# Canon 5D Mark IV brings dramatic dynamic range improvements to the 5D line



## AlanF (Aug 31, 2016)

DPreviews
https://www.dpreview.com/news/3229755227/canon-5d-mark-iv-brings-dramatic-dynamic-range-improvements-to-the-5d-line

But, still not good enough. Nikon and Sony ahead.......


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2016)

Yeah, and the 5DIV is pretty close to the 1D X II (closer, I think, than the 5DIII vs. 1D X...but DPR never tested the 1D X).

Push the Nikon D5 images hard and they look like crap by comparison, but hey, DPR unbiasedly gave Nikon's flagship camera a pass on that one.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 31, 2016)

AlanF said:


> DPreviews
> https://www.dpreview.com/news/3229755227/canon-5d-mark-iv-brings-dramatic-dynamic-range-improvements-to-the-5d-line
> 
> But, still not good enough. Nikon and Sony ahead.......



Still not good enough?...if this is a horse race with only one winner. Since the differences are practically negligible - and probably not noticeable in real life shooting - it is PLENTY good enough. Let's give Canon some kudos instead of the usual mindless criticism.


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 31, 2016)

To be honest, I found the commentary to be balanced and honest, within the parameters of how he tested the 5Div. 

Although he states Canon is still behind Sony and Nikon, he states the gap has closed significantly, to the point of near irrelevance. 

I'll personally take this as a win for Canon.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 31, 2016)

I am ordering one having seen the DR at iso 400 and above. It will be useful for back lit birds against the sky.


----------



## smorgo (Aug 31, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> To be honest, I found the commentary to be balanced and honest, within the parameters of how he tested the 5Div.
> 
> Although he states Canon is still behind Sony and Nikon, he states the gap has closed significantly, to the point of near irrelevance.
> 
> I'll personally take this as a win for Canon.



I agree. The commentary was very much supported by the sample images. No complaints from me.


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 31, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, and the 5DIV is pretty close to the 1D X II (closer, I think, than the 5DIII vs. 1D X...but DPR never tested the 1D X).
> 
> Push the Nikon D5 images hard and they look like crap by comparison, but hey, DPR unbiasedly gave Nikon's flagship camera a pass on that one.


Nice review and credit to Rishi. He is the one developed all these alternate tests to compare DR. Now he says DR may have more of an impact on fast-paced photography than landscapes, the latter affording more time to work around camera limitations using techniques like filters, and bracketing. Fair enough.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 31, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> To be honest, I found the commentary to be balanced and honest, within the parameters of how he tested the 5Div.
> 
> Although he states Canon is still behind Sony and Nikon, he states the gap has closed significantly, to the point of near irrelevance.
> 
> I'll personally take this as a win for Canon.


Ahhh...the torture test

First, let me agree. I think the tests and write up were both reasonable. Did a minor comparison to other brands, but mostly compared to other Canon bodies, which is what is really relevant to most of us. 

As for the actual results, of course, for normal DR scenes, much of this "benefit" is really "how much can you screw up a shot and still recover it" which does have value, but the "get it right in camera" argument still holds. Granted, the latitude for high DR scenes would be nice.

Overall, I am impressed with the results and it does make the 5DIV more tempting to me. My version of backlit birds (well, sometimes it is backlit birds) is waterfalls in caves/etc.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 31, 2016)

dak723 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > DPreviews
> ...


There is a clear winner! The camera buying public.....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 31, 2016)

dilbert said:


> If I owned a 5DS line camera,I would want to see it updated real soon now.



Why would you own a 5DS camera if you aren't happy with it?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 31, 2016)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I am actually (it would seem from reading these forums) a bit of an outlier in that I favor short product lifecycles when the technology merits it, so I agree with you on that. I think many owners would have to opposite reaction (don't make my camera depreciate "early") however.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 31, 2016)

AlanF said:


> DPreviews
> https://www.dpreview.com/news/3229755227/canon-5d-mark-iv-brings-dramatic-dynamic-range-improvements-to-the-5d-line
> 
> But, still not good enough. Nikon and Sony ahead.......



Yes it means you can push your new 5D4 images so that they have only 3200 iso noise in the pushed 4/5 stop shadow areas, while the rest of the image has clean iso 100 noise levels. It's still not acceptable to a landscape photographer, regardless of how good the camera's sensor. This is NOT dynamic range, but shadow pulling...which is the same as extracting high iso shadows (iso Invariance). True high Dynamic range is where the an image can be shot at 100 iso and captures all of the shadow and highlights in one frame and doesn't resort to iso pulling.


----------



## RBC5 (Sep 1, 2016)

dak723 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > DPreviews
> ...



I think he was directing a bit of sarcasm at DPR


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, and the 5DIV is pretty close to the 1D X II (closer, I think, than the 5DIII vs. 1D X...but DPR never tested the 1D X).
> 
> Push the Nikon D5 images hard and they look like crap by comparison, but hey, DPR unbiasedly gave Nikon's flagship camera a pass on that one.



You expected differently? I just got my 1DX2 two days ago. I've rented one before but it's nothing like owning it. What an exquisite machine. If the 5D4 performs 90% as well, it'g going to be (yet again, for Canon) THE go-to professional camera, particularly for Wedding and Portrait pros


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 1, 2016)

Sonikon may still be ahead, but at this point it's so close that I think the dr argument is no longer very compelling


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 1, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> Sonikon may still be ahead, but at this point it's so close that I don't think the dr argument is no longer very compelling



Suddenly all the myriad of other arguments rise tot the surface again for trolls. Little things like Auto Focus, Ergonomics, Reliability, Battery Life, and, oh... GLASS


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 1, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > Sonikon may still be ahead, but at this point it's so close that I *don't* think the dr argument is *no longer* very compelling
> ...



Corrected my syntax error in my original post- apparently at the moment of writing, I was possessed by a DR troll that was unwilling to die.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 1, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > Sonikon may still be ahead, but at this point it's so close that I don't think the dr argument is no longer very compelling
> ...



Unfortunately DxO doesn't test those, and thus they're not an important aspect of a camera. (Other than glass which they um, er, sort of test.)


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, and the 5DIV is pretty close to the 1D X II (closer, I think, than the 5DIII vs. 1D X...but DPR never tested the 1D X).
> 
> Push the Nikon D5 images hard and they look like crap by comparison, but hey, DPR unbiasedly gave Nikon's flagship camera a pass on that one.



A pass on the D5? ???

Amongst other things, within a day of getting the D5 in our offices, we had an article headlined: "*Nikon D5 has worst dynamic range of any FF Nikon*" In the 1D X II vs D5 slideshow, we wrote: "With the D5, you *have to chose*. Expose for highlight detail and color and* lose definition in midtones and shadows*, or expose for midtones and* say goodbye to the brighter areas*. With the EOS-1D X Mark II, while not best-in-class, *Raw files are much more flexible*."? 

Furthermore, we _repeatedly _mentioned in both 1D X II and D5 reviews that the 1D X II bests the D5 in this area. The low DR also impacted its scoring, but as we've mentioned many times before after publishing Canon DSLR reviews, base ISO DR itself doesn't impact our scoring algorithms all that much. It's a part of it, but it isn't given the ginormous weight critics of our Canon reviews claim it's given.

I know you know all this. But I suppose that doesn't stop you from selective reading and cherry-picking data to fit your preconceived narrative.


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 1, 2016)

docsmith said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest, I found the commentary to be balanced and honest, within the parameters of how he tested the 5Div.
> ...



This. 

Perhaps different to the AF argument, is that much of the DR argument can be attributed to how a photographer sets up his shot. There is very little than can be done when the actual AF mechanics are unable to produce but relying on sensor 'magic' to fix what should've been done correctly in setup, is nonsensical.

I'm hoping the new AF microadjustment feature doesn't spawn similar conversations through the coming years


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2016)

dak723 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > DPreviews
> ...



set all to ISO100 +6 and pan around to darker areas of the image and it looks almost a stop worse than A7R II and the difference is plenty noticeable and since stuff like A7R II only just offers enough DR to get away with single shot HDR in many natural real world conditions not sure the 5D4 will quite cut, much improved but maybe jsut shy of really pulling lots of real world stuff in single shot

ALTHOUGH.... if the stuff Iliah Borg says on DPR is true, and you can somehow use the dualpixel raw file to extract and extra stop of highlights, suddenly the camera would offer very good DR, plenty good (at the cost of 50% wasted storage space, but whatever, especially since you should be able to combine it into a new RAW file with 1 extra stop and same storage space as usual, so it would only clog the camera buffer and CF storage a bit, but that's not nearly as big of a deal, especially not the buffer). It seems a little hard to believe it should be able to work as claimed, but if so.... so long as you shoot dualpixel RAW this thing finally could deliver state of the art DR that also happens to be enough to truly make a difference real world.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 1, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > DPreviews
> ...



Huh????

These are basically linear sensors.

Shadow pulling isn't shadow pulling it's just applying a certain tone curve and not crushing blacks down artificially.

Nothing about your comment makes any technical sense.


----------



## Memdroid (Sep 1, 2016)

dilbert said:


> If I owned a 5DS line camera,I would want to see it updated real soon now.



Have you ever used/owned a 5DS? If you did you would've found out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the camera. In fact it is better than the 5D3 in almost everything. The IQ/colors is tremendous and the noise cleans up better than my 1DX (I). So no, I wouldn't want it updated really soon. It is a fine camera as is for the things it is supposed to do.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 1, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



+1, I was about to suggest someone was short a cup of coffee or up a couple pints of ale when then made that comment.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Sep 1, 2016)

This Data on dpreview are really great noise. 

the one who really is interested in, can compare now the data for the 5d4. As the review is not finished yet, go to the review of the 1dx2 and compare "iso invariance". There the 5d4 results are available. 

for my uneducated eyes the camera is as good as a Nikon d810 and as good as the 1dx2, despite the much higher pixel count. My personal summary is, that this is the (canon) camera with the best image quality now, leaving the 5ds(r) in the dust.

The iso invariance is really important for me, because it allows to "rise" the iso in post without blowing the highlights. This will preserve sky blue in otherwise shaded landscapes or arfiticial lights in night shots.

I am excited, waiting for the price to come little bit down


----------



## docsmith (Sep 1, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



It is striking how many of the "advances" are trending toward being able to "recover" a blown shot. 

Coming soon, mind-reading AF, frame grabs from 120 fps 8K video, lytro like focus point adjustment, and 20 stops of DR/color recovery all designed to shoot in one mode. All to be output into an 8-bit jpeg file


----------



## LordofTackle (Sep 1, 2016)

hendrik-sg said:


> for my uneducated eyes the camera is as good as a Nikon d810 and as good as the 1dx2, despite the much higher pixel count. My personal summary is, that this is the (canon) camera with the best image quality now, leaving the 5ds(r) in the dust.



If that is truly the case maybe Canon opts to update the 5Ds(R) sooner, rather than later...


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 1, 2016)

Its interesting how the ability to recover highlights, or at least the useable highlight headroom is never tested or discussed.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 1, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> Its interesting how the ability to recover highlights, or at least the useable highlight headroom is never tested or discussed.



Yes...that's because most discussions about DR are really about shadow pull using iso invariance. True high DR would allow us to recover highlights and shadows with the same levels of iso noise as the image was shot with and have a contrast scale beyond the legacy CCD capability of 8.4 stops. It's similar to slide film in it's DR, but way below the capabilities of negative print film's 14 stops of DR. The current fad with shadow recovery has little to do with DR. In the current Nikon and Sony sensors, yes you can pull shadows on a 100 iso image from apparent blackness to 5 stops of mid tones. But the equivalent iso noise is still 5 stops over the base iso 100. That's going to be iso 3200 noise in the shadows > new mid tones. That's really too high and it's not true HDR, it's just pulling noisy shadows using an iso trick. Some cameras do the same trick to make up their different iso values. Often 100 / 400/ 1600 iso values are native and all the other settings are based on one of these iso values and then the camera pulls the difference from pulling the exposure by a stop or two.


----------



## sebasan (Sep 1, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > DPreviews
> ...



I always think on that. I think that your approach is not incorrect, and what technology should point. 
Human eyes can see 20 stops aprox. The sensors are really far from that.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 1, 2016)

dilbert said:


> If I owned a 5DS line camera,I would want to see it updated real soon now.



I dunno. I use that as my primary camera now. I don't mind them not updating it any time soon, I'm more likely to consider trading in for the 5D4 if and when the price comes down a bit. I don't expect a 5Ds update to do everything the 5D4 does, unless the price is even higher.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 1, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> set all to ISO100 +6 and pan around to darker areas of the image and it looks almost a stop worse than A7R II and the difference is plenty noticeable and since stuff like A7R II only just offers enough DR to get away with single shot HDR in many natural real world conditions not sure the 5D4 will quite cut, much improved but maybe jsut shy of really pulling lots of real world stuff in single shot



Wait, you're saying that real world shooting has an arbitrary cutoff where +5 stops shadow lift is of no benefit, but +6 is? That's one of the more perplexing statements I've seen round here recently.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 1, 2016)

Sometimes I wonder if Canon doesn't deliberately keep things subdued so that all the negative hype gets cleared out up front and then the reality of a good solid performance rises up out of that perspective and Canon gets the last laugh. I never though much about this until the D5 bragging about such high ISO settings.

When I stumbled upon this:

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

I honestly couldn't believe my eyes. What morons would go to this guy for any advice on anything. ;D

Jack


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 1, 2016)

As expected. Canon promised and delivered the top three improvements 5DIII users most wanted for the 5DIV: More MPIX, better AF, more DR.

Looks like they did a great job on all three key user demands so this should be good news for a lot of people out there.

I'm still not ready to get a 5DIV myself. 2 stops of noise over the 5DIII would have been much more important to me. Now if only the 6DII sensor will be even better just as the 6D sensor beat the 5DIII sensor... 

(Its a little funny how DPR in one step went from being seen as evil stepmother of Canon to now being the oracle of Canon's DR triumpf for certain forum members - oh well...)


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 1, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Sometimes I wonder if Canon doesn't deliberately keep things subdued so that all the negative hype gets cleared out up front and then the reality of a good solid performance rises up out of that perspective and Canon gets the last laugh. I never though much about this until the D5 bragging about such high ISO settings.
> 
> When I stumbled upon this:
> 
> ...



Toyota is (one of) the car manufacturers with the highest customer satisfaction for decades now. If you compare a Toyota to other manufacturer's cars, the technology is YEARS BEHIND. However, the tech works and is reliable. Customers are not let down. They get something that delivers to the promise.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 1, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes I wonder if Canon doesn't deliberately keep things subdued so that all the negative hype gets cleared out up front and then the reality of a good solid performance rises up out of that perspective and Canon gets the last laugh. I never though much about this until the D5 bragging about such high ISO settings.
> ...


Worked directly with their CEO for a while so absolutely biased - but seriously, Toyota tech is not behind anyone out there.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 1, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



It is big time. I own one of these. And I owned a few of the others. Toyota is year's behind with fancy features... (at least in Europe vs some European manufacturers).


----------



## Aglet (Sep 1, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Its interesting how the ability to recover highlights, or at least the useable highlight headroom is never tested or discussed.
> ...



because, there's no such thing as "recoverable highlights"
either the tonal data is there or it's clipped. If it's clipped it's not recoverable.

At the shadows end the tonality is lost in noise and quantization steps if the noise is not too great. That's why reductions in read noise are a big deal when it comes to improving the DR.

Roughly, Highlight level divided by shadow level equal DR.

Expose for the highlite levels you want to keep, the rest that's available is dependent on the DR of the system... See?.. 

Looks like the 5D4 is finally able to (almost) deliver what the competition has been providing for years. Buy one and be happier.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 1, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Worked directly with their CEO for a while so absolutely biased - but seriously, Toyota tech is not behind anyone out there.
> ...


Had Supra, Landcruiser, 4Runner. Probably not "fancy" if that's what you also call "tech". To me tech is about having the best drive & gear train, suspension, motors, etc.

My last car was a BMW 750LI. If that's "tech/fancy" to you its also another price range. Here Toyota has the Lexus brand with lots of "fancy" stuff. 

[OK - gotta stop the OT stuff]


----------



## dsnook (Sep 1, 2016)

Aglet said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



There may be no such thing as "recoverable highlights" but it seems to me that there should be a way to test where the sensor clips the highlights. Since the noise is all in the shadows it seems like having a higher clip point for the brights would be extremely valuable. 

For my work I'd much rather have the ability to expose for the mid tones where most of the information is, and then bring up/down the shadows/highlights as needed.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, and the 5DIV is pretty close to the 1D X II (closer, I think, than the 5DIII vs. 1D X...but DPR never tested the 1D X).
> 
> Push the Nikon D5 images hard and they look like crap by comparison, but hey, DPR unbiasedly gave Nikon's flagship camera a pass on that one.



Word.
I spend a good amount of time comparing camera and ISO charts. I really don't care about the Nikon or Sony specs since I wouldn't buy them, but I did find it interesting how close the Mark IV was getting to the Sony compared to the Mark III. My interest is how much better the Mark IV is compared to the Mark III. The difference was huge. My decision to upgrade was made yesterday. My VISA card is still smoldering.
This forum is invaluable for research and comments. There are some really talented posters here and many with great in depth technical posts. For all those that posted all the great info, thank you.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 1, 2016)

dsnook said:


> but it seems to me that there should be a way to test where the sensor clips the highlights



The sensor clip the highlights because you overexpose as Aglet ably described. I'm not sure what your question really is. 
Take the brightest part of the image, and set the camera so it does not clip. The question then comes how much of the image (ie shadow) is lost to unacceptable noise. In other words, what is the acceptable dynamic range. 

What you seem to be talking about is when the manufacturer programs the metering system, what do they call 'normal exposure' compared to the highlights and that is a programming issue.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 1, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Its interesting how the ability to recover highlights, or at least the useable highlight headroom is never tested or discussed.
> ...



"True high DR would allow us to recover highlights and shadows with the same levels of iso noise as the image was shot with" --> Same levels of ISO noise as _what tone_? Even for a camera with zero read noise, darker tones will have lower SNR, because of simple physics (shot noise, which you can read more about in our article here: http://bit.ly/shotnoise).

And remember: darker tones on a linear capture format (Raw) are only dark because your monitors are extremely dim. Take that same linear Raw file and display it on a bright HDR monitor, and you won't have to push _any_ shadows to see them. 

Does that mean those shadows on that HDR monitor will be clean, even if shot at ISO 100? If they're from the lower end of the Raw file, no, because those tones _inherently_ have less SNR because of shot noise.

The only way you can make them cleaner is by capturing more total light, which means either (1) a larger sensor, or (2) higher full-well capacity. Medium format or larger might address 1, whereas technologies like ISO 64 on the Nikon D810, which extends full-well capacity, is another way to make those 'shadows' look cleaner.

Both approaches do so by raising SNR of _all_ tones, but the dark tones will still have lower SNR than the brighter tones. But after a certain SNR threshold, you won't care.

Does that make sense? It's a bit of a complex topic so apologies if I haven't done a good job explaining here.

Rishi


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 2, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Rishi,

How is that 5DSR RAW file coming on?


----------



## Lurker (Sep 2, 2016)

> Premium camera in terms of MP, delivering less than premium IQ when compared to a "lesser" camera.



I think I see the flaw in the logic. You view the 5D IV as a lesser camera and 5D SR then as better camera. I don't think Canon views it that way. They intend to provide 2 equal cameras, thus both being 5D, with different strengths for different target groups. With some research you should be able to find the interview were Canon exec said they were going modular. They were not going to try and make 1 thing that met the needs of everyone. Too many people going in too many different directions for that.

Was it Henry Ford? You can have whatever color you want as long as it's black. Look were cars are today.


----------



## RBC5 (Sep 2, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Sometimes I wonder if Canon doesn't deliberately keep things subdued so that all the negative hype gets cleared out up front and then the reality of a good solid performance rises up out of that perspective and Canon gets the last laugh. I never though much about this until the D5 bragging about such high ISO settings.
> 
> When I stumbled upon this:
> 
> ...



My coworkers and I have been watching his videos for a month strictly for the entertainment value. The best ones are when he talks in a high voice and has imaginary conversations. Just hilarious. And then there is his reasoning for not buying a Sigma Art lens..."It's a turd." ;D


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 2, 2016)

RBC5 said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes I wonder if Canon doesn't deliberately keep things subdued so that all the negative hype gets cleared out up front and then the reality of a good solid performance rises up out of that perspective and Canon gets the last laugh. I never though much about this until the D5 bragging about such high ISO settings.
> ...



Sorry for implying you guys are morons.  Actually, I called my wife and we both watched it and had a good laugh so I guess that's what it's all about.

Jack


----------



## dsnook (Sep 2, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> dsnook said:
> 
> 
> > but it seems to me that there should be a way to test where the sensor clips the highlights
> ...



Thanks for the response. I think what you have described is exactly how DPR and others think about DR. My question is mostly why is this the way that DR is now described?

You mention manufacture metering software I'm not sure that is relevant. It is my understanding that on any given image the center tone, or Zone 5, should always equal the same 50% grey on all camera systems if using the same iso/aperture/shutter speed and standard processing. I believe the dynamic range has been traditionally considered as the number of stops higher/lower from the baseline exposure that a given sensor/negative can provide information for Zones 1 and 9. 

I know that with digital photography the floor of an image is defined by noise while only the ceiling is defined by clipping. This is allows for the workflow that you and others have described of exposing for the highlights. I've used this technique myself thousands of times. I however, prefer not to have to underexpose my images like this. I prefer to not have to push Zone 5. Instead, if the scene allows for it, I'd rather be able to set Zone 5 right where I want the mid tones to be and have a sensor that will provide enough headroom for flexibility with where I process Zone 9 to be. 

In any case it seems to me that the information on how many stops of headroom a sensor will provide would be very useful information. It seems to me that this should be part of a thorough dynamic range review.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 2, 2016)

dsnook said:


> It is my understanding that on any given image the center tone, or Zone 5, should always equal the same 50% grey on all camera systems if using the same iso/aperture/shutter speed and standard processing.



The problem is that there is no hard and fast definition of ISO which gives the manufacturer quite bit of leeway, to the extent that when the Olympus micro-fourthirds cameras took a leap in performance with the E-M5, there was a very strong suspicion that this was in part because theyplayed fast and loose with ISO definitions (their 3200 was closer to someone else's 1600) 
How do you standardise 'zone 5'?
Some people argue that the standard 18% grey is the wrong tone to use as 50% tone. And even then data on the sensor is useless until it is presented on screen or paper as a picture and that introduces the variables of what is 'standard processing'? With whose software? 

With cameras, like any tool, it is a case of knowing its limitations and this is where dynamic range is among the most useful - learn where the upper and lower limits of usability are and learn how to work within them. 
With film, no-one to the best of my knowledge talked about 'headroom' but they did talk about how the film rendered highlights and shadows and how sudden the 'tail off of the sigmoid curve was. But digital sensors are linear response so that is irrelevant and it becomes a case of where you choose to put the '50%' tone. If you don't agree with the way the camera calculates it dial in a permanent '2/3 over exposure' or your preferred value (some people do).


----------



## Aglet (Sep 2, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> dsnook said:
> 
> 
> > It is my understanding that on any given image the center tone, or Zone 5, should always equal the same 50% grey on all camera systems if using the same iso/aperture/shutter speed and standard processing.
> ...



+1

If what you really want is your own flexible tone curve you can do that. But you first have to collect the data you want to work with and that means fitting the scene into the sensor's DR in such a way that you will get the data to process as you like later instead of relying on the mfr's metering and tone-curve. You have to know your equipments' limitations to do so.

This may also require you to do an extensive color calibration as well since the tone curves for R, G, and B may not be exactly the same all thru the tonal (zone) range, even in raw, which may result in some hue shifts when you make adjustments with a master (luminance?) tone curve. Otherwise you'll be tweaking individual RGB tone curves too.

This tends to be very pronounced with some mfrs when it comes to their in-camera jpg engines; certain jpg renderings can have significant hue shifts with slight exposure changes. Hence the variety of jpg renderings available like "faithful" and "neutral" which are handy if you're shooting fast action and need to post process jpgs.
I've learned to make use of this in some of the ML systems I use as the WYSIWYG EVF display shows me exactly the effect I get when I make exposure compensation adjustments on subjects that may have deeply saturated colors. This can save me from doing post work at all sometimes, as I can nail the effect I want completely in-camera at the time of shooting.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 2, 2016)

docsmith said:


> It is striking how many of the "advances" are trending towards being able to "recover" a blown shot.
> 
> Coming soon, mind-reading AF,



Canon can do AF where your own eye decides the AF-point. A winning idea. Why they do not reintroduce this is beyond me. 

That, and the overwhelmingly useful auto eye-AF of the competition would be more than nice.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 2, 2016)

Aglet said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Oh no ? What is clipped / blown with to day's processors may not be with tomorrows. 

Go run some of your CR2 files through the ACR 2003 processes and compare 'blown' highlights with the latest process. 

And regarding shadow lifting, lowlights at 0 lift as readily as highlights at 255 are pulled. (Forgot the <sarcasm> tag here


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 2, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Is HDR then the interim solution?


----------



## hendrik-sg (Sep 2, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Its interesting how the ability to recover highlights, or at least the useable highlight headroom is never tested or discussed.
> ...



Sure a 5 stop shadows push on a ISO 100 shot gives a ISO 3200 shot in the shadows. But a original ISO 3200 shot would blow the highlights, which a ISO 100 shot retains. 

What the highlight recovery means, in my understanding if all color chanels are full, there is no more color information. How much it needs until the chanels are full should be defined by the base ISO, the lower the base ISO is, the more space for photons until the sensor overflows.

The dynamic range should be the quotient of "number of photons for overflowing" divided by "noise level in complete darkness".


----------



## hendrik-sg (Sep 2, 2016)

dsnook said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



then expose lower, that the higlights are not blown and push the shadowes/mid tones


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 2, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> Canon can do AF where your own eye decides the AF-point. A winning idea. Why they do not reintroduce this is beyond me.
> 
> That, and the overwhelmingly useful auto eye-AF of the competition would be more than nice.



I have it on my Elan, but it never works quite well enough for my taste, and that's with only 7 points. With 61? Good luck!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Canon can do AF where your own eye decides the AF-point. A winning idea. Why they do not reintroduce this is beyond me.
> ...



Well, it would be better than iTR, which is an 'utter failure'. Or so Rishi claims.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 2, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



A bracketed and blended shot will have better tonality at the bottom of the file compared with under exposing to gain more highlight room. 

However HDR often isn't necessary if you don't under expose to start with. It is remarkable how much you can over expose these recent Canon cameras and hold good highlight detail if you use the latest ACR.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 2, 2016)

"More moderate 3-4 ev pushes"


----------



## dsnook (Sep 2, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> dsnook said:
> 
> 
> > It is my understanding that on any given image the center tone, or Zone 5, should always equal the same 50% grey on all camera systems if using the same iso/aperture/shutter speed and standard processing.
> ...





Mikehit said:


> How do you standardise 'zone 5'?





Mikehit said:


> what is 'standard processing'? With whose software?



I hadn't realized that this was not standardized. I thought that if you take an old spot meter it will give you the ISO/Shutter/Aperture that will make your subject 18% grey. This would then equal the 50% tone on any final image when using the mfr recommended processing. This is what I meant by standard processing, whether JPG output, default settings in ACR, or film development times. I had thought that the midpoint was supposed to be reasonably constant across platforms with the high/low clipping, noise, or tone curve varying.

Of course mfrs have always adjusted their processing to compensate for their ISO. They did this with film to allow for greater pushing latitude and from what you say it sounds like Olympus may have done the same thing recently. Of course this baseline processing is rarely how you would you would want to use film and it’s not how I shoot digitally either. Pushing and pulling is always happening, but I had always thought it was based around a standardized mid tone, which is why the same exposure settings will work across multiple camera systems. 



Mikehit said:


> With cameras, like any tool, it is a case of knowing its limitations and this is where dynamic range is among the most useful - learn where the upper and lower limits of usability are and learn how to work within them.



I completely agree with this statement. This is kinda part of my point and I think what Sporgon was getting at as well. I have learned the limitations of my own cameras and know when I need to underexpose (or more likely switch to bracketing/HDR) to get the final image I want. I don't have any problem with that. The issue is with cameras that I don't have but am considering. I would like to see reviews that provide information about the upper limits of the camera along with the lower. 



Aglet said:


> If what you really want is your own flexible tone curve you can do that. But you first have to collect the data you want to work with and that means fitting the scene into the sensor's DR in such a way that you will get the data to process as you like later instead of relying on the mfr's metering and tone-curve. You have to know your equipments' limitations to do so.



Precisely, I want know the equipment’s limitations. I want to know if I shoot the same scene with my 5DmkIII and a 5DmkIV with the same iso/shutter/aperture where the highlights get clipped as well as where the noise floor is.


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 2, 2016)

If i've said it once i've said it a thousand times, I've NEVER had a client ask/mention/complain about the DR of my images... ever... And for that matter, the flatter the image, less chances it has to sell... so could care less.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 2, 2016)

awinphoto said:


> If i've said it once i've said it a thousand times, I've NEVER had a client ask/mention/complain about the DR of my images... ever... And for that matter, the flatter the image, less chances it has to sell... so could care less.



+1. A couple of years ago, I would generally push the shadows a bit in my editing. The files I got from the 6D did that very well in 99% of the photos I edited, and I would rarely wish for more. Now, after maturing as a photographer and in editing photos, I push the shadows way less than before, and will often increase the shadows instead of brighthening them. 

The one thing I'm most happy with, with Canon cathing up with Sony and Nikon with regards to DR, is that we might stop hearing people gush on about the importance of 5-6 stops of shadow pulling. I see no importance in it for my kind of shooting.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 2, 2016)

I ordered the Mark IV and looking forward to the DR improvements- but there's more to getting the customer's final product.
-What's the print size?
-What's the viewing distance?
-What kind of paper?
-What type of lighting is there where the photo will be displayed?

The camera and artistry in post is only part of the equation. Getting it right in camera is step one, but all the subsequent steps matter just as much.
Besides, most customers are after the subject and have no clue about grain and DR. We, the camera geeks, freak out over the tiny details.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 2, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I ordered the Mark IV and looking forward to the DR improvements- but there's more to getting the customer's final product.
> -What's the print size?
> -What's the viewing distance?
> -What kind of paper?
> ...



Not to mention, isn't the DR of prints much lower than what cameras routinely record anyway?


----------



## dsnook (Sep 2, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I ordered the Mark IV and looking forward to the DR improvements- but there's more to getting the customer's final product.
> -What's the print size?
> -What's the viewing distance?
> -What kind of paper?
> ...



+1

We're the photographers and are the ones responsible for all the technical details. My comments before were less about DR being the most important thing. In general I've been satisfied with what I can get out of the Mk III. My thoughts were more about if we are going to discuss DR, I generally think it should be a discussion about the full range not just a shadows push. 

At then end of the day, it's all knowing your equipment so you can be able to deliver the desired product.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 3, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > If i've said it once i've said it a thousand times, I've NEVER had a client ask/mention/complain about the DR of my images... ever... And for that matter, the flatter the image, less chances it has to sell... so could care less.
> ...



Perhaps this aligns with my thinking and reaction to hdr photos. Often I come away with the feeling that there is something "wrong" with these photos. It has to do with my brain knowing subconsciously that a dark area will not display much detail and that dark areas provide the contrast. A piece of photo paper can't display the black of a cave or the brilliance of the sun so it's all squeezed together. I'm just learning so feel free to correct me.

Jack


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 3, 2016)

Check this list for Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2016. There are two made from Canon EOS 500D + 55–250mm f5.6 lens and Canon EOS 1200D + 75–300mm f5.6 lens. 
https://www.dpreview.com/news/5480094425/take-a-peek-at-some-of-the-contenders-for-wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-2016


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 3, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Check this list for Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2016. There are two made from Canon EOS 500D + 55–250mm f5.6 lens and Canon EOS 1200D + 75–300mm f5.6 lens.
> https://www.dpreview.com/news/5480094425/take-a-peek-at-some-of-the-contenders-for-wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-2016



Imagine, with that lens that you can barely give away. Goes to show ...... 

It gives hope to those who love to shoot but can't afford upper level gear. 

Jack


----------



## Otara (Sep 3, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Check this list for Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2016. There are two made from Canon EOS 500D + 55–250mm f5.6 lens and Canon EOS 1200D + 75–300mm f5.6 lens.
> https://www.dpreview.com/news/5480094425/take-a-peek-at-some-of-the-contenders-for-wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-2016



Not to mention the 5D1, the D300, the D90. Several 5D3's. Its amazing what they were able to do with such ancient useless hardware, particularly all those Canons that were so utterly terrible at DR even on release.

The actual winners might change the balance a tad though.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 3, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > Check this list for Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2016. There are two made from Canon EOS 500D + 55–250mm f5.6 lens and Canon EOS 1200D + 75–300mm f5.6 lens.
> ...



Bet'cha the housing and lights cost most than most bodies.

Regardless, cost of gear doesn't correlate well with good photos, and however much some personalities like to lambaste the image quality of that camera, that's a quality image.


----------



## Luds34 (Sep 3, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> RBC5 said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



Okay, curiosity killed the cat and I clicked on the link. 9 minutes in and this guy is obsessed with the UHS-I card slot and buffer. 

It's like a trainwreck, I can't look away...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 3, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > RBC5 said:
> ...


My sincere condolences for your loss (of time you can never get back)


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 3, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



For those photos with brilliant colors like flowers or things like chrome and polished aluminum, I am having the prints done using the Kodak Metal coated paper. The difference is significant.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 3, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



clipped is clipped,
gone is gone.
that the data is lost is foregone, 
Sporgon

best that can be done is fake some texture back into the blown channel by modulating it with data from unclipped channels. Done cleverly, this may be somewhat useful but it's not a recovery operation, it's re-direction.

run some test shots and use whatever raw utility shows the actual numeric value of the RGB channels. If you've max'd out the count on R, G, or B, you're not recovering tonal data from _that_ area of that channel. You can't get anything from the derivative of a flat line. [/math]


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 3, 2016)

The thing is, if a manufacturer managed to make a camera with say 12 stops of real world true iso Dynamic range, then most of our default images would look very flat and dull. We would need to add quite a lot of contrast and curves to compress the DR to bring back some jazzel to the photos. If you look at the HDR composites that the car photo industry uses to make their advertising material with...the images have a massive DR...and they are completely bland until the final post processing.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 3, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



Thanks, that's good to know.

Jack


----------



## Aglet (Sep 4, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



I won't disagree that latest ACR may be vastly improved (I'm not set up to compare them) but truly clipped is lacking tonal data for the clipped channel, there is nothing there to recover
Perhaps they're doing some extra math based on the CFA response for a particular body that allows them to extract a little more info from the non-clipped colors (since each color filter has a bit of other color affected it as well).
Or, what may have changed is the way the preview data was presented as being clipped (some raw converters allow you to set black and white levels that are within the DR limits and define those as clipped or blocked) when it really was not quite clipped.

Can anyone provide real numbers that show the difference between the new and old ACR and how it handles these blown, but maybe not really blown, hilites?... Perhaps a good topic for another thread... post a link.
I'm curious. But I'm also adamant that you can't recover tonal data from a (truly) clipped channel!


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 4, 2016)

I'm wondering if there may have been a couple of different Beta versions in circulation.


----------



## dtgphoto (Sep 4, 2016)

Get it mostly right in camera and there is plenty type of DR to make it perfect or push it beyond perfect to being artificial looking hdr shots. Personally I like photos that capture the mood through a degree of faithfulness to the real. 

Having worked with what is tested as horrid DR in my 70d and various canon dlsrs over the years I can't wait to having a lot more latitude in keepers. 

With regards to the review and testing... the images at over iso400 look better on the 5d4 than the nixon and Sony best.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 4, 2016)

dtgphoto said:


> Having worked with what is tested as horrid DR in my 70d



lol, come on.


----------



## dtgphoto (Sep 4, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> dtgphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Having worked with what is tested as horrid DR in my 70d
> ...



It is pretty bad but focuses your mind on getting good it close in camera and certainly try to use sub 800 iso


----------



## BobHope (Sep 5, 2016)

I find the comments on DR being useless, or only for photos you took wrong being quite astonishing. For 60 years professional photographers have been throwing kit at the problems of dynamic range in both film and digital sensors. 

Ansel Adams zone system
Yellow filters for B&W
Polarisers ( they are not just to make the sky's bluer ) 
Graduated ND filters. 
Scrims to shade the model
Reflectors to bounce the light 
Portable batttery powered strobes and softboxes to balance a shaded model vs a sunlit background
Fill flash to brighten faces in direct sunlight and backlit subjects
+100's more "hacks" try to increase DR. 

Now you can shoot a backlit model at golden hour without without a fill and pull her brown eyes up in post without issues. 10 years ago I needed a car boot full of kit or I had to resort to actually "painting" eyes in photoshop from scratch with a tablet

I have found this forums underwhelmed reaction to the increase in DR bizarre. Its one of the most exciting advances in tech at the moment.

I also find the reaction to Rishi's work very poor. He may not be perfect, but he does do a good job of doing a repeatable test across cameras/sensors and publishing the results without bias. 

If you have ever tried to do work of this kind spanning years you will discover just how hard it is, and how fiddly and timeconsuming it is to setup. 

Sites like DPreview and there back to back tests are one of the reasons Canon has had to increase the DR on its current cameras and get rid of ugly banding. 

The whole Canon community actually owes him a great deal.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 5, 2016)

Canon owners owe DPR lol 

The only reason Canon increase DR is coz of DPR...lol. This forum gets better and better...lol

Moores Law and evolution would not have a role to play in it haha


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 5, 2016)

BobHope said:


> I find the comments on DR being useless, or only for photos you took wrong being quite astonishing. For 60 years professional photographers have been throwing kit at the problems of dynamic range in both film and digital sensors.
> 
> Ansel Adams zone system
> Yellow filters for B&W
> ...



You may have a point or two, but I generally disagree with much of what you say. The main thing is that pulling shadows or selectively increasing the light, does not give the same results as good lighting. Reflectors, flashes etc is still required if you want good quality results in difficult lighting situations.


----------



## BobHope (Sep 5, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> BobHope said:
> 
> 
> > I find the comments on DR being useless, or only for photos you took wrong being quite astonishing. For 60 years professional photographers have been throwing kit at the problems of dynamic range in both film and digital sensors.
> ...



I agree that if you want the best quality the lighting kit is still helpful - more light is always better, its the basic physics of photography. 

However there are a number of tricks that people have developed to improve the quality of natural reflected light.. using a colour chekr card to eliminate the colour cast that is often present to get skin tones right, dodging and burning to simulate a directed light source, the lightroom plugin de haze can cut out a lot of the flare from shooting into light if it is unwelcome, using luminance masks to selectively brighten skin - if you have clean shadow data and colour there is a whole new world of software tricks out there to play with and get a more natural result. . 

Just because you once put a 5d MkIII file into lightroom and pushed the shadows slider up and hated the results, it doesn't mean the new techniques are invalid.


----------



## BobHope (Sep 5, 2016)

Some examples of what I am referring for clarity : 

http://petapixel.com/2014/11/24/creative-underexposure-nikon-dslrs/

Welcome to this world, Mk IVCanon shooters, I can't wait to see what you start producing.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 5, 2016)

BobHope said:


> Some examples of what I am referring for clarity :
> 
> http://petapixel.com/2014/11/24/creative-underexposure-nikon-dslrs/
> 
> Welcome to this world, Mk IVCanon shooters, I can't wait to see what you start producing.



With all due respect, those shots are nice enough, but they do rather boil down to 'a couple standing in a landscape'. It's hardly pushing the boundaries.

(And though I don't do much of that sort of work myself, I'd imagine a little bit of flash or reflectors could have helped in a few of those shots, if you didn't have so much shadow lifting capability).


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 5, 2016)

And many Mk3 owners have been lifting shadows for the last 4 years


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 5, 2016)

BobHope said:


> The whole Canon community actually owes him a great deal.



Right....the whole community owes Rishi a great deal???????? I laughed out loud and then realise you were serious.

Hmmm another 10 post member...hmmm....I smell troll.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 5, 2016)

BobHope said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > BobHope said:
> ...



One thing that is overlooked very often by those who asks for more DR, and those that highlight the ability to lift shades 5 or 6 stops, is that the light in those lifted shadows regularly will be bad in terms of color and contrast. Lifting the shadows 6 stops will therefore often ruin the picture, rather than adding to it. 

With regards to the pictures you are linking to from petapixel, I honestly believe my 5Ds could deliver similar results. The lifts done in that article seems to be 2 - 3 stops.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 5, 2016)

BobHope said:


> Some examples of what I am referring for clarity :
> 
> http://petapixel.com/2014/11/24/creative-underexposure-nikon-dslrs/
> 
> Welcome to this world, Mk IVCanon shooters, I can't wait to see what you start producing.



Oh God, no ! I thought those days had gone. A link to one of the old articles posting images that could have been shot on a 5D from 2005 if you shoot raw and use an up to date processor.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 5, 2016)

BobHope said:


> Polarisers ( they are not just to make the sky's bluer )
> Graduated ND filters.
> Scrims to shade the model
> Reflectors to bounce the light
> ...



Those are actually techniques and equipment to compress DR, not increase it


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2016)

BobHope said:


> Some examples of what I am referring for clarity :
> 
> http://petapixel.com/2014/11/24/creative-underexposure-nikon-dslrs/
> 
> Welcome to this world, Mk IVCanon shooters, I can't wait to see what you start producing.



Yes, that clarifies the irrelevancy of your argument. Thanks.


----------



## sebasan (Sep 5, 2016)

Is there a way to shut up assholes like BobHope??

Edit: I founded, you can ignore users. Thanks!


----------



## Alex_M (Sep 5, 2016)

..and to reduce scene contrast, convert hard light into soft light, provide multi-directionality and/or change direction of light, colour and intensity of light...


3kramd5 said:


> BobHope said:
> 
> 
> > Polarisers ( they are not just to make the sky's bluer )
> ...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 5, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> ..and to reduce scene contrast, convert hard light into soft light, provide multi-directionality and/or change direction of light, colour and intensity of light...
> 
> 
> 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Yes, but most certainly not increase DR.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> BobHope said:
> 
> 
> > Some examples of what I am referring for clarity :
> ...



HA!
Back in the day, I could suck shadows from my old 7D. Expose for the highlights and suffer. 



Pulling shadows on the old Canon 7D with DXO Optics software by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 5, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


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



Wow, is that the moon behind the trees ? Now that _is_ DR ! Even Rishi would agree


----------



## BobHope (Sep 5, 2016)

It's posts that say 

"here is a push on my 7d it looks great"
"We have been pushing shadows on 5d III just fine"

That show exactly why Rishi's work has had such impact. He has been producing content with identically lit scenes so you can compare the results of various pushes for yourself across different cameras.

It is no longer such a subjective argument - we have the data to reach a consensus that a 2 stop push is fine, but you can easily see a 5 stop push is too much for the 5DS. 

We can see a 4 stop push on 5D IV looks great, and on the 7D looks poor. 

The fact is you have the choice to be a better informed consumer, directly due to the work he does. Maybe you decide that you don't care about +5 stops of shadow pushing, but at least now you are making an informed choice with some real data.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 5, 2016)

BobHope said:


> It's posts that say
> 
> "here is a push on my 7d it looks great"
> "We have been pushing shadows on 5d III just fine"
> ...



How much of a push would it take to get you off CR ?


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 5, 2016)

Dearest Bob,

Hang on a mo, I don't visit DPR, shocking I know, and I have mates who....wait for it....have cameras and are not on the Internet, amazing I know..haha and one more thing who the hell is Rishi 



I owe DPR and Rishi nothing and never will.


----------



## Alex_M (Sep 5, 2016)

Absolutely, I tried to extend on what you have just said regarding DR Compression.. I am sorry for not making myself clear. Thanks

.


3kramd5 said:


> Yes, but most certainly not increase DR.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 5, 2016)

BobHope said:


> That show exactly why Rishi's work has had such impact. He has been producing content with identically lit scenes so you can compare the results of various pushes for yourself across different cameras.
> 
> 
> The fact is you have the choice to be a better informed consumer, directly due to the work he does.



You defend Rishi with such emotional vigor. You must either be Rishi...or his one and only fan.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 5, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Absolutely, I tried to extend on what you have just said regarding DR Compression.. I am sorry for not making myself clear. Thanks
> 
> .
> 
> ...



Nothing to apologize for, you were clear! Adding, subtracking, and augmenting light serves numerous purposes. I have a camera with one of the renowned sensors when it comes to DR (a7r2), and it most certainly doesn't replace those techniques. It allows larger shadow pushes for sure, but the shadows when pushed are flat (which makes sense given the low signal recorded); it's much better IMO to augment the scene, whether lighting a person, filtering the skies, or something else.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 5, 2016)

In my world, DR is not as much of an issue as noise is. Trying to recover from screw-ups or just going for a one shot HDR, the noise level in the dark shadows is the limit. The Mark IV looks to have made great strides in this. 
Before I got my Mark III, the 7D was my "best" camera. I still have it, but it is a daylight only second body now. I bought DXO software to "fix" it's low light performance. While not a blazing fast workflow, it worked.
The 5D III rarely needed DXO processing but would allow a bit more creativity.
When my 5D IV arrives and DXO releases the software for it, I'll be looking at some new horizons for some subjects.
If DXO could find the color information in the near black areas of the old 7D, the Mark IV processing should be at least as good with less color noise and grain.

This is an old 7D shot where my strobe didn't recycle in time. The newspaper wanted it, so I ran it through DXO. There was enough color information in the dark shadows for there pupil colors to be evident! 
DR figures for cameras are fine, but other things are more important to me- like features.



DXO test pulling shadows Canon 7D © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 9, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> BobHope said:
> 
> 
> > That show exactly why Rishi's work has had such impact. He has been producing content with identically lit scenes so you can compare the results of various pushes for yourself across different cameras.
> ...



Yes, that is definitely the one and only possible explanation. 

And such _emotion_ - reminding people that we provide objective data but it's up to_ them_ to draw their own conclusions about whether or not said data is _relevant_. Such an _unreasonable thing_ to say...

So much for rationality on the internet.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 9, 2016)

BobHope said:


> The fact is you have the choice to be a better informed consumer, directly due to the work he does. Maybe you decide that you don't care about +5 stops of shadow pushing, but at least now you are making an informed choice with some real data.



Yes, that's what we try to provide - objective data for you to make evaluations. You can decide it doesn't matter to you, but we'll offer our opinion as to where benefits might matter, because it wouldn't be very helpful to have tests with no context. And that's where the trouble starts - when we suggest some feature or ability might help some type of photography, owners of cameras not (as) good at that particular feature or ability suddenly get defensive because it hasn't mattered for their photography. Which misses the point it could matter for other types of photography, or even that very type of photography if they were to use a new technique.

Technique articles devoid of any camera talk, OTOH, work better, and elicit less negative response from brand loyalists. It's unfortunate that we have to sit at the marriage of camera gear and the impact they have on photography/technique, because it ends up being hard to even have discussions of technique/impact because inevitably we're trying to tie it to the gear, which (some) people get religious about.

Thankfully, things usually work out in the long run. After we popularized the concept of 'ISO-invariance' 2 years ago by writing articles on it & designing a test to directly test it, a Google search of 'ISO-invariance' returns numerous hits and people actually talk about it & utilize now. Give it a few more years for CR to catch up, though they might not because there's a faction of people who now have to stick by their claim that DR doesn't matter since that's what they've been saying all these years... It's a similar story for object tracking: most impartial photographers can immediately see the potential for good subject/object tracking, especially as systems are finally getting really good at it, but those with cameras that don't do it well enough for them will continue to claim it doesn't matter. And those that haven't tried other systems will continue to claim theirs does it well enough, b/c it's all they really know.

And despite the negative feedback from a few loud voices, it always helps us at DPR to keep in mind that we're serving a different audience than brand loyalists: like the majority of photographers who care more about photography than the gear, or newcomers to photography who want to learn about cameras so they can choose. Or people like this guy, who saw these threads on CR and PMed me a nice note re: my 5D IV 1st Impressions and the fall-out here on CR:



> "It absolutely amazes me the vitriol that some folks can show when they perceive their personal choices in camera technology are somehow slighted by a person offering a review. As I said, I'm heavily invested in Canon tech and it would take a lot for me to switch, but I have found your reviews nothing but helpful. When you describe any shortcomings of the Canon system in comparison to Nikon or Sony, I would like to think most Canon shooters' response is "That's good to know, I'll take that into consideration" instead of an immediately defensive posture about why your interpretation is wrong or misstated. I would much rather hear what I might be missing than have a review misleadingly confirm that I've bought the greatest camera ever that no other camera system could be possibly match."


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2016)

Blah blah blah,

Where is that dishonest 5DSR raw file Rishi?


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 9, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Not to mention, isn't the DR of prints much lower than what cameras routinely record anyway?



The DR of some prints is lower than what slide film can record. Does that mean no one ever chose negative film for its extended latitude?

It's called _tone-mapping_, and done properly, you can still retain the perception of contrast, while including tones from your scene you wouldn't have been able to include had you not had the _capture dynamic range_ of negative film or higher dynamic range digital sensors.

Ansel Adams did it, Bruce Barnbaum did it, and some successful photographers today do it without producing ugly, flat HDR-ish images (usually by finding ways to still stretch out the histogram of the photograph across the entire range, unless that's not the artistic intent).

Furthermore, print / lighting technology continues to evolve. We now see prints capable of 9+ stops of output dynamic range. Digital displays of course can do far more and, arguably, are the future anyway. So over time tone-mapping will be less and less required, and you'll be able to better create the actual range of tones you literally saw with your eyes. But only if you captured all of it without blowing highlights or introducing too much noise into the 'shadows'.

(I put quotes around 'shadows' because the deep tones in your Raw files today may not even need any 'pushing' in order to be visible on the bright, HDR displays of tomorrow).


----------



## scyrene (Sep 9, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Not to mention, isn't the DR of prints much lower than what cameras routinely record anyway?
> ...



I was replying to (largely in agreement with) a post saying that end clients don't ask about DR. Now, my experience of that kind of paid photographic work is limited, but I still doubt very much whether any non-photographic person has any inkling what that term means. Indeed, a minority of photographers know or care what it really amounts to. It's possible to be a great photographer and not worry about such technical aspects. People want photographs that look good, that do what they want (show off a product, record an event, capture a mood), and generally they are viewing a print (which despite recent improvements in technology you allude to, still record *far less* DR than a sensor) or a downsized jpeg on an uncalibrated display device. My point was, and remains, that while to some photographers, DR (low ISO shadow noise specifically) is important, in most practical situations it is NOT the be all and end all for paying clients. If you're gonna quote people, try not to take them out of context.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 9, 2016)

scyrene said:


> I was replying to (largely in agreement with) a post saying that end clients don't ask about DR. Now, my experience of that kind of paid photographic work is limited, but I still doubt very much whether any non-photographic person has any inkling what that term means.



Of course they don't ask about DR, nor should they know about it. They might see a noisier image, but if you're a good photographer, you don't deliver a noisy image. I was still delivered noisy images from award-winning wedding photographers, and sure I happen to know it's b/c of limited DR, but even then - I didn't complain. Few do.



scyrene said:


> It's possible to be a great photographer and not worry about such technical aspects.



No one claims otherwise. But as I often find myself repeating: "It's also possible to be a great photographer and _worry _about such technical aspects that get you around camera limitations and open up creative doors."



scyrene said:


> My point was, and remains, that while to some photographers, DR (low ISO shadow noise specifically) is important, in most practical situations it is NOT the be all and end all for paying clients.



Not sure who suggested otherwise, but, yes, talk about DR is mostly directed at photographers, because clients should never even see the result of lower DR, because you as a photographer shouldn't deliver noisy images. And if you do, they won't know it's DR limitations, they'll just think it's a noisy (high ISO) shot.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 9, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> ..And if you do, they won't know it's DR limitations, they'll just think it's a noisy (high ISO) shot.


or a _feature filter_ like the picket-fence vertical banding of DigiC 4 bodies when pushing shadow areas.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2016)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Blah blah blah,
> ...



Or, I have found a genuine chink in the armour and I refuse to let him off the hook. I could roll over and be quiet, but why should I? Why should he be allowed to get away with lying and providing extremely misleading information?

And don't forget, we are not talking about a regular poster here, we are talking about the technical editor of one of the biggest online camera review sites. 

He is being willfully disingenuous and deceitful and unless people point that out it will get worse.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2016)

dilbert said:


> I can count a handful of people on CR that dislike Rishi with a passion because he doesn't write nice things about their favorite toys but that's the only safe inference that can be made.



No I dislike him with a passion because his professed job and reason to get out of bed is to help and inform the buying public, yet his writing is littered with lies, inconsistencies and falsehoods. 

I point that out and I am the baddie? Get real, open your eyes. The last person I advised to buy a camera on here I said take a good look at the D810 ( http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30593.msg617482#msg617482 ). I am not biased, I have no skin in the game and don't have a parent company relying on buyers or go on company freebies paid for by manufacturers. If I am asked to explain or back up an opinion I do it. I have offered to apologize fully if I am wrong, yet I am the baddie in this?

I liken myself closer to a terrier than a baddie, I don't want to let go because I believe my concern is valid and my request is not onerous.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2016)

I think I will be a very happy 5D IV buyer in the next 3-5 years or maybe an even happier 5D V buyer instead. 

The technology available to us just keeps getting more and more incredible. These are wonderful times to live in as far as camera technology goes.

With all the complaining I see going on, I still just have to step back and think, "Wow, there are some uniquely gifted individuals bringing some very extraordinary products to us."

I got my 5D mark III last fall and still find it to be a marvelous machine. If I were well to do I might go out and buy each and every iteration Canon releases, but I think that would be a waste of my money as a hobbiest... no matter how well heeled.

There are pros on these forums that don't go out and buy the latest release each time either. They know when *they* need to upgrade and when not to. While not seeing their work, though I have been privileged to view the work of a few (Pookie is one of the greats, and also a thoughtful and generous human being with his time and advice), I think they keep things in perspective for me.

No piece of gear can substitute for talent and studying the craft that makes these pros who they are. Going out and doing the work day after day has transformed them into the masters they are. A love of the craft and always attempting to improve on what they did the day before... that is the mark of men who will always overcome and conquer where others falter and blame ineptitude on gear. 

They've learned to take the once in a while accidental good photo, learn, and make great photos consistently... causing greatness to be the norm and mediocrity to be the accidental.

Hats off to Canon for giving us the technology. Hats off and heads bowed to the dedicated professional photographers who show us what is possible with hard work a dedication.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 9, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



I think comparing it to terrorism is a bit much even for you. Anyway, sometimes giving in is the better option (I can't make that judgment here, it's not my fight). By witholding the raw image, it could be spun as having something to hide - it's a judgment whether that is more damaging than being seen as giving in to pressure.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2016)

scyrene said:


> By witholding the raw image, it could be spun as having *something to hide*...



Such as claiming – repeated and emphatically – to be completely unbiased and not influenced by brand, then it turns out he was writing a Nikon-sponsored advertainment piece while making that claim.


----------



## applecider (Sep 9, 2016)

PBD, What are you suspecting to see in the raw file? You probably say at some point in the forums, but could you repeat it if you would.

I've followed these threads and have no dog either way but am curious as to what is/may/could be found from having the raw file? I hope that it is published so whatever point there is can be made or refuted. 

I do find it curious that the "formula" on written articles often about canon camera bodies start with images from cameras other than the one the article is ostensibly about to illustrate a point. Case in point the article about the "5D4 dramatic dynamic range improvements" begins with an image, the girl on the horse on the beach, shot with a Nikon 810 to illustrate a point about a canon camera.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 9, 2016)

applecider said:


> PBD, What are you suspecting to see in the raw file? You probably say at some point in the forums, but could you repeat it if you would.
> 
> I've followed these threads and have no dog either way but am curious as to what is/may/could be found from having the raw file? I hope that it is published so whatever point there is can be made or refuted.



That the sky isn't nearly clipped, and that the foreground could have been significantly brighter without blowing any highlights.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 9, 2016)

So all the while I've been wondering. Now I know Scott is a terrorist (by analogy). 

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 9, 2016)

Putting the RAW file out there is a big thing!

To do so, you have to be ready to say "this is the best edit that I could do" and be willing to see if others can do better. People are going to play with that RAW file and someone out there is going to do a better job editing it than you did. (not MAY do a better job editing it, WILL do a better job). This person(s) who do a better editing job will then respond and will (hopefully) tell us how they did it and we will learn from them.

by not releasing the RAW, the suppositions and suspicions continue, and the arguments continue with no hope of resolvement.


----------



## davidmurray (Sep 25, 2016)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



People bought the 5Ds/at when they wanted megapixels above all else.

That rule still applies because the 5Ds/at bodies are still 20mp higher than any other Canon bodies.


----------



## mmenno (Sep 25, 2016)

Reading these forums it completely amazes me how so many people can blatantly deny more dynamic range is better..
There's a reason Rishi has the job of testing and reviewing cameras for a living and you guys don't. Dynamic range is an important quality in a camera, whether you know or use it or not. But rest assured, even as cameras get better, you'll still be able to add all the noise and banding you want in post


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 25, 2016)

mmenno said:


> Reading these forums it completely amazes me how so many people can blatantly deny more dynamic range is better..
> There's a reason Rishi has the job of testing and reviewing cameras for a living and you guys don't. Dynamic range is an important quality in a camera, whether you know or use it or not. But rest assured, even as cameras get better, you'll still be able to add all the noise and banding you want in post



Then you should read more carefully. No one here has ever denied more is a bad thing. The arguments start when someone under exposes an image shot on Canon, then claims you cannot do a satisfactory shadow lift without degrading the image quality, and defines this as the only quality the sensor can achieve, when in actual fact if the shot had been exposed more to the right without losing any highlights the lift would have been fine. 

Of course the reason they have to do this is because under more optimum exposure the shadow lift required to make the image IQ look bad would be cartoon-like and rediculous, and this is because 12 stops of real EV range are more than enough in most uncontrived circumstances, and when they are not the required range tends to be many stops above even 13-14. Witness the recent post of a guy who's just bought a 5DIV and hasn't got enough DR to cope with a cruise ship lit up with bright lights in harbour at night.

I know, I know, the D810 would have done it :


----------



## mmenno (Sep 25, 2016)

Those deliberately severely underexposed shots are meant to more obviously show the difference in dynamic range between sensors, and they serve that purpose very well. When camera A can be pushed 5 stops and camera B only 3, this simply shows Camera A has better DR, it doesn't mean every shot you take with it has to be underexposed by 5 stops, it just means you can, and with camera B you can't. 

I still own a 7D1, and the lack of dynamic range in the 5D2 and 5D3 has kept me from going full frame for the past few years , as my motivation to do so is largely image quality. So personally I'm very happy that Canon has finally been pushed to upgrade their sensor technology, even though apparently not everyone sees it's benefits.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 25, 2016)

mmenno said:


> Those deliberately severely underexposed shots are meant to more obviously show the difference in dynamic range between sensors, and they serve that purpose very well. When camera A can be pushed 5 stops and camera B only 3, this simply shows Camera A has better DR, it doesn't mean every shot you take with it has to be underexposed by 5 stops, it just means you can, and with camera B you can't.
> 
> I still own a 7D1, and the lack of dynamic range in the 5D2 and 5D3 has kept me from going full frame for the past few years , as my motivation to do so is largely image quality. So personally I'm very happy that Canon has finally been pushed to upgrade their sensor technology, even though apparently not everyone sees it's benefits.



We are all happy with whatever is improved but don't fret about what we have, which for the most part is fabulous. Nothing like competition.

Jack


----------



## mmenno (Sep 25, 2016)

I mostly agree with you, but what I don't get is why a serious professional reviewer gets whined at for even daring to touch on the fact that Canon's dynamic range has simply been demonstrably inferior for the last couple of years.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 25, 2016)

mmenno said:


> I mostly agree with you, but what I don't get is why a serious professional reviewer gets whined at for even daring to touch on the fact that Canon's dynamic range has simply been demonstrably inferior for the last couple of years.



This discussion has gone over your head then.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 25, 2016)

mmenno said:


> I mostly agree with you, but what I don't get is why a serious professional reviewer gets whined at for even daring to touch on the fact that Canon's dynamic range has simply been demonstrably inferior for the last couple of years.



Because the information is _presented_ as the Canon sensors not being able to cope with the desired EV range and tonal adjustment to taste, when in fact they can when not crippled by under exposing and putting the dark tones onto the sensor floor. This is exactly what was done with the girl half and hour after sunset shot on the 5Dsr. 

Everyone knows by now that the older generation Canon sensors were behind on "DR", but those who come here to demonstrate it produce, without fail, a contrived under-exposed shot and then state this is the best the sensor can do. That's the issue. In fact some of the under-exposed shots shown here as examples of poor "DR" have even the highlights under exposed by about four stops !!

If I have to choose between the 5Ds with its older, off chip ADC, and the newer 5DIV with its on chip ADC the difference in DR potential of the two cameras wouldn't even be considered in my decision. Now of course if we were talking about the difference between 6 and 13 stops it would.


----------



## mmenno (Sep 25, 2016)

I've seen the picture you mention on dpr, but as I'm on my phone at this time I can't do any serious assessment of it's precise exposure. As I recall though, there was mention of the highlights being pushed all the way to the right, and it would surprise me if this was an outright lie. 
But aside from all the 'test pics', whether done properly or not, the fact remains that the sensor performance, DR wise, on canon cameras has been lacking for quite a while. When I picked up my 7D I was surprised to see so much noise and banding, not only in deep shadows but sometimes in clear skies as well. I didn't even know what caused it at first, but after some reading I found out it was just a sponsor design issue, not a fault in my specific body. Ever since then I've been waiting for Canon to get with the times, and now finally they seem to have..
Don't get me wrong, I love a lot about my camera, and Canon camera's in general, but DR has been a serious gripe for me, and others as well, so I am glad that Sony made better sensors and reviewers compared them to Canon's, so we all benefit in the long run.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 25, 2016)

mmenno said:


> I've seen the picture you mention on dpr, but as I'm on my phone at this time I can't do any serious assessment of it's precise exposure. As I recall though, there was mention of the highlights being pushed all the way to the right, and it would surprise me if this was an outright lie.



You are right, in the 5DIV DPR article he says "highlights just short of clipping". Earlier, in the arguments here, he stated "about one stop" or "just under one stop" off clipping. So regarding lying; well you judge. 

I calculated from the time after sunset and the exposure triangle info given in the original 5Ds article, that the highlights were about 1.5 stops under clipping. That puts the deep shadows 1.5 stops deeper in very thin (dark) light, which would make a huge difference in the ability to lift in post. On any current camera actually; even on a D810 you would have been losing tonality.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 25, 2016)

Personally, the 5D mark IV meets my DR needs. Balancing the Lights & darks so that finished edits represent what my eye saw is what I want. The improvements in shadow information is noticeable- especially color noise.
The other thing I have noticed is that I'm not having to mess with color temps as much. I think the RGB metering is a huge improvement.

As soon as LR updated to support the Mark IV, I ran this shot as a test for bringing up the shadows.



Canon 5D Mark IV test LR6 3255 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

One thing I noticed in this photo is that the metering system nailed the skin tones despite the yellow light cast from the canopy over the pit area. 



Reno 2016 Steve working on Voodoo 4255 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

And just because I was curious, the 5-stop push...



Canon 5D Mark IV 5 stop push LR6 3379 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

I was actually a bit surprised that the deep shadows pulled up that well. In the past, I would have had to use DXO to pull it up that much- with a noise penalty.


----------



## mmenno (Sep 25, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> mmenno said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen the picture you mention on dpr, but as I'm on my phone at this time I can't do any serious assessment of it's precise exposure. As I recall though, there was mention of the highlights being pushed all the way to the right, and it would surprise me if this was an outright lie.
> ...



If that is indeed the case I'd call that a lie, as the position of the highlights makes all the difference when trying to prove a point about dynamic range.. But either way, even if things are exaggerated to prove a point, which shouldn't be necessary or practiced by serious reviewers I must add, ,,in general, the fact that canon had a 'DR issue' and it was mentioned in various reviews in itself is a good thing in my opinion.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 25, 2016)

BobHope said:


> Some examples of what I am referring for clarity :
> 
> http://petapixel.com/2014/11/24/creative-underexposure-nikon-dslrs/
> 
> Welcome to this world, Mk IVCanon shooters, I can't wait to see what you start producing.



To my taste, many of these look to "HDR-like"...


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 25, 2016)

I sense plenty of SPS in this forum...


----------



## zim (Sep 25, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> BobHope said:
> 
> 
> > Some examples of what I am referring for clarity :
> ...



Me too

Funny that the article is talking about 2 stop lifts! Welcome to the new world indeed all you 6d 5d3 5ds/r owners ;D


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 26, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> mmenno said:
> 
> 
> > I mostly agree with you, but what I don't get is why a serious professional reviewer gets whined at for even daring to touch on the fact that Canon's dynamic range has simply been demonstrably inferior for the last couple of years.
> ...



Any shot that uses controllable artificial light in addition to background natural light...which then needs the background to be pulled...shows poor balancing of exposure and not poor DR. It points to a lack of skill, maths and talent. Anyone who fails in this regard should be very careful in claiming to be an expert or authority in this arena. There are amateurs here who get this stuff right in their leisure time. Let alone claiming to be a subject matter expert. DPR's main audience is the general public and with that...a very low expectation of photographic experience. Here at CR, there are some very talented and very experienced photographers who can compare their work with some of the BS statements made by so called "subject matter experts" who happen to have a pre-production copy of a camera and a web site. Bring that kind of Horsehit here and expect to be roasted. 

I have rarely needed two or three extra stops of DR, as Sporgon stated, if I need more DR, it's usually a LOT more. The need for expanded DR pales especially when I consider careful use of exposure. Cmos sensors seem to be more critical of exposure than even slide film of yesteryear. I have yet seen any photography genre that clearly shows the need for 4-5 stop pushed shadow areas which couldn't be achieved with either a superior technique (exposure blending / HDR) or better understanding of exposure metering. Sure we all pull a bit of exposure in Post Prod. But if we consider a 4-5 stop pull as necessary then that points to very poor metering or just being lazy and leaving it to be fixed later. If we then blame a camera for not being able to do this so well...that really points to the photographer's lazyness / lack of skill and then passing the blame onto the camera / tool. 

Just remember folks that massive DR isn't the be all and end off of photography. Too much DR and silhouettes become impossible.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 26, 2016)

Recent comments have helped me understand why Richi got himself in trouble and I've learned from all this. So, thanks to those who have been thoughtful in posting comments. It's not easy for most of us to say I blew it - ego gets in the way.

Jack


----------



## Act444 (Sep 26, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Recent comments have helped me understand why Richi got himself in trouble and I've learned from all this. So, thanks to those who have been thoughtful in posting comments. It's not easy for most of us to say I blew it - ego gets in the way.
> 
> Jack



+1

I've mostly stayed out of it...after having tested the 5D4, I find there is some extra latitude in post but I really do not see a huge difference in everyday shooting. The scenes that need more DR usually need a LOT more than the 2 stops so many have been clamoring for. 

OTOH, there IS a huge difference in detail capture between the "normal" 5D and the 5DSR, and that is apparent in everyday shooting!


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 26, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> I sense plenty of *SPS* in this forum...



Standard Positioning System?
Special Services?
SocioPolitical Sciences?
Special Protection System?
Standby Power System?
Single Photon Source?
Solar Powered Sattelite? 

I'm curious... No, honestly I don't know, yes I'm that dumb.


----------



## bholliman (Sep 26, 2016)

mmenno said:


> ...I must add, ,,in general, the fact that canon had a 'DR issue' and it was mentioned in various reviews in itself is a good thing in my opinion.



No question that Canon sensors prior to those introduced in 2016 had somewhat lower dynamic range than those from SoNikon. Certainly it should be mentioned, but DR is just one of hundreds of factors that a camera should be judged on, and to me its not even an extremely important factor. To me that doesn't mean Canon had a "DR issue" any more than Sony or Nikon has a "menu issue" or a "autofocus issue" due to their camera's not being as good as Canon products in those regards. 



GMCPhotographics said:


> ...I have yet seen any photography genre that clearly shows the need for 4-5 stop pushed shadow areas which couldn't be achieved with either a superior technique (exposure blending / HDR) or better understanding of exposure metering. Sure we all pull a bit of exposure in Post Prod. But if we consider a 4-5 stop pull as necessary then that points to very poor metering or just being lazy and leaving it to be fixed later. If we then blame a camera for not being able to do this so well...that really points to the photographer's lazyness / lack of skill and then passing the blame onto the camera / tool.
> 
> Just remember folks that massive DR isn't the be all and end off of photography. Too much DR and silhouettes become impossible.



+1


----------



## bholliman (Sep 26, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Personally, the 5D mark IV meets my DR needs. Balancing the Lights & darks so that finished edits represent what my eye saw is what I want. The improvements in shadow information is noticeable- especially color noise.
> The other thing I have noticed is that I'm not having to mess with color temps as much. I think the RGB metering is a huge improvement.
> 
> As soon as LR updated to support the Mark IV, I ran this shot as a test for bringing up the shadows.
> ...



Thanks for sharing your experiences with the 5D MkIV. 

Love you air show pictures! How does the new body compare with your 5DsR for air show photography? Does the improved DR make up for the fewer pixels on target? Is the 5D MkIV auto focus better at apertures under F/8? 

Thanks


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 26, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > I sense plenty of *SPS* in this forum...
> ...



Not the only one! 

Jack


----------



## dak723 (Sep 26, 2016)

zim said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > BobHope said:
> ...



OK, I admit that I have not been following the thread that closely, but I took a look at these pics and was also a bit surprised by the comment that at how wonderful these sensors are that they can handle 2 stops underexposure. 2 stops? My 6D handles 2 stop underexposure and shadow lifting with absolutely no problems. Being "old-school" - where we exposed for the highlights - many of my pics with more extreme lighting are underexposed 2 stops. My 300D could handle it. That's why some of us folks have never been disappointed - or shocked - or furious with Canon for its "lousy" sensor. It may have had less DR than the competitors, but it was a non issue for many.


----------



## Valvebounce (Sep 27, 2016)

Hi IglooEater. 
I'm glad you asked. 
I googled it too, I think I found the same site you did, but I was going to copy and paste the whole darn list and get them to pick one, then it hit me that maybe I was to far out of touch with modern culture (dumb) so I didn't bother! ;D

So Roman, what is the correct answer, enquiring minds need to know? 

Cheers, Graham. 



IglooEater said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > I sense plenty of *SPS* in this forum...
> ...


----------



## Zv (Sep 27, 2016)

dak723 said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



I agree. I do 2 stop lifts with my EOS M. Ain't no big thing at all. 

I also came late to this thread, why are we talking about this??


----------



## mmenno (Sep 27, 2016)

I must say very valid points are made here in regards to the actual usefulness of DR. I could have been more specific about my own personal gripes with it, but I thought it would be more useful to generalize. 
What has always annoyed me most about my own 7D1, is it's high amount of low ISO noise, and the banding that comes with it, apparently due to the design of its sensor. For instance I've tried lowering noise by shooting several frames at ISO 100, and averaging them in PS, only to be left with very distinct vertical bands across the whole frame, at all tonal values.. So for me it's really not about the number of stops of DR, or their practical usefulness, it's about the sensor technology that made for obvious image quality shortcomings, atleast for me personally.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 27, 2016)

Anyone with a 5d4 tried the old Multiexposure with 9 shots to eliminate noise yet?


----------

