# DPR reviews d5500 and says it is a ISO-invariant camera.



## ritholtz (Apr 3, 2015)

They added a new section for Raw DR: Exposure Latitude & ISO-invariance which is very interesting. Iso 100 image pushed +5EV in post processing is same as correctly exposed image at iso 3600. Looks like one can shoot at iso 100 without worrying about proper exposure and correct it later. They compared it with 7d2/70d/6d. 
According to DPR, following is the advantage of underexposing image:

"The idea is that if the scene has highlights that are clipping at ISO 3200, you will be better off by keeping the same aperture value and shutter speed, but turning the camera back down to ISO 200 and brighten it later, from Raw. This way you can get essentially the same shadow noise performance but with an extra 4EV of highlight information. And this is made possible by the incredibly low noise floor of what we're calling an 'ISO-invariant' camera."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5500/9

Does it mean exposure triangle is going to be redundant? I am still not able to understand how pushing using software preserve highlights. If some one is going to underexpose by 5EV in order to preserve highlights from clipping when we push +5EV using software, we start clipping highlights again right?


----------



## Aglet (Apr 3, 2015)

You shoot at the lower iso, underexposing enough to prevent non-specular hilites from being clipped.
You then raise everything up in post so that you can get a normal looking image as tho you'd exposed it _properly_.
You can control how much you want to raise the levels in post so you decide.

This only works well with ABC cameras (Nikon Sony Pentax Fuji Olympus .. see who's missing ?  )

BTW - my LCS just got a shipment of D5500s in so I got to hold one... certainly a different shape than the previous 5x00 bodies, deeper grip, thinner body. I like it, it's a bit small but it's reasonably comfortable in the hand and it's got class-leading IQ. Looks like it's another winner for Nikon.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Apr 3, 2015)

I use the same basic concept at motorcycle shows. So much chrome, detail and reflections to deal with that exposing for the highlights and digging out the shadows is the only way to deal with it. 5D III ISO 4000



DXOP split screen David&#x27;s Bagger win © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr



David McGovert bike &amp; award Easyriders 2015 3284 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 3, 2015)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I use the same basic concept at motorcycle shows. So much chrome, detail and reflections to deal with that exposing for the highlights and digging out the shadows is the only way to deal with it. 5D III ISO 4000
> 
> 
> 
> DXOP split screen David&#x27;s Bagger win © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr



And you've probably lifted a stop or so ? 

The comparison 'tool' on DPR going to four, five and six stops is just absurd. Its doing it for the sake of it and irrelevant to photography unless one doesn't intend to meter at all, and even then it's overkill. 

A shame digital photography has come down to playing with six stop pushes.


----------



## pwp (Apr 3, 2015)

ISO Invariant? Sounds awesome. Wait and see.
We're still a little close to 1 April...

-pw


----------



## msm (Apr 3, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> ...
> The comparison 'tool' on DPR going to four, five and six stops is just absurd. Its doing it for the sake of it and irrelevant to photography unless one doesn't intend to meter at all, and even then it's overkill.
> 
> A shame digital photography has come down to playing with six stop pushes.



It is just to demonstrate what is possible with new cameras. Being able to push several stops opens up new ways to shoot, instead of increasing ISO to reach a given shutter speed one has the alternative of underexposing and thus preserving information in the highlights which would be blown at high ISO. Why is that a shame, are you against progress? Or do you think it is a shame it gets too much attention on photography forums? In which case you are right. I like the new comparison tool though as it gives me more information about the tested cameras which will help me decide whether I want it or not.


----------



## sanj (Apr 3, 2015)

Someone somewhere someday will get into serious trouble by not exposing correctly.

Besides in many situations wildlife, sports, action shooters need to raise ISO not only because light is low but because they want faster shutter.

Having said the above, being able to expose for highlights and then being able to raise shadow details in post by 5 stops would be helpful in my kind of (harsh sunlight, cheetah under a tree 100 mts away, heavily backlit) photography. I wish my camera did that as well as other cameras. I use top of the line model of 'my' company.


----------



## emko (Apr 3, 2015)

sanj said:


> Someone somewhere someday will get into serious trouble by not exposing correctly.
> 
> Besides in many situations wildlife, sports, action shooters need to raise ISO not only because light is low but because they want faster shutter.
> 
> Having said the above, being able to expose for highlights and then being able to raise shadow details in post by 5 stops would be helpful in my kind of (harsh sunlight, cheetah under a tree 100 mts away, heavily backlit) photography. I wish my camera did that as well as other cameras. I use top of the line model of 'my' company.



any improvement in IQ is always welcome i don't know why Canon fanboys fight it so much? why don't Canon fanboys ask for lower DR? so we can do more bracketed shots? some how for them what Canon currently has is PERFECT yet we all know it could be better. What Canon has will not prevent you from making awesome photos its just that it makes it a bit harder then what the other brands have.

When i buy something i want the product to be better or equal to the another brand version, why do people want less DR? If the 5D4 does not improved in IQ why should i buy it?


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 3, 2015)

emko said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Someone somewhere someday will get into serious trouble by not exposing correctly.
> ...



And why don't the likes of yourself demand increases in colour differentiation, getting colour resolution to equal luminosity resolution, equaling film in tonality, improving abrupt clipping to highlights ? Just a few things that the Sony tech is as behind on as Canon when compared with film, but no doubt you're not worried; you can lift shadows six stops. That's _really_ going to make progress in digital IQ.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 3, 2015)

emko said:


> When i buy something i want the product to be better or equal to the another brand version, why do people want less DR? If the 5D4 does not improved in IQ why should i buy it?









Here's a dollar, go buy a clue. :

No one (at least, no one that I've seen) wants less DR. At issue is personal priorities...what do you have to give up to get more DR? Are the trade-offs worth it to you? Or maybe you want more DR without giving up anything...in which case, I refer you to the proverb quoted by me old Irish Da, "Wish in one hand, sh!t in the other, and see which fills up fastest."



Aglet said:


> This only works well with ABC cameras (Nikon Sony Pentax Fuji Olympus .. see who's missing ?  )





msm said:


> It is just to demonstrate what is possible with new cameras.



Here's another example of what's possible with a new camera...who's missing now?


----------



## sanj (Apr 3, 2015)

"what do you have to give up to get more DR? Are the trade-offs worth it to you?" 

I do not know what tradeoffs exist to get more DR. Would love to learn, if you can explain.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 3, 2015)

sanj said:


> "what do you have to give up to get more DR? Are the trade-offs worth it to you?"
> I do not know what tradeoffs exist to get more DR. Would love to learn, if you can explain.



To get more low ISO DR than Canon delivers, you need to choose a camera system other than Canon. If you use a Canon system, you are presumably aware of the advantages it offers over other brands. Alternatively, if you can't think of any advantages, then you should strongly consider switching if low ISO DR is important to you.


----------



## ritholtz (Apr 3, 2015)

Are there any STM kind of lens for Nikon? Looks like Nikon crippled it by not including Aperture control during video and no exposure simulation for Live view. Video AF is too bad with bad focus pulling and very loud noise from lens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks9DCXUzq6I


----------



## sanj (Apr 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > "what do you have to give up to get more DR? Are the trade-offs worth it to you?"
> ...



Ah. That way. Thanks. Understood. Instead of switching I will wait for Canon to fix the issue.


----------



## ritholtz (Apr 3, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > I use the same basic concept at motorcycle shows. So much chrome, detail and reflections to deal with that exposing for the highlights and digging out the shadows is the only way to deal with it. 5D III ISO 4000
> ...



Yah. 70D does fine until +3EV push then noise kills it. Even with this Nikon sensor, +5EV push makes all details very soft. I think, it is just only emergency kind of thing rather than a normal practice.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos70d&attr144_1=nikon_d5500&attr144_2=canon_eos70d&attr144_3=nikon_d5500&attr146_0=100_0&attr146_1=100_0&attr146_2=100_3&attr146_3=100_3&normalization=full&widget=212&x=1.0510385590933806&y=0.9897473368676512

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos70d&attr144_1=nikon_d5500&attr144_2=canon_eos70d&attr144_3=nikon_d5500&attr146_0=100_0&attr146_1=100_0&attr146_2=100_3&attr146_3=100_3&normalization=full&widget=212&x=0.8450124071714791&y=0.7022136670329668

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos70d&attr144_1=nikon_d5500&attr144_2=canon_eos70d&attr144_3=nikon_d5500&attr146_0=100_0&attr146_1=100_0&attr146_2=100_5&attr146_3=100_5&normalization=full&widget=212&x=0.8875360114428805&y=0.5400431948558168


----------



## candc (Apr 3, 2015)

the iq of all the current cameras is so good it's hard to tell them apart in real world shooting so now dpr is down to comparing how they can handle 5 stop lifts? 

clipped highlights on birds like eagles can be a problem in bright conditions. highlight tone priority does a good job in that situation. if i understand it correctly it is underexposing by 1 stop and then boosting the bottom to compensate. for what i do its enough for most situations. 

shooting 360 degree panoramas is another situation where more dr would be great because many times you are trying to balance one of the shots which is directly into the sun with the rest of the scene. i don't think anything we have now is capable of dealing with that.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 3, 2015)

I will tell my students of photography:

"Give up learning to use a camera, because Nikon have camera models fool-proof.  Now it is useless to use ISO different because you can push the shadows entire 5 stops. : Forget things like color depth, tonal gradation, for nothing is more important than Dynamic Range in ISO100". ??? :-[ :-X


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 3, 2015)

sanj said:


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



Adding just a bit more: every improvement or innovation costs the manufacturer money (R&D, tooling, training, etc). Canon has focused on lenses and some other improvements (e.g. anti-flicker) and, we assume, reliability testing since there have been fewer/less serious problems with new Canon bodies than, e.g. Nikon, of late. If Canon dumped a bunch of money into sensor improvements they would have less for these other improvements, or their prices would increase. So far, market share data says they're making the correct business decision.

To echo Neuro's statement, however, I don't think anyone here would turn a nose up at more DR so long as it doesn't mean loss of current Canon advantages.


----------



## ritholtz (Apr 3, 2015)

Orangutan said:


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


Exactly. They are still crippling video with no aperture control, no exposure simulation, bad video AF and not optimized lens for video. Nikon seems to be riding latest sensor tech. Canon seems to be doing everything perfect except in these extreme sensor tests.


----------



## ritholtz (Apr 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > "what do you have to give up to get more DR? Are the trade-offs worth it to you?"
> ...


Does dual iso from ML helps in these situations.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 3, 2015)

ritholtz said:


> And this is made possible by the incredibly low noise floor of what we're calling an 'ISO-invariant' camera."



Well, this says it, it's just a matter of definition? Because you have a large dynamic range and nearly no shadow noise, you can shoot first and worry about exposure (i.e. iso or +-ev in post) later. This is unless you're not being dynamic range limited.



neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > "what do you have to give up to get more DR? Are the trade-offs worth it to you?"
> ...



Nah, just install a free piece of software and get more dynamic range than even Sonikon provides.


----------



## candc (Apr 3, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > And this is made possible by the incredibly low noise floor of what we're calling an 'ISO-invariant' camera."
> ...



Hi Marsu,

I have ml on my 6d and it has some really useful features. the dual iso does exactly what you are saying. i think its a bit of a hassle processing the images but what i found is that that extra dr doesn't really make much difference in most situations so i don't use it very often. so if i have it available to me and don't use it much then to me its certainly not worth switching to sony or nikon to get it.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 3, 2015)

I read the review as well, but can't reconcile it with DxOMark's measurements:







If the sensor was truly, "ISO-invariant," wouldn't the line need to go straight across along the 14 Ev x-axis? I can definitely see where it could yield good results boosting the shadows like this, but calling it ISO-invarient is like all of the lenses labelled APO that really aren't apochromatic.


----------



## ritholtz (Apr 3, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I read the review as well, but can't reconcile it with DxOMark's measurements:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


DPReview seems to be pushing this idea of +5EV push. Their reviews are including these tests and references to dxo numbers a lot.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 3, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I read the review as well, but can't reconcile it with DxOMark's measurements:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I think it means that as you go up one stop of iso you lose one stop of DR, so the line should be straight and angled down left to right one stop up iso to one stop down DR. Which it is very close to doing.

So it seems the real DR killer is gain, and that is simply because gain is noisy.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 3, 2015)

It seems I posted the wrong graph. I meant to post the Signal-to-Noise Ration (SNR) chart. When I went back to grab the correct chart, I found that DxO has added some cool new measurements for for SNR, color response, and color sensitivity. Check them out here - and it looks like they have added them to all of the cameras:

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D5500---Measurements


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 3, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> It seems I posted the wrong graph. I meant to post the Signal-to-Noise Ration (SNR) chart. When I went back to grab the correct chart, I found that DxO has added some cool new measurements for for SNR, color response, and color sensitivity. Check them out here - and it looks like they have added them to all of the cameras:
> 
> http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D5500---Measurements



I had never noticed before, but if you put your cursor over the red-green bar on the right side you get an image overlay in the graph. Very cool. Shame they don't give it any context, magnification etc, but interesting.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 3, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > It seems I posted the wrong graph. I meant to post the Signal-to-Noise Ration (SNR) chart. When I went back to grab the correct chart, I found that DxO has added some cool new measurements for for SNR, color response, and color sensitivity. Check them out here - and it looks like they have added them to all of the cameras:
> ...



I've seen the additional measures before, don't recall if it was for specific cameras. The image overlay has been there for quite some time.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


I think the overlay has been there for quite some time, but this was the first time I had noticed the Full SNR, Full Color, etc. graphs. Then again, I don't go there too often to look at sensor stuff.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 3, 2015)

ritholtz said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > If the sensor was truly, "ISO-invariant," wouldn't the line need to go straight across along the 14 Ev x-axis?
> ...



Let's not forget dpreview isn't as "matter of fact" as lensrentals, and dpr's reviews (esp. the early ones) are to be read with caution. If they write about a iso-less camera, it would be to achieve what they did with this thread: have the internet photog communitiy talk about dpr and link to them.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's another example of what's possible with a new camera...who's missing now?



OOooh. a niche feature for niche situations that save a little time in post for a niche purpose. 
fabulous breakthru .. for some.  (yawn)

I'll take the cleaner raw file over flicker feature any day.



ajfotofilmagem said:


> I will tell my students of photography:
> 
> "Give up learning to use a camera, because Nikon have camera models fool-proof.  Now it is useless to use ISO different because you can push the shadows entire 5 stops. : Forget things like color depth, tonal gradation, for nothing is more important than Dynamic Range in ISO100". ??? :-[ :-X



Well, you CAN tell them that the lower noise raw files from ABC cameras will have better tonality and color accuracy as well as DR so that offers them more real latitude in post.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 3, 2015)

Aglet said:


> OOooh. a niche feature for niche situations that save a little time in post for a niche purpose.
> fabulous breakthru .. for some. (yawn)



Riiiiiight...because needing to push your images 5 stops in post is so...you know...commonplace, everyday, and non-niche-y. Granted, it's a fabulously important feature for _all_ the top lens cap photographers... (yourself included, naturally)


----------



## emko (Apr 4, 2015)

Orangutan said:


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



?? was the D800 at 36mp not cheaper then the 5D3?


----------



## emko (Apr 4, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > OOooh. a niche feature for niche situations that save a little time in post for a niche purpose.
> ...



i never push exposure 5 stops, i do how ever push the shadows to 100 in lightroom by shooting for highlights i can tell you Sony sensor has a LOT less noise doing this. Any amount of pushing results in the Sony sensor looking a lot better why must it be 6 stops? i think the Sony is just so much better that it CAN push 6 stops but the first few stops look very good compared to a bunch of noise that Canon will produce. Look at people using ML's Dual ISO sacrificing resolution for more DR i don't get why people who shot in situations that does not require DR talk crap to people that would love to have it?


----------



## Aglet (Apr 4, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > OOooh. a niche feature for niche situations that save a little time in post for a niche purpose.
> ...



The need/want for clean raw files is likely far more common an occurence than for artificial lighting flicker correction; for the latter there's at least a partial work-around while shooting for those who understand the problem. 
There's no workaround for Canon's raw file quality other than when you make your equipment purchase decision.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 4, 2015)

There are a couple of things people seem to be missing here.

First, from 800iso up (basically) all manufacturers/sensors are the same, same DR, same noise, which are close to meaning the same thing anyway. So all this heated side taking only relates to 800iso and below. Now I practically never shoot at 800iso and never above it, so I should own an Exmor, but I don't for other reasons that make perfect sense for my uses. Other never shoot below 800iso so al this DR talk is entirely moot for them anyway.

Second, the "ISO-invarient" tag misses the mark slightly. As DR decreases all you are doing with underexposure is moving the available DR up the scene, you save the highlights, for sure, but the shadows are still wretched, 6 stops is 6 stops, choose where you want the 6 stops of detail. Underexpose and that six stops is in the top range of the image, expose 'correctly' and the six stops of detail is on the middle, overexpose and the six stops is in the shadows, it is not magic and no sensor is much better than any other much over 800iso because gain is the overriding noise and is limiting the DR of all sensors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2015)

Aglet said:


> There's no workaround for Canon's raw file quality other than when you make your equipment purchase decision.



Only a small minority seem to think there's a problem, meaning there's not much need for a workaround. 

By the way, what's the workaround for the a7R's shutter vibration problem? What's the workaround for the lack of avaibility of an ultrawide PC-E lens for the D810? Oh, yes...a different equipment purchase decision.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 4, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ..By the way, what's the workaround for the a7R's shutter vibration problem?



A D810. 



neuroanatomist said:


> What's the workaround for the lack of avaibility of an ultrawide PC-E lens for the D810?



A Sony A7 series with an adapted TS-E 17mm. 



> Oh, yes...a different equipment purchase decision.



yep! Still ABC body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2015)

At least you got one thing right:



Aglet said:


> (yawn)


----------



## sanj (Apr 4, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> There are a couple of things people seem to be missing here.
> 
> First, from 800iso up (basically) all manufacturers/sensors are the same, same DR, same noise, which are close to meaning the same thing anyway. So all this heated side taking only relates to 800iso and below. Now I practically never shoot at 800iso and never above it, so I should own an Exmor, but I don't for other reasons that make perfect sense for my uses. Other never shoot below 800iso so al this DR talk is entirely moot for them anyway.
> 
> Second, the "ISO-invarient" tag misses the mark slightly. As DR decreases all you are doing with underexposure is moving the available DR up the scene, you save the highlights, for sure, but the shadows are still wretched, 6 stops is 6 stops, choose where you want the 6 stops of detail. Underexpose and that six stops is in the top range of the image, expose 'correctly' and the six stops of detail is on the middle, overexpose and the six stops is in the shadows, it is not magic and no sensor is much better than any other much over 800iso because gain is the overriding noise and is limiting the DR of all sensors.



If that is the case then I am at ease because most of my photography is at ISO 800 and above. And low ISO is mostly when I attempt landscapes - then the camera is on a tripod and I bracket shots. But I would certainly want the best of all worlds with the market leader which includes the best sensor along with best lenses etc.. 

Here is a shot which was 'under exposed' around 2 stops and still the whites are blown. If I had underexposed it more where the whites still had detail and was confident of bring up the shadows in post, I might have been better off. Or perhaps there is something wrong with my thinking here - there could well be, I am learning.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 4, 2015)

Sanj, _"Here is a shot which was 'under exposed' around 2 stops"_ underexposed relative to what?

Relative to the light source on the subject it looks like a darn good exposure to me, don't get a reflected light metered reading confused with an incident light metered reading. Besides, you have masses of edit ability in there if you want it, obviously I don't know what the scene actually looked like but a Canon RAW file is plenty able to give you a quality result like this rework of your jpeg.

P.S. Nobody has ever argued they don't want the best of all worlds, just some of us are more pragmatic about the real world attainability of that. Personally I shoot with lenses nobody else make, if the difference in DR was important enough to me then I'd look at a Sony body Canon lens combination, but it just isn't important enough to me to seriously consider that. I have printed a lot of Nikon files and a lot of Canon files and I am more impressed with Canon lenses than Exmor DR.


----------



## sanj (Apr 5, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Sanj, _"Here is a shot which was 'under exposed' around 2 stops"_ underexposed relative to what?
> 
> Relative to the light source on the subject it looks like a darn good exposure to me, don't get a reflected light metered reading confused with an incident light metered reading. Besides, you have masses of edit ability in there if you want it, obviously I don't know what the scene actually looked like but a Canon RAW file is plenty able to give you a quality result like this rework of your jpeg.
> 
> P.S. Nobody has ever argued they don't want the best of all worlds, just some of us are more pragmatic about the real world attainability of that. Personally I shoot with lenses nobody else make, if the difference in DR was important enough to me then I'd look at a Sony body Canon lens combination, but it just isn't important enough to me to seriously consider that. I have printed a lot of Nikon files and a lot of Canon files and I am more impressed with Canon lenses than Exmor DR.



Thank you for all the info! I am sure super lenses translate into super pictures.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 5, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I have printed a lot of Nikon files and a lot of Canon files and I am more impressed with Canon lenses than Exmor DR.



Perfectly valid statement but it doesn't invalidate the fact that all mainstream lens requirements are pretty well covered by every system except, perhaps, for Sony's mounts (so far) and the Pentax Q system could use a couple more, so could Fuji.
Canon certainly has some great niche lenses but I wouldn't use that as the basis for the other 90+% of what I (& others) shoot, tho it works well for you. Except for the niche and some new products, Canon's lenses aren't all that special, I've been disappointed with the performance of as many as I was pleased.

IMO, being pragmatic means choosing the best gear for the vast majority of one's work and that can vary from your special lens requirements to my desire for cleaner raw files. If someone's critical need is a special Canon lens, then use it. If you're satisfied with the rest of the system, great. Many of us do not find the rest of the Canon system to be good enough to warrant sticking with it for everything.
Lots of other very good, and some ways superior, options are out there if you can afford to employ them. If you can't afford them, you should at least consider them.
If anything, Canon lenses are a good investment if you started there. All the used ones I bought I sold for profit, the new ones didn't lose too much.


----------



## benperrin (Apr 5, 2015)

I'm just surprised that so many photographers nowadays seem to have a need for 5 stops of exposure correction. Just how badly are you messing up your photos?  ;D


----------



## sanj (Apr 5, 2015)

benperrin said:


> I'm just surprised that so many photographers nowadays seem to have a need for 5 stops of exposure correction. Just how badly are you messing up your photos?  ;D



Need is not necessarily the word. 3 to 4 stops can come really handy to some photographers who work in very uncontrolled environments. 'Handy' is the word.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 5, 2015)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I have printed a lot of Nikon files and a lot of Canon files and I am more impressed with Canon lenses than Exmor DR.
> ...



I think we have gotten to the stage where base iso can be considered as niche a shooting situation as many specialist lenses, especially once you add up the number of niche lenses Canon actually have and the fact that the f4 zooms are such high quality, so practical, comparatively light, and cheap.

Maybe you are more fickle than I, maybe you just buy a lot more stuff, but I haven't been disappointed with a single Canon lens I have ever bought, though the 16-35 f4IS is a quantum leap in IQ over my older 16-35 f2.8 MkI, that f2.8 still made some very good images.

So we are talking about DR differences in a very narrow range of relatively uncommon, for many users, ISO ranges, vs a good enough for most people lens selection, that isn't quite as compelling a position as Canon RAW files are unworkable, FPN this, midtone shadow noise that.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I think we have gotten to the stage where base iso can be considered as niche a shooting situation as many specialist lenses, especially once you add up the number of niche lenses Canon actually have and the fact that the f4 zooms are such high quality, so practical, comparatively light, and cheap.



While modern gear has vastly improved hi ISO performance, most outdoor daytime shooting is gonna land you in the 100 to 800 iso range. I think that's more than a niche and this is the iso range where Canon is behind the competition. 800 and 1600 and up they're all quite similar altho some (ahem) will still exhibit more pattern noise than others.

And yes, I really like f/4 zooms. I use my 70-200 f/4 Nikon most of all. A low cost, light weight lens with very high optical performance that allows handheld shooting in what used to be tripod-only conditions and it delivers some of the best d800/e output you can get. The excellent OIS system allows lower ISO use for more raw file quality for all static subjects. Same with the stabilized midrange and wide angle zoom options. Stabilization helps use maximize DR potential unless we're shooting active scenes, further expanding the limits of that low iso niche. 



privatebydesign said:


> Maybe you are more fickle than I, maybe you just buy a lot more stuff, but I haven't been disappointed with a single Canon lens I have ever bought, though the 16-35 f4IS is a quantum leap in IQ over my older 16-35 f2.8 MkI, that f2.8 still made some very good images.



I do buy a lot of gear and I do a lot of research on it. I'd found Canon's older WA zooms were real turkeys. i never bothered with the overpriced under-performers. the 17-40L was enough and had OK performance/cost. It regularly delivered mush in FF corners and borders (hi field curvature?) unless stopped down to f/11 or more and still left plenty of CA to correct. Their newer offerings look to be considerably improved. 
I'm still waiting for a good Nikon lens in this range but for now, I have a nice Tokina 17-35 f/4 FF lens that performs adequately and the 14-24 nikon is also decent if not fabulous. Niche products. Their consumer-grade 24-85mm variable f# is a very good value lens that can deliver hi-rez FF images when properly used.
Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 L 2 is a good handling and capable lens but, in some situations, provides some of the very worst transition-zone bokeh I've ever seen! Noticeable CA in FF corner areas too. Sold it, it didn't deliver the kind of IQ I wanted from such a lens. I has great center area sharpnesss and contrast but it's not a lens that has a good balance of sharpness and bokeh performance. Tamron versions win that handily. My Nikon f/4 can also deliver some ugly bokeh too but not as bad as the Canon did for me.
Fuji's new 50-140 shows how to do that properly - no aspheric elements AFAIK.



privatebydesign said:


> So we are talking about DR differences in a very narrow range of relatively uncommon, for many users, ISO ranges, vs a good enough for most people lens selection, that isn't quite as compelling a position as Canon RAW files are unworkable, FPN this, midtone shadow noise that.



I have to disagree, at least partially. 100, 200, and 400 iso are not niche if you're outdoors, especially if using faster apertures, and that's where you're likely to run into some real benefit from higher usable DR ability if you're shooting and working your files in post to get the most out of them. Greater proiferation of stabilized lenses can make it even more common to shoot lower ISO.
There's no dearth of decent lenses covering all major systems for non-niche applications. The only lenses in the Canon collection that I'd like to see comparable in Nikon's are the newer tilt-shifts, it looks like the new 11-2x is gonna outperform the old 14-24 benchmark Nikon and Canon's new little 11-18 crop UWA is a good value option. Super long zooms?.. I don't need 'em but think Nikon likely has a few available. Everything else is pretty much equivalent and many of Nikon's newer G-series are very good performers. AND we have the same 3rd party options.
Canon has better lenses argument doesn't quite wash with me. Canon has some DIFFERENT lenses that are desireable but does that impact as many people as would improved raw file quality?.. I doubt it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 6, 2015)

Aglet said:


> Canon has better lenses argument doesn't quite wash with me. Canon has some DIFFERENT lenses that are desireable but does that impact as many people as would improved raw file quality?.. I doubt it.



It might not wash with you, but the only independent figure we can look to is sales, and those don't support your opinion.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has better lenses argument doesn't quite wash with me. Canon has some DIFFERENT lenses that are desireable but does that impact as many people as would improved raw file quality?.. I doubt it.
> ...




marketing and strategy = success, no dispute Canon's a leader in that area. 

but sales figures ≠ technical superiority in this market much the same as in, for example, the automotive market.

So is Canon the Ford F-150 of the camera world?...  Gets the job done, almost everybody has one, but they wish it was a little bit better?..


----------

