# Posting about sensors and DR!



## Don Haines (Sep 23, 2014)

The title says it all.... after thread after thread becomes arguments that never end, what do you wish people would do?


----------



## Eldar (Sep 23, 2014)

I would appreciate if they could keep their debates, mud throwing, abuses and all the rest of it in isolated threads. (Even though I have participated in one or two myself).


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 23, 2014)

I wish people would post RAWs. Of real world scenes. Optimally exposed. And present what they believe to be optimal processing, open to suggestions from others on how to improve.

A thread about IQ differences between sensors should be filled with usable samples, not 1,000 word essays.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 23, 2014)

I liked the option "turn food of squirrels". ;D
But rather that we discuss in the DR sensors and related topics.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 23, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> The title says it all.... after thread after thread becomes arguments that never end, what do you wish people would do?



biased poll. you single out one group for attack and let the shills and fanboys and bully attackers off the hook


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The title says it all.... after thread after thread becomes arguments that never end, what do you wish people would do?
> ...



I think that all sides are involved here... pro and con... shills.... fanboys... bullys.... everyone seems to partake... the poll isn't about who is right and who is wrong, but about where to have the discussion and if it is a dead horse beaten to death by all sides..... and who just doesn't care anymore and wants it to end.....


----------



## unfocused (Sep 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The title says it all.... after thread after thread becomes arguments that never end, what do you wish people would do?
> ...



Actually a good poll. Focuses on a single issue and asks a straightforward question. Only problem is that some of the answers overlap a bit. But still, it will give an answer on one specific question.


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 23, 2014)

Cleaner threads, and noisier photos. At least if they are of squirrels.

But the topic really should be worth talking about in those threads, and not immediately commented on as being dead. There's nothing wrong with a sane and sensible debate.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2014)

unfocused said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Yeah good because it doesn't ask your shill side to be ground up and fed to squirrels but it does ask the other side to be ground up and fed to squirrels.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 24, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


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


it asks for ANYONE arguing (doesn't matter which side, pro or con) to be fed to the squirrels


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 24, 2014)

I believe that both sides are, as the great Les Nessman once said, "rounded at the free end."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0742678/quotes


----------



## brad-man (Sep 24, 2014)

I don't see an (admittingly boring) option for the status quo. My index finger has super powers. It can leap over 1000 page essays in a single bound. It can time warp into the future by fast-forwarding to the part of the discussion that is back on point. There is even the nuclear option where with a single click it can completely abandon the thread.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Sep 24, 2014)

yes the ultimate Meat-eater the mighty gray squirrel. also the mirror less trolls need to be fed to them as well. its ok to discuss these things but not in a middle of a topic that had noting to do with them unless you regret buying into the canon system or the Nikon etc. you put the regret in place of what is really being discussed.


----------



## Click (Sep 24, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I liked the option "turn food of squirrels". ;D
> But rather that we discuss in the DR sensors and related topics.



lol ;D

+1


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2014)

beforeEos Camaras said:


> yes the ultimate Meat-eater the mighty gray squirrel.



some people may laugh at that statement.
some people may never be seen again.

some people may laugh at that statement.
these people have never encountered a Gray Squirrel.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 24, 2014)

Of the available choices I voted to discuss them in every thread, as that comes closest to attaining the most entertainment.
However, maximum entertainment value really comes when it is only, and always mentioned in threads that have nothing to do with it. That seems to give the best opportunity for confusion and long winded rants.


----------



## EdB (Sep 24, 2014)

DR is overrated.


----------



## eml58 (Sep 24, 2014)

It used to be amusing, seems to have lost it's amusement factor of late, the snide personal attacks that abound, the "I'm smarter than anyone else" viewpoints, Human Nature at it's worse in almost any thread that mentions Canon Sensors/DR, the "how dare you have an opinion that differs to mine"damn pity but their you are.

I'de suggest feeding anyone that mentions DR/Canon Sensors to those meat eating Squirrels, in particular those that I've seen Sporgon post Images of, Scottish Squirrels seem to be extra "meaty", I guess that would mean though that I'm first in line, I mentioned the dreaded S & DR words twice in this Post alone, deserving of eternal damnation, at least.


----------



## weixing (Sep 24, 2014)

eml58 said:


> It used to be amusing, seems to have lost it's amusement factor of late, the snide personal attacks that abound, the "I'm smarter than anyone else" viewpoints, Human Nature at it's worse in almost any thread that mentions Canon Sensors/DR, the "how dare you have an opinion that differs to mine"damn pity but their you are.
> 
> I'de suggest feeding anyone that mentions DR/Canon Sensors to those meat eating Squirrels, in particular those that I've seen Sporgon post Images of, Scottish Squirrels seem to be extra "meaty", I guess that would mean though that I'm first in line, I mentioned the dreaded S & DR words twice in this Post alone, deserving of eternal damnation, at least.


Hi,
If the DR debate keep carry on, "squirrel" might become to most used word or at least the most common animal name appear in CR... hopefully I'll not get "Canon Rumors" as the first entry when google "squirrel" in the future... ha ha ha ;D ;D

Have a nice day.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> EdB said:
> 
> 
> > DR is overrated.
> ...



And when, pray tell, would it matter more than focus?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Oh I'm sorry, I thought it was comfortably above the trolling level of _ "Until you need it. Then it tends to be the only thing that matters."_ My mistake...........


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 24, 2014)

pbr9 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > EdB said:
> ...



And when, pray tell, would it matter more than focus?


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ... the poll isn't about who is right and who is wrong ...


+1 to Don
I've seen too many threads here hijacked by always the same arguments.
Of course nobody here is right or wrong and of course every feature of a cam system could be improved.
And this also needs space to discuss.
But to always reduce it to these two points is just exhausting and tedious.
And if it becomes personal and stubborn it's really inappropriate.

So please
"Discuss them only in threads devoted to the topic"
and let the others enjoy their hobby and passion and pictures with just a shoddy sensor and no DR at all.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> Until you need it. Then it tends to be the only thing that matters.



Self-evidently, it's "the only thing that matters" to a lot of people who _don't_ "need" it.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 24, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> biased poll. you single out one group for attack and let the shills and fanboys and bully attackers off the hook


No, that's the group he singled out...


----------



## weixing (Sep 24, 2014)

Hi,
May be Canon can just design a single shot HDR mode... like HTP, but produce only 1 single "RAW" file for people who want more DR. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## AmselAdans (Sep 24, 2014)

wow. Just wow. The least sense for irony I have ever witnessed.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 24, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > EdB said:
> ...



It's not really an either/or thing.


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> AmselAdans said:
> 
> 
> > wow. Just wow. The least sense for irony I have ever witnessed.
> ...



Fair enough ;D

But while I get that this is an important issue for you.

I don't get why a few people would feel the need to argue it incessantly.

You (and others on both sides) must have spent countless hours on here alone debating it. At the end of the day, you feel you need it, others think that the Canon systems present a fine option for what they are doing with their cameras, even when compared to the rest. We're well past the time when anyone is going be be persuaded on either side. 

For whatever reason, to some people having even more DR is seen as important. Plenty of the rest believe that other aspects are more important to their photography. It's an art form not a science, there are artists prefer to exercise their creativity by drawing with soft pencils alone, others go for more DR with a full rig of oil paints and brushes. Neither is right or wrong.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > pbr9 said:
> ...



My point wasn't that most cameras don't have good AF, although many of the best lenses don't, it was that I can't imagine an image where DR could ever be _"the only thing that matters"_, little things like the subject tend to be more important, always, every single time. It is easy to get wrapped up in a train of thought and let it take you to illogical conclusions, DR being the only thing that matters is a perfect example, as a thought it is not valid, as an idea it is not valid, even as a glib throwaway line it is not valid.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 24, 2014)

I did a little comparison set over here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22883.msg444292#msg444292

Probably not the best thread to put it in but I didn't want to start yet another one.........


----------



## zim (Sep 24, 2014)

More concerned about where surapon's gone :-\


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> AmselAdans said:
> 
> 
> > wow. Just wow. The least sense for irony I have ever witnessed.
> ...


Wrong!
It's a threat posted for talk about the talk about DR and sensors on too many threads. 
Or about the opposite opinion, of course.

But not about discussing the arguments of either side once again. So another hijack is about to happen. 
And that's ironic.

Not that you're wrong, jrista! Maybe just about the importance you put on this topic or others should see, according to your opinion.
But I do not believe that any further thread (or hijacked thread) is persuading Canon in any way to produce better sensors fulfilling your desires. 
Maybe they're already developing something better. Maybe not. I don't know. Surely they could.
But they will not base their development decisions on opinions in this forum, this I'm sure.


----------



## pierlux (Sep 24, 2014)

I've voted for discussing sensors and DR (and resolution, pixel density etc.) only in threads devoted to the topic. I think these are very interesting topics. But it's becoming annoying seeing these topics continuously debated in threads that have little to nothing to do with sensors.

On the other hand, *should someone starts a thread to discuss about sensors and DR, I'd like all the forum members who are not interested in participating to avoid starting bullying the OP*: just ignore if not interested, it's as simple as that, or express their opinion in a polite, respectful and relaxed tone.

<sarcasm> @Don: I'd modify #5, adding to those who fixate on DR the others who attack violently the "fixated". </sarcasm>

I like this poll, maybe it's a way to begin getting something fixed on Canon Rumors before it's too late, I don't want valuable members to cancel or corrupt their behavior or CR to become a place resembling other less respectable places! Just continue respecting each other as it has always been. That's why I like forums like CR or TDP (just to mention another excellent one).



zim said:


> More concerned about where surapon's gone :-\


I was thinking the same, I like his enthusiasm, directness, spontaneity, civilty and good manner... did anyone bully him recently? I missed that....


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 24, 2014)

The squirrel in the Canon Rumors tree would be one big fat squirrel.
If we take a picture of him in the shade of the tree lets just hope we can pull enough detail out to see his eyelashes and fat belly.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 24, 2014)

pierlux said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > More concerned about where surapon's gone :-\
> ...


According to his user profile:
_
Last Active: September 18, 2014, 03:05:43 PM_

Last posts didn't seem anything special.
??? :-\


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> My point wasn't that most cameras don't have good AF, although many of the best lenses don't, it was that I can't imagine an image where DR could ever be _"the only thing that matters"_, little things like the subject tend to be more important, always, every single time. It is easy to get wrapped up in a train of thought and let it take you to illogical conclusions, DR being the only thing that matters is a perfect example, as a thought it is not valid, as an idea it is not valid, even as a glib throwaway line it is not valid.



PBD, I appreciate your normally cogent arguments and the knowledge that you bring to these forums. But I have to say, the comment above shows your total lack of appreciation for the importance of DR. There are many examples around the world of images where DR is the only thing that matters. I believe you stated you're located in the USA, you'll find many such examples hanging in prominent galleries there. For your own personal edification, next time you're in the Washington, D.C. area you might take the time to visit the National Gallery of Art. Here's a quick snapshot from inside the West Building...


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 24, 2014)

*Re: Low ISO noise 5D3 vs D800 - 5 stops underexposure*

Thanks for telling us what we already know.


----------



## heptagon (Sep 24, 2014)

Neuro would you please care and lift some of the shadows in that picture of yours?


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 24, 2014)

heptagon said:


> Neuro would you please care and lift some of the shadows in that picture of yours?


Not possible. It's no Exmor. Just Canon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 24, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> heptagon said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro would you please care and lift some of the shadows in that picture of yours?
> ...



http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22883.msg444292#msg444292


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 24, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > heptagon said:
> ...


Maybe I should have added the "sarcasm mode" sign


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Sep 24, 2014)

*Re: Low ISO noise 5D3 vs D800 - 5 stops underexposure*

I agree- VERY important.
Now we now. Again.


----------



## toodamnice (Sep 24, 2014)

*Re: Low ISO noise 5D3 vs D800 - 5 stops underexposure*

What makes the D800 so good is the fact its EXEMOR sensor resolves all the dust and oil spots so well. I have a 6D with 46K clicks and I have 1 spot.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 24, 2014)

*Re: Low ISO noise 5D3 vs D800 - 5 stops underexposure*

I under exposed a shot by two stops.... and I was able to salvage it... but if I under exposed by five sips, I deserve to have an un salvageable image.


----------



## iMagic (Sep 24, 2014)

*Re: Low ISO noise 5D3 vs D800 - 5 stops underexposure*

Must resist feeding trolls.... getting weaker, weaker....... I need help.....

And if you read the entire Bob Atkins article....

"Does this mean that the D800 is a better camera than the Canon EOS 5D MkIII? Not necessarily. Judging a camera based only on the sensor resolution and low ISO dynamic range would be a bit like judging a car on only top speed and 0-60 acceleration times. There's a lot more to a car - and a camera - than that.

I can't whether the D800 is a "better" camera than the EOS 5D MkIII because that depends a lot on the user, so there's no "right" answer. Each have their strengths and weaknesses. I've shot with both and both did a fine job and produced images of the highest quality. I'll leave it up to others to "pick a winner". If I wanted a camera in this class, I'd probably go with the Canon EOS 5D MkIII because I have a lot of Canon lenses, I'm familiar with the Canon control interface and switching systems makes little sense. The EOS 5D MkIII also goes to higher ISO ratings (ISO 102400 vs ISO 25600) and shows lower noise than the D800 at high ISO settings I'm pretty sure the EOS 5D MkIII would do everything I needed it to do - and do it very well. The AF system is excellent and the camera is very fast, I was very pleased with the images I shot and the way the 5D MkIII handles during the time I had the camera to test."


----------



## Harv (Sep 24, 2014)

*Re: Low ISO noise 5D3 vs D800 - 5 stops underexposure*

Someone needs to get a life.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> heptagon said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro would you please care and lift some of the shadows in that picture of yours?
> ...



Oh, that _was_ shot with Exmor. Here's the lifted Exmor image again:







Below is the original image before I lifted the exposure 10 stops. I also took the same underexposed shot on a Canon, lifted the exposure by the same 10 stops.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 24, 2014)

*Re: Low ISO noise 5D3 vs D800 - 5 stops underexposure*



dilbert said:


> People wonder how bad Canon's noise is and many here wonder about why people talk about the D800 having low noise in shadows...
> 
> Here's an extreme example:
> http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/D800_5D3/d800_vs_5D3_5_stops_under_iso100.jpg
> ...



You say "you wouldn't ever expose a shot like this" — and I agree. But in another thread someone argues that underexposing by 5 stops is now good technique if you use Exmor, and everyone who doesn't underexpose by 5 stops is using old technology, lacking understanding of their sensors, stuck in their old ways, being too conservative, missing out on creative opportunities, etc.


----------



## Steve (Sep 24, 2014)

*Re: Low ISO noise 5D3 vs D800 - 5 stops underexposure*



RLPhoto said:


> Thanks for telling us what we already know.



And yet, the arguments never end. So weird.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> AmselAdans said:
> 
> 
> > wow. Just wow. The least sense for irony I have ever witnessed.
> ...



No, it is a poll to talk about the problems of a particular topic hijacking threads.... The overwhelming public opinion is that the discussions/arguments should happen on a thread devoted to that topic, closely followed by people who are fed up enough to want the offending parties fed to the squirrels....


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> But seriously. Enough with the insulting mockery. Enough with making it personal. *It's just sick.*



Standing by for the "well they started it!" posts. ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> More mockery, wonderful.
> 
> But seriously. Enough with the insulting mockery. Enough with making it personal. *It's just sick.*



*I recommend three doses of your own advice, and call your local comedy club if you need a stronger prescription. * 



jrista said:


> First off, it was primarily meant to be a joke. ...you can't even catch the whiff of humor anymore.





jrista said:


> It was a simple figure of speech, one meant to be a little humorous.





jrista said:


> lighten up man!


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 24, 2014)

Some of the "DR of Canon sensors is enough" claimers shifting my opinion more and more to "I would like 18 stops DR and a precise 20 bit ADC".

As scientist (physics) I like to have data to be of the best quality which is possible. Sony's Exmor sensors deliver much better raw data than Canons sensors.

For me a 40D or 600D delivers very good quality most time. But nothing speaks against 4 or 6 stops more sensor DR and an adequate ADC which makes transitions even finer.

Shure, most display options (TFT, paper, alu dibond, ...) are limited so 11 stops DR are sufficient most times.

But thinking about OLED monitors I see that 15 stops are easily possible. Seen a LG OLED monitor last week and this is a totally different world with gorgous black levels ...

The more bashing of those who like the concept of more DR the more I see more DR as relevant in some situations* and helpful for overall IQ with respect to the future of display media options. Might result in waiting another round of camera development and switching perhaps to a body where I can use my well trusted canon lenses ...


* 2000 Eure per month are sufficient, 3000 Euro per month give you some headroom, 10000 Euro per month give you much more headroom to do things you like - would you say "no"?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 24, 2014)

Would anyone make their camera purchase decision based on DR?

Some would, others wouldn't. Both are correct. It all depends on what the individual photographer desires.

People here who have specific desires about cameras should not feel threatened when there are other people with different specific desires about cameras. 

People are different. That is one thing we all have in common.

I don't know why some on this site have a hard time understanding that.


----------



## Steve (Sep 24, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I don't know why some on this site have a hard time understanding that.



Because human beings are not rational actors, we use logic and reason to justify our emotions. Its why people can argue about undeniable facts like climate change, evolution or the supremecy of Exmor sensors. Not much you can do about it! *shrugs*


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 24, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Would anyone make their camera purchase decision based on DR?
> 
> Some would, others wouldn't. Both are correct. It all depends on what the individual photographer desires.
> 
> ...



I made my decision based on price. By the time I went full frame... I didn't say it was too late, but there would have to be some extraordinarily extenuating circumstances for me to switch.

I wouldn't call the Canon XS a loss leader, but it certainly did the job to bring me into the fold. And... I already owned a Nikon zoom lens at the time, two of the same actually...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 24, 2014)

Steve said:


> Not much you can do about it! *shrugs*



Yeah, you are right, of course.

If someone could make canonrumors into a reality TV show, it will make millions. ;D

If Jerry Springer was into photography.......


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 24, 2014)

I see this argument throughout all of cr... so what exactly are we fighting about. Is it the pixel density provides more detail in good light... is it that a pixel can go from dark too light without introducing much grain... what is the practical effect of all this dynamic range?


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 24, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > Not much you can do about it! *shrugs*
> ...



"I so" want to throw a chair at someone... I don't even care which side of the argument I'm color CAST in.

Bad puns right?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 24, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> "I so" want to throw a chair at someone... I don't even care which side of the argument I'm color CAST in.
> 
> Bad puns right?



On some other forums I haunt, the mods will lock a thread for a few days to allow the kids to calm down when things start getting bad. Not a bad solution.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> 2000 Eure per month are sufficient, 3000 Euro per month give you some headroom, 10000 Euro per month give you much more headroom to do things you like - would you say "no"?



Put like that, no. But...what if to get that 10000 € per month, you had to move to and always stay within the city limits of Paris – not the one in France...the one in Texas. Or give up one of your kids. 

So, would you still choose that extra headroom if it came with significant strings attached? Maybe you would prefer to get the additional headroom without any changes to your life situation...in that case, you could post on an Internet forum how much you'd like that extra 7000-8000 €, and hope your boss reads your posts and gives you that big raise.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2014)

*Re: Low ISO noise 5D3 vs D800 - 5 stops underexposure*



zlatko said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > People wonder how bad Canon's noise is and many here wonder about why people talk about the D800 having low noise in shadows...
> ...



Who said that?
Yeah, nobody.
I think perhaps you mistunderstood what someone was talking about regarind ISO-less sensors and high ISO or something.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > My point wasn't that most cameras don't have good AF, although many of the best lenses don't, it was that I can't imagine an image where DR could ever be _"the only thing that matters"_, little things like the subject tend to be more important, always, every single time. It is easy to get wrapped up in a train of thought and let it take you to illogical conclusions, DR being the only thing that matters is a perfect example, as a thought it is not valid, as an idea it is not valid, even as a glib throwaway line it is not valid.
> ...



Nice to see you were able to hold out a whole zero posts here before going back to your old belittling, mocking tricks again and then you wonder why some of the 'DRoners' keep posting and start getting chippy over time.

But then you are oh who me? fanboy? shill? mocking bully? None of us ever tries to hint that Exmor doesn't have better shadows or that you might not want better shadows, how dare anyone imply any of us ever hint at any such things, so why do the 'DRoners' always have to keep going on or get so chippy? Why do they all insist that nothing but DR matters and that lenses and AF and so on matter not a whit (never mind that 99% of us never remotely say such a thing; don't forget as well, that many of us have also said that you can take an infinite number of shots with a Canon DSLR where DR won't limit you at all)?

And then of course your next 10 posts are nothing but calculated obfuscations, mockery and veiled or otherwise, personal insults. And Keith is back with his "only a totally incompetent moron DRoner who doesn't know how to use a camera or post process could ever have any use for more DR, ever, than Canon now delivers. LOL."


----------



## DIABLO (Sep 24, 2014)

More pieces please...


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > 2000 Eure per month are sufficient, 3000 Euro per month give you some headroom, 10000 Euro per month give you much more headroom to do things you like - would you say "no"?
> ...



I haven't spoken about additional restrictions ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2014)

How often do you see someone go around saying that those who value top AF or high fps are obviously just incompetent, uncoordinated fools? (rarely?) But how often do you see someone say that if you need more DR you are an incompetent moron or lab geek who without a clue about real art and how to shoot and who has probably never even bothered to actually use the camera to take photos of anything more than lens caps?

How often do you see someone go around saying stuff like oh stop being such an artiste and get back into the lab for once and learn some tech and prove you have a even half a brain, as if :, LOL? (never?) Yet how often do you see posts mocking those get into tech details? How often do you see someone go into a photo posting thread and start going on about tech details and calling everyone who is posting photos idiots for not talking about tech? (never?) Or go into a critique thread and start going on about tech/marketing and getting on people for discussing dumb stuff like lighting and composition and so on? (never?) Yet how often do you see someone go into a tech thread on a tech oriented camera forum and start railing about how people are talking about tech and are this or that and learn how to shoot #?#$$#? Or go into a thread actually titled "sensors and dynamic range" and then get on people for talking about sensors when shouldn't they realize it's more than just the sensor that matters? (anyway, some people care about all the little tech details and engineering, some don't, some care about both, who cares? why get on either group? some of those who don't care to get into the tech details about cams are smarter than those who do anyway and some of the lab geeks get out and about and take more photos around the world than those who don't give a whit too, it varies. why should it matter any which way regardless?). 

How often do you see some go around saying that someone has to shoot only scenes with lots of DR and that they are fools if they ever dare shoot a scene or even only shoot scenes with low DR? (never?) How often do you see someone mocking someone for wanting more DR at times? (Also, back when Canon had better DR (or SNR), how often did someone get mocked then for going on about how it was great that the Canon sensor let them do this or that?)

Granted whining about lack of this or that probably can get annoying after a while, but sometimes what would've been a quick single direct post and that is that turns into 30 pages after the mocking and insults start, that's not always the fault, but.... (at least annoying whining perhaps keeps the camera maker on notice and in the end maybe helps bring everyone better stuff. People went on about 5D2 AF and then the 5D3. People went on about 1D3 AF and then they fixed it. People went on about manual control for 5D2 video and then it was added. Nikon users went on about poor sensors and lack of FF and now they have the best sensors and FF. In some cases that would've all happened anyway, although likely not in a few, such as with the 1D3 AF fix and 5D2 manual video and 5D3 clean HDMI out and such. Since sensors cost so much to make, nothing but a storm would get Canon's attention (even then, in this case, perhaps nothing but tanking sales will matter no matter how much the userbase cries out for more, which does make me now think that even the 5D4 might not be close to Exmor since sales have not tanked and they appear to not be trying to get ahead of a fall, but simply waiting until one happens to even begin planning to act, in which case it might be 5D6 at the earliest, hopefully the 5D4 brings it though since the lenses and UI are nice).)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mb66energy said:
> ...



In that case, I agree...as I already stated.  We've established that having more DR is desirable. Now what?


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 24, 2014)

I'm at work... so maybe it's just a me problem... or maybe it is my generation... but anytime I see more than one paragraph in a post... unless it is specifically directed at me... I skip it. 

It seems contradictory to write ALL that, with the presumption that the person is really trying to make a point and providing substantiation, only to have it skipped by like minded individuals. 

I suppose it may just be the internet, but being succinct and having one's opinion read seem to go hand in hand. Stupid Twitter generation.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2014)

Anyway I have a feeling the talk about DR will soon rise to a level never seen before (when the 5D4 arrives with the same old 2007 levels of DR) and then quickly fades away as those who care leave Canon over the course of next year.

The latest interview with Canon sounds very discouraging when it comes to DR. I think those who care will probably give up and leave next year. A real shame, Canon has great lenses and great UI. But they seem to have no desire whatsoever to go to a new fab for sensors or to dare let 4k dribble down to regular DSLRs.

I get the feeling that they just have decided a new fab costs too much money and they don't care what anyone says. So long as their sales don't totally, utterly tank, it will be the same old sensors for who knows how many more generations.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7079726133/photokina-2014-canon-interview-mirrorless-in-the-very-near-future

See this quote:
"*One thing we know from our own testing is that Canon DSLR sensors can’t quite compete with some modern sensors from Sony in terms of dynamic range. How important to you is developing sensor technology?*

We are very focused on getting the best image quality. I’m not sure what measurements you’re looking at but when it comes to dynamic range for example we consider image quality as a whole, from low to high ISO sensitivities and on balance we consider our sensors to be the best.

My ideal camera is one that can take a picture in any environment from complete darkness to the brightest sunshine.

*So in your opinion your sensors are currently the best on the market?*

Yes. In the EOS 7D Mark II for example the sensor we’ve used is improved compared to the previous generation, especially at high ISO and in shadows. There’s less noise."





I don't find that very encouraging.

It sounds like they are not that concerned with low ISO DR so long as the rest is very good.

I get the distinct impression that a high MP 1DXs or 5D4 is coming soon, but that it will yet again fall far behind Nikon DR.

Honestly if it doesn't at least bring a truly high quality delivery of 4k video either then I don't see the point in 5D4 to make it worth the expense over the 5D3. Yeah more MP would make it work better for wildlife due to more reach and give you a bit more landscape detail. But at that point why not just a less expensive 7D2 for even more reach and also get less storage space requirements (since you know Canon won't give the 5D4 a cropped mode) and more fps? And then why not go to Sony with adapter your landscapes and video?

I really simply can't see paying for a 5D4 that is nothing but the 5D3 with the same old sensor but 36-46MP now and the same old blurry version of 1080p that they give. Since it won;t take ML for a long time, if ever, the 5D3 would actually be better for video anyway. Not to mention the Sony A7S. The 7D2 gives more speed and reach. The Sony the same FF and high MP but with much better low ISO DR.

Even the way he pretends to have never heard of DxO or all the DR sensor measurements carried out on forums just sounds rotten. Either they are utterly clueless and don't track forums whatsoever or even major sites like DxO or they are just being disingenuous and covering for still not being willing to go to new fab or use Sony sensors for DSLRs.

I hope I am wrong. I'd absolutely love to just get a 5D4 and forget about SOny nonsense or even a full switch to Nikon (they do have their own issues). But more and more it sounds like exmor just won't be matched unless or until Canon DSLR sales totally drop off the table. (part of me thinks the 5D4 sales might actually start that drop, unlike the 7D2, I'm not sure the 5D4 will handle not matching Exmor, should that prove to be the case, and not having 4k, all that well)

Granted some tend to only rarely shoot high DR scenes and I'm sure they will all stay and like the cam and it surely will do very well for many things and many will be satisfied. Maybe they will continue to sell like crazy with sensors as is for years to come. For those who want more DR and like Canon otherwise, that would be a shame, there is a lot to like about Canon, but what can you do.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I'm at work... so maybe it's just a me problem... or maybe it is my generation... but anytime I see more than one paragraph in a post... unless it is specifically directed at me... I skip it.
> 
> It seems contradictory to write ALL that, with the presumption that the person is really trying to make a point and providing substantiation, only to have it skipped by like minded individuals.
> 
> I suppose it may just be the internet, but being succinct and having one's opinion read seem to go hand in hand. Stupid Twitter generation.



Yeah back in the early days of usenet and BBS and so on, people used to often post back and forth with 1,2,3 even 4 or more paragraph long messages, but these days more than 144 characters and it's almost considered nuts, so you are probably correct that few read any posts that are more than a sentence long these days, whoa dude, more than three sentences, stop going all Moby Dick on me! No time! tl;dr!


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 24, 2014)

I love me some Queequeg, but I'll take old man and the sea any day over Melville's exercise in getting paid by the word.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 24, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I'm at work... so maybe it's just a me problem... or maybe it is my generation... but anytime I see more than one paragraph in a post... unless it is specifically directed at me... I skip it.



I do to, just too much circular babbling about the same thing.

By the way you posted three paragraphs and I only read the first. Since this post was directed at your post I will assume you will read this line.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 24, 2014)

I am going to make my position crystal clear.

I would like my camera to have more DR.
I would like my camera to have less noise.
I would like my camera to have better low and high ISO performance.
I would like my camera to have more fps.....

The thing here is that we ALL want our next camera to be better. When someone points out that Sony does this better or Nikon does that better, why do people attack or ridicule the person for saying so? That is impolite, childish, and out and out stupid.

Many of us on this forum are tired of this behaviour and wish it would stop. It seems to be intruding into thread after thread and turning them into the same old argument again and again.

I think that there is no need for debates on DR. We all want it to be better. Even if you had the best camera out there with the highest DR, you would still want the next one to be better.

As to debates about sensors, I would like to see a REAL conversation about them.... no name calling or belittling of people with different views. Each sensor out there has it's plusses and it's minuses and a proper debate would respectfully discuss the various aspects. When someone resorts to name calling, ridicule, and taunting it ruins whatever point that they are trying to make and poisons the thread.....

and this is the point of this poll..... it is to try and make everyone realize that people are getting fed up with our collective behaviour and maybe.... just maybe.... we will try to do better.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Sep 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I am going to make my position crystal clear.
> 
> I would like my camera to have more DR.
> I would like my camera to have less noise.
> ...



but there will be a lot of starving squirrels. but joking aside yes more real points and less bashing. for me I will stay in the canon fold with just over 8 lens 2 cameras possible 3 cameras soon as not a true landscape photographer but more of a street and wild life that loves to take sunsets just a few times a year and the reds do help btw


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'm sorry, but there is a difference between the posts I've written to be humorous, which have absolutely ZERO veiled insults or mockery, let alone blatant insults and mockery, and what you guys are doing, which appears to be intended to be insulting and mocking and derogatory (veiled or otherwise.)



I'm sorry that you didn't see my manipulated images as humorous, which is how they were intended. 

No one is telling you what you can or can't talk about. I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from attributing statements to me which I have not made, such as stating there's no value in having more DR, or that DR doesn't matter. As I know you're fully aware, if landscape photography were my primary focus, I'd own a D800E (now D810) and a 14-24/2.8...I've been saying that for about 2 years now, and DR is one of the reasons. DR is important, but to me – and based on the sales figures, to most people – it's neither the _only_ nor the _single most important_ criterion by which a camera system is judged. 

Honestly, you seem to be taking things on these forums as personal attacks against you when they are not intended as anything of the sort. For example, the comment about Tony Northrup's portfolio:



jrista said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > Why is someone whose portfolio is full of glorified snapshots so concerned about his equipment?
> ...



I'm not sure what the solution is, but I hope you find one...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I am going to make my position crystal clear.
> 
> I would like my camera to have more DR.
> I would like my camera to have less noise.
> ...



agreed


----------



## Kahuna (Sep 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Even MORE DR of course


----------



## pierlux (Sep 25, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> and this is the point of this poll..... it is to try and make everyone realize that people are getting fed up with our collective behaviour and maybe.... just maybe.... we will try to do better.


Excellent!

I'm glad to finally see tones smoothed down and a more relaxed talk, you guys are so much knowledgeable and excellent photographers, your thousands of posts bear witness of this, to waste your time bickering. Stop DRubbing each other, DRop your weapons, all you need is a clarification, a handshake and a DRink. You've helped countless members improving their ability by giving skilful advice on gear and technique, myself _in primis_, thanks a lot for this, please go on this way!

And many thanks to Don, also, for having started this thread which might mean the end of the beginning of this forum's DRift towards a DReadful DRabbling!

Peace (is priceless)!

p.s. Now, should threads appear specifically dealing with sensors or DR related stuff, please contribute constructively or just ignore, as the majority voted in this poll.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> I wasn't the only one who was confused by V8's comment...
> 
> Hence the reason I asked: "Did you just call all _my_ photography glorified snapshots?"
> 
> I honestly wasn't sure...



I honestly wasn't sure to whom he was referring, either. Yet you felt the need to go on and defend your photography, not merely ask for clarification...and that indicates you _did_ take it personally. 




jrista said:


> And to be frank? Your post WAS very mocking.



You're welcome to your own opinion (even though you stated you wouldn't be bothering anyone with those anymore). Apparently you know more about my own motivations than even I do... :

(Oh, and to be clear..._that_ was meant to be mocking.)




jrista said:


> But at least we don't *reduce ourselves* to flinging *snotty* ridicule and mockery around all the time.



Not _all_ the time, you'll just do it this once. Got it. 

Regardless, I have more important concerns than caring how you feel about my posts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2014)

Kahuna said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mb66energy said:
> ...



Touché. Yes, of course...bring on the near-noiseless sensors and 18-bit ADCs. 

But, one step at a time. More DR is desirable. How exactly do we go about getting it, particularly with no additional restrictions?


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 25, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> The title says it all.... after thread after thread becomes arguments that never end, what do you wish people would do?



Buy whatever gear that fit their needs and move on. I heard enough about people keep telling they going to switch to Nikon and Sony for the better, still, none have done so. 

Talk is cheap, be a man and do it.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Kahuna said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Building sensors in the 3rd dimension to enhance full well capacity by a factor of 10 -> its roughly 3 times more DR at low ISOs if everything is left constant (except price due to higher production cost). I think this will happen within the next decade.


----------



## weixing (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Buy whatever gear that fit their needs and move on. I heard enough about people keep telling they going to switch to Nikon and Sony for the better, still, none have done so.
> ...


Hi,
Renting also not cheap... 

Anyway, I try out the A7R and A7S with metalbones, A7R focusing is really slow in low light and I don't like the heavy shutter... the A7s had better shutter feel and AF in low light is faster, but still not very consistent.

Enjoy the camera... ;D

Have a nice day.


----------



## weixing (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


Hi,
Anyway, I don't think I'll buy any expensive Sony product... the issue with Sony is their technical support... Not sure about your country Sony support, but my country Sony technical support is really bad... out of warranty (2 year old and out of warranty by 1 year) notebook screen crack, no parts... power adapter damage, no replacement available...  Sony really need to improve their technical support...

Have a nice day.


----------



## AmselAdans (Sep 25, 2014)

Lack of irony seems often to be accompanied by a lack of humor.

Seeing the pictures of the museum made me laugh out loud. When being asked for the reason of my laughing by somebody not familiar with photography, I didn't even know how to start to explain this whole story and why this was a hilarious post. "Well it's about ...em... so when you photograph, you ...em... so some people think that ... uuuuh..... I saw a cat falling down a table."


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



I read somewhere, sorry but I can't remember where the article was, an article about consumer buying habits with DSLRs. The article said that for low end buyers (the vast majority) the most important factor was price, with the number of megapixels second. For high end buyers the major factor was superior features to the current camera and the secondary consideration was brand loyalty, mostly influenced by their collection of lenses and accessories. The reason superior features ranked number one was because if a new camera was not significantly better than their existing camera, there was no reason to purchase... regardless of the brand or legacy equipment. Makes sense to me.... who would spend good money to downgrade?


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 25, 2014)

AmselAdans said:


> Lack of irony seems often to be accompanied by a lack of humor.
> 
> Seeing the pictures of the museum made me laugh out loud. When being asked for the reason of my laughing by somebody not familiar with photography, I didn't even know how to start to explain this whole story and why this was a hilarious post. "Well it's about ...em... so when you photograph, you ...em... so some people think that ... uuuuh..... I saw a cat falling down a table."



I think that one of the things we should do when posting is to put a "WARNING! Sarcasm" or a "Warning! Humour" tag on some of our posts. While it is obvious to the poster, many of the readers will not get it. For example, how many people got the fact that the Canon picture and the Exmor picture in Neuro's museum post were the same picture? The "I raised the shadows by 10 stops" comment should have been a clue, but honestly, how many of us clued in?


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Buy whatever gear that fit their needs and move on. I heard enough about people keep telling they going to switch to Nikon and Sony for the better, still, none have done so.
> ...



So the Canon lenses are better?


----------



## Ivan Muller (Sep 25, 2014)

I don't care. I am not forced to read each and every post here. I have free will and can choose to read, respond or ignore.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Looking forward to seeing what you are going to post from the Sony. ( No sarcasm). Remember to include some shots with single exposures and challenging lighting akin to those that you have linked to in the past from 500px. (Well OK, maybe a little bit if sarcasm there).


----------



## AmselAdans (Sep 25, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> AmselAdans said:
> 
> 
> > Lack of irony seems often to be accompanied by a lack of humor.
> ...



Indeed I thought about adding such a remark under some of my posts. However, I consider the outcome without such a hint much more entertaining.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Buy whatever gear that fit their needs and move on. I heard enough about people keep telling they going to switch to Nikon and Sony for the better, still, none have done so.
> ...



One advice for you, stay away from that adapter. It will take all the fun always from mirrorless. Stay with their native lenses.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



If you intend to shoot high ISO, then yet a7s. AF is slightly faster in darkroom(more like for me, high ISO shooter).

You seem to like high MP, stay with a7r. BTW, get 2-3 batteries.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 25, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I think that one of the things we should do when posting is to put a "WARNING! Sarcasm"



A good idea.

On the Internets Tubes, since communication is solely by text with no of the other human communication cues, it is a fine line between being sarcastic and being stupid. 

Smart money plays the odds. ;D


----------



## pierlux (Sep 25, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> AmselAdans said:
> 
> 
> > Lack of irony seems often to be accompanied by a lack of humor.
> ...


I'd even add a "message icon" indicating a "fun" or "sarcasm" thread. It happened to me I intended to start a fun thread a while ago and I did, but I put a question mark icon on it. I assumed it was clear enough by the content, but it wasn't. Well, maybe I should have posted this under "Site information" as a suggestion instead of here...

p.s. Surapon's back!!!


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 25, 2014)

pierlux said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > AmselAdans said:
> ...



Woohoo, that is the best comment ever in a DR thread, sorry I know it is not a DR thread it is a thread about DR threads, who cares? Surapon is back


----------



## LovePhotography (Sep 28, 2014)

Let's just be civil, okay?
I do photography for fun. 
If I want to argue, I'll go to work or tell my teenagers to clean their rooms.
Right?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 29, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> Let's just be civil, okay?
> I do photography for fun.
> If I want to argue, I'll go to work or tell my teenagers to clean their rooms.
> Right?



Perhaps they should change the name of this site to CanonAuguments.com? ;D

Truth in advertising and all. 8)


----------



## J.R. (Sep 29, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> Let's just be civil, okay?



You expect much. 

These DR arguments end up with both sides pissing in the wind.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > LovePhotography said:
> ...



How can it be derailed by people posting examples of the latitude the Canon sensor is capable of ? Actually something has come out of these discussions; there has been less talk of greater DR and more talk of being able to pushing 0 data. That in itself is a step towards understanding what Exmor really offers over the current Canon sensors. You want to push 0 data then I think we are _all_ in agreement that Canon is not your camera of choice.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > LovePhotography said:
> ...



Discussions about DR have never been civil to my knowledge. I try hard not to wade too deep in it. I know well enough what the D800 sensor can do having shot with it for a couple of months (borrowed it from a friend). I too could give head to head comparisons but for what? It is generally accepted that the DR of the Exmorr sensors is better, hardly anyone denies it. Only that most people around here claim that they don't find themselves overly limited by it. The immediate response one gets with such a claim is being told off that using Canon cameras tantamounts to accepting poor IQ. You shouldn't be surprised that such comments are not going to find too much favor in a Canon gear forum. People get riled up with such silly comments and so we find the posts that are made here. 

It's basic common sense to me, nobody wants to hear that the gear they are using is crap. if someone says that then they should be prepared for a riled up answer. To expect anything else is sticking your head in the sand. 

TBF, I did mention both sides


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 29, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



It seems to me Sporgon and I are the only two who ever bother to post rebuffing Canon images and we are treated exactly the same way the DR's are. But yes it is very interesting the tone has now changed to the low end lifting capabilities rather than outright DR. It is also interesting to foresee the next battle ground about low end tonality, basically I don't see any whereas others suggest there is "massive amounts of useful data" down there, I then say 'there might be depending on your definition of "massive amounts of useful data" but there isn't any tonality'. 

I know many consider me to be as rude and bad tempered as anybody, I don't, not really, I am reactionary by nature and need provocation to rise to make a counterpoint and bother with the time to post, and my posts virtually always come from the perspective of hands on experience or personal observation. I also post if I just like people, I post to genuinely help people often hence my hundreds of strictly illustrative image posts and several videos.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 29, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Exactly. Every time a head to head comparison shot is made, the images are so hopelessly underexposed that it is bound to show Canon in poor light. Real world imaging narrows the differences considerably.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> I know, it isn't about both sides or not. I KNOW both sides go at it. But it's an issue, DR is an issue with Canon cameras. It's THE issue with Canon cameras for many people. It's a topic of discussion. DIS-CUS-SION. We CAN be civil about this issue. It's a choice we have to make. It's a difficult choice to make, though, when the anti-DR crowd regularly insults the pro-DR crowd. It's usually the anti-DR crowd who throws the first insult, or gets mocking and derogatory, or what have you...that's where the discussion always takes a really bad turn. That's where it gets personal, dirty, mean...that's where it becomes a war rather than a discussion.



It's not really that simple. A great number of posters see this course of insults the other way round. You see what you want to see.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 29, 2014)

Yes you have the "right to discuss the topic" you do not have the right to turn every single thread, DR related or not, into your personal crusade, and in your calmer moments you would have to admit you have done that on too many occasions.

Also, you must see how "anti-DR crowd" is in itself an inflammatory comment, just like DRoners (which is at least accurate), not one person here, ever, has been "anti DR", they just are not as pro it as you are. 

You have brought a lot of this negativity about the whole subject on yourself, with your lengthy diatribes berating anybody that questions any "fact" you surmise from data. No hands on experience until very recently, just data, meanwhile there have been many here who have had hands on owner experience, respected people like Mount Spokane and eml58 and others, and you have just ignored their input. Personally I print for several Nikon and Canon shooters and I just don't have the issues with either files that you seem to have.

It takes two to make a war, it takes two to make peace, and I have tried several times. Drop the insults and inaccurate epithets like "anti DR crowd", the hijacking of everybody's threads, the lengthy repetitive replies and the shouting, and we might gain some trust.

Like Sporgon said, we have moved on, the "issue" is not specifically DR, it is low end lifting and tonality along with the associated shadow noise. Shoot some step wedges and tone strips and lets see the comparative tonal lifting abilities. Drop the insanity that Canon sensors are breaking down at midpoints, because nobody believes that from looking at thousands of their own images, and concentrate on the truly weak points. But if you can't come up with illustrative images from realistic scenes that demonstrate real world problems from two optimally exposed RAW files (and that isn't where the histogram says you are about to clip highlights) you will always run in to serious push back from people that just don't have the issues you hypothesis about.

To be sure, this is not "yet another dig at the DRoners" it is a concerted effort to illustrate where a vocal rebuffer is coming from and what you need to do to better illustrate, and thus make, your point, not just to me, but to others watching the cat fights from the hills next to the CNN crew.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 29, 2014)

Here's my stance on the whole dr issue. I'm not a good enough photographer to where I notice and consequently would miss the mysterious dynamic range. When I shoot with a Canon xs, I managed some good did. Ditto with the 60d and now my 5d mkiii. I've even managed some really nice shots with an old xti that I have to my daughter. 

So the shots are out there... it's my job to find them... and gear plays a part... but not so much that I blame my gear over my personal ineptitude... but that's just me. I don't miss this emperor's clothes... not because I am part of the blind masses, but rather because I'm looking at the peasant girl with the big cans wondering if she will let me paint her with light.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> I know, it isn't about both sides or not. I KNOW both sides go at it. But it's an issue, DR is an issue with Canon cameras. It's THE issue with Canon cameras for many people. It's a topic of discussion. DIS-CUS-SION. We CAN be civil about this issue. It's a choice we have to make. It's a difficult choice to make, though, when the anti-DR crowd regularly insults the pro-DR crowd. It's usually the anti-DR crowd who throws the first insult, or gets mocking and derogatory, or what have you...that's where the discussion always takes a really bad turn. That's where it gets personal, dirty, mean...that's where it becomes a war rather than a discussion.
> 
> This is an issue. It's an issue that people who don't think it's an issue are just going to accept. Some of us want more DR in Canon cameras. We have VERY good reasons for wanting CANON to do it, rather than someone else (and having used the A7r myself now for a few days, absolutely LOVING the IQ, I want Canon to do it even more now.) Having to worry about being insulted or starting the same old never-ending DEBATE every time I want to say something about DR is really shitty. I'm a Canon fan, just like everyone else here. I shouldn't have to worry that five specific members here are going to get excessively irate over the mere mention of a camera feature.
> 
> ...



Here we go again: "Canon has not improved DR for so many years". Statement of fact. Did you ever use a 5D, then a II and finally the III ? Oh of course, DxO graphs say there has been little improvement. 

If you want to keep the discussion civil, which I agree we should, say _I believe that......_ or _I have found that......_. It is your opinion, not fact. The facts are disputed. Also don't post absurd statements such as "Canons are only any good for producing landscapes up to 10x8". 

I'm pleased that you have taken the initiative and rented a Sony. Good for you, that's putting your money where your mouth is. But when talking about keeping things civil bear in mind that it is the highly inflammatory nature of your statements that have led to things getting rough. 

(As I've typed this the site has flagged up two more posts. I see PBD has made a very similar post, but as I've typed this Ill still post as is.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> It seems to me Sporgon and I are the only two who ever bother to post rebuffing Canon images and we are treated exactly the same way the DR's are. But yes it is very interesting the tone has now changed to the low end lifting capabilities rather than outright DR. It is also interesting to foresee the next battle ground about low end tonality, basically I don't see any whereas others suggest there is "massive amounts of useful data" down there, I then say 'there might be depending on your definition of "massive amounts of useful data" but there isn't any tonality'.



I don't get this. Dynamic range is dynamic range and it's always about the least bits and whether they are noise or signal. (or for displays about how much darker the deepest black it can show it compared to the brightest white) I don't see how anything has changed.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 29, 2014)

J.R. said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



You are missing the point. People are talking about real world images that are not under exposed. If you have highlights that are bright and need to be saved then the rest of the image may get pushed very dark, but that is not underexposure. That is proper exposure.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 29, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



If you end up with e.g. 70% of histogram crammed into last 25% that'S underexposure whether you want to call it that or not. Technically, proper exposure is averaging all the tones to the 18% gray, but I'm sure you're fully aware of that.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 29, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Not really. I'm not missing the point at all. I'm simply saying that the sample images usually posted on forums don't lead to a valid comparison. See OP's first post in this thread. The real world images prove that the difference is not as great as some would have me believe. 

I don't say that more DR is not welcome, only that the 2 stop difference comes into play only for my landscapes shooting. For landscapes where DR is usually crucial, I take my time and blend in bracketed exposures. It is easier with a Nikon (yes, I have used the d800 and am speaking from experience) but then, it doesn't bother me much.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 29, 2014)

J.R. said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I know, it isn't about both sides or not. I KNOW both sides go at it. But it's an issue, DR is an issue with Canon cameras. It's THE issue with Canon cameras for many people. It's a topic of discussion. DIS-CUS-SION. We CAN be civil about this issue. It's a choice we have to make. It's a difficult choice to make, though, when the anti-DR crowd regularly insults the pro-DR crowd. It's usually the anti-DR crowd who throws the first insult, or gets mocking and derogatory, or what have you...that's where the discussion always takes a really bad turn. That's where it gets personal, dirty, mean...that's where it becomes a war rather than a discussion.
> ...



are you sure though? Do you see people saying that if you never shoot high DR scenes at low ISO and have no need for it that they are morons or incompetent at photography? If you see someone discussing framing and composition and capturing peak action or whatnot do you see people jump into those threads and call them morons because they are talking about the artistic side of things and say they must be a bunch of simple-minded fools not smart enough to discuss the only thing that matters, tech, and berate them for not concentrating on engineering discussions in photo critique threads? (you can, of course, focus more on the art on forums and be brilliant or talk a lot about tech and yet have a crazy extensive photo portfolio)

Just in the last two days alone there has been a lot of: LOL at these lens cap shooting dweebs, only dweebs like that who have never taken a real photo in their life care about silly shadows and dynamic range; only morons with no clue about how to take a photography or do post-processing have any need for Exmor-type sensors; just lazy people who can't bother to set an exposure care; why are you talking about engineering and tech [in a tech thread] you lab geeks, go outside and take a picture for the first time in your life, etc.

And it's been like for years and some people slowly got sick of it over time and perhaps started fighting back more (the ones who didn't just get fed up and quit posting).

Yeah going on about sensors or this or that maybe can be annoying, but the talk is limited to the equipment forums.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 29, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Here we go again: "Canon has not improved DR for so many years". Statement of fact. Did you ever use a 5D, then a II and finally the III ? Oh of course, DxO graphs say there has been little improvement.
> 
> If you want to keep the discussion civil, which I agree we should, say _I believe that......_ or _I have found that......_. It is your opinion, not fact. The facts are disputed.



Those are facts and they are not disputed. They have been replicated by many others doing tests and shooting in the real world it's been seen as well.

Saying that you don't care, have no need for it, haven't noticed it in what you shoot, it only matters to you very rarely so it's not a big deal for you, etc. that is something else entirely and that may well be so.

Saying that you don't care is fact. Saying that nobody cares is not a fact. Saying that everyone cares is not a fact.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 29, 2014)

Khalai said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



That is 100% absolutely not true. The proper exposure depends upon the scene.
The ideal exposure exposes as much as you can without clipping anything that you need saved on the bright end (although there could be issues with exposing to the right too much if you use twisted color profiles and it might require and unusual tone curve might make processing tricky for some). In many cases that will lead to an 18% avg, but there are plenty of cases where that won't be the case at all.
(it also gets tricky since people may talk about JPG histogram 18% gray, which depends upon the tone curve, and different makers set the midpoint at different places along the linear RAW capture line)


----------



## J.R. (Sep 29, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



There have been enough mashed potatoes flying from everywhere on these boards. Nevertheless, I did say that both parties were at fault to which Jon replied that the "anti-DR" crowd was responsible, which made me make the comment that you quoted above. We can agree to disagree though.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 29, 2014)

The photo-educator Eileen Rafferty always asks her students a very important question: "What is the subject in your image?"


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 29, 2014)

J.R. said:


> Not really. I'm not missing the point at all. I'm simply saying that the sample images usually posted on forums don't lead to a valid comparison. See OP's first post in this thread. The real world images prove that the difference is not as great as some would have me believe.



I don't see any images in the first post in this thread.



> I don't say that more DR is not welcome, only that the 2 stop difference comes into play only for my landscapes shooting.



For your shooting maybe not, and that's great for you if that is the case, but for other people's shooting it may and the difference demonstrated absolutely is entirely realistic as to how it works out in the real world.
If you shoot scenes in the real world that have enough DR then it does matter and it's a perfectly realistic demonstration and it has nothing to do with no exposing properly.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 29, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Not really. I'm not missing the point at all. I'm simply saying that the sample images usually posted on forums don't lead to a valid comparison. See OP's first post in this thread. The real world images prove that the difference is not as great as some would have me believe.
> ...



Oops ... That would mean here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22999.0;topicseen


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 29, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me Sporgon and I are the only two who ever bother to post rebuffing Canon images and we are treated exactly the same way the DR's are. But yes it is very interesting the tone has now changed to the low end lifting capabilities rather than outright DR. It is also interesting to foresee the next battle ground about low end tonality, basically I don't see any whereas others suggest there is "massive amounts of useful data" down there, I then say 'there might be depending on your definition of "massive amounts of useful data" but there isn't any tonality'.
> ...



I know you don't.

"Dynamic range" in this arena has a definition that is based on certain base levels, and people will set their own base levels of how much tonality and contrast before x amount of noise. Think about it, in a given bit depth the measurement variable is the same, we are talking about 14 bit files, they all have the same potential, what we actually end up arguing about is the floor level at which the signal is no longer useful, people say Exmor has masses of useful data very low down, which I dispute, they also say Canon files floor, the point at which noise overwhelms the signal, is much higher than an Exmor, which I agree with. 

Our dispute boils down to how useful and necessary that bottom bit of signal is, I contend that the low Canon signal is useless because of noise and that the Exmor signal is useless because it contains no tonality. They maintain the Canon signal is useless much higher than I do and the Exmor floor is much lower than the Canon. These are all personal decisions, they are not scientific measurements. What I can sell is different to what you can sell.

If jristas image had shown he could take a single shot of an interior and hold exterior detail I would have ordered an A7s this morning, but it turned out that in my opinion, my personal one, that both files are unusable, the Canon because of the noise and the Sony because of the complete lack of tonality and blooming.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Yes that is what they always talk about, but never post. They always say "but what if the scene had more DR then it would have been DR limited", then we get a post like jristas where the DR of the scene actually vastly outstrips even the Exmor.

It turns out it is incredibly difficult to find these actual "real world examples" where the difference in sensor performance makes any real difference to the end image. That is why the "issue" perpetuates. Start posting dozens of real world images where there is a genuine real difference to the actual output image and there will be no dispute, but the pro DR base can't do that.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> It is a fact that Canon DR has not improved for years. Data from multiple sources corroborates that _fact_. IT can be derived from dark frames from any set of cameras. We can disagree as to what degree Canon's DR matters, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still the same today as it was back in the 5D II days. If your so offended by that simple statement that you are going to insult everyone who brings up DR, then you should probably just extract yourself from the discussion.
> 
> The statement of empirically verified fact isn't intended to be inflammatory or insulting. It's just a fact, about an inanimate thing. If your taking personal insult at a cold, clinical statement such as that, then your taking a lot of offense at something that is NOT an insult, nor intended to be an insult. You then turn around, and say things like this:
> 
> ...



That is exactly the kind of post I was talking about.

I am done.



jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Yes that is what they always talk about, but never post. They always say "but what if the scene had more DR then it would have been DR limited", then we get a post like jristas where the DR of the scene actually vastly outstrips even the Exmor.
> ...



That is because your opinion is different to mine, and this "issue" is just down to opinions not lab measurements. You don't earn a reasonable portion of your livelihood shooting images like that for multi million dollar corporations, I do, I know they would not accept them, to me they are both useless.

Now, I really am done...........


----------



## J.R. (Sep 29, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> For your shooting maybe not, and that's great for you if that is the case, but for other people's shooting it may and the difference demonstrated absolutely is entirely realistic as to how it works out in the real world.
> If you shoot scenes in the real world that have enough DR then it does matter and it's a perfectly realistic demonstration and it has nothing to do with no exposing properly.



Absolutely. Everyone's wants, needs and required results from their equipment are different. While I am fine with the gear I have, people to whom DR is crucial, like yourself, can stop-gap with the A7.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 29, 2014)

J.R. said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



That is realistic though. And it's a lot easier for it to be demonstrated in your house than running out into the forest. The point of tests is often for them to be quick, simple, easy, repeatable and not boring, long, difficult wastes of time and/or random, when possible.

You can get the same brights and darks say in scene in a beautiful redwoods forest.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> It turns out it is incredibly difficult to find these actual "real world examples" where the difference in sensor performance makes any real difference to the end image. That is why the "issue" perpetuates. Start posting dozens of real world images where there is a genuine real difference to the actual output image and there will be no dispute, but the pro DR base can't do that.



shoot forests or inside of forests when the sun is out and there you go


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> That is because your opinion is different to mine, and this "issue" is just down to opinions not lab measurements. You don't earn a reasonable portion of your livelihood shooting images like that for multi million dollar corporations, I do, I know they would not accept them, to me they are both useless.
> 
> Now, I really am done...........



So that is useless, but the worse noise and banding and even less tonality in the shots of the airplane at sunset from Canon you were perfectly fine with. How does that add up? It seems to me all three should be declared useless then.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 29, 2014)

I still don't understand why there is controversy....

For some people, the current crop of Canons have enough DR.... and they are happy. For others, they do not and many of them are frustrated with waiting.

Anyone else remember when digital cameras shot 16 color jpgs? Then we went up to 8 bit colour depth... then we went to 24 bit color depth (RGB at 8 bit D/A)... then we went 10 bit A/D... then 12 bit... and we have been stuck for an awful long time at 14 bit... 16 bit will come someday soon for low pixel count sensors, but right now, with the full well charge of the current sensors 14 bits is enough to count every electron in the well. Extra bits will not help until there is a bigger well to count. That goes for EVERYONE! Canon, Nikon, Sony, whoever.... 
Yes, if we bumped up quantum efficiency a bit we could make minor improvements.... but realistically everyone is in the same ballpark and there are not a lot of differences when you have lots of light.

The real problem is noise. If your least significant bit is toggling on and off with noise, then you have 14-1, or 13 bits, of accuracy. If you have more noise and the least significant 3 bits are toggling with noise, you have 14-3, or 11 bits of accuracy...... and that is the difference between Canon and Sony sensors. Sony sensors read with less noise and because of that the signals have more range. If Canon improved their noise levels (and it is rumoured that this has happened on the 7D2) then the gap would lessen.

The reason why some people are so interested in seeing Canon shift to a newer fabrication run is two-fold. With higher resolution lithography, there is less wasted space and the efficiency of the sensor goes up (more electrons to count).... problem is, the number could only be boosted by a quarter so it will be an incremental improvement, not something revolutionary. The other advantage of the newer fabrication process is a redesign that moves the A/D onto the sensor and reduces noise that way... and it is possible that Canon could gain almost 2 stops if they did that...

So what does this mean in the real world? 

For bright areas of the picture, very little.

For dark areas, quite a lot.

Let's say that you have a dark area of a picture where the lower 4 bits should be 1000. If you have 1 bit of noise on the signal those values are going to range from 0111 to 1001... not a lot of difference. If you have 3 bits of noise on the signal it will range from 0000 to 1111, a far more substantial difference and when you push your dark areas, you see the noise. Interestingly enough, for that area, the AVERAGE value will still be 1000. With advanced noise reduction software you can reduce that noise to a more acceptable range, but this adds in another processing step for the photographer and even at that, it will never be as clean as an image without the noise.

In essence, those who are clamoring for a better sensor would like to eliminate this processing step and want better quality images out of the camera..... but show me a single photographer out there, Canon, Nikon, Sony, or whatever shooters, who would be upset with their manufacturer if they were given cleaner images?

And that is what the debate is all about.... cleaner images. We all want the same thing so why are we attacking each other over this. Let's get along and try to be respectful.


----------



## brad-man (Sep 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I still don't understand why there is controversy....
> 
> For some people, the current crop of Canons have enough DR.... and they are happy. For others, they do not and many of them are frustrated with waiting.
> 
> ...



Very well said. As a few have said around here, we vote with our wallets. No need to be offended or offensive. I am not going to buy a 7Dll because I have the original 7D and it is good enough for my needs. I picked up a 6D because I didn't feel the 5Dlll was worth the increase in price for my needs. If the 5DlV comes out with what I consider to be too high a price, I may bitch a little, but in the end I'll probably just get a Sony body (assuming they work out all the kinks). Simple.


----------



## philmoz (Sep 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I still don't understand why there is controversy....



Children can't stand to lose an argument, and this applies equally to both sides :
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php

Phil.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ..... but show me a single photographer out there, Canon, Nikon, Sony, or whatever shooters, who would be upset with their manufacturer if they were given cleaner images?
> 
> And that is what the debate is all about.... cleaner images. We all want the same thing so why are we attacking each other over this. Let's get along and try to be respectful.


Yupp Don, you certainly hit the nail!

As the the psychiatrist visiting Fawlty Towers said; There´s enough material in there for an entire convention".


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> And that is what the debate is all about.... cleaner images. We all want the same thing



Nope, I disagree here: _For me, dr is not about cleaner images_, but about being able to capture a high-contrast scene with movement *at all*. This is my one and only point in the whole discussion.

Yes, you can do perfect exposure all the time to make use of 100% of the histogram, you can do extreme postprocessing and lift shadows until you end up with 1 bit resolution, you can even try to bracket scenes with movement and composite bright parts like the sky.

But basically, for me this is about *speed, flexibility and freedom* of shooting what you want - ignoring that these matter is lacking a bit of imagination what windy landscape/journalism/daylight spots & wildlife/... might need. 



Don Haines said:


> so why are we attacking each other over this. Let's get along and try to be respectful.



+1 for that, the reason why CR is the only forum I participate in are the (usually...) nice and helpful interaction between regulars and new members alike. This and and the invisible pro moderation w/o "cleaning up" threads or throwing rules around in every thread.

I understand it is annoying if people feel some point is ignores because of brand loyalism, or on the other side of trolling or lack of photography knowledge. But personally, I feel we've got a very low level of either fanboyism or trolling around CR - look at some other forums and then return happily to CR


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 30, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > And that is what the debate is all about.... cleaner images. We all want the same thing
> ...


But with less noise and cleaner images, we escape from having to waste the time with extreme processing of the images.... And that gives us the speed, flexibility, and freedom you are looking for.... I think we are saying the same thing, just looking at it from different directions... I certainly agree with you.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> But with less noise and cleaner images, we escape from having to waste the time with extreme processing of the images....



That's "just" a software problem, but I agree there's room for improvement here as long as the data is in the image at all and not clipped.

At least the current ACR/Lightroom isn't designed to handle high-dr images that fill the histogram left to right, and you need to take a lot of hassle using tone curves and locals... I hope they'll improve here, DxO seems to have better "one-shot hdr"-like settings.


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 30, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > But with less noise and cleaner images, we escape from having to waste the time with extreme processing of the images....
> ...


Beware - the same noise/banding that makes lifting shadows a problem is always there, its fraction just gets smaller at higher exposure levels. So everything seems nice if you do the ETTR thing.
BUT there is another part in the process that uses the same lower bits as shadow lifting: color reconstruction during debayering. No matter what you do to control contrast or suppress noise in software - color suffers one way or the other.
Well, that's a issue commercial/fashion clients tend to notice, but is all to easy to ignore by the "I put extra thick slices of tomato on my eyes and still can't hear the noise, so it can't be a problem"-fraction.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> BUT there is another part in the process that uses the same lower bits as shadow lifting: color reconstruction during debayering. No matter what you do to control contrast or suppress noise in software - color suffers one way or the other.
> Well, *that's a issue commercial/fashion clients tend to notice*, but is all to easy to ignore by the "I put extra thick slices of tomato on my eyes and still can't hear the noise, so it can't be a problem"-fraction.



Thanks for that excellent explanation as to why no professional commercial/fashion photographers – particularly high-profile, successful ones – would ever consider using Canon cameras. Oh, wait...I found who does!







: : :


----------



## Eldar (Sep 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > BUT there is another part in the process that uses the same lower bits as shadow lifting: color reconstruction during debayering. No matter what you do to control contrast or suppress noise in software - color suffers one way or the other.
> ...


Where did he say that no professional commercial/fashion photographer used Canon? 
I believe he said that, when they do use Canon, they have a problem which they would have liked to see fixed.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 30, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> BUT there is another part in the process that uses the same lower bits as shadow lifting: color reconstruction during debayering. No matter what you do to control contrast or suppress noise in software - color suffers one way or the other.



Interesting, I never considered that. I'd really like to see some samples of the influence of shadow noise/pattern on color fidelity/accuracy on ettr vs ettl to see how much real world impact this has and if it's only a problem for high-gloss fashion or for the rest of us, too.


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 30, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Where did he say that no professional commercial/fashion photographer used Canon?
> I believe he said that, when they do use Canon, they have a problem which they would have liked to see fixed.


Thinking only in black and white, a clear indicator for insufficient mental dynamic range 
As for the fixing - does a sponsoring contract outweigh the costs of additional processing? That's why prominent names are ideal for such ideas, esp. when they use said gear only for selected jobs, not exclusively.
OTOH we just ha(ve/d) the fashion weeks and the related shoots - a much more representative cross-section in my book.


----------



## arcanej (Sep 30, 2014)

There comes a point when you stop beating a dead horse and you start making glue. These forums have become stuck.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2014)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lawliet said:
> ...



He didn't. He stated that commercial/fashion *clients* tend to notice that color suffers, which if true, would mean they would likely be unhappy with images for which they had paid yet had poor color. That's entirely different than a photographer noticing a problem and wanting it fixed, even if the clients don't notice. Someone engaged in a profession who delivers goods their clients consider poor quality would likely not remain successful by continuing to deliver a poor quality product. Connect the dots...if clients notice poor quality, one needs to change/improve or business will suffer. Yet...high-profile, successful photographers continue to remain just that...while continuing to use Canon cameras. 

So, once again we have someone claiming a broad, pervasive problem with Canon image quality...a problem which doesn't seem to have affected the success of those photographers using Canon dSLRs. 

Oh, and if anyone _doesn't_ notice a problem with Canon image quality, well...they have thick tomato slices over their eyes and try to hear the noise in their images. Sure.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


And I believe what you just wrote is your interpretation of the consequences of what he wrote. My interpretation would be a bit different, but it is pointless to waste more time on that.

It might be that some of these photographers use Hasselblad and Phase One, to avoid the described problem and keep happy customers. I doubt they spend all that money and choose to use more cumbersome equipment, because they don´t understand how to use Canon gear for the same job. But I don´t know, because I have not asked them.

I just know that people who throw themselves into the middle of any and every technology discussion, with a no-need-to-change position, using you-are-mislead-to-believe-you-need-anything-else arguments and those-who-say-differently-are-ignorant-illogical-and-non-factual judgements, they look a bit funny ... 

But it´s basically a free world and when needed, the moderator rules.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I just know that people who throw themselves into the middle of any and every technology discussion, with a no-need-to-change position, using you-are-mislead-to-believe-you-need-anything-else arguments and those-who-say-differently-are-ignorant-illogical-and-non-factual judgements, they look a bit funny ...
> 
> But it´s basically a free world and when needed, the moderator rules.



Indeed...it's all just thick tomato slices over the eyes. Speaking of which, I'm heading out to the farm fields to pick some.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 1, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I just know that people who throw themselves into the middle of any and every technology discussion, with a no-need-to-change position, using you-are-mislead-to-believe-you-need-anything-else arguments and those-who-say-differently-are-ignorant-illogical-and-non-factual judgements, they look a bit funny ...


 

And, people who repeat themselves over and over, trying to show that taking a photo with a 5 stop underexposure makes them a expert. That's whats sad. They should show their properly exposed photos. I happen to believe that any of the major camera models are capable of taking supurb photos, as are the successful photographers. The composition, lighting, and subject matter is where the money is, not a ability to take a poorly exposed photo and improve it to a less poor but still unacceptable photo.


----------



## fragilesi (Oct 3, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ..... but show me a single photographer out there, Canon, Nikon, Sony, or whatever shooters, who would be upset with their manufacturer if they were given cleaner images?
> ...



Indeed, put like Don does in his post it all sounds fine but it is often extrapolated as we've seen to "Canon is miles behind Nikon / Sony" or "Canon is not innovative" as the debate develops which is just ridiculous, these differences in DR don't tell anything like the whole story so people respond to that. And the same happens in reverse of course. It's the way Internet debate seems to work.

I think one of the best posts on this was the one where jrista did his comparison, made his point about DR but then balanced it with some of the problems the Sony camera presented due to it being inferior in other areas.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 4, 2014)

What does dynamic resolution have to do with fashion photography? They. Use. Lighting. Even. For. Outdoor. Sessions. Pleasing color under adequate exposure conditions is the ticket. I might say, rigorous color management process throughout is also the ticket, for printed and online catalog work. Make your perfect photo look good on crappy $100.00 monitors!


----------



## eml58 (Oct 4, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> I think one of the best posts on this was the one where jrista did his comparison, made his point about DR but then balanced it with some of the problems the Sony camera presented due to it being inferior in other areas.



Completely agree, totally.

But we've seen the reaction that comes from being the "messenger", jrista is now sitting somewhere picking tar & feathers from himself, insulted, bullied & bashed (but I'm sure not beaten).

It seems difficult for some to accept someone else's argument if it conflicts with their own view, and too often the reactions are what we've seen here on CR regards this DR debate (I'm sure the letters actually stand for "dopey reaction").

Not sure why people can't read a Post, feel it conflicts with their own view but maintain respect for someone else having a different view, and simply move onto another Post/View/Opinion without reaching for the Red Button that launches the nukes, Human Nature ??


----------



## fragilesi (Oct 8, 2014)

eml58 said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > I think one of the best posts on this was the one where jrista did his comparison, made his point about DR but then balanced it with some of the problems the Sony camera presented due to it being inferior in other areas.
> ...



Belatedly amen to that ;D


----------



## ecka (Oct 8, 2014)

There are those who admit the issue and discuss it, there are those who ask questions about it (to learn something), and there are those who don't care (and start threads like this one  ). Not caring is not a solution and it's not even worth talking about (unlike sensors and DR).


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 8, 2014)

ecka said:


> There are those who admit the issue and discuss it, there are those who ask questions about it (to learn something), and there are those who don't care (and start threads like this one  ). Not caring is not a solution and it's not even worth talking about (unlike sensors and DR).


I care deeply about the issue, but it would be nice to see a proper and polite discussion in the appropriate place and not see thread after thread descend into nastiness over the subject..... and that seems to be the overwhelming answer to the question....


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Oct 8, 2014)

What are we descussing? Are we discussing the importance of dynamic range? Really? 

Let me summurize this whole 1000-page discussion with a few words, 

dynamic range is one of the determining factors of high image quality, just like resolution, colour, noise, and lack of artefacts, 

So, it is very important. 

But, recent digital camera have reached a very high level of dynamic range that meets the demands of most prfessional photographers, and therefore they don't look too much into it and come here presenting their arguments of the lack of importance of high dynamic range, 

it's their type of shooting and their jobs, Canon DSLRs offer more than they need of image manipulation in post. 

AND, there are those who do specific work that requires the highest dynamic range possible, people who shoot HDR in very high dynamic range scenes like landscape photography, and interior photography, these professionals find Canon DSLRs behind the competetion here and are slightly frustrated, 

SO, we have two types if shooters, those who need it, and those who don't, we should respect each other jobs! 

As for Canon cameras, they offer the exact same dynamic range as Nikon/Sony DSLRs in the APS-C range and lower, with very similar resolution, noise, colour, artefacts, I can prove this with actual photographs rather than DxO numbers, 

BUT, in the full frame range, Nikon cameras have more dynamic range and highlight/shadow recoverability, and significantly higher resolution too in that specific 36 megapixel sensor made by Sony.

It's just the current situation, accept it and chose what fits your job and stop fighting over it. 
Canon and Nikon always exceed each other and that's always good for the competetion, for example the 5D mk II generation of Canon cameras had better image quality than Nikon D700 with more DR, signifcant resolution advantage and higher image quality, then the situation turned around, and then it will turn around again, 
The canon DSLRs first video cameras had significantly better image quality in video mode for about 5 years straight, then with the Nikom D5200 the situation turned around, and Nikon is now offering higher video IQ, 

it will always be that way, with each company offering advantages, for example get me a Nikon that can shoot 10fps with 65AF point and state of the art build quality for less than 2K, 

it's a never-ending battle, and the leap-frog race continues, while idiot fanboys clap and dance each time their frog takes a step ahead, stop being ridiculous and go out and shoot. 

I am waiting for the Canon DSLR that has high resolution and high DR that competes with that specific Sony sensor, while you wait for your Nikon D300 successor, it's fine, just stop fighting over it!


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 8, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> it's a never-ending battle, and the leap-frog race continues, while idiot fanboys clap and dance each time their frog takes a step ahead, stop being ridiculous and go out and shoot.
> ...
> it's fine, just stop fighting over it!


Well said Ebrahim. Thank you.
Especially the quote above. Thanks again.


----------



## ecka (Oct 8, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > There are those who admit the issue and discuss it, there are those who ask questions about it (to learn something), and there are those who don't care (and start threads like this one  ). Not caring is not a solution and it's not even worth talking about (unlike sensors and DR).
> ...



Somehow those nasty threads escaped my attention . I tend to simply ignore such "deja vu" threads. No new data there.


----------

