# @Anti-DRones: Dali's dream ... Sony A7R ... why low ISO DR matters



## AvTvM (Dec 7, 2014)

"DR is overrated, only poor photographers underexpose severely and then have to pull up shadows, Canon is best, Sony A7/R are just toys, show me real life imags where more DR really ic critical", ...
yada yada yada ;D

here you go! Just dig the image "Dali's dream" by amazing photogpraher Erez Marom:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6534640423/behind-the-shot-dalis-dream
http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~TS520x0~articles/6534640423/l_Kolmanskop_4_6-3-2014_st9.jpeg


> I took the image with my Sony A7R and my Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II lens. I wanted as wide an angle as I could, so I shot at 16mm. The exposure time was 0.6 sec at ISO 100.





> Before looking at the RAW images, let's mention the second important aspect. It's very easy to see that the images are strongly underexposed. The reason is that the specific sensor I used, that of the Sony A7R, has tremendous dynamic range, and holds an amazing amount of detail in the darker pixels. I could therefore expose 'to the left', maintaining good detail in the light areas, and brighten the shadows in post processing without compromising quality and without the use of HDR, which would be difficult to do with the hard contrast in this scene. Let's look at the RAW images. Yes, they are very dark. But based on my familiarity with the A7R sensor, I knew I'd be able to extract perfect color and detail from the dark areas. Praise Sony!



Really like the "magic finger trick" Erez Marom demonstrates here! THUMBS UP!


----------



## fotofool (Dec 7, 2014)

Yep, this is becoming "a thing." The added flexibility of modern sensors is definitely changing generally accepted capture techniques. Fill flash, reflectors for fill light and split ND filters are starting to seem quaint. Here is another article...

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

I used to do exactly this, except indoors against window light, all the time with my 5dmII by asking people to hold very still and doing three bracketed exposures. Then I discovered that I could achieve the same result with my Leica M with a single exposure. The result is far more reliable, easier to capture and way easier to post process.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2014)

Nice image. 

Clearly, with all that fast-moving action in the scene, taking multiple images would have been impossible, making the image a perfect demonstration of when more DR is absolutely required for a single shot. : Of course, some highlight detail outside is blown out, so it wasn't quite _enough_ more DR. 

But as I said, it's a nice image.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Dec 7, 2014)

nice

reminds me of the darkroom magic before the digital age.

so much to learn and so much to forget as it will not work in the digital age


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 7, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> > Before looking at the RAW images, let's mention the second important aspect. It's very easy to see that the images are strongly underexposed. The reason is that the specific sensor I used, that of the Sony A7R, has tremendous dynamic range...But based on my familiarity with the A7R sensor, I knew I'd be able to extract perfect color and detail from the dark areas. Praise Sony!



Very nice image. Where do I find the link to the comparison image he took with a 6D using ML? I _presume _that he took a comparison image, otherwise it wouldn't be legitimate to claim this shot was only achievable due to the Sony sensor.

To be clear, it does seem that Sony sensors have real-world advantages in some circumstances; however, if you want to demonstrate to me that the difference is worth my money, you'll need to do better than this.


----------



## zim (Dec 7, 2014)

just looks like an HDR image to me :-\


----------



## sanj (Dec 7, 2014)

It is nice to have DR if one needs it. But I like some blown out, some black areas in my photos. I like the range generally. This photo I do NOT like. It looks unnatural and too much like bad HDR. My opinion of course!


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 7, 2014)

Gee. HDR Image of non-moving architecture.

Actually for what it is, I am disappointed. An HDR image from 5 or 6 years ago would have had even more DR.

Yawn


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 7, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> > I could therefore expose 'to the left', maintaining good detail in the light areas, and brighten the shadows in post processing without compromising quality and *without the use of HDR, which would be difficult to do with the hard contrast in this scene.*



I'm not sure why he thinks HDR would have been difficult. This is basically an ideal scenario for using PS to merge multiple exposures into a 32-bit TIFF.


----------



## weixing (Dec 7, 2014)

Hi,
Nice image, but no one said that low ISO DR is not importance... to some, it's importance, but to others, it might not as importance. 

Anyway, I though lights and shadows are importance in photography, but it's seem like the current trend is all lights and no shadows....

Have a nice day.


----------



## iMagic (Dec 7, 2014)

Sorry not to my taste. If you want an hdr look then do it with multiple exposures. Its not difficult.

I am perplexed With all this talk about DR and the quest to remove shadows. I like shadows. It leaves some things to imagination. Kind of like the difference between nude and naked. All of this reminds me of an old Wendys ad.... "Where's the shadows?"


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Clearly, with all that fast-moving action in the scene, taking multiple images would have been impossible, making the image a perfect demonstration of when more DR is absolutely required for a single shot. :



I suspect the op is actually out to argue that Canon has enough dr, but has found a fiendishly subtle way to prove his point :-> ... Neuro, you don't happen to have a second account and respond to yourself  ?

Anyway, I reckon a lot of people really don't understand when more dr is absolutely required, when it's simply a convenience and when good ol' bracketing even results in higher iq.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 7, 2014)

That image lacks overall scene contrast, and looks fake and nasty as a result. It has that "HDR look" that is to be avoided at all costs.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 7, 2014)

Here's a realistic high-DR shot I took on vacation last week. The difference here is that it was taken at ISO 1600 and there were moving subjects in the picture (my kids, at the bottom). This was taken in a cave near San Antonio. In LR shadows are pushed +100 and exposure is pushed +1. Highlights are -50. So, this is a lot of scene compression and it's still got a ton of overall scene contrast. In the original, my kids aren't even visible.

Oh, this was shot with the original 5D.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 7, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> That image lacks overall scene contrast, and looks fake and nasty as a result. It has that "HDR look" that is to be avoided at all costs.



Feel free to enter into my "Post your worst hdr shots" thread . Lately, there haven't been any new shots posted, and I'm just too much of a nice guy to copy/paste from the generic "Post your HDR images" thread but a lot of attempts definitely qualify. 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23041.0

As for the op's shot: I don't think it's overly tonemapped and you could definitely find something like this in a travel brochure or other high-gloss magazine.

The one thing I don't like is that it has a "cgi look", the walls and sand look like they are computer textures or computer generated. But this doesn't mean the shot is bad, just that cgi has seen big improvements lately.

Here's the shot as an inline, the op just had it linked:


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Dec 7, 2014)

And the point is?

I could do this with a single shot from any Canon camera I own - it's not remotely a "high" dynamic range shot as DRones mean the phase - "_something a Canon is (supposedly) incapable of doing_..."


----------



## zlatko (Dec 7, 2014)

He underexposed, knowing the abilities of the sensor in advance. Nothing wrong with that. But the final image is a result of *stacking different exposures* anyway — see his description of the Magic Finger technique. More DR is certainly beneficial for an image like this, but his actual workflow disproves the notion that it is "critical". Here the stacking is done to deal with the problem of flare rather than the problem of DR. Nevertheless, it's a good illustration of how good photographers deal with real world situations. Rather than blaming the manufacturer for bad results (e.g. "Canon ruined my image with flare — better flare control is critical!"), they know the abilities of the equipment and find ways to achieve their desired results.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Dec 7, 2014)

zlatko said:


> but his actual workflow disproves the notion that it is "critical".



Yep, it does indeed.



> Rather than blaming the manufacturer for bad results... they know the abilities of the equipment _and find ways to achieve their desired results_.



An idea which DRones seem utterly unable to cope with...


----------



## fotofool (Dec 7, 2014)

As someone's who loves Canon glass and is heavily invested in Canon hardware, I'm going to be sad if the larger Canon community becomes an echo chamber for Luddites.


----------



## roguewave (Dec 7, 2014)

> > Rather than blaming the manufacturer for bad results... they know the abilities of the equipment _and find ways to achieve their desired results_.
> 
> 
> 
> An idea which DRones seem utterly unable to cope with...



Give me one good reason why you want to jump through hoops finding ways and workarounds to achieve the desired results when there is other equipment that makes the process much easier.

Yet I bet you paid 1000s of $$$ for the latest and greatest Canon shooter... if you practice what you preach, why don't you find ways to achieve your desired results with a 40D, which you can get practically for free?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 7, 2014)

roguewave said:


> > > Rather than blaming the manufacturer for bad results... they know the abilities of the equipment _and find ways to achieve their desired results_.
> >
> >
> >
> ...



I still use my 20D and 5D. I've learned to push them to their limits and get everything out of them they are capable of providing. My biggest limitations are autofocus on exceptionally difficult targets and high ISO performance despite having the fastest lenses available. So, I'm going to get a 7D2 to fix the first problem and an as yet to be determined full frame to fix the second one.

I've never had a low ISO DR problem with my existing equipment.


----------



## tayassu (Dec 7, 2014)

Nice image...
Would be impossible with my 7D. I love this body and am stunned every day by the images it can deliver, but for DR... there are waaay better solutions.
I just struggled with some images at a school event I shot two days ago...
It was Saint Nicholas' day and all the twelfth grade pupils dressed up as angels or incubi... As you can imagine, a great deal of black and white contrast and poor lighting, I mostly shot @ISO3200...
With the proper post processing technique, I can get very good images, but they could be a lot better with recent sensors. :-\


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 7, 2014)

tayassu said:


> Nice image... Would be impossible with my 7D.



? ? ? ... You can put Magic Lantern on your 7d and create a bracket with 0.5ev spacing (number of shots necessary is automatically chosen by ML if you like). And even w/o ML you can shoot consecutive 3x brackets with the 7d stock firmware. With proper post-processing like exposure fusion or tone-mapping I'd dare anyone to tell the 7d result from any other camera out there esp. at the resolution the op has posted.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 7, 2014)

Just to make sure: it is not my image, i just posted the link. 
Photographer is Erez Marom. 
http://www.erezmarom.com


----------



## dppaskewitz (Dec 7, 2014)

I'm trying to learn here. I've tried HDR (Photomatix and PS CC 2014) with my own photos. In most cases, I prefer my results when I simply adjust the best of the multiple shots I took of a subject. But, I probably don't know how to properly merge the multiple exposures.

And, unlike the motionless scene in the deserted house in the photo linked by the OP (which Neuro has so artfully pointed out), it seems to me that in many (or most) shots in the wild, something is moving. It may be the ocean, branches on a tree, tall grasses, whatever. So, an HDR image is never gong to look crisp in all of the detail in those situations (anti ghosting seems to work if one thing moves, but not if there are multiple things moving in multiple directions???).

So, with everything else being equal, if Canon were to produce a sensor with more low ISO DR, say like the A7r, would that be a bad thing? And, knowing it is possible, do we really blame loyal Canon users for wishing that Canon would get on with it and provide cameras that match or exceed the Sonys? (Perhaps not so coincidentally, two landscape photographers I know from going on workshops with them have recently switched, in whole or in part, from 5DIIIs to A7rs. Not a scientific sampling, but perhaps indicative of what is happening in the real world. I know many folks who haven't purchased an "American" car in 40 years (and yes, I live in California). Don't think it couldn't happen to Canon).

It will be a long time (if ever) that my technical knowledge and artistic abilities exceed the capabilities of my 6D. But I wouldn't mind knowing that as I expand my Canon glass collection, the back end of the system is evolving a pace.

I'm not a DRone or anti-DRone. I'm just trying to learn and understand the issue.


----------



## jrista (Dec 7, 2014)

The difficulty you encounter when you have the sun literally in-scene is that with HDR, you usually end up with some kind of haloing and/or posterization around it when doing an HDR blend. You can mitigate that by using a lot more of more closely spaced exposures, but it is not perfect. HDR is not a DR panacea...it's a tool, and like any tool has it's limitations and proper use cases. You could also do a manual blend with two exposures, however that is really not much different than what's been done here.


Same goes for having and using more in-camera DR. I think it is ludicrous to say that this image is borderline on a badly tonemapped HDR image. This image is worlds better than that, and I think everyone who is trying to say otherwise behind thin veils is simply grasping at ways of backing up their preferred brand. The depth of the brand loyalties on this site are immeasurable... This is a great image. Is it perfect? No, but how many photos are? Does it make effective use of the DR the camera offers? Yes. Is this technique 100% absolutely essential? Depends!


With the sun in-scene, I would prefer to extract as much as I could out of a single frame, than to deal with the extra levels of work around blending an HDR that is likely to have integration artifacts around the sun or any other ultra high contrast areas. 


I'd also be very curious to see this communities reaction when a future (hopefully) high DR Canon camera captures something similar, and an article similar to this is written about the photographer's technique.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 7, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> And the point is?
> 
> I could do this with a single shot from any Canon camera I own - it's not remotely a "high" dynamic range shot as DRones mean the phase - "_something a Canon is (supposedly) incapable of doing_..."



I agree. And the final shot needs more contrast anyway.


----------



## jrista (Dec 7, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > And the point is?
> ...




This is entirely a matter of personal taste. High contrast, low contrast, high saturation, low saturation, better local contrast, or not, black and white, or not. That is all a matter of taste, style, art. It blows my mind how much the members of this community feel they can just decide for everyone what is valid art or not, or what is valid artistic technique or not, or what is valid processing or not, or how much no one knows how to use a camera if they find a use for more in-camera DR. WOW.


Personally, I think the photo is great. It wouldn't matter to me if it was done with a Canon or not. It's a great photo. It's probably better than I would do if I was standing in that guys shoes.


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 7, 2014)

tayassu said:


> Nice image...
> Would be impossible with my 7D.



You could do it with MagicLantern's DualISO feature.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 7, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> You could do it with MagicLantern's DualISO feature.



maybe. But with no current Canon camera ... running original firmware on it.
And even with ML it would not have 36 MP (base) resolution. ;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 7, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > Nice image...
> ...



I think you could do it with a G7X.


----------



## Rudeofus (Dec 7, 2014)

jrista said:


> This is entirely a matter of personal taste. High contrast, low contrast, high saturation, low saturation, better local contrast, or not, black and white, or not. That is all a matter of taste, style, art. It blows my mind how much the members of this community feel they can just decide for everyone what is valid art or not, or what is valid artistic technique or not, or what is valid processing or not, or how much no one knows how to use a camera if they find a use for more in-camera DR. WOW.
> 
> 
> Personally, I think the photo is great. It wouldn't matter to me if it was done with a Canon or not. It's a great photo. It's probably better than I would do if I was standing in that guys shoes.



As you probably know, the human eye uses different cells for seeing dark or bright scenes, and in dark areas our vision is mostly black and white. This little fact is precisely what makes most HDR images (and it doesn't matter whether they are real HDR or just tone mapped) so eyepokingly atrocious to many. The dark hallways in this image look as saturated as the bright outside, and to my eyes (and apparently many others) this doesn't look right.


----------



## zim (Dec 7, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > tayassu said:
> ...



indeed
in fact the only word you may have missed is 'easily'


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2014)

jrista said:


> You could also do a manual blend with two exposures, however that is really not much different than what's been done here.



Exactly. Especially in a scene with lots of nice, straight lines. 

As stated by me and others, this image is a nice picture that fails to demonstrate any advantage of the Sony sensor.


----------



## Policar (Dec 7, 2014)

Hideous tone-mapped mess, but clever technique with the thumb thing.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 7, 2014)

roguewave said:


> Give me one good reason why you want to jump through hoops finding ways and workarounds to achieve the desired results when there is other equipment that makes the process much easier.



*If* you need to jump through hoops. I'm the first one to point out that current Canon low iso dr is often limiting for motion scenes. But then I have to reluctantly agree that not all people seem to make use of the dr they have. That's because you have to *underexpose* probably a lot, and get an ugly, dark picture on your lcd before raising shadows in post.

Today, I shot my usual horsies and recognized that in the winter sun there's really hardly any way to max out 11.5ev of my 6d, I didn't have to use ML's dual_iso once.


----------



## Famateur (Dec 7, 2014)

tayassu said:


> I mostly shot @ISO3200...
> With the proper post processing technique, I can get very good images, but they could be a lot better with recent sensors. :-\


It might be helpful to remember that at that high of an ISO, you might actually get better dynamic range from a Canon sensor. If I'm mistaken, I welcome correction from the community here, but it's my understanding that Canon catches up and then pulls ahead in dynamic range as you move up the ISO scale.


----------



## Famateur (Dec 7, 2014)

zim said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...


Incidentally, the G7X sensor is not made by Canon. Some have compared its specs to the sensor of the Sony RX100 III and suspect it's a Sony chip. Anyone able to confirm that? If true, then the G7X might be a poor choice for this debate.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2014)

Famateur said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > I mostly shot @ISO3200...
> ...



True, except for the a7S (if 12 MP and its AF performance – particularly if you need to adapt a lens – are adequate for your needs).


----------



## Famateur (Dec 7, 2014)

In my mind, I try to separate the concepts of dynamic range and editing latitude (and there have been plenty of topics in this forum on the subject). It really seems more like a pursuit of _detail _than anything else. How much detail can be captured/restored in the highlights and shadows so that it can be seen when I _reduce _the dynamic range of the image (by pushing shadows and pulling highlights). Can I capture that detail in a single frame, or do I stack/merge?

If I can capture in a single frame and avoid merging, that would be best and simplify the workflow, but (and this is probably the critical part) I'm not primarily a landscape photographer, so the occasional bracket usually works fine for me. I'll happily enjoy any increase in dynamic range Canon can add to its sensors, but it's not a deal-breaker _for me_.

The only time I've really wished I could get more out of the sensor for dynamic range is when I'm in the woods (naturally lower light) and sky is visible in the shot. It usually means either a dark image or blown out sky. Stacking is a challenge if there's movement in the branches between bracketed shots. For me, it's an infrequent annoyance, and I'll be happy if/when a Canon sensor can solve it for me, but it's not enough to make me throw out everything else I love about the Canon system. If I was a landscape photographer, I might feel differently, but even then, I'd probably just add a body from another brand than dump my whole system.

I better stop now...I get the feeling that this has all been said a thousand times on this forum before...maybe even by me!


----------



## Famateur (Dec 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > tayassu said:
> ...


Noted...thank you!

For me, the AF performance would turn me away, but I'm sure there are some where AF is weighted much lower in their needs.


----------



## roguewave (Dec 7, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> roguewave said:
> 
> 
> > Give me one good reason why you want to jump through hoops finding ways and workarounds to achieve the desired results when there is other equipment that makes the process much easier.
> ...



Nice capture!


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 7, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6534640423/behind-the-shot-dalis-dream
> http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~TS520x0~articles/6534640423/l_Kolmanskop_4_6-3-2014_st9.jpeg



Umm, the most critical thing to making that photo happen is Photoshop, any camera could have been used.

Lee Jay gives a much better example of why DR is a good thing, except that 10 stops was still more than enough.

I guess the lesson today is that post processing trumps all.


----------



## jrista (Dec 7, 2014)

Sensor dynamic range is effectively a measure of the impact of noise. More DR, less noise. Less noise affects the signal overall, and it is not just beneficial for pushing the exposure around. If your midtones in a boke background expose to a level of say 8000e- on average, that's ~90e- shot noise. 


Now, noise is additive...so, anything additional, dark current and dark current noise, read noise, are added to the shot noise. With a Canon camera your adding 15-38e- RN (depending on whether your APS-C or FF, and which specific model), and on most your also adding a few electrons worth of dark current and dark current noise as well. On something with an Exmor, Toshiba or Samsung sensor, your adding maybe 3e- or so noise, an a fraction of an electron dark current.

Dynamic range is just a measure of how much room you have in your signal to put useful content. Since noise is additive, it affects the entire signal, top to bottom, every single level. When you add in noise, it's removing potential levels where you could have real data. That's why generally speaking there is little benefit to Canon cameras having 14 bits. You don't really get 14 bits of information out of their cameras...your getting at most 12 bits. Using 14 bit data gives you a finer granularity to noise, but overall, your the usable range of information is lower...the extra information is still just noise. You don't have to lift shadows or compress information into less space by moving exposure sliders around to benefit from higher DR. You benefit from it period (unless you exclusively shoot high key scenes at low ISOs...). Less noise is less noise.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 7, 2014)

roguewave said:


> Give me one good reason why you want to jump through hoops finding ways and workarounds to achieve the desired results when there is other equipment that makes the process much easier.



How is the process much easier?
You are still post-processing a lot more.
Its really about pre-production vs. post-production, if you spend a little more time setting up before the shot, then you won't have to spend more time in front of a computer. Or vice-versa.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 8, 2014)

jrista said:


> Now, noise is additive...so, anything additional, dark current and dark current noise, read noise, are added to the shot noise.



You're off the rails. Independent noise sources add in quadrature, not arithmetically.


----------



## zlatko (Dec 8, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


>



The dark parts of the horsies should have been raised several stops by maxing out the shadows slider. That is the one true test of a worthy sensor. There is no pure black in the real world. All shadows must be brightened! 

Just kidding. Lovely photo!


----------



## MichaelHodges (Dec 8, 2014)

9VIII said:


> I guess the lesson today is that post processing trumps all.



Sensor trumps all. The better the sensor, the less post processing.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 8, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the lesson today is that post processing trumps all.
> ...


Please explain: how can a sensor compensate for inappropriate or low-quality lens? How can a sensor compensate for very poor focus? How can a sensor compensate for poor composition?

The lesson remains the same, it's the entire system: from filter to lens to sensor to eye to brain to computer.(**)


(**) Note to Neuro: I'm aware that some of y'all consider the eyes to be extruded bits of brain, but cut me some slack on this one.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 8, 2014)

A good Image, not great, but it is in my view a good image, and more importantly, I learnt something from reading the method of process.

The a7r (Own & use one) is a a very good sensor matched to a mediocre system, but if you take your time on the Image (pertinent point with any Make/Model) it will produce excellent results, and having the 1Dx & 5DMK III in my view does generally produce files that have more latitude than the Canon sensors.

Having said that, I've had little trouble producing similar latitude in Images from the Canon Sensors, but it does require multiple exposures and more attention to detail.

For those that believe they can reproduce similar latitude to the Image discussed in this thread from single exposures from a Canon Sensor, I would be hugely interested to see some evidence, and I mean this in a positive sense, I would like to know just what I'm continuing to do wrong with my Canon gear that in a single exposure generally doesn't produce as much latitude as a single exposure on either the D800 (owned one of these as well) or the a7r.

In my own situation I primarily use Canon, but that's mainly because my main interest is Wildlife, long lenses. Of late I've attempted to move a little towards Still life & Landscape, and it's here that I've found a need for more latitude in the Images that the Sony Sensors appear to give, but always it's a balance, it's not always just the sensor, the system and how you use it is just as important.

Hopefully all these discussions become redundant in 2015 when Canon finally, hopefully, bring to Market a 40-50MP sensor that does have the latitude of the Sony Sensors.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Dec 8, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Please explain: how can a sensor compensate for inappropriate or low-quality lens? How can a sensor compensate for very poor focus? How can a sensor compensate for poor composition?



Composition is a poor comparison, because it's not really a measurable, repeatable technology like a sensor.

A lens is only as good as the sensor. The sensor is the foundation. A mediocre lens will come to life when swapping from APS-C to FF.

The goal of all of this, of Canon Rumors, of camera tech chat forums, of speculation, is the holy grail of IQ. This reveals itself in having to perform less post processing on original RAW images. Lenses do play a role, but not in noise and DR.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 8, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain: how can a sensor compensate for inappropriate or low-quality lens? How can a sensor compensate for very poor focus? How can a sensor compensate for poor composition?
> ...


I'm not convinced, please explain further: it's my understanding that lenses and sensors are mutually limiting.



> The goal of all of this, of Canon Rumors, of camera tech chat forums, of speculation, is the holy grail of IQ.


I've seen a great many nice photos on this forum that would not be considered to have excellent IQ, but the composition made up for it. I've seen some nice photos that had noise intentionally introduced for creative effect.

I'll concede that we'd all like to have sensors that are capable of extreme IQ, and then we can choose to do what we wish with it; however, I believe you're extrapolating your own priorities and values to the entire forum.



> Lenses do play a role, but not in noise and DR.


A poor or misused lens can turn a high-DR/low-noise image into fodder for the bit-bucket.

Everyone wants a great sensor; however, I want it (and I believe this is true of others as well) _*in addition to *_all of the other features of a camera system that allows me to make the images I want.


----------



## roguewave (Dec 8, 2014)

mkabi said:


> roguewave said:
> 
> 
> > Give me one good reason why you want to jump through hoops finding ways and workarounds to achieve the desired results when there is other equipment that makes the process much easier.
> ...



Would you rather push a few sliders or for every shot set up flashes / reflectors / tripods / GND filters (depending on the scene)? Even so, some moving subjects like Marsu42's horses may not lend themselves well to pre-production setup. Or if you are in certain public places. Or traveling light.

The thing is, you still have the pre-production option if you prefer, but you also have more flexibility for post-processing. Why some people are against that is beyond me. Many are excited about a marginal improvement in high ISO noise in the 7DII vs the original 7D after 5 years of development, but 400% more DR (~2 stops) is not important?


----------



## mkabi (Dec 8, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain: how can a sensor compensate for inappropriate or low-quality lens? How can a sensor compensate for very poor focus? How can a sensor compensate for poor composition?
> ...



Question: Would you be happy with a camera, with a single button (mainly the shutter button) and a fixed lens? It can have an amazing sensor, whatever specification you like. Then you can post-process everything after taking the picture.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 8, 2014)

roguewave said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > roguewave said:
> ...



Again, no one is disputing that we all want better sensors, so that's not the question. The question is whether Sony sensors are sufficiently superior (at low ISO) to be worth changing systems, or buying into a second system. The critique of the image here is that it's constructed from two images, not one, so it's not a legitimate example of the low-effort "just move the sliders" advantage of Sony sensors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2014)

roguewave said:


> The thing is, you still have the pre-production option if you prefer, but you also have more flexibility for post-processing. Why some people are against that is beyond me.



Who, exactly, is against it? The issue isn't being against more low ISO DR, it's about what you have to sacrifice to get it.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 8, 2014)

roguewave said:


> The thing is, you still have the pre-production option if you prefer, but you also have more flexibility for post-processing. Why some people are against that is beyond me. Many are excited about a marginal improvement in high ISO noise in the 7DII vs the original 7D after 5 years of development, but 400% more DR (~2 stops) is not important?



That's right.

I generally don't need more than 8-9 stops of DR. So, whether I have 12 or 14 matters very little.

What does matter is how high I can crank up the ISO before I can't get 8-9 stops anymore.

So, yes, I'd trade 2 whole stops of base ISO DR for half a stop of improved performance at high ISO. By the way, from what I'm seeing, the 7D2 is more than a whole stop better at high ISO than the 7D.


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 8, 2014)

eml58 said:


> For those that believe they can reproduce similar latitude to the Image discussed in this thread from single exposures from a Canon Sensor, I would be hugely interested to see some evidence, and I mean this in a positive sense, I would like to know just what I'm continuing to do wrong with my Canon gear that in a single exposure generally doesn't produce as much latitude as a single exposure on either the D800 (owned one of these as well) or the a7r.



It can be done using MagicLantern's DualISO feature, but not many people are willing to use that.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 8, 2014)

roguewave said:


> Would you rather push a few sliders or for every shot set up flashes / reflectors / tripods / GND filters (depending on the scene)?



False dilemma. It's not that often that the scene luminance range falls right between the limit of a Canon sensor and the limit of a Sony sensor.

Here's a screenshot I posted in another thread on this same topic. http://s28.postimg.org/6t5fhmhe5/7d_dr.jpg 2.5 stop recovery on the shadow side, 0.5 on the highlight side. I did bump NR but the final image was just fine at 16x24", and would have been fine up to +3ev on the shadow side. This is from the original 7D, arguably the nosiest of Canon's recent sensors.

That's not Sony Exmor, but it's not too bad either. To encounter a worse scene I would have had to shoot with the sun in the frame, at which point not even a Sony FF Exmor could hold the scene luminance range.

The "DRones" act as if you cannot push Canon sensors at all while Sony sensors can be pushed to HDR levels. Neither statement is true.



> Why some people are against that is beyond me.



Who specifically is against Canon moving ADCs on chip to improve base ISO DR? Maybe a better question: why do you interpret debate as "being against" something when advocacy here will have zero impact on Canon's decisions regarding sensor design?



> Many are excited about a marginal improvement in high ISO noise in the 7DII vs the original 7D after 5 years of development, but 400% more DR (~2 stops) is not important?



Wouldn't a 400% improvement = 48 stops total range (12 x 4)?


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 8, 2014)

eml58 said:


> For those that believe they can reproduce similar latitude to the Image discussed in this thread from single exposures from a Canon Sensor, I would be hugely interested to see some evidence, and I mean this in a positive sense, I would like to know just what I'm continuing to do wrong with my Canon gear that in a single exposure generally doesn't produce as much latitude as a single exposure on either the D800 (owned one of these as well) or the a7r.



I should have clicked the link and read the description sooner. You have your evidence in the screenshot I just posted above. He used +0.65exp and +100 shadows. In my shot I used +1exp and +80 shadows. If I put in his numbers I get pretty much the same result. Just using the exp slider, either combination equates to roughly +2.5ev.

*He is praising Sony for, and we are debating, an image that could have been produced with a single frame from any modern camera including the just discontinued original 7D.*

This is very much like the recent D750 review where the reviewer acted as if his wedding shots with +1 and +2ev pushes could not have been done on a 5D3 because in a +5ev bedroom shot the 5D3 didn't do well.

This just goes to show how difficult it is to produce a real world sample that lies between Canon's limit and Sony's limit. Erez's example and the wedding shots in the D750 review are within Canon's range. Jrista's interior shot, while showing that the Sony has more range, was still actually outside of the Sony's range.

Look, Sony FF Exmor sensors at base ISO can go to +5ev with hardly any NR and produce decent results. Basically your shadow detail can be pitch black in the original image and still be recoverable. No one denies this is impressive or occasionally useful.

Canon sensors cannot do this. But if you can make out the shadow detail, as you can in both my original and in his, then you can recover and use it with a little NR. Basically you can recover detail that is -2.5 to -3ev below where it should be. Any more then that and the noise is too great and the detail is too little / too rough.

But that's quite a bit, especially if you ETTR and remember that you've got 0.5ev on the highlight side. You are not going to run into very many situations where the scene is just beyond a single Canon frame, but safely within a single Sony frame.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2014)

eml58 said:


> For those that believe they can reproduce similar latitude to the Image discussed in this thread from single exposures from a Canon Sensor, I would be hugely interested to see some evidence, and I mean this in a positive sense, I would like to know just what I'm continuing to do wrong with my Canon gear that in a single exposure generally doesn't produce as much latitude as a single exposure on either the D800 (owned one of these as well) or the a7r.



I have an example too.

Here is an image I just worked that has Mr Marom's exact development settings bar the unknown amount of saturation and reduction.

First image is the original full image, second image is the same file with the same settings in ACR/LR and then PS, and the third is both side by side at 100% on my monitor. Click on the image to see them as is.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2014)

And the third image. I had to 'Save for Web' as it was over 5mb


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 8, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> *He is praising Sony for, and we are debating, an image that could have been produced with a single frame from any modern camera including the just discontinued original 7D.*



No. Definitely not. I have used the 7d for the past 5 years and know its sensor very well. There is no way on earth to produce this very image done by erez marom with a canon 7d from a single exposure, no matter how much you pull the sliders in post processing. Just no way. 

Personally, I never apply more than max! +/- 50 on highlights and shadows sliders or more than max +1.2 stops shadow pull in local adjustments on my 7d captures, since the image falls apart otherwise - every time.

Btw: yes, Erez has blended 2 captures for this image, but both are taken at exactly the same exposure. He was forced to do so, to eliminate lens flare from the image in post processing ... because he used a canon lens (16-35/2.8 ii) on his sony camera. Maybe the new sony zeiss fe 16-35/4 will make his life even easier should it prove to be more flare-resistant even when the sun is directly in the frame. I don't know about that - just sayin' ...


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 8, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> No. Definitely not. I have used the 7d for the past 5 years and know its sensor very well. There is no way on earth to produce this very image done by erez marom with a canon 7d from a single exposure, no matter how much you pull the sliders in post processing. Just no way.



MagicLantern DualISO...


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 8, 2014)

zlatko said:


> The dark parts of the horsies should have been raised several stops by maxing out the shadows slider. That is the one true test of a worthy sensor. There is no pure black in the real world. All shadows must be brightened!



Actually, this is what I used to to  ... but I've grown better in this regard and am now self-confident enough to have some clippings where they give an impression of contrast. 

But with enough dr, I'm always free to recover shadows or highlights using ACR's local brush, so simply for safety and peace of mind I'm often using ML's dual_iso. Most of the time, there is a visual difference between intentional contrast with some residual detail and unintentional sensor clipping of whole areas.



dtaylor said:


> This is very much like the recent D750 review where the reviewer acted as if his wedding shots with +1 and +2ev pushes could not have been done on a 5D3 because in a +5ev bedroom shot the 5D3 didn't do well.



In this case of the horse shot, it's the Canon sensor is fine: The *6d @ ISO 320 = 11.4ev dr* (underexposing 1/3rd recovers some), and for iso 400 the newest and shiniest *Nikon d750 = 12.2ev dr*, the high-res *Nikon d810 = 11.7ev*! A stop is a stop, but this isn't a reason to switch systems. Note: For optimal usage of ML's dual_iso, you have to be at ISO 100 which won't work in dimmer light.



zlatko said:


> Just kidding. Lovely photo!



Thanks  ... though I hear mixing in actual shots in a thread can derail nerdy discussions about spec sheets


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 8, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > No. Definitely not. I have used the 7d for the past 5 years and know its sensor very well. There is no way on earth to produce this very image done by erez marom with a canon 7d from a single exposure, no matter how much you pull the sliders in post processing. Just no way.
> ...



Does it work on 7d ? I thought ML had a hard time running at all on 7d because of the dual digic setup?

Anyway, as i said before i will definitely stay away from installing ml or other third party firmware on my camera/s, due to possible compatibility and/or warranty issues or other "unwanted side effects". But of course that is just me, ymmv.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 8, 2014)

private/dtaylor, appreciate the feedback to my question, Thank You.

Also the info regards ML, unfortunately it isn't as yet workable on the 1Dx, to my knowledge, I like this for no other reason than the auto ETTR, can't quite come to grips why Canon don't implement something along these lines as standard on all their gear, as well as the other Camera Manufacturers.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2014)

eml58 said:


> private/dtaylor, appreciate the feedback to my question, Thank You.
> 
> Also the info regards ML, unfortunately it isn't as yet workable on the 1Dx, to my knowledge, I like this for no other reason than the auto ETTR, can't quite come to grips why Canon don't implement something along these lines as standard on all their gear, as well as the other Camera Manufacturers.



eml, you are welcome.

Too often people throw stuff out there that quite simply is not remarkable, it just sounds it! But like Daniel says and you have experienced, there are times a Sony can get the shot and a Canon can't, however Daniel and I agree that those times where the difference between the two is the only difference needed are very few in number.

ML won't port to the 1 series, Canon made it very clear that messing with the 1DC firmware was an absolute no no and there has been little/no inclination to attempt any of the 1's. Interestingly the 1DC cannot be user firmware upgraded, it has to go to a service center Canon are that protective of the C line. So you are limited to ML on your 5D MkIII's.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 8, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> No. Definitely not. I have used the 7d for the past 5 years and know its sensor very well. There is no way on earth to produce this very image done by erez marom with a canon 7d from a single exposure, no matter how much you pull the sliders in post processing. Just no way.



Two people have presented files with just as much shadow push as he had and the results are fine. You are very clearly wrong.


----------



## dancook (Dec 8, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > No. Definitely not. I have used the 7d for the past 5 years and know its sensor very well. There is no way on earth to produce this very image done by erez marom with a canon 7d from a single exposure, no matter how much you pull the sliders in post processing. Just no way.
> ...



Do you use DualISO? has it changed?

It doesn't fit in with my workflow, I don't want to have to use another piece of software to process my images but importing them to LR.

I like to be able to check images on the camera, you can't do this with DualISO right as it looks a mess?

I've heard of people suggesting DualISO for weddings (white dress + black suit), but I cannot trust MagicLantern for professional use. I tried using the auto-exposure, so I could use a higher min-shutter speed with auto ISO than Canon allow, but it would get stuck over exposing.


----------



## dancook (Dec 8, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Two people have presented files with just as much shadow push as he had and the results are fine. You are very clearly wrong.



Are you referring to the tree trunk I see above, which as so much NR it looks painted.

Save the hassle of magic lantern, the Sony sensor produce files which can have their shadows pushed more cleanly than Canon.

I have both 5dM3 and RX1r - I see this all the time.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 8, 2014)

dancook said:


> Are you referring to the tree trunk I see above, which as so much NR it looks painted.



Exaggeration. Never the less, he could have gotten away with less NR as I did in mine: http://s7.postimg.org/oli4obisr/7d_dr_2.jpg

+2.5ev is not a problem for Canon sensors.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 8, 2014)

eml58 said:


> A good Image, not great, but it is in my view a good image, and more importantly, I learnt something from reading the method of process.
> 
> The a7r (Own & use one) is a a very good sensor matched to a mediocre system, but if you take your time on the Image (pertinent point with any Make/Model) it will produce excellent results, and having the 1Dx & 5DMK III in my view does generally produce files that have more latitude than the Canon sensors.
> 
> ...


I've managed to get the most DR out of my mk3 by ETTR. I mean really pushing that exposure to the right to get clean shadows. While the exmors will still be better, they aren't good enough for me to invest extra time and hassle to get one. Here is some examples.

1. Shadows or highlights? Choose high, bracket frames and pick the one that just barely doesn't clip. Process for the highlights and it's a nice clean file.

2. Well, if your doing still life, it doesn't really matter much on the camera than lighting your subject. This has massive DR that no sensor could capture in one frame. Solution = Flash or Funky HDR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2014)

dancook said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Two people have presented files with just as much shadow push as he had and the results are fine. You are very clearly wrong.
> ...



Well it only had 25 as the basic standard on luminance in LR, my import default, that is kinda what the tree looks like at 100%. But here it is with completely zeroed out noise reduction but with the same sharpening, if you can't get rid of this little noise you are in no position to be telling people stuff.


----------



## dancook (Dec 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Well it only had 25 as the basic standard on luminance in LR, my import default, that is kinda what the tree looks like at 100%. But here it is with completely zeroed out noise reduction but with the same sharpening, if you can't get rid of this little noise you are in no position to be telling people stuff.



Telling people what?

that the right image looks like the NR is high giving the painterly effect?
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24028.0;attach=127749;image

I like to do this purposefully on portraits, it's a nice look for smoothing skin  doesn't look good at 100% though


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2014)

dancook said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Well it only had 25 as the basic standard on luminance in LR, my import default, that is kinda what the tree looks like at 100%. But here it is with completely zeroed out noise reduction but with the same sharpening, if you can't get rid of this little noise you are in no position to be telling people stuff.
> ...



Telling people that it is too noisy if you can't remove the noise in the version with zero noise reduction.

Is 25 luminance really too high when viewed at 100%? But if it is then I gave you a NR free version too.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 8, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > *He is praising Sony for, and we are debating, an image that could have been produced with a single frame from any modern camera including the just discontinued original 7D.*
> ...



And I've used the T2i (same sensor) since it came out, and have produced images like that from it.

You should know that limiting yourself to some arbitrary figures on ACR or LR's PV 2012 highlight and shadow sliders is a wrong strategy. Those sliders are scaled to the image contrast, and thus change in range with each image. In other words, their range is image-adaptive. +50 might be a 1 stop push on one image and a 3 stop push on another image.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Well it only had 25 as the basic standard on luminance in LR, my import default, that is kinda what the tree looks like at 100%. But here it is with completely zeroed out noise reduction but with the same sharpening, if you can't get rid of this little noise you are in no position to be telling people stuff.



I like it better without the NR 

And I'm not sure anyone would notice the noise in print.


----------



## dancook (Dec 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Telling people that it is too noisy if you can't remove the noise in the version with zero noise reduction.
> 
> Is 25 luminance really too high when viewed at 100%? But if it is then I gave you a NR free version too.



I didn't say it was 'too noisy', I just said a lot of NR was applied. I was actually suggesting that would not be a good example of clean shadow recovery (because it was masked by NR which smooths out the detail).


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2014)

dtaylor.

I didn't intentionally add NR, it was just at a modest default and in no way excessive. In print nobody would notice either the noise or the 'painterly' appearance.

dancook,

My apologies, I misinterpreted your comment as a negative, there is often a lot of negativity in these threads and I often get flak for the examples I post. Like I said, I often have the LR default set which is only 25 luminance. I hope people realise this is a 100% crop of a 21MP image.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> You should know that limiting yourself to some arbitrary figures on ACR or LR's PV 2012 highlight and shadow sliders is a wrong strategy. Those sliders are scaled to the image contrast, and thus change in range with each image. In other words, their range is image-adaptive. +50 might be a 1 stop push on one image and a 3 stop push on another image.



Do you have a link to a paper or demonstration of that, it would be interesting.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > You should know that limiting yourself to some arbitrary figures on ACR or LR's PV 2012 highlight and shadow sliders is a wrong strategy. Those sliders are scaled to the image contrast, and thus change in range with each image. In other words, their range is image-adaptive. +50 might be a 1 stop push on one image and a 3 stop push on another image.
> ...



http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/02/magic-or-local-laplacian-filters.html


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 8, 2014)

Might have been nicer is your shots were sharp. The bark images look soft to me


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> Might have been nicer is your shots were sharp. The bark images look soft to me



Did you ever look at the bark of a Bayan tree? The leaf behind it, and the ivy in front of it are both sharp. It is sharp, that is what it looks like!


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 8, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



They solved the issue with the Dual Digics a long time (maybe 2 years) ago. The 7D was the 2nd camera that Alex got dualISO working on, the 5D3 being the first. It works very well and gives the 7D at least the same dynamic range as the Sony crop sensors whereas the 5D3 can end up with better DR than the D810, but you have to be willing to work with one of the experimental builds.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Thanks, that made my day. Here is the direct link to the actual paper.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/sparis/publi/2011/siggraph/Paris_11_Local_Laplacian_Filters.pdf


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



https://forums.adobe.com/message/4139937#4139937

"For the record, all six central Basic controls in PV 2012 (Exposure thru Blacks) are image adaptive. But then again, Recovery, Fill Light, and Clarity in earlier versions of Lr (and in PV 2003/2010 in Lr 4 Beta) were also image adaptive. They auto-adjusted their behavior internally based on image content. In PV 2012 we've simply extended that idea to the rest of the Basic controls. Don't let that scare you, and don't get hung up on the terminology. Remember: the goal is better images. I think in PV 2012 we've provided a better and faster way to do that."


----------



## Neutral (Dec 8, 2014)

Here is simple example when sensor DR and sensor IQ are very useful.
Just simple shot in autumn forest.

This is single shot exposed for the sky.
Done by using A7R with Canon TSE-17

First image – as shot, no adjustments in LR5 snapshot on LR5 screen (full image).

Second one is one processed in DXO PRO 10 – done without any efforts just in few seconds to do few adjustments. This snapshot of the processed file as seen on the windows image viewer 
For me DXO Pro 10 it is much better tool than LR5 for such kind of images – it is has separate adjustments for micro contrast, fine contrast (in LR only clarity) and it also allows to adjust contrast separately in highlights, midtones and shadows. In LR5 it is much more difficult to get result close to this

Third one is 100% crop from the most contract image area to see image IQ and quality of shadows recovery.
Image DR and IQ matters much for me as it save my time and efforts in getting quickly required result.

For low light all around camera my current favorite is A7S - it make possible to do things that were almost impossible before.
For events/sport and action 1Dx is still the best. All cameras just complement each other in different situations. 
I have a feeling that many 1DX owners following the same route.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2014)

If you think the second image is an improvement then we are talking about different things.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 8, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> dancook said:
> 
> 
> > Are you referring to the tree trunk I see above, which as so much NR it looks painted.
> ...



you must be joking ... +2.5 EV is a HUGE problem for Canon sensors, and most definitely for the 7D and all other APS-C sensors. 

Also .. the image you have linked to is not even remotely comparable, and neither is the other one with the tree trunk. No sky at all in it, not to mention sun directly in the frame ... as in the linked picture in the starting post. 

I have extensively used the 7D for 5 years and postprocessed many raw-pics captured with it. The picture linked in post 1 is absolutely NOT possible from one exposure with a 7D. 

I have not worked with RAWs from Canon FF cameras enough ... but I *strongly believe* the picture exactly as linked in post 1 of this thread is also not possible from one exposure with any current Canon FF EOS camera. At least when it is on regular Canon firmware, not ML. 

And on top of the DR difference I won't even mention "36 megapixels".


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> If you think the second image is an improvement then we are talking about different things.


+1 That second image is quite horrid.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2014)

Neutral said:


> Here is simple example when sensor DR and sensor IQ are very useful.





privatebydesign said:


> If you think the second image is an improvement then we are talking about different things.



+2, the second image is why HDR also stands for Horribly Divergent from Reality.


----------



## fragilesi (Dec 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> +2, the second image is why HDR also stands for Horribly Divergent from Reality.



I don't like to criticise other people's work but to my taste the second image just doesn't look right and I would think that just nudging a couple of sliders in LR would result in something that I would like more.

I guess it's subjective and a matter of opinion but that example just bounced off me completely.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 8, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > dancook said:
> ...



Attached is a +3EV push (midtones) to +4EV push (shadows) from a Rebel T2i.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 8, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > If you think the second image is an improvement then we are talking about different things.
> ...



Try extremely horrid.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > Here is simple example when sensor DR and sensor IQ are very useful.
> ...



So now we know why we Canon folk neither need nor want more dr - it can be used to create tone-mapped watercolor-sim images with it 

And it leaves me again to point out the popular "Post your worst hdr images" thread on CR: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23041.0



fragilesi said:


> I don't like to criticise other people's work [...] I guess it's subjective and a matter of opinion



+1, hdr is known to be a matter of taste. Those seasoned photogs who don't have any old shots in the closet that would turn people into stone like a Medusa: Hands up! No one? Right.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Those seasoned photogs who don't have any old shots in the closet that would turn people into stone like a Medusa: Hands up! No one? Right.



Those seasoned photogs who would take those petrifying images and hold them up as examples to show 'when sensor DR and sensor IQ are very useful': Hands up!

I see a few hands.....


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Those seasoned photogs who don't have any old shots in the closet that would turn people into stone like a Medusa: Hands up! No one? Right.
> ...



Ja, Ja, "petrify", thanks, zat was the wery word I was looking for!

I remember it from my olden days playing "Bard's Tale", like in "_Nikon Troll strikes Neuro for 11ev of dr, killing, 
poisoning, confusing and petrifying him_". Now you have to go back to the shop to get the 1dx2, or start a new game with a Pentax :->


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 8, 2014)

Maybe one day Nikon will get serious about making cameras and the D5 and D820 will come only with EF mounts

After all, Nikon is already shifting to Sony sensors, so why not Canon lenses


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> you must be joking ... +2.5 EV is a HUGE problem for Canon sensors, and most definitely for the 7D and all other APS-C sensors.



There are two shots in this thread proving you wrong. I realize some of the sliders are adaptive, but I reset Shadows to 0 and used just the Exposure slider to verify that my original settings were indeed equal to +2.5ev.

What do you imagine you can gain by stomping your feet and insisting X is false when faced with hard, reproducible evidence that X is true?



> Also .. the image you have linked to is not even remotely comparable, and neither is the other one with the tree trunk. No sky at all in it, not to mention sun directly in the frame ... as in the linked picture in the starting post.



My image is directly comparable. In fact, looking at the unprocessed versions my shadow detail appears to be a little deeper then his. That he has the sun in the frame is immaterial given that he did not capture/preserve highlight detail. What patches of sky are visible in his shot are completely blown out.



> I *strongly believe*



What you believe is irrelevant in the face of hard evidence no matter how strongly you feel about it.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 9, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Attached is a +3EV push (midtones) to +4EV push (shadows) from a Rebel T2i.



And that makes three pieces of hard evidence.

Again: Sony FF Exmor can stretch further. The shadow detail can be deeper...pitch black before processing...and still be recovered. But if you ETTR with Canon and can just start to see the detail to be recovered in the unprocessed version, you will typically be OK. There's a lot of room there, just not the same amount that's on Exmor FF.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 9, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Attached is a +3EV push (midtones) to +4EV push (shadows) from a Rebel T2i.
> ...



I'll add one more, similar to the forest one. I don't have a lot of these, but this is a +3 stop shadow push from a 5D shot at ISO 200.

And, I too am not saying that the Exmor's aren't better at this, just that it's a relatively unimportant capability.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 9, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> Might have been nicer is your shots were sharp. The bark images look soft to me



I believe Privates Image is of the Trees that grow into & out of Angkor Wat near Siem Reap, these are Banyan Trees, the outer "Bark" is a soft paper like material, actually shines if you have water & sun on it, hard to impossible to get a "sharp" look to it as it has so little detail, unlike say the Bark of a Pine Tree.

This whole Temple Complex is an excellent area for seeing just how well your Camera Sensor can handle the latitude between shadows & Bright areas.

Unlike many of the threads on CR that discuss DR & Sensors, I've actually learnt two things of importance to me & my Photography from this thread, but as is usually the case we now have 1 page of interesting info, and the rest have degenerated into who can piss up the wall the highest without falling over.

And the biggest shock for me has been learning two things from a thread started by AvTvM, so maybe now I've learnt three things, never underestimate.


----------



## sunnycal (Dec 9, 2014)

It is not about the lack of details in shadow area, though there is some of that too, but the presence of noise in shadows that differentiates Sony and Canon sensors. Fred Miranda demonstrated this conclusively when D800 and 5D Mark III were released. 

I used Canon 5D and 5D Mark II for years. Even when I was using these cameras, I was disappointed by the noise in shadow areas which became visible when pulled up. Going back to my 5D II images in LR catalog today, I can still see the noise when processing old photos with new algorithms. It is not just the ugly noise, but it also prevents me from applying sharpening reducing the details further.

Nevertheless, shadow noise is only one, and admittedly, minor component of overall image. It matters to some, but not all. So there is no need to ferret about it much. If you don't see the noise in your images, or are able to live with it, have a happy shooting. 

As for A7 series, it has some advantages (namely shadow noise, pixels, and size) but so many disadvantages that I cant see it being the primary camera system for any serious enthusiast or pro photographer.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 9, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Attached is a +3EV push (midtones) to +4EV push (shadows) from a Rebel T2i.
> ...



OK. You are right. You can pull shadows up 3+ or any number of stops on images out of any camera, including Canon cameras. 

Only thing is, I do not care about any of the results shown in the samples in this thread at all. All of these images are falling apart - especially when they would be viewed large. And there is no more contrast or life left in them. 

Wich puts them in stark contrast to Erez' image linked in the startpost.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



My image, which I very specifically used exactly the same settings as the original images, is absolutely not _'falling apart'_ even at 100% with zero NR. To say it is is just a lie. 

You have never seen Erez' image at 100% with zero NR have you? So your comments are, once again, inaccurate.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 9, 2014)

I was looking at the comparison before/after ... that you posted earlier. 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24028.0;attach=127750;image

Sorry, but to me it does not look good, afterwards. 
Personally, I would lift exposure by about +1 EV globally on a capture like your original image - but not more. 
Heck, it is a dark environment, deep in the shade. I find it perfectly OK if the resulting image also shows this. 

But again, I do not want to pick a fight here. Quite likely that some of you here have far superior PP skills to mine and that you get away with shadows +3 EV pulled up from a Canon (7D or similar crop) sensor . At least in some pictures. 

Opposite example to your image ist the one LeeJay posted, the shopping mall or hotel lobby ... uniformly bright place, hardly any contiguos dark areas in the image, and those visible do not contain image-relevant information/detail, so it is hard to see noise or degradation in details from NR. 

I just know, that *I* would NOT be able to create the image linked in the starting post (Erez) from a single exposure on a Canon 7D or any other crop sensro (except 7D II which I don't know anything about yet). 

And I also know first hand what some of my budies can do with Raws from D7100, A7, D800. There is a whole magnitude more potential to lift shadows in low ISO captures. 

btw: no, I have not seen the Erez image in full resolution either, but I don't think there es a lot of detail loss/image degradation from lifting shadws visible.


----------



## sanj (Dec 9, 2014)

mkabi said:


> roguewave said:
> 
> 
> > Give me one good reason why you want to jump through hoops finding ways and workarounds to achieve the desired results when there is other equipment that makes the process much easier.
> ...



Process is easier as the photographer need not bracket the shots while shooting. 
With a high DR sensor he/she can pull up the blacks in post and get the result.

If a proper DR shot was been taken a whole lot more work would need to be done.


----------



## sanj (Dec 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > *He is praising Sony for, and we are debating, an image that could have been produced with a single frame from any modern camera including the just discontinued original 7D.*
> ...



This is my opinion as well.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



What are you talking about? Erez' image is the one lacking contrast! I took his final JPEG and set it at contrast +80 to get it to look decent!


----------



## sanj (Dec 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> I was looking at the comparison before/after ... that you posted earlier.
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24028.0;attach=127750;image
> 
> Sorry, but to me it does not look good, afterwards.
> ...



Me neither.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Opposite example to your image ist the one LeeJay posted, the shopping mall or hotel lobby ... uniformly bright place, hardly any contiguos dark areas in the image, and those visible do not contain image-relevant information/detail, so it is hard to see noise or degradation in details from NR.



You say a lot of weird stuff. Here's the before and after to demonstrate just how wrong the above statement is.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> I was looking at the comparison before/after ... that you posted earlier.
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24028.0;attach=127750;image
> 
> Sorry, but to me it does not look good, afterwards.
> ...



I am not looking to fight either. This isn't about fighting, it is about education. I only used that image because it was dark and I could replicate the steps, exactly as Erez did. Now you might not be familiar with how a Banyan tree bark looks (it is just like my image) but the point was that even with zeroed NR and exactly the same settings as Erez the image is more than possible with some Canon sensors, I could not vouch for the 7D specifically as I don't use one. I would not process my file as I did for display, I did it so it matches the 'unachievable' levels of the Erez image.

We all agree there is more shadow lifting capacity in Exmor files, and we also all agree we would like to have that in a Canon sensor, though if you look at expert analysis of the RAW data it seems half the Exmor advantage is due to both Nikon and Sony cooking the RAW file a little whereas Canon files are comparatively 'true' RAW data. But the point is that Erez' image is not a particularly good example of that Exmor capability and Canon files can be treated as his was.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> btw: no, I have not seen the Erez image in full resolution either, but I don't think there es a lot of detail loss/image degradation from lifting shadws visible.



There's no detail in that image at all.

If I really needed a heavy deep-shadow push, I'd just shoot a quick three-shot HDR in a burst. I've done it handheld no problem. I can easily end up with an image with a DR of 16-18 stops that way, done in a fraction of a second.

The difference between Canon and Sony sensors in the shadows at base ISO is around 2 stops. It's not easy to find a scene where 11 stops isn't enough by 13 stops is. That's a pretty narrow slot. I generally find most scenes fit into 9 stops. Some crazy stuff can be 16+ and I've had one at 30+ stops.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 9, 2014)

Here's a summary that might help the pro-Sony camp understand the Sony-skeptics


There is no dispute: everyone wants more DR
Few dispute that Sony sensors appear to have greater DR at low ISO, which is a good thing all by itself
It's entirely possible that Sony sensors allow more shadow lifting, how much is in question
*HOWEVER*, none of these purported demonstrations can be considered authoritative because all are missing important qualities of open, objective testing. Proper testing requires: (1) Testing of the two competing sensors using identical scenes and techniques; (2)Disclosure of all raw images for "peer review"
Extraordinary claims about Sony sensor performance require extraordinary evidence, which so far is lacking.
Furthermore, for those with investment in Canon there is a cost associated with using a Sony sensor. For the vast majority of photographers, in the vast majority of circumstances there is not yet a clear demonstration that the difference justifies the cost.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 9, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > btw: no, I have not seen the Erez image in full resolution either, but I don't think there es a lot of detail loss/image degradation from lifting shadws visible.
> ...



In many cases where there is nothing moving in the shot, yes. 
Also, when the sun [or in night scenes a really bright light] is included in the frame, I find it very hard to get a really good final image putting together 3 (or 5) bracketed shots, no matter which tool/method I use. Not saying it cannot be done, but it definitely takes quite some effort and very good PP skills.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



As I pointed out above, when there is stuff moving in the scene I'm generally shooting at higher ISO. In fact, it's very uncommon for me to shoot a moving scene at base ISO. You need just the right amount of light for that - just enough so that base ISO is high enough to freeze the motion that's there at the chosen f-stop. In essence, I've never once run across that situation. There's always either enough light or slow enough motion for an HDR shot in burst, or so little that I'm upping the ISO just to get enough shutter speed in a single shot. That's the point of the ISO 1600 shot I posted above. No HDR would work there, and neither would a Sony sensor (well, it would work, it just wouldn't work better than a Canon sensor).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 9, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Here's a summary that might help the pro-Sony camp understand the Sony-skeptics



Here's an alternate version:

AvTvM: Only Sony sensors can take pictures of the cerulean sky, and for proof I offer this image of overcast skies on a rainy day. 

Many others: Your 'proof' simply isn't. Here are pictures of blue skies shot with Canon sensors. 

AvTvM: Those pictures are just blue skies, not cerulean. 

Sanj: I see the cerulean sky from the Sony sensor.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 9, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> As I pointed out above, when there is stuff moving in the scene I'm generally shooting at higher ISO. In fact, it's very uncommon for me to shoot a moving scene at base ISO.



You should get outdoors more ... or move to a better spot on the earth 

... for me, I also often shoot motion at high iso and am happy that the Canon sensor has more dr (at iso 6400: Nikon d610: 8.6ev, my 6d: 9.3ev (with ML 9.8ev)). But in the summer during the day, I'm practically always at iso 100, and even have to struggle with the 1/4000s limit of the 6d when shooting at f2.8.



privatebydesign said:


> This isn't about fighting, it is about education.



Sorry, cannot help it


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 9, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > As I pointed out above, when there is stuff moving in the scene I'm generally shooting at higher ISO. In fact, it's very uncommon for me to shoot a moving scene at base ISO.
> ...



There's some truth to that. Since I'm allergic to grasses, trees and flowers I try to stay out of "nature" as much as practical.


----------



## Neutral (Dec 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > Here is simple example when sensor DR and sensor IQ are very useful.
> ...



1. Interesting enough that all who replied did not get to the main point of the post and immediately started to tell how ugly the second image is))). But second one was not main point of the message but just previews of how initial image was pushed in processing and preview was done by windows snipping tool and was not supposed to illustrate anything – just to give idea to which extent initial image was pushed in processing.
Main point of the post was different and was illustrated by 3 image and that was that when sensor has good DR and IQ it would allow to get similar results as multi-shot HDR images without any efforts and time spent and allowing to push hard processing limits without introducing any visual processing artifacts like noise, halos etc. even when image is “overcooked”. 

So this was illustrated by 3d image (100% crop of the second image) showing that even when image processed to the limits it does not have noise, halos on extreme contrast transitions and it resolves details up to the every pixel.

2. Example itself was just “Technical example” using image which mostly contains small details with uniform colors across the frame not clearly seen on small image especially on preview done by windows snipping tool. 
This is kind of images are most difficult for HDR and could be seen well only with high enough resolution. 
Best for HDR are shots with big enough objects of different colors in the frame. 
So now I attach better preview of the second image in the first post - directly exported with better resolution.
The same is for 100% crop which is the illustration of the main point of the post explained above- now directly exported from image processor
Also one more image that was not pushed so far and processed to have more realistic look – just compressed DR to fit visual limits – no black or white clipping and a little bit of contrast added in shadows. 
Probably most will find that more pleasant for their eyes. 
And also 100% crop of it – to illustrate once more that was explained above about absence of visual processing artifacts usually found on muli-shot HDR images 
Click on any image to open it and see with better resolution.

In any case all that images should not be considered as final images - that is just first step of processing - DR compression to fit visual range. After that person could adjust it to personal taste by doing selective color editing (contrast/saturation/luminance) differently on highlights, midtones and shadows and doing other kinds of tone mapping processing using most suited tools for that.

Hope all that would clarify what I was trying to say in my previous post


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Ugh, sorry, my condolences :-o ... time to apply for the space program, I guess :-\



Neutral said:


> So this was illustrated by 3d image (100% crop of the second image) showing that even when image processed to the limits it does not have noise, halos on extreme contrast transitions and it resolves details up to the every pixel.



I understand the intention of what you're writing, but in conjunction with the actual shot this text passage is an instant classic


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Dec 17, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> you must be joking ... +2.5 EV is a HUGE problem for Canon sensors, and most definitely for the 7D and all other APS-C sensors.



I've got hundreds and _hundreds_ of 7D images which have shadows lifted by at least this amount - it's _easy_. 

When you know how...

And I can get up close to 5 stops with my 70D and 7D Mk II.

*That you can't do it* is the take-away message here - not that it can't be done. You're projecting your lack of ability onto the gear, a fact which is _painfully_ obvious to those of us who have the skills.

(Off you go - complain to Admin again about the nasty man...)


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 17, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > you must be joking ... +2.5 EV is a HUGE problem for Canon sensors, and most definitely for the 7D and all other APS-C sensors.
> ...



While you may have far superior postprocessing skills to mine, the real difference seems to be a different standard, when it comes to final image quality. No problem with this. Now, go off and lift those shadows on your Canon sensor images. ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 17, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Only thing is, I do not care about any of the results shown in the samples in this thread at all. All of these images are falling apart - especially when they would be viewed large. And there is no more contrast or life left in them.



LOL! They are not "falling apart." I have a shadow exposure to compare my lifted version to, and though it's a little better, it's not substantially different.

Canon RAWs are fine to +2.5 and +3ev (depending on model). And the image which started yet another DRone debate could have easily been shot on a Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 17, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> And the image which started yet another DRone debate could have easily been shot on a Canon.



That's really the point. No one denies that with _extreme_ exposure pushes, the Exmor sensors are better. But the 'proof' is usually contrived examples, and in real-world shooting the difference between Canon and SoNikon sensors is often not evident (because scene DR is within Canon's range, exceeds Exmor's range, or the photographer actually _wants_ – gasp! – some blown highlights or shadows that are actually dark in the image).


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 17, 2014)

unfortunately we do not have the full-sized image from the starting post. So it cannot be proven or demonstrated evidently, how much better the chosen Sony camera was to capture taht picture rather than any Canon DSLR. I remain convinced, that the picture from that Sony sensor tzurnes out quite noticeably "better" - especially in shadow noise + texture & detail, than it would have from a current Canon sensor. 

And I knmow for sure, the Canon pic woult d have at best 60% of the megapixels in it. ;D


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nice image.
> 
> Clearly, with all that fast-moving action in the scene, taking multiple images would have been impossible, making the image a perfect demonstration of when more DR is absolutely required for a single shot. : Of course, some highlight detail outside is blown out, so it wasn't quite _enough_ more DR.
> 
> But as I said, it's a nice image.


he should have bracketed even with the legendary a7R on that one


----------



## Yoyomalu8 (Dec 18, 2014)

Sony claimed over 15 stops of dynamic range. Based on Dx0 mark the 17s is actually 13 stops. 1 below the a7r/a7.
Although the sensor scores very high in low light, I wonder if Dx0 mark gives additional points for the sensor being able to access higher isos. This concerns me as those are really unusable to someone who wants max IQ.
The really important range is iso 1600-12800. Looking at the charts the a7r keeps up, maybe falling behind by about 10-20% performance as the iso increases.
It looks like the real advantage of the camera is mostly in that it can focus in low light (my a7 cannot) and that the evf doesnt gain up as much.
My hope is that in real world performance there are more optimizations realized. However no matter what kind of agorithms sony processors brings into play I dont see how a 13 dynamic range sensor can be made to represent 15 stops.
Sony - explain yourself.






---------------------------------------------
coque galaxy alpha
étui samsung galaxy alpha


----------



## fragilesi (Dec 18, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Here's a summary that might help the pro-Sony camp understand the Sony-skeptics
> 
> 
> There is no dispute: everyone wants more DR
> ...



+1


----------

