designs
more DR will make up for less memory buffer than my Alzheimer suffering grandma
more DR will it make up for all the older folks with money to buy the big lenses who are breaking their backs on the 5 kg 400/600 lens from nikon? let them enjoy 3.8 kilos from canon!
more DR will it make up for the cramps in my hands at the end of a day of shooting ?
more DR will it make up for the inferior IQ big teles from nikon !?
more DR will it fix my filter holder?
more DR will it automatically selects the best AF mode ( 5 point 9 poin dynamic 19 /51 /3d or?)
more DR will it increase my FPS?
more DR will it make my lens mount more buffed and make me feel like a man again?
more DR will it be more DR above ISO 1000/1600?
more DR will it give me GPS and wifi?
more DR will it let me switch from all af points ->af on button <-> to selected af point with * button? ( essentialy effortless switching from using ALL af points to a zone or center point with expansion) <--- this rocks on canon and eveyone not using it yet should!

more DR will it give me white lenses?
more DR will it give me fluorite elements without spending 18k$ on a 800 f5.6?
more DR will it give me ''cheaper'' telephoto options (300f4IS 400 f5.6)
more DR will it give me a good 70-300 L
more DR will it give me a wheel on the back of my camera? my carpal tunnel syndrome was fueled by pressing the buttons so much on the back if my nikons , that with bad ergonomics messed me up!
more DR will it make the buttons on the nikons need less pressure to actually do something!?
more DR will it make me a better photographer? 
more DR will it make my camera look sexy?
more DR will it make it to a canon body any time soon?
more DR , i want it


BTW
3 seconds of action

d800 : 12 shots of 36MP awesomeness, gotta hope for right AF setting and ISO(16 in dx crop)
d7100: 14 shots(at best) => 24 mp awesomeness
d600 : 16 shots 24MP => 10.6mp in crop ( 9.4 in canon equivalent)
6d : 14 shots 20mp good IQ but probably OOF(i hope the center point is good )<-
5dIII: 18 shots (with proper ISO and AF)
7d : 24 shots (with proper ISO and AFmaybe) And twice the pixels on target compared to d600!

1d4 : 30 shots (with proper ISO and af+ exposure)

d4 : 30 shots (probably really good!, but wrong ISO and AF mode due to position of switches, also less pixels on target than the 1dx and a LOT less than the 1d4 !!!! 9.46 when cropped to 1d4 equivalent

1dx : 36 shots (proper everything , including more resolution than d4)


Sounds like for sports and wildlife you need a 1dx ....
If you cannot afford one get a 1dmkiv
If you heavy and inferior nikon lenses get a D4!(I think it has the best buffer of the the three though)

Above ISO 800/1000 where you often are when shooting wildlife, is the Nikon DR still THAT much superior to the canon?

300 f2.8 : Better and lighter on canon side ( even according to dxo!)
400 f2.8 : Better and lighter on canon side (Equal to dxo, but they compare 36/24 mp cameras with 22)
500 f4 : much better & lighter
600 f4 : much better & lighter

Teleconverter performance? Night and day!

300 f2.8 IS II 2xIII TC equals or bests the 400 f2.8 from nikon + 1.4 !
600+2x looks like the 600 from nikon +1.4 tc



No doubt when you shoot landscapes/architecture or whatever other boring stuff (j/k) that a d800/d800e with 14-24 is Mount Everest 

But Canon in other departments (sports/wildlife) is just OLYMPUS MONS !!!! (MARS).

Ow boy now i feel so good about my choice for canon, I will need to do this more often


----------



## Pi (Aug 29, 2013)

Apop said:


> more DR will make up for shooting at the wrong ISO? (maybe even 2 high, that costs DR you know )



In many situations, yes, to a large extent.

If you shoot at ISO 100 instead of, say, ISO 800, and push in RAW conversion, more DR will make you shot very close to the ISO 800 one. You may get some posterization but, say, a 16 bit sensor would be completely free of that. There are many such examples on the web. Try that with a Canon sensor. 

Now, will more fps, and anything else you mention, make up for the strong shadows noise?


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 29, 2013)

Gosh threads like this is why i visit canonrumors less and less. I'd rather hang out at creativelive learning about what I CAN do with a camera and produce better images that I can SELL to my clients than hang out here saying I cant do this or cant do that with a camera. It amazes me how many professionals for decades have been using Canon and selling images from their inferior canon camera and make money hand over fist. Only photographers sit looking at their images 3 stop underexposed on the monitors at 200% looking for pattern noise at ISO 100. Get a freaking life, learn how to expose properly, and take some freaking pictures for God sake or sell your gear and jump to sony for all I care... Just stop this nonsense.


----------



## Apop (Aug 29, 2013)

Pi said:


> Apop said:
> 
> 
> > more DR will make up for shooting at the wrong ISO? (maybe even 2 high, that costs DR you know )
> ...




Shadows are generally not my subject 
And again I am not arguing against the superiority of Nikon's sensors.
I shot extensively with a d800 for 8 months, I did not switch because I did not like having such a good sensor!

The flaming is just fun to join in with the rest of the monkeys for once 

And to answer your question, for me getting 30 instead of 12 shots ( 1dmkiv now , previously the d800)
Can make quite a big difference.
When i am out, I am hoping or waiting for a moment that I am likely to never encounter again.

Having 18 additional frames where that moment might be captured (2.5 times as many frames) is something I took into consideration.

Additionally once the buffer is full the d800 should drop to around 1fps, when the 1dmkiv can sustain around 4.
On previous occasions I had a full buffer on some exiting moments (adrenaline makes one trigger happy), being 'stuck' with 1 fps can feel quite limiting.

Before the d800, on the d7000 with a 45mb/s SD card it was even worse when i was shooting raw to one slot and jpg to another!


----------



## sdsr (Aug 29, 2013)

docsmith said:


> simonxu11 said:
> 
> 
> > Not as clean as D7100 even @iso100
> ...



Not having seen the subjects in real life it's hard to say for sure, but the colours look better to me in the Canon photo - the Nikon seems to be suffering from that green bias shared by the D600 and D800. I thought the D7100 was supposed to be free of that. But it's hard to compare the two because, for whatever reason, they're not exposed the same: the Canon photo is noticeably darker than the Nikon (in my experience Nikon cameras expose brighter than Canon cameras at the same settings).


----------



## sdsr (Aug 29, 2013)

poias said:


> I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):



I think we know what it can mean, but it would help if the examples were more appealing. All you've shown us is that one thing I would rather not look at looks a bit better than another thing I would rather not look at....

As for jumping ship, I think people tend to exaggerate how hard it is. In the past few years I've jumped ship from Nikon APS-C to Pentax APS-C to Canon FF, bought a second ship (Olympus) and toyed with a third (Nikon FF) before deciding against it after renting a couple. Each time I switched I sold all the previous equipment I had bought. Depending on whether I had bought it new or used I received less/more/the same as I had paid for it in the first place. I may have overall "lost" but I don't look at it that way - I think if it as the (not very high) price of using that equipment during the time I owned it and an extremely useful learning experience.

Pentax, by the way, provided a rather good example of why DR isn't enough. I owned a K-5, with a K-x as back-up. At the time there seemed to be fairly wide agreement that the K-5 had the best sensor of any APS-C camera (the same Sony sensor as the D7000 but run by slightly better software), and it was a good camera in other ways too (esp. ergonomics). The dynamic range was simply astonishing - when I first bought it I would amuse myself by fooling around with deep shadows in DxO and LR, amazed by what it could reveal (not that the results were worth keeping...); and yes, there were a few times, mainly involving sharply contrasting light in the alleys of Lugano, when it proved useful. But the relative shortage of first rate lenses with fast, accurate focusing soon became old....


----------



## 1255 (Aug 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon picked up their game for sensors.
> ...



love you neuro


----------



## 1255 (Aug 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):
> ...



meant to include these as well with my love you neuro comment


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 29, 2013)

These threads are always amusing.

I didn't exchange vows with my Canon gear, I just like it. If another manufacturer is winning the sensor war, so be it. And it looks like that's the case.

I love my Canon gear. would I like Canon to improve their outdated sensors (in context)? Sure. But it doesn't stop me from enjoying what I have.

I'm not surprised that the 70D is not an IQ upgrade, either. Who rightfully expected that?


----------



## 1255 (Aug 29, 2013)

mkabi said:


> Its the art you create with it that matters.



+1. but painters totally complain about their brushes.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 29, 2013)

Yeah, but the DR recovery capabilities of the Nikon FF sensor is a pretty nice brush.


----------



## Apop (Aug 29, 2013)

1255 said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Its the art you create with it that matters.
> ...



Ehm in that analogy i think the brush would be the lens and the sensor the paint/thingy where you paint on ( piece of paper)

Or lens the paint plus brush and the paper the sensor

Or the body the brush , the sensor the paint , but then the lens would be the paper hmmmmm
No?


----------



## horshack (Aug 29, 2013)

1255 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



How about the Nikon-designed D4 sensor? It doesn't have the Exmor's DR but it's still 1 1/2 stops higher than the 1DX at base ISO.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 29, 2013)

Apop said:


> ... awkward when handholding a d800 ..to change the ISO settings (top left of the camera), I could not find how to assign it to any of the other buttons.



?? In Av mode I've got my front control wheel for aperture, rear wheel for ISO



Apop said:


> The same to change autofocus points, hard to reach that switch...



short thumb?



> The af-on switch needs too much pressure..



OK, maybe your hands aren't the best fit for a d800
I have mid-size paws and d800 feels perfect in my mitts with a 70-200 hanging off it.



> 4fps? really?



5d2 was pretty slow too, who's complaining about that?

Nikon bodies are quite different, you need to spend some time with them to adjust _yourself_ to how to get the best handling with them. No different than any other mfr. I have to admit, my long term Canon use gave me a similar bias but no more.
D800 isn't a spray'n'pray kind of camera, it requires more deliberate use.. but has more forgiving (under)exposure latitude



awinphoto said:


> .. learn how to expose properly, and take some freaking pictures for God sake or sell your gear and jump to sony for all I care... Just stop this nonsense.



how do YOU "expose properly" for a scene that exceeds your Canon's DR?
Are you content to clip highlites and shadows and live with the out-of-camera tone curve for every shot?
If so, your advice may not register with the more artistic photographers.


----------



## Apop (Aug 29, 2013)

horshack said:


> 1255 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...




That lacks the resolution ! , 16mp just doesn't cut it for full frame


----------



## Aglet (Aug 29, 2013)

sdsr said:


> As for jumping ship, I think people tend to exaggerate how hard it is. In the past few years I've jumped ship from Nikon APS-C to Pentax APS-C to Canon FF, bought a second ship (Olympus) and toyed with a third (Nikon FF) before deciding against it after renting a couple. Each time I switched I sold all the previous equipment I had bought. Depending on whether I had bought it new or used I received less/more/the same as I had paid for it in the first place. I may have overall "lost" but I don't look at it that way - I think if it as the (not very high) price of using that equipment during the time I owned it and an extremely useful learning experience.



+1



> Pentax, by the way, provided a rather good example of why DR isn't enough. I owned a K-5, with a K-x as back-up. At the time there seemed to be fairly wide agreement that the K-5 had the best sensor of any APS-C camera (the same Sony sensor as the D7000 but run by slightly better software), and it was a good camera in other ways too (esp. ergonomics). The dynamic range was simply astonishing - when I first bought it I would amuse myself by fooling around with deep shadows in DxO and LR, amazed by what it could reveal (not that the results were worth keeping...); and yes, there were a few times, mainly involving sharply contrasting light in the alleys of Lugano, when it proved useful. But the relative shortage of first rate lenses with fast, accurate focusing soon became old....



I've added Pentax gear to my kit over the last year. I really like the k52s, the thing will AF in near dark w-o assist light. And it likely still does have the best overall low ISO raw performance of any crop body... per-pixel anyway. and the high iso end is also very good.
But I agree, Pentax lenses are a different collection compared to the competition but I've managed to find some that work extremely well for me, tho only my body-driven primes focus super fast. Their SDM AF is kinda slow on my 16-50/2.8 and that's cost me a few shots. 
Still, I use it because I love the images I get with it and the ergonomics and highly customizable interface. It's a very good photographic tool and has replaced my 60D + 15-85mm as my go-to rig. If they would bring out a fast lens with more range, like 15-85mm f/2.8-4.5, that'd be even better.


----------



## David Hull (Aug 29, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > All this really proves that even two of the best cameras currently made are each capable of producing suboptimal images when used incorrectly.
> ...


Just about anyone who knew what they were doing (and was actually trying to make a good, low noise image as opposed to a bad, noisy one) could have done a good job on this scene using either of these cameras. The fact that this guy did not only speaks for his choice of technique not for the quality of the equipment. These shots were made with a deliberate bias to make a specific point. However, in most of these “examples” it turns out to be a moot point because (in almost every case), not only could the image be made with either camera but a dramatically better image could be made with either camera if that were your goal (that is assuming you know how to use your camera correctly  ).

Based on the examples continually put up, the number of real images that actually demand application of a single shot technique with serious shadow lifting must be pretty few and far between (otherwise we would not be continually entertained with the junk we are always shown). In this particular case the guy went to Mono Lake and Yosemite and he shows a whole series of magnificent images shot with the Canon gear. Apparently he could not find a real world example in that usually very challenging environment where the Canon gear was not up to the task.

While this particular parameter provides plenty of fodder for the endless sabre rattling over which brand is superior to the other, in the real world of practical photography (save for a small number of specific applications executed over a pretty narrow range of the ISO capability of the equipment) it appears to be pretty much a nonstarter. I would guess that you could probably type out the screen names for everyone that has ever participated in these types of threads on one side of a single sheet of A size paper which is probably not enough to produce noticeable movement on the Canon/Nikon market share needle.

Incidentally, the example we are discussing has to do with pattern noise which has nothing whatsoever to do with the thing the DxO curve is reporting.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Aug 29, 2013)

I love how people keep arguing over the sensors and how much more DR they actually need. These people aren't photographers, they're editors with cameras. Tons of DR is like a crutch for them. Wow, they screwed up their shots,, shouldn't that mean they have to live and learn from loss? Lazy. Such a worthless excuse for a petty argument.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 29, 2013)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> I love how people keep arguing over the sensors and how much more DR they actually need. These people aren't photographers, they're editors with cameras. Tons of DR is like a crutch for them. Wow, they screwed up their shots,, shouldn't that mean they have to live and learn from loss? Lazy. Such a worthless excuse for a petty argument.




This really doesn't make any sense. Every good songwriter, author, or photographer is also a good editor. It's always been that way.

Also it's odd (IMHO) to excuse away technological advancement for the sake of technique. Why can't one attain both? Should we have puffed our chest at the implementation of auto-focus? Should we have held our noses at IS? After all, good technique can nullify those as well....


----------



## mkabi (Aug 29, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> Gosh threads like this is why i visit canonrumors less and less. I'd rather hang out at creativelive learning about what I CAN do with a camera and produce better images that I can SELL to my clients than hang out here saying I cant do this or cant do that with a camera. It amazes me how many professionals for decades have been using Canon and selling images from their inferior canon camera and make money hand over fist. Only photographers sit looking at their images 3 stop underexposed on the monitors at 200% looking for pattern noise at ISO 100. Get a freaking life, learn how to expose properly, and take some freaking pictures for God sake or sell your gear and jump to sony for all I care... Just stop this nonsense.



+1. We need to hang out...


----------



## horshack (Aug 29, 2013)

David Hull said:


> Just about anyone who knew what they were doing (and was actually trying to make a good, low noise image as opposed to a bad, noisy one) could have done a good job on this scene using either of these cameras. The fact that this guy did not only speaks for his choice of technique not for the quality of the equipment. These shots were made with a deliberate bias to make a specific point. However, in most of these “examples” it turns out to be a moot point because (in almost every case), not only could the image be made with either camera but a dramatically better image could be made with either camera if that were your goal (that is assuming you know how to use your camera correctly  ).
> 
> Based on the examples continually put up, the number of real images that actually demand application of a single shot technique with serious shadow lifting must be pretty few and far between (otherwise we would not be continually entertained with the junk we are always shown). In this particular case the guy went to Mono Lake and Yosemite and he shows a whole series of magnificent images shot with the Canon gear. Apparently he could not find a real world example in that usually very challenging environment where the Canon gear was not up to the task.
> 
> ...



Hi Dave, nice to run into one of the other screen names that participates in these threads  I would agree that nearly every High DR scene can be captured using techniques that don't require a High DR sensor. But one benefit of such sensor is workflow time savings. Here is a recent example where I shot a home interior for a friend for his real estate listing (using a D800). I wanted maximum IQ so I used two-shot blends for all the shots which had windows, to exhibit the woodsy setting outside his home. In this example it took me 20 minutes to manually blend the image, which I did in PS using layers and masks around the windows. For kicks I also performed the same exposure adjustment using a single image, which took me about 3 minutes. The latter has more noise than the two-shot blend but it's still perfectly usable even at the native 36MP resolution...and much more so at the resolutions the images were displayed at for the MLS listing. If you multiply this by 10 photos then the time savings can be significant...compared to either blends or interior strobe set ups.

Full 36MP Images:
Orig lower exposure image: http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-pVMB6WN/0/O/i-pVMB6WN-O.jpg
Two-shot blend: http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-VBVhdth/0/O/i-VBVhdth-O.jpg
One-shot HDR/shadow push: http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-DGKLj57/0/O/i-DGKLj57-O.jpg


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 29, 2013)

Aglet said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > .. learn how to expose properly, and take some freaking pictures for God sake or sell your gear and jump to sony for all I care... Just stop this nonsense.
> ...



Aglet Aglet Aglet ::Shakes head:: I expose the way I expose. I've been shooting professionally for the last 10 years and been shooting even longer... I look at a scene, look at what the meter tells me, and I either go with it or call it's bluff and compensate as i see fit. It's not rocket science. I get a shot, if it looks the way I want it to, great, if not, I compensate more. When it's exposed the way I want it, It's good. If you dont know how to expose, go, get off this forum, and start shooting. 

As far as going into a scene with too much DR... what absolute non-sense... I've shot back in the days of 4x5 film, shot transparency, medium format, the early canon DSLRs which had what, 5 stops of DR? If a scene is too dark, brighten it, if you cant brigten it without over exposing something else, use flash, or even better off camera flash, or reflector or some other way to manipulate the light. Dear god son, this is photo 101, well maybe 102. This isn't hard. A real photographer doesn't blame his gear for not getting the shot. A real photographer knows what needs to be done, and makes the photo even better. As i've said before, a client NEVER has looked at my photos and said "it's a shame there wasn't more DR"... Hell, the average client doesn't even know what noise is. This is pure pixel peeping madness and it's disgusting.


----------



## CR00 (Aug 29, 2013)

If someone ever mention Dxomark in any threads, everytime someone have to mention Nikon. I thought this is 70D and Dxomark.... thread, it would be more useful to see how it compares to other Canon if you care about Dxomark. If you want to read, write or care about Nikon, you should go to Nikon Rumors forum and stay there.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2013)

CR00 said:


> If you want to read, write or care about Nikon, you should go to Nikon Rumors forum and stay there.



That would totally defeat the purpose of being a DRoll Troll.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Aug 29, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> Chosenbydestiny said:
> 
> 
> > I love how people keep arguing over the sensors and how much more DR they actually need. These people aren't photographers, they're editors with cameras. Tons of DR is like a crutch for them. Wow, they screwed up their shots,, shouldn't that mean they have to live and learn from loss? Lazy. Such a worthless excuse for a petty argument.
> ...



Right, but you're supposed to be a photographer first and an editor second. DR doesn't help you when you're actually taking your shot, though it might give you peace of mind knowing the very basics of exposing an image is no longer relevant. At least for however many stops you can recover =P No one has to hold their noses with IS btw, apparently you no longer need the breathing technique to prevent motion blur.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 29, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



Awinphoto gets some positive Karma from me today (yeah...yeah...no more Karma. I know)

This is something I really don't get with the dynamic range fetishism. I LIKE images that go from pure black to pure white. Usually, I'm not trying to reproduce exactly what is in nature, I'm trying to interpret it and that often means eliminating extraneous detail in shadows and highlights. Photography is all about simplifying nature. I enjoy the challenge of taking the chaos of the real world and turning it into a simple, graphic statement. 

What idiot looks at an Edward Weston image and screams: _"Oh my God. This is terrible, he lost the shadow detail!"_


----------



## CR00 (Aug 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> CR00 said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to read, write or care about Nikon, you should go to Nikon Rumors forum and stay there.
> ...



I just went to the Nikonrumor site. Now I see why Nikon users troll here. Tthe Nikonrumor site is laid out just like Nikon cameras' Menu.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 29, 2013)

CR00 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > CR00 said:
> ...


I visit Canonrumors and Nikonrumors at least twice a week ... I have to agree that Nikonrumors site sucks with its lazy and disorganised layout ... but I don't agree with you about Nikon camera's menu ... I shoot with both Canon & Nikon ... the menu layout problem is all in the mind and is solely the photographer's lack of experience with that particular camera, especially if one is primarily a Canon shooter who tries out a Nikon camera (or any other camera brand for that matter), I bet Nikon users will also make such uninformed comments about Canon camera menu system. Canon 70D or Nikon D7100, both are good in their intended use, just need some basic photographic vision and camera knowledge to make good photos. BTW I just had my hands on a 70D today morning (colleague of mine bought it from Hongkong) ... 70D feels better in hand than my D7100 ... I did not get a chance to make any photos with the 70D as we were in the office and did not have a canon lens at hand


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> That would totally defeat the purpose of being a DRoll Troll.


BTW, Neuroanatomist I just noticed you have crossed 10000 mark ... impressive achievement ... CONGRATULATIONS! I like your new status "*CR GEEK*" 8) .. I was on a long vacation with limited time/access to the internet and haven't had a chance to visit Canonrumors as much as I used to ... hope to see many more of your usual helpful posts.


----------



## msm (Aug 29, 2013)

Aglet said:


> ...
> how do YOU "expose properly" for a scene that exceeds your Canon's DR?
> Are you content to clip highlites and shadows and live with the out-of-camera tone curve for every shot?
> If so, your advice may not register with the more artistic photographers.



On my 1DX I just hit a couple of button and bracket, never failed me this far. Generally prefer the results I get from blending exposures over what I get from using sliders on 1 exposure too .


----------



## David Hull (Aug 29, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Well, as innovative as the 70D's new dual-sensel pixels for continuous AF are, the overall signal to noise ratios, as reported by DxOmark, have changed very little. Hopefully there'll be less banding in dark shadow for those who need to push it but I thought I'd put together some animated gifs to compare the difference between the 70D and the 60D and then the 70D compared to the Nikon D5200.
> I hope DxOmark will allow this editorial use of their material here. If not, it can be removed easily enough.
> I find the complete SNR graphs are more useful to see where the low ISO deep shadow SNR limits are and what the highlite end shows for difference, which combined can help indicate DR and more. Switching between them is a useful way to quickly see the differences.


One take away from all of this though is that somehow they managed to double the number of pixels and add a significantly useful feature (the Dual Pixel AF) without breaking anything. Of course it doesn't look like they made any significant improvement in the low end noise either -- oh well. However, I think the jury is still out until we get a look at the back of a lens cap (or something similar) to see what the pattern noise looks like. I am very curious if any improvement has been made in that area.


----------



## aj1575 (Aug 29, 2013)

I have to say, I was also a bit disappointed by the DXOMark. But actually I start to question the real world connection of their marks. I was looking at the sample shoots of the 70D at dpReview with their nice tool they have. My impression was that the 70D is quite good at high ISO, even beating the D600 in some areas when using JPEGs. The D600 which should actually be better than the 6D (according to DXO), but at high ISO the pictures look either the same (RAW) or the 6D is better (JPEG).
At first I didn't see much difference at low ISO, until somebody pointed out some parts of dark color cards. There you can see the advantage of Nikon at low ISO. The Canons have some nasty noise in some colors, even at low ISO. But they represent only a small part of the whole picture, the rest looks almost the same for both. At high ISO the Canon files look either the same (RAW) or better (JPEG).

Also interesting, check out the Fujifilm X-Pro1; this sensor rocks! It easely keeps up with all the FF sensors from Canon and Nikon. Sadly there is no test planned for this camera at DXO, this would be interesting to see.


I suggest we make a blind test for IQ of Canon and Nikon (and others). Select some areas of the preview comparison tool, and take the pictures from different cameras and rank them according to the IQ. This could settle the IQ war for a while. The problem is, that one could select areas that suit one of the two better than the other, but it should be possible to make a fair comparison.
I suggest 4 samples of one area at a certain ISO from 4 different Cameras at either RAW or JPEG. Then I would take maybe 6 areas. The cameras can be different in the other areas, but can also be the same. The order of the pictures from one area should be random. For each area the pictures can be put in the order according to their quality. This should give a good idea about IQ of the different sensors.

What do you think?


----------



## Joe M (Aug 29, 2013)

poias said:


> Canon just does not seem to be able to break that 11 point DR. If only their customers make fuss about it... but Canon customers are not demanding sensor quality and Canon is gladly shipping out decade old technology.



If you click on "print", you'll see the DR of the camera breaks the 11 point mark. Then again, this only matters if you find DXO to be your grail for all things photographic. 

That said, though I used to have a pair of 7Ds, I've left the crop world behind so I'm mostly interested in the performance improvements as an indication of where Canon may or may not be going in the future. There sure seems to have been some peaking of late.


----------



## horshack (Aug 29, 2013)

aj1575 said:


> I have to say, I was also a bit disappointed by the DXOMark. But actually I start to question the real world connection of their marks. I was looking at the sample shoots of the 70D at dpReview with their nice tool they have. My impression was that the 70D is quite good at high ISO, even beating the D600 in some areas when using JPEGs. The D600 which should actually be better than the 6D (according to DXO), but at high ISO the pictures look either the same (RAW) or the 6D is better (JPEG).
> At first I didn't see much difference at low ISO, until somebody pointed out some parts of dark color cards. There you can see the advantage of Nikon at low ISO. The Canons have some nasty noise in some colors, even at low ISO. But they represent only a small part of the whole picture, the rest looks almost the same for both. At high ISO the Canon files look either the same (RAW) or better (JPEG).
> 
> Also interesting, check out the Fujifilm X-Pro1; this sensor rocks! It easely keeps up with all the FF sensors from Canon and Nikon. Sadly there is no test planned for this camera at DXO, this would be interesting to see.
> ...



dpreview doesn't match lighting/exposure between cameras, which makes their comparisons unsuitable, esp. since the High ISO differences between modern sensors are approaching margins of erroor. The Fuji has a good sensor but it's only about equal to other APS-C sensors - it appears better than that due to a lower nominal ISO rating (requires a slower shutter speed to achieve the same exposure as a Canikon sensor). I did a controlled comparison of the Fuji here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1223542/0


----------



## mountain_drew (Aug 29, 2013)

aj1575 said:


> I suggest we make a blind test for IQ of Canon and Nikon (and others). Select some areas of the preview comparison tool, and take the pictures from different cameras and rank them according to the IQ. This could settle the IQ war for a while. The problem is, that one could select areas that suit one of the two better than the other, but it should be possible to make a fair comparison.
> I suggest 4 samples of one area at a certain ISO from 4 different Cameras at either RAW or JPEG. Then I would take maybe 6 areas. The cameras can be different in the other areas, but can also be the same. The order of the pictures from one area should be random. For each area the pictures can be put in the order according to their quality. This should give a good idea about IQ of the different sensors.
> 
> What do you think?


I think it'd be nice. The only way to compare cameras is to compare apples to apples. DXOmark is probably not perfect, but at least everything is measured objectively and in the exact same environment across cameras, making comparisons easy.

Real world samples would be even better, but rarely will people take pictures in the exact same situation with two different brands of camera.

I found few of those:

http://newzealandphotographer.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/nikon-d800e-vs-canon-5dmkii-landscape-photography-comparison-updated/
http://www.oopoomoo.com/2012/03/personal-style-is-your-camera-determining-yours/


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> CR00 said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to read, write or care about Nikon, you should go to Nikon Rumors forum and stay there.
> ...



Nikon does have better sensors.


----------



## David Hull (Aug 29, 2013)

horshack said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > Just about anyone who knew what they were doing (and was actually trying to make a good, low noise image as opposed to a bad, noisy one) could have done a good job on this scene using either of these cameras. The fact that this guy did not only speaks for his choice of technique not for the quality of the equipment. These shots were made with a deliberate bias to make a specific point. However, in most of these “examples” it turns out to be a moot point because (in almost every case), not only could the image be made with either camera but a dramatically better image could be made with either camera if that were your goal (that is assuming you know how to use your camera correctly  ).
> ...


I completely agree with this. I think that the primary benefit of the D800 comes in terms of what it allows you to do in PP. You can shove those sliders around with relative impunity where you probably need to be more careful with a Canon solution. The same could be said for the 36 MP where you can leave more room to crop and fiddle with the composition later in post (you pay the price for that in file size, download speed etc. but that has been kicked about forever as well). Incidentally, I saw this image series on DPR one other time you posted it and it was this set that I had in mind when making the post. The images are definitely usable, but I cannot say the same for a lot of the stuff we are entertained with. Bob has a good one of the girl in the red dress as well where I like the D800 available light shot better than the one he lit.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

LUMINANCE SNR MID-TONE:

Looking at DxO the luminance SNR seems to be between 1/3 and 2/3rds of stop better than the 7D, a decent improvement. And basically right up there with the D7100.

7D was relatively well behaved when it came to banding at high ISO so I don't know if you will notice as big of an effective help in that regard above what the SNR tells you as you did comparing 5D2 vs 5D3 though.

I haven't carefully looked into it, but it appears that the JPG engine for in cam developed photos might handle high ISO noticeably better than the 7D.

DYNAMIC RANGE:

The DR seems to be a trace worse (although mostly to a small enough degree to not be able to notice real world) than the 7D (although perhaps nearing 1/2 stop worse at ISO200 unless that is just a kink in the graph and within the error bar) until very high ISO where it is a tiny bit better than the 7D.

DR is vastly worse than the D7100 at low ISO and still noticeably worse even at high ISO this time too, in the past Canon usually at least kept up with DR at high ISO, not this time. 

It is a shame that Canon is still living way in the past in terms of dynamic range with this sensor.

Once again the measure the masked area thing I did a few weeks back on it proved to be a reliable indicator of DR performance.

Early reports hint that it may have less banding than the 7D which may make the actual effectively usable DR somewhat higher than with the 7D even if it doesn't measure any better for engineering DR though.

COLOR STUFF, CHROMA SNR:

Color discrimination appears to be fairly close to the D7100 (a touch worse under outdoor lighting and a hair trace better under tungsten) and about the same as the 7D for outdoors and somewhat better for tungsten lighting.

Color noise appears to be much worse than with the D7100 and about the same as with the 7D (at least under natural lighting, there is a chance it might be noticeably improved compared to the 7D under tungsten lighting but I'm not sure DxO tests that, I have to check, but I think their color sensitivity only tests daylight conditions? and you can't necessarily extrapolate metamerism index to chroma SNR differences, although often they have tracked, the 70D doesn't necessarily seem to though so it's an open question).

The finer details of what produces better color is a very complex and tricky subject and may depend upon precisely what the question is (say skin tones, vs ocean tones, vs fall colors and whether lighting is outdoor or tungsten, or fluorescent or weak or strong, etc.). Someone who tried to look into things a bit claimed that in the past Canon has tended to avoid nasty peaks or other issues in skin tones for people with certain tones of skin better than Nikon under certain types of lighting often used for shooting people but also tended to be less accurate for colors and not distinguish quite as many overall especially in yellows/oranges. But it is a tricky topic and it surely varies model to model.

PIXEL LEVEL SHARPNESS:

Have not looked into personally, but I know the 7D was a trace on the softer side due in large part to heavily split greens on the CFA. Early reports hint that the 70D might have a bit better acutance than the 7D.


----------



## TeenTog (Aug 29, 2013)

ok, ok, people. Lets just all calm down a bit here. Instead of complaining about how the 70D isn't earth shattering, let's all go look at people's photography, give some C&C, and actually put our opinions to use helping somebody better their photography vs. trying to get the last word. : :


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> Right, but you're supposed to be a photographer first and an editor second. DR doesn't help you when you're actually taking your shot, though it might give you peace of mind knowing the very basics of exposing an image is no longer relevant.



That is missing the greater point. It does help you when you are taking a shot since you need to be able to judge whether a certain shot might have too much DR for the camera to handle and whether you need to get into multiple exposures or graduated filters etc., or when that is not possible which can be the case, to realize the shot may struggle to process well.

Sure better DR can be nice when it comes to rescuing blown shots or shots where the exposure wasn't quite dead on but it is mostly about much more than that. If a scene has a lot DR it may exceed the camera's ability no matter how perfectly you expose.

It's not at all just about people who make a mess of exposure all the time simply wanting to be able to escape that. It's rather little about that.


----------



## douglas459 (Aug 29, 2013)

After reading the rants and proclamations of everyone I am confused. As a photographer I am in charge of the DR, contrast, color, etc. in a photograph. This is the difference between taking photographs and making them. It is called technique. I have been using a trio of 40D's since they came out. On a recent visit to my local camera club, everyone assumed that I was using FF cameras. I didn't tell them about the "ancient" cameras that I was using. Nearly everyone at the club was using a FF camera. One tidbit I picked up from my mentor was that "A real photographer can make a good photograph with any camera." He was right. The first photographs I sold were taken with an adjustable 126 Instamatic! As I write this I am waiting for UPS to deliver my 70D's and I couldn't be happier. While everyone is making needless arguments and making excuses I will be making wonderful photographs with "substandard equipment." 
Cheers!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> *Its good to have one of the best lenses out there* and tell people how good it is but not so important that the sensor is the best regarding measurements
> remarkable attitude



Not really remarkable. If I have 13 stops of DR in my scene, a sensor with more DR helps, and a better lens also helps. If I have 13 stops of DR in my scene, but need to shoot at ISO 3200 for a high enough shutter speed, the sensors have equivalent DR (not enough), and a better lens still helps. If I have 8 stops of DR in my scene, a sensor with more DR is of no benefit, but a better lens still helps. 

Nor is it remarkable that some people seem to think _their_ shooting needs are _everyone's_ needs. Not remarkable, but rather pathetic.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

unfocused said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



Certainly for some shots that works better. Certainly there are shots I make where it looks more dramatic to leave large chunks really dark. But there are plenty of shots where that doesn't work better or where the DR is so extreme that you can't even reasonably get away with that high key look. 

If you have a brilliant sunbeam shooting through a dark forest and the branches are blowing all over you can be in trouble without a high DR camera. To avoid blowing out the glowingly lit parts the trunks may become too dark even for artistically dark purposes and too noisy too look good at even moderate print size and the scene will be too complex for filters to fix up and the motion may make HDR frame combines get too many artifacts. Just one example. So you say what about slide film days? Well people simple skipped those shots or went to print film and even then often simply skipped them even though some of them could've been really cool.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> If a scene is too dark, brighten it, if you cant brigten it without over exposing something else, use flash, or even better off camera flash, or reflector or some other way to manipulate the light. Dear god son, this is photo 101, well maybe 102. This isn't hard. A real photographer doesn't blame his gear for not getting the shot. A real photographer knows what needs to be done, and makes the photo even better.



A real photographer is apparently only a studio type photographer then . Kind of hard to use umbrellas to fix up the lighting in a shot covering 16 square miles or something no? ;D Or one where the scene changes second to second.

In the other scenarios I mention a real photographer either decides to leave with a technically shaky shot or simply skips it and goes and shoot something that will work out awesome. But wouldn't it be much cooler to have to move on and shoot something else less often?


----------



## thepancakeman (Aug 29, 2013)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Chosenbydestiny said:
> ...



Huh, I always thought I was a photographer first, and a cameraman second. My bad.


----------



## thepancakeman (Aug 29, 2013)

douglas459 said:


> After reading the rants and proclamations of everyone I am confused. As a photographer I am in charge of the DR, contrast, color, etc. in a photograph. This is the difference between taking photographs and making them. It is called technique. I have been using a trio of 40D's since they came out. On a recent visit to my local camera club, everyone assumed that I was using FF cameras. I didn't tell them about the "ancient" cameras that I was using. Nearly everyone at the club was using a FF camera. One tidbit I picked up from my mentor was that "A real photographer can make a good photograph with any camera." He was right. The first photographs I sold were taken with an adjustable 126 Instamatic! As I write this I am waiting for UPS to deliver my 70D's and I couldn't be happier. While everyone is making needless arguments and making excuses I will be making wonderful photographs with "substandard equipment."
> Cheers!



Glad that works for you. Alternatively, I would say a good photographer can make a decent image out of most exposures. Where I "make my money" is taking really crappy exposures and making them into something nice. Does that make me an editor? Not any more than the other side of the coin simply makes you a cameraman. The best, most efficient photographers excel on both sides of the shutter actuation.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

zlatko said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



The accountability is the logic of their arguments. And if you are not able to follow the arguments and explanation anyone gives then why does it make more sense to trust some random people with no credentials at all who simply always make Canon sound the best in all cases over those with some decent scientific/engineering backgrounds who say that sometimes Canon is the best at something and sometimes not, especially if the latter set are mostly agreeing upon what they are saying and the former set's claims seem more random?


Mr. Zla Tko(? or are you anon too )


----------



## sdsr (Aug 29, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> As far as going into a scene with too much DR... what absolute non-sense... I've shot back in the days of 4x5 film, shot transparency, medium format, the early canon DSLRs which had what, 5 stops of DR? If a scene is too dark, brighten it, if you cant brigten it without over exposing something else, use flash, or even better off camera flash, or reflector or some other way to manipulate the light. Dear god son, this is photo 101, well maybe 102. This isn't hard.



In practice, it's often not merely hard but impossible; try doing any of those things inside Notre Dame Cathedral, in Times Square, in the alleys of Lugano or at your local farmer's market and see what happens....


----------



## unfocused (Aug 29, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



I don't disagree. Certainly there are situations where the technical limits of the camera make it impossible to achieve the look I envision (although there are more situations where the technical limits of the photographer are more constraining). 

I guess it boils down to the half-full/half-empty thing. What my DSLR is capable of is so far superior to what my F1 and film were capable of (and it can be done so much more simply and quickly thanks to RAW processing and Photoshop and plug-ins like Nik) that I don't really feel the need to complain. 

Frankly, I get fed up with both sides on this forum. Those who act as though they can't possibly take a decent picture because of the limitations of the camera and those that hide behind sarcasm and try to change the topic ("but the lenses are better...blah blah blah)" to avoid acknowledging that there are limits to what any particular brand of cameras and sensors can do. 

Similarly, I get tired of the full frame vs. APS-C debate for much the same reason. I'll happily concede that a larger sensor has advantages, but I also know that anyone who claims that an APS-C sensor is "crap" or can't produce excellent images is probably just not a very good photographer.

I kind of applaud your efforts to debate the topic intelligently and rationally, although I suspect it is futile.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 29, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > If a scene is too dark, brighten it, if you cant brigten it without over exposing something else, use flash, or even better off camera flash, or reflector or some other way to manipulate the light. Dear god son, this is photo 101, well maybe 102. This isn't hard. A real photographer doesn't blame his gear for not getting the shot. A real photographer knows what needs to be done, and makes the photo even better.
> ...



I know that debating you of all people can be quite long and exhausting as you have a long reputation for hating canon sensors and loving nikons/sonys... but I will indulge you... Admittedly, I do not make my living as a landscape photography, I do however shoot architecture, portraiture, urban, etc for a living. I also do landscape work from time to time and architecture also at times can have extreme range... To be honest, I cannot think of a time where I've EVER thought, damn it, i CANT get this shot with my gear. also, whether it is post production or in camera, I know usually going into a shot or going into a series of shots what I want and how I can get it out of them. I just never have been in a situation where I COULDN'T get my ideal shot with my gear, ever. It could be my training and experience level, it could be I dont pixel peep at 500%, but I've always been taught not to see problems but to see solutions... So in this case, I dont fret about limitations, I get the shot I want every time and I dont blame my gear.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 29, 2013)

sdsr said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > As far as going into a scene with too much DR... what absolute non-sense... I've shot back in the days of 4x5 film, shot transparency, medium format, the early canon DSLRs which had what, 5 stops of DR? If a scene is too dark, brighten it, if you cant brigten it without over exposing something else, use flash, or even better off camera flash, or reflector or some other way to manipulate the light. Dear god son, this is photo 101, well maybe 102. This isn't hard.
> ...



I'll take you up on that challenge... pay my airfare and hotel stay, and I would LOVE to go out shooting and prove you wrong.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

celestyx said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > and others are physics guys, at least one of word class level (responsible, in part, for one of the great advances in string theory)
> ...



I've dabbled in it myself.

Anyway, yeah it doesn't have any immediately practicable connection to camera sensors in the way that would be readily helpful in this case and yes even very smart people can be wrong about things at any level of complexity, nobody is perfect. Even brilliant people have an embarrassingly foolish take on basic things every once in a while for a time. 

That said string theory isn't the easiest subject matter in the world and the chances are pretty high that those who can get through and make major impacts in the field are pretty good at being able to understand and grasp technical concepts. And I don't particularly see how they fit the accusations of being phony know-it-alls who just run around trolling against Canon for fun or, to go by what was said the other day on another forum, are dumb cretins who actually know little about anything. Is it so wrong for us to point out the so-called know-nothings have had some pretty major accomplishments? I, along with the other guy, were just pointing out that that doesn't seem to be a very fair assessment.

Anyway you are free to go through what's been said and pick it apart for errors or go through the camera website the guy I was referring to above set up and pick it all apart for errors. It's all out in the open. Corrections are welcome in fact.

Anyway, if someone isn't able to follow the arguments anybody is making about sensors and DR does it make more sense to to tend to follow what those with technical backgrounds are saying, especially if they seem to be independently largely coming to similar conclusions and ones that sometimes favor a certain brand and sometimes not, over some other random people with no apparent background in anything technical who spout out various things that often don't agree with one another and who tend to always say whatever it is that needs to be said to make one brand always appear to be better at everything?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

douglas459 said:


> After reading the rants and proclamations of everyone I am confused. As a photographer I am in charge of the DR, contrast, color, etc. in a photograph. This is the difference between taking photographs and making them. It is called technique. I have been using a trio of 40D's since they came out. On a recent visit to my local camera club, everyone assumed that I was using FF cameras. I didn't tell them about the "ancient" cameras that I was using. Nearly everyone at the club was using a FF camera. One tidbit I picked up from my mentor was that "A real photographer can make a good photograph with any camera." He was right. The first photographs I sold were taken with an adjustable 126 Instamatic! As I write this I am waiting for UPS to deliver my 70D's and I couldn't be happier. While everyone is making needless arguments and making excuses I will be making wonderful photographs with "substandard equipment."
> Cheers!



Of course a good photographer can make great photos with any camera. You can make billions of amazing photos with an old 10D. That doesn't mean he can take great photos in every possible scenario with any old camera though or might not want expanded possibilities. And changing the topic to AF and body performance, you can take AWESOME sports shots with a 20D. But that doesn't mean you won't get frustrated with blown shots more often then when using a 1DX. Anyway you don't need anything fancy to be able to have fun taking awesome shots and even with simpler equipment you can even pull off great shots even with many tricky types of photography.

And of course when we go out and leave the forum and shoot we focus on what we can do well with our camera and have great fun doing that as best we can. We seem to be less the type to need their camera to be the best at everything to avoid sitting around depressed about it than those on the always defending a specific brand for everything actually. I badly wish my 5D3 had more DR at low ISO. But I also love using it and have great fun with it all the time.

But it isn't a crime to ask for expanded options when other brands have proven it to be quite possible. Canon seems to have shown in the past that the squeaky wheel eventually gets the grease otherwise they seem to tend to just keep milking their old tech of any given type.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Aug 29, 2013)

Even if it's only 2 points, it's nice that the camera performed on paper as well as it did. It's got plenty of great features that anyone with talent and skill could do quite well with. If I was getting my first camera, it would definitely be high on my list.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 29, 2013)

so we have three generalities....

Nikon uses better sensors than Canon
Canon has better focusing than Nikon
Canon has a better lens selection than Nikon

and for the vast majority of people it is easier to tell that a picture is out of focus than to see the effects of a stop or two of dynamic range or ISO performance.... perhaps that's why Canon outsells Nikon....


----------



## Pi (Aug 30, 2013)

aj1575 said:


> At first I didn't see much difference at low ISO, until somebody pointed out some parts of dark color cards. There you can see the advantage of Nikon at low ISO. The Canons have some nasty noise in some colors, even at low ISO. But they represent only a small part of the whole picture, the rest looks almost the same for both.



If you can see that without brightening the shadows, we have a real problem.


----------



## Louis (Aug 30, 2013)

9 pages on how bad these sensors are yay, oh are you trying to defend them again? please


----------



## sdsr (Aug 30, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



Seriously? Notre Dame, like most such sites in Europe, bans flash and tripods etc., while the use of such equipment as you mention in the other locations I listed would be rude, inconsiderate and risky even if physically possible. That's not to say one can't take excellent photos in such places (especially if you're not as shadow-phobic as the DR-obsessed seem to be), but you can't "brighten" them.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 30, 2013)

sdsr said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > sdsr said:
> ...


and don't forget astrophotography.... just last night I was wishing I had a decent enough flash to light up Jupiter... plus that special shutter delay of 10294.415 seconds for the light to bounce back...... NOT!


----------



## trav.cunningham (Aug 30, 2013)

Wow! I am new to this forum and I have two comments. 
1. You all have way too much time on your hands. If you need something to do, I have lots of projects that need getting done. 
2. I am surprised to see Nixon users on a Canon forum. What's with that? Shouldn't you be on a Nixon forum or something? 
This thread has really turned me off to this forum.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 30, 2013)

trav.cunningham said:


> Wow! I am new to this forum and I have two comments.
> 1. You all have way too much time on your hands. If you need something to do, I have lots of projects that need getting done.
> 2. I am surprised to see Nixon users on a Canon forum. What's with that? Shouldn't you be on a Nixon forum or something?
> This thread has really turned me off to this forum.



Might I suggest you go look at the images section of the forum... there are some absolutely fantastic images there and it is both a great source of inspiration and a place to ask questions. It has helped many of us to become better photographers.... and the images are taken with everything from p/s cameras to $15,000 lens/body combo...


----------



## Robert Welch (Aug 30, 2013)

I haven't read all the comments on this thread, heaven help me if I had that much time. But I feel like, after looking over the DXO info on the 70D, that Canon really hasn't advanced their sensor by a very great amount in the last 3 years, or since the 7D was introduced. From what I could tell with the DXO report, it appears to me that there might be very little noticeable difference in IQ between the older 7D and newer 70D.

Now that might be testament to the IQ of the 7D (although comparisons to Nikon's 7100 might temper that opinion some), but it also might be that Canon is less concerned with the IQ of the cropped sensor cameras, perhaps figuring--and possibly rightfully so--that those who are really concerned with IQ will probably go toward a full frame like the 6D anyway. So, with the 70D they focused on other features, and from what I can tell they did a fantastic job introducing new features that videographers in particular will be thrilled with. That was probably smart on Canon's part, as that is probably where they will see the biggest benefit from a sales perspective. How many photographers are going to upgrade from a 7D/60D to this new camera anyway? Many more videographers will, most likely.

I'm in the former group of photographers, I mainly shoot full frame bodies. I do have a 7D (and older 40D) just for odd things, which I was looking at the 70D to see if perhaps it might offer something that I would be willing to upgrade for. However, it appears there would be no real benefit for me to do so, as I'm not using these cameras for video. I will see what happens with the eventual 7DmkII release, but I don't really expect it to have anything that will really make me want to go there either. The 7D is a well rounded camera, as demonstrated by it's longevity and continued success. It looks like it will still be awhile before we see significant improvements with the cropped sensors, at least for photographers.


----------



## rpt (Aug 30, 2013)

TeenTog said:


> ok, ok, people. Lets just all calm down a bit here. Instead of complaining about how the 70D isn't earth shattering, let's all go look at people's photography, give some C&C, and actually put our opinions to use helping somebody better their photography vs. trying to get the last word. : :


 

Good try. Valiant try too. As You can see it is a wild party out here. Just pick a good seat, break out the popcorn and you favourite poison and observe. And occasionally smile and wave.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 30, 2013)

poias said:


> I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):



Is there really only one image on the internet that DR people use. This is the same image that gets posted every time D800 shadow detail is mentioned. I'm starting to think this whole issue is faked


----------



## Rockets95 (Aug 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Cognitive dissonance is very high with Canon customers who just shelled out a couple of Gs on their imaging equipment. They will try to justify by saying that "I always expose properly, so who cares about pulling shadows", "I shoot JPG anyway", "I like how Canon feels in my hands", or "Canon sells way more cameras".
> ...



You beat me to it!


----------



## Zv (Aug 30, 2013)

trav.cunningham said:


> Wow! I am new to this forum and I have two comments.
> 1. You all have way too much time on your hands. If you need something to do, I have lots of projects that need getting done.
> 2. I am surprised to see Nixon users on a Canon forum. What's with that? Shouldn't you be on a Nixon forum or something?
> This thread has really turned me off to this forum.



Oh those pesky "Nixon" users and their DiRty politics! Boo! 

;D


----------



## tcmatthews (Aug 30, 2013)

I really do not understand the need to compare it to a Nikon. They do not even make their own sensors. So technically Canon make much better sensors than Zero. 

Canon has shown little sensor improvement in 4 years and Sony has shown little sensor improvement on there SLRs in two years. 

Both have been focusing on phase detection on the sensor. And for that Canon clearly killed it with the 70D on sensor focus. We have yet to see what Sony is up to. I might buy a 70D. I use live-view allot. I needed it last year so as fare as I am concerned it is a year late. I use my Canon mostly for wildlife and Macro. So a 70D would be an upgrade but I really need a 100-400L preferably a updated model. 

If it does not materialize I will likely buy a 70-200 2.8L. Either way it looks like it will be Lens be for camera again. 

I still have not deiced if I am going full frame Canon but I am using my NEX more and more. I am finding it meets my general needs more than canons current SLRs. (Mainly size and ability to use existing FD lens) It is not that it is less noisy so much as I fine the noise that exist less objectionable. So I might be shooting full frame NEX and Crop Canon in the future.


----------



## zlatko (Aug 30, 2013)

Pi said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't trust any anonymous person to give me a reliable opinion, let alone to instruct others about a camera's technical details.
> ...



The source does matter because photography is not a course in logic. Photography is art and craft, so depth and breadth of practice with the tools matters quite a lot. One doesn't build a boat with logic, but with actual tools and materials, and the result is a real boat that either works or doesn't; the same goes for photography. While a person may have good reasons to remain anonymous, anonymity cancels out or at least seriously diminishes any claim to authority, experience, wisdom or taste.


----------



## Pi (Aug 30, 2013)

Etienne said:


> I'm starting to think this whole issue is faked



It must be. There is no way Canon can be that bad.


----------



## zlatko (Aug 30, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



I've just added my web site as my signature. Did not intend to be anonymous.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2013)

Crap...I'm out of popcorn. Be right back... :


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 30, 2013)

Etienne said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):
> ...



I'm starting to believe this post is a parody.


----------



## starship (Aug 30, 2013)

*Re: 70D and Dxomark.... canon´s sensor not even on par with nikon´s D7000*

I had been hopeful. but it looks like, that canons 70d sensor isn´t worth to be my next investment.

the new live view autofocus is pretty innovative. I appreciate, that we get back AF microadjustment und an updated AF-system.

but i´m sorry to say. the sensor-quality isn´t (at least) on par with the sony sensor of a nikon D7000. even more lagging behind nikon´s D7100. 2ev less dynamic range and 1/3ev in the high-iso area. thats remarkable, when you consider, that the sony *sensor of the D7000 has been released back in 2010*.

well, all in all. I won´t buy the 70d. 
maybe a 7d mk2 will have a competitive sensor.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Aug 30, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Chosenbydestiny said:
> 
> 
> > Right, but you're supposed to be a photographer first and an editor second. DR doesn't help you when you're actually taking your shot, though it might give you peace of mind knowing the very basics of exposing an image is no longer relevant.
> ...



I think that's still nit picking it, and that it's relative. Shouldn't we be using our own eyes to judge whether a shot can be handled by our gear or not? I'm not by any means a landscape shooter by profession but I do shoot landscape with a set of filters from time to time. I never looked at a scene thinking I couldn't take it because it might look worse when zoomed in, or if I'd have a hard time in post. I suppose if you market your work towards other photographers it might be a bigger deal, but certainly not in the real world.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Aug 30, 2013)

*Re: 70D and Dxomark.... canon´s sensor not even on par with nikon´s D7000*



starship said:


> I had been hopeful. but it looks like, that canons 70d sensor isn´t worth to be my next investment.
> 
> the new live view autofocus is pretty innovative. I appreciate, that we get back AF microadjustment und an updated AF-system.
> 
> ...




And you didn't buy a Nikon because...


----------



## starship (Aug 30, 2013)

*Re: 70D and Dxomark.... canon´s sensor not even on par with nikon´s D7000*



Chosenbydestiny said:


> starship said:
> 
> 
> > I had been hopeful. but it looks like, that canons 70d sensor isn´t worth to be my next investment.
> ...



well, because I have tons of canon related stuff.

but a few weeks ago I DID recommend a friend of mine to buy nikon instead of canon. that´s what i had to do. nikon has been simply far better in sensor-quality over the last years. i hope this will change.


----------



## garyknrd (Aug 30, 2013)

I fight with DR daily shooting in the jungle here. Older I want a crop camera with better spec's. I don't want to carry around a 600-800 mm lens just so I can use a FF. Physically not possible for me at this point. With the 1D IV it puts me on a more equal playing field, with the FF users and the 600-800 mm lenses. Not equal but close. The IDX is just the most accurate camera I have ever seen for colors and AF. So I will surely go with the 1DX at some point. 

It is clear that Canon is investing in other areas. As I see it. I also have the Sigma 500mm f4.5 lens, and it is a verrrry good lens. Not a Canon II replacement, but I will definitely buy the next Crop semi pro body from Pentax to use with it. Sigma is sharp, very pleasant to use and just all around a good lens. Canon 500 II is the clear winner. Now!

If Pentax EVER puts out a good semi-pro body I will run some tests and real world use. Without being brand loyal at all. I personally am looking forward to Sigma producing a good super telephoto line with interchangeable mount. For me I will be all over that. 
As a birder I don't shoot BIF much and AF accuracy is the most important thing for me at this point. So AFS is my most used AF mode. And the other camera manufacturers that use the most recent sensors will be good enough for me.
So the 70D is dead in the water for me. Others will love it for the video no doubt. But sensor technology and AF is my main concern at this point.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

Zv said:


> trav.cunningham said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! I am new to this forum and I have two comments.
> ...



Some of the 'Nikon' users posting here have used Canon since 1987 and some since before that.  Just because you don't say every Canon piece of equipment is not the best every made by anyone in every single respect does not mean you are a Nikon user.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

zlatko said:


> I've just added my web site as my signature. Did not intend to be anonymous.



OK, well fair enough on that point then.


----------



## tnargs (Aug 30, 2013)

*Re: 70D and Dxomark.... canon´s sensor not even on par with nikon´s D7000*



starship said:


> but a few weeks ago I DID recommend a friend of mine to buy nikon instead of canon. that´s what i had to do. nikon has been simply far better in sensor-quality over the last years. i hope this will change.



Did your friend want to buy a sensor, or a camera? 

Nothing wrong with owning a Sony-based Nikon, though. This year. Trouble is, if he stocks up on Nikon lenses etc, and next years Canon is the best sensor, you're going to wish you'd thought about one or two other factors that come into it.

Let's hope your friend doesn't buy a Nikon and then get a bit excited about video, then come back to you saying "damn this video focusing is crap!" :


----------



## starship (Aug 30, 2013)

*Re: 70D and Dxomark.... canon´s sensor not even on par with nikon´s D7000*



tnargs said:


> starship said:
> 
> 
> > but a few weeks ago I DID recommend a friend of mine to buy nikon instead of canon. that´s what i had to do. nikon has been simply far better in sensor-quality over the last years. i hope this will change.
> ...



she wanted a good camera. for photographie. she wanted to buy it now. therefore i recommended a nikon. canon and nikon cams are both capable systems. but sensor quality is picture quality (some people even buy full-frame because of that). if she will really gets into video in 2 years, i can live with that.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2013)

Just thought I'd point out that we're at 11 pages of yet another Nikon/Sony vs. Canon sensor debate regarding...the 70D! It's a mid-level amateur/enthusiast DLSR for heaven's sake!!!

If you really need dynamic range that badly, you should be making enough money from your photography to buy professional level gear. If you're at that level, and you have that kind of gear, then what in the world are you doing wasting time spouting on an internet forum about cameras you'll never use? Just a pissing match? Go shoot some photos already!

Crap...I got popcorn butter on my keyboard...


----------



## Pi (Aug 30, 2013)

Famateur said:


> Just thought I'd point out that we're at 11 pages of yet another Nikon/Sony vs. Canon sensor debate regarding...the 70D! It's a mid-level amateur/enthusiast DLSR for heaven's sake!!!
> 
> If you really need dynamic range that badly, you should be making enough money from your photography to buy professional level gear.



Sadly, the 1DX has worse DR at base ISO than the ancient D90.

I would say, if you need DR badly, buy anything but Canon.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2013)

Pi said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > Just thought I'd point out that we're at 11 pages of yet another Nikon/Sony vs. Canon sensor debate regarding...the 70D! It's a mid-level amateur/enthusiast DLSR for heaven's sake!!!
> ...



Yeah...'cause there are so many people complaining that the 1DX is just holding them back with their photography. :

Buy anything but Canon because a D90 is better than a 1DX? I nearly bucksnorted my soda and spilled my popcorn all over my laptop! If this isn't proof that the DR debate is ridiculous, I don't know what is...LOL.

Do DR zealots really expect to convince people that are happy with the results from their Canon cameras to suddenly agree with them? Or suddenly awaken to the fact that the photos they've enjoyed or even sold to pleased clients are actually inferior garbage because there's a better sensor out there? C'mon. Life is too short.

Sure, everyone would appreciate a leap forward in DR and high ISO noise, but there's a whole beautiful world of photographs that's flourishing just fine in the meantime.


----------



## vab3 (Aug 30, 2013)

Isn't the interesting innovation here that we may have better live view/video autofocus with no loss of quality over the previous sensor? This technology will eventually work its way into other larger and smaller cameras. Just sayin'. People want video. We look at our pictures on our screens and phones. We film ourselves twerking and put it on youtube. And the sensor that can do that still has great quality for prints. 


p.s. I would like more dynamic range, too. 5d mk iv?


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



Well, that was kind of a rhetorical question. I know the answers. 

What you seem to be saying is "compromise your exposure" or "manipulate the light" to fit your gear.
Perfectly good advice, that's what has to be done whether it's to fit the limitations of the camera or to change the appearance of the scene. However, such methods are not always desirable or even possible. So that advice, good as it is, may also be a bit trite.
I just prefer to have equipment that's less limiting than Canon's, especially since there have been better options available for a few years now and Canon's only improved marginally (base ISO) since their original CMOS sensor hit the scene years before that. They've in fact gone backwards and have only recently returned to where they used to be a few system generations ago when it comes to FPN.

I'm probably not the only one that's not surprised, and also disappointed, that the 70D is not significantly improved for still photography over its predecessor except for an improved AF system.
This simply means we're STILL waiting for Canon to catch up to the competition in the area of basic sensor system metrics.
That said, what they've accomplished with this new sensor-based AF is impressive! Adding the 7d's PDAF system is a big plus too.

I've still made lots of great images with my Canons, (especially the Digic 3 and older ones) but I've also experienced plenty of situations in landscape shooting where FPN (Digic 4 systems) has shown up, not just in shadows, but in midtones. Some of this FPN is not just read noise in shadows but also seems to be intra-sensor inconsistency. Translation, their sensor production lines are not as precise as they need to be. But I digress…

70d's to be lauded for its AF breakthrough, but not much else as far as I can see.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2013)

msm said:


> On my 1DX I just hit a couple of button and bracket, never failed me this far. Generally prefer the results I get from blending exposures over what I get from using sliders on 1 exposure too .



Exposure blending's a great work-around, but not always practical. (moving scene elements)


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2013)

David Hull said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Well, as innovative as the 70D's new dual-sensel pixels for continuous AF are, the overall signal to noise ratios, as reported by DxOmark, have changed very little. Hopefully there'll be less banding in dark shadow for those who need to push it but I thought I'd put together some animated gifs to compare the difference between the 70D and the 60D and then the 70D compared to the Nikon D5200.
> ...



*+1, the AF development is quite remarkable and accomplished w-o breaking still IQ performance*, actually improving on it ever so slightly in some areas.
I'll get some lens cap shots as soon as my local dealer has some stock. I'm curious about not just what FPN there may be, but whether I can also see where the dual sensels are bordered by the regular ones.


----------



## trav.cunningham (Aug 30, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> trav.cunningham said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! I am new to this forum and I have two comments.
> ...



Thanks Don. I will be spending my time on that thread. I didn't mean to be rude, I was just very surprised. 

For what it's worth, the 70D will be my upgrade from my Rebel.


----------



## David Hull (Aug 30, 2013)

Pi said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > Just thought I'd point out that we're at 11 pages of yet another Nikon/Sony vs. Canon sensor debate regarding...the 70D! It's a mid-level amateur/enthusiast DLSR for heaven's sake!!!
> ...


I suspect that DR is not the number one priority for most people buying a 1Dx.


----------



## Pi (Aug 30, 2013)

David Hull said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...



Famateur suggested that it is: _If you really need dynamic range that badly, you should be making enough money from your photography to buy professional level gear._


----------



## Alrik89 (Aug 30, 2013)

Pi said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



Well, i want to see some of these guys - that one, that earn a lot of money with photography and bought a Nikon only for DR reason. 
And i am still waiting for tons of pictures of the DR zealots here at CR to show the awesomeness of their pictures. Until now, we still get to see only really awful shots. 
Hey, DR zealots, that is your chance: come up with your best work and excite us all.


----------



## David Hull (Aug 30, 2013)

Pi said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



Yea, I saw that one. I didn't know that DR was a "professional" feature. You learn something every day, I guess


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2013)

Pi said:


> Famateur suggested that it is: _If you really need dynamic range that badly, you should be making enough money from your photography to buy professional level gear._



No, actually I didn't suggest or imply that in my statement -- intentionally, anyway. Apparently I failed to communicate my point well (that happens occasionally  ). 

It was not that you must buy a 1DX to get DR. In fact, I deliberately made no mention of make, model or sensor in that statement (Pi brought in the 1DX DR comparison). It was simply to note that if your photography is at a high enough level that a stop or two of dynamic range is legitimately holding you back, what on earth are you doing complaining about the sensor in a mid-level amateur/enthusiast crop-sensor camera?

My point about "professional level gear" was more about the fact that I don't see a lot of noteworthy photographers spending much time complaining about their gear (or the competition's gear). They're too busy making beautiful photos. I also don't see a lot of people whom I consider in the market segment Canon is aiming the 70D at ever talking about (or in a lot of instances even aware of) dynamic range.

Does the constant back-and-forth about DR on a thread about a mid-level amateur/enthusiast crop-sensor camera seem silly to anyone else?

Ah crap...I've gotten sucked in and have transgressed against the 10 commandments of CR by becoming the forth to someone else's back. Time for some penance...


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2013)

D'oh! My comment _HAD _to push it to TWELVE pages! Sorry everyone...


----------



## Pi (Aug 30, 2013)

Famateur said:


> It was simply to note that if your photography is at a high enough level that a stop or two of dynamic range is legitimately holding you back, what on earth are you doing complaining about the sensor in a mid-level amateur/enthusiast crop-sensor camera?



It has nothing to do with the level of the camera. Canon's DR sucks on all levels. Almost every other brand: Nikon, Pentax, Fuji, you name it, beats every Canon regardless of price. I am not arguing how important it is for you or anybody else. For me, it often is, because of what I like to do. For many others - probably not.


----------



## NormanBates (Aug 30, 2013)

Canon fanboys are so much fun... I bet they'd be defending their phone as a superior way of taking images if they had spent $4K on the system 8)

So sad...


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 30, 2013)

NormanBates said:


> Canon fanboys are so much fun... I bet they'd be defending their phone as a superior way of taking images if they had spent $4K on the system 8)
> 
> So sad...



What's funny is, people are doing fairly decent photography with their phones, sometimes. Yesterday I visited a print shop whose owner had proudly displayed an approximately 24 x 60 inch print of a pano shot he had done with his iPhone. From 10 feet away I had to admit it was nice. I didn't get up close...the counter was in the way...no accident? Haha...still, it looked quite good.

As for wondering why "serious" or "professional" photographers would talk so much about a new crop sensor camera...mainly because it's a new Canon product, but also because DXOmark is known for being in the bag for Nikon/Sony...at least regarding camera bodies.

And also, of course there are those (many) who like to either have a crop sensor camera as their backup, or else they use it as their primary...for the reach advantage on telephoto lenses. This is a new Canon sensor, so it's kind of a big deal...considering the old one has been around 5 years...and might be around for another 5 years in one form or another. Also there's at least an even chance this sensor will find its way into the 7D2.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2013)

*OK, put the popcorn away for a minute.* 
*Let's do some quick analysis using DxOmark's data.*

Putting aside the 70D's sensor-based AF achievement for a moment, let's look at the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) of today's 70d, compared with the 20d from 9 years ago, and the 10d from 10 years ago.
As SNR goes, so does DR to a large extent but SNR is a little more telling and when you compare them overlaid you can see how they differ and where the changes in sensor performance are.

The upper blue line is the ISO 100 SNR plot for all 3 cameras.
On all 3 cameras you'll see that the 100% gray scale (white) is at about the same 42dB level. So all 3 have the same SNR at white.

Where the line meets the bottom axis is where signal = noise and the image information gets lost in the noise and vice-versa. Well, unless there's a pattern that's discernible but DxOmark is still not publishing noise pattern data as far as I know. (I've requested that they do so we can estimate FPN severity of a sensor.)

Anyway, the signal=noise level of 0db is the cutoff level for all ISO measurements. That is at gray scale 0.052% for the 70d at 100(claimed) ISO. That's about 10.9 stops of highlite-to-dark range where dark = average noise. (It's late at night, somebody please correct me if I make a math mistake here, auto-correct may also mess up some spelling)

Without getting the specific data points for the other 2 cameras we can see that they also have about the same end points for 0db and white.

*Net result. At a per-pixel level, the 70d's base ISO performance has not improved in 10 years.* But, because it's pixels are about half the total area of the 10d's pixels (likely slightly more because of better fill-factor in modern sensors where more surface is actually actively used but lets go with half as that's in the 70d's favour) the *70d has made a technical achievement of about 1 full effective stop* for one full effective pixel. 
This may be even better by one more stop because of the way the split-pixel AF system functions but since I have no technical details on how this is really done at the sensor level I'll leave this to other tech types to expound. I'm also not considering each camera's real-effective ISO performance, just the rated level.

If we look at some other ISO levels:

- the 20D has better SNR results at white for all ISO levels. This is not something that's easy to see in prints since a little noise on a big signal pretty much disappears. This is also due in part to the physics of larger pixels, which is why full-frame sensors do even better. The 10D is similar to the 20D except for its highest ISO which falls down a bit

- the 20D's curves are ALL higher in every part of the graph, denoting that its SNR is better than the 70D's at all intensities from white right down into very dark shades at matching ISOs. The 10D's curves are considerably lower; it has worse SNR than the 20D pretty much at every point below base ISO.


SUMMARY.

At a per-pixel level, the 20D was a significant improvement over the 10D which came 1 year before it. The 70D, at the same per-pixel level, has not improved and is slightly worse than the 9 year old 20D. Taking into account the smaller pixels of the 70D's sensor, the practical net improvement is less than 1 stop in 9 years. (possibly close to 2 stops, depending on how the dual-sensel-AF-pixels really work)

Compared the 20D to the 60D/7D and Rebel xx0 using 18MP sensors we have an honest improvement of less than 1 stop in the period between the 20D and the 7D's release.

So, if Canon's 70D sensor is read out in such a way as to provide the same level of read noise as a regular single sensel pixel then they may be able to achieve a measurable improvement (nearly 1 stop) in base ISO dark noise which should translate into a similar improvement in total DR of a similar sensor NOT using this new AF system.

So, will the 7D Mark II have no such split AF pixels and offer us slightly improved SNR and DR because of this method or will they do something more akin to the Exmor's superior noise elimination?
Or will they provide these new AF pixels and compromise the stills performance for the sake of video and improved live-view AF?

Please Canon, give us the best possible STILLS camera in the 7D Mark II. I might then buy one.


----------



## fman (Aug 30, 2013)

It's a bit disappointing to see that Canon fails to improve its APS-C sensor generations after generations, however it's still too little reason for me to swap my Canon system (although I use it less and less nowadays).

The much rumored Olympus OM-D E-M1 and 12-40 looks very interesting though and for me as casual shooter (I don't need any of the special glass that Nikon has no equivalent, in fact I don't need even glass that mFT has no equivalent) it looks much more appealing than any of the Canon APS-C offerings.

Olympus has sensational sensor stabilization system already now and the E-M1 is rumored to have also sensor based PDAF. I don't know though if its similar or not what is introduced by Canon.

FF is a different story, the much bigger pixels mask the inferiority of the Canon sensor tech. but to invest a whole range of huge/pricy FF lens is something I'm unwilling to do.

So in short as time passes the behind the competition DR of Canon APS-C has started to loose quite much relevance to me as not only in that but in many other areas Canon APS-C has started to be behind the competition. Panasonic e.g. introduced also IBIS in GX7 and E-M1 is rumored to have also sensor PDAF.
So my lightweight mFT system can easily beat Canon APS-C for 99% of the time. Those who are after e.g. BIF shooting probably Canon is still the only way to go but for most what I use APS-C mFT starting to offer a lot more not just DR.
This is not measured at all by DxOMark...


----------



## Woody (Aug 30, 2013)

fman said:


> The much rumored Olympus OM-D E-M1 and 12-40 looks very interesting though and for me as casual shooter... it looks much more appealing than any of the Canon APS-C offerings.
> 
> So my lightweight mFT system can easily beat Canon APS-C for 99% of the time... This is not measured at all by DxOMark...



Interesting. I recently sold ALL my m43 stuff (OM-D, 12 f/2, 17 f/1.8, 25 f/1.4) and replaced it with a 70D. Couldn't be happier.

Took my OM-D for a trip recently. That was when I realized I really really really hated the EVF. I have spent 9 months with the OM-D and it has given me some great photos. But I just cannot put up with the EVF anymore.

So, I am now firmly entrenched in the Canon camp: 6D and 70D, plus bunch of lenses.


----------



## fman (Aug 30, 2013)

Woody said:


> That was when I realized I really really really hated the EVF. I have spent 9 months with the OM-D and it has given me some great photos. But I just cannot put up with the EVF anymore.



Interesting, actually I like EVF especially in case of video where you see nothing in the viewfinder of the DSLR (so EVF or something like that has to be used, which negates the aim of touch screen...).

Btw how many days of experience do you have with the 70D? I could get my hands on one only on Monday this week...

But like I wrote, I have still both systems. I'm ready to accept if someone dislikes the EVF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2013)

Aglet said:


> The 70D...has not improved and is slightly worse than the 9 year old 20D.



Oh, I think it's a little better. I hope your analysis really was quick, because I'd hate to think you wasted even more time. Per-pixel SNR? Funny, I haven't seen that phrase on the display placards at Best Buy or my local camera shop. I wonder why? I know...because notwithstanding a minuscule number of DR-obsessed Canon-bashing forum jockeys, no one who buys *cameras* cares. The 70D is a massive improvement over the 20D in 99.9999% of ways that matter to people. Canon will sell loads of 70D bodies, quite likely more than the D7100 by a wide margin. 

DxOMark measures sensors, but people buy *cameras*, not bare silicon sensors. You can rehash DxOMark data until hell freezes over, it doesn't change the fact that Canon has been outselling Nikon for years, nor the fact that the 5DIII outsells the D800. The obvious conclusion is that 'better' sensors (where 'better' is defined as low ISO DR) have not helped Nikon or Sony sell more cameras.


----------



## symmar22 (Aug 30, 2013)

I agree that people don't buy sensors and Canon is still n°1 in DSLR sales, nevertheless, however good a camera the 70D is, the main improvement I see is for video. It seems Canon has found an elegant way to solve the AF problem in video, but as a still photographer I find it a bit disappointing. And the sensor results show clearly that Canon has still no reply to the most advanced sensors on the market. I was expecting better ISO, noise and DR, we get the (roughly) same sensor as the 60D but now it can take care of the focus. I do not deny the technological advance (for video), but IMO it is still a very elegant way to hide their inability to improve the IQ of their sensors.

As a low ISO user, I stick with my 5D2s, but they are getting a bit old, and I would love to see one day a new sensor with huge improvement, like the 5D was in it's time or the 5D2 was an upgrade over the 5D. I sincerely hope the 5D4 will show such an improvement.


----------



## insanitybeard (Aug 30, 2013)

Stupidly, I keep getting riled up by this endless debate. Some people just want to bash Canon regardless. Some people try to be objective and are continually shouted down....... where does it end? I'm not saying there isn't a desire amoungst many Canon users here, myself included, for Canon to improve the DR, SNR etc etc of their sensors, certainly I welcome all improvements, I'm happy to concede Canon lags the competition in this area. How much difference it actually will make to my photography, when there are many other perameters to also consider, I don't know. What I do know is that the same old arguments are very wearing, the same old people triumphantly claiming SoNikon's world dominating superiority- and no, I'm not dismissing people who come up with reasoned arguments from either side. The sun still shines. I think I need to spend less time on this forum. :-\


----------



## Apop (Aug 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > The 70D...has not improved and is slightly worse than the 9 year old 20D.
> ...



You clearly have not done your homework.........
Nikon d800 is a much better sensor than the 5dIII
It has many more MP, much more DR, less noise in RAW
It also has more buttons , so it must be more sophisticated 
More importantly the canon does not even have a built in flash....
So more money to spend on that
Does canon finally have a built in time-lapse feature? and automatically makes a movie...?
The d800 has, it's for pros



You are just a canon fanboy with fancy equipment .....
Only because you own a 1dx you feel superior to the rest of us and try to annoy us with dorky comments!( CR GEEK)
I can assure you I only changed from nikon d800 to canon because my skills could not handle such a superior product, my skill set was way to limited for the sensor of the d800 :-(
I only bought it because nikon had the 200-400 and the d800 was significantly cheaper than the 5dIII when introduced, in the end it cost me potential shots of something I am likely to never encounter again....
so i have a personal issue with nikon poor fps and buffer!

That nikon has sold less d800's than canon sold 5dIII(if true), is clearly because the d800 is more of an exclusive product....., people buy sensors just as much as people buy engines

Nikon is the c63 amg, more power, better engine, where the 5dIII is a m3, it handles better but slightly less power in a straight line (landscapes), as soon as you hit a circuit (sports/wildlife) things might be different.
But as long was we discuss them sitting in the pit lane, the d800 clearly wins ....

If you never are on the circuit you are likely to enjoy the c63 more!



But really , this topic only comes up because people like trolling
Cameras get replaced a lot more than lenses, why don't we see 50 topics about the relatively poor teles from nikon?, heavy , not as well built , less sharp , not loving tc's ?

And female friendly bodies, if your a MAN and you have HANDS, it is impossible that the feel of a d800 is better than a 5d3, just impossible!


----------



## julescar (Aug 30, 2013)

Well put don't worry about this mindless discussion its technobabble and has no relevance to what these devices are used for, "photography". I am a professional photographer and own 2 5D mk iii and 1 D800 and 1 D800E ... I have heaps of lenses and you know I end up using the 5D mk iii most of the time... The D800E is technically fantastic, but the 5D mk iii with the 24-70L 2.8 ii is a fantastic camera to capture images with. The D800 with 85mm 1.4G is beautiful but the captures from the Canon 85mm 1.2L are incredible. I use all of them for different reasons (and yes I am lucky to be able to choose whatever I need, I can afford them as they are tools of my trade). I actually purchased the 70D as I wanted a crop body for the 1.6X factor to use with some of the longer lenses 100-400. I did debate getting the D7100 but the sensor only factored a little into my consideration.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 30, 2013)

trav.cunningham said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > trav.cunningham said:
> ...


Every time anybody says anything about sensors there is the same crew which goes absolutely crazy. It is a never ending argument which cannot be won, But everybody seems ready to try, hence the comments about popcorn and beverage of choice...

Enjoy your 70D, looks like a great camera.... Hope to see some of your pictures...


----------



## aj1575 (Aug 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > The 70D...has not improved and is slightly worse than the 9 year old 20D.
> ...



I would even go further; it is not only a question of salesfigures, it also a question of the qualitiy of the camera. Sure the sensor is an important part, but the DXOmark numbers is somehow like playing topcard with cars, and the Nikon has the biggest engine with the highest torque. But this only shows part of the true real life quality of a car.
Sure, Nikon has some nice sensors at the moment, they are better in some aspects than Canon, and somehow this is reflected in the DXOmark score by a wide margin (the sensors in the Sony cameras are also suposed to be better according to DXO, but just compare them against Canon at high ISO and you realize pretty fast that the Canon sensor gives you better pictures in real life). This score system makes it "easy" for everybody to somehow rank cameras by a single number; this is easy, so everybody does it. But as I mentioned befor, it only shows a small part of the whole thing.
For example, to me it seems that Canon has the better chips, their Digic5+ does a great job when it comes to noise reduction in JPEGs, while the RAWs seem to look a bit noisier from Canon, they look better than the Nikons as JPEG (maybe Nikon shooters are all RAW shooters so JPEG is no priority).

So looking at the camera as a whole, I'm happy with what Canon does and how the pictures I got straight out of the camera look.


----------



## dstppy (Aug 30, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> Dxo threads are the BEST read on this forum.



I agree. It's like ANY Apple discussion on Slick Deals ;D

Also, I come for Neuros posts; it's like watching The Daily Show for me. I get to think "oh, so there's someone else that thinks these people are loony"


----------



## mountain_drew (Aug 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > The 70D...has not improved and is slightly worse than the 9 year old 20D.
> ...


It's a thread that discuss the estimation of the sensor's performance based on DXOmark scores. DXOmark doesn't review cameras, as you said, merely sensors (actually, they probably review raw files but that's another issue). It's clearly not the thread to talk about sales and cameras features so I don't understand why you keep bringing this up.


----------



## insanitybeard (Aug 30, 2013)

mountain_drew said:


> It's a thread that discuss the estimation of the sensor's performance based on DXOmark scores. DXOmark doesn't review cameras, as you said, merely sensors (actually, they probably review raw files but that's another issue). It's clearly not the thread to talk about sales and cameras features so I don't understand why you keep bringing this up.



Because it's not just a thread that discusses sensor performance, inevitably all manner of other conclusions are reached ranging from Canon cameras are useless in general to DR is relevant, but not the be all and end all of photography, and everything imaginable inbetween, just like every other DR discussion that occurs on CR.


----------



## Dukinald (Aug 30, 2013)

Gary Irwin said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Cognitive dissonance is very high with Canon customers who just shelled out a couple of Gs on their imaging equipment. They will try to justify by saying that "I always expose properly, so who cares about pulling shadows", "I shoot JPG anyway", "I like how Canon feels in my hands", or "Canon sells way more cameras".
> ...



In the hundres (thousands..) of posts that i read in CR regarding this topic, I dont recall any canon shooter stating the canon sensor is better than Nikon's / Sony's.


----------



## Pi (Aug 30, 2013)

While Canon is improving the video capabilities of its dSLRs, Nikon is thinking about (and patenting) a selectable strength AA filter.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2013)

julescar said:


> I am a professional photographer and own 2 5D mk iii and 1 D800 and 1 D800E ... I have heaps of lenses... I can afford them as they are tools of my trade.



Brilliant! This is a perfect example of what I was talking about when I said that pros that need the utmost in quality will buy the gear that facilitates it, regardless of brand, instead of fixating on the limitations of a sensor alone. That should certainly exempt you from the pejorative moniker of "fanboy" on either side, as some are eager to assign.

Strip the badges off and pretend they're all one brand for a moment, and then it's about choosing each camera or lens combination for what you need to do. I'm sure there are probably quirks and limitations of each that can be an irritant at times, and sensor advancements on one side or sharper lenses on the other would be welcomed enthusiastically, but for the most part, it sounds like you choose the system that works for what you're doing in each situation. Refreshing...



julescar said:


> I actually purchased the 70D as I wanted a crop body for the 1.6X factor to use with some of the longer lenses 100-400.



Well, I guess maybe this camera _is_ relevant to pros (I stand corrected), despite it's positioning as a mid-level amateur/enthusiast camera. That being said, with the flexibility your funds provide, I would expect you'll possibly sell it for the 7DII when it's finally released (or a Nikon alternative) -- if it will serve as a better tool for your purposes.



julescar said:


> I did debate getting the D7100 but the sensor only factored a little into my consideration.



Another great example of someone choosing a camera system and not a sensor. To those who say this concept is irrelevant in a discussion about DxOMark scores, it's absolutely relevant as a response to the sensor-obsessed that make the leap from sensor scores to "Canon sucks". Leave all the "Canon sucks" and "what's Canon's problem" comments out, and talk about the scores and what trade-offs Canon may have chosen to accept when focusing on AF performance in this sensor generation. The trolling is unnecessary. 

It's not about an inability to admit a deficiency in one or two aspects of sensor performance, it's about how small a factor that is to many people -- outside of this thread, anyway.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon picked up their game for sensors.
> ...



+100


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 30, 2013)

Gary Irwin said:


> I have to agree with this...I'm a little surprised so many Canon shooters can't seem to publicly admit Canon sensors just aren't as good as Sony's or Nikon's. But you can be sure WHEN Canon finally come out with a new sensor with high DR, Canon shooters will finally understand what they've been missing and will be very, very happy. As a Nikon shooter that will also be the day I switch to Canon -- mainly for the superior lens selection. Until then, however, for me Nikon sensor performance trumps Canon glass by a wide margin.



We admit that Canon sensors don't have as much DR as Nikon's. What we don't need is a daily dose of it; what we find offensive is being hit over the head with it on nearly every camera thread. Do a search on this site, and you'll see it.

And the DR advantage matters to different extents to different people -- it is not the only factor that matters, which is point that is lost on the DR trolls (and that advantage is only there at low ISOs). For indoors sports, I'm at ISO 3200 and above. What advantage will the Nikon have? The D800 will give me worse AF performance, lower frame rate and it's lost its DR advantage. For architecture, I'm using 5 stop brackets. The Nikon might save me a couple shots, but then I lose the ability to use the TS-E 17 and 24, which is not worth the trade to me.

If I made enough money to be able to switch systems every few years or buy both systems, then I might consider it, but I don't and so I won't. But saying that I have cognitive dissonance because I do not switch is insulting. For now, the Canon SYSTEM works better for me. Canon's high end glass is better, and I've got enough of it that the DR advantage of the Nikon sensor is not going to trump Canon's advantages. What part of this is so hard to understand?


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2013)

I think we should start a thread about how horrible Intel's Haswell chips are because they haven't significantly increased core clock speed in years. All they've done is add more cores. They must be out of ideas.

[Never mind the advancements in thermal performance and integration of additional functionality (read "live view AF) to focus on mobile platforms (read "for video enthusiasts and those who shoot in live view").]

[Not to mention Intel's marketing people artificially crippled i5 chips to position them as a middle tier. I want 8MB L3 cache, darn it! I want i7 performance for my i5 price! Besides, look what Qualcom can do with their new chips!!! : ]

This analogy should re-fuel the flames (or flaming?) for this thread. ;D


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 30, 2013)

Apop said:


> I don't really get why canon users need to defend their far inferior sensor.....Envy?
> 
> It is what it is, and apparently most of the sensors are inferior to the nikon's(or sony) in almost every aspect.
> Whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is not really that relevant.
> ...



If nikon/sony sensors were in fact ---that much better than canons then there would be no need for you to come here and make a post like this - the evidence would be clear, it would be represented in the real world. Canon images would never be in newspapers, and white lenses would not be at every major sporting event in droves. 

Sorry but there is more to a system than the sensor. The only real advantage for sony is DR, and if you need the DR then you buy the right system for you. 

I have nothing against nikon, they make some good stuff. Your statements are total fanboi though, this statement alone bears that out --- "It is what it is, and apparently most of the sensors are inferior to the nikon's(or sony) in almost every aspect. Whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is not really that relevant." 

This makes ZERO sense. If there is no real world difference the where is the inferiority - or the superiority? The sensor camera combo is only inferior/superior if there is a REAL tangible REAL WORLD Difference. If there is no real world difference then logically - one is not greater than the other. Again, this is photography, people buy images, people hire you because you craft good images - they don't hire/buy because the sensor is better. And you can even take that to the consumer level - ohhh...thanks for taking some pictures of my sons first birthday, but, I saw that you used a canon so I don't even want to look at the pics because nikon has better sensors?????does anyone in the real world do that?????


----------



## Pi (Aug 30, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> This makes ZERO sense. If there is no real world difference the where is the inferiority - or the superiority? The sensor camera combo is only inferior/superior if there is a REAL tangible REAL WORLD Difference. If there is no real world difference then logically - one is not greater than the other. Again, this is photography, people buy images, people hire you because you craft good images - they don't hire/buy because the sensor is better. And you can even take that to the consumer level - ohhh...thanks for taking some pictures of my sons first birthday, but, I saw that you used a canon so I don't even want to look at the pics because nikon has better sensors?????does anyone in the real world do that?????



The real world also includes hobbyists, who do not buy or sell photos. They are curious about the challenges pros face and about the way the run their business but do not really relate to that.

It is like being a car enthusiast and discussing taxis which professional taxi drivers drive. Every taxi driver would tell you than the clients could not care less about handling, acceleration but they care about space and a smooth ride. The drivers themselves want reliability, trunk space, fuel economy. This automatically excluded the hottest car brands.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 30, 2013)

Pi said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > This makes ZERO sense. If there is no real world difference the where is the inferiority - or the superiority? The sensor camera combo is only inferior/superior if there is a REAL tangible REAL WORLD Difference. If there is no real world difference then logically - one is not greater than the other. Again, this is photography, people buy images, people hire you because you craft good images - they don't hire/buy because the sensor is better. And you can even take that to the consumer level - ohhh...thanks for taking some pictures of my sons first birthday, but, I saw that you used a canon so I don't even want to look at the pics because nikon has better sensors?????does anyone in the real world do that?????
> ...



That's why I added the bit with shots of my, your, someones sons first birthday party, and telling your friend with the canon to just delete the shots cause their on a canon and they can't be good because nikons sensors are much better... Yes, the real world involves hobbyists, who may care more about the tech side than the rest of us...still though, using your own analogy = "The drivers themselves want reliability, trunk space, fuel economy." These are things that would make a real world difference. You are completely illuminating the real world from your equation. Might a hobbyist be more into the tech side of things? Perhaps, but, don't the actual images count for something, anything at all?????

Again you claim that ----"It is what it is, and apparently most of the sensors are inferior to the nikon's(or sony) in almost every aspect. Whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is not really that relevant." Again, how many National geographic covers show just text saying "image withheld due to inferior sensor." Or a sports illustrated swimsuit edition where instead of a center fold you see, image withheld for lack of DR. Or a billboard with text just say 14 stops of DR here. LOL Why are you buying a camera if not for images????? whether your a hobbyist, a photo-journalist, a porn photographer, weddings, need a camera for my newborne baby, to shooting disaster scenes for insurance companies to grandma's new P&S ---- isn't about the images??? 

So yes, DXO may say nikon has better sensors. But, the sensors in canon's are damn good too. Tests show one thing, real world shows us a ton of images from both systems that are freaking amazing. And when i look at images, the only time I really care what body/lens was used is if i am in the market to buy one. If I am looking for new posing ideas, I don't go to DXO....lol....uggg...stop typing now....


----------



## Pi (Aug 30, 2013)

Why would you assume that I implied that hobbyists do not care about real images? Where did I say that? I am only saying that we may have different priorities. For example, we may not be so concerned how durable lens X is because we may own it 10 years and take less shots than you in 1 month. In the same way, BMW is far from being the most reliable brand on the planet but try to convince a BMW enthusiast to get a Toyota. Or, try to convince a taxi driver to buy a BMW (in the US, at least). 

I like to take night "cityscapes", and when I do, low DR is a big problem. A wedding photographer would likely never have to do that; and in the rare case he does, the client would not notice a problem.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2013)

Pi said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > This makes ZERO sense. If there is no real world difference the where is the inferiority - or the superiority? The sensor camera combo is only inferior/superior if there is a REAL tangible REAL WORLD Difference. If there is no real world difference then logically - one is not greater than the other. Again, this is photography, people buy images, people hire you because you craft good images - they don't hire/buy because the sensor is better. And you can even take that to the consumer level - ohhh...thanks for taking some pictures of my sons first birthday, but, I saw that you used a canon so I don't even want to look at the pics because nikon has better sensors?????does anyone in the real world do that?????
> ...




+1, well stated analogy.

I have a few "taxis" in my garage which get regular use; a couple 4x4s (d800/e), Austin Mini (Pentax Q), and a few other assorted oddballs including a high performance daily commuter (Pentax k52s). I'm still waiting for an affordable sport coupe (d400 or preferably improved 7d2) to work with long lenses and dim light with high fps.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > The 70D...has not improved and is slightly worse than the 9 year old 20D.
> ...




So. . you're waving a flag and cheering because the sales/SNR charts for the last 10 years look good?.. ;D

perhaps if Canon's sensors improved as much as their oft' touted sales figures these recurring discussions wouldn't exist.

*FACTS STILL STAND: At a per-pixel level, NO SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN 10 YEARS.
*
I think the time I spent putting together the animated graphs and essay demonstrates that perfectly. 
Don't forget, I didn't just compare the 70D in a previous graph with the d7100, I deliberately chose the sub-$600 consumer-class D5200. 

But yes, I'd prefer a 70D to a 20D for the wealth of other improvements and the fact that, at least at base ISO, the performance is comparable with higher resolution and the few higher ISO levels I use are also still adequate.

but that doesn't change the facts about the sensor system tech | *NO SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN 10 YEARS FOR STILL IMAGES*

But maybe Canon is finally approaching a corner of sorts and, when they finally change their course, they'll be able to provide customers with actual sensor performance improvements along with all the other bells, whistles and flashing lights they're so good at adding to the mix.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 30, 2013)

Pi said:


> Why would you assume that I implied that hobbyists do not care about real images? Where did I say that? I am only saying that we may have different priorities. For example, we may not be so concerned how durable lens X is because we may own it 10 years and take less shots than you in 1 month. In the same way, BMW is far from being the most reliable brand on the planet but try to convince a BMW enthusiast to get a Toyota. Or, try to convince a taxi driver to buy a BMW (in the US, at least).
> 
> I like to take night "cityscapes", and when I do, low DR is a big problem. A wedding photographer would likely never have to do that; and in the rare case he does, the client would not notice a problem.



All I am battling is this idea - "It is what it is, and apparently most of the sensors are inferior to the nikon's(or sony) in almost every aspect. Whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is not really that relevant." To imply that real world usage is not relevant is to imply that the only things that matter are a lab test like DXO - and real world images be damned...

And your car analogy is off - BMW vs toyota is more like a MF system 35mm, Nikon vs canon is more like comparing toyota to a honda... sorry, nikon sensors do have an edge in some areas, but, not enough to elevate nikon to bmw vs toyota status...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2013)

Aglet said:


> *FACTS STILL STAND: At a per-pixel level, NO SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN 10 YEARS*



Right. So what? It seems that it was good enough for consumers 10 years ago, and since dSLR sales have generally increased over those 10 years, with Canon gaining significant market share during that period, it seems that it is still good enough for consumers.

Extension cords haven't significantly improved in 10 years either. So what?

Yes, I'm being a bit facetious. Sure, improvement would always be welcome. But while I'd like fully wireless power transmission instead of extension cords and 20 stops of DR instead of 11, by and large the current versions are getting the job done for the majority of people.

All the capitalization, bold and colored font in the world doesn't change that:

*FACTS STILL STAND: CANON HAS SOLD MORE DIGITAL SLR CAMERAS THAN ANY OTHER BRAND FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS*

Of course, from that it follows that the lack of improvement at the per-pixel level is pretty much irrelevant as far as consumer decision making is concerned. All this endless discussion proves is that while irrelevant to the market, some individuals just can't seem to get past it, and miss few opportinuties to DRone on about it.





Aglet said:


> perhaps if Canon's sensors improved as much as their oft' touted sales figures these recurring discussions wouldn't exist.



Don't worry, the trolls (present company not excepted) would still find something to troll about.


----------



## Pi (Aug 30, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> All I am battling is this idea - "It is what it is, and apparently most of the sensors are inferior to the nikon's(or sony) in almost every aspect. Whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is not really that relevant." To imply that real world usage is not relevant is to imply that the only things that matter are a lab test like DXO - and real world images be damned...



Ask the author of the quote then, not me. I can see it in real world usage. 



> And your car analogy is off - BMW vs toyota is more like a MF system 35mm, Nikon vs canon is more like comparing toyota to a honda...



Let us talk about Honda to Toyota then. Many Honda owners (I use to be one of them) think of Honda as the poor's man BMW.  When I bought my Accord, I knew very well that Camry was a bit more reliable, had better fuel economy, and a smoother ride (a downside for me). It had better resale value as well, and it was more popular. I still bought the Accord. BTW, I did not like what they did to it afterwards.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Per-pixel SNR? Funny, I haven't seen that phrase on the display placards at Best Buy or my local camera shop. I wonder why? I know...because notwithstanding a minuscule number of DR-obsessed Canon-bashing forum jockeys, no one who buys *cameras* cares.



Oh please, it was the canon fanboys who were going on about per pixel information and trashing the DR-lovers who were saying it makes more sense to compare at a normalized level.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

symmar22 said:


> I agree that people don't buy sensors and Canon is still n°1 in DSLR sales, nevertheless, however good a camera the 70D is, the main improvement I see is for video. It seems Canon has found an elegant way to solve the AF problem in video, but as a still photographer I find it a bit disappointing. And the sensor results show clearly that Canon has still no reply to the most advanced sensors on the market. I was expecting better ISO, noise and DR, we get the (roughly) same sensor as the 60D but now it can take care of the focus. I do not deny the technological advance (for video), but IMO it is still a very elegant way to hide their inability to improve the IQ of their sensors.
> 
> As a low ISO user, I stick with my 5D2s, but they are getting a bit old, and I would love to see one day a new sensor with huge improvement, like the 5D was in it's time or the 5D2 was an upgrade over the 5D. I sincerely hope the 5D4 will show such an improvement.



It is a solid 1/2 stop better for SNR than the 60D. It doesn't sound like much but it is about as much better as the 5D3 was over the 5D2 for SNR. The thing is for the sort of tech being used, it's hard to improve the SNR a lot. I think you'd need a totally different sort of technology and I'm not sure anyone has worked anything out yet that does much better (maybe in some government lab somewhere who knows). I'm not sure yet but it sounds like it will have less banding than the 60D and especially 7D (the latter even had a type of banding that showed up in bright tones at times).

The lack of improvement in DR is a bit disappointing, especially since they are now not only behind at low ISO DR but also high ISO DR too for APS-C.

The new AF method is pretty cool though.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

julescar said:


> Well put don't worry about this mindless discussion its technobabble and has no relevance to what these devices are used for, "photography".



Not actually true, since none of the talk about banding or DR came up until after people encountered issues doing real world photography. For some it may never come up, for some very rarely, for some semi-regularly. It doesn't have to matter to you but enough with the nonsense about how it can never have any real world bearing and was just thought up by some people in a lab for no particular reason.


----------



## zlatko (Aug 30, 2013)

Aglet said:


> *FACTS STILL STAND: At a per-pixel level, NO SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN 10 YEARS.
> *



Yes, some facts still stand. For example ...

Facts: Many pro photographers happily use the Canon system for their work. Some of them produce amazing work and are among the most renowned photographers on the planet.

Fact: Some anonymous people are ardent critics of Canon sensors _on a pixel level_.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> DxOMark measures sensors, but people buy *cameras*, not bare silicon sensors.



So? You could also say that people don't buy lenses without bodies so I guess nobody can talk about lens performance then right? I don't want you to dare ever mention that the MPE or 70-300L are pretty awesome and not to found in Nikon's lineup because people buy complete systems not bare lenses!!!! hah




> You can rehash DxOMark data until hell freezes over, it doesn't change the fact that Canon has been outselling Nikon for years, nor the fact that the 5DIII outsells the D800. The obvious conclusion is that 'better' sensors (where 'better' is defined as low ISO DR) have not helped Nikon or Sony sell more cameras.



Another possible conclusion is that if they didn't have better sensors or Canon had kept up and also not for a while in the past in particular crippled bodies quite so much that Nikon would really barely have any sales at all by this point.

And once again it's funny how you love to only talk about actual photography and real world and then constantly bring up a sales pitch like you are on the Canon board and trying to get a very short term stock gain.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

Dukinald said:


> Gary Irwin said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



I've seen countless posts saying that DxO can't be trusted. That the results are a lie. That any difference is only a minute fraction of what DxO claims. That more DR is actually very bad for image quality. That nobody ever needs more DR. Not everyone, but plenty enough. And plenty of insults about the photo skills or knowledge of anyone who ever mentions that Canon is not the best in every single aspect.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

Famateur said:


> I think we should start a thread about how horrible Intel's Haswell chips are because they haven't significantly increased core clock speed in years. All they've done is add more cores. They must be out of ideas.



Not a valid comparison. Since neither has AMD no anyone else in that market.



> [Never mind the advancements in thermal performance and integration of additional functionality (read "live view AF) to focus on mobile platforms (read "for video enthusiasts and those who shoot in live view").]



Many of us 'Nikon' trolls have praised the new AF system a ton. It's the fanboys who go all one-sided.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > DxOMark measures sensors, but people buy *cameras*, not bare silicon sensors.
> ...



No, your analogy is flawed. I can put a lens on an optical bench and test it independently. I can buy a lens for use on multiple cameras. I can even (gasp!) buy a Nikon lens and use it on a Canon camera, but of course, not the reverse.

Discussing the performance of the bare silicon sensor without considering the rest of the camera is like discussing the isolated performance of (and making purchasing decisions based solely on) just the *rear element* of lenses under consideration. That would be a pretty silly thing to do, just as it is for bare silicon.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



Maybe because you don't need more DR for every type of shot and for swimsuit models and such they just pop up some reflectors or what not if there are any issues. Not every scenario is like that. How can you say just because sidelines have lots of white lenses that this proves DR makes no difference? What does sports sidelines have to do with shooting in a forest?? (also for a while there the sidelines had gone from just about pure white to more black than white for a while with the 1D3 AF and other issues for a while although it is turning back a bit again)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



I wouldn't go that far, on a PER IMAGE basis, the 70D does quite a bit better than the 20D at ISO3200 due to a full stop better SNR and 2/3rds of a stop better DR and TON less banding which makes high iso shots that have lots of darker portions much more likely to look acceptable. And at low ISO you are talking 20MP vs 8MP so you get a lot more detail for say landscape shots and a lot more reach for say birds.

High ISO improvements have been crawling along but nobody has really crawled them along any faster they are all stuck in a very tricky zone where it is not easy to make big strides at this point with current technology.

Canon has been often falling behind in color sensitivity though and has fallen way behind in DR. In fact they were actually getting worse in terms of DR and banding for most of the last half decade and only recently have just managed to get almost back to where they had gotten to with the old 1Ds3. Even Nikons own non-Exmor sensors that don't even use column ADC managed to improve well over a stop in DR over the time while Canon's got like 1/2 stop worse. Canon went from reasonably well controlled banding in the 1Ds3 and 40D at low ISO to gobs of it with the 50D and 5D2 and it is not until the 1DX and 6D that they even started beginning to head back to old 1Ds3 and 40D levels, the 70D may finally be fully back there again or perhaps even better, not sure yet.


----------



## mountain_drew (Aug 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> All the capitalization, bold and colored font in the world doesn't change that:
> 
> *FACTS STILL STAND: CANON HAS SOLD MORE DIGITAL SLR CAMERAS THAN ANY OTHER BRAND FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS*
> 
> Of course, from that it follows that the lack of improvement at the per-pixel level is pretty much irrelevant as far as consumer decision making is concerned. All this endless discussion proves is that while irrelevant to the market, some individuals just can't seem to get past it, and miss few opportinuties to DRone on about it.


Who cares how many cameras canon sell? BMW and Mercedes sell less cars than Honda, and that doesn't mean it's better. Moreover, I couldn't care less about what other people buy. As Canon owners, we can also expect this company to improve on some aspects and DR/low ISO noise is obviously something they can improve on.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> *FACTS STILL STAND: CANON HAS SOLD MORE DIGITAL SLR CAMERAS THAN ANY OTHER BRAND FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS*



1. Who cares unless you are directly monetarily gaining off of that somehow!
2. Who says they would not have sold yet a ton more on top if they had done some thing differently?
3. You should well known that in the tech world the best product often doesn't win, it's who has the best marketing and influence on the press, etc. Just look at computers and how Apple was even able to have Apple IIe junk, never mind Mac stuff, be pushed as superior to stuff like an Amiga, ridiculous, but that is how it goes.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



that's a pretty flawed response


----------



## mountain_drew (Aug 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, your analogy is flawed. I can put a lens on an optical bench and test it independently. I can buy a lens for use on multiple cameras. I can even (gasp!) buy a Nikon lens and use it on a Canon camera, but of course, not the reverse.
> 
> Discussing the performance of the bare silicon sensor without considering the rest of the camera is like discussing the isolated performance of (and making purchasing decisions based solely on) just the *rear element* of lenses under consideration. That would be a pretty silly thing to do, just as it is for bare silicon.


As a scientist, you should understand the point of isolating the contribution of specific factors to a certain outcome. Sure, sensor is only one of them, but that doesn't preclude from looking at it in isolation.


----------



## MLfan3 (Aug 30, 2013)

pedro said:


> 70D and Dxomark... As far as I have learned here on this forum, their assessment is not the last verdict...;-)
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52066617



in fact in this case, DXO is spot on but so what?
all cameras should not be rated or evaluated by sensor quality alone , and DXO is not even measuring actual sensor quality since there is no such thing as real RAW or sensor alone image quality.
my D600 , which has a great if not the greatest sensor ever but the camera as whole is not that great , in fact , it has so many design flaws.

read amazon reviews on the D600 and the D800 , you will know the great sensor alone never make a good camera.

btw, I own both the D800E and the D600 and have experienced through Nikon Service horror stories you find at Amazon, and so I decided to go dual mount in last Oct with a new EOS6D,which I decided to replace with a new 5D3 body in this July.

in my humble opinion , the 5D3 is the best all around camera ever in its price range, and the new 70D is the best APS-C camera ever , it seems to me is the obvious first step(of Canon) to go real hybrid APS(like an APS-C version of the Pana's great GH3).

I think the 70D successor will not have the mirror and OVF but will be real sophisticated hybrid mirrorless EF mount camera.


----------



## meli (Aug 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > The 70D...has not improved and is slightly worse than the 9 year old 20D.
> ...



You keep touting this sales horn since forever and i cant really understand it, "what does X or Y matter when sales show that". Last i checked it was a hardware forum not retail or brokerage. Otherwise, lets dump our 5ds & 1ds cause, you know, rebels are where sales are.
People comment /grind on one particular deficiency of canon's line cause its exactly this, a deficiency. It doesn't make sense counteracting it with "what does it matter the rest of the camera is great" (or worse: oh but look at the sales...) Yes, everything else is great, people see that, and that makes it all the more obvious that a camera like 5d3 with d600's sensor would be the perfect camera. 90% of the users maybe don't mind but 10% does cause canon is trailing everybody else in this field, and its becoming obvious that its either arrogance or inability rather than decision. 
And yes, since sensor isn't everything thats why people bitch about, otherwise they would just jump ship.

look at this:


> DxOMark measures sensors, but people buy cameras, not bare silicon sensors. You can rehash DxOMark data until hell freezes over, it doesn't change the fact that Canon has been outselling Nikon for years, nor the fact that the 5DIII outsells the D800. The obvious conclusion is that 'better' sensors (where 'better' is defined as low ISO DR) have not helped Nikon or Sony sell more cameras.



What does this mean? That since Canon has been outselling Nikon then there is no point arguing about Canon ineficiency to improve low iso for the last decade? That doesn't make sense.
And btw, your 'obvious' conclusion isn't really that obvious or a conclusion. Sensors did help Nikon sales, hardware failures didnt.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 30, 2013)

Aglet said:


> *FACTS STILL STAND: At a per-pixel level, NO SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN 10 YEARS.
> *



Yep.

Another fact: If that fact mattered much to the average person buying a DSLR camera, it would be reflected in sales volume and market share...but it doesn't, so it isn't.

Another fact: This silly debate continues on ad infinitum -- every time it's brought up. Some how the DR trolls think they represent the masses and that those who disagree are a tiny, stubborn, uninformed minority? I refer back to sales volume...(speaking of things people don't want to admit).



Pi said:


> While Canon is improving the video capabilities of its dSLRs, Nikon is thinking about (and patenting) a selectable strength AA filter.



Yeah...Canon should give up now. Maybe if Canon did some research and patented something relevant to stills shooters. :

Anybody think it's significant that this crappy new 70D sensor that sucks so bad managed to still improve somewhat over the previous generation in some ways..._while cutting its sensor diodes in half_? I know the math doesn't necessarily work out like this, but: it seems kinda like this inferior chip is managing to keep up (and slightly pick up) its pace with one arm tied behind its back. ;D



Chuck Alaimo said:


> If I am looking for new posing ideas, I don't go to DXO....lol....uggg...stop typing now...



LOL...I hear you, man! This thread might just go on forever. Based on at least one contributor's forum handle, it might remain irrational and never end. :-X

I guess that last bit probably sounds mean-spirited. Sorry -- couldn't resist the comparison. I do mean it as a lighthearted ribbing...

One last thought: It seems to me that this forum has had discussions about mirrorless being the technology of the future and that DSLRs may fall by the wayside as mirrorless catches up. I'm not going to make a prediction about that, but if Canon tends to agree, maybe that Dual Pixel Live View AF technology they just released isn't so video-centric after all. Maybe it really is part of a long-term strategy. Suddenly Nikon/Sony is scrambling to file patents and catch up. Have you seen the video of the D7100 trying to keep up with the 70D in Live View and Video AF? I think the future is bright for Canon (and I don't care how many stops that brightness scores on some chart).

Before I hang up my keyboard for this thread, I will make a prediction: This debate will not result in one side becoming enlightened and reversing their opinions to agree with the other side. There will be no virtual hand-holding and Kumbaya in harmony.

I am looking forward to having a tutu with the 70D when it hits local stores, though...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 30, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



Never did I say having DR doesn't matter, or is useless, or shouldn't be a concern. My argument was against the idea that - "It is what it is, and apparently most of the sensors are inferior to the nikon's(or sony) in almost every aspect. Whether it is noticeable or not in real world usage is not really that relevant." 

A 1dx or a d4 is gonna perform better shooting sports than a d800 would do. Take it to the next extreme - A rebel would probably outdo a hasslebad shooting sports as well. this claim of outright inferior/superior is just silly, it all depends on what you shoot, what your needs are, what your style is...what you want to do. If it's your passion to shoot in a forest with vast amounts of DR to contend with, by all means, buy the body with better DR. But just because that body is top of the line in a forest, that doesn't mean it's better for something else. this still doesn't address the idea that 'whether it is noticeable in real world usage is not really that relevant.' Because if that's the case, then your what about shooting in forest scenario doesn't matter because thats a real world scenario. Intended use doesn't matter, that's real world too. All that matters is what the spec sheet says, or the lab results say because, whether it is noticeable in real world usage is not really that relevant. 

Sorry, I say real world usage is relevant. If you spend most of your shooting time with your camera on a tripod, at ISO 100, then yes, DR and low ISO IQ makes a huge difference to you, and the nikon sensor is superior for that purpose...no arguments there. But if your shooting events, sports, weddings - then that DR advantage goes away because your not using ISO 100 the majority of the time. For sports fps and accurate servo tracking trump DR any day of the week. For weddings, High ISO and AF trump DR. For these 2 types of shooters canon is superior at that price point. 

And for the hobbyists...sorry to bring in a small dose of reality here ---but talk about first world problems. I'm not letting Canon off the hook, but, this is 2013! this is a first world problem for sure, I mean cry me a river, my $XXXX value camera can't do 14 stops of DR which I process on my expensive computer using the latest professional grade software???? I get that we have wants, but seriously now, this is 1st world craziness written all over it. Its a hobby. That shot you get of your kid at the birthday party, is 14 stops vs 11 stops of DR going to really stop you from showing it grandchildren? That landscape you took and had framed and put on the wall, are your friends really coming over for a bbq and telling you wow, look at that banding in the corner, see it, here's the magnifying glass - or wow, this would have been so much better had you lifted the shadows 2 stops. I'm not trying to be elitist here, but at least pros do have some valid concerns for tech upgrades, their livelyhood depends on it. But as a hobby, come on now, can't we all just agree that the modern age has a lot of badass tools we can use???????


----------



## docsmith (Aug 30, 2013)

You all remember that the 70D is a consumer level, maybe prosumer level,camera body right? We aren't talking about the 1DX or 1DXII. I can understand that you are wanting improvement in Canon's sensor tech...but did you really expect improvement in DR, which to me is a "higher end" feature, in a consumer level product?

For a consumer level product, I actually think Canon nailed the sensor improvement. Give the masses better AF during video while still having great stills! So the masses don't need to buy a camcorder and a dSLR, they can just buy the 70D. 

To me, Canon nailed the improvement that matches the market for this body.

For those of you that are arguing, were you ever going to buy a 70D? Going with the car analogy from a page or two ago, this is like Acura owners complaining about the horsepower in the latest Honda Civic. You were never going to buy one and you are not the target market.....


----------



## zlatko (Aug 30, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Canon has been often falling behind in color sensitivity though and has fallen way behind in DR. In fact they were actually getting worse in terms of DR and banding for most of the last half decade and only recently have just managed to get almost back to where they had gotten to with the old 1Ds3.


I edit thousands of Canon files each week, and have done so for 10+ years. I've seen each new generation of camera bring improved image quality. And I've edited thousands of photos from photographers who use the latest Nikon cameras. Thank goodness they are very skilled photographers and know what they're doing because their cameras are not giving them the slightest advantage vs. Canon. Canon "banding getting worse" ... what banding? Canon "falling behind in color sensitivity"? ... I wish Nikon color were as good.


----------



## heptagon (Aug 30, 2013)

This forum feels like being caught in a loop, the same arguments repeated over and over again...


----------



## duydaniel (Aug 30, 2013)

You are under captivity of negativity


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

To cover some stuff not covered by DxO regarding sensors:

Low ISO banding definitely seems better than with the 7D, almost for certain the vertical banding is clearly less. Don't have the proper samples to judge horizontal banding yet, but almost for sure it is not worse and it certainly might be better or much too, don't know yet. But horizontal handn't been as bad on the 7D, using masked area on RAWs you see lots of fine vertical banding at ISO100 although horizontal in that little area looks OK. With the 70D all the fine vertical bandings that leap out at you are gone.

Acutance appears to be better than the 7D as well. I can't yet be 100% sure it is real, but I suspect it will prove to be. It could be a change in the AA filter and/or also the greens in the CFA might be so extremely split as they on the 7D so RAW converters can get better acutance out of the files without running into mazing issues. If you compare 7D files developed with the original beta RAW support in ACR or even Canon's own DPP they have a bit better acutance than when using release versions of ACR or later DPP versions. But the earlier RAW converters also left 7D files riddles with "mazing" artifacts all over which is why they had to be changed and were (after I reported the issue and then others concurred and also reported it).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

meli said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



+1


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2013)

I've done well to stick to the topic of 70D and DxOmark, I think.
I've merely presented DxO's data in a way which tellingly demonstrates just what they measured on the 70D's sensor in comparison to what they measured to a 10 year old model. 
A per-pixel level comparison is important because this is what defines the quality of the electronics in the system.

Can we imagine how fabulous the 70D would be if it also had 2 full stops better SNR or DR?.. I'd be drooling! The capabilities of such a CAMERA would be truly class-leading.
As it is, there's just a lot of compromising.


@Neuro; sorry, your big corp style capitalist justifications are not relevant when talking about sensor tech unless they're invested more of those profits into R&D or patent licensing to improve the foundation of the actual product, it's sensor technology. And coming up with RESULTS. It seems dividends were more important than technology investment in the last 10 years. 
Can't argue with success tho, Canon's doing very well in that regard.

I will repeat, what they've done in the 70D with the AF ability is very impressive. I just wish they'd also bring more than minuscule improvements to the base stills performance of ALL their sensors.

Off-topic:
FWIW, 2012-2013 saw me liquidate a lot of newer Canon gear and give that money to Ricoh-Pentax.
I'm now only looking for a high performance crop body for long glass, dim light and high fps rates.
Will it be a 7d MkII, a D400, a K-3(?), or possibly even a new mirrorless system?
If the old 7D had less FPN, it'd have stayed in my inventory. If the 7d2 has a vastly improved sensor, it'll top my list.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

docsmith said:


> You all remember that the 70D is a consumer level, maybe prosumer level,camera body right? We aren't talking about the 1DX or 1DXII. I can understand that you are wanting improvement in Canon's sensor tech...but did you really expect improvement in DR, which to me is a "higher end" feature, in a consumer level product?



How is DR a higher end feature when even the lowest end Nikon or whatnot has it better? Even a few POINT AND SHOOTS actually have more engineering measured lowest ISO DR than the 5D3! (yes the P&S still are worse in all other sensor aspects though, mostly by a decently large degree, not saying I whip out the P&S for landscapes, but just pointing out that I mean when P&S can on a per IMAGE basis get better DR than a FF DSLR.... and P&S are not high end).

Also even with Nikon, at low ISO the D4, their highest end body in some senses, has somewhat less DR than the D600 or even D7100.



> For a consumer level product, I actually think Canon nailed the sensor improvement. Give the masses better AF during video while still having great stills! So the masses don't need to buy a camcorder and a dSLR, they can just buy the 70D.



It's certainly a great thing.



> To me, Canon nailed the improvement that matches the market for this body.



perhaps

although it wouldn't have hurt it they had nailed both (and they probably do have the tech in house to do it if they were allowed to)

it also makes some worried that they might also forget to do it for stuff like a 5D4 and such though too



> For those of you that are arguing, were you ever going to buy a 70D? Going with the car analogy from a page or two ago, this is like Acura owners complaining about the horsepower in the latest Honda Civic. You were never going to buy one and you are not the target market.....



no, but there were some CR2 reports that said Canon was leaning towards re-using the 70D sensor for the 7D2


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

zlatko said:


> Thank goodness they are very skilled photographers and know what they're doing because their cameras are not giving them the slightest advantage vs. Canon. Canon "banding getting worse" ... what banding? Canon "falling behind in color sensitivity"? ... I wish Nikon color were as good.




You seriously did notice the banding got worse going for 1Ds3 to 5D2? Or 40D to 50D? And then better again from 5D2 to 6D (although maybe still a trace behind the old 1Ds3)?

You actually think that many Nikons have not had a lot less banding than stuff like 50D,5D2,5D3,1D4,etc.?

Maybe you don't ever shoot to where it matters, but that is something else.

You wish Nikon color sensitivity were as good? It's better.
As for what color is better overall, not just talking color sensitivity, that is a very complex topic with no easy answers. Overall it seems Nikon has filters that allow for more accurate color overall on average although Canon make make certain skin types easier to pull off nicely. It's a very twisted subejct and it varies model to model and in many cases there is probably no universal answer comparing any given body to any given other it might depend upon the very exactingly specific question you ask. But in terms of color sensitivity and metamerism overall on average Nikon has often been a full stop ahead recently.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2013)

*Black-Cap event*

70D in stock at my local store.
Goin' in for some lens cap shots.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2013)

mountain_drew said:


> As a scientist, you should understand the point of isolating the contribution of specific factors to a certain outcome. Sure, sensor is only one of them, but that doesn't preclude from looking at it in isolation.



Certainly. Say we identify a drug that completely inhibits a particular enzyme isoform. We could evaluate performance against isoform 1 in isolation and declare success. But there are three isoforms in every diseased cell, and thanks to the uninhibited activity of isoforms 2 and 3, the patient still dies. Consider a given factor in isolation, fine - as long as you realize that factor is one element of a whole system, and it's really the system performance that matters in the real world. 

The problem is when people equate better sensor performance on certain metrics to better overall camera performance across the board. But honestly, when I read posts by Mikael/ankorwatt, Aglet, et al., it comes across that they believe that sensor DR is the only aspect of *camera* performance that matters, and that the same it true for everyone who picks up a camera. 



meli said:


> You keep touting this sales horn since forever and i cant really understand it, "what does X or Y matter when sales show that"



That's not really the reason. There are many aspects of *camera* performance that can be considered. Sensor performance is certainly one of them, and it gets beaten like a dead horse in part because its easy to measure. How do you quantify AF performance in a standardized way, or ergonomics, or whether having a 14-24/2.8 is more important than having a TS-E 17mm, etc. Different aspects of performance are going to have different relative importance to different people. There's no such thing as "the best" camera, especially once cost is factored in. 

Sales figures are a surrogate to discuss an overall comparison in the context of a generality. Obviously, everyone should make their own buying decision based on the factors that matter to them. But in aggregate, the fact that Canon is the market leader means that more people decided the features, cost, and 'intangibles' of Canon dSLRs made that 'the best' for them. So, if we say that Sony/Nikon has better sensor DR, but Canon sells more cameras, that suggests that, in aggregate, sensor DR is not a driving factor in the minds of the majority of buyers. Obviously, for some people it's the most important factor...but those people are in the minority. 



duydaniel said:


> You are under captivity of negativity



Well, 'agree to disagree' has been tried. Unfortunately, the result has usually been 'agree to be disagreeable'.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2013)

*Re: Black-Cap event*



Aglet said:


> 70D in stock at my local store.
> Goin' in for some lens cap shots.



Case in point - this is how Aglet evaluates a new camera: 'pictures' with the lens cap on. He'll then boost the black images 4-5 stops, and tell us all how crappy the 'pictures' are, and how Canon still hasn't made their sensors cameras any better. 

Yawn.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The problem is when people equate better sensor performance on certain metrics to better overall camera performance across the board. But honestly, when I read posts by Mikael/ankorwatt, Aglet, et al., it comes across that they believe that sensor DR is the only aspect of *camera* performance that matters, and that the same it true for everyone who picks up a camera.



Not even Ankorwatt has ever specifically said that as far as I can recall and the rest of us sure as heck have not.

And if everything was trivialized and minimized we'd never have gotten the 7D it would still be all Rebels or xxD, the 5D3 would still have 5D2 AF, the 5D2 would never have gotten manual control for video (in that case it even took major major players and studios ranting and pressuring like crazy), etc.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

*Re: Black-Cap event*



neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > 70D in stock at my local store.
> ...



And I suppose when you carry out bio research that instead of doing the simplest, most repeatable test (for which you have a good sense how the results would correspond in other scenarios of interest as well) you instead do very time consuming tests that are not easily repeatable to start?

Why should do some test that will take him two hours and that would be hard to match up with other tests when he could do a lens cap test in like literally 60 seconds and get something easily and repeatably comparably to other tests he has done at different times or to tests carried out by others. While doing that test also takes just about 15 seconds extra to also examine banding performance. If you already have a good sense how those relate to the real world why would you not start there? Maybe you like to waste hours of your time only vaguely accurately measuring DR for hours, but maybe he doesn't.


----------



## Pi (Aug 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The problem is when people equate better sensor performance on certain metrics to better overall camera performance across the board. But honestly, when I read posts by Mikael/ankorwatt, Aglet, et al., it comes across that they believe that sensor DR is the only aspect of *camera* performance that matters, and that the same it true for everyone who picks up a camera.



Actually, it is the other way around. You and a few other people are trying to change the topic every time DR is discussed. I still have to see somebody saying the Nikon *cameras* are better because of that. But when DR gets mentioned, within seconds, somebody feels the need to say that this is not the only aspect, etc., as if we are in kindergarten and do not know that. 

This thread is about sensor performance, and has been since the beginning.


----------



## mountain_drew (Aug 30, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> no, but there were some CR2 reports that said Canon was leaning towards re-using the 70D sensor for the 7D2


THe 70D's sensor is ok. However, I think it should have been launched in the EOS-M, which would greatly benefit from the AF performance in Live View. I really, really hope that the 7D2 sensor is going to be better than the 70D's, otherwise it'll probably only be a 70D++ with better weathersealing, more AF points and better FPS.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

mountain_drew said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > no, but there were some CR2 reports that said Canon was leaning towards re-using the 70D sensor for the 7D2
> ...



It does seem ultra curious that they didn't use it for the M since my impression was that the M failed because people didn't like the AF on it. Maybe the processing power to handle the new AF was too much???? (i don't know much about the internals of the M or what price goals they need to hit, still with sales apparently (I really haven't followed the market much just going by random hearsay) so tanked.... it seems odd)


----------



## zlatko (Aug 30, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Thank goodness they are very skilled photographers and know what they're doing because their cameras are not giving them the slightest advantage vs. Canon. Canon "banding getting worse" ... what banding? Canon "falling behind in color sensitivity"? ... I wish Nikon color were as good.
> ...



1Ds3 to 5D2 -- that's going from the a top of the line model to a model costing half as much. You're really stretching here.

40D to 50D -- that was 2008; we are now two models post 50D. You're really stretching to prove this alleged decline.

5D2 to 6D -- the 6D is significantly better in image quality. There is no banding, let alone "worse" banding. I used two 5D2's for a total of nearly 400K exposures. No banding problem. I must be shooting "where it never matters", or perhaps I don't massively underexpose.

I didn't say Nikon has less banding. I said banding is not an issue with current Canon models. And there you go again with the 50D. 

As for Nikon color being "better" ... I've seen too many examples to the contrary.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2013)

*Re: Black-Cap event*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



I like simple, repeatable tests. But I also understand they're designed to test only one aspect, often one of a multitude of aspects, of _system_ performance. 



Pi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is when people equate better sensor performance on certain metrics to better overall camera performance across the board. But honestly, when I read posts by Mikael/ankorwatt, Aglet, et al., it comes across that they believe that sensor DR is the only aspect of *camera* performance that matters, and that the same it true for everyone who picks up a camera.
> ...



It's about putting it in *context*. You seem to grasp that DR is merely one aspect of camera performance, not all DRones are so perceptive. 



Pi said:


> This thread is about sensor performance, and has been since the beginning.



Fine. How do you explain the dozens of other threads that _aren't_ about sensor performance, or where Sony/Nikon sensors aren't even mentioned, until the DRones bring their DRivel? Threads about lenses, threads about autofocus, threads about dead pixels, I've seen all DRagged down into the dolDRums by the you-know-whos.


----------



## bleephotography (Aug 30, 2013)

*Re: Black-Cap event*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



I don't think neuro is knocking his performing the test or even his testing methods per se, but rather the prospective conclusion he and many others will deduce from it: that the camera is trash simply because there isn't a significant difference in high ISO or DR performance from its predecessor and/or competition.

Here are the facts:

Yes, modern Nikons have better sensors.
Sony makes these sensors.
Yet, Canon still outsells Nikon and Sony in the DSLR market.

While it's true that DR is important, it seems to not be as crucial as say ergonomics or functionality, hence why the majority chooses Canon. Well, that and for the lenses!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2013)

*Re: Black-Cap event*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Maybe you like to waste hours of your time only vaguely accurately measuring DR for hours, but maybe he doesn't.



I missed the edit you made to add this bit. 

No, I trust DxOMark to do that for me. 

When I push my shadows a few stops, I don't see the banding others report. That could be because my shots aren't underexposed by 5 stops before I push the shadows.


----------



## Pi (Aug 31, 2013)

*Re: Black-Cap event*



bleephotography said:


> Yes, modern Nikons have better sensors.
> Sony makes these sensors.
> Yet, Canon still outsells Nikon and Sony in the DSLR market.



Of those three, I care only about #1. I have some limited interest in #3, since I do not want either company to go the Kodak way.

BTW, oil stains are not signs of IQ, so I would stick to "better DR and slightly better high ISO performance".


----------



## Famateur (Aug 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> This thread is about sensor performance, and has been since the beginning.



Curious that you say that, Pi. Your tone seemed to make the conclusion that based on sensor performance (specifically DR), you would recommend anything but Canon, joining in with other posts saying that Canon "sucks". People "feel the need" to respond to the (in my opinion) useless conclusion that Canon cameras are inferior based on the sensor charts originally meant as the topic of this thread. 

Example:



Pi said:


> Sadly, the 1DX has worse DR at base ISO than the ancient D90.
> 
> I would say, if you need DR badly, buy anything but Canon.



There have been a few posts where the so-called "Canon Fanboys" openly acknowledge that the Sony sensors are superior in dynamic range at certain ISO levels. Why is that not enough? Because they don't buy the garbage that, based on that dynamic range, only a fool would choose Canon over Nikon (Sony)?

(Incidentally, I happen to really enjoy some of the breathtaking images "fools" like Andy Rouse are producing with their "inferior" Canon gear.) Not a single image of his have I thought to myself, "Dang -- that would be a great image if it just had another two stops of dynamic range. What a pity. I would have liked it..." And that applies to before and after his switch to Canon.

Of course, this takes me back to the point I tried to make earlier that noteworthy photographers are too busy producing fantastic photographs to complain about dynamic range getting in the way...especially when the dynamic range capability in question is for a mid-level crop sensor camera.

So:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Sony sensors are superior in dynamic range and noise at certain ISOs.
[*]Canon gear isn't stopping some of the best photographers in the world from being some of the best photographers in the world.
[*]There are enough people in the world that choose Canon despite #1 above, as demonstrated by those evil sales volume figures and the continuation of this seemingly endless thread, to show that dynamic range isn't everything.
[/list]

We good now?


----------



## Famateur (Aug 31, 2013)

I can't help but think that this would make an epic food fight if we were all in one room with copious amounts of colorful pudding to fling... ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2013)

Famateur said:


> I can't help but think that this would make an epic food fight if we were all in one room with copious amounts of colorful pudding to fling... ;D



Thank goodness for weathersealed bodies and lenses!


----------



## Famateur (Aug 31, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > I can't help but think that this would make an epic food fight if we were all in one room with copious amounts of colorful pudding to fling... ;D
> ...



LOL...your quick wit is priceless!


----------



## bleephotography (Aug 31, 2013)

*Re: Black-Cap event*



Pi said:


> bleephotography said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, modern Nikons have better sensors.
> ...



Anyone who thinks oil stains are a sign of IQ are ignorant, but you have to admit that it's definitely not reassuring!

The point is, having slightly lesser DR or high ISO performance does not make a camera _as a whole_ inferior. Rather, its priorities are simply shifted elsewhere and it may have an advantage that the other camera lacks: in this case, video. Does this make the supposedly "inferior" camera any less capable in the stills department? No. It can still perform the same tasks, just with slightly more grain or less highlight/shadow resolution. It's all about priorities and compromises.



Famateur said:


> I can't help but think that this would make an epic food fight if we were all in one room with copious amounts of colorful pudding to fling... ;D



Kind of like this but with something a little more edible! http://youtu.be/pVKnF26qFFM Obviously, I.T. = Nikon fanboys and S.A.L.E.S. = Canon. The pen symbolizes Canon's shutter sound ;D


----------



## Famateur (Aug 31, 2013)

LOL...yeah. That pretty much sums it up!

Moderators? I think we're done here... 8)


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 31, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > I can't help but think that this would make an epic food fight if we were all in one room with copious amounts of colorful pudding to fling... ;D
> ...



And as someone of Newfoundland heritage, "tank de lard fer de sou'wester's"....


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 31, 2013)

*Re: Black-Cap event*



bleephotography said:


> Kind of like this but with something a little more edible!


I'd be the guy with the coffee.....


----------



## rpt (Aug 31, 2013)

*Re: Black-Cap event*



Don Haines said:


> bleephotography said:
> 
> 
> > Kind of like this but with something a little more edible!
> ...


Good choice. Anyone but Harold


----------



## duydaniel (Aug 31, 2013)

Let's fight:
http://youtu.be/qTVfFmENgPU


----------



## Pi (Aug 31, 2013)

Famateur said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is about sensor performance, and has been since the beginning.
> ...



It is an illusion. 



> Example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, is that how you read my post? Did you notice the _ if you need DR badly_ part of it, which, BTW, was in the post I replied to?



> (Incidentally, I happen to really enjoy some of the breathtaking images "fools" like Andy Rouse are producing with their "inferior" Canon gear.)



Well, do not call him _"fool"_ then. And do not call the Canon gear _"inferior"_.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2013)

zlatko said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



40D was same generation as the 1Ds3 and also had a lot less banding than the more costly 5D2 which was of the really bad banding generation along with the 50D



> 40D to 50D -- that was 2008; we are now two models post 50D. You're really stretching to prove this alleged decline.



How it is stretching anything. you said there was never any decline, there was. They spent a few generations getting worse before now climbing finally back to where they had been over half a decade ago.



> 5D2 to 6D -- the 6D is significantly better in image quality. There is no banding, let alone "worse" banding.



That is what I said, with the 6D they finally got the cameras back almost to where they had been in the 1Ds3 era. 



> I used two 5D2's for a total of nearly 400K exposures. No banding problem. I must be shooting "where it never matters", or perhaps I don't massively underexpose.



How many times does it need to be said that it's not about underexposure!



> I didn't say Nikon has less banding. I said banding is not an issue with current Canon models. And there you go again with the 50D.



You said you never saw any changes and that they had never risen and declined and risen again, something a heck of a lot different than there is no banding with current models. And the latter isn't even quite true since while the 6D and 1DX do pretty well with it they are still a touch worse than old 1Ds3 in that regard and somewhat worse than most of the Exmor cameras at any price. And the 5D3 is very much a current model as is the 7D and they have a goodly amount of banding at low ISO (although the latest processing software is fairly good at hiding it with the 5D3, but when you are really pushing DR it still shows with the 5D3, in fact if it didn't, then how can people say the 6D clearly does better?).



> As for Nikon color being "better" ... I've seen too many examples to the contrary.



Overall as a whole there sensors have been more color accurate overall at the RAW level. As I said it's a very complex thing and it also depends a ton upon what software and profile you use, tremendously so and also what you care about, if you care about a certain skin type under certain lighting type by far the most than Canon colors may overall seem better to you, if you care about some other aspect than very well maybe not since Nikon has tended to distinguish more fine shades overall and store them as RAW a bit more accurately as a whole, although no for every portion of the visible spectrum. There is no simple answer at all when it comes to color and there are so many different aspects to it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2013)

*Re: Black-Cap event*



neuroanatomist said:


> I like simple, repeatable tests. But I also understand they're designed to test only one aspect, often one of a multitude of aspects, of _system_ performance.



So who said otherwise (of course each specific little test only tests one or a few things)? And the way you sneeringly mock people for lens cap tests and such hardly makes it come across as if you like simple, repeatable tests.




> It's about putting it in *context*. You seem to grasp that DR is merely one aspect of camera performance, not all DRones are so perceptive.



I get the impression that most are. 

OTOH sometimes it sounds like the only single aspects that don't matter in the real world whatsoever just happen to be only and exactly the aspects that the camera they own doesn't do the very best at when it comes to those mocking the DR crowd. Once upon a time Canon had better DR than Nikon bodies and some of the same people were parading around about how they went Canon because the sensor was so much better.



> Fine. How do you explain the dozens of other threads that _aren't_ about sensor performance, or where Sony/Nikon sensors aren't even mentioned, until the DRones bring their DRivel? Threads about lenses, threads about autofocus, threads about dead pixels, I've seen all DRagged down into the dolDRums by the you-know-whos.



I don't know that I have seen that happen so much. They've mostly been threads about DR, about image quality in general or a new camera in general. I don't recall lens forums flooded with cries about DR.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2013)

*Re: Black-Cap event*



neuroanatomist said:


> When I push my shadows a few stops, I don't see the banding others report. That could be because my shots aren't underexposed by 5 stops before I push the shadows.



See there you go again. You pretend to be high and mighty and cleanly above it all but you always sneak in cheap shots that you know are misleading. You well know that wanting more DR is about far more than just rescuing the odd shot where the exposure got totally blown (not that sure wouldn't be nice, who wouldn't want that, nobody is perfect and here and there everyone blows a rare one of shot or doesn't have time to adjust settings in time for something that comes out of the blue, but again that is just a side element to the greater issue). You perfectly well understand that.

Instead of just saying that for what you shoot you just don't run into banding issues with any of the cameras you toss in tired out misleading points and try to make the other side appear to be incompetents. But of course you are so high and mighty above Ankorwatt. Granted most are probably guilty of such things to some extent at times.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2013)

Famateur said:


> I can't help but think that this would make an epic food fight if we were all in one room with copious amounts of colorful pudding to fling... ;D



this is why i always use a lens hood and protective UV filter


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2013)

And if Canon has the right to keep sending out user surveys trying to gauge how trapped users feel by their Canon lens collections and to keep judging how far they can get away with not updating their sensors fabs then Ankorwatt can be free to keep griping about it. Why is Canon some holy thing for playing that game and Ankor the devil?


----------



## JoeDavid (Aug 31, 2013)

Camera Labs is usually pretty impartial. You might want to take a look at their RAW comparison:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_70D/RAW_noise.shtml

Pretty ugly at the higher ISOs...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2013)

The really funny thing is that deep down at heart, I'm actually a bit of a Canon fanboy.

Since I can't help but say get a hint of a smile if I see some test reveal some new Canon lens to have record breaking performance or what not and if I was 100% neutral and 100% lacking in fanboy then that shouldn't be the case. I've just used Canon for so long.

I like Canon to be the best at everything under the sun (but have no problem believing they might not be or in pointing out when they fall way behind in something or start getting a bit out of control in crippling something although some crippling is to be naturally expected).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And if Canon has the right to keep sending out user surveys trying to gauge how trapped users feel by their Canon lens collections and to keep judging how far they can get away with not updating their sensors fabs then Ankorwatt can be free to keep griping about it. Why is Canon some holy thing for playing that game and Ankor the devil?



Because Canon is trying to assess the wants and needs of the customer base in an effort to produce more marketable products (note that 'more marketable' doesn't necessarily mean 'better'), whereas Mikael/ankorwatt is just an Internet troll. 

Harsh to call him a troll? I think he fits the definition perfectly. He posts the same statements, the same images, over and over in thread after thread. He's bright enough to know the reaction his posts will provoke, that doesn't stop him. He's persistent enough that he created multiple user accounts to push his points, and even willing to modify the behavior that got him banned the first time, just to keep posting the same points and images (modified partially - fewer insulting posts, but it slips out sometimes, and he's never really stopped accusing people of inadequate understanding of concepts when the issue is they understand the concepts just fine, but also understand they lack relevance to them). He touts his years of experience, but in hundreds of posts, how many times has he used that experience to try and help other users, answer their questions about gear or photography, or posted images from his portfolio, other than to further his crusade against the poor low ISO DR of Canon sensors? Not zero, but damn few...maybe 1-3% of his posts don't relate to poor Canon sensor performance. So, why does he bother to continue posting the same statements and 'examples'? Trolling. 

He's not alone in having earned that moniker, but he's certainly one of the more flagrant examples of it here.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> maybe 1-3% of his posts don't relate to poor Canon sensor performance



That's probably an underestimate. I forgot about the posts defending Nikon lenses, including many about how fluorite elements are suboptimal because they're fragile and Nikon's ED glass is just as good optically. I haven't seen him make that argument since Nikon announced their new 800/5.6 with amazing MTF curves...and two fluorite elements.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > And if Canon has the right to keep sending out user surveys trying to gauge how trapped users feel by their Canon lens collections and to keep judging how far they can get away with not updating their sensors fabs then Ankorwatt can be free to keep griping about it. Why is Canon some holy thing for playing that game and Ankor the devil?
> ...



Well the way they were asking questions it was pretty clear they were trying to judge how trapped and locked into the Canon system their base was, they basically more or less even out right asked that, and more than once. That is a bit different than simply assessing the needs and wants of the customers. But more seeing how much leeway they had to get away with in some cases not meeting their needs and wants.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > maybe 1-3% of his posts don't relate to poor Canon sensor performance
> ...



I didn't see those posts but I'll give you that, if true. That sounds a bit trollish. Canon's fluorite elements are pretty awesome and they have some mighty fine lenses. (So is Nikon finally making true pure fluorite elements now with the 800mm or is it still heavily fluorite doped glass?)


----------



## Aglet (Aug 31, 2013)

*Re: Black-Cap event*



neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > 70D in stock at my local store.
> ...



raw files are pushed 4 stops

Do you look for bio-luminescent markers with the room lights on? 

(BTW, are you a _real_ scientist?... cuz you sure spend a LOT more time on this forum during the work day than I'd like to see any employee of mine doing)


----------



## Aglet (Aug 31, 2013)

New thread with 70D lens cap tests and text interpretation. sorry no time for visuals tonite.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16713.0


Happy long weekend everybody.
Go shoot something! w i t h a C A M E R A.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I think you may have misinterpreted my statement. I said Canon wants to _assess_ customers' needs and wants. I didn't say their goal is to _meet_ them. Seriously, if Canon thought they could slap their logo on Kobe steer manure and profit from it, they would - that's their mandate. That's what marketing is all about - lipstick on pigs and logos on cow poop, as long as it sells. Marketing...unfortunately like tax collectors and lawyers, a necessary evil in today's society. Not that I'm cynical about that...


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):
> ...



Wait...you mean we can use these cameras for something other then shooting walls at -5EV? 8)

Great shots btw.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2013)

Apop said:


> I don't really get why canon users need to defend their far inferior sensor.....Envy?



I don't really get why Sony/Nikon users need to come to a Canon forum and blabber on and on and on about how superior their sensors are when the truth is they couldn't pick out 30" prints in a double blind test if their lives depended on it.

Then again, I don't shoot walls at -5 EV. And when I do lift shadows, I use a little something called noise reduction. I know, I'm weird that way, wanting to shoot other subjects at correct exposures...


----------



## zlatko (Aug 31, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I can't speak about every camera Canon has made, but I've had no banding problem with the 5D3, 6D, 5D2, 7D or 60D. The "goodly amount of banding" you claim with the 5D3 just doesn't exist in my 5D3. I don't know what people are doing with these cameras to have a banding problem.

"Really pushing DR" ... what does that mean? ... Is this all about being able to radically push the sliders in Lightroom?


----------



## duydaniel (Aug 31, 2013)

where is the banding?
5D3 
ISO 4000
extreme cropped


----------



## zlatko (Aug 31, 2013)

*Re: Black-Cap event*



Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



Lens cap shots? Pushed 4 stops?? I've never heard of a _worse_ way to evaluate a camera. That's not even photography. It shows _something_, but has no practical relevance.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2013)

meli said:


> Perhaps you have lower standards or you just dont care,



Or perhaps you just don't know how to expose, process, and print a 7D RAW file.



> Explain to me though, do you believe that in some cases with the right subject, under some circumstances, the output from any dslr might be indinstiguisable from another, or do you maintain that this is the case generally?



It's the case pretty much all of the time with the exception of underexposing walls, pushing +5 EV, and leaving default NR or turning NR off completely.

One thing I have to give to Ken Rockwell is his evaluation of the levels of photography, especially the lowest level. Tell me he doesn't describe to a T the DR trolls who keep coming here: 
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm



> do create a separate thread and post your thesis about how dslrs have the same output regardless brand or format, im sure it 'll be highly entertaining.



The differences in output are an order of magnitude less significant then the next least significant variable. Honestly I've put more time and thought into what paper I want to print on then whether I should shoot Canon or Nikon, because the paper choice matters more.



> > > Obviously you can see a massive difference if you want to salvage shoots where flash or strobes didnt fire; basically those sony sensors are isoless, you could push an underexposed iso100 all the way to 3200 and there isnt much difference from a native 3200, plus the tonality will be actually greater.
> >
> >
> >
> ...



I was making fun of your hyperbole.

A) Claiming tonality would be better in an ISO 100 shot pushed 5 EV then in a native ISO 3200 shot only illustrates your ignorance about how tonality is encoded. Please review the technical literature on why we expose to the right.

B) I would actually agree that Sony sensors are better at +5 EV then Canon sensors. And if I regularly blew my exposures by -5 EV, or regularly shot with a broken flash, I might consider that a large advantage. Since this has happened...um...never...it doesn't really matter, does it?


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2013)

NormanBates said:


> Canon fanboys are so much fun... I bet they'd be defending their phone as a superior way of taking images if they had spent $4K on the system 8)
> 
> So sad...



Nikon fanboys are so much fun. I bet they would raid a CIA forum and talk about how spy satellites have terrible DR if they could find one.

So sad...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2013)

*Re: Black-Cap event*



Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



Only 4 stops? Are you sure that's enough? Or is that just the limit of the exposure slider?

Yes, we have the room lights on - hard to do experiments in the dark (except testing sensors, that's obviously better in the dark). FWIW, the room lights are spectrally filtered to eliminate light in the emission wavelengths of the markers. Hey, that gives me an idea - if shooting with the lens cap on is a good way to test sensors, maybe shooting in bizarre, oligochromatic light would be a good way to test auto WB?

Well, the PhD in neuroscience certainly suggests I'm a 'real' scientist. So do the publications listed on my CV. As for time, science often isn't a 9-5 job, which is great for me because I'd really dislike something so mundane. But thanks for the snide remark. Looking forward to more lens cap shots....but be careful - if you take too many, you may find yourself forgetting to take the cap off for an actual picture, and that would be a great loss.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Aug 31, 2013)

Wow, egofest 2013. Let the pixel peepers babble, and photographers continue to win awards and make money without anyone telling them it was because of DR. =P Some of you guys shouldn't be photographers, you should just apply for the engineering department for any of the competing brands.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2013)

zlatko said:


> "Really pushing DR" ... what does that mean? ... Is this all about being able to radically push the sliders in Lightroom?



Yes. That's all this discussion is about. Nikon...er, Sony...sensor fanboys taking terribly underexposed photos, turning off NR, shoving the exposure slider to +5EV, and then crying about noise and banding.

Never mind that people don't underexpose like that...
Never mind the complete loss of subtle tonality when you push that hard...
Never mind that the differences are much smaller when you actually use NR...
Never mind that the differences are smaller still when you view at normal sizes...

All that matters in the entire world of photography is shooting a wall at -5EV. I don't know how anyone ever made a photograph before Sony's revolutionary sensors.

Side note: I bet cult members don't push as hard as the DRboys in this forum.


----------



## Pi (Aug 31, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> where is the banding?


 
Here, for example:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6sEEih63_X7ejAyTmktUXZDMlE/edit?usp=sharing

And here is the "unprocessed RAW" (I love that term  ):

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6sEEih63_X7dFFnN1pDWGFfVms/edit?usp=sharing

Nothing drastic done. Open them with a color managed viewer.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> where is the banding?
> 5D3
> ISO 4000
> extreme cropped



It is at LOW ISO in the very darkest tones where it has more banding than Exmor not at high ISO. At very high ISO it does even a trace better than D800.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> Yes. That's all this discussion is about. Nikon...er, Sony...sensor fanboys taking terribly underexposed photos, turning off NR, shoving the exposure slider to +5EV, and then crying about noise and banding.



Umm no, that is what the fanboys CLAIM the people who wouldn't more DR are all about when it is not remotely true. The only people mentioning underexposing everything by five stops are the pure fanboys, it sure ain't the people who wouldn't mind a bit more DR to work with in order to expand real world photographic possibilities.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 31, 2013)

*Re: Black-Cap event*



neuroanatomist said:


> Only 4 stops? Are you sure that's enough? Or is that just the limit of the exposure slider?


yup, it's enough, and it's the limit of my slider. So it's pretty consistent.



neuroanatomist said:


> ..maybe shooting in bizarre, oligochromatic light would be a good way to test auto WB?



Maybe. If you'd like to develop a technique, fill yer boots.
Don't forget to be mindful of the filters peak admittance and asymmetrical shoulder responses and the effects that has on QE & debayering algorithms and how they differ from mfr to mfr and model to model .. and temperature.



neuroanatomist said:


> Well, the PhD in neuroscience certainly suggests I'm a 'real' scientist. So do the publications listed on my CV. As for time, science often isn't a 9-5 job, which is great for me because I'd really dislike something so mundane. But thanks for the snide remark. Looking forward to more lens cap shots....but be careful - if you take too many, you may find yourself forgetting to take the cap off for an actual picture, and that would be a great loss.



It wasn't intended as snide. 
I don't pay too much attention to you so don't know if you're for real or just a wannabe neuroscientist with a nifty avatar.
Just seems kinda odd you spend probably as much time on this forum as you do being a scientist... None of the science PhDs I work with divert so much of their energy in alternative directions. But they're not in neurology; is that where the money is?


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 31, 2013)

It's funny how last fall when I started looking at cameras as a serious hobby, all I wanted was a D800E, "the ultimate in camera technology" (so I would say to myself).
To start with I bought the cheapest Rebel they make (just to use with the 400f5.6, for which there is no Nikon equivalent), but I always knew I'd upgrade, hopefully to the D800E right? Oh man am I glad I didn't jump on that ship. Over the winter I found out how much live view in the D800 sucks, and that's almost all I do with a camera on a regular basis (macro and close-ups of neat little things). My stinky little T3 just happens to be perfectly suited to long exposures and spending hours on end in live view (and it actually works quite well with the 400f5.6 too).
Would a few stops of dynamic range make up for that? Not a chance. The specs on the sensor don't mean a thing if I can't use the freaking camera. Now the 70D comes out, and once again the sensor is pretty ho-hum. Same old story, but that thing is jam packed with improvements to user functionality. So who actually has their priorities straight?


----------



## ME (Aug 31, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > "Really pushing DR" ... what does that mean? ... Is this all about being able to radically push the sliders in Lightroom?
> ...




What do you mean? The "DRboys" are a cult, and i think we all know who the leader is. ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Umm no, that is what the fanboys CLAIM the people who wouldn't more DR are all about when it is not remotely true. The only people mentioning underexposing everything by five stops are the pure fanboys, it sure ain't the people who wouldn't mind a bit more DR to work with in order to expand real world photographic possibilities.



The only examples I've seen demonstrating the 'undeniable awesomeness of Sony sensors' are walls at -5EV. If the 'crowd that just wants more DR' is producing better photographs (the kind people want to actually look at) thanks to Sony sensors, they sure as hell aren't posting any of them here.


----------



## Apop (Aug 31, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> duydaniel said:
> 
> 
> > where is the banding?
> ...




So what kind of shutter speed are we talking?
Low ISO in extremely dark places, sounds like pictures where you have the time to setup a tripod or lean on something to take a picture.
Wouldn't you also have the time to take 7 pictures then? and make an HDR for some extra DR.....

Sure it is nice to have , but the 'need' for it may be overrated?


----------



## Pi (Aug 31, 2013)

Apop said:


> So what kind of shutter speed are we talking?
> Low ISO in extremely dark places, sounds like pictures where you have the time to setup a tripod or lean on something to take a picture.
> Wouldn't you also have the time to take 7 pictures then? and make an HDR for some extra DR.....
> 
> Sure it is nice to have , but the 'need' for it may be overrated?



You chose to ignore the example I posted, so convenient.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> Apop said:
> 
> 
> > So what kind of shutter speed are we talking?
> ...



No the "example" you posted is a perfect example of why actual photographers don't understand why some of you have such issues.

First, this scene does not have a wide dynamic range! There is very little DR in that scene, probably around five or six stops, a decent P&S can cover that range at 400iso.

Second, you didn't ETTR, you did use +0.33 EC but that wasn't enough for an optimal RAW exposure.

Third, your post processing exposes the fact that you just don't know what you are doing. Try this, I just did to your jpeg file. Exposure up 1.35 (that is where you should have been exposing by the way) Highlights down -37. That is how to post process your image, you have detail where you wanted it, but you have zero noise and banding even at 300% (with zero noise reduction).

Fourth, even at 100% and badly processed the banding is not serious enough to destroy the image, a little noise reduction and it is gone anyway, try +35 NR in Lightroom and it disappears.

Your "example" is not an example of failing Canon sensor capabilities, it is an example of you not knowing what you are doing at exposure time and in post. What you have illustrated is if you expose incorrectly, then process badly, then don't take any steps to mitigate those errors you can end up with slight noise and banding, you will forgive me for not taking your demonstration of Canon sensor issues seriously.

There is a kernel of truth in this DR "debate" but most of the "examples" posted just don't stand up and do not actually illustrate the "problem" at all, that is why there is such a staunch defense of Canon gear from some people here. You think your sensor failed you at that concert, it didn't, you didn't educate yourself on a competent way to use your equipment.


----------



## Pi (Aug 31, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> No the "example" you posted is a perfect example of why actual photographers don't understand why some of you have such issues.
> 
> First, this scene does not have a wide dynamic range! There is very little DR in that scene, probably around five or six stops, a decent P&S can cover that range at 400iso.



You might be right about the decent P&S. But a Canon dSLR can't. 


> Second, you didn't ETTR, you did use +0.33 EC but that wasn't enough for an optimal RAW exposure.



Are you kidding me? This is a live subject. What ETTR?


> Third, your post processing exposes the fact that you just don't know what you are doing. Try this, I just did to your jpeg file. Exposure up 1.35 (that is where you should have been exposing by the way) Highlights down -37. That is how to post process your image, you have detail where you wanted it, but you have zero noise and banding even at 300% (with zero noise reduction).



The guy would not stay still, you know.


> Fourth, even at 100% and badly processed the banding is not serious enough to destroy the image, a little noise reduction and it is gone anyway, try +35 NR in Lightroom and it disappears.



100% chroma NR does not put a dent on it. 80% lumina hides most of it. 35% lumina hides the random noise but leaves the pattern noise in place. 


> Your "example" is not an example of failing Canon sensor capabilities, it is an example of you not knowing what you are doing at exposure time and in post. What you have illustrated is if you expose incorrectly, then process badly, then don't take any steps to mitigate those errors you can end up with slight noise and banding, you will forgive me for not taking your demonstration of Canon sensor issues seriously.



Nonsense. But even if I was guilty of not exposing correctly ("Hey, you, would you stay still for a moment? Thank you!") so what? I posted the "unprocessed" image. It is not 4 stop underexposed, right? Any modern non-Canon sensor would not have a problem with that image. 

I could have used ISO 800 vs. 400. The read noise penalty is likely worse with ISO 400. But the only reason ISO 800 would have helped, maybe, is the deficiency of the sensor. With any other modern sensor, the ISO would not matter much.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > No the "example" you posted is a perfect example of why actual photographers don't understand why some of you have such issues.
> ...



The guy is standing in front of a stand mic with another set up for his acoustic guitar, did he have a roadie moving the stand for him too? 

I shoot concerts, I shoot M and take some exposure tests shots, it is digital and takes less than five seconds, not AV in spot metering with EV comp, again, you are just making excuses for the fact you messed up, the sensor did not let you down.

I'll post 100% crops of your jpeg processed with competence if you want to labour the point even further.


----------



## Apop (Aug 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> Apop said:
> 
> 
> > So what kind of shutter speed are we talking?
> ...



I did look at it, but I didn't think it was worth saying anything about.

To me the 'processed' shot looks a lot worse than your RAW shot.

Now I am not that good at processing either, but I usually end up with files that look better than the original raw image ( to my eyes anyway)


----------



## zlatko (Aug 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > No the "example" you posted is a perfect example of why actual photographers don't understand why some of you have such issues.
> ...



The unprocessed image is fine. You can't blame the camera for your processing. To even see this supposed problem with the sensor, one has to raise the darkest parts of the image to exaggerate it, and one has to turn the monitor brightness all the way up.

By the way, ETTR has _nothing_ to do with asking the subject to remain still. It sounds like you are thinking of HDR?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 31, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I'll post 100% crops of your jpeg processed with competence if you want to labour the point even further.



I think Pi produced a photographic _faux pas_. 

There's little doubt that with current technology you're better off with Nikon or Sony if you don't know what you're doing 

I'd post it.


----------



## zim (Aug 31, 2013)

zlatko said:


> The unprocessed image is fine. You can't blame the camera for your processing. To even see this supposed problem with the sensor, one has to raise the darkest parts of the image to exaggerate it, and one has to turn the monitor brightness all the way up.
> 
> By the way, ETTR has _nothing_ to do with asking the subject to remain still. It sounds like you are thinking of HDR?



+1 I think the unprocessed file is rather good, If anything I'd be darkening the background a little to get rid of the slightly distracting drum set in the background

I think the subject remaining still thing is about shutter speed, ETTR would force a slower speed and therefore subject movement, the subject doesn't look like much of a speedy gonzales to me but you never know! isn't that what better high iso performance is for though?


----------



## Pi (Aug 31, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> The guy is standing in front of a stand mic with another set up for his acoustic guitar, did he have a roadie moving the stand for him too?



This is completely irrelevant. Did you even pay attention what post I replied to? Somebody posted a high ISO image, processed who knows how, and asked "where is the banding"? I posted a real world image,* not pushed by 4 stops* which shows banding. I could have posted a shot of an empty stage to make that point. 

Now, everybody who claims that you cannot see banding unless you put the cap on an push exposure by 4 stop has to say - well, I saw it once, and it was not pushed by 4 stops (the adjustments in RAW conversion cannot be so simply described in stops). 

BTW, are you sure you understand what ETTR means? In light limited situations like this, the only benefit of ETTR may have is ... well, to compensate for the deficiency of the sensor (with minor, probably invisible tonality gain which diminishes greatly for low light)



> I shoot concerts, I shoot M and take some exposure tests shots, it is digital and takes less than five seconds, not AV in spot metering with EV comp, again, you are just making excuses for the fact you messed up, the sensor did not let you down.



I did take the next shot in M but then the light changed. In concerts, light changes quickly all the time. But again, that is irrelevant. His forehead has some hot spots _before_ the push. The exposure is not 4 stops below what should have been. 



> I'll post 100% crops of your jpeg processed with competence if you want to labour the point even further.



Why would you "process with competence" shots from a sensor which has no problems with the shadows? Shouldn't t the banding be not there in the first place? You are missing the point again. This is not a thread about pp techniques.


----------



## Pi (Aug 31, 2013)

Apop said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Apop said:
> ...



But I could have taken 7 shots with a tripod, right? Why do you have to change the topic?


----------



## Pi (Aug 31, 2013)

zim said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The unprocessed image is fine. You can't blame the camera for your processing. To even see this supposed problem with the sensor, one has to raise the darkest parts of the image to exaggerate it, and one has to turn the monitor brightness all the way up.
> ...



*@ Zim*: ETTR has everything to do with the subject staying still. The point of ETTR is to allow more light to hit the sensor. A moving subject is a problem. Now, at ISO 400, choosing slower SS, say 1/60 vs. 1/125, is not really ETTR. It is just increasing exposure. It would be ETTR at this ISO only. But the reason why the ISO plays a role is ... because it is a Canon sensor. With any other sensor, ETTR only makes sense at base ISO, aside from the minor tonal differences at higher ISO I mentioned above. 

@ *zlatko*: I tried to reveal some of the color of the background, I did not like it black. It is not important what you like or not - this is an example of banding that you said you have never seen. Now, you have. 

The noise there is read noise. Higher exposure would have helped, indeed to raise the signal relative to the read noise. But with a modern sensor, higher exposure would not be needed. So all of you are saying - you should have exposed it by 1 stop more (more than that, his face would have had blown highlights, and BTW, what happened to the 4 stops?) - you are basically saying: well, you know you are shooting with a Canon, you should not be shooting as if it were a Nikon...


----------



## Pi (Aug 31, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I'll post 100% crops of your jpeg processed with competence if you want to labour the point even further.
> ...



So 1 stop underexposure can get you in trouble? Don't say! I always thought you had to underexpose by 4 stops to see the benefit of the Sony sensors?

EDIT: The EV comp in the "processed shot" is 0.73 and this already creates hot spots, fixed with Highlight adjustments.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 31, 2013)

I'd like my Canon DSLR to do everything better than any other camera on the market: ergonomics, weather proofing, durability, auto-focus, resolution, speed, battery life, etc,etc ... including DR .

Unfortunately no manufacturer has a camera that wins at everything, and yet somehow an army of Canon users are pumping out award-winning photographs and films.

I shoot regularly with two photographers using D800's, and I've yet to see either of them produce an image I like as well as what I get from my 5dIII. ... and they can't touch me on video.


----------



## zim (Aug 31, 2013)

*@Pi*: I’m only here to learn not to bait but I only have a Canon sensor so the only thing I’m interested in is how to use it to get the best out of it i.e. not how bad it is but how good can I make it – hope that makes sense!

My understanding of ETTR is simply to get to histogram as far to the right as possible without clipping the highlights, in manual mode I can either reduce shutter speed, use a wider aperture or increase iso so I don’t understand _“Now, at ISO 400, choosing slower SS, say 1/60 vs. 1/125, is not really ETTR”_ 

I have to admit I’ve been trying to expose to the right for some time and I do struggle not to get clipped highlights so hopefully I’m missing something here!


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> So 1 stop underexposure can get you in trouble? Don't say! I always thought you had to underexpose by 4 stops to see the benefit of the Sony sensors?
> 
> EDIT: The EV comp in the "processed shot" is 0.73 and this already creates hot spots, fixed with Highlight adjustments.



One full stop of EV error _is_ a lot actually. And long may it remain so. 


But that's not the point. The faux par is your unskilled attempts to improve on the raw capture.

And regarding your reply to zlatko: yes I do expose current Canon slightly differently to Nikon (Sony).


----------



## Pi (Aug 31, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > So 1 stop underexposure can get you in trouble? Don't say! I always thought you had to underexpose by 4 stops to see the benefit of the Sony sensors?
> ...



You do not "improve" on the RAW capture, you convert it. BTW, this image in my computer is with black background. I am not a fan of pattern noise, and yes, I can see it even without 100% zoom. It was an example meant to counter the funny talk about 4 stop push, and "what, 4 stops only?" remarks, etc. It shows that read noise can be a problem in reality. 

BTW, is it too much to ask you to refrain from personal insults? 



> And regarding your reply to zlatko: yes I do expose current Canon slightly differently to Nikon (Sony).



Why, is there a problem? I hope you are not confusing metering with exposure.


----------



## zlatko (Aug 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



I wouldn't process it that way, so I would not have that problem. The unprocessed version is fine. You're taking an OK photo and then trying to add light & detail where there isn't any.

Even the processed version is not a problem. One has turn the monitor brightness up to maximum to see any hint of anything.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> You do not "improve" on the RAW capture, you convert it. BTW, this image in my computer is with black background. I am not a fan of pattern noise, and yes, I can see it even without 100% zoom. It was an example meant to counter the funny talk about 4 stop push, and "what, 4 stops only?" remarks, etc. It shows that read noise can be a problem in reality.
> 
> BTW, is it too much to ask you to refrain from personal insults.
> 
> Why, is there a problem? I hope you are not confusing metering with exposure.



Apologies: the faux pas is your attempts to improve upon the raw capture. 

Sorry I didn't fully state improve upon the raw capture after you have first converted it into a visual form. 

Would I confuse metering with exposure after 30 years in photography ? Is there a problem ? In a sense. The Canon responds best to slight over exposure when possible, and bringing bown in post. I don't see this with Sony in the same way. Is this a real problem ? Not for me.


----------



## zlatko (Aug 31, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> And regarding your reply to zlatko: yes I do expose current Canon slightly differently to Nikon (Sony).



Agreed. When I used a pair of Nikons for a few months, I had to be more careful not to overexpose. Whether because of the metering or the sensor, I don't know. On balance, these are not big differences. You just learn and make slight adjustments.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 31, 2013)

Etienne said:


> I shoot regularly with two photographers using D800's, and I've yet to see either of them produce an image I like as well as what I get from my 5dIII. ... and they can't touch me on video.



Bear in mind that Canon's FF sensors are a different universe than its crop sensors DR-wise. Before I moved to a FF camera, DR was a sore spot for me on an ongoing basis. Now, it is much less so.

My attitude about photography—and technology in general—is that even though hardware can't always know the right thing to do by a subjective definition, it should always do something that is at least acceptable by default. For example, in an ideal world, you should only *need* to do manual metering if you are trying to achieve a particular effect—deliberately forcing a wide aperture in ample light to get a shallow depth of field, deliberately forcing a narrow aperture and low ISO to get motion blur, etc. When you aren't, the camera should have enough DR to get a decent quality image of whatever part of the image you care about in any real-world environment. It certainly should not have wildly inconsistent dark levels with banding or other artifacts.

My old XTi wasn't even close to that ideal, and from what I've read, the 60D and 70D are only slightly better. My 6D gets me most of the way there. YMMV.


----------



## Pi (Aug 31, 2013)

zlatko said:


> I wouldn't process it that way, so I would not have that problem. The unprocessed version is fine. You're taking an OK photo and then trying to add light & detail where there isn't any.



No detail, but there is light. A purple background is much better than a black one.

BTW, with a color managed viewer and screen, the banding is visible. 

I have more example I can post. Night scenes with blown highlights and noisy shadows taken at ISO 100, when multiple shots are not an option. What would be the best exposure then? I can see that 2+ stops would be enough.


----------



## zlatko (Aug 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't process it that way, so I would not have that problem. The unprocessed version is fine. You're taking an OK photo and then trying to add light & detail where there isn't any.
> ...



My point is: the camera produced a technically fine image. You can't fault it for that. You didn't expose for the shadows and didn't need to. But in post, you decided the shadows were important after all, and you processed it in a way that created a problem for you. 

I calibrate my monitor and I only begin to see the problem created by your post-processing when I turn the brightness all the way up to maximum (which I normally don't do). I'm reminded of a Henny Youngman joke ... A guy goes to a doctor and says, "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." The doctor replies, "Don't do this!!".

It seems like you expect the camera to have ideal dynamic range for any and every situation, and to tolerate any adjustment in post. But cameras/films have never done that and photographers have never expected them to. Perhaps some day that ideal camera will be invented. Until then, we make pictures with the equipment we have.

If a film photographer had tried to raise the black portions of an image, he would have discovered nothing but the haze of the film base. This problem would have been very well known to Ansel Adams. He tested and knew the abilities of his films and chemical formulas, and made amazing photos working within their limits.

So perhaps Nikon gives some extra room for lifting the shadows. Good to have when you need it. Perhaps Canon gives some extra room for pulling the highlights. Also good to have. Not a big deal either way, and neither prevents a photographer from making great photos.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2013)

Apop said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > duydaniel said:
> ...



Not low ISO in extremely dark places as extremely dark places usually don't have a lot of DR (although they could if it was a cave with a sunbeam entering it or something) and bright conditions tend to make it more likely that you need more DR. It is simply for scenes that have a lot of DR. The shutter speed doesn't have to be remotely slow at all.

Sometimes you can get out the tripod and take multiple exposures if the subjects are still and you are allowed to use a tripod or have one and don't mind getting bogged down and other times you can use a special filter if the scene is very, very simple as to where the brighter and darker parts are. Other times things are moving too much, blowing around too much and the scene is very complex or you may be in some place where tripods are not allowed. (as a bonus with more DR you might be able to avoid slower tripod work in which case it would be purely a convenience thing, obviously no longer critical but convenience never hurt it might also potentially give time to get in more shots if conditions are changing fast; or be able to rescue a blown shot)

The thing is Canon very much seems to have become a company that simply won't give about anything unless forced to, look at some of the user surveys and listen to the old we are kings of hill and need not move forward speech one of their big management guys gave half a decade ago, so until everyone makes a big stink they will just toss us old, old tech sensors when it comes to low ISO performance for who knows how many more years or half decades. 

If the next round of cameras don't deliver then it's not like you'll just have been stuck with old tech for DR for a few months or a few years but for more than a decade. Just think of how much you have shot how many places you have been to over a decade. Who wouldn't want the option to have had expanded photographic possibilities for a whole decade?

Maybe some people barely ever need them, but even so it's only a plus if you have the option even if just a few times here or there and other people might be able to make use of it on quite a semi-regular basis.


----------



## zlatko (Aug 31, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> If the next round of cameras don't deliver then it's not like you'll just have been stuck with old tech for DR for a few months or a few years but for more than a decade. Just think of how much you have shot how many places you have been to over a decade. Who wouldn't want the option to have had expanded photographic possibilities for a whole decade?



Yes, I would want the perfect camera that gives me the option to do anything and everything with any image in any situation. So I'm 100% in favor of technical advancements in sensors and everything else about cameras. But I'm not going to be perpetually disappointed when each camera is introduced and somehow falls short of that ideal goal. Cameras today are capable of doing a lot.


----------



## Pi (Aug 31, 2013)

zlatko said:


> It seems like you expect the camera to have ideal dynamic range for any and every situation, and to tolerate any adjustment in post. But cameras/films have never done that and photographers have never expected them to. Perhaps some day that ideal camera will be invented. Until then, we make pictures with the equipment we have.



I expect to be as good (as far as DR is concerned) as Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Oly, Panasonic.... Did I miss something? Ideal - no. I do not want anything better than any other brand can do, in terms of DR.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot regularly with two photographers using D800's, and I've yet to see either of them produce an image I like as well as what I get from my 5dIII. ... and they can't touch me on video.
> ...



I don't know that I'd really say that. All of the Canon cameras have generally been stuck at a pretty similar DR, yeah some difference for FF but not a lot, for low ISO although a few models do better for usable DR to a somewhat larger degree (1Ds3,6D,1DX but not 5D2 or 5D3 or 5D, etc.) since they have a touch more engineering DR and are less banding prone. It's the higher tone SNR where the more universal differences of a larger degree have been or DR at very high ISO between aps-c and FF.



> My old XTi wasn't even close to that ideal, and from what I've read, the 60D and 70D are only slightly better. My 6D gets me most of the way there. YMMV.



The 6D is the first model they have made that almost got back to old 1Ds3 performance levels for low ISO DR. It does do better than all the rebel, xxD,7D,5D3,5D2,etc. stuff. That said the difference, and note that you already easily noticed it, between the 6D low ISO DR and the XTi DR is a fair amount less than the difference between the 6D and a D600. It is a shame that they didn't manage to give the 5D2/5D3 the 1Ds3/6D DR usability at least. For some reason after the 1Ds3 and 40D they went backwards in terms of pattern banding for a bunch of years and only got back to where they had been again with the 6D.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2013)

zlatko said:


> So perhaps Nikon gives some extra room for lifting the shadows. Good to have when you need it. Perhaps Canon gives some extra room for pulling the highlights. Also good to have. Not a big deal either way, and neither prevents a photographer from making great photos.



These are linear capture sensors so there is no such thing as giving more room for pulling highlights for the most part (CFA differences might slightly change the degree at which a channel blows out relative to another) so you are mostly just getting confused by metering differences and taking them as sensor differences when it comes to highlights. If you properly expose Nikon shots to save the exact amount of highlights as a Canon shot then you will have the same highlights but the lowest tones will be a lot cleaner on the Nikon.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> I expect to be as good (as far as DR is concerned) as Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Oly, Panasonic.... Did I miss something? Ideal - no. I do not want anything better than any other brand can do, in terms of DR.



Just out of curiosity; why did you choose Canon ?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 31, 2013)

zlatko said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > If the next round of cameras don't deliver then it's not like you'll just have been stuck with old tech for DR for a few months or a few years but for more than a decade. Just think of how much you have shot how many places you have been to over a decade. Who wouldn't want the option to have had expanded photographic possibilities for a whole decade?
> ...



Sometimes it almost feels like that so long some rabidly defensive users shout down anyone everywhere who asks for more DR and manages to portrays those who want more as just a few random nutters or incompetent photographers going on about nothing that matters enough to bother caring a whit about, Canon will never bother to deliver more DR (unless maybe DxO alone starts blabbing and raising such an embarrassing ruckus that they feel like they are loosing to much face).

People raised a ruckus for years (and D300 existed) and then eventually the 7D. People raised a ruckus about AF (and D700 existed) and then finally the 5D3. People raised a ruckus about manual video control and then the new firmware (and the fact that it took such an insane level of ruckus from even the biggest names and players in that case was kind of scary considering it seemed mind boggling for them to not have thought to have had that in their to begin with and how resistant they were to admit they should have). We had the D800/D7100/D7000/D600/etc.etc.etc. now we just need the DR ruckus to be let to live and maybe before another decade is out we get more DR (also for something like DR you need to start the ruckus early since stuff like that takes more time to deliver, which is why some were harping on it already half a decade ago).


----------



## Aglet (Aug 31, 2013)

I've finally posted a screenshot of the pushed ISO levels from 100 to 12,800.

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16713.0

70D's looking better than previous generations.

Will add full-size crops later.


----------



## Pi (Aug 31, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > So perhaps Nikon gives some extra room for lifting the shadows. Good to have when you need it. Perhaps Canon gives some extra room for pulling the highlights. Also good to have. Not a big deal either way, and neither prevents a photographer from making great photos.
> ...



Also, the D600 can capture about 15% or so more photons than the 6D (sensorgen), which makes it less likely to get overexposed with the same amount of light.


----------



## zlatko (Aug 31, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> canon has no more room for pulling in high lights than nikon or other sensors
> if you think so that is a myth, you count the stops from middle grey and up and the same exposure, time / f-stop , which also reveal the QE in the sensor= sensivity and gain


I found Nikon to more prone to overexposure, for whatever reason. Could be just the metering.


----------



## zlatko (Aug 31, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It is a shame that they didn't manage to give the 5D2/5D3 the 1Ds3/6D DR usability at least. For some reason after the 1Ds3 and 40D they went backwards in terms of pattern banding for a bunch of years and only got back to where they had been again with the 6D.


For me, the 5D3 has better usability than the 6D, as it should for the price. It sounds like your definition of usability is very narrow if pattern banding when pushing Lightroom sliders trumps everything else.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 31, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > I've finally posted a screenshot of the pushed ISO levels from 100 to 12,800.
> ...



less banding. Overall average noise levels are not much improved but there's now more randomness and less structure to the noise so it should be less objectionable than previous recent generations of Canon's crop sensors. This kind of noise is more readily handled by NR software and anyone having to lift dark areas should not be bothered by banding as badly as before.

100% crops are going up in a minute.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> There is a kernel of truth in this DR "debate" but most of the "examples" posted just don't stand up and do not actually illustrate the "problem" at all, that is why there is such a staunch defense of Canon gear from some people here. You think your sensor failed you at that concert, it didn't, you didn't educate yourself on a competent way to use your equipment.



Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Second, you didn't ETTR, you did use +0.33 EC but that wasn't enough for an optimal RAW exposure.
> ...



What is: exposure compensation?



> > Third, your post processing exposes the fact that you just don't know what you are doing. Try this, I just did to your jpeg file. Exposure up 1.35 (that is where you should have been exposing by the way) Highlights down -37. That is how to post process your image, you have detail where you wanted it, but you have zero noise and banding even at 300% (with zero noise reduction).
> 
> 
> The guy would not stay still, you know.



What does that have to do with the instructions on how to best post process this image? Did you even read what he said? Do you think he's telling you to shoot multiple exposures? (Hint: ETTR means Expose To The Right.) I just tried those two steps on your unprocessed JPEG and there's zero noise or banding on a properly calibrated monitor. (Key point I'm going to address in a moment.)



> > Fourth, even at 100% and badly processed the banding is not serious enough to destroy the image, a little noise reduction and it is gone anyway, try +35 NR in Lightroom and it disappears.
> 
> 
> 100% chroma NR does not put a dent on it. 80% lumina hides most of it. 35% lumina hides the random noise but leaves the pattern noise in place.



I can confirm that in ACR8.1 +35 NR eliminates the noise and banding, again on a properly calibrated monitor.

Why do I keep throwing in that phrase? Because if you shove the brightness on a monitor up (or stand up and stare down at an extreme angle) you can see some noise again. That's not how a print will look. And that's not how it will look on any normal monitor. But I've seen monitors with brightness / contrast / saturation shoved up so high that it's like adding 3EV to a photo while pushing the colors into neon. Since we're actually picking apart an example with instructions it's critical to view the results properly. If your monitor is not calibrated...and that includes more steps then just using the color pucks...fix it.



> Nonsense. But even if I was guilty of not exposing correctly ("Hey, you, would you stay still for a moment? Thank you!") so what?



You're not exposing or processing correctly and you're not listening. The instructions had nothing to do with multiple exposures. Please re-read the post.

I went one step further in that I used the instructions with the unprocessed file and added 35NR and 50% sharpening to clear any noise but retain detail in the face, hands, etc. Guess what? There's not really any noise to see even if I shove the brightness up on my monitor. Even your poorly processed example would not show any noise in print. The properly processed one doesn't show any noise at all.

Now do you understand why we're sick of hearing about Sony sensors? Yes, they have cleaner shadows. Yes, that means they can take more abuse. But it's difficult to even imagine an edge case where it matters. To come up with such edge cases you have to imagine the absurd, like shooting with a broken flash. (You don't realize the flash isn't firing? You don't have a spare? You can't crank up the ISO when you realize...on the first shot...hey the flash is broke?)

Yet the people who push this in canonrumors (and I don't see this come up nearly as often any where else) act like the difference in shadow noise and pushed DR is literally the end of the world. Throw your Canon cameras away because it's just impossible to work without a "modern sensor."

That phrase also ticks me off. We all know that the difference in shadow noise comes down to a Sony patent. That doesn't mean Canon sensors aren't "modern." The sensor in my M is cleaner then the sensor in my 7D, and the 70D sensor is cleaner still. And I would say the 6D has a 1 stop high ISO noise advantage over the D600 with a normal exposure (as opposed to a +5EV no NR torture test zoomed 200% into a shadow). But somehow these sensors and improvements are not "modern"?

Whatever. Learn how to process your files, then maybe complain about a sensor.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> This is completely irrelevant. Did you even pay attention what post I replied to? Somebody posted a high ISO image, processed who knows how, and asked "where is the banding"? I posted a real world image,* not pushed by 4 stops* which shows banding. I could have posted a shot of an empty stage to make that point.



The banding is only evident after sub-optimal processing. And even then only barely so at 100% on a monitor. It would never show in print or at normal viewing sizes.



> BTW, are you sure you understand what ETTR means? In light limited situations like this, the only benefit of ETTR may have is ... well, to compensate for the deficiency of the sensor (with minor, probably invisible tonality gain which diminishes greatly for low light)



I will concede that in this situation ETTR is not nearly as important as properly processing the file. And that it would be difficult to do consistently with rapidly changing lights.

But it's trivial to produce a version of your file with no apparent noise or banding.



> Why would you "process with competence" shots from a sensor which has no problems with the shadows? Shouldn't t the banding be not there in the first place? You are missing the point again. This is not a thread about pp techniques.



Why would you "process with competence" shots from a sensor which has no problems with color? Shouldn't the color be pleasing in the first place? You are missing the point again. This is not a thread about pp techniques. When will Sony/Nikon have "modern sensors"? 8)


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> You do not "improve" on the RAW capture, you convert it.



Then improve your conversions.



> BTW, this image in my computer is with black background. I am not a fan of pattern noise, and yes, I can see it even without 100% zoom. It was an example meant to counter the funny talk about 4 stop push, and "what, 4 stops only?" remarks, etc.



If you can see it on your monitor at <100% then you *are* pushing 4 stops, you're just doing most of the push with the brightness control on your monitor. Calibrate your monitor. I'm picky about this because I actually make prints, so my monitor is as close as it can possibly be to Epson 3880 prints under good viewing lights. And I have to close the blinds in my office to clearly see the banding you're complaining about even at 100%.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 31, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The thing is Canon very much seems to have become a company that simply won't give about anything unless forced to,



Stop with the imaginary drama. You know...or should know for all you talk about DR...that the shadow noise issue traces back to a Sony patent. Canon can't do the same thing Sony can in designing their sensors. Do you expect Canon to close their fabs and become dependent on Sony over this issue?



> so until everyone makes a big stink they will just toss us old, old tech sensors when it comes to low ISO performance for who knows how many more years or half decades.



Patents last 20 years. I don't know if Canon will be able to work around the patent, or if some other technology will make it moot, in less time. Probably the latter, but who knows when.



> If the next round of cameras don't deliver then it's not like you'll just have been stuck with old tech for DR for a few months or a few years but for more than a decade.



Nice hyperbole, but in 2003-2005 Canon sensors were measurably better in all respects. (And yet I still told my Nikon lens owning friend to buy a Nikon DSLR. Imagine that!)



> Just think of how much you have shot how many places you have been to over a decade. Who wouldn't want the option to have had expanded photographic possibilities for a whole decade?



Poorly processed concert photos and brick walls =/= "expanded photographic possibilities."


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 1, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is Canon very much seems to have become a company that simply won't give about anything unless forced to,
> ...



Any idea what patent number this is? I can't imagine Sony having a patent on something as obvious as the mere concept of consolidating the preamps and ADCs onto the sensor silicon (or at least not a valid patent that would hold up in court), so there must be a lot more detail to Sony's patent that makes it patentable. As such, there must be many, many other ways to perform such consolidation without violating Sony's patent.

If there's no way to work around the patent, that almost always means that the patent is too broad, and thus invalid. In that case, the first thing Canon's legal department should do is threaten to sue to invalidate the patent on obviousness grounds, and use that threat as a bargaining chip to get a dirt-cheap patent license.


----------



## Pi (Sep 1, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> I just tried those two steps on your unprocessed JPEG and there's zero noise or banding on a properly calibrated monitor. (Key point I'm going to address in a moment.)



That is brilliant. I cut the shadow detail/color that I wanted to keep and converted it to JPEG. Then you tell me - see - no problem, I got rid of it. How come I never thought of that? Wait, I did. What you posted is not my processing - it was done to show what I am missing and why I did not process it that way.


> I can confirm that in ACR8.1 +35 NR eliminates the noise and banding, again on a properly calibrated monitor.



You cannot confirm anything because you do not have the RAW file. The values I mentioned are in the RAW converter. 



> Why do I keep throwing in that phrase? Because if you shove the brightness on a monitor up (or stand up and stare down at an extreme angle) you can see some noise again.



That was a wild but wrong guess


> That's not how a print will look. And that's not how it will look on any normal monitor. But I've seen monitors with brightness / contrast / saturation shoved up so high that it's like adding 3EV to a photo while pushing the colors into neon. Since we're actually picking apart an example with instructions it's critical to view the results properly. If your monitor is not calibrated...and that includes more steps then just using the color pucks...fix it.



It is. A decent NEC, well calibrated, the whole flow color managed. 


> I went one step further in that I used the instructions with the unprocessed file and added 35NR and 50% sharpening to clear any noise but retain detail in the face, hands, etc. Guess what? There's not really any noise to see even if I shove the brightness up on my monitor.



Why would you add 35% NR? This is an image with some bright spots almost blown. It is nothing like 4 stops underexposed image. Why would you have to apply 35%? Are you saying that noise can show up even if you do not underexpose by 4 stops? That would be a big news. 


> Even your poorly processed example would not show any noise in print. The properly processed one doesn't show any noise at all.



What print? Do you really believe that I would print that?


> Now do you understand why we're sick of hearing about Sony sensors? Yes, they have cleaner shadows. Yes, that means they can take more abuse. But it's difficult to even imagine an edge case where it matters. To come up with such edge cases you have to imagine the absurd, like shooting with a broken flash. (You don't realize the flash isn't firing? You don't have a spare? You can't crank up the ISO when you realize...on the first shot...hey the flash is broke?)



I see, my flash did not fire. I get it now. 


> Whatever. Learn how to process your files, then maybe complain about a sensor.



Learn to read. This image was processed for the purpose of posting it here to bust the myth that higher DR is useful only when you push by 4 stops. Why don't you just state the obvious without teaching me how to process my images. You have no idea of how I actually did process this image.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is Canon very much seems to have become a company that simply won't give about anything unless forced to,
> ...



Maybe if CR had posted the DR patent part of Ankorwatt's find and had put it on the front page along with the security sensor whatever that they did put on the front page (as they do with basically every other patent under the sun that someone comes across) you'd know that Canon has high DR patents, including ones using column ADC, a that a new one was just filed relatively recently, Ankorwatt brought it to light, and then others brought to light that they had actually had others for column ADC varients in 2007 and 2006 too and it has even been said that they didn't care enough to file one for a completely different potential method to increase DR back earlier on too (although maybe something was lost in translation in the telling of that story).

The problem is that with most of those patents, and certainly not with the latest one, they can't make use of any of it on their ancient 500nm process (where they make all their DSLR sensors). Other makers invested in new advanced fabs or moved DSLR production to advanced fabs that can handle more advanced sensor designs (not the that the sensor sensors themselves are bad from Canon, they are among or even the best, but the associated electronics parts of their sensors are very out of date so they are tossing out many stops of performance at low ISO that the sensor sensor actually has). Canon has invested as much in it and what they do have that is more advanced they keep reserved for P&S sensors. 

Also even with old style tech, Nikon managed to do half way to Exmor in improvements, nothing patented there at all, and Canon stayed the same.

It was also said that they DSLR division in Japan was sent something to patent for improving DR that was supposed to be able to work on their current fabs but marketers/MBAs at DSLR division were said to have just tossed it off and were supposedly like who cares, shocking the other Canon division. It never got filed much less used, who knows what ever happened to it. Although maybe something got lost in translation between the two Canon divisions in the story that was told was not as absurd sounding for real.





> > If the next round of cameras don't deliver then it's not like you'll just have been stuck with old tech for DR for a few months or a few years but for more than a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice hyperbole, but in 2003-2005 Canon sensors were measurably better in all respects. (And yet I still told my Nikon lens owning friend to buy a Nikon DSLR. Imagine that!)


[/quote]

What hyperbole? If the next round in 2014 doesn't deliver will will have had old tech for DR for over a decade, remember that the round after the next round doesn't happen the day after the next round is released but another good three years later on top.




> Poorly processed concert photos and brick walls =/= "expanded photographic possibilities."



RIiiight sure because all we want is expanded possibilities to shoot brick walls. Stop making nonsense up.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2013)

zlatko said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > It is a shame that they didn't manage to give the 5D2/5D3 the 1Ds3/6D DR usability at least. For some reason after the 1Ds3 and 40D they went backwards in terms of pattern banding for a bunch of years and only got back to where they had been again with the 6D.
> ...



Wow where the did heck did I ever say that the 6D has better usability than the 5D3 or that the 6D trumps the 5D3?!!!? I said I sure wish they had given the 5D3 the better resistance to pattern banding that they gave the 6D and the slightly lower read noise as well. 5D3 has vastly better video, better AF, better controls, better fps, better reaction time, etc.

It's pretty easy to make us all seem silly when make stuff up and keep going around saying that all we care about it shooting brick walls, or underexposing every shot by 5 stops, or claiming that 6D is easily the most usable and best Canon body. I'm sure I could make you sound silly if I asked you to stop saying that the 75-300 IS has far superior AF and image quality than the 300 2.8 IS II couldn't I? So stop saying that. Don't be silly and say such things. You keep saying the 300 2.8 IS II is the worst lens every made. Why do you keep saying that?

If I was a 100% pure landscape shooter I probably would sell my 5D3 and get some cash back and use the 6D for Canon shooting. But I shoot all sorts of things so no I did not trade in my 5D3 for 6D.


----------



## Pi (Sep 1, 2013)

Another one of those images "underexposed by 4 stops and pushed back". The highlights are already blown and the shadows are noisy as hell. Click on the image below. 

I know, I know, I can hide the evidence. 75% luminance NR, and the noise is gone, well, most of it.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 1, 2013)

Pi said:


> Another one of those images "underexposed by 4 stops and pushed back". The highlights are already blown and the shadows are noisy as hell. Click on the image below.
> 
> I know, I know, I can hide the evidence. 75% luminance NR, and the noise is gone, well, most of it.



That IS a bit noisy.
I haven't paid attention to this place for a while, what are you shooting with?
What ISO were these outdoor crowd shots taken at?

And, if you think THIS is bad..
I loathed my early model 5d2 at times for how noisy it was - so I sold it.
The day I sold it, I quickly shot some 1 EV steps of smooth gray background at 100 ISO in studio.
Pushing up shades lower than metered 0 EV is an easy way to show noise.
BUT - I took a +3 EV shot, lowered it 2 EV and, if you enhance the contrast, can STILL see FPN!
I can see FPN at 0 EV, I can see FPN at EVERY EV if I move the region back to near 0 EV (even using DPP)

If there were smooth tones anywhere near midtone in an image it was possible to find V & H patterns unless using a lot of NR which then smeared luminance details and made it pointless. At least the heaps of chroma noise could be dealt with.

FWIW, IMO, my 5d2 was a PoS! most disappointing camera I've ever owned, still managed some great shots with it, nonetheless. Can mask some of the noise when printing large by using rough or textured papers or canvas.
I could likely tolerate a 6D or 70D, they've improved enough.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 1, 2013)

Pi said:


> Another one of those images "underexposed by 4 stops and pushed back". The highlights are already blown and the shadows are noisy as hell. Click on the image below.


Perhaps a case of unrealistic expectations. Those aren't just highlights. They are direct light sources. When I photograph people in a dark setting at night, I don't expect to hold nice detail in the lightbulbs that light the scene.

Limited dynamic range has been a fact of life since the invention of photography. Photographers have acted accordingly, depending on their priorities for the image. For example, architecture/interior photographers deal with dark interiors and bright exteriors in the same frame by adding light to the interior, by shooting at a time of day when the exterior is darker, or by blending exposures.

Or take for example Ansel Adams' portrait titled "Martha Porter, Pioneer Woman" (in his book "Examples") with its blown highlights --
http://ccp.uair.arizona.edu/system/files/imagecache/large_watermark/adams/76083056_p.JPG
Adams' blown highlights weren't even a direct light source at night, just reflected sunlight in the day. 

Adams prioritized the exposure for the subject's face and the white pillar, not the sunspot on her shoulder. He wrote, "The tonal qualities of the woman's face please me, but I am not able to print through the blank sunlit area of her shoulder without getting a flat, textureless value, since the film is severely blocked in that area." 

Did the great photographer blame Kodak for limited DR in Plus-X film? Nope. He wrote: "Experience and practice usually recognize such value control problems, yet I admit I have failed on many occasions chiefly because I accepted the visual, rather than anticipating the film's response to values and colors."


----------



## Jim O (Sep 1, 2013)

zlatko said:


> Did the great photographer blame Kodak for limited DR in Plus-X film? Nope. He wrote: "Experience and practice usually recognize such value control problems, yet I admit I have failed on many occasions chiefly because I accepted the visual, rather than anticipating the film's response to values and colors."



And neither did we mere mortals complain when we shot with Velvia in the 1990's. It was what it was.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2013)

Jim O said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Did the great photographer blame Kodak for limited DR in Plus-X film? Nope. He wrote: "Experience and practice usually recognize such value control problems, yet I admit I have failed on many occasions chiefly because I accepted the visual, rather than anticipating the film's response to values and colors."
> ...



Even then, there were some films with more DR than others. Did everyone always pick the film with the greatest DR, because it was 'the best'? :


----------



## Pi (Sep 1, 2013)

Aglet said:


> What ISO were these outdoor crowd shots taken at?


ISO 100.
[quote author=zlatko]
Perhaps a case of unrealistic expectations. Those aren't just highlights. They are direct light sources. When I photograph people in a dark setting at night, I don't expect to hold nice detail in the lightbulbs that light the scene.
[/quote]
It is not about highlights. It is about the DR starting from the clip point to the noise floor. The Sony sensors can detect marginally more photons (on a log scale). For all practical purposes, more or less the same. The difference comes from the noise floor. Having lower noise allows you to expose for the highlights and still have decent shadows. The shadows here, pulled in pp, are plain ugly. Vertical banding is everywhere, plus random noise. There is nothing unrealistic about expecting no visible vertical banding, at least. The 70D seems to be free of it but still has the strong random read noise. Oh, I almost forgot - every other brand has about 2 stops lower read noise. 

[quote author=Jim O]
And neither did we mere mortals complain when we shot with Velvia in the 1990's. It was what it was.
[/quote]

The Fuji shooters do not complain about the DR of the Fuji cameras today either, which is what it is - much higher than Canon.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jim O said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Haha. My point exactly! It was about the best film for what you wanted to achieve. When I wanted the saturated colors of Velvia, I gave up DR. It was "the best" for certain things. I have some great images of the mountains in Ireland on Velvia from my honeymoon. They still look pretty good after 20 years too. No bit rot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2013)

Pi said:


> The Fuji shooters do not complain about the DR of the Fuji cameras today either, which is what it is - much higher than Canon.



Nope - they just complain about orbs. 

It's fine to have something to complain about, as long as it's not taken to extremes. But I guess it's too late for that. Just wipe the horsehair and little pieces of horseflesh off the bat when you're done, okay? :


----------



## zim (Sep 1, 2013)

Pi said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > What ISO were these outdoor crowd shots taken at?
> ...



Why?

Photographically (is there such a word!) no matter what camera I was using I wouldn’t have used 100 for that type of picture, what’s the advantage?


----------



## Pi (Sep 1, 2013)

zim said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



How about more light for less shot noise; all that needed for the strong pp I expected. You really think that higher ISO (more precisely, a lower exposure) would have reduced the noise?

I did not mind the slight motion blur in the crowd.


----------



## Pi (Sep 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > The Fuji shooters do not complain about the DR of the Fuji cameras today either, which is what it is - much higher than Canon.
> ...



They should also complain about the ugly aliasing artifacts that the "moire free" sensor generates. But fanboyism runs in all families, not just Canon.



> It's fine to have something to complain about, as long as it's not taken to extremes.



It is rather extreme to deny the obvious and keep repeating the 4 stop nonsense.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 1, 2013)

Pi said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > What ISO were these outdoor crowd shots taken at?
> ...


It is not about highlights. It is about the DR starting from the clip point to the noise floor. The Sony sensors can detect marginally more photons (on a log scale). For all practical purposes, more or less the same. The difference comes from the noise floor. Having lower noise allows you to expose for the highlights and still have decent shadows. The shadows here, pulled in pp, are plain ugly. Vertical banding is everywhere, plus random noise. There is nothing unrealistic about expecting no visible vertical banding, at least. The 70D seems to be free of it but still has the strong random read noise. Oh, I almost forgot - every other brand has about 2 stops lower read noise. [/quote]

It's not about the highlights? Of course it is ... and the shadows too. The highlights and shadows are two ends of the same ruler. If you expose for one, you lose the other. If you expose for both, you get a sub-optimal exposure for both. So you got noisy shadows _and_ blown highlights. Ansel Adams had the same issue in the Martha Porter portrait; he chose to expose for the shadows and totally blew the highlights. He didn't blame Kodak for their limited DR film (or for his own lack of a reflector or flash).

Adams faced a similar DR problem with "Moonrise, Hernandez", perhaps his most famous photo -- 
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/adamslargemoonrise.jpg
With the sun going down he had to wing the exposure. He couldn't find his light meter! He wanted to bracket the exposure but had time for only one exposure. So he exposed for the moon in the sky, using its known luminance value, and had no idea where the shadows in the foreground would fall. He wished he had given the image a half-stop more exposure. He was so worried about "mottling" in the underexposed sky that he used _ten_ developer-water cycles to minimize "the possibility of uneven sky". Years later, he chemically "intensified" the underexposed foreground, i.e. raised the shadows. He repeated that about _twelve_ times until it looked right. Even with these extreme measures, the negative was a challenge to print. Again, he didn't blame Kodak for their limited DR film. Instead, he had realistic expectations and made a great image using the tools at hand.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 1, 2013)

Pi said:


> [quote author=Jim O]
> And neither did we mere mortals complain when we shot with Velvia in the 1990's. It was what it was.



The Fuji shooters do not complain about the DR of the Fuji cameras today either, which is what it is - much higher than Canon.
[/quote]

And this has what to do with my point which was that DR is *not* everything? That was my point. It had nothing to do with Fuji sensors. How did you tangent off from Fuji color reversal film from the 1990's and onto Fuji sensors of today? I know why I brought up Velvia; again, it was to make the point that making beautiful images can be done with the rather narrow DR of color reversal film.

BTW, and apropos of nothing, I love my Fuji X100S, but if I had to choose between it and one of my Canon dSLR's, I know which I'd choose. That doesn't mean I don't like the images from the Fuji. They're quite wonderful. I'm leaving shortly with no real destination in mind, and I'm taking the Fuji. It's so easy to carry, takes sharp images, and it's light on my shoulder.

If you're so upset by this issue, why not change systems? You've said that you didn't upgrade this last cycle because it wasn't enough of a change for you. You didn't say it was because you didn't have the money. Sell your Canon gear and switch. You'll get more DR, but maybe you'll find the glass more expensive and/or less to your liking. There are always trade offs. 

Now here's some information that I found informative. I found a post or a review somewhere else on this forum about Reuters "Top 100 Photos of 2012". I went to the Reuters site at http://blogs.reuters.com/fullfocus/2012/11/30/best-photos-of-the-year-2012/#a=1, clicked on "View All Images" and did a "quick and dirty" search. If I'm correct, all had the camera make/model listed. Nikon was listed six times. Fuji just once. Sony also once. Canon? Canon was listed 92 times! Now you may not do photojournalism, but these are professionals putting their cameras through the rigors of heavy use, often in tough locations. It seems most of them, at least most who took the best shots, chose Canon and lived with the reduced DR and shadow banding, etc. Perhaps they found it the best "compromise" of sensor, features, glass, reliability, etc. Food for thought?


----------



## Pi (Sep 1, 2013)

zlatko said:


> It's not about the highlights? Of course it is ... and the shadows too.



So you actually agree.



> Again, he didn't blame Kodak for their limited DR film. Instead, he had realistic expectations and made a great image using the tools at hand.



I m not sure why you keep repeating this. He did not have better tool at hand, but if he did - he would not have used them? His realistic expectations were based on what was technically possible then. Mine are based on what is possible today. I do not have unrealistic expectations for 20 stop DR. I have the realistic expectations to get the DR range that every other brand can get with their 35mm or APS-C sensors. 

Yes, I can apply NR to the bottom of the image, etc., I could have taken a second shot and blend the top, etc. Or, I could just had a modern sensor.

*@ Jim O*


> And this has what to do with my point which was that DR is not everything?



It was meant to show you, among the rest, that your point the DR is not everything is off topic. It was discussed before, and everybody agreed that DR is not everything.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 1, 2013)

Pi said:


> *@ Jim O*
> 
> 
> > And this has what to do with my point which was that DR is not everything?
> ...









You're the one who keeps harping on it. Hahaha. Pot, kettle, black. Now put them in a sentence.

And then consider a response to my off topic observation about the 92 to 6 to 1 to 1.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 1, 2013)

Pi said:


> I have the realistic expectations to get the DR range that every other brand can get with their 35mm or APS-C sensors.



Then it seems you should be using "every other brand" -- i.e. _any_ brand but Canon if, as you claim, every other brand has solved this problem. And yet you use Canon. I don't get that. With eBay, Craigslist, etc., it's easier than ever to change brands.

I mentioned Ansel Adams because he offers vivid examples of how photographers used to deal with the same problems. Not by blaming manufacturers of film, but by taking responsibility for every part of the image. He used a variety of films, not always the film with the greatest DR. He used a variety of formats, not always the largest format with the greatest image detail. He didn't always have the "best" tool on hand. And for his most famous image, he didn't even have a light meter on hand.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 1, 2013)

Jim O said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > *@ Jim O*
> ...



I like to do astrophotography and I have noticed a lack of shadow detail in pictures of black holes  Perhaps that's where this entire thread should end up.....


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 1, 2013)

So I was looking at some resolution charts for lenses yesterday.

Man the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR 2 sucks, like, those corners are terrible. To think that Nikon shooters have been wasting their lives with glass like that for so many years, almost half a decade now, sheesh, and it's so obvious too. It's like they've all got their head in the sand or something. I mean, obviously whatever talent you have is being severely limited if you use that system.


----------



## Pi (Sep 1, 2013)

Jim O said:


>


----------



## horshack (Sep 1, 2013)

9VIII said:


> So I was looking at some resolution charts for lenses yesterday.
> 
> Man the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR 2 sucks, like, those corners are terrible. To think that Nikon shooters have been wasting their lives with glass like that for so many years, almost half a decade now, sheesh, and it's so obvious too. It's like they've all got their head in the sand or something. I mean, obviously whatever talent you have is being severely limited if you use that system.



hehe, I know your post is in jest but in actuality for nearly every focal length where the two systems go head-to-head in glass (for the same generation design) Canon completely wipes the floor with better designs/IQ. The only notable exception I can think of is the Nikon 14-24mm. I own both the Canon 70-200 II and Nikon 70-200 VR2 and the Canon is what I reach for most of the time, esp. when I want to do off-center composition at 200mm. It's a spectacular lens.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 1, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> I like to do astrophotography and I have noticed a lack of shadow detail in pictures of black holes  Perhaps that's where this entire thread should end up.....



LOL...I think you're onto something!


----------



## Famateur (Sep 1, 2013)

Pi said:


> Jim O said:
> 
> 
> >



LOL...seriously? That's your conclusion to people who see the futility of this silly argument?

You still haven't responded (unless I lost it in the ever-growing volume of pages to this thread -- or was it the other thread?) to my comment and others' comments acknowledging the DR and noise superiority at certain ISO levels of Sony/Nikon sensors. Does your continual ignoring of the fact that for many (most?) photographers DR and noise at certain ISO levels isn't their _highest _priority mean _your _head is in the sand?

Sorry, but displaying an image of beating a dead horse in a thread that continues on, unresolved, for 24 pages is a comment about a topic. Implying that those who disagree with you have their heads in the sand is a personal attack. Is that really where you're going to take this? Then again, maybe I got it all wrong. Maybe you weren't accusing but rather admitting? In which case, I apologize. 

Let it go already...


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 1, 2013)

No, Pi's been told that someone left a Nikon on the beach and he's looking for it.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 1, 2013)

Dear CR Moderators:

This thread should be sufficient evidence that discussions about dynamic range and other sensor performance topics will likely devolve into endless and pointless back-and-forth arguing. While I support the idea of people being free to engage in it, perhaps we could find a way of accommodating it with a little more discretion. 

Here are some ideas:

1.) On topics like these, we simply lock the thread once the topic has been sufficiently beaten to death (or has been beaten to death in previous threads).

2.) We create a "Bickering" section of the forum in which discussions like this can be initiated and labored to the satisfaction of all participating (or to which threads that take on such characteristics can be moved). Threads from such discussions would be excluded from the website's home page list of recent topics.

I kinda like option 2 best. It makes it clear to those who don't (or do) want to read/engage-in bickering threads that that's what they're getting when they enter. Excluding it from the recent topics on the home page might help avoid "feeding the trolls", as it were, and prevent the unsuspecting from stumbling onto such drivel.

What do you think?

Other ideas?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2013)

Pi said:


>



No, that would be not acknowledging that Sony/Nikon sensors have more DR than Canon, and that's not what's going on here. The issue is that for some people, it's a problem and for others, it's not. Your examples suggest it's a problem for you. Guess what? There's a solution - as they say, put up or shut up, and start using one of the cameras from 'every other brand of 35mm or APS-C sensors'. 

For the people who don't find the less DR to be a problem, or not enough of a problem to outweigh the advantages for them, nothing you, Mikael, Aglet, LTRLI, or others post here will change that. For people who do find the less DR to be a problem, they don't need more convincing, and in many cases they've switched to or added Nikon bodies to their kit. 

So really, you _are_ just






I suggest you head on over to Nikonrumors Forum, where your DRoning will be met with agreement and camaraderie. Since I suspect you'll quickly grow bored, given the discussion above I suggest you start posting lots of examples, in every thread you can, about how the most recent versions of two very popular fast zooms - the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR, are better from Canon than from Nikon. Have fun...


----------



## Famateur (Sep 1, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> No, Pi's been told that someone left a Nikon on the beach and he's looking for it.



Laughed so hard my sides are still hurting! Thanks! ;D


----------



## Pi (Sep 1, 2013)

Famateur said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Jim O said:
> ...


As serious as a dead horse. 


> You still haven't responded (unless I lost it in the ever-growing volume of pages to this thread -- or was it the other thread?) to my comment and others' comments acknowledging the DR and noise superiority at certain ISO levels of Sony/Nikon sensors. Does your continual ignoring of the fact that for many (most?) photographers DR and noise at certain ISO levels isn't their _highest _priority mean _your _head is in the sand?



Yours (and others) continuing ignoring the fact that I said that it is not a main concern, and it affects a small percentage of my images (but I still consider this to be a problem), that I am fine if somebody does not consider it to be a problem (my response to zlatko), is astonishing. This thread has never been about whether it is/should be a priority, stop changing the topic. It is about the people denying the problem in the first place; ridiculing those who think, rightly or wrongly, that it is a priority; keep repeating that this is for people who do not know what they are doing, closed cap shooters, black hole shooters (a good one, BTW), those whose flash did not fire, repeating the 4 stop nonsense, then involving Ansel Adams, teaching me how to pp, etc. 



> Let it go already...


Why didn't you?


----------



## Aglet (Sep 1, 2013)

zim said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



In the case of Canon's stripey noise, when practical, one of the work-arounds to reducing the pattern noise is to use higher ISO. Then the greater incidence of random noise can be used to obscure FPN to some extent and NR software can actually do a decent job of recovery.
No, not what you want to hear but that's a method I used sometimes while I had my PoS 5d2.
But,if you look at the DR curves for Canon's sensors, you'll see that total DR is pretty flat from 100 to 800+ on most models and only the SNR drops.
The real solution, other than waiting for Canon to improve their sensor tech, is to change or add other gear to your kit.
I've spent a pile on Nikon and Pentax and have nuthin to gripe about now unless I go back and look at the lousy raw files from my 5d2, 7d or occasionally my 60d.
You're also wasting your efforts trying to convince any of the fanboys here that they should expect more from their Canon gear; they're content to learn to live with the limitations.
Some of us expect better and hope Canon will deliver, they still do make enjoyable gear to use and great lenses..(for the most part)
6D and now the 70D are on track for improving IQ in these areas. The future may be better.


----------



## Alrik89 (Sep 1, 2013)

Aglet said:


> But,if you look at the* DR curves *for Canon's sensors, you'll see that total DR is pretty flat from 100 to 800+ on most models and only the SNR drops.
> 
> 
> Some of us expect better and hope Canon will deliver, ....



Yeah, all that "curves" guys hope, Canon will deliver some day. 
Curves are all that matter!


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2013)

Wow! 24 pages of comments and no one has added much in the way of constructive comment since Page 2, when LetTheRightLensIn actually tried to explain the numbers and their impact.

Pretty much everything else has been school yard taunts back and forth.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2013)

zlatko said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



It's not about the highlights? Of course it is ... and the shadows too. The highlights and shadows are two ends of the same ruler. If you expose for one, you lose the other. If you expose for both, you get a sub-optimal exposure for both. So you got noisy shadows _and_ blown highlights. Ansel Adams had the same issue in the Martha Porter portrait; he chose to expose for the shadows and totally blew the highlights. He didn't blame Kodak for their limited DR film (or for his own lack of a reflector or flash).

[/quote]

What he means is that the clip point is the clip point, that is always fixed goal, you expose as much as you can without blowing and bright parts that you want to save (sometimes you do want to blow some of the bright parts, certainly if the noon sun is in the shot you are not going to be trying to expose the scene so as to save the highlights in the sun's orb ;D well unless the shot was a sun shot only and you were trying to show sun spots or eclipse or something but you know what I mean), so all that matters for DR is the read noise.

The max wells are not that different between the cameras for the most part and even the color filters usually don't affect it to much so any difference in saving highights you see is nothing more than how the meter in the camera works and where the manufacturer suggests RAW develop programs place the mid-tone, but those have nothing to do with what the sensor did or what is contained in the RAW file. All of the main DSLR use basically the same single channel type linear sensor so there really is no such thing as one brand saving highlights noticeably better than another (maybe under weird lighting and with a particular color subject the color filters may blown different channels enough in different orders between different cameras you could encounter some difference). It's more if you were to compare a regular digital camera to the old Fuji teo pixel type design or to film, which has a very non-linear capture, where the way highlights roll off might seem noticeably different.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2013)

Jim O said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > [quote author=Jim O]
> ...



And this has what to do with my point which was that DR is *not* everything? That was my point. It had nothing to do with Fuji sensors. How did you tangent off from Fuji color reversal film from the 1990's and onto Fuji sensors of today? I know why I brought up Velvia; again, it was to make the point that making beautiful images can be done with the rather narrow DR of color reversal film.
[/quote]

Of course it can (be used to make beautiful images within narrow DR limits of slide or even color print film). As I said you can use a 5D3 to take a basically infinite number of amazing shots where it would work fine. I used Velvia in the past at times and it could be totally awesome for some things, lush meadow on Rainier with flowers in bloom and soft overcast lighting, man the greens of the fields! But all the same with less DR are more limited the number of different types of things you can pull off. People used to constantly rue how hard it was to try to shoot in sunbeam lit forests back then and how stuff like K64 if you tried really made it impossible.

Nobody is saying that you have to toss your Canon on the ground, kick, toss it into a mud pile and then off the roof or that there are not pluses to the system but some people sure would like them to catch up in DR before it ends up being over a decade and who knows how much longer. They have fallen way behind there and they haven't show much desire to want to invest in using new fabs for their DSLRs even while everyone was willing to spend to do so. Some people only make use of it once in a blue moon but other good likely make use of it on at least a semi-regular basis. I'll bet even a few of the strongest naysayers who say that it's totally overblown and would barely make any difference ever and even a few who claim that more DR would make the camera worse (and yes there have been some, one of the biggest posters on DPR for instance) will suddenly end most glad they have it when/if they finally get extra DR. 

Not that it is the only thing or the end of the world by any remotest means, but it can be a very nice thing, certain for a good chunk of people if not everyone.

And yes 5D3 video with ML is astoundingly better than the video from any Nikon or Sony DSLR. Just to randomly toss something in there. After the ML RAW release the 5D3 became a true revelation for video as the 5D2 had been. It's an incredibly awesome thing.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > So I was looking at some resolution charts for lenses yesterday.
> ...



Not the 24-70 2.8 though or 70-300 either.

Eventually if it really finally seems like Canon truly will never bother with more DR for another decade or two, I will switch, but I'd rather not if I don't have to. I'm starting to almost feel like it might be another decade for them or more. If the next round doesn't do anything for DR I wont buy it and will probably stop moving up in lenses, perhaps even dabble with a single lens and a Nikon as a second body and hope there is some sign the 5D5 round will do it, if it looks like not then I might finally switch over (keeping 5D3 and a simple lens or two for video if Nikon hasn't gotten anything going for video by then).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, that would be not acknowledging that Sony/Nikon sensors have more DR than Canon, and that's not what's going on here.



Actually one of more frequent posters to thread dealing with DR on DPR does deny the DR advantage. He more less says DxO is ultra-biased against Canon and that more DR actually makes image quality worse and that Canon should never, ever try to match Exmor. He didn't use to say that when Canon was ahead. But now in defense of that, he seem to claim that Canon has not improved DR for a while because they known they are at the perfect magical limit and they are not so foolish as to go beyond it like Nikon and others so as to avoid ruining image quality.

Granted DPR is not, strictly speaking, here.

But even here how often do you see a post, even from yourself, tossing off getting more DR as nothing but useful for incompetents who like to shoot everything underexposed by 5 stops/who don't know to work a camera/who want to shoot awnings at 10 stops under for no apparent reason/that even DxO's plots are a pure crock and so on and so forth?



> For the people who don't find the less DR to be a problem, or not enough of a problem to outweigh the advantages for them, nothing you, Mikael, Aglet, LTRLI, or others post here will change that.



One could also say, if you don't care about DR why jump all over any thread where someone points out Canon is way behind in DR again with a new sensor? If it doesn't matter to you, then who cares? People pointed out a fact that doesn't matter to you so why do you care then and jump all over every such thread? OK if you do but then you also turn around and complain the threads go on forever.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 2, 2013)

Pi said:


> Jim O said:
> 
> 
> >



Wow. As promised, I took a drive to nowhere in particular but sadly the weather wasn't great and I wasn't all that inspired. Came home and took a nice nap.

Came back here find the level of discourse had gotten one or more notches more inane, sadly.

So here's my tit for your tat.






And with that, I am done with this thread, lest I risk becoming a victim of my own signature. Peace out.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 2, 2013)

Jim O said:


> And with that, I am done with this thread, lest I risk becoming a victim of my own signature. Peace out.



LOL...Ditto.

I might even go and...(gasp)...take a photo or two, and...(gasp)...enjoy it!


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 2, 2013)

Can you people sit down and have peace?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Actually one of more frequent posters to thread dealing with DR on DPR does deny the DR advantage.
> 
> Granted DPR is not, strictly speaking, here.



I don't post in the DPR forums, and read threads there only in the course of Google searches for information. Occasionally (rarely might be more accurate), I find useful info there. 



Famateur said:


> I might even go and...(gasp)...take a photo or two, and...(gasp)...enjoy it!



I tried that, but the fact that I have only 11 stops of DR just sucked the joy right out of it. :


----------



## ahab1372 (Sep 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > I might even go and...(gasp)...take a photo or two, and...(gasp)...enjoy it!
> ...


I usually drive to the coast here which tends to be foggy. Even a Canon can handle that reduced DR. You should try it one day


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...



So, you're saying I shouldn't have tried to take a picture from inside a pitch black tunnel and capture the graffiti sprayed on the black walls with black paint and in the same shot capture the kids' white chalk drawings on the white sidewalk in full sun just outside the tunnel? Was that where I went wrong? I bet a D7100 could have done it, though, right? Sadly, I'm stuck with this PoS, poor dynamic range 1D X. As the actor-turned-Mayor-of-Carmel once said, "A man's got to know his limitations."


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 2, 2013)

Pi said:


>



Sticking your head in the sand is very dangerous in this forum.... there may be dangers lurking on the beach....


----------



## Famateur (Sep 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > I might even go and...(gasp)...take a photo or two, and...(gasp)...enjoy it!
> ...



Yeah, I've been feeling a little deflated, too, now that I've learned I can't really take photos of much more than pigeons on a concrete overpass on an overcast day. Maybe there's a local support group that can help...


----------



## ahab1372 (Sep 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, you're saying I shouldn't have tried to take a picture from inside a pitch black tunnel and capture the graffiti sprayed on the black walls with black paint and in the same shot capture the kids' white chalk drawings on the white sidewalk in full sun just outside the tunnel? Was that where I went wrong? I bet a D7100 could have done it, though, right? Sadly, I'm stuck with this PoS, poor dynamic range 1D X. As the actor-turned-Mayor-of-Carmel once said, "A man's got to know his limitations."


Lol, at least you have a slightly better chance with that tunnel than I do. I better get down to Carmel soon, maybe book a room at that actor's ranch, before the foggy season ends. They also don't have those tunnels down there AFAIK


----------



## garyknrd (Sep 2, 2013)

I fight with DR daily but, It seems most do not expose to the right? A couple of pages back I saw a mention of it. 

Actually I can shoot pretty close to the Nikon D4 with this technique. The only thing that bugs me is. Shooting beside a D4. It is less work for them. 
Same with ISO, I would muchhhhh rather take my ISO higher and shoot to the right than to expose to a neutral setting. I can get close to the D4, but they do not worry about it that much.

There is an advantage to Nikon. But not as much as you think. 
I don't change to Nikon because....... ( glass ) And to my surprise, my Nikon friends are envious of the Canon glass. To the point of switching to Canon? And I am not a Canon fanboy at all.

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 2, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



You'd actually switch over 2 stops of dynamic range? If Sony started making sensors with 20 stops of range that would be another thing, but if they stick at 13 (on average) and Canon stays around 11 (again, on average), that seems like a pretty minor issue to me.
If you look at the two flagship models, the 1DX and D4, it's only a 1.4 stop difference. Is that really such a huge lead? Heck, if you look at the variation within Nikons own current production models there's almost as much difference within Nikon as there is between the worst models from both companies.
Heaven forbid someone use a D4 instead of a D800.
Of course all else being equal it's a clear choice, but I have a feeling it'll never come to that, at least not within my lifetime.


----------



## tnargs (Sep 2, 2013)

Pi said:


> The point of ETTR is to allow more light to hit the sensor.



No, the point of ETTR is to avoid blown highlights while not losing detail in shadows. It might mean _less _light hitting the sensor, if average metering was going to blow important highlights.


----------



## tnargs (Sep 2, 2013)

zlatko said:


> When I used a pair of Nikons for a few months, I had to be more careful not to overexpose. Whether because of the metering or the sensor, I don't know. On balance, these are not big differences. You just learn and make slight adjustments.



You might learn and make adjustments with a Nikon sensor, but if it is a Canon sensor, the only thing to do is go on Canon forums and blast the whole brand!


----------



## tnargs (Sep 2, 2013)

9VIII said:


> So I was looking at some resolution charts for lenses yesterday.
> 
> Man the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR 2 sucks, like, those corners are terrible. To think that Nikon shooters have been wasting their lives with glass like that for so many years, almost half a decade now, sheesh, and it's so obvious too. It's like they've all got their head in the sand or something. I mean, obviously whatever talent you have is being severely limited if you use that system.



And yet, do we see Nikon users, 10 times a day, 10 times an hour, beating the beejeezus out of Nikon on the Nikon forums for the wide open corner performance of this lens? Do we see Canon users dropping in on Nikon forums and chortling arrogantly, and constantly posting pics of comparative wide open corner shots?

Why not? Is someone, somewhere, having an attack of courtesy?


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 2, 2013)

Famateur said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...


And with the limited DR of my camera, I am unable to raise detail out of the shadows.....


----------



## Pi (Sep 2, 2013)

tnargs said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > The point of ETTR is to allow more light to hit the sensor.
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposing_to_the_right

*In digital photography, exposing to the right (ETTR) is the technique of increasing the exposure of an image in order to collect the maximum amount of light and thus get the optimum performance out of the digital image sensor.*


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 2, 2013)

tnargs said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > So I was looking at some resolution charts for lenses yesterday.
> ...



No-one's having a courtesy attack, it's just less fun to take cheap shots at the underdog.

Edit: Hmm, after seeing the other response below it looks like Tnargs may have been trying to complement the Canon userbase, which is commendable, and my response was a bit snappy.
Unfortunately it's still true, if Nikon was four times larger than Canon the Nikon Rumors forum would probably be just as much a mess.


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 2, 2013)

tnargs said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > The point of ETTR is to allow more light to hit the sensor.
> ...



You are confused. You cannot avoid blowing up highlight and not retaining shadow detail at the same time. ETTR is basically over expose your image a bit


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 2, 2013)

Pi said:


> tnargs said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



+1. It's all about getting as much light as you can without clipping the highlights while reducing the shadows. It's equivalent to an overexposure of around 1/3 EV.


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 2, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> And with the limited DR of my camera, I am unable to raise detail out of the shadows.....



I'm fairly sure Shadow doesn't particularly care to have its tail raised. Good way to get mauled.


----------



## aj1575 (Sep 2, 2013)

I won a Photo Contest lately! My picture had a dynamic range 13,4EV at signal to noise ratio of 37,3dB. The second best only manged 12,9EV an 36,8dB.....


----------



## Apop (Sep 2, 2013)

tnargs said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > So I was looking at some resolution charts for lenses yesterday.
> ...



It is why I started this topic
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16691.0

People are fixated on sensor performance, and then mostly on DR.

I am not really sure if there are Nikon users in these forums only to bash troll and attack, If so it is rather sad.

Now we just need to learn how to spot and ignore them, If no one replies to their posts their fun will be over really fast , they might even leave for an other canon forum to try and get some satisfaction !

Maybe the reason is that they envy canon glass, ergonomics or other things.....
I like Nikons green tint on the top screen when it's dark, canon has a bit yellowish  (altough mine is blue).
I like that they have better sensors....

I think is should go to a Nikon forum and constantly talk about the inferior lenses.....
Keep on going about the extremely poor buffer on the d7100, and that there is no Wildlife camera in the current line up (other than the d4, which has only 16mpix on FF) for wildlife shooters that care about raw+fps+buffer ...... there is ?

Most likely the only response you will get is : But... I have superior DR


----------



## hutjeflut (Sep 2, 2013)

Its funny how everyone keeps bashing this camera because the sensor is only a small improvement for stills.
However i think this gamera is the biggest overal jump in the history of the xxD series.

In general only the sensor improved slowly with each model and addes a few MP and a few small features.

But this time they not only slightly improved the sensor they also added other stuff thats quite welcome like
-wifi to upload to facebook flickr or clouds or even use the camera remotely over wifi with your tablet!
-a better 19 point all cross focus system from the 7D
-a touch screen
-faster live view focus
-in camera HDR which might be fun and easy
-better viewfinder coverage
-hybrid autofocus for video
-a stunning 7 fps rather then 5.3 which launched this camera into a budged sports camera
-decicated focus mode button that lets you choose focus mode while shooting and much more button layout optimisations life movie button.


so in reality this camera is a massive upgrade. and the few samples ive seen also show that the black levels and noise preformance is really visible when compared to the 7d which for its price now is the direct competitor.


----------



## caruser (Sep 2, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > tnargs said:
> ...


You can't generalise ETTR in that way, whether and by how much it overexposes or underexposes depends on what the autoexposure does (since that's the frame of reference in this case) and on the concrete scene (the maximum difference between the "average" and maximum brightness).

A dark scene with one slightly brighter spot will need a few stops of overexposure; a normally lit scene with one very very bright object will need some underexposure.

So I'd say that Wikipedia is wrong; ETTR is a "technique" to ensure the best exposure without clipping the highlights. In some cases it increases the exposure, in others it decreases it. If ETTR were a simple overexposure or underexposure we wouldn't need a new term for it.


----------



## whothafunk (Sep 2, 2013)

hutjeflut said:


> But this time they not only slightly improved the sensor they also added other stuff thats quite welcome like
> -a better 19 point all cross focus system from the 7D


a BETTER AF? by removing 2 functions (spot and expansion)? bollocks. who stated that 70D has a better AF and than a 7D?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2013)

whothafunk said:


> hutjeflut said:
> 
> 
> > But this time they not only slightly improved the sensor they also added other stuff thats quite welcome like
> ...



I'm pretty sure the reference meant _better than the 60D_.


----------



## Murilo_mms (Sep 2, 2013)

The discussion of sensor performance vs DxOMark is pointless. I was a Nikon user (D5000, D90, D700, D3s and D4) and now I own 5DIII and never been so satisfied. The colors I get now are far better than before and I have now much less work with raw files.

We only need the Nikon´s DR if we need to use +3 to +5 of exposure compensation on revelation of Raw files. And if someone are doing that is better learn how to use his camera...

Before my brand change I was affraid most because the results of DxOMark, but I was confident on my friends that own Canon and they NEVER complain about that.

High Iso performance? From 100 to 6400 the 5DIII is very, very close to D4 with much more resolution. Only above 6400 the D4 start to show difference. With 25600 we have much difference for D4, but how many photos we get with this iso? 

Now I am much happy and I read DxOMark sensor tests just for fun. His lenses tests are far better.


----------



## whothafunk (Sep 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > hutjeflut said:
> ...


you're right. excuse me.

but still though, not one review, not a single review has yet to compare AF between 7D in 70D. they only mention it has the same number AF points and cross type.


----------



## garyknrd (Sep 2, 2013)

Exposing to the right is a lot easier than it seems. I don't look at the scale the camera uses as over or under exposure. Specifically when you look at the tic mark scale. It is only a guide based on the metering system and how you have it set up to. 

So I personally like the definition that wicki gives. You just want to shoot at the max before you clip the highlights that are important to you. For me it is the bird. I could care less about the rest of the picture. So easy for me. Just evaluate the the color of the bird the background brightness and set an exposure for the bird. Using the tic marks as a guide only. 

Whether the metering device says you are under exposed or over exposed makes no difference at all. You are over exposed if you clip the highlights that are important to you. Or you can look at the highlight clipping on the back of the screen if that helps. But that takes valuable time.

I can tell you now it works wonders with the 7D and IV. Can't comment on the other cameras. 
It does kinda "tic" me off, pun intended. That Nikon does not have to worry about it near as much as I do....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2013)

hutjeflut said:


> Its funny how everyone keeps bashing this camera because the sensor is only a small improvement for stills.
> However i think this gamera is the biggest overal jump in the history of the xxD series.
> 
> ...
> ...



Sure, in the real world it's a much better camera than the 60D. But CR DR Forums isn't the real world. Here, a camera is no more than the sensor inside it, and each new Canon camera that doesn't have two more stops of DR is actually _worse_ than its predecessor, simply because of the expectation that it should have improved because Canon 'needs to pay attention to DR', and that it's another generation 'less modern' and 'more antiquated'. Note that novel technologies like Hybrid CMOS AF aren't considered improvements here on CR DR Forums, despite such technology, the similar DR means it's the 'same old crappy sensor'. 

To be fair, this thread is about DxOMark's testing of the 70D, and they only test sensors. Of course, while their Measurements are useful, their Scores are Biased (biased scores = BS) toward performance at the lowest selectable ISO, so they don't apply if you commonly shoot higher than ISO 100. Then again, even though _this_ particular thread is about sensor performance, the DRones will bring their DRivel to any thread about a new camera, because to them, the DR of the sensor *is* the camera.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 2, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Don, 

It seems I own the blue eye'd sister to your white cat !! 

I post this just to show Don the cat, but;

Shot this on jpeg, and is straight off the camera, in mid day sun. Even from jpeg I can bring the soil in the flower pot up four or five stops with no noise what so ever, but then of course despite this being of a white cat in the mid day sun the total EV range from highlight to deepest shadow is only around 6 stops, and that is accommodating for the intense reflection from the white fur.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> ...despite this being of a white cat in the mid day sun the total EV range from highlight to deepest shadow is only around 6 stops, and that is accommodating for the intense reflection from the white fur.



You need to understand read noise, highlight and shadow, sensors and QE then you would se the *benefits of 14 stops* vs 11 stops of DR for shooting a 6 stop scene.


----------



## Pi (Sep 2, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Shot this on jpeg, and is straight off the camera, in mid day sun. Even from jpeg I can bring the soil in the flower pot up four or five stops with no noise what so ever, but then of course despite this being of a white cat in the mid day sun the total EV range from highlight to deepest shadow is only around 6 stops, and that is accommodating for the intense reflection from the white fur.



The intense reflection is blown, actually.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > ...despite this being of a white cat in the mid day sun the total EV range from highlight to deepest shadow is only around 6 stops, and that is accommodating for the intense reflection from the white fur.
> ...


 
;D

You forgot to put that in*BOLD* type, underline it, and then go back in and edit. 

I mean if you don't do that do you really think I'll take any notice


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 2, 2013)

caruser said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



ETTR in most cases increases the exposure and not decrease it. To classify, ETTR is a technique to overexpose a little bit the highlights of the more "important" areas of the frame in order to decrease the noise of the shadows that the more "important" areas of the frame. Sometimes, the more unimportant areas of your photo doesn't matter as long as you get to expose properly your main subject either during shoot or during PP. 

I think your definition is also wrong if you want to go more through the details of ETTR per se.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 2, 2013)

Murilo_mms said:


> We only need the Nikon´s DR if we need to use +3 to +5 of exposure compensation on revelation of Raw files. And if someone are doing that is better learn how to use his camera...



Welcome to CR  and one remark here: After countless Nikon d800 vs 5d3 threads here I'd say that general opinion is that there are valid applications for more dynamic range at low iso, namely at least situations in high contrast when you cannot use bracketing for various reasons... meaning I hoped we're beyond "learn to use a camera" flamewars here :-o

Btw the continued heated arguments over Nikon's sensors and the latest module of Magic Lantern (my main reason to use Canon) that raises the dr of Canon is proof enough for me that this isn't a non-issue, it's just that some people need it and others don't.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 2, 2013)

Pi said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Shot this on jpeg, and is straight off the camera, in mid day sun. Even from jpeg I can bring the soil in the flower pot up four or five stops with no noise what so ever, but then of course despite this being of a white cat in the mid day sun the total EV range from highlight to deepest shadow is only around 6 stops, and that is accommodating for the intense reflection from the white fur.
> ...



You haven't down loaded the compress file from CR and try to read the highlights have you ? 

Another _faux pas_ ? 

On the original jpeg there is nothing at 255 - just. When you have full sun reflecting back at you from white fur it is dazzling white. I could, and in fact did on another frame, allow a little blow out. If deep shadow detail had been important that is the frame I would have used. (Indeed if that had been the case I would have shot raw, but this is just a family snap). 

While you're at it see how much noise you can get out of the flower pot.


----------



## Pi (Sep 2, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Yes, stop doing them.

I downloaded what you posted. There is a blown spot on the forehead of the cat. It does not matter what the RGB values are. They depend on the processing. 

Why don't you post the JPEG from the camera before you start blaming it on the CR compression? That will answer the question.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 2, 2013)

The jpeg is 60 meg but I will see what I can do.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 2, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> The jpeg is 60 meg but I will see what I can do.



That's a BIG cat!


----------



## Murilo_mms (Sep 2, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Murilo_mms said:
> 
> 
> > We only need the Nikon´s DR if we need to use +3 to +5 of exposure compensation on revelation of Raw files. And if someone are doing that is better learn how to use his camera...
> ...


Thanks and I do agree. We can not generalize that bigger DR on Nikon is useless because it is, for someone. For me, it is a thing that do not make difference.

Don´t get me wrong, I love Nikon and I loved all my cameras from Nikon. For me the best brand would be CanKon 8), because I do miss a lot of things that my previous Nikon cameras had.

My point was: We need to read DxOMark tests with careful.


----------



## qwerty (Sep 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahab1372 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



A man's limitations should be _his_ limitations, not his equipment's; it's a poor craftsman who has poor tools. You need a camera that can capture _all _of the detail in the scene. One crucial aspect you left out of your scenario is the sun itself -- you absolutely have to have the option of having it in the scene without blowing any highlights. (If you can't see how many sunspots there are, you either have blown highlights, not enough resolution, or too little DOF.) I think the EV for the face of the sun is in the low 30s, so a 40+ stop sensor is what you should be looking for. The 7100 won't do that, but I hear Canon will come out with something that beats SoNykon's sensors soon (and for a much lower price than their current lineup). You should not take any pictures until you get that camera. Anyone shooting with a current Canon or Nikon camera is just wasting their time.


Seriously though; if we all pitch in, we can get this to be a 100 page thread with no additional content.

(Yeah, I know there is actually useful content in this thread; however the DR stuff adds a lot of noise.)


----------



## zlatko (Sep 2, 2013)

Murilo_mms said:


> The discussion of sensor performance vs DxOMark is pointless. I was a Nikon user (D5000, D90, D700, D3s and D4) and now I own 5DIII and never been so satisfied. The colors I get now are far better than before and I have now much less work with raw files.



It is interesting how real world experience can change our beliefs. The DxO experts have everyone believing that Nikon produces better color.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2013)

qwerty said:


> however the DR stuff adds a lot of noise.



And (read) noise subtracts from DR. Maybe we can spend 2-3 more pages on circular logic, including jokes about circular logic (why is Lt. Cmdr. Data still in the shower?)... Oh, and more cat photos. Every thread needs more cat photos.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 2, 2013)

Is ownership of a certain type of cat compulsory on CR ?

And does circular logic have anything to do with pi ?


----------



## hutjeflut (Sep 2, 2013)

whothafunk said:


> hutjeflut said:
> 
> 
> > But this time they not only slightly improved the sensor they also added other stuff thats quite welcome like
> ...




You clearly misread.
I said better focus system FROM the 7d not better then the 60d 

and im fairly sure it still has spot focussing.

in this movie a canon employee sais its the same focus system as the 7d: Canon EOS 70D vs 60D Camera: Canon Comparison Video

edit: aperently im confused between spot and single poing gotta look up the difference there hehe.
i always shoot single point so thought that was the same as spot and expansion doesnt seem that usefull to me but sports photographers might think different.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 2, 2013)

Murilo_mms said:


> Don´t get me wrong, I love Nikon and I loved all my cameras from Nikon. For me the best brand would be CanKon 8), because I do miss a lot of things that my previous Nikon cameras had.



Really - what's that? It would be interesting because the Magic Lantern people are always interested in ideas on how to enhance the Canon firmware, but unfortunately most people lack knowledge of both systems (you do know Magic Lantern, right)?


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 2, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > The jpeg is 60 meg but I will see what I can do.
> ...



ooops ! Yes she's a big cat, but not that *big* !

Bring on the mega pixel camera. I think a zero got in there somehow. :-[


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 2, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Is ownership of a certain type of cat compulsory on CR ?
> 
> And does circular logic have anything to do with pi ?


Must be a Nikon cat..... The fur has a lot more dynamic range than the fur on my cat.....


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 2, 2013)

Pi said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



Well seeing as this thread has gravitated right down to rock bottom with pictures of cats, I'll put my family snap of the cat up for Pi. I've posted the original picture again: the one I used was the 6x4" image for printing which is straight off camera as jpeg but has been re sized and a contrast enhancing un-sharp mask which is what I do with all snap shots for printing.

The second and third are crops for the full jpeg, from camera, They will look dull on the web as I have left them in Adobe RGB. 

I consider this perfect exposure for the scene considering it was shot as a joey with no intention to pp.

(Just a point; if anyone is wondering why the flower pot is blurred it's because this picture was shot with my daughter's new "art" series lens, the 70-300 non L which is sharp in the very middle and soft focus everywhere else.)


----------



## Pi (Sep 2, 2013)

Still blown, sorry. It would not have been bad if it was not on the face.

Now, tell me, how a DR expert like you, in a supposedly 6 stop DR scene with an 11 stop DR camera, can blow the highlights, and brag about it?

You do not need a Nikon for that, you just needed to expose lower, or shoot in RAW.


----------



## aj1575 (Sep 2, 2013)

I made an interesting table to compare IQ of different cameras (the EOS 70D is also part of it). If you like to check it out, I started a new thread here:http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16749.msg309137#msg309137


----------



## zlatko (Sep 3, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Murilo_mms said:
> ...



In other words, Nikon color requires more fixing than Canon color. That's what "taking advantage" of that "Nikon advantage" really means in practice. Murilo_mms shot with a series of Nikon cameras, including two of their best & most expensive, and then he bought a Canon 5D3 (not even Canon's best / most expensive) and the colors are "far better than before and I have now much less work with raw files." Smart photographers _know_ when a camera maker makes their work better & easier — that's not ignorance.


----------



## jrista (Sep 3, 2013)

unfocused said:


> I'm sure I'll get flamed for this and maybe I'm missing something here, but when I compare the D7100 to the 70D and 7D on the graphs there doesn't seem to be all that much difference.
> 
> I admit I'm not a dynamic range freak, and I'm more interested in ISO performance, but it doesn't seem like there is any real world difference between the Nikon and Canon sensors.
> 
> ...



The DXO scores all boil down to DR, particularly low ISO DR, though. Sony's improvement in low ISO DR is what gives all the cameras that use Exmor or Exmor RS such a lead...DR is very heavily weighted in DXO's scores. If you look at individual measurements, such as SNR (which is more useful for determining high ISO performance), then you are indeed correct...very little difference between pretty much any brand these days.


----------



## jrista (Sep 3, 2013)

Pi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > "A smaller, less successful, non market-leading company like Nikon treats me better[...]"
> ...



However, given Nikon's customer support track record, it does not seem to be true with them specifically. ;P

Canon, on the other hand, has been winning awards for their customer service and service responsiveness for years...


----------



## jrista (Sep 3, 2013)

David Hull said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):
> ...



It isn't that the 5D III was used incorrectly. Fred Miranda was the one who did that review, and he is a respectable authority on such matters. The original sample images were shot to keep the whites from blowing in a high DR scene...and this, quite plain and simply, is indeed the result when you lift the shadows to compensate. There isn't any question that Canon has issues with their low ISO DR. It has been blotchy and banded for well over five years now, and it is Canon's weakest point.

Given DXO's review of the 70D, it's clear they have not put any effort into improving sensor IQ. Canon's focus is clearly different, and the weight of their focus has clearly shifted heavily towards video. I was hoping to see a better DR improvement for the 70D, and these results are rather disheartening. I'm a stills photographer, and I use my DSLR for still photographs. Quite frankly, I would really like to see Canon invest some of their huge cash flow into improving their products for their primary intended purpose, and not some secondary "sometimes convenient" purpose like video.

The Magic Lantern crew proved that Canon's sensors are capable of capturing the full 14 stops of dynamic range allowed by a 14-bit ADC...I think its high time Canon stopped their focus in video and returned their focus to EVERY aspect of IQ, including factors based on the sensor. I've argued in the past that there are other factors that affect IQ, such as AF system, but Canon has already perfected those technologies. Fred Miranda's comparison of the 5DIII and D800 is an excellent demonstration of why Canon should finally shift their focus back towards improving still photography IQ. I don't even think the problem is in the sensor, either...I think its in the ADC...and Canon pretty much whips up a new version of that every major release cycle anyway...so there shouldn't be any reason they couldn't invest some serious R&D into solving their low ISO IQ problem. 

No more clever arguments from me about why Canon's products are good. They are, but that isn't the point any longer. I truly hope to see something significant on the sensor/ADC IQ front with the 7D II...otherwise, the 5D III will probably be my last Canon DSLR purchase until they stop focusing on *secondary *video functionality and refocus on the _*primary *_purpose of a DSLR: _*photography*_.


----------



## Murilo_mms (Sep 3, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> if you like nice colors from beginning and strait out from the camera and for your eye pleasure , buy a compact camera


And if you want to spend more time on Lightroom than shooting go ahead...




zlatko said:


> Smart photographers _know_ when a camera maker makes their work better & easier — that's not ignorance.


That is the point!!!


----------



## jrista (Sep 3, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> *Are some of you willing to discuss color profiles, colors, and for what the pictures are aimed for?*
> how different CFA works, lights and kelvin?
> contrast curves etc=the physical conditions of a SLR ?????
> 
> ...



Sensor pixels are just buckets for ranges of frequencies of light. Thinning of the CFA improves transmission, thus increasing real sensor sensitivity, while giving some pixels a bit of frequency overlap. It's a good thing for high ISO performance to have a weaker CFA. It is also something that can be corrected in post. 

As for color fidelity, assuming the photographer does not immenently DEMAND that their direct from camera color performance be utterly perfect, color fidelity and accuracy is really a mathematical problem, not a CFA problem. You can tweak color reproduction to your hearts content in post with some color profiling, and produce whatever color you want. If anyone doubts this...just take a look at some of the stunning landscapes countless photographers have taken with the 5D III (which has a weakened CFA):

http://500px.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Canon+5D+III+landscape

These are all largely pointless debates...Nikon vs. Canon color depth bits, minute 1-2% differences in SNR, etc. 22 vs. 24 bits doesn't make any real-world difference. I would be doubtful 20 vs. 26 bits would make a difference, since ultimately, the color quality of your photos boils down to *style*...how you process your work, not which sensor captured it. 

Canon needs to refocus on stills IQ, improve their low ISO DR, certainly. But seriously, if we need to stop quibbling about something, lets stop quibbling about differences that fall within the margin of error. Color is a is a stylistic thing, and you have full control over it in post. Dynamic range is a hardware thing, and given how much Canon has focused on video features for their entire DSLR line lately, I think Canon customers should be asking Canon to refocus on improving the quality of their products for STILLS photographers.

(Also, Mikael, please don't give anyone any _spin _about how Canon *can't* built a new fab, or is _*incapable*_ of producing sensors on a smaller fabrication process because their only other fab that can do so is dedicated to compact sensor production, or anything like that. That is 100% purely your _personal opinion_, and has no basis in fact.)


----------



## Murilo_mms (Sep 3, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Murilo_mms said:
> 
> 
> > Don´t get me wrong, I love Nikon and I loved all my cameras from Nikon. For me the best brand would be CanKon 8), because I do miss a lot of things that my previous Nikon cameras had.
> ...


Yes, I do know Magic Lantern.

What I miss on Nikon:

- I was so used to nikon system that I did not needed to think to shoot. (Give me 2 or 3 more months and I will be there with canon)

- Nikon seems to be much more logical to use than canon. The comands on Nikon are much easier to learn.

- Spot metering is better on Nikon, as you do not need to metering with central point. Maybe with 1DX I was not complaing about that.


What I Love on Canon:

- As I told: Color out of camera is a lot better. Much less work on RAW files.

- Resolution is better. And I mean sharpness even after reduction.

- Lenses on Canon seems to be better, unless those ones that I like. I have owned a lot of lenses on nikon system (18 at total and at the end I owned just three: 24-70mm 2.8, 135mm 2.0DC - pretty amazing lens - and 50mm 1.8G). Canon 24-70mm 2.8 II on 2.8 is better and 135mm 2L is a little sharper and have much faster auto-focus than Nikon 135mm 2.0DC.

- 50mm 1.2L is a [email protected]#$% amazing lens and the equivalent on Nikon System does not have autofocus...

That´s it.


----------



## garyknrd (Sep 3, 2013)

jrista said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



+1


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 3, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Sticking your head in the sand is very dangerous in this forum.... there may be dangers lurking on the beach....



I like that croc/gator pic.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 3, 2013)

9VIII said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



It's more than two stops compared to the 5D2 or 5D3 (vs D600/D800/D7100/etc. (the D4 doesn't use exmor so the difference isn't as large compared to that but the D4 is still better for DR for sure)) and that is just engineering DR, real world it is bigger since the 5D3/5D2 have some of the greater amounts of pattern banding and such junk, using the 6D at least you could get a bit closer to just the engineering difference between them.

Anyway yeah it's often that it is just 3 stops I'm missing. So eventually I would switch. There are a lot of Canon advantages though and it's a pain to switch so I haven't leaped right into a switch. I keep thinking Canon will catch up soon, but it is starting to take a while. Hopefully the 2014/2015 cameras do it. If not then I'm not sure, that would mean another 3-4 years on top of that and maybe even longer if even that round doesn't catch up. How long can you wait. At the very least I'd stop getting any more Canon stuff and pick up a Nikon and one general lens and if Nikon improves other stuff too.... Hopefully that patent means they do have something planned for the 2014/2015 cameras though.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 3, 2013)

Apop said:


> tnargs said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Most of the people who mention DR in the Canon forums are Canon users who are simply making note of what each new sensor does and/or those simply hoping Canon will start producing sensors with more DR and less banding (with the 70D they seem to have finally do much better with banding, it tentatively appears and somewhat better with the 6D and 1DX, those two are almost as good as the old 1Ds3/40D in that regard). It's nothing about trolling or supposedly getting satisfaction or trying to rub things in people's faces or get kicks from getting a rise out people. You make it sound like it's sports fan bases clashing or something. Here and there a few trolls there may be, but it doesn't make a troll to simply report facts, all the facts, on each new release and/or to want more DR.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 3, 2013)

hutjeflut said:


> Its funny how everyone keeps bashing this camera because the sensor is only a small improvement for stills.
> However i think this gamera is the biggest overal jump in the history of the xxD series.
> 
> In general only the sensor improved slowly with each model and addes a few MP and a few small features.
> ...



true and people have said so on other threads, but this thread was titled DxO sensor score though so what do you expect?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 3, 2013)

jrista said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



+1

The latest patent they have released (2013 for the newest variant, apparently they already had ones as far back as 2006 though) seem to make it clear they even have the designs to do it, or least largely so it appears, so they just need marketing to let the engineers start producing their DSLR sensor designs on Canon's more modern fabs or to build a new one instead of making the DSLR engineers have to work within the limitations of the very old 500nm Canon fab. But they have so far wanted to keep milking the old fab DSLR while all other other companies move on to new fabs for large sensors. (someone claimed they heard that Canon had shifted some of the newest P&S models to the older fab and speculated Canon had finally decided to use the 180nm fab for DSLRs now. Who knows. Just a rumor.)

I do have to say I do love the 5D3 video abilities though now that they have been unlocked by Magic Lantern. It's pretty astonishing. I don't think that really had anything to do with not getting better stills quality though (maybe costs it a touch in the MP count but then again it also got it to a very nice 6fps by staying lower, although I suppose they could've maybe fit in two digic since the 7D could fit two, but whatever)).

The new liveview AF for the 70D does sound it took quite a lot of resources up. It is very cool though. All the same if it was better sensor for IQ vs that I'd have takne the better sensor and then done this new AF later. For the 70D market perhaps the AF matters more. But in the end I think it's probably mostly just that marketing wanted them to keep milking the old 500nm line which probably meant there wasn't much the sensor engineers could really do.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 3, 2013)

Murilo_mms said:


> - Nikon seems to be much more logical to use than canon. The comands on Nikon are much easier to learn.



Hmmm. I remember a few years back two people at the paper didnt have any equipment with them and then suddenly something needed to get covered (an event right next to the paper's office which they just happened to be walking past) and the paper only had two bodies left that were not checked out, both Nikon. And by the time either of the Canon users figured out how to even set a few basic things like ISO speed the event was over and they came back with zero pictures!! What kind of a tangled UI makes such a ridiculous thing even possible? And yet when I hand my Canon to a Nikon user they can get the basics going in seconds. IMO Canon UI is way better and way more intuitive. Even the most basic settings on Nikon are buried away who knows where.
I think is more that you used Nikon for so many years that it seems to make sense.

Of course UI is a very personally thing (but again I bet if you took say a bunch of Leica users or something, ones who had never touched a Canon or Nikon in their life, and put a Canon and a Nikon body in front of them, I bet well over 50%, I bet like 85% if not 90% or 99% ;D get the Canon camera working at a pretty advanced level without a manual on hand faster; of course in the end maybe a good number would prefer the Nikon UI anyway but that is individual).


----------



## garyknrd (Sep 3, 2013)

Looks like Canon is going to announce two new EOS M body's. If it has the Same sensor as the 70D?
I would love to have a small camera with that AF technology. Perfect for travel.
If it is affordable?


----------



## jrista (Sep 3, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > David Hull said:
> ...



I do hope Canon moves to 180nm soon. They certainly have the capability of building a 180nm fab, and they are on solid financial footing...its not like they would need to go billions into debt like Sony did in order to move to a new fab line.

If the marketing department really has that much control at Canon, then something is really wrong. Marketing shouldn't have a say in what technological developments a company invests in and deploys...marketing should simply sell what the technical departments of a company develop. So, I've never really bought the argument that marketing controls what Canon does. If there is some concrete information about who controls what at Canon that indicates their marketing department(s) have that much direct control, then maybe that is something. 

For whatever reason, Canon has gone full-bore on video, and for years now. Ever since the 5D II hit the streets with video, it seems Canon thinks that is the path to financial glory. Sadly, it seems to have consumed them entirely, to the detriment of the original purpose of a "camera": to take still photographs. I think Canon has taken it about as far as it can go though, or almost. With full-sensor FPPDAF, I don't really know what else Canon can do other than maybe tie in the metering even more, include even more advanced face detection, and maybe go to quad-split pixel designs for both horizontal and vertical phase detection. After that...what else could Canon possibly invent in the video arena for their DSLRs that would actually be meaningful and competitive?

I just hope the 7D II brings some significant IQ improvements to the table. Across the board...low ISO DR, high ISO SNR/noise, increased resolution, higher frame rate, better AF. If nothing more than to show their customers that when the next generation of FF finally hits, it won't just be a tweaked 61pt AF system and *the same old 12 stops of DR. *


----------



## hutjeflut (Sep 3, 2013)

poias said:


> I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):




what does this have to do with DR it seems a iso comparison to me nothing more nothing less?

maby im missing something but you cant tell me these 2 are shot on the same iso setting and shutter speed.


----------



## jrista (Sep 3, 2013)

hutjeflut said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):
> ...



You should read the original review:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

The noise exists because of a fairly significant shadow lift. The beams in the samples originally showed up as entirely black, and were lifted enough to bring out color and detail (at least a few stops). The rest of the photos were "correctly exposed", so the tests were not an ISO comparison...they were quite explicitly DR comparisons. Dynamic range is ultimately limited, in the shadows, by noise. Read noise, to be specific. Sony's Exmor sensor simply has less at low ISO (in exact terms, the 5D III has 33.1e-, where as the D800 has a mere 2.7e-).


----------



## Aglet (Sep 3, 2013)

jrista said:


> These are all largely pointless debates...Nikon vs. Canon color depth bits, minute 1-2% differences in SNR, etc.



I agree with pretty much everything you've stated but the SNR differences are much greater than 1-2%. They may be that at the highlites end but SNR difference is actually huge where it matters in post, on the dark end of the curve.
there's a good 2-4 stops difference between Canon and …everybody else at 0db SNR.


----------



## jrista (Sep 3, 2013)

Aglet said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > These are all largely pointless debates...Nikon vs. Canon color depth bits, minute 1-2% differences in SNR, etc.
> ...



Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was specifically referring to higher ISO settings, and the SNR 18% measure at DXO. At higher ISO settings, the differences are miniscule, if they exist at all. Canon maintains an edge thanks to a WEAKER CFA, but in the end color quality is so phenomenally good on all modern DSLRs those differences don't matter much. For high ISO users, other factors matter much more...AF system, metering, frame rate, etc. 

At low ISO, improved SNR does indeed lead to more stops of dynamic range, no one disputes that.


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2013)

poias said:


>



Just to demonstrate a point. The Canon image in the samples above looks quite terrible. While you can probably never extract the same amount of shadow detail as the D800 with a 5D III, it need not look quite that bad. Here is a copy that was run through both Topaz DeNoise 5, with vertical debanding, 100% chroma noise removal, and minor luma noise removal, as well as maximum dynamic range recovery. It was then run through Nik Dfine 2 in order to remove more luma noise. DeNoise 5 does an excellent job removing chroma and banding noise, while Dfine 2 does a better job at reducing luma noise without smudging detail. 

Here is the result:






Clear loss of detail on the upper beam relative to the D800. Still some noise on the door frame and window relative to the D800. Some artifacts on the no smoking sign (although more likely due to the use of a JPEG as my source...denoising from an original RAW or high quality TIFF would produce better results.) Despite those, the results are FAR more acceptable than the original 5D III RAW without any noise reduction. Dynamic range has improved considerably with some effective NR. Not the same 13.2 stops as the D800 has, but definitely more than the 10.97 stops that DXOMark measured.

So, yes, the 5D III, like most other Canon sensors, has some pretty crappy shadow noise. Doesn't mean the buck stops there, however. ;D


----------



## Pi (Sep 4, 2013)

jrista said:


> Here is a copy that was run through both Topaz DeNoise 5, with vertical debanding, 100% chroma noise removal, and minor luma noise removal, as well as maximum dynamic range recovery. It was then run through Nik Dfine 2 in order to remove more luma noise. DeNoise 5 does an excellent job removing chroma and banding noise, while Dfine 2 does a better job at reducing luma noise without smudging detail.



Can you denoise now the crop from the Toronto's Yonge-Dundas Square shot I posted earlier without losing detail? If I like it, I may send you the whole image, and pay you for that.


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a copy that was run through both Topaz DeNoise 5, with vertical debanding, 100% chroma noise removal, and minor luma noise removal, as well as maximum dynamic range recovery. It was then run through Nik Dfine 2 in order to remove more luma noise. DeNoise 5 does an excellent job removing chroma and banding noise, while Dfine 2 does a better job at reducing luma noise without smudging detail.
> ...



Hmm, I think I missed that one...I came into this thread in the middle. I can read from the beginning if its in this thread, and I'd be happy to give it a whirl.


----------



## Pi (Sep 4, 2013)

jrista said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Please don't! It was a joke (the image is real though).


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> where is the banding?
> 5D3
> ISO 4000
> extreme cropped



You shot at ISO 4000. Thanks to Canon's use of a Bias Offset, by that ISO, the black point has moved above the level at which banding noise exists. The only noise remainder is slight quantization noise during ADC...and photon shot noise.


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2013)

*Re: Black-Cap event*



zlatko said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



It has practical relevance for certain kinds of photography. The most obvious being landscape photography. Another, maybe not so obvious, would be interior design photography (where you often encounter bright windows resulting in scenes that easily top 13 stops of DR.) It is not practical for EVERY kind of photography, and once you get past ISO 400, on Canon cameras, black point is usually above the banding noise floor and physics is the primary driver of noise, so it doesn't matter.


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



LOL

Well, if you ever pick up DeNoise 5, it should solve the problem nicely. It is very configurable. The debanding can work in horiz, vert, or both, and each are independently adjustable. You have fine control over how denoising is applied to different color channels, the ability to recover black level (DR), etc. If you've been having trouble cleaning up shadow noise, it's pretty much the tool that will do the job. I use either Nik Dfine 3 or some other NR tool for luma noise reduction (photon shot noise), as Topaz DeNoise 5 past a certain "strength" level starts to heavily blur detail.


----------



## FunkyCamera (Sep 7, 2013)

I can't wait for Nikon to go out of business. Their sensors are worse in every way that matters, their bodies are low quality and the controls make no sense and their pathetic excuses for lenses perform worse than coke bottles.

I have to try hard not to laugh out loud every time I see a moron who spent thousands on a "pro" Nikon body. Pathetic. The 70D wipes the floor with everything Nikon can put out at any price level.


----------



## jrista (Sep 7, 2013)

FunkyCamera said:


> I can't wait for Nikon to go out of business. Their sensors are worse in every way that matters, their bodies are low quality and the controls make no sense and their pathetic excuses for lenses perform worse than coke bottles.
> 
> I have to try hard not to laugh out loud every time I see a moron who spent thousands on a "pro" Nikon body. Pathetic. The 70D wipes the floor with everything Nikon can put out at any price level.



Well, I think we can boil this down to a single word:

_*T R O L L*_


----------



## Aglet (Sep 8, 2013)

jrista said:


> FunkyCamera said:
> 
> 
> > I can't wait for Nikon to go out of business. Their sensors are worse in every way that matters, their bodies are low quality and the controls make no sense and their pathetic excuses for lenses perform worse than coke bottles.
> ...


That troll is a lovely single-shot HDR exposure capturing him in action and clearly showing us his dingy candle-lit domain while retaining excellent fidelity in the outdoor scene visible beyond his entrance. No obvious banding or read noise problems so must be an image created with Exmor-based tools.


----------



## rpt (Sep 8, 2013)

Aglet said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > FunkyCamera said:
> ...


May be by Ex-evenmor based device


----------



## Pi (Sep 8, 2013)

Aglet said:


> _*T R O L L*_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, flare like this can only come from a Nikon lens...


----------



## tnargs (Sep 10, 2013)

jrista said:


> Well, I think we can boil this down to a single word:


or counter-troll..... maybe he just read enough trolling...


----------

