# Do Sensors Make the Camera?



## JusSayin (Aug 25, 2014)

1. Has anyone seen an actual tech report on the 6D sensor? What makes it different from the 5DIII? 
2. We know Canon makes it own sensors. The 6D and other Canons have already had Electronic First Curtain Shutter. The pictures produced by Canon sensors have long made Canons the choice of some of the highest paid commercial photographers in the world such as Gilled Bensimon, Patrick Demarchelier, Annie Leibovitz, Mario Testino; please note I wrote "commercial" and their success is measured by how much money they make and how many spreads they get in the most prestigeous publications. Sports photogs chose Canon at the last World Cup. More award winning pix were done with Canon at the last 3 Windland-Smith nature photography awards I saw personally at the Smithsonian in Washington DC. Yet Nikon's are better because DxO says so? I don't get it.
3. The smears on the Hassleblad Lunar is that it is a dressed-up Sony. So why isn't a Nikon D810 smeared for being a dressed-up Sony?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 25, 2014)

If you like Canon, buy Canon
If you like Nikon, buy Nikon

Each has advantages and disadvantages and each photographer is looking for something different. That's why there are multiple camera manufacturers.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 25, 2014)

There are high paid photographers using all the main brands of camera. Its the photographer 99%, the camera 1%.


----------



## MintChocs (Aug 25, 2014)

It depends, I guess the Nikon D800 would not be as famous if it had a crap sensor! The Sony A7S is sold on its sensor being able to work in near darkness. Most of the time it doesn't matter as long as it can deliver a reasonable photo.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 25, 2014)

Even if you're talking about just the camera body itself, it's more than just the sensor. It's the focus sensor, everything that goes to support the camera's fps (mirror mechanism, internal memory buffer size, memory card chips), etc.

As example, when Canon designed the 1D X to shoot 12 fps, it had a different market than Nikon had when it designed the D810 to shoot 5 fps.

When a pro photographer chooses a camera, he buys into a system which is bigger than just the camera body - it's the lenses one can mount, the flashes, etc.

Yet, I think most pro photographers could go with either manufacturers, or possibly mix a few brands (from a quick search in Google, it seems Annie Leibovitz uses cameras from several brands).


----------



## Tanispyre (Aug 25, 2014)

I think that the number of iPhone photos that are being published are a strong indication that the sensor is far less important that the photographer.


----------



## JusSayin (Aug 25, 2014)

I am really appreciative of the replies coming in. Trying to make sense out of something to make a big purchase. Coming from a background in film with a storehouse of Nikon, Mamiya, and Sinar gear. Sinar still in use. So I know my way around a camera. Got a Canon 300D in 2003. But my studio work was with Nikon D4s and D5s when I shot 35. So my love affair with the 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 were actually addictions. I had the Nikon D90 and D7000. And used the D700 when I had a Canon 5D then 5DII. I rent D800s. At low ISOs a monster. But there is something sweet about skin tones and tonal gradations rolling off the Canon sensors that you can't measure. Then I used a 6D and 1Dx. I am so confused. My wife says its too easy to resolve. Buy nothing!
Thanks Antono. I know for a fact that Leibovitz uses Canon when she is not using Hassleblad digital. She used Nikon back with the D3 maybe 4 years ago. Her primary lens has been the 24-70/2.8. I was a bit shocked to learn
that Bensimon even used a DSLR. He was always a bit obsessed about image detail. He's using the 5DIII.


----------



## PicaPica (Aug 25, 2014)

take a car analogy... chassis, coachwork, engine.... driver.

you get the picture?


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Aug 25, 2014)

To answer the OP's question it is my opinion that the camera is the sum of it's parts -- you can have a great sensor but if the ergonomics suck or the camera can't track or AF worth a darn or you don't have access to a particular lens / focal length for a particular situation then you'll miss the shot.

For me, despite the better dynamic range in Nikon (Sony) sensors (for now anyhow), I like Canon ergonomics and the whole Canon system better and the "limited" dynamic range of the Canon sensor certainly hasn't prevented me from taking any pictures and printing them big (30"x20").

In terms of actual photographs, I think it is 95% photographer talent / imagination / creativity and 5% gear.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Aug 25, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



dilbert said:


> Let me rephrase the question a bit for you...
> 
> And answer that by saying that since the 5DII, I haven't seen a Canon camera with a sensor that was significantly better enough for me to want to buy it or recommend it to anyone.



I never owned a 5DII but I went from a 7D to a 5DIII and there was a significant jump in quality. I would agree that the 5D3 sensor is perhaps only very marginally better than the 5DII. AF system is a separate discussion from the OP's original question as is build quality, weather sealing, FPS, high ISO (all 1DX advantages). I will concede that Canon has not produced a truly revolutionary sensor in a while but rather incremental upgrades in sensor tech.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



dilbert said:


> Let me rephrase the question a bit for you...
> 
> And answer that by saying that since the 5DII, I haven't seen a Canon camera with a sensor that was significantly better enough for me to want to buy it or recommend it to anyone.


if you recommend a camera system based upon a sensor, then i wouldn't want a hear a recommendation from you anyways.

i would look at whether or not the system fits the person, support, service, used market in the area, what they want to shoot; and recommend based upon that.

a sensor? wont' be as relevant as the above would be in 2-4 years time.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 25, 2014)

Tanispyre said:


> I think that the number of iPhone photos that are being published are a strong indication that the sensor is far less important that the photographer.



Both are important for different reasons. Yeah, you can take great photos with an iPhone under ideal conditions. Lower the light level to indoor levels and it starts to struggle. You'll almost certainly never see many published photos outdoors at night taken with an iPhone. You'll never see any significant number of published sports photos coming from an iPhone. And so on. Basically, there's nothing the photographer can do to fix the extreme motion blur of a half-second exposure.

And there are shots that simply cannot feasibly be taken with an iPhone, because it is not practical to physically place the phone close enough to the subject to get a decent shot. I mean yes, ostensibly you could build a remote shooting helicopter rig for your iPhone, but really, what's the point? Zoom lenses matter.

To answer the topic question, yes, IMO, sensors make the camera. You can work around a weak autofocus system by learning to use a manual focus lens effectively. You can work around a slow repeat rate by learning to time your shots better. You can't work around a poor quality sensor; the sensor quality fundamentally defines the quality of the resulting image. And you can't change the sensor; you're stuck with it. This means that the sensor is the single most important attribute of the camera itself. All else is secondary—important, even useful, but secondary to the quality of the sensor.

To be fair, beyond the point at which the sensor is "good enough" for a particular purpose, you do start to see diminishing returns from sensor improvement. Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that *improving* the sensor is more important than improving other aspects of the camera. The answer to that question depends entirely on your starting point. If you start with a lousy sensor, improving the sensor is the most important thing; if you start with a great sensor, improving it is mostly unimportant, and other factors start to dominate. But if you stick a crappy sensor in a 5D Mark III, it would be a crappy camera, whereas Canon stuck a crappy AF system in the 6D, and it's still a great camera.

If you're looking at camera systems, the availability of glass whose quality is good enough to fully take advantage of the sensor's performance is of equal importance to the quality of the sensor. And again, all else is secondary, for the same reasons.

Pedantically, I should also add that the rest of the analog image pipeline is critical for the same reason that the sensor is. For most modern cameras, the analog image pipeline is part of the sensor, but for some reason, Canon hasn't made that leap yet. So for Canon cameras, there are other parts of the camera that are just as important as the sensor, solely because they're years behind the rest of the industry in terms of the way they design their image acquisition hardware. But I digress.

And the main differences between the 5D Mark III sensor and the 6D sensor are that the 6D sensor is slightly lower resolution, and its downstream amplifier circuitry seems to have a lower and more consistent noise floor from channel to channel, resulting in less banding and dark noise. Either that or the analog signal path is better shielded from noise sources. Either way, the result is the same.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Aug 25, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



rrcphoto said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Let me rephrase the question a bit for you...
> ...



Back in 1999/2000 when Canon designed & manufactured DSLR's were just coming on the scene for thousands of dollars, I was shooting a film Canon ElanII and purchased my first digital camera in I think 2002 which was a Nikon Coolpix D5700 or something like that. The Nikon was a good little camera until it started malfunctioning and that was my first and last experience with Nikon customer service. When I ended up buying my first DSLR it was a Canon 30D. I've been with Canon ever since the ElanII and have never required any servicing on any Canon body I've owned (ElanII, 30D, 7D, 5DIII).

Sensors are important but don't miss the forest for the trees -- the whole system (lenses, bodies, reliability) is what sells a camera or at least should sell a camera.


----------



## JusSayin (Aug 25, 2014)

@dilbert & can0nfan2379. Thank you both but it is precisely responses like this regarding the sensors that I find least helpful and harder to logically implement into purchasing decisions. For the longest time now, Canon's have been the DLSR of choice for a large proportion of the astro/night sky crowd because Canon's CR2s are not "cooked" by the sensor pipeline. It would seem that if your sensor is so darn good why do you need to manipulate the signal coming off it to the extent that it cancels out stars in the night sky. It is no secret that Sony's "raw" files are cooked. 
So is this talk about Canon's sensors not being any good the result of some laboratory measurements or is it photography which is about seeing and that includes the finished print whether its on a wall or a page (but please, not on a computer screen, people).
So, please, Dilbert, what in the real world are you referring to when you criticize the Canon sensors?
And thank you again.


----------



## JusSayin (Aug 25, 2014)

@dgatwood. Thanks. With respects to those technical differences between the 5DIII and 6D you alluded to, could you point me to that source or white paper?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 25, 2014)

JusSayin said:


> @dilbert & can0nfan2379. Thank you both but it is precisely responses like this regarding the sensors that I find least helpful and harder to logically implement into purchasing decisions. For the longest time now, Canon's have been the DLSR of choice for a large proportion of the astro/night sky crowd because Canon's CR2s are not "cooked" by the sensor pipeline. It would seem that if your sensor is so darn good why do you need to manipulate the signal coming off it to the extent that it cancels out stars in the night sky. It is no secret that Sony's "raw" files are cooked.
> So is this talk about Canon's sensors not being any good the result of some laboratory measurements or is it photography which is about seeing and that includes the finished print whether its on a wall or a page (but please, not on a computer screen, people).
> So, please, Dilbert, what in the real world are you referring to when you criticize the Canon sensors?
> And thank you again.



Best to not feed TROLLS.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



dilbert said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



actually what you stated is meaningless to 90% of photographers out there. but it only works your direction?

if the vast majority don't need specialized or an excellent ecosystem, they probably don't care about the sensor or what you think is important either.

I do find used markets, support services and general availability to be far more important than the "theory" you have on where things will be in 2-4 years.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 25, 2014)

JusSayin said:


> @dgatwood. Thanks. With respects to those technical differences between the 5DIII and 6D you alluded to, could you point me to that source or white paper?



I can point you to an article that demonstrates the difference in high ISO noise levels pretty easily:

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/13/canon-6d-and-5dmk3-noise-comparison-for-high-iso-long-exposures/

As for the reasons for the differences... that's mostly speculation, albeit reasonably informed speculation.


----------



## JusSayin (Aug 25, 2014)

Hmmm...now we are getting a bit defensive and offensive. Sorry gents. Just looking for some verifiable information. It would appear that one who accuses another of trolling without providing anything of substance is actually the troll. Don't denigrate the forum and those who read it. 
Outta here.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Aug 25, 2014)

JusSayin said:


> @dilbert & can0nfan2379. Thank you both but it is precisely responses like this regarding the sensors that I find least helpful and harder to logically implement into purchasing decisions.....



In my opinion, being totally focused on who is currently producing the best sensor without looking at the big picture is illogical -- all of the current sensors are good, some are better. Sensor tech evolves every few years, ergonomics and glass will be around for at least a decade.

Just food for thought -- to each their own, YMMV.


----------



## bbasiaga (Aug 25, 2014)

If you have ever seen a picture that pleased someone that was taken with a camera other than <insert the name of the camera that the internet has decided has the best sensor here>, then the sensor doesn't make that big of a deal, right? Isn't it that simple?

The internet is not always helpful. I find myself in its thrall often. I sit here and think 'i need to get the newest x because my current gear is obsolete now'....but when I go out with my obsolete stuff I still somehow get memorable images that myself and others find pleasing. This is despite the fact that my 5d3 doesn't have enough MPX, DR, FPS, GPS, WIFI...etc. At least...according to the internet it doesn't. 

The real problem I fear is when this techno speak prevents some new person, perhaps the next Ansel Adams, from starting because they can't afford the 1Dx. Though the internet says that's a good thing because even the 1Dx is terrible and behind the times. Sigh....


-Brian


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 25, 2014)

And there is the issue of the lenses. Once you buy into the ecosystem, it is costly and dare I say, emotionally painful to switch. 

You will have your beloved lenses long after you buy this new camera.

sek


----------



## brad-man (Aug 25, 2014)

Tanispyre said:


> I think that the number of iPhone photos that are being published are a strong indication that the sensor is far less important that the photographer.



I think that the number of iPhone photos that are being published are a strong indication that the old adage "the best camera is the one you have with you" is true...

The sensor alone does not "make the camera." However, everything else in the camera is there to direct the intended photons _to the sensor_ (other than memory cards).


----------



## gsealy (Aug 25, 2014)

The sensor is an information gathering device. The more information that is gathered, the more that can be done. The processor is just as important and the 'smarter and faster' it is to use that information, the better are the possibilities. We can expect both to evolve over time. 

Some people say given sensor is good and other people say it's crap. Actually, both of those terms are relative. For example, I would say the best sensor there is on a consumer camera is crap relative to the Hubble telescope! The point is that you have to consider what is in your price range and what your needs are. Most costs more, and less costs less.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 26, 2014)

JusSayin said:


> 1. Has anyone seen an actual tech report on the 6D sensor? What makes it different from the 5DIII?
> 2. We know Canon makes it own sensors. The 6D and other Canons have already had Electronic First Curtain Shutter. The pictures produced by Canon sensors have long made Canons the choice of some of the highest paid commercial photographers in the world such as Gilled Bensimon, Patrick Demarchelier, Annie Leibovitz, Mario Testino; please note I wrote "commercial" and their success is measured by how much money they make and how many spreads they get in the most prestigeous publications. Sports photogs chose Canon at the last World Cup. More award winning pix were done with Canon at the last 3 Windland-Smith nature photography awards I saw personally at the Smithsonian in Washington DC. Yet Nikon's are better because DxO says so? I don't get it.
> 3. The smears on the Hassleblad Lunar is that it is a dressed-up Sony. So why isn't a Nikon D810 smeared for being a dressed-up Sony?




In an era of homogenized features spread across multiple camera brands, the differentiating factor is the sensor.

There's no way around it.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2014)

Saying that the sensor makes the camera is as silly as claiming that the engine makes the car....

Point in case.... my brother has a 1969 Dodge charger with a 650HP engine. I drive a Mazda3 with a 150HP engine..... his car has 4 times the engine mine does, yet if we took the two of them to the local track (a nice road track with lots of twists and curves) I could run away from him with ease...

You have to look at the entire package in the context of what you want to do... you can not fixate on a single component.


----------



## tcmatthews (Aug 26, 2014)

In some cases yes. But in others the system as a whole is more important. For the most part Canon builds some of the most reliable and consistent cameras on the market. After you become familiar with their cameras and lenses you are almost guarantied consistent results. For many pros consistency is the most important factor. 

I understand that many are satisfied with Nikon cameras but personally I cannot stand their layouts. 

I can get results with my Nex 6 that are flat out impossible with my 60D because of dynamic range. I love the ability to utilize legacy glass with actual focusing aids. But the Sony also has some quirks with color balance. I have seen images shifted to completely magenta in between normal shots. 

The 6D is much more capable when it comes to dynamic range than the Crop canons I have used. I have not tried taking a picture of a black cow with a white face in full sunlight with my 6D. The Nex 6 simply take the picture boost black in post to recover highlights. The 60D you either blow out all the detail in the white face or end up with a black blob of a body. So yes the sensor matters some. But for the most part all current cameras have trouble with my cow test. 

The truth is the best sensor in the world is useless with out the camera system surrounding it to support it. And Canon as the best system as far as I am concerned.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 26, 2014)

The problem with this is that the "entire package" in DSLR's are all extremely similar.

A couple FPS here and there, a few extra or lopped off focus point here and there. None of these things differentiate a camera body.

The sensor does.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 26, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> The problem with this is that the "entire package" in DSLR's are all extremely similar.
> 
> A couple FPS here and there, a few extra or lopped off focus point here and there. None of these things differentiate a camera body.
> 
> The sensor does.



That may be true for you and, if so, that's a very good reason for you to choose a particular camera based on the sensor. For others it seems clear that the "entire package," including lenses and accessories, not to mention reliability and ergonomics, does make a very big difference.

The needs for your style of photography may not be representative of the overall market for DSLR systems.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 26, 2014)

When you include the ecosystem in the comparisons, you're weakening the camera body itself.

This is a *camera* comparison.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2014)

No. A camera doesn't need a sensor. There used to be something called film.


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 26, 2014)

1. No idea, sorry.
2. I hear so many positive things about Sigma sensors, that I'm starting to wonder if Sigma cameras produce the best image quality at the affordable end of the spectrum. But there are so many compromises in using Sigmas that they are on few people's radar. There's so much more to a camera (and more importantly, a system) then the sensor.
3. While it is fun to have fun with Sonikon users, Nikon cameras do use different processing technologies compared with Sony. Then there is the camera design and build quality. They also have a very different feature set, many of which are at least the equal of Canon's. As with question 2, there is more to a camera than a sensor. 
[/quote]


----------



## ishdakuteb (Aug 26, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



dilbert said:


> In 2-4 years time, I expect people with Sony/Nikon cameras to be taking and editing photographs that Canon people simply can't - at least not with the same level of detail and color. I fully expect Sony/Nikon cameras to have 15, if not 16, bit ADCs in 4 years time. As for the system? They'll fill that in. The vast majority of users don't need more than a handful of lenses - thus "a system" that has macro, T/S, etc, is meaningless to the average photographer that will buy a camera plus lens kit and use that for the next n years without buying anything else. How many people is that? There's a thread on here somewhere... the number of people that buy extra lenses is less than 10%. i.e the "system" is meaningless to 90%+ of the people that buy Canon cameras.



you sound pretty smart in giving prediction for future. but i do not see it that way, including in photography. however, if you can answer this topic question close to the truth, then i might re-consider. remember, do not let me think that it is all tofu that are residing in your br**n...


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



dilbert said:


> I fully expect Sony/Nikon cameras to have 15, if not 16, bit ADCs in 4 years time.



I am amazed that they don't have them already...

The 7D has a full well charge of 24,800. you need 15 bits to properly read that.... and in the last 5 years full well charges have increased, particularly with FF. Only having 14 bits is a choke point.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 26, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



Don Haines said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I fully expect Sony/Nikon cameras to have 15, if not 16, bit ADCs in 4 years time.
> ...



The full well charge on the full-frame bodies won't even fit into 16 bits. In an ideal world, they'd dispose of the downstream amplifier and go to at least a 17-bit DAC (or cut costs and use an off-the-shelf 18-bit DAC).

With that said, given that we're talking about an analog voltage level, they'd probably be better off using a higher-precision DAC even though strictly speaking there are fewer discrete levels, if only because you'd expect some charge decay over the course of longer shots, and having a more precise measurement of the voltage would allow you to adjust for that in post processing.

Also, there's the issue of noise floor. You want the digital floor to be way below the analog floor so that you guarantee that anything that qualifies as signal gets captured. Right now, the digital floor is considerably above the analog floor (as you pointed out), which is bad. Pushing it several bits below makes for a nice safety margin.

Personally, I don't really understand why all the camera manufacturers don't just standardize on a 20-bit DAC and be done with it. Storage is cheap. Quality is irreplaceable. Why cut corners?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



dilbert said:


> People will want something that gives them a better image than their mobile phone.
> The choice is Canon, Nikon and Sony. Two of those three are now providing substantially better images.



There you have it, folks. Canon dSLRs don't provide images substantially better than a cell phone. That deserves an award!


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



dgatwood said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


I know.... it's not like it's hard to do....
I can't think of anything at work that does not use at least 24 bit A/D and we have some test equipment that has 64 bit A/D and others that have 48 bit A/D running at 60Ghz sampling rates... I think that the last time I designed something with only 16 bit A/D was back in the 1980's....


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 26, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



Don Haines said:


> I know.... it's not like it's hard to do....
> I can't think of anything at work that does not use at least 24 bit A/D and we have some test equipment that has 64 bit A/D and others that have 48 bit A/D running at 60Ghz sampling rates... I think that the last time I designed something with only 16 bit A/D was back in the 1980's....


Even though I don't know a lot about electronics I'll go ahead and wade in to water over my head. While it may be easy to implement, it may have implications for the rest of the body. Presumably, more precise sampling will draw more power proportional to the increase in precision: more bits of A/D will mean more components, all of which draw power. Then the digital circuitry all the way from A/D to flash card has to be scaled-up to match which also draws more power. All of this also generates heat which must be dealt with. In my sophomoric opinion, this would result in slower framerate and heat issues for the sensor. And that's not even considering the effect on battery life. It's not impossible, but it's an extra set of engineering problems which incur greater cost, which affects retail cost and profit.

Also, why jump straight to 20 bit A/D when you can sell 14, then 16, then 17, then 18, then 19, then 20. 8)


----------



## weixing (Aug 26, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*

Hi,


Orangutan said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I know.... it's not like it's hard to do....
> ...


 Hmm... Pentax use 22-bits ADC many years ago... on the Pentax K10D, but the raw file is only 12-bits... then Pentax K20D use back the 14-bits ADC... just wonder why they change back to 14-bits??

Have a nice day.


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

JusSayin said:


> 1. Has anyone seen an actual tech report on the 6D sensor? What makes it different from the 5DIII?
> 2. We know Canon makes it own sensors. The 6D and other Canons have already had Electronic First Curtain Shutter. The pictures produced by Canon sensors have long made Canons the choice of some of the highest paid commercial photographers in the world such as Gilled Bensimon, Patrick Demarchelier, Annie Leibovitz, Mario Testino; please note I wrote "commercial" and their success is measured by how much money they make and how many spreads they get in the most prestigeous publications. Sports photogs chose Canon at the last World Cup. More award winning pix were done with Canon at the last 3 Windland-Smith nature photography awards I saw personally at the Smithsonian in Washington DC. Yet Nikon's are better because DxO says so? I don't get it.
> 3. The smears on the Hassleblad Lunar is that it is a dressed-up Sony. So why isn't a Nikon D810 smeared for being a dressed-up Sony?



Here is how I see it these days. The camera is a tool. That's all it is. Some people will say, it's 99% the photographer, 1% the camera. I personally don't believe that. The photographer can't do anything without a camera. Similarly, a better camera in the hands of a skilled photographer will free that photographer from potential limitations, giving them the ability to create better photography. 

So here is how I look at it. Is the camera you have now limiting you in some way? If so, you might want to figure out which camera out there will free you from those limitations. Are you limited by the AF system? Canon currently has the best on the market, and the 7D II might be coming with an even better one than the 5D III and 1D X have. Are you limited by the sensor? Canon sensors are good, and at high ISO it generally doesn't matter who's sensor your using, but if you need the best low ISO IQ, then Sony sensors are better. Are the lenses you have resolving the kind of detail you expect? Entry-level kit lenses only take you so far. Upgrading to any L-series Canon prime, and most of their longer zoom lenses, will give you some of the best IQ on the planet. For wide angle zoom lenses, you might want to look to Sigma, or if you need that low ISO DR, a Nikon D800/810/600 and their ultra wide angle zooms will serve you best. 

Pick the tool that will eliminate the thing that is limiting you, that is preventing you from progressing and improving the quality of your work. *If you don't know what's limiting you, then your probably not limited.* Stick with what you have, and keep pushing the envelope until you know without question that something with your current kit is holding you back. 

That's always been my approach. I started with a 450D, the 18-55 kit, and a 100mm macro. I first "graduated" to a 16-35mm L II for landscapes. Then I "graduated" again to a 100-400mm L and 7D for birds and wildlife. I then made a quantum leap to the EF 600mm f/4 L II to remove the 100-400 L as a limiting factor. I recently moved to a 5D III and a 1.4x and 2x TC III, along with the 600/4, to remove the 7D as a limiting factor. For my landscapes, I've recently found the 5D III to be very wanting in the low ISO IQ department, and my next upgrade will probably be a Nikon D810 and 14-24mm f/2.8 (unless, by some miracle, Canon releases a camera with some incredible improvements in low ISO DR and a nice big boost to total megapixel count within the next few months here...if they do, I'd prefer to stick within the brand; I don't really expect that to happen, and Nikon has what I need right now...so I see no reason to let the brand difference hold me back).


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > People will want something that gives them a better image than their mobile phone.
> ...



I'd say that was a well-deserved award.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 26, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



weixing said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> Orangutan said:
> ...


I have a K-10D. It's a nice tool but unlikely to make use of 22 bit ADC, the noise floor is too high to matter.
I'm wondering if there was a misread quote somewhere in there (dpreview article) where the ADC may have been a more moderate number of bits but 22 bits worth of processing precision were used?..
That said, I really like the color I can get out of that camera when it comes to subjects like deeply saturated flowers. That and that I got a mint condition body for peanuts. ;D


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 26, 2014)

"Do Sensors Make the Camera?"

No.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 26, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> The 6D is much more capable when it comes to dynamic range than the Crop canons I have used.



The croppers are better than they're being given credit for.

This is a random 160 ISO 70D CR2 I picked up off the web somewhere.

And this is how it looks (white balance not addressed) with the shadows slider pushed to 100 _and_ a stop of +ve EC added in Capture One - about 5 stops in total on the shadows. Default NR, no other changes made.

Looks OK, doesn't it? All the detail that was hidden in shadow _is there_.

Here is a 100% before crop; and here's after.

Nothing much wrong with this. Yes, there's a _little_ bit of "texture" where the shadows were darkest; but the detail is all there and there's no pattern noise. 

Pointedly, it's not at all far from what the "magic" Sony sensors are capable of...


----------



## jakeymate (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> Here is how I see it these days. The camera is a tool. That's all it is. Some people will say, it's 99% the photographer, 1% the camera. I personally don't believe that. The photographer can't do anything without a camera. Similarly, a better camera in the hands of a skilled photographer will free that photographer from potential limitations, giving them the ability to create better photography.
> 
> So here is how I look at it. Is the camera you have now limiting you in some way? If so, you might want to figure out which camera out there will free you from those limitations. Are you limited by the AF system? Canon currently has the best on the market, and the 7D II might be coming with an even better one than the 5D III and 1D X have. Are you limited by the sensor? Canon sensors are good, and at high ISO it generally doesn't matter who's sensor your using, but if you need the best low ISO IQ, then Sony sensors are better. Are the lenses you have resolving the kind of detail you expect? Entry-level kit lenses only take you so far. Upgrading to any L-series Canon prime, and most of their longer zoom lenses, will give you some of the best IQ on the planet. For wide angle zoom lenses, you might want to look to Sigma, or if you need that low ISO DR, a Nikon D800/810/600 and their ultra wide angle zooms will serve you best.
> 
> ...



Far and away the best 4 paragraphs I've seen on here in a very long time.

Balanced, broadly accurate (IMHO) and I'd challenge anyone to argue with it, who is familiar and experienced with more than just one system.

The only question is, what on earth is it doing on this forum?

Only joking


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > The 6D is much more capable when it comes to dynamic range than the Crop canons I have used.
> ...



The thing your missing is that detail buried in "shadow" isn't the problem. It's detail buried in READ NOISE that's the problem. "Shadows" extend for hundreds to thousands of levels...read noise usually only intrudes a dozen or so levels into the deepest of shadows. It's those *very deep shadows* that mark the difference between a Canon sensor and an Exmor.

The image you edited is more along the lines of this:






Being lifted to this with a +3 stop pull:






The "shadows" are not totally buried in the read noise...so they are nearly fully "recoverable". Which is a very far cry from this:






Being lifted to this with a +5 stop pull:






The detail here is not just "in shadow"...the detail is completely buried well into the noise floor on my 5D III sensor. It's near impossible to recover...it's riddled with red banding, and the noise level in the deeper shadows is two or three times what it is anywhere photon shot noise limited, as it'c compounded with dark current and various forms of noise caused by readout. It's these extra two stops...which, when you get right down to it,_ don't actually represent a ton of tonal levels_...maybe 10-30 at most, if that...it's these deep shadow levels where the read noise exists that mark the difference between a Canon sensor and an Exmor.

The inevitable question that comes after I try to make this clarification (either when defending Canon, or when defending Exmor...these days it doesn't seem to matter), is: Why would you ever need those extra two stops? or How often do you actually have detail buried that deeply?

Sure, this isn't an every-day case. Some types of photography NEVER encounter a situation like this because they are always shot at higher ISO where DR is limited by physics. That said...even if the situation is a niche situation, it doesn't change the facts. The facts are...Canon sensors currently suffer about a two stop disadvantage or handicap compared to Exmor, and a one to two stop disadvantage compared to many other sensors on the market, such as the Toshiba sensors used in Nikon's D5000 line.

The next statement that is usually made is, the detail buried way down near the read noise floor in a Nikon RAW file can't possibly be clean, low noise, high color fidelity detail. Here are two images I downloaded way back around the time the D800 was released (shortly after the 5D III was released...about the time Fred Miranda wrote his review of both...I was looking for some real evidence to prove, either way, whether Exmor had better low ISO DR):










These two images, which are large (click on them for full size) show the exceptional quality of detail you can recover out of deep, black shadows.

The images were originally downloaded from here (although the link seems to be dead now):

http://www.3mille.com/docs/nikon-d800-raw-nef-samples-wide-tonal-range.zip



The difference between current Canon sensors, and an Exmor, is not "you can lift shadows". We've been lifting shadows for years. The difference between the two is that you can lift ultra deep shadows that would otherwise be buried in red-banded read noise on a Canon, by 5-6 stops on an Exmor...and STILL have decent color fidelity and clean, random noise.

If you need that kind of shadow recovery capability...and I stress *IF*, _I still believe a majority of photographers tend to shoot some kind of action at higher ISO_, in which case Canon sensors have a very small edge over Exmor sensors at higher ISO...then don't hold yourself back. Canon may release something that can do what a D800 could do over two years ago at some point...but why wait until that unknown future time, when you could solve your problem now with a Nikon, Sony, or Pentax (or any number of other cameras that use Exmor sensors)?


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

jakeymate said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Here is how I see it these days. The camera is a tool. That's all it is. Some people will say, it's 99% the photographer, 1% the camera. I personally don't believe that. The photographer can't do anything without a camera. Similarly, a better camera in the hands of a skilled photographer will free that photographer from potential limitations, giving them the ability to create better photography.
> ...



Thanks. Glad I could help.



jakeymate said:


> The only question is, what on earth is it doing on this forum?
> 
> Only joking



Stick around here long enough...and you'll realize how apt that question is.  I'm beginning to wonder why I write these things on these forums myself...


----------



## FEBS (Aug 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Saying that the sensor makes the camera is as silly as claiming that the engine makes the car....
> 
> Point in case.... my brother has a 1969 Dodge charger with a 650HP engine. I drive a Mazda3 with a 150HP engine..... his car has 4 times the engine mine does, yet if we took the two of them to the local track (a nice road track with lots of twists and curves) I could run away from him with ease...
> 
> You have to look at the entire package in the context of what you want to do... you can not fixate on a single component.



Fully agree on this. A camera is not only a sensor, but also everything around. The AF system, the lenses, the reliability, ... Just like a cat you mentioned. It's not the HP that decides to win a race, but the overall performance of the car.


----------



## pedro (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > tcmatthews said:
> ...



This is absolutely impressive...


----------



## bowtiez (Aug 26, 2014)

Thanks Jrista for the work you put in your post! I didn`t think that the differences were that big. Given that huge dynamic range of the exmors it seems that one could constantly expose for the highlights and often get usable shots. 

Cheers!


----------



## scyrene (Aug 26, 2014)

I was going to say, it depends what aspects of the sensor matter to you, too. Sensors vary in numerous attributes. Jrista has touched on this (and as an aside, I thought sunflowers faced the sun - these ones are not conforming!  ), but I'll just add my perspective. I shoot largely at what most would consider to be high ISO (800-3200) because of the focal length/aperture I use (1000mm f/10), combined with subpar lighting (overcast, or shade). Low ISO DR is largely irrelevant to me. High ISO quality is paramount. And megapixel count, because at 1000mm I still find cropping necessary a lot of the time (the focal length is a compromise - the longest I can use while retaining autofocus, plus adding an extra teleconverter diminishes image quality).

So even if the sensor was the most important thing (and I don't think it is), not everyone judges sensors by the same criteria anyway. Your genre and style of photography dictate your needs.


----------



## PicaPica (Aug 26, 2014)

there is no question that the shadow pulling capabilities of the sony sensors are fantastic.

i don´t know what others shoot but i often have the need to pull the shadows.
not 5-6 stops.  

but i often find myself in the situation that i want to pull it a bit more but i can´t because the canon sensors then shows ugly noise.

i don´t really need 36MP but a canon 24-28MP FF sensor with similiar capabilities to pull the shadows would be my dream. 

im still at school and i can´t afford to switch to nikon. 
not that i would! 
because it´s not only the sensor that makes the camera.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 26, 2014)

JusSayin said:


> My wife says its too easy to resolve. Buy nothing!



Listen to your wife. Save your money. Shoot with what you already have and concentrate on improving your technique. 

With today's DSLRs, it is a rare photographer who is limited more by their equipment than by their own technique.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> The difference between current Canon sensors, and an Exmor, is not "you can lift shadows". We've been lifting shadows for years. The difference between the two is that you can lift ultra deep shadows that would otherwise be buried in red-banded read noise on a Canon, by 5-6 stops on an Exmor...and STILL have decent color fidelity and clean, random noise.
> 
> If you need that kind of shadow recovery capability...and I stress *IF*, _I still believe a majority of photographers tend to shoot some kind of action at higher ISO_, in which case Canon sensors have a very small edge over Exmor sensors at higher ISO...then don't hold yourself back. Canon may release something that can do what a D800 could do over two years ago at some point...but why wait until that unknown future time, when you could solve your problem now with a Nikon, Sony, or Pentax (or any number of other cameras that use Exmor sensors)?



As Neuro previously requested from the Swedish Chorus-of-One, I'd love to see more real-world examples. The first example, sunflowers, looks marginal by that standard -- it just looks intentionally underexposed. The hotel room might be a good example, but I wish there were a comparator image from a 5D3 or 1DX. Those pulled room shadows do look really good, but how do they compare?


----------



## Ruined (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista,
Have you considered a 6D? For the type of photography posted it would be an upgrade from the 5D3... Though maybe Canon will announce a new alternative at Photokina this year.


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

Ruined said:


> jrista,
> Have you considered a 6D? For the type of photography posted it would be an upgrade from the 5D3... Though maybe Canon will announce a new alternative at Photokina this year.



I have, but the majority of my photography is birds and wildlife. That's all high ISO, high frame rate, heavy AF based work, and the 5D III is a much, much better camera for that than the 6D. The frame rate of the 5D III is actually a bit slow...I could really use the 8fps of the 7D combined with all the 5D III features and larger frame. 

The 5D III can be used for landscapes. It's just a lot more work to clean up each image in post than I had expected it to be. Based on the raving reviews and everyone who said the 5D III noise was much better, I expected the 5D III low ISO noise to be a lot better than it is. Even a +3 stop shadow recovery is actually asking a bit much of the 5D III...you still get vertical banding when you do that, and the 5D III banding does not seem to clean up as well as the 7D did. I put off landscapes for a while, as I did not like dealing with the shadows on the 7D at ISO 100 (and, because the frame size in the 7D is just not large enough for the kinds of landscapes I like to do.) Now that I have the 5D III, it's still not capable of doing quite what I want to do...so I'm considering buying a D810 and a 14-24mm f/2.8. 

I could wait for Canon to do something with the 5D IV...but, I don't really think they will. I think the 5D IV will arrive with the same old kind of read noise, they will still be losing two stops of dynamic range...and I don't think it's worth waiting any longer.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 26, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



dilbert said:


> The choice is Canon, Nikon and Sony. Two of those three are now providing substantially better images.



I have no experience with soNikon (my Nikon doesn't have a Sony sensor). I do however have experience with Canon and Sony. My Sony (A7R) doesn't provide substantially better images than my Canon cameras. It simply doesn't. There are some cases where I may wish to edit shadows and I can do so with less difficulty using the A7R, but the difference isn't as substantial as you make it out to be. Perhaps some of that is due to the lossy RAW format of the Sony, but I doubt it. Perhaps that has to do with what I'm shooting or how I shoot it.

How do your Sony and SoNikon images compare to your Canon images?

Push comes to shove, if someone calls me up and asks "hey do you want to go shooting" or "hey can you come shoot something for me," the camera I'll grab is the 5D3, not the A7R. YMMV.


----------



## fragilesi (Aug 26, 2014)

From a personal perspective, having invested in Canon glass. If the sensor made the camera right now I would be using a 6D to try and track and shoot fast moving birds rather than my 70d.

Would I be getting better quality images?

As others have said, when considering the broad range of photographic needs and styles it's simply wrong to suggest that the sensor trumps all else in what makes a camera. 

Sure, the worst ever sensor would kill a camera but for me so would the worst ever reliability, AF system or indeed ergonomics.


----------



## Jonasyphoto (Aug 26, 2014)

Let's face it, Canon has been doing terribly on making non-sport camera bodies these years.(Chipworks) Canon bodies look better and work better than before, but the image quality is one or two generations behind its competitors. The shadow banding and state of the suck dynamic range produced by the old CMOS fabrication technology is now part of Canon's signature. Moreover, thanks to Sony it is losing its edge on the lower end pro video market too(HDSLR market).

Why is a cooperation like Canon not making a new sensor fabrication? 

A new CMOS production line worth at least twenty million dollars. Without enough motivation, a old school cooperation is very unlikely to spend this kind of money on things like that. Therefore, the company decided to work the engineers' buds off to push the limit for the old 500nm sensor because it is cheaper.


Canon also spent loads of money on sending free stuff to famous photographers and news agencies. This increased the amount of exposure canon gets especially when these working pros are using the Canon signature white lens. This kind of marketing measure has proven to effectively boost the sell of Canon cameras for years.

Therefore, what we need if we shooters all wish to get better CR2 files, is a dramatic decline on Canon's camera sell. Just like what 2008 crisis do to US automobile industry, this might kickstart Canon's Lab to mass produce process.



To answer the question of "why 5Dmk3 is still outselling D8xx" it is because of the 5Dmk2. 5Dmk2 was revolution by the time it was created, many users bought Canon system just for this camera.


http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/

My site:jonasyuan.com


----------



## Jonasyphoto (Aug 26, 2014)

My answer to the topic? NO, the sensor does not make a camera system. However, if the camera can only produce files with significantly worse IQ than its competitor, even thought the lens and everything else are fabulous it still not a good system.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2014)

Jonasyphoto said:


> Why is a cooperation like Canon not making a new sensor fabrication?
> 
> A new CMOS production line worth at least twenty million dollars. Without enough motivation, a old school cooperation is very unlikely to spend this kind of money on things like that. Therefore, the company decided to work the engineers' buds off to push the limit for the old 500nm sensor because it is cheaper.



The best reason that I can think of as to why they are not buying a new CMOS production line is because with the downturn in P/S camera sales, production capacity is opening up on their existing production line for small sensors, which is a finer line than that used for FF and APS-C (Non DPAF) sensors.

The second point to make is that the complexity of circuitry required to make a DPAF 70D sensor is beyond that which can be fabricated on the 500nM line... therefore, it must be fabricated on something else and that means the existing fabrication line for P/S sensors.... This means that they are now in the process of switching over to a finer line and when that is done, they can shut down the 500nM line and save money..... because it costs more to keep 2 lines running than 1 line.


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Jonasyphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Why is a cooperation like Canon not making a new sensor fabrication?
> ...



I think this is probably the most reasonable line of reasoning as to why Canon hasn't moved to a finer fabrication process. It's very logical and simple. Let's just hope they wind down P&D production quickly, so their next DSLR cameras can start putting a finer lithography to use.


----------



## Jonasyphoto (Aug 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Jonasyphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Why is a cooperation like Canon not making a new sensor fabrication?
> ...



60D and 70D shares the same iq performance according to DXO mark, and that means the split pixels it does not improve the file quality. Also according to a post on Chiphell about dynamic range, D800e with 180nm Fab sensors are obviously outperforming D4 w' 250nm fab sensor. (I had doubt on it's results due to comparisons such as 5Dmk3 VS D800 and D800 vs. IQ180, after using all of these cameras, I am trusting DXOmark now)

Let's hope Canon is switching or buying a Sony sensor because "even a user knows how to expose correctly" need wider dynamic range and better files from my camera. 

Let's knock on wood folks.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 26, 2014)

Jonasyphoto said:


> and that means the split pixels it does not improve the file quality.



That's not what he was getting at. He's saying (I believe) they already have a finer process, and citing DPAF as proof, even though they currently are using it for something other than IQ.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Jonasyphoto said:
> 
> 
> > and that means the split pixels it does not improve the file quality.
> ...


Yes!
With the available space on the die, I believe that there is not enough space to build the circuitry required for DPAF for the 70D using the 500nM process...


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Jonasyphoto said:
> 
> 
> > and that means the split pixels it does not improve the file quality.
> ...



Well, to be fair, he is still speculating about the 70D being made with a 180nm process. The 70D has only a few extra gates to handle the ability to read the two separate photodiodes in each pixel separately, as well as to bin them for a full pixel read. There isn't even a 10% increase in pixel FWC...if they had moved to 180nm, that means the border of wiring and transistors around each pixel would shrink by 320nm each side. That would lead to an increase in photodiode area of nearly 43%. Even assuming the independent read and binning logic takes up more space, I would still have expected more than a 9% increase in FWC if the 70D had moved to a 180nm process.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Jonasyphoto said:
> ...


If they had done DPAF on the 500nM process, I would have expected the FWC to have dropped... yet, as you point out, it has slightly gone up...

of course, all this is speculation..... I have no inside information and am just guessing at a possible scenario....


----------



## jrista (Aug 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



I think it depends on whether they could fit all teh transistors in that 500nm border around the photodiodes or not. If there was room in that space not dedicated to photodiode area, then it's possible. 

I wonder if they moved to some intermediary process first...320nm, 250nm?


----------



## bosshog7_2000 (Aug 26, 2014)

I agree that Canon is behind in sensor tech, but like many others already stated it is the camera SYSTEM that is most important. Look at the amazing A7R as an example...awesome sensor but limited lenses and camera functionality.

The other thing to keep in mind is that a $1900 Canon 6D has better image quality than anything out there 7 yrs ago....that said, it would be nice if Canon could re-take the position of superiority in sensor design.


----------



## SwampYankee (Aug 27, 2014)

Sensors do not make the camera but all other things being close to equal it is a deciding factor. If I had nothing invested in any line it would be hard to find a good reason to buy a Canon 5DIII over a Nikon 810. Every thing else is close, auto focus, build, lens line, accessories, price, historical reliability, 3rd party support . Bit of an edge to Canon on service and support, big edge to Nikon on sensor.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 27, 2014)

bosshog7_2000 said:


> I agree that Canon is behind in sensor tech, but like many others already stated it is the camera SYSTEM that is most important.



If you said, "Canon is behind in sensor dynamic range and low ISO noise," I think I'd agree. With a general term like "sensor tech", well, that leaves it open to which tech you're referring to. Dual-Pixel Auto-Focus is sensor tech, and, as far as I know, Sony/Nikon sensor tech is nowhere close in this regard.

I fully agree with your second, point. While I'd love more dynamic range and better ISO performance, for most things that I shoot, I'd rather "get the shot" and have to do some tweaking in post than have extra dynamic range and editing latitude for a missed shot. Obviously, that wouldn't apply much to landscape shooters...

Of course, the whole dynamic range debate all depends on each photographer's needs, so it's kinda pointless to argue. I doubt Canon decision-makers argue around the board room table about whether dynamic range is important or not (maybe they do). My guess is that they plunk down a fair amount of market research dollars (yen?) to settle that matter and move forward. Not that they conclude dynamic range is unimportant -- just that other things (like DPAF) take priority in the development release pipeline.

I'm in the system-over-sensor* camp -- not because I'm "right", but because that's what works best for _me_.




*Let me qualify this by specifying _current_ sensors. I'm not suggesting that a really crappy sensor in a good system is a good choice.  I also don't consider Canon's current sensors to be crappy. :-X


----------



## Jonasyphoto (Aug 27, 2014)

Okey, let me express myself a bit more clear. Canon is definitely able to make high-res sensors, it also able to make amazing prototypes in lab. 

The file quality improvement in lower ISO from 5Dmk2 to 5Dmk3 is negligible, and I really can not find a reason for it. For this reason I have been thinking about jump ship to Nikon or go MF for a while. A camera packed with 2012 funtion and 2007 IQ(1dsmk3) is really disappointing. 

I am now almost always use Capture One to convert CR2s just to get the file a bit more retouching friendly.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 27, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



dilbert said:


> ...since the 5DII, I haven't seen a Canon camera with a sensor that was significantly better enough for me to want to buy it or recommend it to anyone.



100% spot on!

Now lets have Canon bring on a worth while 5DIV with a sensor on par (I'll be happy with that) with what others are offering...


----------



## scyrene (Aug 27, 2014)

Jonasyphoto said:


> Okey, let me express myself a bit more clear. Canon is definitely able to make high-res sensors, it also able to make amazing prototypes in lab.
> 
> The file quality improvement in lower ISO from 5Dmk2 to 5Dmk3 is negligible, and I really can not find a reason for it. For this reason I have been thinking about jump ship to Nikon or go MF for a while. A camera packed with 2012 funtion and 2007 IQ(1dsmk3) is really disappointing.
> 
> I am now almost always use Capture One to convert CR2s just to get the file a bit more retouching friendly.



From what I've read in seemingly dozens of similar debates on here, Canon focused on other things when designing the 5D3 - autofocus and high ISO in particular - because that's what people wanted. I wasn't following things back then, but apparently that's what people were clamouring for - the DR/ultra high resolution/low ISO quality stuff has only come along since then.

Are the shots you've shared meant to show Canon's limitations? They look fine, I don't get it.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> The thing your missing is that detail buried in "shadow" isn't the problem. It's detail buried in READ NOISE that's the problem. "Shadows" extend for hundreds to thousands of levels...read noise usually only intrudes a dozen or so levels into the deepest of shadows. It's those *very deep shadows* that mark the difference between a Canon sensor and an Exmor.
> 
> The image you edited is more along the lines of this:



Your Nikon example is also more along those lines. Your sunflower shot with all the color noise is pitch black before being pushed. The bedroom scene, night scene, and sunflower shot without all the color noise are not pitch black. You can see some shadow detail in all of them.

Honest questions...not trying to pick a fight after the last thread...what RAW converter are you using on the sunflowers? What NR settings did you set in the converter itself (not in post)? Are you willing to provide the "pitch black" RAW file for others to try their hand at?


----------



## jrista (Aug 27, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The thing your missing is that detail buried in "shadow" isn't the problem. It's detail buried in READ NOISE that's the problem. "Shadows" extend for hundreds to thousands of levels...read noise usually only intrudes a dozen or so levels into the deepest of shadows. It's those *very deep shadows* that mark the difference between a Canon sensor and an Exmor.
> ...



The Nikon image has pitch black shadows. It's the back sides of the bed, the back side of the desk, and the back side of the curtain. It was over a +5 stop lift, according to the guy who made the images.

As for my file, have at it:

http://1drv.ms/1vmTXXq


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 27, 2014)

No, but they are part of it.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> I have, but the majority of my photography is birds and wildlife. That's all high ISO, high frame rate, heavy AF based work, and the 5D III is a much, much better camera for that than the 6D. The frame rate of the 5D III is actually a bit slow...I could really use the 8fps of the 7D combined with all the 5D III features and larger frame.



I agree the 5D III has the superior AF for wildlife, but the 6D gets the job done, even for very fast animals.




> The 5D III can be used for landscapes. It's just a lot more work to clean up each image in post than I had expected it to be. Based on the raving reviews and everyone who said the 5D III noise was much better, I expected the 5D III low ISO noise to be a lot better than it is. Even a +3 stop shadow recovery is actually asking a bit much of the 5D III...you still get vertical banding when you do that, and the 5D III banding does not seem to clean up as well as the 7D did. I put off landscapes for a while, as I did not like dealing with the shadows on the 7D at ISO 100 (and, because the frame size in the 7D is just not large enough for the kinds of landscapes I like to do.) Now that I have the 5D III, it's still not capable of doing quite what I want to do...so I'm considering buying a D810 and a 14-24mm f/2.8.



If the 5D III is not cleaning up as well as your 7D, there is something very wrong with your 5D III, or there's a setting off in your software. I use Lightroom for processing, and with the most recent version, the difference between Canon FF and 7D detail recovery is massive.

Although I will say the shadow recovery on my 6D is quite good. Maybe not Nikon/Sony level, but certainly superior to APS-C.



> I could wait for Canon to do something with the 5D IV...but, I don't really think they will. I think the 5D IV will arrive with the same old kind of read noise, they will still be losing two stops of dynamic range...and I don't think it's worth waiting any longer.



Yeah, I think it's clear Canon is going to sit tight with their conservative designs. More and more they are becoming like Toyota, competent and comfortable, but living off their peak of 2001-2005.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 27, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



dilbert said:


> ...since the 5DII, I haven't seen a Canon camera with a sensor that was significantly better enough for me to want to buy it or recommend it to anyone.



_Learn how to convert them properly, then._

70D, 160 ISO, can go from this to this with no problem whatsoever. Clean as a whistle, all the detail is there, and there's no pattern noise. 

If _you_ can't do this too, it's not the _camera_ that's the problem.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> The Nikon image has pitch black shadows. It's the back sides of the bed, the back side of the desk, and the back side of the curtain. It was over a +5 stop lift, according to the guy who made the images.



They all have some pitch black shadows. But overall the Nikon photo is much closer to your sunflower shot that was given more exposure and the 70D shot. If you shove the brightness on your monitor all the way up, those three files all have quite a bit in their shadows before they are pushed. Your darkest sunflower shot? Nothing but some very dark "blocks" around the locations of sunflowers. (Looks interesting actually, like an old Atari game got scaled up.)

I'm not saying Exmor would have the same noise had it received less exposure. But in my experience you do not want to have to push shadows that hard. Tonality and fine detail are nothing like a proper HDR shot because, as you yourself pointed out, there are very few tonal levels in those last few bits. I generally run into this before I run into noise issues on Canon sensors. I contend that if your darkest sunflower shot was made on a D8x0 that it would have very little shadow noise, but also not look anything like the HDR shots you admire. 

What all of these threads are missing is a series of controlled underexposure tests with Canon and Exmor pushed back up to see exactly what one gets at each push (+1, +2, +3, +4, +5, +6). I would be interested in going to a park and shooting that series and providing the RAW files for review, but it would have to wait until a weekend when I can borrow my friend's D800. I know he's using it for paid work for the next couple of weekends.



> As for my file, have at it: http://1drv.ms/1vmTXXq



Thank you. I'm getting roughly the same results.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 27, 2014)

JusSayin said:


> 3. The smears on the Hassleblad Lunar is that it is a dressed-up Sony. So why isn't a Nikon D810 smeared for being a dressed-up Sony?



Probably because the Hasselblad Lunar doesn't merely use a Sony sensor - it's essentially a now-discontinued Sony Nex 7 (the whole camera, not just the sensor) with hideous Hasselblad artefacts (grip, etc.) stuck on parts of the exterior and a fancy case, for which they charge c. eight times as much as the Sony original. (I imagine it sells, to the extent it does, merely because it's expensive; if it were as cheap as it looks....) 

As for the rest, Jrista and others have said all that needs to be said, probably. Depending on what you shoot you may well find that the differences among various sensors are pretty trivial. I happily use Canon FF & APS-C, Sony FF & APS-C and Olympus M43 (a model with yet another Sony sensor, though that isn't why I bought it). My preference for Sony among these is partly for those instances where the sensor makes a difference, but mainly because I prefer mirrorless to dslr.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 27, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> If the 5D III is not cleaning up as well as your 7D, there is something very wrong with your 5D III, or there's a setting off in your software. I use Lightroom for processing, and with the most recent version, the difference between Canon FF and 7D detail recovery is massive.



I wouldn't necessarily say massive, but concur that a 5D3 recovers better then a 7D.



> Yeah, I think it's clear Canon is going to sit tight with their conservative designs. More and more they are becoming like Toyota, competent and comfortable, but living off their peak of 2001-2005.



Can Canon change their ADC arrangement to eliminate deep shadow noise without running afoul of Sony's patent? Can they do so with their current fab situation (whatever that might be)? Are the yields economical at this time given that this is a feature much debated on forums, but only actually used by a small minority?


----------



## bgran8 (Aug 27, 2014)

Do sensors make the camera?

-It's the most important part for me as a landscape photographer.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 28, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Can Canon change their ADC arrangement to eliminate deep shadow noise without running afoul of Sony's patent? Can they do so with their current fab situation (whatever that might be)? Are the yields economical at this time given that this is a feature much debated on forums, but only actually used by a small minority?



Which Sony patent, specifically?


----------



## David Hull (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



dilbert said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


All of this Sensor Hype is probably meaningless to that crowd as well just the same as it is to 90% of those buying Sony and Nikon equipment. If this were all that important, Nikon cameras would be selling a lot better than Canon and that is not what we really see.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



David Hull said:


> All of this Sensor Hype is probably meaningless to that crowd as well just the same as it is to 90% of those buying Sony and Nikon equipment. If this were all that important, Nikon cameras would be selling a lot better than Canon and that is not what we really see.



The problem with that comparison is you use the sensor every single time you take a photo, and not "the system".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



MichaelHodges said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > All of this Sensor Hype is probably meaningless to that crowd as well just the same as it is to 90% of those buying Sony and Nikon equipment. If this were all that important, Nikon cameras would be selling a lot better than Canon and that is not what we really see.
> ...



Which is exactly the point. You use the sensor every time you take a shot, so if Canon sensors were _so_ inferior, Canon would not have remained the market leader. 

How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them? They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up. While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2014)

I believe that the lens has far more impact on your photo than the sensor......


----------



## unfocused (Aug 28, 2014)

For me, the sensor is probably the least important part of the camera.

It's been that way ever since I bought a 7D and it continues to be the case with my 5DIII. I have never, ever felt limited by the sensor.

Lenses? Yes. I have owned lenses that I felt were limiting what I could do. When I felt that way, I got new or different lenses. Don't feel that way any more. 

Before I had radio control strobes I felt a little limited (largely by my lack of technical skill though). Now I have 600RTs and any limitations I feel now reflect my own need to work on my skills, not on any limits of the speed-lights. 

If I had to choose five or 10 things to upgrade on a camera body, the sensor wouldn't make the cut.

Why? Because all sensors from all brands and all formats are so good today that the differences are just plain insignificant. If there were truly a camera out there with a "crappy" sensor, it would be a different story. But even new cell phones have pretty damn good sensors in them. 

I guess I don't have much sympathy for people who write encyclopedia-long posts obsessing over how disappointed they are because they pointed their cameras directly into the sun and didn't get perfectly exposed shadows in the foreground. That's pretty much the epitome of first-world problems as far as I'm concerned and I'm kind of embarrassed for them.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



neuroanatomist said:


> Which is exactly the point. You use the sensor every time you take a shot, so if Canon sensors were _so_ inferior, Canon would not have remained the market leader.





Right now, Canon sensors are absolutely inferior at low ISO. This is fact. 

I'm not really interested in who sells the most hamburgers. If I was, I'd be shooting grizzlies with iPads and you probably wouldn't hear from me soon.




> How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them? They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up. While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.



Fortunately, technological improvements aren't based on this. 

The low ISO DR of the Exmor's is extremely beneficial for landscape and wildlife shooters. I know a few shooters who even tossed their GND's. Simply expose for the sky and lift your shadows later on with minimal penalty.

This is a good thing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



MichaelHodges said:


> I'm not really interested in who sells the most...



The topic of the thread is, "Do Sensors sell the Camera?" The answer is, in general, no.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 28, 2014)

True. Most people buy iPads and iPhones to shoot with. So I guess that makes them superior cameras to Canon DSLR's?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> True. Most people buy iPads and iPhones to shoot with. So I guess that makes them superior cameras to Canon DSLR's?



If it does, then Canon's dSLRs are superior among all other dSLRs.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > True. Most people buy iPads and iPhones to shoot with. So I guess that makes them superior cameras to Canon DSLR's?
> ...



I'm relieved you used the word "if" there. 8)


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



MichaelHodges said:


> Right now, Canon sensors are absolutely inferior at low ISO. This is fact.
> 
> I'm not really interested in who sells the most hamburgers. If I was, I'd be shooting grizzlies with iPads and you probably wouldn't hear from me soon.
> 
> ...



Michael, I think you may be missing the point of those (including me) who keep saying "but Canon sells more." I think everyone agrees that better IQ at any/all ISOs is a "good thing." That's not the point. The point is that you, Aglet and other pro-Exmor folks keep reminding us of your personal needs. That's great, and I wish you all the best in finding the gear that helps you do the job. The difficulty is that Canon will not change their technology based on your personal needs, nor based on the needs of a minority. They are not artists seeking the best quality product, they are a for-profit corporation. Canon is interested in profit, and takes a certain strategy to achieve it. The strategy, which has been quite successful relative to their competitors, is to make very reliable products and systems that appeal to a large market segment, and support that with strong marketing campaigns.

If Canon products do not satisfy your needs you should buy another brand, you can't expect Canon to deviate from a successful business practice to suit a minority need. This is not a question of art, it's a question of money. Because I accept this fact I'm not offended that Canon's sensors are inferior at low ISO (they are). I wish they were better, but my wishing makes no difference.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 28, 2014)

Just chiming in...have not read the entire thread.

There is no question that the sensor can make-or-break the camera. Put a 5DIII-quality sensor (quality, not size) in an EOS M3...AND tweak the focus abilities of the beast...and I am all in. Anyone who says the sensor doesn't make the camera...well I guess it is semantics. To me the sensor is an integral part of the camera. So yes, it makes the camera.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



Orangutan said:


> Michael, I think you may be missing the point of those (including me) who keep saying "but Canon sells more." I think everyone agrees that better IQ at any/all ISOs is a "good thing." That's not the point. The point is that you, Aglet and other pro-Exmor folks keep reminding us of your personal needs.




Isn't everyone "pro-better sensor"? 

At least I hope so within the context of a forum dedicated to tech and gear rumors.






> That's great, and I wish you all the best in finding the gear that helps you do the job. The difficulty is that Canon will not change their technology based on your personal needs, nor based on the needs of a minority. They are not artists seeking the best quality product, they are a for-profit corporation. Canon is interested in profit, and takes a certain strategy to achieve it. The strategy, which has been quite successful relative to their competitors, is to make very reliable products and systems that appeal to a large market segment, and support that with strong marketing campaigns.



No argument here.




> If Canon products do not satisfy your needs you should buy another brand, you can't expect Canon to deviate from a successful business practice to suit a minority need. This is not a question of art, it's a question of money. Because I accept this fact I'm not offended that Canon's sensors are inferior at low ISO (they are). I wish they were better, but my wishing makes no difference.



Yeah I'm not jumping ship. I prefer the Canon system. That said, as a first time user, the DR of the Sony sensors would make me think twice about Canon's commitment to sensor technology in the long run.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



MichaelHodges said:


> Yeah I'm not jumping ship. I prefer the Canon system. That said, as a first time user, the DR of the Sony sensors would make me think twice about Canon's commitment to sensor technology in the long run.



I think it's more a commitment to getting the most money out of an investment in facilities. As I've written before, I'm certain that Canon can and will deliver better sensors when the market requires it. They may walk backwards into that better sensor tech if their P&S line is forced to reduce output, and they re-purpose those facilities for DSLRs. (mentioned by someone else earlier, I forget who)


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



Orangutan said:


> I think it's more a commitment to getting the most money out of an investment in facilities.




Wow, not the best marketing pitch:

_Canon: When you choose one of our DSLR's, you know we've made a commitment to getting the most money out of an investment in facilities._


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



neuroanatomist said:


> How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them? They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up. While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.



It's essentially an emergency recovery tool for badly underexposed photos. High quality landscape work...where extended DR is often needed...is simply not produced this way. You bracket and blend/HDR, or use GND filters.

This goes back to the reason for the common advice to ETTR: there are few tonal values in the deep shadows. Sometimes I am surprised and find that I can process a single file where I shot expecting to HDR. But if I have to push shadows more then 2...maybe 2.5 stops...I find that the problem is not Canon sensor noise, but the simple fact that the tonality and detail is sub par vs. a properly produced shot.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



Orangutan said:


> I think it's more a commitment to getting the most money out of an investment in facilities. As I've written before, I'm certain that Canon can and will deliver better sensors when the market requires it. They may walk backwards into that better sensor tech if their P&S line is forced to reduce output, and they re-purpose those facilities for DSLRs. (mentioned by someone else earlier, I forget who)



That was me.... and it is pure speculation..... absolutely NO inside knowledge.... call it a CR0


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



dtaylor said:


> It's essentially an emergency recovery tool for badly underexposed photos. High quality landscape work...where extended DR is often needed...is simply not produced this way. You bracket and blend/HDR, or use GND filters.



IS? High quality work is produced with a telephoto lens on a sturdy tripod. Auto focus? Nah. If you don't have the skills to work the focus ring in a timely fashion, you can't produce good work.




> I find that the problem is not Canon sensor noise, but the simple fact that the tonality and detail is sub par vs. a properly produced shot.



Tonality and detail is sub-par if you're lifting shadows with a sensor that can't handle it.


----------



## Policar (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



dtaylor said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them? They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up. While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.
> ...



The need for extended DR in landscape photography confuses me. Velvia, long the standard for 4x5 color photography, had 4-5 stops of DR and produces the most beautiful images.

Even the zone system (the first incarnation of tone mapping) works within a ten stop range.

Printed images only have 4-5 stops of contrast.... if the scene has a huge dynamic range as shot it probably won't look good printed now matter how you shoot and process it.


----------



## jvhigbee (Aug 28, 2014)

I couldn't say they make the camera but the low noise level of the 6D is the main reason I bought one. It will also likely be one of the primary concerns when I consider the 7D Mkll.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



MichaelHodges said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > It's essentially an emergency recovery tool for badly underexposed photos. High quality landscape work...where extended DR is often needed...is simply not produced this way. You bracket and blend/HDR, or use GND filters.
> ...



All false analogies.




> > I find that the problem is not Canon sensor noise, but the simple fact that the tonality and detail is sub par vs. a properly produced shot.
> 
> 
> 
> Tonality and detail is sub-par if you're lifting shadows with a sensor that can't handle it.



It doesn't matter what sensor you are using. The way tonal values are converted from analog to digital and encoded means that the lower stops of exposure have fewer possible tones.

See: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



Policar said:


> The need for extended DR in landscape photography confuses me. Velvia, long the standard for 4x5 color photography, had 4-5 stops of DR and produces the most beautiful images.



I would actually place it at 5-6, but regardless slide landscapes often used GND filters. Galen Rowell was one of the innovators here.



> Printed images only have 4-5 stops of contrast.... if the scene has a huge dynamic range as shot it probably won't look good printed now matter how you shoot and process it.



I would have to disagree with this. You're obviously compressing the scene luminance range down to something that can fit on paper, but done properly it looks very good and closer to what the human eye would see. Adam's original Zone System itself was a system for predictably doing this.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



MichaelHodges said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's more a commitment to getting the most money out of an investment in facilities.
> ...



That's the artist's view. 

The business view is:

_Canon: we'll be a viable company for years to come, and can invest in longterm technology development projects._


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



dtaylor said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > The need for extended DR in landscape photography confuses me. Velvia, long the standard for 4x5 color photography, had 4-5 stops of DR and produces the most beautiful images.
> ...



I never shot/developed film, but my understanding is that there's a difference between digital "dynamic range" and film "exposure latitude." Maybe someone who knows something of this can chime in...


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



Orangutan said:


> I never shot/developed film, but my understanding is that there's a difference between digital "dynamic range" and film "exposure latitude." Maybe someone who knows something of this can chime in...



There was a difference between those terms in the film world before digital. Also: "dynamic range" didn't really take hold in the film word until scanners became common place. Sometimes "exposure latitude" was used to describe what we would call DR today. Other times it might be called exposure range or luminance range.

Strictly speaking, exposure latitude is how far the film can be pushed/pulled during printing to render correct tones given an underexposed/overexposed scene that was still within the film's total exposure or dynamic range.

So if you have a 10 stop film and you shoot a 4 stop scene underexposed by 3 stops, can you make a successful print?

I would argue that exposure latitude is more appropriate to describe what we observe with Exmor sensors. Time and again examples show that Canon sensors are recording similar shadow detail, it's just marred by noise. If that noise can be successfully cleaned up, the IQ differences are minimal. In very deep shadows it is often difficult or impossible to clean up. In either case, Exmor clearly has more exposure latitude at the hardware level.


----------



## jrista (Aug 28, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> > The 5D III can be used for landscapes. It's just a lot more work to clean up each image in post than I had expected it to be. Based on the raving reviews and everyone who said the 5D III noise was much better, I expected the 5D III low ISO noise to be a lot better than it is. Even a +3 stop shadow recovery is actually asking a bit much of the 5D III...you still get vertical banding when you do that, and the 5D III banding does not seem to clean up as well as the 7D did. I put off landscapes for a while, as I did not like dealing with the shadows on the 7D at ISO 100 (and, because the frame size in the 7D is just not large enough for the kinds of landscapes I like to do.) Now that I have the 5D III, it's still not capable of doing quite what I want to do...so I'm considering buying a D810 and a 14-24mm f/2.8.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The problem isn't noise in general. The 5D III photon shot noise cleans up VERY well, much better than my 7D. The noise I was referring to was the read noise. I knew it, theoretically, that it was worse on the 5D III...35e- vs. 8e- on the 7D. I was just surprised at how bad it really was. The 7D has vertical banding when lifted, but it was never quite so, intrusive, as with the 5D III. The 7D's banding was also VERY patterned, every eight pixel columns...so cleaning it up with Topaz DeNoise 5 was a lot more successful. The 5D III's banding has actually proven to be pretty difficult to clean up with DeNoise...and it does not seem to be very consistent...the banding changes a bit from frame to frame...as if it is a mix of fixed and semi-random patterns. 

Anyway, lifting deep shadows out of the 7D was better, although cleaning up poisson noise was harder. Cleaning up poisson noise with the 5D III is easier, however it's ISO 100 and 200 read noise in the deep shadows is really, truly hideous. 



MichaelHodges said:


> > I could wait for Canon to do something with the 5D IV...but, I don't really think they will. I think the 5D IV will arrive with the same old kind of read noise, they will still be losing two stops of dynamic range...and I don't think it's worth waiting any longer.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think it's clear Canon is going to sit tight with their conservative designs. More and more they are becoming like Toyota, competent and comfortable, but living off their peak of 2001-2005.



That would be a really sad outcome. Toyota is another example of a phenomenal company that has lost their edge, and isn't fairing as well in the modern environment. They used to make flawless cars, and were cranking out new car models faster than anyone. Now, they have had recalls recently, and their newer car designs aren't all that great. 

I really hope Canon doesn't become another relic in a museum of companies that failed to compete, or worse, failed outright because they weren't competitive enough when and where it mattered. (I know that there is no market evidence yet to show a shift...however, I was looking around, and the last concrete DSLR market details we have are from 2010. We have a little bit from 2011 and 2012, but there is no real concrete, detailed, full market analysis from 2012 or 2013...so we really don't know how the fundamentals of the market, specifically the DSLR market, have fared since the introductions of the 5D III, D800, 1D X, etc.)


----------



## jrista (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



neuroanatomist said:


> How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them? They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up. While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.



A lot of people do just that, yes. However, I have been showing examples where underexposing was a necessity. I'm an "afternoon landscaper"...I can never get up early enough in the morning (which is really early, like 3:30am), in order to be able to drive out to the kinds of beautiful landscapes I want to photograph, but get there in time to set up and be ready to go by the time the *rising* sun lights the clouds afire with color.

So, I'm stuck taking my photos in the afternoon, when the setting sun washes the clouds in color. Problem is, all the mountains are to my west, same direction as the sun. Even if I keep the sun itself out of my frame, I'm still trying to photograph scenes with MASSIVE dynamic range. It isn't under-exposing if your trying to avoid clipping the highlights. 

I was just out again today, trying to find some good mountains with colorful sunset clouds (largely a bust...the clouds just never got colorful). Anyway, it's always the same problem for me...every landscape has massive amounts of dynamic range. Even WITH stacking three GND filters (Lee 0.9, 0.6, and 0.3, or 3, 2, and 1 stop...that's SIX STOPS of GND filtration, and it still isn't enough!!) When you stack that much filtration, if the clouds are still bright enough, or if you have any kind of uneven horizon (usually the case with mountains), you end up with an inverse gradient to shadow...the mountains get darker and darker as they get higher. 

I haven't done landscapes in a while...but nothing's changed now that I'm shooting them again with the 5D III. I'm not underexposing my shots by 4-5 stops....I'm exposing for the highlights. I always bracket, of course...but, all the problems still exist...the inverse mountain gradients when using GNDs, the massive amounts of scene DR. These are real-world situations where I'm encountering too much DR for Canon sensors to handle, and it's proving to be a hell of a lot of work to merge an HDR that doesn't have posterization problems around the bright areas, doesn't have motion ghosting problems around wind-blown grass and trees, etc. 

With two more stops of sensor DR, or to be more specific...with two more stops of shadow-lifting ability, with a sensor that has read noise in the deep shadows that has a nice random appearance without any banding of any kind, I could probably get away with my GND filters, some hefty shadow lifting, and one single shot...instead of bracketing 5, 7, 9 shots and having to deal with some frustrating HDR mergers. Things aren't quite as bad when I'm west facing east at sunset, or east facing west at sunrise...however, even in those circumstances, many of my older shots, taking with my 450D and 7D, still have problems with detail in the shadows...those cameras still have 11 stops or less of DR. Having two extra stops would have meant I could pull out much cleaner, more colorful detail from the shadows. 

I'd really be curious to know, how many people run into the same situation? I've been spending a lot of time browsing through landscapes at 500px. There are a LOT of people who photograph landscapes. I think landscapes might be 500px's largest category.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> The 5D III's banding has actually proven to be pretty difficult to clean up with DeNoise...and it does not seem to be very consistent...the banding changes a bit from frame to frame...as if it is a mix of fixed and semi-random patterns.



When I was studying the nature of the FPN I could find on my 40D there was indeed a fixed pattern noise and another pattern noise structure that was not fixed but varied in location.
I shot some bursts at full speed and when I looked at the noise from those there was a pattern which was the same on all frames and another pattern which traveled vertically from frame to frame yet looked otherwise similar.
I'm guessing these traveling bands of noise patterns are due to high frequency interference from internal circuitry, probably some of the internal switch-mode power supplies. It could also be ground loop type issues allowing the digital side to contribute noise to the analog side or a few other design/build compromises producing this problem. Fortunately, my 40D's base noise levels are quite low, allowing me to push shadows quite hard w-o requiring NR but it's still not nearly as clean as a little Nikon D5100.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



Orangutan said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Policar said:
> ...



DTaylor explained it in his post. I'd like to stress the important fact that film is not equal to film. Here is a general rule that fits it more or less well. Standard slide films e.g. are made for high contrast, they are made to shine through them a lot of bright projector's light. The price for this high contrast is that they can't be pushed much when they are developed without losing highlight details. Prints on paper on the other side have always only low DR (in terms of digital age), so if they are made from classic film, you can push those films much more. This article might help you a bit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 28, 2014)

JusSayin said:


> I am really appreciative of the replies coming in. Trying to make sense out of something to make a big purchase. Coming from a background in film with a storehouse of Nikon, Mamiya, and Sinar gear. Sinar still in use. So I know my way around a camera. Got a Canon 300D in 2003. But my studio work was with Nikon D4s and D5s when I shot 35. So my love affair with the 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 were actually addictions. I had the Nikon D90 and D7000. And used the D700 when I had a Canon 5D then 5DII. I rent D800s. At low ISOs a monster. But there is something sweet about skin tones and tonal gradations rolling off the Canon sensors that you can't measure. Then I used a 6D and 1Dx. I am so confused. My wife says its too easy to resolve. Buy nothing!
> Thanks Antono. I know for a fact that Leibovitz uses Canon when she is not using Hassleblad digital. She used Nikon back with the D3 maybe 4 years ago. Her primary lens has been the 24-70/2.8. I was a bit shocked to learn
> that Bensimon even used a DSLR. He was always a bit obsessed about image detail. He's using the 5DIII.



This is a very interesting story, thank you very much for sharing. I am just an amateur (but really no beginner), so here my 50 cents from this viewpoint. As some other posters here I think it is the whole gear, the complete camera + lens combo, what counts. I remember the shock wave rolling through Leica forums when DXO published that the Leica M9's sensor was sort of the worst one in the world - compared with sensors of other brands of that time. But this couldn't change the fact that some wonderful images had been made with a M9 and fine Leica glass. DXO also found in an extended lab review with a bigger lens line, that a 5D3's average resolution wasn't worse than a D800's. I personally think that all cameras today are so good that ergonomics is most important (everyone grown up in the 35 mm film age might share my opinion). They have to serve you as tool that allows for a smooth creative workflow. I personally love Canon's 2-wheel-ergonomics, but that's because I am so much used to it I could be awakened from sleep and immediately use my camera - and that's what really counts I think (as an amateur).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them? They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up. While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.
> ...



As I stated, there _are_ valid reasons, albeit very rare ones. In your case, not strictly a necessity, since you _could_ get up at 3:30a but don't want to. 

Consider the USA – what states are immediately to the east of large mountain ranges? Yours, Nevada, etc. Tiny fraction of the US population, so even if there are the same per capita number of landscape shooters, that's not many people. 

That's really the whole point here...the number of people who require (or believe they require) that kind of shadow lifting capability is minuscule relative to the dSLR market.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



MichaelHodges said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Which is exactly the point. You use the sensor every time you take a shot, so if Canon sensors were _so_ inferior, Canon would not have remained the market leader.
> ...



I'm genuinely intrigued, would you say wildlife work is mostly low-ISO? I find the opposite.


----------



## jpaana (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



jrista said:


> With two more stops of sensor DR, or to be more specific...with two more stops of shadow-lifting ability, with a sensor that has read noise in the deep shadows that has a nice random appearance without any banding of any kind, I could probably get away with my GND filters, some hefty shadow lifting, and one single shot...instead of bracketing 5, 7, 9 shots and having to deal with some frustrating HDR mergers. Things aren't quite as bad when I'm west facing east at sunset, or east facing west at sunrise...however, even in those circumstances, many of my older shots, taking with my 450D and 7D, still have problems with detail in the shadows...those cameras still have 11 stops or less of DR. Having two extra stops would have meant I could pull out much cleaner, more colorful detail from the shadows.
> 
> I'd really be curious to know, how many people run into the same situation? I've been spending a lot of time browsing through landscapes at 500px. There are a LOT of people who photograph landscapes. I think landscapes might be 500px's largest category.



This might be a case where Magic Lantern's dual iso mode (and auto ETTR) helps, at least that's how I've used it in challenging situations, letting auto ETTR expose iso 100 to not clip (or let them clip a bit) highlights and then have iso 800 or so help with shadows.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



jrista said:


> *with two more stops* of shadow-lifting ability, with a sensor that has read noise in the deep shadows that has a nice random appearance without any banding of any kind, I could probably get away with my GND filters, some hefty shadow lifting, and one single shot...*instead of bracketing 5, 7, 9 shots* and having to deal with some frustrating HDR mergers.



If you're looking for two more stops in the shadows, why are you bracketing 5, 7, 9 shots? Just bracket 2, one for the highlights and one two stops brighter. That would significantly mitigate the frustration of merging (fewer options for ghosting to occur, less labor, etc). You're still left dealing with the GND gradient, but that's true in both of your scenarios.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



scyrene said:


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




Wildlife chooses the appropriate ISO setting. I find myself shooting from ISO 100 to 12,800 in RAW (yes, the 6D can handle this). 

This shot was recently picked up for an international textbook run. It was *cold*, and I had to expose for the sky. I'm happy with what the 7D did here, but it could have been much cleaner. This was either ISO 100 or 200:







I had to lift the bison/foreground by a couple stops. The pattern noise and lack of detail in the lower third of the frame has prevented me from printing this image as large as I would like, unfortunately.

For my preferred shots (animalscapes) low ISO dynamic range is incredibly important.


----------



## David Hull (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



MichaelHodges said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > All of this Sensor Hype is probably meaningless to that crowd as well just the same as it is to 90% of those buying Sony and Nikon equipment. If this were all that important, Nikon cameras would be selling a lot better than Canon and that is not what we really see.
> ...


So... it would seem that what you are saying is that it is the overall "system" that matters and not only the sensor or the camera. I don't think too many here will argue with that.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



David Hull said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > David Hull said:
> ...



That's an odd way to read the sentence you quoted...


----------



## David Hull (Aug 28, 2014)

unfocused said:


> For me, the sensor is probably the least important part of the camera.
> 
> It's been that way ever since I bought a 7D and it continues to be the case with my 5DIII. I have never, ever felt limited by the sensor.
> 
> ...


I think I would be more impressed with these sorts of photographers if they produced something artistically compelling when they did this. I keep harking back to the infamous Fred Miranda comparison of the 5dIII and the D800 where he shot a bunch of beautiful photos in Yosemite but to demonstrate how bad the Canon was he had to go find a special scene to demonstrate it and produced a photo that was unusable for anything but his demo. this after he proved that he could shoot such magnificent shots with the Canon equipment.

This is why I comment that most of this whole sensor argument is hype for the most part.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



MichaelHodges said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelHodges said:
> ...



Oh yes, I remember that one. It's a valid case, although I'd say 'animals in landscapes' are a small subset of wildlife shots (or a crossover between the two genres). Surely many/most/a significant number/a majority of wildlife shots are taken with long lenses, so narrower apertures (f/4 and smaller), and therefore at higher ISO. I wonder if anyone else has input on this?


----------



## Famateur (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



neuroanatomist said:


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



I'm feeling lucky to be in the Salt Lake Valley -- mountain ranges to my east _and _west. ;D

Whether the sun is rising or setting, I've got options for whether or not to shoot into the sun.


----------



## jrista (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



3kramd5 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > *with two more stops* of shadow-lifting ability, with a sensor that has read noise in the deep shadows that has a nice random appearance without any banding of any kind, I could probably get away with my GND filters, some hefty shadow lifting, and one single shot...*instead of bracketing 5, 7, 9 shots* and having to deal with some frustrating HDR mergers.
> ...



Have you ever tried to HDR merge just two or three frames when you have harsh highlight transitions? You end up with posterization and harsh transitions. The number of shots brackets isn't for more DR, it's to get a better blend around either the sun or very bright backlit clouds.


----------



## jrista (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



jpaana said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > With two more stops of sensor DR, or to be more specific...with two more stops of shadow-lifting ability, with a sensor that has read noise in the deep shadows that has a nice random appearance without any banding of any kind, I could probably get away with my GND filters, some hefty shadow lifting, and one single shot...instead of bracketing 5, 7, 9 shots and having to deal with some frustrating HDR mergers. Things aren't quite as bad when I'm west facing east at sunset, or east facing west at sunrise...however, even in those circumstances, many of my older shots, taking with my 450D and 7D, still have problems with detail in the shadows...those cameras still have 11 stops or less of DR. Having two extra stops would have meant I could pull out much cleaner, more colorful detail from the shadows.
> ...



Magic Lantern's Dual-ISO uses line-skipping, and alternates which ISO is used for each line. You effectively get half the resolution. That's not a cost I'm willing to pay.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



jrista said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Nope, I've never done any HDR (hence the question). Thanks.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



Famateur said:


> I'm feeling lucky to be in the Salt Lake Valley -- mountain ranges to my east _and _west. ;D
> 
> Whether the sun is rising or setting, I've got options for whether or not so shoot into the sun.



This time of year in Illinois it's impossible to see over the corn to find out if there are any mountain ranges lurking about.


----------



## jrista (Aug 28, 2014)

There are more reasons to want a sensor with higher DR, for landscapes and for other things. Here is one of my shots from yesterday:






I've got bracketed shots for this, but I doubt I'll actually use them, as in some the water is frozen, and in others the water motion is blurred. The V-shaped patch of sky at the end of the river is an example of where no kind of filtration will solve the problem either. Having more sensor DR, however, would have...given how much the highlights clipped, I'd say two extra stops would have been perfect to get this entire scene, from the clouds right down to the deeper shadows under the trees, all in a single shot. Here is another example of a scene where GND filtration just doesn't really help:






Granted, these aren't "bad" shots...but neither is it what I wanted. I ended up re-framing to move the sky out of the frame:


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> I've got bracketed shots for this, but I doubt I'll actually use them, as in some the water is frozen, and in others the water motion is blurred. The V-shaped patch of sky at the end of the river is an example of where no kind of filtration will solve the problem either. Having more sensor DR, however, would have...given how much the highlights clipped, I'd say two extra stops would have been perfect to get this entire scene, from the clouds right down to the deeper shadows under the trees, all in a single shot. Here is another example of a scene where GND filtration just doesn't really help:



You can easily use PS HDR for moving water, just choose which image you want to use as the key frame, check the Remove Ghosts option and you are done. I just did a series of a fountain and even CS6 is freaky good at water.

Also, your V shaped sky is why I have never been a graduated ND filter fan, there is almost always something on the line that makes it not work, but, Background Erase tool is designed for this scenario, it takes seconds to effortlessly layer out your sky to a different exposure.

Not arguing against newer tech or suggesting what we have is enough, just pointing out that you are mistaken in your blending and post processing beliefs. Things have moved on a lot in the last few years and you clearly don't blend/HDR a lot.


----------



## jrista (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I've got bracketed shots for this, but I doubt I'll actually use them, as in some the water is frozen, and in others the water motion is blurred. The V-shaped patch of sky at the end of the river is an example of where no kind of filtration will solve the problem either. Having more sensor DR, however, would have...given how much the highlights clipped, I'd say two extra stops would have been perfect to get this entire scene, from the clouds right down to the deeper shadows under the trees, all in a single shot. Here is another example of a scene where GND filtration just doesn't really help:
> ...



While I'm happy to admit I haven't done HDR blends for lanscapes in a couple of years, I do know how to use the ghost removal tool. Here is an HDR of the one scene, five frame blend. I was able to recover a lot of the sky (it was overcast, so not much to see there, it's just not fully blown out white now). It's not perfect...I don't really care for how the tops of the trees blend into the sky...but there is only so much you can do, I guess (and that's probably true of using a D800 as well):






However, there are still artifacts in the water. Here are a couple crops of the single frame edited in LR:










And here are the same crops from the HDR:










There always seems to be something with HDR that just doesn't come out right. I've never done a background erase...I could try that, although what I'd replace it with I honestly don't know. I could spend time layering and manually blending in detail from a layer with the LR edits into the HDR image. The point is, I wouldn't have to spend all this extra time trying to correct a photo if I had more DR. 

It's not a complicated argument, it's a pretty simple one. Sure, there are tools that can alleviate the limitations of Canon sensor DR...but it's more work. They don't always work. Give me ~14 stops of DR, better yet, give me ~16 stops of DR in a new camera with high resolution and a new 16-bit ADC, and most of these problems (no, I don't believe every single problem will go away, but most) will stop being problems.

To the point of the original question that started this topic: Does my argument here mean "The sensor makes the camera"? No, of course not. No one feature "makes the camera"...cameras are tools. Just like we use a hammer to pound nails, a screwdriver to screw in screws, and a saw to cut wood, different cameras are tools that solve different problems. Having a sensor with more DR means you have the option of buying a tool that solves certain problems. Personally, I would REALLY like to have a Canon camera that solved the problems I face whenever I head out to do landscape photography. I prefer the Canon system overall...I prefer most of their lenses (their wide angle lenses are a bit wanting, they really need to update the 16-35 f/2.8 L II...they could really use some better ultra wides in the 14 to 24 mm range overall, be they primes or zooms, that have significantly improved corner performance...as that's where Canon's wide to ultra wide angle lenses suffer), I prefer Canon ergonomics, I prefer Canon's AF system. However for certain kinds of photography, Canon does not really have an offering to fill that spot in your toolbox where lots of DR is needed and can be used. It doesn't matter if it's 14 stops, 16 stops, or 20 stops...more DR can always be used.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 28, 2014)

jrista said:


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



that's a tricky shot - because if you expose for the highlights you lose the motion blur of the water. normal convention even on a D800,etc would be to expose for the sky and yank up the shadows - so in this case the DR of a sony sensor really wouldn't help you that much.

however just from the small image your sky really hard clipped. i'd take a look at your other exposures and see if you can blend in the sky from another one.

you'd end up doing this on any camera.

Even though some claim it's a gimmic - I turn on HTP as well if i think I may hard clip skies, bracket on three shots and use ETTR and try not to clip as much as possible and blend when necessary.

however I doubt 2EV DR would help unless you had two 2EV DR in highlight headroom.


----------



## jrista (Aug 28, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> however I doubt 2EV DR would help unless you had two 2EV DR in highlight headroom.



This is a misnomer. There is no such thing as DR only in the highlights. Dynamic range defines the range from highlights to deepest usable shadows. You cannot have "highlight DR" or "two stops DR in highlight headroom"...that's just not how it works. The D800 gains dynamic range primarily by reducing read noise. That doesn't change the midtones or highlights, or for that matter even the brighter shadows. However, what it DOES allow you to do is underexpose to PRESERVE the highlights, and have relatively clean deep shadow detail that can be lifted and not be riddled with banding and color noise. 

The D800 DOES give you the ability to recover 2EV worth of highlights...that's what shadow recovery is all about. Canon's shadows are "dirty", and they are dirty up to a level much higher than the D800's. If I try to recover a photo exposed to preserve the highlights with the 5D III, instead of workable detail, I get lots of muddy color-noise infested "detail", red vertical and some horizontal banding, and very heavy grain. 

In this shot, the sky was pretty much impossible anyway. It was a backlit light overcast sky...there really isn't much detail there to start with. My biggest complaint was how the tree tops disappeared into the sky in the non-HDR. In my darkest frame, which was underexposed over two stops, the sky is visible, but it doesn't really look any different than what I've got in the HDR.


----------



## jpaana (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



jrista said:


> Magic Lantern's Dual-ISO uses line-skipping, and alternates which ISO is used for each line. You effectively get half the resolution. That's not a cost I'm willing to pay.



Fortunately it's not quite that bad, resolution loss only happens where the brighter exposure clips highlights, which in landscapes usually is sky, where it's not that critical.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > however I doubt 2EV DR would help unless you had two 2EV DR in highlight headroom.
> ...



I think you missed the point. Of course DR isn't specific to one end of the range, it defines the range. While that's fine in the abstract, real world considerations impose constraints on that abstract situation. If your aperture is constrained by your DoF needs, your shutter speed constrained by a need to stop or show motion, then certain parts of the range are not achievable. 

Say there was an interesting cloud formation against blue sky in your scene. His point was that an extra two stops of DR in a single shot would not give you that nice sky detail over moving water, because the exposure needed to preserve the sky would require a shutter speed too fast to show enough motion blur in the water. You could bring up the detail in the water more cleanly with an Exmor sensor, but you'd still have minimal motion blur in the water. 

As you stated, there's only so much you can do, even with a D800 (although in the above scenario, the lower base ISO of the D810 would help). Exmor and 2 extra stops of DR aren't a panacea.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 28, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



jpaana said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > With two more stops of sensor DR, or to be more specific...with two more stops of shadow-lifting ability, with a sensor that has read noise in the deep shadows that has a nice random appearance without any banding of any kind, I could probably get away with my GND filters, some hefty shadow lifting, and one single shot...instead of bracketing 5, 7, 9 shots and having to deal with some frustrating HDR mergers. Things aren't quite as bad when I'm west facing east at sunset, or east facing west at sunrise...however, even in those circumstances, many of my older shots, taking with my 450D and 7D, still have problems with detail in the shadows...those cameras still have 11 stops or less of DR. Having two extra stops would have meant I could pull out much cleaner, more colorful detail from the shadows.
> ...



Something's not adding up. 2 more stops of range != 5-9 shots in an HDR merge. Heck, if all you need is 2 stops you can fire off two frames and quickly blend them without any HDR software using a layer mask. You can hand hold that with most DSLRs.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 28, 2014)

David Hull said:


> I think I would be more impressed with these sorts of photographers if they produced something artistically compelling when they did this. I keep harking back to the infamous Fred Miranda comparison of the 5dIII and the D800 where he shot a bunch of beautiful photos in Yosemite but to demonstrate how bad the Canon was he had to go find a special scene to demonstrate it and produced a photo that was unusable for anything but his demo. this after he proved that he could shoot such magnificent shots with the Canon equipment.
> 
> This is why I comment that most of this whole sensor argument is hype for the most part.





For such huge differences it sure is hard to tell one sensor from another...even one format from another (m43, APS-C, FF)...while browsing work at Flickr and 500px.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> There are more reasons to want a sensor with higher DR, for landscapes and for other things. Here is one of my shots from yesterday:
> I've got bracketed shots for this, but I doubt I'll actually use them, as in some the water is frozen, and in others the water motion is blurred. The V-shaped patch of sky at the end of the river is an example of where no kind of filtration will solve the problem either.



Blend two of the frames with a layer mask and "paint" in either the sky or the shadows (depending on which frame you want to be the primary.)


----------



## jrista (Aug 28, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There are more reasons to want a sensor with higher DR, for landscapes and for other things. Here is one of my shots from yesterday:
> ...



Sure, that's an option. You guys are STILL missing the point. Manually blending with layer masks and whatnot is STILL MORE WORK. When you fill GIGS of CF cards every time you go out, having to do all that for even half the images is too much work. That's the entire point here. Yeah, there are options...but they all involve more work. The benefit of increased editing latitude is it reduces the workload.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


Whilst I take your point that more work is more work and if a different piece of gear can save you that why not use it, or at least covert it , anybody shooting gigs and gigs of images every time they go out really isn't shooting with the highest IQ forefront in their mind.

But anyway, whilst I am no Canon apologist here is an example, not dissimilar to yours (without the water) where a GND would not have been any help, but I am pragmatic enough to accept that an extra two stops of sensor DR would not have helped much as the shadows still wouldn't have held detail and I want the contrast anyway, I hate the flat HDR look your sunflowers had. It took 15 seconds to make the second one from the first one. I took a further two minutes to make it look OK!


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> Sure, that's an option. You guys are STILL missing the point. Manually blending with layer masks and whatnot is STILL MORE WORK.



I get the point. But you overestimate what can be done with Exmor. The guys I know with Nikon and Sony have not abandoned their HDR software or GND filters. At least one person in that other thread who owns both Canon and Sony told you that the difference was simply not night and day like you seem to think it is.

Your darkest sunflower shot would not have worked on Exmor. You're focusing on the noise, but the tonality is mud that deep in the shadows. If the sun is in the frame and not masked by fog or a marine layer you are going to have to deal with the insane luminance range using filtration or multiple exposures. I would guess that's not really going to change until we have 20 stop sensors.

The river shot with the triangle patch of sky...I'm somewhat surprised you don't have a frame you can successfully process, and I can't help but wonder if you are being too critical of noise that will never be seen in print. I could certainly be wrong, I wasn't there, but I've shot scenes that seem similar and come home to discover I didn't need to blend.

Processing wide luminance range scenes will occasionally be easier with Exmor. You will occasionally be able to use a single frame where you would have decided to blend at least two on Canon. Not all the time. That said if you want occasionally easier...pick up an A7 or A7R and an EF lens adapter. Problem solved.

Going on and on about this on forums is not going to change anything on Canon's development schedule by even one second. It's false to assume Canon could release an Exmor type sensor tomorrow but they're being lazy. It's also false to assume that any of this is going to push them to produce something sooner.


----------



## jrista (Aug 28, 2014)

*Sigh* I guess I'll be renting a D800 at some point in the near future here, as I don't think anything else but real data is going to prove the point. 

@PBD: Your photos of the 4WD are much more brightly exposed. I'd be willing to bet little if any data in the shadows is buried in the read noise, which means the image isn't DR limited. That's another point no one seems to get, but whatever, nothing but two RAW files, one from a 5D III and one from a D800, that I can upload so you guys can compare yourselves, is ever going to settle the issue.  

Anyway, I did not want to completely hijack another thread. I hope the OP got is answer.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> @PBD: Your photos of the 4WD are much more brightly exposed. I'd be willing to bet little if any data in the shadows is buried in the read noise, which means the image isn't DR limited. That's another point no one seems to get, but whatever, nothing but two RAW files, one from a 5D III and one from a D800, that I can upload so you guys can compare yourselves, is ever going to settle the issue.



Of course it is DR limited, I exposed so I didn't lose the shadows (I do have some experience exposing for Canon sensors  ), I completely blew the sky.


----------



## jrista (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > @PBD: Your photos of the 4WD are much more brightly exposed. I'd be willing to bet little if any data in the shadows is buried in the read noise, which means the image isn't DR limited. That's another point no one seems to get, but whatever, nothing but two RAW files, one from a 5D III and one from a D800, that I can upload so you guys can compare yourselves, is ever going to settle the issue.
> ...



Hmm, maybe I misunderstood. Did you recover the sky? Or replace the sky?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 28, 2014)

jrista said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > however I doubt 2EV DR would help unless you had two 2EV DR in highlight headroom.
> ...



you're not thinking it through and looking to blame canon.

to use that extra headroom - you have to expose with a faster shutter speed, if you use a faster shutter speed, then you wouldn't get the water motion. Otherwise you have to use a higher ISO, in which the D800 serves no advantage over the 5D.

if your shot was at say ISO 100 f/32 1/50th of a second (as an example) on the 5D then shooting that at ISO 100 f/32 1/50th of a second will not give you more highlight headroom on the D800. your 2EV is in the shadows and no help to you. if you increased your shutter speed on the D800 to get the highlight headroom, thus ISO 100 f/32 1/200th of a second - and pulled the shadows, then your water would be stopped, and not show motion. Now if you had enough ND filters, etc - you could shoot at ISO 400 f/32 1/50th of a second on the D800 - but then again, you don't have that DR that you need as the 5D and the D800 at ISO 400 or so are close to the same anyways.

So saying .. OMFG more DR.. well not quite.

like i said - this is tricky with either camera.

I'm not sure if you used the original 5D .. but that baby really taught someone how to handle highlight clipping.

I'm a little more aware of highlight clipping because I also shoot infrared - and clipped raw highlights on IR .. completely ruin the image. there is no real recovery from that. you ETTR because basically you have a limited amount of data to work and you don't want to clip those precious highlights.

cloudly skies i always bracket for HDR regardless - why? because you can extract that much more dynamic and interesting cloud detail even from what would see to be overcast conditions than just a properly exposed .. bleh white sky.

I'm always of the belief that under most cases if you are 2EV short on DR - you should for most cases be able to handle that. by either RAW latitude or by multishot exposure.

I'm not sure what tools you are using for your work, but if you are having problems with your blending - have you tried different RAW converters? and used the TIFF outputs from them into something like photomatix?

some of your problems with bleeding etc could simply be what your raw converter is doing when it's in the clipping area - remembering of course that bayer is an inexact science to begin with.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

jrista said:


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



I replaced it, it took 15 seconds and a further couple of minutes to make look OK (which I don't have on my laptop). I suppose my point was any picture that I want to display I am going to spend a few minutes on as a minimum, and I can deal with a blown sky in no time, anything I am going to print I will take much more time over anyway. It really doesn't make any difference to me what file the info is on, I can make it work fast.

I think there is something to Daniels comments, whilst you can lift the Exmor shadows without the noise of the Canon sensors, there still isn't any detail there, and I think you are thinking they will give you more than they actually will. I know when you do first try one out you will be amazed, but after time you will question the results you get in a different way.

Yes I agree more isn't a bad thing and the shadow noise in Canon's is a weak point, but as all solutions are invariably a compromise, I can deal with that as the biggest compromise in my system.


----------



## jrista (Aug 29, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Have you ever heard of a neutral density filter? I use Lee ProGlass ND filters to solve the problem of needing a faster shutter speed, so it's not an issue. However, I broke the filter I had with me yesterday, though. I was using a 2-stop ND filter earlier, then this happened. :'( :'( :'():











I don't know why, but this filter slipped right out of the Lee filter holder, hit the rocks in the shore of the river, and that was it. 

Which brings me to another point. Getting good quality filters that have a minimal impact on IQ is expensive. This two-stop 100x100mm Lee ProGlass 0.6 ND filter costs about $160-$180. The resin versions, which have a larger impact on IQ (especially when paired with resin GND filters), still cost about $120. Now, I'd still use solid ND filters with a D800, for the exact same reasons. However, the GND filters are similar in cost...I've spend between $150 to $185 on Lee GND filters. I have a whole range of them, both soft and hard grad, one stop through four stop. That is a LOT of extra cost. It's also more to lug around. It's more that can get broken or scratched. I won't be able to completely eliminate GND filters with a D800. However improvements to sensor IQ won't stop at 14 stops of DR. Soon enough we'll have 16-bit ADC and we'll start seeing cameras with 15-16 stops. Then we'll probably see 20-bit ADC some time down the road, and we'll start seeing cameras with 18, 19, nearly 20 stops of DR.

Anyway, use of solid ND filtration, especially with glass ND filters (they don't affect IQ as much as resin filters) completely negates the whole shutter speed argument.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Yes, true. stacking more ND filters in front of the D800 moreso than the 5D would assist, then ETTR for the highlights on the D800 while dealing with D800's woefully poor liveview implementation because your OVF is dark. 

sorry to hear about the filter - those things are a bear to replace.

honestly? I bet most seriously landscapers still use GND's on the D800. with a bayer array I'm wondering how many actually even use ISO 100? I know for critical landscape - I dont' - as i like to keep my shutter speed up high enough to keep green foliage microcontrast as good as possible. I would say 60% of my landscape is at 400, and 20 at 200 and 10 at 100.

while pulling shadows is cool and fun - it doesn't replace good technique. you end up getting a picture that just seems "off" more time than naught.


----------



## jrista (Aug 29, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Why would you need to stack more ND filters with the D800 than 5D III? Exposure is exposure, it doesn't change from camera to camera. The same exposure settings would be used for either camera...the only difference between the two is that two more stops of shadow detail are recoverable with the D800 than 5D III. I'd still use a single two stop, maybe a three stop filter.

From what I understand, the D810 does not have the D800's poor live view implementation, however even if it did...I'd still tether to my tablet and use that as a much larger, better live view screen.

And, again...pulling shadows isn't about being fun or cool. It fundamentally boils down to the preservation of highlights. That's the entire reason exposure had to be pushed down to begin with, and therefor the reason your lifting shadows. Neither is it my goal to have super bright shadows, either. I still prefer my images to have contrast...I just don't like to be *forced *to block up my shadows because to do otherwise would reveal banding or something like that. I'd prefer to have a softer, smoother falloff into shadows, rather than a harsh one...something having more DR would allow me to do more easily and with less effort.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



you would have stack more to if you were ETTR'ing and exposing for highlights on the D800 versus a normal balanced exposure and bracket on the 5D, so if you wanted to move your exposure -3EV on the D800 to expose for the highlights, and then pull up the shadows by 3EV, then you'd have to have 3EV more ND in front to maintain the same ISO and shutter speed.

to be honest though - i'd take one shot that blew the snot out of the sky and just replace it.

but honestly if you are struggling so much and you feel it's the camera - why on earth aren't you using an A7R or even an A7 with an metabones adapter for your current lenses and your problem is resolved. (outside of sony's clunky RAW and bracketing mind you)

especially just an A7, shove it in your kit for the times you feel you need that extra bit of DR lattitude. Sony can barely give the things away now - I think I've seen them used for around 1K.

No offense but it really seems like alot of wasted time and effort discussing it when you have a fairly cheap solution that uses your current lenses.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> *Sigh* I guess I'll be renting a D800 at some point in the near future here, as I don't think anything else but real data is going to prove the point.
> 
> @PBD: Your photos of the 4WD are much more brightly exposed. I'd be willing to bet little if any data in the shadows is buried in the read noise, which means the image isn't DR limited. That's another point no one seems to get, but whatever, nothing but two RAW files, one from a 5D III and one from a D800, that I can upload so you guys can compare yourselves, is ever going to settle the issue.



I'd like to see the direct comparison too. I'd turfed my 5d2 so didn't get to compare it with my d800 on the same shot.
I did have my 60D and I used it as a comparison, taking similarly exposed shots with it and the d800 of the same scene. I've shot plenty of 60D landscapes with sun-in-frame and was able to retain adequate shadow detail when pushing them within reason. My 60D performed better than my 5d2 in this regard.

The 60D example, which I pushed fairly hard, I posted, way back, in the HDR thread.

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8065.msg154889#msg154889

When I was comparing the 2, there was a considerable amount of shade information available from the d800, without showing read noise, in heavily pushed areas like the charred tree trunk, in shadow. The 60D's file was capable of being pushed even more than I would normally want for print or display without looking bad but comparing it to the same areas of the d800's shot showed a marked difference in quality.
Top-line FF Exmor vs a crop Canon is an unfair fight to start with when, even vice-versa, the crop exmor beat my 5d2. So, I would certainly be interested in seeing a direct FF comparison if you rent a D800 body.


----------



## jrista (Aug 29, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> you would have stack more to if you were ETTR'ing and exposing for highlights on the D800 versus a normal balanced exposure and bracket on the 5D, so if you wanted to move your exposure -3EV on the D800 to expose for the highlights, and then pull up the shadows by 3EV, then you'd have to have 3EV more ND in front to maintain the same ISO and shutter speed.



I think you have things backwards. You ETT*L* to preserve highlights. ETTR pushes the histogram to the right...TO the clipping point. If you are having problems with your signal clipping, you do the exact opposite...shift your histogram to the LEFT, reduce it, pull the highlights back out of the clipping point. If my highlights are clipping when I expose 1s f/16, then all I would have to really do is drop in a 2-stop ND, and that would correct the problem. I would do EXACTLY THAT, regardless of the camera...because 1s f/16 is the same regardless of whether I am using a Canon, Nikon, Sony or any other brand of camera. When you expose for the highlights, you expose for the highlights. The shadows SUFFER as a result. 

Now, with the 5D III, by dropping in that 0.6 ND, I've pushed my shadows, which were likely already hovering just above the read noise floor, are now pushed two stops into the read noise floor. On the D800? They are pushed down two stops to...just above the read noise floor. 

There is no handicap to the D800 here. I want a 1s f/16 exposure, because that's what will get the the amount of water blur I want. I don't mess with the exposure...I use a solid ND to get what I want. That may be a 1-stop, 2-stop, maybe even a 3-stop ND filter. If I REALLY want to go dreamy, and blur everything, leaves moving in the wind, clouds, and the water, I could go for the 10-stop "Big Stopper"...however I think that's more useful for coastal photography.  



rrcphoto said:


> to be honest though - i'd take one shot that blew the snot out of the sky and just replace it.
> 
> but honestly if you are struggling so much and you feel it's the camera - why on earth aren't you using an A7R or even an A7 with an metabones adapter for your current lenses and your problem is resolved. (outside of sony's clunky RAW and bracketing mind you)
> 
> ...



I'm a technical guy. As you can see, I quibble and fret over technical details. One thing about Sony that REALLY irks me is their so-called RAW files. They are LOSSY-compressed, and there have been plenty of demonstrations, particularly of landscapes, of their compression introducing artifacts into the RAW. If their messing with the RAW data coming off the sensor, and reencoding it with a different storage structure (which is what they do), then I also suspect that those files will have similar editing latitude issues as the Canon sRAW and mRAW formats do. Both sRAW and mRAW use a compression format, which is also lossy for color. It's a YCbCr format, where full luminance and either 1/2 or 1/4 the color data (depends on whether your small or medium RAW) is encoded for each pixel. 

I shot with mRAW for a couple months after I first got my 7D...those files have NOWHERE NEAR the amount of editing latitude as a real RAW. The primary ranges of exposure, the shadows, midtones, and highlights, effectively get "pinned" to a limited range. With a real RAW, I can pull bright highlights right down into the shadows, and I'll get a very dark or low-key image. With an mRAW, I simply cannot do that. I can try, but there is always a part of the bright highlights that just won't move down beyond a certain level. Same goes for shadows...I can lift them, but I cannot lift them beyond a certain point. With RAW, if I want to make certain midtones bright highlights, or even nearly-clipped whites, I can...not with mRAW. I can push and pull the midtones around within the general range of midtones, but I cannot push them very far. Not without moving the entire exposure up or down. 

So, no, sorry.  Not interested in any Sony cameras until they stop using a LOSSY "RAW" image format. That's just inane. They build a twenty billion dollar image sensor monstrosity that is cranking out some of the best sensors the world has ever seen...then they turn around and gimp the whole operation for themselves by lossy compressing their data? Just plain stupid. :

If Sony remedies that situation, then I'll gladly look into their mirrorless camera as a landscape camera. It would be nice to lighten the load a bit as well. Since I manually focus my landscapes anyway, the AF issues and such with the Sony wouldn't be an issue. Oh...I guess the only other requirement I would have is...do they support live-view tethering? Now that I've done that with my Windows 8 tablet...I really don't think I could do it any other way. It's like the digital version of a large format field camera...without the upside down image. 

Finally, I hope the time is not wasted. Canon needs to get a move on and give their landscape photographers (and anyone else who shoots anything that can make use of more DR) a high resolution, high DR camera. So we don't have to deal with things like Sony hackRAW or adding an expensive new set of Nikon lenses and a D800 to our kits (especially when we may already have lenses...I already have the 16-35 f/2.8 L II...to add a D810 for landscapes, I'd need a lens as well...the 14-24 is the logical choice...but, lot more cost than adding just a Canon body that did what I needed.) I'd hope that people who need more DR for their work would get on the bandwagon and start being vocal about their need, just in general on the net, to Canon directly, etc. 

The members of this site seem deeply steeped in the notion that there is nothing better than a Canon full frame camera...period. The benefits of less read noise on DR and editing latitude are not really benefits. Sensors with smaller pixels don't really resolve more detail. There are no better lenses than Canon's. The only thing you could ever possibly need is a Canon full frame camera...it'll literally do everything you need, and any improvement over a Canon FF is just a fantasy, a dream, a farce, a lie.

In that light...your right, it's futile and I'm wasting my time. I hear hummingbirds...I'm going to see if I can photograph them.


----------



## jrista (Aug 29, 2014)

Aglet said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > *Sigh* I guess I'll be renting a D800 at some point in the near future here, as I don't think anything else but real data is going to prove the point.
> ...



Your experiences are like my experiences when I've pushed around a friends D800 files. He's a portrait guy (he's actually quite good...I have a link to his web site somewhere around here), but the shadow tonality is VASTLY superior to Canon shadow tonality. The point isn't even to lift all of the shadows so the deepest ones are bright...that's not the point, never had been, never will be. The point is that as the tonal grade falls off into the shadows, the D800 has such low read noise and low dark current that the color fidelity IS higher, the detail IS superior, and when you recover shadows, however much you do recover, the information is clean and looks excellent.

We'll see if I rent or just buy.  I'm still looking at astro cameras. I think I've settled on this one:

QSI 683wsg-8 8.3mp Cooled CCD Camera w/8-pos filter wheel and Integrated Guider Port

This thing is four grand, and on top of that, I need to buy a $700 LRGB filter kit, and I'll need three $800 narrow band filters (that's $800 EACH)...so it will set me back pretty far. Winter is coming...so my opportunities to get out into the mountains where there are interesting landscapes is going to wane soon. I'll either get a D800 soon...or won't until next year. Not sure which camera I'll pick up first...but the astrophotography pull is very strong.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 29, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



scyrene said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...




Nice image! I like its atmosphere. When I shoot wildlife (also with landscape) I make exactly the same experience: most often the high ISO performance of a camera is what really matters, and here the 5D3 still works nicely (I nearly stopped using my 7D). HDR normally is not possible because animals are moving and don't care about the photographer (or you would have a hell lot of work recomposing the picture in Photoshop by putting tiny pieces together).


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 29, 2014)

*Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?*



dilbert said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I usually take the time to read the whole topic before commenting but there are too many new topics and too many replies...so starting here!

Your assertion makes a a lot of unhealthy assumptions - the biggest one is about what the average/majority of DSLR want/need. The benefits of all that DR don't make a big impact unless you post process an image. IE, if you don't shoot in RAW and don't use any software to push those shadows then how does having the ability to push them help you? The benefit of all that DR is that it gives you more information to work with in post. The majority of the market, especially those you speak of (the one body one lens crowd, the ones who won't care about specialty lenses ---- the ones that will shoot in P mode with all AF points active....).

The people who do care about things like DR are the ones who are in the lower 10%, the serious users that want specialty items - but even in that category you only find that the NEED for DR only matters if you have a particular style of shooting - one that needs lots of shadow boosting.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 29, 2014)

Something that has been bugging me for a while now reading all these DR posts ---I get why for some uses shadows are the enemy and must be lifted to unnatural levels - but - what about those of us who shoot other things where shadows are part of the image (not to be lifted --- dare I say, darkened?)

For portraiture and weddings, shadows help create drama. When I started on this path of photography I tried hard to eliminate shadows completely. the whole face must show. If I had stayed on that path then maybe I'd have switched to nikon. But, kind of once I got into learning about off camera lighting, I found that shadows are very useful. They help to sculpt an image.

here's an example ---image out of cam, image with shadows pulled to 100%, and shadows reduced by 100% Of course I wouldn't just do that but, the one with shadows reduced is more the look I'd be going for. I'd WAnt the left half of the grooms face to be darker, and same for the bride, with a bit of highlight increase on the light side of the faces. It gives the images more depth. 

also, should be noted that another thing went into that shot --- the st-e3 and 2 600RT's - settings for the shot - 85mm at 1.8...flashes set on HSS, SS of 1250, ISO 200 ----does the sensor make the camera? 

Again, I get that for certain kinds of photography shadows are the enemy. But not all kinds...


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Again, I get that for certain kinds of photography shadows are the enemy. But not all kinds...



Isn't it Joe McNally that says "it isn't about the light, it is about the shadows"? 

A picture with no shadows is, after all, a blank screen...........


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2014)

Chuck, if you can't see that the middle one _should_ be the best, that's just sad. I say 'should be' only because it's hopelessly marred by the horrible noise and banding where you lifted the shadows. If only you had shot it with a modern Exmor sensor instead of a Canon sensor made with antiquated technology, you could have produced a noise-free image with the perfectly flat lighting that's the hallmark of good photography.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Chuck, if you can't see that the middle one _should_ be the best, that's just sad. I say 'should be' only because it's hopelessly marred by the horrible noise and banding where you lifted the shadows. If only you had shot it with a modern Exmor sensor instead of a Canon sensor made with antiquated technology, you could have produced a noise-free image with the perfectly flat lighting that's the hallmark of good photography.



LOL!!!!


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Chuck, if you can't see that the middle one _should_ be the best, that's just sad. I say 'should be' only because it's hopelessly marred by the horrible noise and banding where you lifted the shadows. If only you had shot it with a modern Exmor sensor instead of a Canon sensor made with antiquated technology, you could have produced a noise-free image with the perfectly flat lighting that's the hallmark of good photography.


Neuro, I'm pretty well convinced that if your childhood had been slightly different, you could have been a very accomplished troll. 8)


----------



## unfocused (Aug 29, 2014)

Clearly this guy was hopeless. Never make it as a photographer. Shadows need to be lifted big time. This hardly even looks like a pepper.


----------

