# DR from 5Ds will be 2 stop better then 7D mk II



## etto72 (Feb 8, 2015)

From 
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html

"a release 5Dsr with a test version of DPP4. Low ISO DR is put at 1.5-2 stops better than the 1D X, but high ISO performance (6400) falls marginally behind the 7Dmk2.
The sensor is similar to the 7D2 technology, but has apparently been tuned to maximise low ISO performance.
Welcome news here, but I know it won't be popular in some quarters. If it means that Canon have been listening to some of its pro market and produced a camera for the likes of myself, then great.
If you wanted faster fps, high ISO and better video, then perhaps you can appreciate how I (and many others) felt looking at the 1D X ?"

That would explain why a camera with the same pixel pitch of the 7D2 should have max ISO of 6400 instead 16000 !
Especially when there would be the resolution advantage.... If did t make any sense....!
I guess that's a good news for Landscape photographers !


----------



## Click (Feb 8, 2015)

Thanks for sharing....And welcome to cr


----------



## K (Feb 8, 2015)

I see the 5DS as being targeted to existing Canon system users. Not first time buyers of high resolution DSLR.

The 5DS will not outsell the Nikon D810 unless:

1. The 50mp actually translates to a real and noticeable increase in image detail and quality, and that increase is enough to justify the higher price of the 5DS. I'm skeptical due to the pixel size and density. More isn't always better. Or sometimes more is better, just not as better as the numbers indicate it should be.

2. Dynamic Range is going to have to be better. I've ranted several times this is overrated, but for someone choosing a *system *to go with - this could be a factor given the massive amounts of internet hype regarding dynamic range.


Key word: System

Canon has more updated, and higher resolution professional lenses than Nikon right now. Lenses trump bodies for importance in the overall system. Nikon needs to update the 24-70, the 70-200 and a few others to newer, sharper glass. There's no question Canon has Nikon beat in glass on several pro lenses that are key.


I'd rather have the superior Canon lenses than Nikon's dynamic range superiority at low ISO's. Again, it's only at low ISO's. And it's not my practice to underexpose by 4-5 stops at ISO 100-400 then crank sliders in Lightroom and say "hey look, not much noise" despite the image still looking like crap. 


Just because you can pull 3-4 stops on Nikon, doesn't mean you should!


It should be interesting to see what the real measurements and performance are going to be. The 7D2 is a seriously efficient crop sensor. So much so, Canon admitted they scaled it up to make the 5DS sensor and it has GOOD specs regardless of what the whiners say. Generally, full-frame has larger pixels and better efficiency. 

What this means to me is, the 5D Mark 4 will probably have a 24mp sensor using the newer efficient technology with larger pixels and be the low light king. They have to be. Everyone is expecting the 5D4 to be like the 5D3 as the best all-purpose, event shooting camera.


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 8, 2015)

K said:


> It should be interesting to see what the real measurements and performance are going to be. The 7D2 is a seriously efficient crop sensor. So much so, Canon admitted they scaled it up to make the 5DS sensor and it has GOOD specs regardless of what the whiners say. Generally, full-frame has larger pixels and better efficiency.


Where does 70D stand in terms of efficiency numbers compared to 7D2. I hardly notice any difference in dpr comparison tool except looking at text in 100% crop. Where one can see little difference between d7100, 7d2 and 70D in that order.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2015)

K said:


> I see the 5DS as being targeted to existing Canon system users. Not first time buyers of high resolution DSLR.
> 
> The 5DS will not outsell the Nikon D810 unless:



I believe you should put more thought into the above. Canon system users outnumber Nikon system users. The D810 is a very modest update to the D800, released only ~1 year later, so Nikon users who wanted a high resolution camera bought the D800 and are less likely to buy a D810. Frankly, I can't see how the 5Ds _would not_ outsell the D810.


----------



## bmwzimmer (Feb 9, 2015)

Too good to be true? April 1st isn't here yet....
If true, we're talking about 13.3-13.8 stops of DR since the 7Dii/1DX is 11.8 at ISO 100.
That's HUGE!!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 9, 2015)

In recent years, pessimism took the minds of many readers Canonrumors. :-[ When he finally appeared to high megapixel camera, people sure you will not get better DR. :-X

I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and wait before speaking ill of a product no one tested thoroughly.


----------



## gary samples (Feb 9, 2015)

I have a spot cleared out in my bag right next to 1Dx for the 5DSR 
it's going to be a great tool it's new name will be the Nifty Fifty !!
I know it's not Original .


----------



## bmwzimmer (Feb 9, 2015)

After spending some time trying to find any other sources or mention of anyone testing RAW files, this is the only source I can find. I don't know how reliable this source is so I'm going to take this news with a large cup of salt.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 9, 2015)

But remember, better at Low ISO, worse at higher.... You can't get something for nothing......


----------



## lol (Feb 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> The D810 is a very modest update to the D800, released only ~1 year later, so Nikon users who wanted a high resolution camera bought the D800 and are less likely to buy a D810. Frankly, I can't see how the 5Ds _would not_ outsell the D810.



Looking forward, it might be appropriate to compare combined sales of D800+D800E+D810 vs. 5Ds + 5Ds R. While there are minor differences within each range as far as the sensor goes, I'd still be inclined to lump them in one bucket in that if you have any one of them, you're unlikely to also NEED another one or switch any time soon.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 9, 2015)

bmwzimmer said:


> Too good to be true? April 1st isn't here yet....



Indeed, I doubt it - this is just another rumor from hearsay. If it would be indeed 1.5-2ev (which is a *huge* improvement) I imagine Canon would have put more weight about this into their announcement than just "wide dr".

And if it's basically a 7d2 sensor/readout design without any major tech overhaul I cannot see how they'd improve it past the 6d which is currently the low iso dr leader, for whatever it's worth.



> _An interesting comment (thanks), coming via testing a pre-release 5Dsr with a test version of DPP4. Low ISO DR is put at 1.5-2 stops better than the 1D X, but high ISO performance (6400) falls marginally behind the 7Dmk2.The sensor is similar to the 7D2 technology, but has apparently been tuned to maximise low ISO performance._


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 9, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> But remember, better at Low ISO, worse at higher.... You can't get something for nothing......



Indeed! However, as this is a camera that has been clearly positioned as a Low ISO performer by Canon itself, no one SHOULD expect similar performance in the higher ranges. This is something tuned for 100, 200, 400 and perhaps 800. I assume that certainly by 3200, this is where the comparison reference by Northlight falls behind the 7D2.


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 9, 2015)

Technically speaking, what (if anything) can be done to improve low ISO DR at the expense of high ISO DR? In other words, could Canon theoretically take it's existing sensor tech and fab process, and instead of improving overall sensor design, elect instead of deliberately compromise high ISO performance to improve low ISO DR?


----------



## Lawliet (Feb 9, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> But remember, better at Low ISO, worse at higher.... You can't get something for nothing......


Based on the 7D2 in the context of a studio(and related sujets)camera the good range goes from iso100 to about iso400, a drop in quality in the de facto H-settings is to be expected.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 9, 2015)

V8Beast said:


> In other words, could Canon theoretically take it's existing sensor tech and fab process, and instead of improving overall sensor design, elect instead of deliberately compromise high ISO performance to improve low ISO DR?



I don't think so, because the problem is that the theoretical dynamic range at iso <=400 gets drowned in read noise. Unless they have made a breakthrough with this analog read noise or changed their sensor design to an exmor on-die a/d-converter, they'll have to stick with minor improvements like seen with the latest cameras (6d/7d2).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 9, 2015)

V8Beast said:


> Technically speaking, what (if anything) can be done to improve low ISO DR at the expense of high ISO DR? In other words, could Canon theoretically take it's existing sensor tech and fab process, and instead of improving overall sensor design, elect instead of deliberately compromise high ISO performance to improve low ISO DR?



At the sensor level? I doubt it. In the signal chain? Maybe. Perhaps they can use low-noise amplifiers down stream that wouldn't be sufficient for high-iso in their architecture. I'm just spit balling.


----------



## Lawliet (Feb 9, 2015)

V8Beast said:


> Technically speaking, what (if anything) can be done to improve low ISO DR at the expense of high ISO DR?


By using lower gain (pre-)amplifiers, preferable some on the die to lift the signel above the noise floor. That would cause clipping at high amplification...


----------



## Perio (Feb 9, 2015)

What kits lens comes with 5ds/5dsr?


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2015)

Didn't Canon themselves, through Chuck Westfall, say that the 5Ds/R was going to have the same low ISO DR as the 5D III? That was strait from the mouth of Canon itself. I would be extremely surprised if the 5Ds had even one stop better DR, let alone two.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 9, 2015)

Perio said:


> What kits lens comes with 5ds/5dsr?



Probably none. There is no "kit" lens made that could take advantage of its high resolving capability. The only one in L land is the 24-105 f4 L IS. Good little lens. Just picked one up for $650 on ebay new. But to help debut a 50MP sensor? I wouldn't.

People buying this grade of camera aren't looking for a kit anyway. They have the high grade glass already or will buy the one(s) they need.

Every L glass made since 2010 (except the kit 24-105 I'd say) could push the upper limits of this sensor. Pre-2010, the only one I know of (based on dXO scores) is the killer 135L. That thing puts out 20 perceptual MP on a 22MP sensor (5D3). That's a resolving power of 90%, which is crazy high. 40MP on a 50MP sensor. The kit by comparison might get you 25-30 and that's isn't the foot Canon wants to put forward on this


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 9, 2015)

jrista said:


> Didn't Canon themselves, through Chuck Westfall, say that the 5Ds/R was going to have the same low ISO DR as the 5D III? That was strait from the mouth of Canon itself. I would be extremely surprised if the 5Ds had even one stop better DR, let alone two.



As as I recall, Chuck said the DR is about the same, making no mention of sensitivity (to be fair, I wasn't paying that much attention, so perhaps he did specify at low ISO).

Later, another spokesman type said something about traditionally-measured DR being the same (perhaps stop-wedge as opposed to noise measurements), but that the noise floor is lower.

Then an unnamed third party claimed a 1.5-2 stop improvement.

Personally, I suspect that what Chuck said is probably most accurate. Perhaps the noise floor is a little lower, but I don't expect 1.5 stops. And for me, that's fine. I'm happy with my 5D2/3 landscape work (I sometimes use an A7R, but generally speaking I prefer not), so I imagine I'll be happy with the 5Ds as well.


----------



## Lawliet (Feb 9, 2015)

jrista said:


> Didn't Canon themselves, through Chuck Westfall, say that the 5Ds/R was going to have the same low ISO DR as the 5D III?


That depends on whether you measure on a per pixel or per picture level.
Normally that should be closely correlated, but with the 5D3's banding the second metric looses considerably. If that got fixed the claims can both be true. Not accounting for ambiguity on the sensitivity bracket refered to.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 9, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> traditionally-measured DR being the same (perhaps stop-wedge as opposed to noise measurements), but the noise floor is lower.



This is poppycock (I hope I've got the right word, I'm not a native speaker )... dr is what arrives in the image data, and this is the difference between noise floor (including banding which raises it) and clipping.

The only explanation I can come up with for these rumors that Canon creates FUD and leaves the hope for a magic trick, after all they're well aware how important dr is for some landscape shooters. That's probably also the reason for the fuzzy "wide dynamic range" statement in their announcement.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 9, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > traditionally-measured DR being the same (perhaps stop-wedge as opposed to noise measurements), but the noise floor is lower.
> ...



That's the right word, though I suspect your english lessons are from the 1950s . These days we'd make mention of a male cow and its excrement. 

In any case, what is the dynamic range of cameras which pre-date digital noise? What's the noise floor of emulsion film? I guess no unexposed negative film is truly clear so won't return black, is that the equivalent?

One can use a stop wedge to determine the total range of tones an imaging device, digital or otherwise, is capable of recording. It however isn't particularly useful in determining what kind of detail can be extracted. That's where the noise floor comes in. 

In any case, this discussion is all for fun anyway. Nobody knows anything, and we're just making assumptions based on terminology. As mentioned, I expect files similar to those of the mk3, but... bigger. If the shadows have less noise, cool.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 9, 2015)

I'm happy to be wrong come June, but I concur with the view that Chuck would not be sitting in an interview with DPReview going, _DR broadly inline with 5D3 and high ISO noise broadly inline 7D II_ if there was a significant difference in low-end ISO. He would be going we've traded ISO range against improved DR in the <ISO 400 range and espousing it.

This sensor is a "version" of the 7D II, and for many people, that's what they want and it suits their photography - even landscape / studio work. Sure they might want more in terms of DR or ISO range, but right now, does Canon sit and not deliver something, or deliver as good as they can? As a business, deliver something which a good % of your userbase will buy rather than wait till you can (either technically or financially). Some won't, some will go for MF, some to Nikon, some to Sony and maybe some to other brands. But others will conclude the 5Ds suits their needs.

Point in fact, there's a article on Outdoor Photographer (Have Camera, Have Lens, Will Travel). He's a pro photographer, who took a 40D and a single lens traveling the world for 21 months.

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/have-camera-have-lens-will-travel.html

Not everyone *needs* the 14 stops of DR. If that's more important, in balance, to other elements of the system then ok, you need to change.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 9, 2015)

jrista said:


> Didn't Canon themselves, through Chuck Westfall, say that the 5Ds/R was going to have the same low ISO DR as the 5D III? That was strait from the mouth of Canon itself. I would be extremely surprised if the 5Ds had even one stop better DR, let alone two.



No that isn't what he said.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24992.msg493653#msg493653


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't Canon themselves, through Chuck Westfall, say that the 5Ds/R was going to have the same low ISO DR as the 5D III? That was strait from the mouth of Canon itself. I would be extremely surprised if the 5Ds had even one stop better DR, let alone two.
> ...



If there was a significant difference in it, why isn't Canon highlighting it ? Sorry Privatebydesign, I think you're looking for something that is not there. Nothing else in the literature marks a significant improvement, and I don't understand why a single CPS person would be the one to release such information? If there is better handling of noise at low ISO, why wouldn't there be comments about it?

Sorry, I would be happy if I am wrong, but no information to date really supports that bar one interview comment....


----------



## Skirball (Feb 9, 2015)

Perio said:


> What kits lens comes with 5ds/5dsr?



I think they should kit it with the 24mm TS-E, just to make a statement.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 9, 2015)

I think the DR comments are at best inconclusive. It's not like Northlight is some fly-by-night rumor mill. If he posts something about a pre-test exhibiting 1.5-2 stops above a 1DX, I take him at his word. Whether lightroom vs DPP makes a huge difference here has yet to be told.

Canon still has 5 months to get their ducks in a row and add/change things in firmware like Dual ISO. Ok, the camera sucks at 6400 but what about Dual at 100 & 400 or 100 & 800. 

There may be a few more things that surprise us between now and then and I'm sure they are gauging market reactions right now to the press release. While I don't expect hem to radically redesign the sensor between now and then, making firmware changes seems easy enough especially when they would greatly aid the very market they are trying to penetrate with such a body.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 9, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


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



Actually a CPS guy DID say there was more ability to pull shadows at low ISO....

http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/02/interview-about-the-eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r-with-mike-burnhill/

And then we had the bit from Northlight that seems to (on the surface) substantiate this:

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html

Again.... What has been said regarding low ISO DR is as of yet, inconclusive.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 9, 2015)

Skirball said:


> Perio said:
> 
> 
> > What kits lens comes with 5ds/5dsr?
> ...



LOL


----------



## bmwzimmer (Feb 9, 2015)

I think Canon is selecting their words very carefully. Canon wants you to believe nothing is wrong with the Dynamic range and ISO of their current sensors which is true to many casual users. So to say this is a considerable improvement over the 5D3 and or other models admits weakness in their current products/sensors. I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 9, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Actually a CPS guy DID say there was more ability to pull shadows at low ISO....
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/02/interview-about-the-eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r-with-mike-burnhill/



Yes, I did agree that.



> And then we had the bit from Northlight that seems to (on the surface) substantiate this:
> 
> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html
> 
> Again.... What has been said regarding low ISO DR is as of yet, inconclusive.



Northlight entry is from a contact. Not from his own testing.

So, blazing new 50MP sensor, with substantial reduction in read noise at low-iso, thus increasing it's suitability for landscape photographers. Canon mention lots about 50MP in all locations. Only 1 guy from CPA knows about the low-iso read noise changes? Rest of Canon globally ? Nada, zip, zilch, nothing. 

Either Canon doesn't think this is something worth telling all their people (Chuck didnt know as we've seen) and their potential customers, they've made a bit of a snafu (not unheard of), or wont result in any noticeable difference.

I'd be happy if they've improved it, but I can't marry up the lack of information about it - from the CPN site in Europe, through other sites. Happy to be wrong, but sorry, I just don't buy it. It's a version of the 7D II sensor, which for many will be all they need....


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 9, 2015)

bmwzimmer said:


> I think Canon is selecting their words very carefully. Canon wants you to believe nothing is wrong with the Dynamic range and ISO of their current sensors which is true to many casual users. So to say this is a considerable improvement over the 5D3 and or other models admits weakness in their current products/sensors. I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..



I think they're being selective in their words as there are people who want more DR. There are many who are happy with the DR of Canon sensors. There are others who might not be happy, but when all other things are considered, there is insufficient elsewhere for them to change....

Tom Hogan calls it correctly. This year, Sony & Nikon will iterate their bodies to 50MP. Reading between the lines, the DR for the new sensor will be inline with the current. Not bad, 18% increase in density, same DR. Similarly for Canon to match broadly the 5D III DR with the higher density in the 5Ds sensor. Not bad either. 

Until any of the camera manufacturers can figure out how to entice back some smartphone users, then they're going to hope that their market does not shrink too much, and keep their relative % share the same. So no great step-changes in 2015, the Japanese want to protect their shareholders - no great expenditure other than perhaps Sony - but I think that is more of where they are selling sensors which is attracting them, and not the camera market per-se. Sensors in the automotive business seems to be the next market Sony & others will go after....

What will be interesting, is if Sony continues to make lots of money from sensors, but not so much from cameras and lenses, will they become more and more the sensor manufacturer, and focus less on the camera side - or will the camera side stay as effectively marketing for their sensors?


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


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



I agree...

What are we doing here...mincing the word "equivalent"? What does equivalent mean but "equivalent": "_*equal*_ in value, amount, function, meaning, etc."? If there is a lower read noise floor, then it can't be equivalent, it would be "lower"...in value, amount, level, etc. Also, I'm curious what the alternative to "traditional" measurement paradigms there are...do Canon sensors somehow require a different way of measuring their signal and noise levels to be competitive? If so, why? Would that not render special tests for Canon cameras oranges in comparison to all the other apples out there? What happens when the 5Ds ends up having the same read noise levels via "traditional measurements"?


Too many conflicting statements by people at this point. Too bad we have to wait months before anyone can actually get their hands on one to do any testing, and probably months longer for the major testing outlets to perform their tests and provide some useful information. :\


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 9, 2015)

bmwzimmer said:


> I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..



Indeed, and in hindsight of the "100% Canon" sensor this is also the reason why their execs would rather drop dead than using a Sony sensor in one of their premium dslrs - it would be public admittance that a problem exists and loss of face.


----------



## SwnSng (Feb 9, 2015)

bmwzimmer said:


> I think Canon is selecting their words very carefully. Canon wants you to believe nothing is wrong with the Dynamic range and ISO of their current sensors which is true to many casual users. So to say this is a considerable improvement over the 5D3 and or other models admits weakness in their current products/sensors. I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..



+1 on this.


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2015)

SwnSng said:


> bmwzimmer said:
> 
> 
> > I think Canon is selecting their words very carefully. Canon wants you to believe nothing is wrong with the Dynamic range and ISO of their current sensors which is true to many casual users. So to say this is a considerable improvement over the 5D3 and or other models admits weakness in their current products/sensors. I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..
> ...




I don't know that I believe that either. Why would you undersell the newer, better, more advanced, and more expensive device by claiming it is "equivalent" to an older and soon to be replaced model? The 5D IV is just around the corner, at worst Canon MIGHT lose some sales of the 5D III. They are already going to lose those sales because of the 5Ds/R announcement, and the rumors about teh 5D IV being just around the corner are going to cost more of those sales. Far more, I think, than Canon SELLING their newer cameras by stating they have significantly lower read noise/noise. 


I think we also need to be clear here. In the Burnhill interview, he said there was a lower "noise floor", which is not the same thing as "lower read noise". Read noise is just one of many sources of noise. The 7D II also has a lower noise floor, but that is primarily because the dark current was reduced so much at room temperature. The 5Ds is bound to gain those same improvements from the 7D II. Additionally, the way Canon builds sensors, smaller pixels have lower absolute read noise (i.e. 12.5e- for the 7D II, but 25e- for the 6D...however both have similar DR), but they also have lower FWC. *Lower read noise with a correspondingly lower FWC does NOT improve DR. *


You need the ability to create a stronger signal relative to the noise in order to have more DR. That can only happen with a higher FWC paired with lower read noise. Otherwise...your still going to have the same old problem, where if you have a scene with high DR, you have to underexpose the shadows to preserve the highlights (which completely nullifies any "lower noise floor" argument.)


----------



## bitm2007 (Feb 9, 2015)

Perio said:


> What kits lens comes with 5ds/5dsr?



In the UK WEX Photographic are offering the 5DS in six kits

TS-E 24mm f3.5L II
EF 11-24mm f4L USM 
EF 85mm f1.2 L II USM 
EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II USM 
EF 24-70mm f4 L IS USM 
EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM


----------



## quod (Feb 9, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> That would be the nice way to read it. However, it's almost unprecedented for marketing to hide a major new feature, which might be a key selling point, just to make old stuff seem better so....


I agree 100%. Lower noise at base ISO would be a great selling point. It would not take away from the unique features of Canon's other pro/prosumer cameras. It seems a bit odd that people are getting worked up over a vague statement like "lower noise floor," which means nothing on its face.


----------



## SwnSng (Feb 9, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> bmwzimmer said:
> 
> 
> > I think Canon is selecting their words very carefully. Canon wants you to believe nothing is wrong with the Dynamic range and ISO of their current sensors which is true to many casual users. So to say this is a considerable improvement over the 5D3 and or other models admits weakness in their current products/sensors. I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..
> ...



Really? This tactic is used by BMW. The last 2 models (e90, f30) of the 335 when they went to Turbo understated the Max HP by 30+. Listed at 300 but Dyno at 330+ on average. Why? Because the existing M3 which was 10-15k more expensive had a listed and Dynoed HP of 333. They did exactly the same with the current model.


----------



## bmwzimmer (Feb 9, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> bmwzimmer said:
> 
> 
> > I think Canon is selecting their words very carefully. Canon wants you to believe nothing is wrong with the Dynamic range and ISO of their current sensors which is true to many casual users. So to say this is a considerable improvement over the 5D3 and or other models admits weakness in their current products/sensors. I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..
> ...



True but they have to keep selling the 5D3 alongside the 5DS/R for another 7-8 months or so before the 5D4 is even announced and perhaps 10 months before its on sale...


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2015)

SwnSng said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > bmwzimmer said:
> ...




The difference here is that BMW was protecting a MORE EXPENSIVE car model. The 5Ds is more expensive than the 5D III, by quite a margin given actual street prices. It makes no logical sense for Canon not to upsell the better, improved 5Ds as much as possible, despite potentially slightly different markets. Canon should be trying to sell the $3700 part as much as humanly possible over a $2500-$2800 (street prices) part. For a lot of potential Canon customers, more REAL dynamic range (none of this "lower noise floor" without any word on FWC crap) is something GREATLY desired. Canon could bag a significant number of sales before the thing even hits the streets just by stating that they actually improved dynamic range by two stops, instead of pussyfooting around the issue.


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 9, 2015)

etto72 said:


> I guess that's a good news for Landscape photographers !



Studio photographers as well. I shoot in a variety of situations, and 95% is ISO 3200 or better and of that the majority is ISO 1000 or better 

I will wait until the bodies are out in the wild, but the too big ifs for me are IF the DR is better AND IF the Color accuracy is improved, then this has the makings of a real solid camera and a beast at 50MP. 

This is especially true if I get the same noise performance as I do out of my 5D MK III. 

This to me is lining up to be a solid Studio / Landscape camera


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 9, 2015)

quod said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > That would be the nice way to read it. However, it's almost unprecedented for marketing to hide a major new feature, which might be a key selling point, just to make old stuff seem better so....
> ...


Agreed!

There are several compelling reasons why people would still get a 7D2 instead of a 5Ds...
Better sealing!
Tougher build!
Higher frame rate!
Better high ISO performance!
Lower cost!

If you want an action camera, it is an easy decision to make.

On the other hand, if you want a landscape camera, it is just as easy of a decision in the other direction.

There is a market for both and the consumer, with more choice, comes out the winner.


----------



## SwnSng (Feb 9, 2015)

jrista said:


> SwnSng said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Good point. My hope is that they have improved on the banding issues when lifting shadows over thr Mkiii. If they did that it would be enough for me to consider a pre-order. If not, then i'm going to most likely wait and see what the 5dmkiv is going to offer. I know it's wishful thinking but I hope Ken Rockwell's guess that the mkiv will be 36MP happens to come true.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 9, 2015)

jrista said:


> Too many conflicting statements by people at this point. Too bad we have to wait months before anyone can actually get their hands on one to do any testing, and probably months longer for the major testing outlets to perform their tests and provide some useful information. :\



There are no conflicting statements anywhere, at least not from official Canon sources. 

Indeed the identical wording was used on two continents with one specifically saying _"Canon are telling us"_. The other enlarged his _"equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms"_ comment and specifically said _"but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"_. There is no contradiction in these comments.

What they mean by equivalent when used in a sentence with 'in traditional measuring terms' is the only bit open to interpretation, and I am not interested in the forums pontifications only the fact that Canon have said there is a difference. How much and how useful that difference might be to me will have to wait until I get a challenging RAW file to play with.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > I see the 5DS as being targeted to existing Canon system users. Not first time buyers of high resolution DSLR.
> ...



I agree and moreover I think we will see a number of Nikon users jump ship AGAIN chasing MP.


----------



## MrToes (Feb 9, 2015)

That is very welcomed news! If it is true!?


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2015)

SwnSng said:


> Good point. My hope is that they have improved on the banding issues when lifting shadows over thr Mkiii. If they did that it would be enough for me to consider a pre-order. If not, then i'm going to most likely wait and see what the 5dmkiv is going to offer. I know it's wishful thinking but I hope Ken Rockwell's guess that the mkiv will be 36MP happens to come true.



Personally I'm in the market for a landscape camera. As such, I am not interested much in marginal reductions in banding or reductions in dark current. I can put more actual dynamic range (the ratio between maximum pixel signal and pixel read noise) to work in landscape photography. My 5D III does fine for birds and wildlife at high ISO, so I don't care about the high ISO performance of the 5Ds. I would use it pretty exclusively at ISO 100-200. 

I am pretty sure I know what Canon is talking about with regards to lower noise floor. It sounds like Canon is still using their 500nm process, and measurements of Canon cameras over the years have shown that however they build their system, smaller pixels have lower read noise. The problem is that because they are still consuming so much die space with transistors and wiring thanks to their ancient 500nm process, they suffer significant losses in terms of photodiode area (i.e. photodiode pitch to actual full pixel pitch ratio is small). Photodiode area is what affects FWC...greater area, higher FWC...lower area, lower FWC. 

Both read noise and FWC are directly linked to photodiode and pixel area...so they both grow or shrink together. THAT is why Canon can have lower read noise with the small 4.1 micron pixels of the 7D II, but not actually have higher dynamic range than the higher read noise of the 6.5 micron pixels of the 6D. Dynamic range is the ratio between FWC and read noise. If they both shrink and grow with each other, the ratio remains the same, DR remains the same. Increase FWC or reduce read noise, or both, and the ratio increases, and DR increases. You need the ratio, the range between read noise and signal saturation, to GROW in order to have increased DR. With more FWC at the same read noise, you can gather more light before the highlights clip...and not need to reduce exposure (not need to shift exposure down to make more room for the highlights). Similarly, with lower read noise and the same FWC, you can gather the same amount of light before the highlights clip, but the lower read noise means you don't lose as much in the shadows. Increase FWC and reduce read noise and you gain at both ends! Leave them the same, or reduce either or both, and you lose DR.

Other manufacturers have solved this problem a few ways, but one of the key improvements with other manufacturers is that they use 180nm, 130nm, 90nm or 65nm processes. Sony has used 180nm and 90nm processes, Samsung currently uses a 65nm process. That means Sony transistors take up 2.7x to 5.5x less space, and Samsungs transistors take up 7.7x less space, on the sensor die, than Canon transistors. It's basically taking a fat border of transitors from around each pixel, and replacing it with a thin, thinner, or very thin border. That leaves more area in the center of the pixel for photodiode (light sensitive photon-to-electron conversion surface area). Canon could very likely realize immediate gains if they would just drop their ancient 500nm process and move to 180nm process. That might gain them a stop right there. If they could figure out a way to flatten their read noise curve like most other manufacturers, that could gain them a stop or more.

So long as they do not do those things, however, I don't foresee Canon actually gaining on the read noise front. The day Canon releases a camera with either the same read noise and a meaninfully larger FWC, or meaningfully lower read noise and the same FWC, or higher FWC and lower read noise (doubtful in the foreseeable future) is the day we will finally see a real-world increase in dynamic range.


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 9, 2015)

SwnSng said:


> Really? This tactic is used by BMW. The last 2 models (e90, f30) of the 335 when they went to Turbo understated the Max HP by 30+. Listed at 300 but Dyno at 330+ on average. Why? Because the existing M3 which was 10-15k more expensive had a listed and Dynoed HP of 333. They did exactly the same with the current model.



I always love a good car analogy ;D The Taco Bell analogy from a few days ago was a good one too, but I digress  At any rate, car manufacturers have many different reasons for underrating their advertised horsepower figures, none of which would apply to a camera manufacturer.

1) The Society of Automotive Engineers is a third-party entity that certifies the horsepower output of each new car engine through its own independent lab testing. Since the marketing material for new car models are often produced well in advance of this certification, manufacturers will intentionally underrate their published horsepower figures. If the SAE's official hp rating turns out to be lower than a manufacturer's claims, you have yourself a PR disaster 

2) Unlike with camera sensors, any new car buyer has the ability to dyno test their cars at a third-party facility with a very high degree of accuracy. If there's a gross disparity between real-world hp and a manufacturer's advertised hp, the manufacturer could very well get sued. This is exactly what happened to Ford when the 1999 Mustang Cobra didn't produce anywhere near its advertised horsepower. 

3) Generally, the production update cycle for new car models is much longer than with a camera body. Manufacturers will sometimes underrate horsepower figures early in the production cycle, then advertise their true (higher) hp figures later during the production cycle. This gives consumers the impressive that the current model hasn't entirely stagnated. For instance, the engine in the 1997-2004 Corvette always produced 350 horsepower. However, GM rated the early models at 345 hp, and the later models at 350 hp. 

Did anyone actually read all that ;D? If you did, I don't see how any of these strategies would apply to Canon sandbagging the true DR potential of the 5Ds, but then again we'll have to wait for raw files to draw any conclusions. 

The 1DX is the only model where the "protection" theory would apply (since the 5D3 is cheaper), but it's targeted at such a different demographic that I don't see how boasting about the 5Ds' improved DR (if it is improved) would cut into 1DX sales. Whatever the 5D4's specs turn out to be, I don't see many people cross-shopping it with the 5Ds due to the latter model's limitations at high ISO and slower FPS.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 10, 2015)

Normalnorm said:


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



That is a good point, in one swoop Canon have significantly bested the D810 in MP and the 14-24 in FOV.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 10, 2015)

jrista said:


> SwnSng said:
> 
> 
> > Good point. My hope is that they have improved on the banding issues when lifting shadows over thr Mkiii. If they did that it would be enough for me to consider a pre-order. If not, then i'm going to most likely wait and see what the 5dmkiv is going to offer. I know it's wishful thinking but I hope Ken Rockwell's guess that the mkiv will be 36MP happens to come true.
> ...



And right now, based on revenue forecast due to overall market shrinkage, Canon are not showing any sign of investing in a different process. Which for many people, won't matter. For some it may do, and they will weigh it up as to move or stay. In that respect, the 5Ds does not change Canon's position, it just offers a bunch of people who are happy with the DR of the current sensors a higher res sensor in a similar package to the MK III. I think expectations for the IV and X II should align similarly. Iteration of, modest improvements, no step change. Which again, will be enough for many people...

Fortunately (?) there may not be any significant change in Sonikon sensors in 2015 either, but there will be a 50MP body from both of them....


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> And right now, based on revenue forecast due to overall market shrinkage, Canon are not showing any sign of investing in a different process. Which for many people, won't matter. For some it may do, and they will weigh it up as to move or stay. In that respect, the 5Ds does not change Canon's position, it just offers a bunch of people who are happy with the DR of the current sensors a higher res sensor in a similar package to the MK III. I think expectations for the IV and X II should align similarly. Iteration of, modest improvements, no step change. Which again, will be enough for many people...




Aye, a shrinking market would certainly put a damper on investments, however Canon already has a 180nm fab. From what we do know, it was used to manufactuer their P&S sensors in high volume. The P&S market has crashed already, and Canon couldn't possibly be at full capacity on that second fab. They are clearly still investing some money (a billion and change or so?) in R&D on the photography side of things. Most of that seems to be going to lens innovations, but some has gone to sensor innovations. Canon should be able to move some fabrication off their ancient 500nm fab and onto their 180nm fab without actually having to invest a billion or so into a new fab. 


Sounds like a win-win to me, and to some others...the curiosity is that they simply haven't done it. I cannot fathom why...but from Canon's own mouth, they stated that they see a big reason for the shrinking DSLR market being lack of technological innovation. Again, seems like a win-win for them to utilize freed up capacity on their 180nm fab (which is a 300mm wafer fab that can apparently produce sensors on a copper wiring process, which is competitive with what Sony is doing) to improve their technology.



Stu_bert said:


> Fortunately (?) there may not be any significant change in Sonikon sensors in 2015 either, but there will be a 50MP body from both of them....




I'd call it unfortunate myself.  The more pressure other companies can put on Canon from a technological-through-IQ standpoint, the better. It's not so bad for SoNikon though, as they are already ahead of the curve when it comes to eeking out as much IQ as possible from their current sensor technology. I think Sony is in a much better position to create a 50mp body that gives closer to medium format class IQ than Canon is. 


I am very interested to see if Canon has increased FWC while lowering read noise, or whether the lower read noise is simply a consequence of smaller pixels, and paired with a similarly smaller FWC. It seems read noise varies more linearly (not exactly, but more closely) with pixel size, while FWC varies with area. If we divide the 6D read noise of 26.4 by the 7D read noise of 12.9, we get 2.05. As far as FWC goes, the ratio of pixel areas between the 6D and 7D II is 2.513 (sqr(6.5)/sqr(4.1)), the FWC of the 6D is 74256e- and the FWC of the 7D II is 29544. Divide the FWC of the 6D by the area ratio, and you get 29,544.22.


----------



## K-amps (Feb 10, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> But remember, better at Low ISO, worse at higher.... You can't get something for nothing......



Very true and if it does have 2 stop at 100, I might hit the pre-order button.... I already have a 5d3 for the high iso.
I am primarily a landscape guy.... usually shoot at base iso. This would be an excellent product IF that is the case.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 10, 2015)

jrista said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > And right now, based on revenue forecast due to overall market shrinkage, Canon are not showing any sign of investing in a different process. Which for many people, won't matter. For some it may do, and they will weigh it up as to move or stay. In that respect, the 5Ds does not change Canon's position, it just offers a bunch of people who are happy with the DR of the current sensors a higher res sensor in a similar package to the MK III. I think expectations for the IV and X II should align similarly. Iteration of, modest improvements, no step change. Which again, will be enough for many people...
> ...



We still don't know if DPAF is 180nm or 500nm.... It costs a lot of money to keep 2 fabrication runs open when you only have enough demand for one... just from a financial point of view, they should be migrating their FF and APS-C sensors to the smaller and newer fabrication line. One would expect to see a flurry of new releases just before that happens.... like the 70D, 7D2, EOSM-3, and new rebels causing just about the entire APS-C line to be replaced (just the SL1 and T3's to go).... and then the same thing happening to the FF models.

Things look quite suspicious at the moment...


----------



## raptor3x (Feb 10, 2015)

Who knows, maybe Canon implemented a DualISO-like method for overcoming the read noise issue and that's why you lose DPAF even though it's essentially a scaled up 7D2 sensor. That would also go a long way to explaining the seemingly conflicting comments about how the "traditionally measured" DR is similar to the 5D3 while other sources say the noise floor has been reduced.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2015)

jrista said:


> I don't know that I believe that either. Why would you undersell the newer, better, more advanced, and more expensive device by claiming it is "equivalent" to an older and soon to be replaced model? The 5D IV is just around the corner, at worst Canon MIGHT lose some sales of the 5D III.



If the 5Ds is 'tuned' for low ISO at the expense of high ISO, it's likely the 5Ds would have better low ISO DR than the 5DIV and 1D X II. That would be a logical reason to downplay that aspect of the 5Ds. 




SwnSng said:


> > However, it's almost unprecedented for marketing to hide a major new feature, which might be a key selling point, just to make old stuff seem better so....
> 
> 
> 
> Really? This tactic is used by BMW. The last 2 models (e90, f30) of the 335 when they went to Turbo understated the Max HP by 30+. Listed at 300 but Dyno at 330+ on average. Why? Because the existing M3 which was 10-15k more expensive had a listed and Dynoed HP of 333. They did exactly the same with the current model.



Well, it's another car analogy but a good example. What some people fail to understand is that like most major corporations, the usual goal is to maximize profit from the entire lineup as a whole, not necessarily from individual models.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Feb 10, 2015)

Whatever the DR and however it compares I am going to get one....my 6D will take care of the high iso and wifi and gps....the mere fact that a camera like this is now available at these prices makes it, imo a must have!

Only question is 5Ds or 5Dsr....


----------



## Aglet (Feb 10, 2015)

Normalnorm said:


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



Uhmmm.... Maybe some will. I certainly won't. my pair of d800s give me enough pixels to play with and the quality of every one of the ~72 million of them is better than I can expect from anything branded Canon.
OTOH, that new UWA zoom is pretty interesting, and that alone could convince UWA fans to get a 5ds body to put it on, even if they'll have to struggle with DR or noise issues in some situations.


----------



## SPKoko (Feb 10, 2015)

They are very, very clearly saying it:

_To get so many pixels on to the cameras’ 36x24mm sensor, each photodiode must be made much smaller, which presents its own engineering challenges. Improvement in semiconductor manufacturing ensures image quality isn’t compromised by excessive digital noise. The sensor uses optimised gap-less microlenses with a reduced distance to the photodiode to improve the light gathering efficiency. *The sensor’s design also enables the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R to offer the same wide dynamic range as the EOS 5D Mark III*._ 

_Source: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/inside_the_eos_5ds_and_eos_5ds_r.do?utm_content=buffer4aed0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer_

It is the same DR! They are saying it everywhere! In the interviews, in the technical articles! Everywhere! As we do not want to believe that because we want to have a competitive DR, we trick ourselves into thinking that they are saying that to protect the 5D Mark III. But the reality is that they are very clearly saying, even in written form, in a technical article, that it is the same DR. They could have said that it has a "wide dynamic range", just like in the press release, but no, they decided to specifically compare it with the 5D Mark III to say that it is the same one!

For me, they are really trying hard to not create false expectations in the DR area with very clear messages in that respect. But as we are seeing, they are not succeeding...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 10, 2015)

Aglet said:


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



Yah I don't see that resolution increase being compelling to D8xx owners. Maybe if there was some indication Nikon would never release a higher res model, but chances are they'll soon have a 45-50MP D900 (or whatever) and then a year later a D910.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 10, 2015)

SPKoko said:


> They are very, very clearly saying it:
> 
> _To get so many pixels on to the cameras’ 36x24mm sensor, each photodiode must be made much smaller, which presents its own engineering challenges. Improvement in semiconductor manufacturing ensures image quality isn’t compromised by excessive digital noise. The sensor uses optimised gap-less microlenses with a reduced distance to the photodiode to improve the light gathering efficiency. *The sensor’s design also enables the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R to offer the same wide dynamic range as the EOS 5D Mark III*._
> 
> ...



I don't think anybody with a brain and reading or listening comprehension above an infant seriously expects dramatically different DR, but that still does not explain the comment from Mike Burnhill of Canon CPS in the UK who said _" equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"_.

He is very clearly saying there is a difference. What that is and how beneficial it will be to our image making is the only interesting bit. People saying there is a 2 stop DR improvement are not reading right, even if you take the anonymous NL comment at face value but it does seem there is a difference in shadow noise, Canon consider that technically the DR is the same, but if we have more editing latitude in the shadows and highlights then it is interesting.

Personally I kind of like the idea that Canon are refusing to admit the earlier sensors can be pretty crappy when compared to the competition when doing shadow lifting (lets not argue about the usefulness or not of that ability), and whilst these new cameras are an improvement (even if they are still not as good as the Exmor), to admit that would be admitting that the 5D MkIII sensor, effectively, has a problem, and there is no way on earth Canon would say that, not least of which because it isn't true. However I don't believe there is not a tuning capability in the system, I believe the earlier sensors are tuned to give 'the best' broad range of iso's, after all the Canon sensors are marginally better than Exmor up there, and that makes sense for a general purpose camera, but these two new ones are very much focused on low iso capability so have been tuned to perform better there, hence the comparatively low high iso settings.

What I do know is that Canon know a ton more about this stuff than anybody here does, especially if their sensor education is from reading articles and patents on the internet. And, we will not have any idea about the new cameras DR and more importantly shadow editability until we get some challenging RAW files.


----------



## iso79 (Feb 10, 2015)

Dynamic range won't help you become a better photographer!


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 10, 2015)

iso79 said:


> Dynamic range won't help you become a better photographer!



It doesn't hinder you, too  ... imho there's no inherent merit of coping with lesser gear unless you're a minimalist or masochist


----------



## dafrank (Feb 10, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Perio said:
> 
> 
> > What kits lens comes with 5ds/5dsr?
> ...



There are quite a few pre 2010 lenses - not meant as kit lenses - that would do just fine at 50 mp or more. Just to name a few: the 90 TS, older super tele's from 300mm up, 50 mm macro, 100mm f2, and 135 f2. Many others would still make good images stopped down a bit, but not as good as the newer lenses. Bottom line - all images with almost any but the worst Canon lenses will benefit from more MP, They just won't look quite as sharp as with the better lenses, but still, the images they produce will yield more detail than if they had been used on a lower MP camera.
Regards, David


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 10, 2015)

dafrank said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Perio said:
> ...



There isn't a Canon EF lens that will resolve 50MP off the new sensors; there isn't a Canon EF lens that will not resolve more than it does on a 24MP sensor. That is just the way system resolution works.

What I find interesting is that the D800E did surprisingly badly on system resolution figures with most Nikon lenses, which begs the question how much more resolution will these 50MP sensors achieve over the D8-0 with, what we all believe, are considerably better Canon lenses.

For instance the D810 and 14-24 achieve 23MP resolution, or a 30% drop of potential. If the 5DSR and 11-24 can achieve a 20% drop on potential then they are going to be getting 40MP, that is nearly twice the achieved resolution of the Nikon combo and whilst 36MP-50MP doesn't sound like much, 23MP-40MP does.


----------



## xps (Feb 10, 2015)

Can someone explain this to me:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html 
"I'm told that the colour filter array of the 5Ds is much closer to the 1Ds mk3 than the 1D X"

Txs


Found @ www.canonwatch.com
"Some interesting (and yet unverified) news coming from people testing a pre-production EOS 5DS surfaced.

Northlight Images received a comment from a user testing a pre-production 5DS with DPP4. It appears that at low ISO the dynamic range of the EOS 5DS is 1.5-2 stops better than the EOS-1D X, while high ISO performance (i.e. ISO 6400) falls slightly behind the EOS 7D Mark II. The same comment/rumor says the 5DS sensor is similar to the 7D2 sensor from a technological point of view (puzzles me), and that the 5DS sensor has been tuned to deliver the best possible low ISO performance.

Another comment says that the colour filter array of the EOS 5Ds is much closer to the EOS-1Ds Mark III than to the EOS-1D X."


----------



## Skirball (Feb 10, 2015)

iso79 said:


> Dynamic range won't help you become a better photographer!



By the same argument, neither will more MP, so why buy the camera?


----------



## Lawliet (Feb 10, 2015)

xps said:


> Can someone explain this to me:



The silicone is colorblind, so you need filters to constrain it's response to certain wavelengths of light and collect the information needed to create a color image.
Beginning with the 5D2 Canon found a way to increase the sensitivity of their cameras: by using filters that allow more light to pass. On the downside the the difference in response of R,G and B pixels to a defined color was reduced, using the same tone curves would have lead to washed out colors. Nothing a higher saturation can't fix. At the first glance at least, as both the reduction of input data as well as pattern noise creeping into the demosaicing become apparent.
Getting the color response at least back to 1Ds3 levels would be welcome...


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 10, 2015)

xps said:


> Can someone explain this to me:
> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html
> "I'm told that the colour filter array of the 5Ds is much closer to the 1Ds mk3 than the 1D X"
> 
> ...



The colours from the 1DS MkIII are considered by many, especially those that really dig in to that stuff, to be the best that Canon has ever done (which makes the price of good used ones especially ironic). The colours from the 1DX are considered to be a little 'harsher', I know it sounds like some self important wine taster, but that is what they mean. This is achieved by, amongst other things, the CFA (Colour Filter Array) which is the colour of the filters in the Bayer pattern filter above the sensor. In truth all digital capture is B&W, it is complicated algorithms that determine the expected colour of any one pixel by averaging the brightness of the colour filtered B&W pixels around it. Some CFA's help that process better than others.


Having praised the 1DS MkIII like I have, and I love them, the above 800iso performance is not good!


----------



## xps (Feb 10, 2015)

Lawliet said:


> xps said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone explain this to me:
> ...



Thanks!
Ah, ok, I see.... 
This phenomenon has been claimed by an German foto-magazine and they reduce the rating of the camers. Ad hoc, I think, they call it dead leaves....


----------



## captainkanji (Feb 10, 2015)

What's wrong with the 5D III's dynamic range?


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2015)

captainkanji said:


> What's wrong with the 5D III's dynamic range?




Lots and lots of blotchy, blurry, scratchy, banded, hot-pixely & red-shifted noise in the shadows, and much less shadow pushing ability. It's a good two stops and change behind the competition these days. Back when the 5D III was released, that was disappointing but understandable. Three years on, it's entering the realm of unacceptable to many who would use this kind of camera for landscapes. 


Despite the fewer megapixels, the D810 with it's 36.3 million pixels has a better signal in each and every one of them. If the 5Ds hits the streets with less than 13 stops of DR, personally I'd still take the D810 and a 14-24mm for landscape work.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 10, 2015)

Northlight just updated..... (Now, I've also read the 5D3 sensor can yank 14 stops (see magic Lantern forums) but as jrista has pointed out before many time, the problem is the read noise en route to the AD.... here's another mention confirming what was said on the 8th. More DR, less noise pulling shadows...) Well if the 5D3 has 14 stops then the statements about "similar/equal to 5D3 DR" on the new 5Ds would be correct...but now with a much lower noise floor. That's what seems to be gelling at this point. We have had discussions before about DR versus USABLE DR and Canon seems to have boosted what was already there into USABLE

FROM NORTHLIGHT:

10th Several more people with testing experience of the new 5Ds have written to agree with some of the comments in the previous days.
In particular, one commented that:
"Canon's new 50.6mp sensor at low ISO will perform much better then any other EOS camera currently in the pro line.
The colour filters on the sensor are designed to produce a higher level of colour accuracy and separation, the sensor itself runs at a significantly lower temperature.
This will come at a price since high ISO performance will drop significantly.
The new sensor will capture 14 stops of DR (just like the 5D III) ... However it will produce remarkably cleaner results when lifting deep shadows".
Once again this is not something I can directly verify.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 10, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> The new sensor will capture 14 stops of DR (just like the 5D III) ... However it will produce remarkably cleaner results when lifting deep shadows".



That's not hard to do, both the newer 6d and 7d2 are better at avoiding banding than the 5d3 (which in turn is way better than the 5d2 or 7d1). Let's face it: The 5ds is an optimized and upscaled crop sensor, for better or worse.

And really, why would another rumor site know better than CR? At least over here, you're getting not unfiltered hearsay, but at least [CR] have a "credibility" rating and usually an additional comment from how believable it is.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 10, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > The new sensor will capture 14 stops of DR (just like the 5D III) ... However it will produce remarkably cleaner results when lifting deep shadows".
> ...



Northlight isn't a dark horse. He is citing people who are professionally testing these cameras and now several of them have told him the same thing. Short of you believing he is making the entire thing up, I don't know what more you want. He is passing along info from pros he knows who have these cameras but he obviously can't say who they are. Journalists protect their sources, lest they never get info from them again. If the reality turns out be completely the opposite then we can complain, but this doesn't seem the sort of info one would just outright BS. We now have statements that seem to converge from both Northlight sources AND Canon CPS people that this camera has more usable DR rather than 14 stops with only 11-12 usable


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 10, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Northlight isn't a dark horse.



Ok, I'll take your word for it, I don't visit that site a lot so I relied on my first impression.

Still, concerning dr this still seems to be pretty fuzzy to me, if there are lots of pro testers out there who like to break their nda why doesn't somebody drop a number like 13ev? My bet still is that this dynamic range "increase" is attributable to very clean shadows by eliminating banding. We'll see.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 10, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Northlight isn't a dark horse.
> ...



They are UK based professional photgraphers who have had a rumor/blog site doing this for over a decade if I'm not mistaken. You'll actually find several references to Keith Cooper who runs Northlight blog from CR. It was Canon Europe CPS Mark Brunhill that talked about more (effectively speaking) usable DR and now other (I would have to assume) professional Euro sources are passing along info to Keith at Northlight. I think they are telling him as much as they possibly can right now. Canon doesn't want to give away spec sheets and technical papers with Sony right around the corner ;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 10, 2015)

I remember when they claimed that the 1Ds Mark IV was all but confirmed and annoncements would be coming soon...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 10, 2015)

captainkanji said:


> What's wrong with the 5D III's dynamic range?



Just to get in on the laughable car analogy theme, the same thing that's wrong with the traction of a 4X4 when it's high centered.


----------



## bmwzimmer (Feb 10, 2015)

There seems to be more fuel to this fire. More than 1 NL source telling them this... I really hope it's true.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 10, 2015)

bmwzimmer said:


> There seems to be more fuel to this fire. More than 1 NL source telling them this... I really hope it's true.



I would have to think it is. Step back a moment and look at the big picture. 5D3 has 14 stops but only 11-12 usable by reasonable measure due to read noise. 5DS has "equivalent DR of 5D3" (14 stops). Brunhill adds to this "more ability to pull up shadows with lower noise floor" (paraphrasing). We know Canon "tuned this for Low ISO" which I'm not sure what else that could really mean other than lower noise and more DR along with this better CFA. In order to get usable images at higher ISO, I imagine you have to sacrifice SOME level of capability at the lower end, so now they have eliminated that trade off by foregoing higher ISOs for the intended audience of this camera. Here's what else makes sense. All this talk about Canon having to remake their fab lines or greatly alter the process to get the AD on the Sensor like Sony.... Canon (if this is all correct, which I have no reason to suspect not at this point) has found a way to keep making sensors just as they have been with separate AD blocks (minimizing new capital expenditures to re tool manufacturing) but making the sensor itself operate at much lower temps (as per Northlight sources) because it's not worried about 3200 and beyond sensitivity...thus creating far less potential for noise creation. This to me appears to be a perfect trade off between making a new product and keeping the company financials happy. I think my logic there is sound, but I'm happy to hear debate.


----------



## bmwzimmer (Feb 10, 2015)

Great points PureClassA. Hopefully we get both Low and High useable DR when the 5D4 comes around like Sony/Nikon.


----------



## etto72 (Feb 10, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> bmwzimmer said:
> 
> 
> > There seems to be more fuel to this fire. More than 1 NL source telling them this... I really hope it's true.
> ...



Makes sense !!


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 10, 2015)

bmwzimmer said:


> Great points PureClassA. Hopefully we get both Low and High useable DR when the 5D4 comes around like Sony/Nikon.



5D4 I suspect will be more of a change in features with moderate tech steps. Adding DPAF, adding 4k capability, small step up in resolution, better 7D2 type pixels with less noise. A great "all-around" camera that general and wedding photography demands. Don't think we will see anything earth shattering there. Now the 1DX2 however.... that should be very interesting...


----------



## SwnSng (Feb 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> SPKoko said:
> 
> 
> > They are very, very clearly saying it:
> ...



+1 to this. 

It really comes down to this for me; if the camera has a better tolerance of lifting shadows and it's proven through some type of preview/review I will most likely press the pre-order button.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> bmwzimmer said:
> 
> 
> > There seems to be more fuel to this fire. More than 1 NL source telling them this... I really hope it's true.
> ...




I still think people are mincing words here. The 5D III does not have 14 stops of DR. The 5D III has 11 stops of DR. You cannot ignore the read noise, and people seem to be trying to do that with these funky explanations of why the 5Ds "has the same DR as the 5D III, but also has more DR than the 5D III". None of it makes sense. 


Dynamic range is a very simple concept. It is the ratio between the FWC and the noise floor. Many things can affect the noise floor...including shot noise in the signal itself. I haven't actually heard anyone from Canon officially state that this camera has more dynamic range...they just keep talking about the "noise floor". The 7D II, which nearly the same pixel size, has lower read noise. It has lower read noise because it has small pixels (something about how Canon designs sensors leads to this scaling of read noise with pixel size...not all sensors are that way). The 5Ds has the same small pixels...so, it stands to reason that the sensor will have lower read noise. 


The KEY here is that...for the 5Ds to have more dynamic range, it MUST ALSO have a higher FWC than the 7D II does at ISO 100. If it has, say, 13e- RN per pixel at ISO 100, and still has a 29455e- FWC...well, it'll actually have slightly less DR than the 7D II (which has 12.9e- RN per pixel with ever so slightly smaller pixels.) The 5Ds, at 13e- RN, would certainly have less read noise than the 5D III, the 6D, the 1D X, etc. But with a 30ke- FWC, it's got less than half the FWC of a 6D!!! It wouldn't have more DR...it would have the same DR as all Canon cameras have...around 11 stops and change. 


If the 5Ds has 13e- RN and say a 45ke- FWC, alright, now we're talking. That is 11.8 stops of DR...half a stop to a stop better DR than other Canon cameras. If it has a 60ke- FWC (double the 7D II...eh, I don't think that's possible with 4.14 micron pixels, especially not on a 500nm process, but let's go with it), then you have 12.2 stops of DR. Hmm...a solid stop better than any other Canon camera...but still not comparable to the 13.8 stops of a D810. So...let's just go all out and say the thing has 75ke- FWC (same as the 6D). It'll have 12.6 stops of DR...eh. For this camera to get 13.8 stops of DR at 13e- RN, it would need an FWC of 180ke-. Not gonna happen...not with 4.14 micron pixels and a 500nm process. 


Let's go the other way here. Let's reduce read noise. Let's say it has 6e- RN and a 30ke- FWC. That's 12.3 stops right there. What about at 3e- RN? Bam, 13.3 stops of DR. Let's say it has a higher FWC than the 7D II...say 40ke-, and that same 3e- RN. Voila! 13.75 stops of DR.


Canon needs to reduce their read noise to Exmor levels. There is no way they are going to get enough well capacity in a 4.14 micron pixel to support more than MAYBE a stop more DR at similar RN levels to the 7D II. There are certainly things Canon could have done to reduce read noise to 3e- at ISO 100...however it would be THE unprecedented move they have needed to make for oh so, so long. To actually achieve it, Canon would have had to have moved to a newer, better process (180nm at least, smaller better), and moved all the core image processing logic (amp, CDS, ADC) onto the sensor die, and go CP-ADC (thus reducing ADC frequency considerably). Just doing that wasn't even enough for Sony to achieve the ultra low level of 3e- RN...they had to use additional innovations. They added a digital CDS stage to the readout pipeline. They also moved the clock generator to a special remote area of the sensor die to prevent it from adding uneven noise to whatever ADC units were closest to it. Finally, they designed ADC/DCDS units which adapt themselves to each pixel column, eliminating vertical banding. 


I dunno. Maybe it's just me...but that sounds like much too big a leap. Especially given the rumors that the 5Ds is STILL manufactured on a 500nm process. Even more especially given that it's already been stated so many times that it has the DR of the 5D III. Yeah....just doesn't sound plausible to me. I don't think the 5Ds will have Exmor-level 13+ stops of DR. At best...I'd say 12.2 stops...with the faint hope that Canon will totally surprise me and prove me totally wrong with some truly amazing technology in the 5Ds.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2015)

Oh, BTW, the DR formula:



```
DRstops = 20 * log(FWC/RN) / 6
```


----------



## benperrin (Feb 10, 2015)

Jrista, why do you even shoot with Canon? You seem to bash them so much. The d810a was just announced. Maybe you should just make the switch. Sounds like you'd be a lot happier than you are here.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 10, 2015)

jrista said:


> I still think people are mincing words here. The 5D III does not have 14 stops of DR. The 5D III has 11 stops of DR. You cannot ignore the read noise, and people seem to be trying to do that with these funky explanations of why the 5Ds "has the same DR as the 5D III, but also has more DR than the 5D III". None of it makes sense.



It's possible (although not likely) they're discussing about two different things. The dynamic range of each pixel is related to its capacity versus noise, and the dynamic range of the output is limited by the bit-depth of the ADC and file structure. 

If I took a sensor like a Newton 920 with 94dB DR but ran it through an 12-bit ADC and store export 8-bit JPEGs, which would be the appropriate DR to quote? 


The 5D line uses 14-bit ADCs and 14-bit files, and thus the output is bounded at 14-stops, for all 5D cameras.
The 5Ds sensors may have lower noise (and similar FWCs) to previous 5D cameras, and thus have greater flexibility to lift shadows. Again, I don't think it's likely, but whatever, 12-ish stops is generally plenty.



benperrin said:


> Jrista, why do you even shoot with Canon? You seem to bash them so much.



I think you're confusing jrista with dilbert. The former talks plainly about technology, the latter bashes.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2015)

benperrin said:


> Jrista, why do you even shoot with Canon? You seem to bash them so much. The d810a was just announced. Maybe you should just make the switch. Sounds like you'd be a lot happier than you are here.




First, I don't "bash" Canon. I am annoyed with Canon for ignoring the sole issue they have for so long, but I don't bash them. Not anywhere remotely close to how some past members have, not by a long shot. I think Canon can do better. I KNOW Canon has patented technology that would allow them to do better. It's annoying that they just sit on the technology, rather than employing it...and I call them out for that. But that's different than raw, unmitigated Canon hate (of which there are plenty of members here who do just that...hate Canon regardless.)


I'm simply delivering simple facts here. This is simple math. It's objective truths. This has nothing to do with bashing Canon...it's just the facts. DR is DR...it's not complicated, it's not quirky...it's just a ratio. Unless Canon has magically pulled an Exmor out of their conservative hat...I believe the evidence is strongly stacked against the notion that Canon is suddenly going to get 13+ stops of DR on a 500nm process with their high read noise and tiny pixels. 



BTW, I don't shoot with Canon for landscapes. I use them for my high ISO stuff, where they perform perfectly well. I also own a $13,000 600mm f/4 Canon lens (and it's the best of it's class, across brands, so I'm not complaining), but because of that lens I am kind of stuck with Canon over the long term for high ISO regardless. High ISO is more physics bound, and Canon doesn't have much in the way of problems there, so it's not an issue.


However, I don't use Canon for landscapes. I gave up on shooting landscapes, at least the kinds of landscapes I really like, once I realized how bad Canon's read noise is in my 5D III, and having seen little improvement in the 6D, 70D, 7D II. I don't have much time for landscapes...I certainly can't go driving all about the Colorado Rockies all the time to find amazing vistas, and it's even more difficult to find them with good light. On top of that, I'm putting all my resources into astrophotography these days. With astro, you have no option but to dig way deep into your signal data...and once you do, there is simply no denying the fundamental and radical differences in data quality between Canon...and the rest. 


Canon has stuck with their old technology. From a business standpoint, I understand...but it's still put them well behind the curve when it comes to core image quality. Objective image quality, measurable image quality...I'm not talking about my own personal subjective perceptions of how I "feel" when I see a Canon image or a Nikon image. Again, this is simple, objective, mathematical stuff here. Cold, hard facts...not feelings. I'm not proclaiming from the walls that everyone should "jump ship or die" or anything like that...I'm just delivering some simple facts. If you choose to get emotional over that...that's your deal.


Otherwise...take it for what it is...realism. Unless Canon is truly hiding some phenomenal technological improvements (and if they are...wtf, why?!?!), the cold, hard facts indicate that your very likely *not* going to be getting 14 stops of DR out of your 5Ds. (Not without Magic Lantern, anyway.  )


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I still think people are mincing words here. The 5D III does not have 14 stops of DR. The 5D III has 11 stops of DR. You cannot ignore the read noise, and people seem to be trying to do that with these funky explanations of why the 5Ds "has the same DR as the 5D III, but also has more DR than the 5D III". None of it makes sense.
> ...




Aye, I think that's mincing. The output is all we have. We can't get the raw sensor signal pre-ADC. According to Roger Clark, the 5D III sensor itself is capable of over 15 stops of DR (ratio of ISO 100 FWC and lowest recorded read noise.) But, that's entirely moot and meaningless, because you cannot get the signal out of the camera without running it through the ADC. The dynamic range of a camera IS the dynamic range of the output. 





3kramd5 said:


> If I took a sensor like a Newton 920 with 94dB DR but ran it through an 12-bit ADC and store export 8-bit JPEGs, which would be the appropriate DR to quote?




That would depend on the context. If your just selling the sensor, then 94dB (15.67 stops) is certainly the only number you could quote. However, once you stick that sensor in a camera with a 12-bit ADC, the CAMERA can only deliver, at absolute best, 12 stops of DR. It'll likely deliver less, possibly a couple of bits less depending on the quality of the ADC unit, because of the added read noise. In the case of the CAMERA (vs. the SENSOR), the appropriate DR number to quote would be the one derived from FWC/RN ratio for that particular camera.


I honestly don't see how you could quote anything else. What can you actually USE when you bring that RAW file up in an editor? Can you use the 15.67 stops the sensor itself is capable of? Of course not...so why would you use that number when marketing your camera? You wouldn't, simple as that. (Well, maybe you would...guess it would depend on how honest a business man you were. )

[/size]


3kramd5 said:


> The 5D line uses 14-bit ADCs and 14-bit files, and thus the output is bounded at 14-stops, for all 5D cameras.
> The 5Ds sensors may have lower noise (and similar FWCs) to previous 5D cameras, and thus have greater flexibility to lift shadows. Again, I don't think it's likely, but whatever, 12-ish stops is generally plenty.




Personally, I think whether 12-ish stops is "plenty" is entirely subjective and contextual. There are those of us who could use 16 stops, 20 stops, if we had it. In some contexts, 12 stops is woefully inadequate. 


Subjectivity and feelings vs. objectivity and facts. I'm trying to stick to the latter.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 10, 2015)

We have some VERY expensive test equipment that we use to verify manufacturers figures on dynamic range. The most honest reading we have had in Cinematography are the ones Arri claim for the Alexa XT which is around 14 stops. It uses large pixels compared to Sony, Canon and Red but equally gives the lowest resolution of these cameras. The C300 / C500 give around 11.7 stops this is a figure similar to that found in the 5D MKIII & 6D. Sony sensors as seen in the A7R and Nikon D800 series are also close to 14 stops averaging around 13.8 a figure similar in the F65 and F55 they also show virtually no visable banding unlike Canon.


----------



## benperrin (Feb 10, 2015)

Well fair enough. I'm sure we've all been annoyed at Canon at one point or another for holding back a feature we desperately want that would really help. They certainly seem to be slower to implement features than other companies.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 10, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> We have some VERY expensive test equipment that we use to verify manufacturers figures on dynamic range. The most honest reading we have had in Cinematography are the ones Arri claim for the Alexa XT which is around 14 stops. It uses large pixels compared to Sony, Canon and Red but equally gives the lowest resolution of these cameras. The C300 / C500 give around 11.7 stops this is a figure similar to that found in the 5D MKIII & 6D. Sony sensors as seen in the A7R and Nikon D800 series are also close to 14 stops averaging around 13.8 a figure similar in the F65 and F55 they also show virtually no visable banding unlike Canon.



I think I heard someone volunteering to DR bench test the 5DS for us ... :


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 10, 2015)

And As always Jon, thank you for the technical explination.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> And As always Jon, thank you for the technical explination.




I'm hoping I'm wrong...it would be nice to see Canon blow my mind with a truly radical IQ improvement for a change.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 10, 2015)

This is making me think of Horsepower and Torque measurements on cars. In advertising we are quoted the power to the wheels but behind that is a pure power reading straight from the engine before it hits the transmission and drive shafts where some degree of HP is lost. Same true here. Sensor (engine) delivers A given HP before some of it is lost through the signal path and ADC (transmission and drive shaft). If i want to boost my output to the wheels I can either get more out of the engine or make my drive train a more efficient machine.... Or both. canon perhaps did one or the other somewhere in the mix to boost the final horsepower to the wheels.


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> This is making me think of Horsepower and Torque measurements on cars. In advertising we are quoted the power to the wheels but behind that is a pure power reading straight from the engine before it hits the transmission and drive shafts where some degree of HP is lost. Same true here. Sensor (engine) delivers A given HP before some of it is lost through the signal path and ADC (transmission and drive shaft). If i want to boost my output to the wheels I can either get more out of the engine or make my drive train a more efficient machine.... Or both. canon perhaps did one or the other somewhere in the mix to boost the final horsepower to the wheels.




If they did indeed do that, then it would be entirely illogical to state the camera has the same DR as the 5D III. If they reduced noise and maintained FWC, that would increase DR, and thus, the 5Ds would have more than the 5D III. Why is no one saying that?


It's all very fishy. Word mincing in the extreme. We have a freakin smorgasbord of words right now. : 


The only thing that is going to matter in the end is actual FWC and RN measurements. I could care less what DXO says about DR when they downsample the monster file to 8mp. I care about the per-pixel DR...and I really don't think it's going to top 12 stops, let alone hit 13.8.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> The only thing that is going to matter in the end is actual FWC and RN measurements.



No, it is a camera, the only thing that matters in the end is the images it can make and the editing latitude it gives us.

You are just doing a DxO yourself, you are trying to reduce an incredibly complex set of electronics, firmware, hardware, and software to two numbers.

The one thing I truthfully hope all this DR bullsh!t doesn't do is force Canon to cook their RAW files just like Sony and Nikon do. However they get so much bad press and forum crap about it that I fear they will start cooking them soon, and as a RAW only shooter I feel that would be a shame.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 11, 2015)

jrista said:


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



Perhaps. Or it's wishful thinking 

If Chuck was talking about overall digital architecture in stating that the S is equivalent to the 3 since they're both 14 bit platforms, but that the the other spokesman was talking about sensor level noise, perhaps the raw files will have better flexibility in the shadows while still being equivalent from an overarching perspective.

I doubt it, but might as well wish for the best.



jrista said:


> Personally, I think whether 12-ish stops is "plenty" is entirely subjective and contextual. There are those of us who could use 16 stops, 20 stops, if we had it. In some contexts, 12 stops is woefully inadequate.
> 
> 
> Subjectivity and feelings vs. objectivity and facts. I'm trying to stick to the latter.



Sure. I left off the implied "for me". Most of my profitable shots have been well within 12-stops, and others I have been able to mitigate by traditional methods of balancing the scene. Within the confines of 14-bit RAW, 12 is generally speaking good enough for me. The situations where the additional range my A7R provides make a significant difference are few and far between. I agree that 16 or 20 would be wonderful, but that's a pipe dream in any near term still cam I'm afraid.


----------



## mark99 (Feb 11, 2015)

The people that need light sensitivity are photo journalists, concert shooters and wedding togs.
However we see these announcements from the development room where the best cameras in the world leave development.
Then they go to the handicap room.
No camera leaves without having an arm off or a leg or at very least a hand.
Its Canons way, develop the best then disable it.
With Sony now encroaching in the race, they are going to end up third place in the market unless they stop chopping technology off the cameras when they leave development.
Any guesses what they will handicap from it ?
FPS ? Buffer ? Autofocus ?
Something will get cut off before it gets to market.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 11, 2015)

mark99 said:


> The people that need light sensitivity are photo journalists, concert shooters and wedding togs.



Don't forget wildlife shooters: long focal length + movement = faster shutter speed = high iso requirement



mark99 said:


> Its Canons way, develop the best then disable it.



Well said  ... but I don't know the details of Sonikon cameras, probably the grass is always greener on the other side.



mark99 said:


> FPS ? Buffer ? Autofocus ? Something will get cut off before it gets to market.



Being in Canon marketing must be a lot of fun, so many options to chose from what to cripple ... but imho their crowing achievement is the impossible position of the dof preview button on the 6d, I guess they're still rofl'ing about people trying to reach it :-\


----------



## jeanluc (Feb 11, 2015)

I hope the Northlight "testers" are correct like pretty much everyone else here. If there is even an extra 1-2 stops of DR in the 5DS I think a lot of people will buy it.

Maybe this has been covered here or somewhere, but in looking at what Magic Latern appears to be able to do with shadow noise with the 5D3, I'm surprised Canon (which has a very large and capable software team) hasn't offered something along those lines to get as much as it can out of the current sensor.

I'm sure there are likely negatives to a software "solution" and it obviously is not a definitive fix, but I wonder what the actual manufacturer could do along those lines if it tried. It couldn't hurt.

I will hold onto my 5d3 until the 5DS is real world tested and until we see what the 5D4 offers. Maybe the 5DS will buy them some time to develop a newer sensor. That would be fine with me, since if I had to choose I think somewhere around 35 MP is plenty of resolution even for landscapes.


----------



## K (Feb 11, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Well said  ... but I don't know the details of Sonikon cameras, probably the grass is always greener on the other side.




This is true. People get hung up on one aspect too much. Cameras are a system. Canon has the superior lenses, better handling, faster menus, etcetera. Better speedlites. Also, far better quality control. D750 recall? D600 oil spots? Canon is slower to the market. But we know that Canon tests their DSLR's by putting them out into the field first. 

More of Canon's stuff is made in Japan.

I'd rather Canon do their own beta testing. Rather than rush products out and let their consumers do it for them. This isn't to say Canon doesn't have bugs, but the issues with recent Nikon cameras has been unacceptable.

But I'm also not some impatient tech-junkie who has to have the latest and greatest all the time. Some folks just want this stuff just for the sake of saying they have it. Only a handful of true professionals who are pushing the limits of their cameras can justify an immediate upgrade based on NEEDS rather than WANTS or NICE TO HAVE.


----------



## K (Feb 11, 2015)

On the topic of Dynamic Range --

If it does turn out that the 5DS has higher dynamic range - then this will be a major blow to the forum-reputation of all the sensor experts in here who have completely committed themselves to the claim the 5DS will not have higher dynamic range via their dozens of long technical essay posts. They will be completely discredited if the results show higher DR. 

On the other hand,

If the 5DS does not, and those techies are correct - then that should discredit the sources claiming they have "testers" getting real results from the actual camera. It would just be marketing propaganda. 

The only difference is, those claiming the higher DR have the excuse of being a rumor type site. Those claiming the same DR, are using their own knowledge and their understanding of the science. The former can say it was just a rumor. The latter has to admit they don't know what they're talking about.

Should be interesting to find out in the coming months...

;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 11, 2015)

K said:


> If it does turn out that the 5DS has higher dynamic range - then this will be a major blow to the forum-reputation of all the sensor experts in here who have completely committed themselves to the claim the 5DS will not have higher dynamic range via their dozens of long technical essay posts. They will be completely discredited if the results show higher DR.



Nobody here has a magic crystal sphere - the point of debate is if the 5ds can achieve significantly higher dynamic range without a major tech overhaul in sensor/readout design, or if there are some optimization approaches left that Canon didn't use yet. And we're talking about *usable* dr in the raw image file, not theoretical numbers somewhere up the pipeline.


----------



## bmwzimmer (Feb 11, 2015)

Latest update (Feb 10th) from NL is stating Other testers as well are also claiming the 5DS/R has the best Dynamic range of any pro current canon camera.

Ok i think this deserves a CR2 by now.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 11, 2015)

K said:


> On the topic of Dynamic Range --
> 
> If it does turn out that the 5DS has higher dynamic range - then this will be a major blow to the forum-reputation of all the sensor experts in here who have completely committed themselves to the claim the 5DS will not have higher dynamic range via their dozens of long technical essay posts. They will be completely discredited if the results show higher DR......................
> 
> ...



I agree with the first paragraph wholeheartedly. I am very much looking forwards to the actual testing.


----------



## K (Feb 11, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > If it does turn out that the 5DS has higher dynamic range - then this will be a major blow to the forum-reputation of all the sensor experts in here who have completely committed themselves to the claim the 5DS will not have higher dynamic range via their dozens of long technical essay posts. They will be completely discredited if the results show higher DR.
> ...





Some folks here are so staunchly committed to claiming that the 5DS will not have more DR they have stated it as a scientific fact and spent a lot of time writing it out in great technical detail. Creating a case against more DR point by point.


That's perfectly ok. If they turn out to be right. What they say sounds very logical, and accurate. Time will tell, but this and other threads are the record.


8)


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 11, 2015)

jeanluc said:


> I hope the Northlight "testers" are correct like pretty much everyone else here. If there is even an extra 1-2 stops of DR in the 5DS I think a lot of people will buy it.
> 
> Maybe this has been covered here or somewhere, but in looking at what Magic Latern appears to be able to do with shadow noise with the 5D3, I'm surprised Canon (which has a very large and capable software team) hasn't offered something along those lines to get as much as it can out of the current sensor.
> 
> ...



Well they aren't "Northlight testers". They are other professionals that have obviously been handed pre-production models of the 5DS for testing who Keith knows personally and has a good relationship with and provide him some inside info on an anonymous basis to protect their reputations with Canon corporate. 

Some flak has been given to the fact that their testing has been limited to processing in DPP (thinking DPP is doing some magic NR in software, and it could be) but no other 3rd party software (Lightroom, DxO, etc...) could possibly have the 5DS camera profile yet to do it anyway.

Jon was kind enough to spend a great deal of his time explaining exactly how DR measured so now we should all understand what the variables are. I agree there is no magic bullet but SOMETHING is making these testers say the following in emails to Keith, "The new sensor will capture 14 stops of DR (just like the 5D III) ... However it will produce remarkably cleaner results when lifting deep shadows" (source, Feb 10th posting at Northlight)

So Jon is correct that new DR can't magically appear with the same sensor, but we know that they are not really the exactly same sensor per se, given they have been tuned for low ISO. Now Jon also mentioned the 500nm process, but did Canon not also have a 180nm process? Maybe I'm confusing something. Not certain. Either way, if Canon has found a way to eliminate the NOISE induced into the signal path then the ADCs are realizing more of the usable native DR the sensor can deliver, 1.5 to 2 stops in this case is being claimed. 

What caught my attention most in this regard is the following quote from the same sources "The colour filters on the sensor are designed to produce a higher level of colour accuracy and separation, the sensor itself runs at a significantly lower temperature."

Well, heat itself will generate noise or distortion in most any electrical or mechanical component and lot of heat can generate lots of noise. If by foregoing high ISO sensitivity allows Canon to operate their sensors at lower temperatures then theoretically that should reduce the noise produced in the sensor and en route to the ADC. It is perhaps here where Canon is lowering their read noise and getting more of the sensor's actual DR to the ADCs in tact, making it usable. Same engine in the car, but now more horsepower is being preserved and getting to the wheels.

Westfall isn't the end-all be-all last word. He's more a sales and corporate face than a tech guy. And let's just assume for the moment he didn't understand this OR maybe Canon wants to really hold off as they are still obviously testing things. WHO KNOWS. What we do know now, is that things aren't what they seem, we just don't know exactly what or how yet, but we're starting to get some sort of picture.

As for your ML remarks. AMEN! I even emailed CPS about "Please put in DUAL ISO before the release." It's so simple a firmware tweak and doesn't seem to me like a feature they would cripple out on a camera designed to deliver exactly what Dual ISO can offer. I suggest others here do the same instead of just talking about it on here.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 11, 2015)

K said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > K said:
> ...



JRista gave us a nice long detailed explanation how DR works, said given what we know now, he doesn't see how it could be improved that much. Then he said "I hope I'm wrong" Not sure how you could be more scientific and fair minded than that.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


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



+1

Talk about crazy lack of understanding of their target market. Bizarre decision.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> jeanluc said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Really? Have you looked at the financial results of Nikon?

What they are looking to do is run a Business. Does it frustrate me in terms of some of their feature decisions? It sure does. But the whole camera market is suffering from skrinkage due to smartphone sales and reducing P&S revenue.

If the 5Ds is based on the 7D II sensor, Canon have likely spent their time maximising yeild at FF size which in turn would no doubt improve yeild on their APS-C. But I dont think they've been doing huge amounts on developing this sensor. And the more I see what they're doing, the more they appear motivated by doing just enough to keep market share - in broad terms. I'm not saying this is the best idea, but it does appear what they are doing. Dual Pixel tech took longer to perfect certainly.

I dont dispute that people will move from Canon to Nikon, Sony, Samsung or whoever. It depends on whether more than "normal" move - if the churn rate goes up, then they might notice and react. For me, it is all about the economics for Canon right now. Whether they have a comparable sensor tech waiting, or whether they are looking at different sensor tech, clearly I don't know. I think they are waiting.

Sounding the death knell for Canon is somewhat premature and based on what you think they need to be successful. The smartphone market is hurting the camera makers more, not 2 stops of DR, and some people moving to other brands because 2 stops is sufficient a reason. For many others, it's not.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> bmwzimmer said:
> 
> 
> > Latest update (Feb 10th) from NL is stating Other testers as well are also claiming the 5DS/R has the best Dynamic range of any pro current canon camera.
> ...



-1

And the benefit of such a comment?


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



+1

Some people are looking for something more in the words, hoping to find a snippet which indicates something better. Jon is basing his reasoning on what he knows of current sensors and forming a conclusion. He does not profess to know, he's just interpreting information based on facts and science. I also personally find it useful and helpful, so thank you Jon.

Doesn't mean I'm not interested in the 5Ds, doesn't mean I wont consider another body from another manufacturer. I'm intrigued by 4K video on the NX500. I'd look at a A7R II if they fix the compression. Nikon is unlikely to appeal, as I'm not after a 2nd set of glass, nor trading my big whites. As to which I will buy (if any)? Well that depends on what the real-world reviews are. I'm not ditching my Canon gear, but like a few I may supplement it, or I may decide the 5Ds offers enough that the additional DR is not sufficient for me to have 2 vendors in my bag. It's about photography - the gear is more the economics.

I just dont see the point of continual venting on these forums. Vent to Canon as suggested. But make it constructive (comments about your Grandma may not get you noticed)...


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 11, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> JRista gave us a nice long detailed explanation how DR works, said given what we know now, he doesn't see how it could be improved that much. Then he said "I hope I'm wrong" Not sure how you could be more scientific and fair minded than that.





Stu_bert said:


> Jon is basing his reasoning on what he knows of current sensors and forming a conclusion. He does not profess to know, he's just interpreting information based on facts and science. I also personally find it useful and helpful, so thank you Jon.



No, he gave us his uninformed opinion of sensor tech coming from an informal 'education' about such technical matters garnered from the internet, forums, patents and other such self taught sources.

He has made several mistakes in his theories before and has often faltered in his knowledge when confronted by somebody with more experience in one particular area, he has no formal education on cameras or their tech.

His opinion is not fact, it is opinion, he usually muddies the two and too many here seem to take his word as gospel, it isn't.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 11, 2015)

I'll wait for the tests (and until I can try one out myself) before judging anything about this camera's IQ.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > JRista gave us a nice long detailed explanation how DR works, said given what we know now, he doesn't see how it could be improved that much. Then he said "I hope I'm wrong" Not sure how you could be more scientific and fair minded than that.
> ...



Ouch. Seriously? You're going to mince my own words? I'm not saying he is correct. He is informed based on what he has read about how you measure or calculate DR, based on the DR of the 7D II and the information we have on the 5Ds. He's not stating it as fact - the facts are around the current sensor tech.

He, nor I, not PureClassA are attacking Canon nor you personally. Please stop the personal attack. If he's made mistakes before, gosh I'm sure so have many others on here. Let's keep the focus on what this thread is about, which is whether the 5Ds will be 2 stops better. If you disagree with the formula he used or his interpretation of current sensor data, then share it and I will happily admit that your interpretation is also good and useful. 

But let's please avoid comments about whether he is human or not. We all are.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 11, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> His opinion is not fact, it is opinion, he usually muddies the two and too many here seem to take his word as gospel, it isn't.



Muhahaha, what would be CR without the regular heavyweights going at each other, you could copy/paste a script for a soap opera from it :->


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > His opinion is not fact, it is opinion, he usually muddies the two and too many here seem to take his word as gospel, it isn't.
> ...



lol, except I would guess that most people would prefer these forums without the soap opera, but maybe i'm in the minority...


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 11, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> lol, except I would guess that most people would prefer these forums without the soap opera, but maybe i'm in the minority...



Personally, I do find some entertainment value in it  ... and even fierce flaming on CR is nowhere near the *standard* conversational tone on tech forums, mailing list and bugtrackers. Photogs have to have some residual connection to reality, while coder nerds and similar can really sink the rock bottom of social soft skills :-\


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 11, 2015)

K said:


> On the topic of Dynamic Range --
> 
> If it does turn out that the 5DS has higher dynamic range - then this will be a major blow to the forum-reputation of all the sensor experts in here who have completely committed themselves to the claim the 5DS will not have higher dynamic range via their dozens of long technical essay posts. They will be completely discredited if the results show higher DR.
> [snip]



Uh, naw. People are making predictions based on... well, no real technical data. Really, it's little more than marginally-informed guessing, and guessing wrong is no more shameful than guessing right is laudable.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > lol, except I would guess that most people would prefer these forums without the soap opera, but maybe i'm in the minority...
> ...



thanks for the safety tip 

I work with infra techs, and they certainly call it as they see it. But it's not normally aimed at individuals personally. I believe the Dutch are a lot more direct (but the ones I've dealt with are really good), as are perhaps the Germans (same experience for me)...

Not big enough sample size to judge Aussies


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > On the topic of Dynamic Range --
> ...



+1


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 11, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


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



We don't have any factual information on which to base any objective measure of the output of the 5DS/R, none, not a word, or measurement.
*
Oh yes he is.*



jrista said:


> I'm not talking about my own personal subjective perceptions of how I "feel" when I see a Canon image or a Nikon image. Again, this is simple, objective, mathematical stuff here. *Cold, hard facts*...not feelings.



Do you see the disconnect there? At this point in time we know nothing, we are just speculating on what Canon reps have said and to tell the truth what Mike Burnhill of Canon CPS in the UK said, _"but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"_, really is unequivocal. 

All I know is I don't know and nobody here does either. I also know and have seen the video of the Canon rep saying the shadow detail is better. How they did it, if they have, will be interesting in a purely academic way, but nobody here has a clue if they have or how. 

Proclaiming your post is _"Cold, hard facts...not feelings."_ does not make it so. I would be doing my 3,000+ posts and the forum in general a disservice if I did not point that out, especially when we have follow up posters saying _"He's not stating it as fact"_!


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 11, 2015)

Ugh. Dead Horse. Beat it more.

Deep breaths everyone. Math is math. But Canon has done "something" here. We don't know what for sure yet, and we don't know why we don't know. 

All we do know is that a reputable source has passed along info given to him by those testing this new camera, yet to be seen. And those test are showing "X".

Thankfully I haven't lost my touch with reality. My day job is meeting and working with people face to face and often having tear apart detailed tax returns, financial data, investment portfolios, etc.. and in so doing, I HAVE to read between the lines. That's all I've done here with Westfall, Burnhill, and now this interesting stuff from Northlight. That's all any of us should be doing at this point.

Jon is trying to figure out where the improvement is. He doesn't see it yet, but knows we don't have all the info. "I hope I'm wrong" .... Hell, I hope he is too! ;D I think the facts he was referring to was simply his formula he mentioned. But I wont speak for him. 

Anyway...one person say it, i'll listen. Now multiple testers apparently... Ok, you have my attention. Remaining positive about this release unless and until I see reason otherwise.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> We don't have any factual information on which to base any objective measure of the output of the 5DS/R, none, not a word, or measurement.
> *
> Oh yes he is.*
> 
> ...



No he's basing it on their current tech ie 7D II and what it needs to do to increase the DR. He doesn't have access to a 5Ds and is using the information available.... 

But you cannot use previous posts to discredit the current argument, it has to be based on the current one. On that basis, I believe the comments about measuring DR are correct. I've not verified his figures on the MK II, but there's been no announcement to suggest any step-change in DR for that sensor.

So it comes back down to whether Canon has reduced read-noise. Which everyone hopes they have done....


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


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




Dear god. I really hate these forums, so freaking pedantic. Let me spell it out for you, Private, since you can't seem to figure out where the line between fact and educated guess falls on your own.


The *cold, hard fact* I'm referring to is the freakin mathematical formula below:


```
DR = FWC/Noise
```

_That's just math_. It isn't some kind of personal opinion, some kind of feeling or some kind of subjective evaluation. THAT is the cold, hard fact...DR is DR, more noise and/or lower FWC mean less DR. Less noise and/or higher FWC means more DR. That is a cold, hard fact. THAT! ^^ That thing up there! ^^ THAT IS A FACT. That is THE fact that I am referring to.


Now, onto the non facts, the educated guesses, and the most likely outcomes...as based on and derived from what the cold hard facts can tell us.


Based on the simple, cold, hard, unfeeling fact that dynamic range is a simple ratio, I am then _extrapolating _what I _personally believe_ is most likely to be the case with the 5Ds (I thought my extrapolations and educated guesses would be obvious as extrapolations and educated guesses, rather than cold, hard facts...but everyone is so freakin sensitive about being told their camera hardware of choice isn't the best of the best of the best of the best of the freakin best around here and cannot hear anything about how it might possibly not be as good as something else, apparently that's too much to ask  ). 

Based on that formula above, assuming all the rumors we have heard so far are true, and those rumors are:

_* The 5Ds has the same dynamic range as the 5D III_
_* The 5Ds has pixels just slightly larger than the 7D II (4.14 micron vs. 4.1 micron)_
_* The 5Ds has lower noise (which is certainly likely, given the 7D II has lower noise) _
_* The 5Ds has a stronger CFA (not disputing that, but it would reduce QE, specifically EQE)_
_* The 5Ds is still being manufactured on Canon's older 500nm process_

There are also *historical facts* from which we can derive a solid educated guess about what the likely outcome for the 5Ds will be:


_ * Canon did not change much with the 7D II (they reduced banding a little bit more, reduced dark current, slight increase in read noise...in other words, "same old same old")_
_ * Canon has innovated intriguing new sensor technologies for many years, but has thus far not employed any of them in an actual consumer product (120mp APS-H with likely CP-ADC, layered BSI sensors, etc.)_
_ * Canon takes a highly conservative approach to the modern marketplace (probably for good reason, given natural disasters, collapsing markets, and falling sales)_
_ * Canon has innovated technologies, shown them off...then other manufacturers have jumped the gun and released consumer products with similar or better innovations before we even hear of any additional news of said innovation from Canon (ultra low light sensor capable of imaging fireflies in the dark real-time. Canon's sensor? Who knows. Sony A7s? Consumer product you can buy.)
_
Thus, extrapolating from those rumors (the *non-facts*) and historical facts, we can arrive at *likely realities* once the camera is actually released:

_Canon has a history of innovating, and not actually employing those innovations in consumer grade products, so given the rumor that the 5Ds is still manufactured on a 500nm process, it seems significantly less likely to see any radical new innovations with this particular camera (not barring future innovations in future cameras, the 5D IV could still hit the streets with amazing new technology)._

And:

_The 5Ds will probably have RN in the realm of 13e-, which would indeed be lower noise than the 6D or 5D III, and very slightly higher than the 7D II. The 5Ds, having pixels similar to the 7D II in size, will also probably have an FWC in the realm of 30,000e-, which is also lower than the 6D or 5D III._

And:

_With lower RN but also a correspondingly lower FWC, the dynamic range of the 5Ds is unlikely to increase unless some additional improvement has been employed that refutes one of the rumors or official statements thus far made._


Therefor, given the cold, hard fact about dynamic range...that it is simply the ratio between FWC and noise:


```
20 * log(30000/13) / 6 = 11.21
```


Barring some additional innovation in the 5Ds (certainly possible), the cold hard facts tell me that, assuming all the rumors, including the words of Canon officials, end up being true, I believe the 5Ds will have roughly the same dynamic range as any other Canon DSLR. It is possible that DIGIC6 will be employed to reduce noise, however it's being employed for that purpose in the 7D II...and the 7D II has 11.2 stops of DR, so at the moment I have no reason to make any assumptions that DIGIC6 will improve noise in the 5Ds.


Furthermore, because a reduction in read noise paired with a reduction in FWC requires that exposure be shifted down into the shadows to preserve the highlights with that lower FWC, any improvement in shadow pushing ability that lower read noise may have otherwise offered is nullified. Therefor, while the 0.04 micron increase in 5Ds pixel size might allow for a slightly higher FWC than 30ke-, which could allow for a small fraction increase in dynamic range and slight improvement in shadow pushing ability...I see no reason to assume it means the 5Ds will have two additional stops of dynamic range.


That is my *educated guess*, based on the cold hard facts of dynamic range. Based on my educated guess, my recommendation based on a realistic outlook for the camera is that one should not get their hopes up for a 5Ds with 13.8 stops of DR. If the camera DOES arrive with that much DR, well, at least those who take my recommendation will be pleasantly surprised, rather than devastatingly disappointed. : 

Alright. I've spelled it all out in fine, pedant-pleasing detail, clearly separating and delineating the facts from my educated guesses (oh, sorry, my own very limited and entirely personal (and unrelated to anyone else's feelings or desires or life goals) *opinions*). Is everyone happy now? ???


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 11, 2015)

....well.....some of us understood... :


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> ....well.....some of us understood... :


----------



## benperrin (Feb 11, 2015)

So anyway, wondering if anyone has an answer to this question. There's speculation that the sensor MIGHT run at a lower temperature and might have lower read noise. Would this affect long exposure noise in any way? The one thing I hate about my 5d2 is the long exposure noise. I can fix it mostly by combining 2 exposures (usually I only want the slow shutter speed for clouds or water) but I'd like to skip that step if possible. Does anyone know theoretically of course.


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2015)

benperrin said:


> So anyway, wondering if anyone has an answer to this question. There's speculation that the sensor MIGHT run at a lower temperature and might have lower read noise. Would this affect long exposure noise in any way? The one thing I hate about my 5d2 is the long exposure noise. I can fix it mostly by combining 2 exposures (usually I only want the slow shutter speed for clouds or water) but I'd like to skip that step if possible. Does anyone know theoretically of course.




It is definitely possible. There was a rumor...at least a year ago now?...that indicated Canon was working on some kind of active cooling. My guess is there is a fan or heat pipe of some kind in the camera body that moves heat away from the sensor, possibly releasing it along the body. 


If the 5Ds is based on the same technology as the 7D II, it should be starting out with significantly lower dark current noise. It's got slightly different pixels, though, so it may not gain the same benefits as the 7D II. Active cooling should certainly help, however if the camera has 0.6e-/s/px dark current at 33C, it's already ludicrously low, so cooling would have a marginal effect. If the dark current is the same as the 6D, then active cooling could help.


One area where it might help more than others is when shooting in sunlight. I've photographed birds on some hot days, and I remember my camera getting very hot to the touch. Some kinds of active cooling (i.e. TEC) could certainly help keep dark current lower in such situations. Heat pipe or fan should also help a little, as a warmed up sensor would still likely be hotter than ambient. 


It should also be noted that studies done decades ago showed that cooling does not seem to have any significant impact on read noise, only dark current. So I wouldn't expect any active cooling system to reduce read noise, which would be the primary source of noise if DC was 0.6e-/s/px.


----------



## benperrin (Feb 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> It is definitely possible. There was a rumor...at least a year ago now?...that indicated Canon was working on some kind of active cooling. My guess is there is a fan or heat pipe of some kind in the camera body that moves heat away from the sensor, possibly releasing it along the body.
> 
> 
> If the 5Ds is based on the same technology as the 7D II, it should be starting out with significantly lower dark current noise. It's got slightly different pixels, though, so it may not gain the same benefits as the 7D II. Active cooling should certainly help, however if the camera has 0.6e-/s/px dark current at 33C, it's already ludicrously low, so cooling would have a marginal effect. If the dark current is the same as the 6D, then active cooling could help.
> ...


Thanks for the response Jon. I can't say I've ever been in a situation where my camera was hot to touch. It probably doesn't get as hot here.

Now you've provided me with some interesting reading to think over. I'll have to do some research on dark current noise. Sounds like I'll be much happier with the 5dsr than the 5d2 if the 6d and 7d2 are already much better. Once again thanks for the response.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Err ok... didnt come across as a joke to me, but that is personal taste so I'll retract...


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2015)

benperrin said:


> Thanks for the response Jon. I can't say I've ever been in a situation where my camera was hot to touch. It probably doesn't get as hot here.
> 
> Now you've provided me with some interesting reading to think over. I'll have to do some research on dark current noise. Sounds like I'll be much happier with the 5dsr than the 5d2 if the 6d and 7d2 are already much better. Once again thanks for the response.




Welcome. 


The 5D II without question has significantly more dark current than Canon's newer cameras. The 5D III still has more than the 6D, but it too is much lower. I would say that the bulk of the 5D II high ISO noise is from dark current, rather than actual read noise. I say that, because in comparisons between cameras done on astro forums, as the 5D II is cooled, it's high ISO performance improves significantly, although not to the point of the 5D III or other newer Canon cameras.


I would figure the 5Ds has to be a least as good as the 6D in that area, and the 6D is a highly regarded camera for astrophotography. The 7D II is about 10x better, but the 6D was no slouch. 


The 5Ds R would have another advantage for astrophotography: no AA filter. With astro, you don't have anything that could cause moire, so an AA filter is just costing you resolution. The 5Ds R should make for a great wide field astro cam, and would even work quite well at moderate focal lengths up to around 800-1000mm, and should produce crisp, detailed results...more detailed than most cameras. I'd say the only thing better would be a D810 or the new D810a...they don't have AA filters either, and the new astro version has extremely high Ha (hydrogen alpha) sensitivity, which makes it a lot easier to bring out nebula.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 12, 2015)

jrista,

You are crazy, and I kinda mean that in a nice way, like my wife is crazy, and I love her. 

It just took you 1381 words (I put it in a word counter), equations, repetition, and snake oil, to say _"I believe the 5Ds will have roughly the same dynamic range as any other Canon DSLR. "_ But we all *know* that because two Canon reps have said exactly that on video. Well done for breaking new ground.

As for your _"educated guesses"_, one, as I have already said, you have no formal education in this field, well you have never pointed out that you have before and being the kind of guy you are I am sure you would have done, and two, you have made definitive sounding "educated guesses" before and they have been woefully off the mark.

Now I am sure my position is horribly misunderstood, and that is a shame, so in the hope of bringing this to a close, at least from me.

1/ Canon have said the DR in the 5DS/R is equivalent to the DR of the 5D MkIII when using traditional measuring techniques. Whilst I fully understand the meaning of the word equivalent I would not venture to guess exactly what Canon actually mean or are implying from that. To me it sounds like a Clintonesque "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", we can then argue the toss about what Canon understand the meaning of equivalent and traditional measuring techniques, or sexual relations! But we will not know until we have RAW files.
2/ Canon have said there is more editing latitude in the shadows and highlights due to a lower noise floor. To me that sounds like there is more editing latitude in the shadows and highlights. 
3/ Some unnamed photographers claiming actual first hand use are saying they have more editing latitude which they equate to 1.5-2 more stops of usable range, perhaps mistakenly simplified as DR. Photographers are not lab techs and I see no contradiction in people saying one thing when a tech will call it something else, think "lens compression" and perspective.
4/ I don't have the faintest idea, and nobody else here does either, how much difference Canon are talking about and how useful any difference will be in actual real world shooting.
5/ Nobody here has the slightest idea what Canon have done in hardware, firmware, and or software to achieve the differences they have. Everything is just uninformed and uneducated speculation.

Now you might, if you have a brain, realise that my position is within a gnats hair of being the same as jrista's, what I don't do is wrap up the obvious in 1,600 of repetitive verbage. We have been told two things by Canon, DR is the same, and the noise floor is lower so editing latitude is higher. There are growing reports from non techs that the second is true.


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Now you might, if you have a brain, realise that my position is within a gnats hair of being the same as jrista's, *what I don't do is wrap up the obvious in 1,600 of repetitive verbage*. We have been told two things by Canon, DR is the same, and the noise floor is lower so editing latitude is higher. There are growing reports from non techs that the second is true.




You write that as though being verbose is some kind of atrocity. If you like to be terse, more power to ya. You guys are pedantic about everything, so I've learned to be as verbose and explicit as possible, and even then, it doesn't matter.


The reason I'm writing what I am writing is Canon has said one thing, but they haven't said another thing, and both things are important to improving DR. Lowering the read noise floor is meaningless in the context of a smaller pixel if they did not also increase the amount of charge each pixel can hold. Lower read noise + lower FWC != more editing latitude. Lower read noise with a smaller pixel AND a larger charge capacity would, then, mean more editing latitude..._maybe_ Canon has done that. However if they did, then the statement that the 5Ds has the same dynamic range as the 5D III _would be false_. Something doesn't add up. 


Canon _*HAS*_ stated that the dynamic range of the 5Ds _is the same as _the 5D III. I also don't believe in any kind of alternative means of measuring dynamic range...it is what it is, and if you want apples-to-apples comparisons, you gotta measure the same way. I'm not going to give out any special treatment here. Given that, the only logical conclusion I can come to is that the FWC has not been increased for the given size of pixel. That means that in order to protect the highlights, you have to shift exposure down to keep those highlights from clipping, which pushes more information into the read noise floor. Same as with any other camera...hence the reason a lower read noise floor rapidly leads to more dynamic range.


Dynamic range is agnostic of any of these nuances...dynamic range is dynamic range. If it's the same as the 5D III, but has the low banding of the 7D II, it's going to have about the same shadow pushing ability as the 7D II. Which is marginally improved over prior Canon cameras, but nothing anywhere remotely close to what you can do with something that actually has 13.8 stops of DR.


There is a logical disconnect between "lower read noise" and "same DR as 5D III" and "more editing latitude"...one of those can't be true if the other two are true. Lower Read Noise + More Editing Latitude != Same DR as 5D III; Lower Read Noise + Same DR as 5D III != More Editing Latitude; More Editing Latitude + Same DR as 5D III != Lower Read Noise. That final one could also be stated this way: More Editing Latitude + Same DR as 5D III != Lower Read Noise + Higher FWC. Lower RN+Higher FWC != Same DR as 5D III, therefor editing latitude must still be the same, or the camera has more dynamic range than the 5D III.

Alright, I've stuck you on my ignore list. Goodbye.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 12, 2015)

jrista said:


> It is definitely possible. There was a rumor...at least a year ago now?...that indicated Canon was working on some kind of active cooling. My guess is there is a fan or heat pipe of some kind in the camera body that moves heat away from the sensor, possibly releasing it along the body.



I hope they don't have a fan, as the venting would make for some pretty woeful weather sealing


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 12, 2015)

Well if the new sensor design is already operating at significantly lower temps then I wouldn't think any additional ventilation or heat sinking would be necessary.


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Well if the new sensor design is already operating at significantly lower temps then I wouldn't think any additional ventilation or heat sinking would be necessary.




I think the reason it's operating at lower temps is due to some kind of active cooling. Canon was working on that a while ago, and it seems they may have finally put the technology to use. Especially of "significantly" means at or below ambient...for that to be the case, some kind of active cooling (best thing that comes to mind is heat pipes) would definitely be necessary. If the sensor maintains a below ambient temperature, something like a peltier would have to be used...but that draws a LOT of power (they aren't very efficient, just very effective)...


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 12, 2015)

jrista said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Well if the new sensor design is already operating at significantly lower temps then I wouldn't think any additional ventilation or heat sinking would be necessary.
> ...


f

I guess I'm wondering if cutting out extra amplification needed for high ISOs didn't just itself eliminate the heat. If it's not being produced to begin with... That said you put a much funnier picture in my head of an NItros Oxide forced induction system on the body. Little blue NOS tank and a ram air scoop ;D


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 12, 2015)

Used to build a lot of desktop computers and I remember trying one of the first liquid cooling heat sink systems on (if memory serves) one of the first AmD Athalons. Pretty neat device and it damn sure looked cool in the tower case. Neon blue and everything


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...




I don't think the elimination of high ISO options is going to affect temperature. I am pretty sure the reason they did that is because of the stronger CFA, which reduces EQE. Most of the DR discussion has to do with using the camera at ISO 100, so high ISO wouldn't factor into the picture anyway.


If the sensor is "significantly" cooler, though, that seems to me to imply that Canon has either employed or devised some way of actively removing heat from the sensor, to at the very least bring it within the realm of ambient. Maybe they designed something to bring it below ambient without the poor efficiency of a peltier. If they did, that would certainly help with the dark current...but, if the 5Ds has the same low dark current as the 7D II...I don't really know what that would do. The 7D II has such low dark current that you wouldn't get any noise from dark current at all under normal conditions unless temperatures were extremely high. The only other time the 7D II has any issues with dark current is when doing long exposures, but most photography is sub-second exposure.


That once again brings us back around to: read noise. :\ I really hope they reduced it by a very significant amount...but even if it's still 6.5e- (half what I'm predicting), that would bring us to 12.2 stops of DR, which is a stop improvement. (It would also entirely invalidate the "same DR as the 5D III unless you use _special sauce measurements_" claim...)


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 12, 2015)

Well the guys testing it are obviously seeing some sort of not insignificant improvement, but of course if they release any RAW files and get caught that would be the end of their cozy relationship with Canon. I'm hoping they will be allowed sooner than later to show some samples but knowing Canon, they will play it close to the vest. I'm sure there will be more tweaks between now and June. Even that makes me wonder if they are pushing the release that far back as a red herring to Sony and Nikon to make them show their cards. I'm not betting on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see this camera show up a little earlier than they are suggesting right now.


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Well the guys testing it are obviously seeing some sort of not insignificant improvement, but of course if they release any RAW files and get caught that would be the end of their cozy relationship with Canon. I'm hoping they will be allowed sooner than later to show some samples but knowing Canon, they will play it close to the vest. I'm sure there will be more tweaks between now and June. Even that makes me wonder if they are pushing the release that far back as a red herring to Sony and Nikon to make them show their cards. I'm not betting on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see this camera show up a little earlier than they are suggesting right now.




There is perception and fact. I think a lot of the "significant improvement" will ultimately pan out to be feelings about how the files perform in an editor. They are also likely biased by each tester's tolerance for noise in the past. Banding certainly cut into people's tolerance levels in the past, so some people wouldn't do even as much shadow pushing as I have (and I don't do all that much with Canon files). The 5Ds is bound to have lower banding than the 5D III...which may mean these testers are more willing to push shadows than they have in the past. That wouldn't _necessarily _mean they had more DR, though.


The real test will be direct head-to-head comparisons with images that actually are 13.8 stops. I think in relative terms, the 5Ds probably won't exhibit anything quite so significant as a 1.5-2 stop improvement. In raw testing, I could see it getting a quarter to a third stop higher dynamic range measure, barring some cool new innovation or much lower read noise than the 7D II. If it DOES have much lower read noise, then we've simply been given bad information in regards to the 5Ds having the same DR as the 5D III (and I'd be happy to see that be the case!)


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 12, 2015)

If they're using anything other than conduction to the chassis, which I doubt, heat pipes are the best bet. They're simple enough, and phase change is exceedingly effective.


----------



## psolberg (Feb 12, 2015)

I was reading Lloyd Chambers and he says that DR is identical to 5DmkIII? 
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150206_1222-Canon5DS-dynamic-range.html

I tried to find his reference but it seems he hasn't tested it so the jury still out.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 12, 2015)

psolberg said:


> I was reading Lloyd Chambers and he says that DR is identical to 5DmkIII?
> http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150206_1222-Canon5DS-dynamic-range.html
> 
> I tried to find his reference but it seems he hasn't tested it so the jury still out.



His reference is most likely Chuck Westfall's statement.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 12, 2015)

psolberg said:


> I was reading Lloyd Chambers and he says that DR is identical to 5DmkIII?
> http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150206_1222-Canon5DS-dynamic-range.html
> 
> I tried to find his reference but it seems he hasn't tested it so the jury still out.



No, he is doing exactly what everybody else is doing, repeating the comments from Canon techs that say exactly that, the 5DS DR is the same/equivalent to the 5D MkIII. There is no mystery in that and he knows nothing that is not public knowledge.

The DR of the 5DR/S IS THE SAME as the 5D MkIII, there is no discussion on that, the only point of interest is the Canon comment that there is improved shadow and highlight latitude. Some say those two comments contradict each other, I think the first is worded ambiguously enough that both might well be true.


----------



## psolberg (Feb 12, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > I was reading Lloyd Chambers and he says that DR is identical to 5DmkIII?
> ...



Interesting. I'm sure he'll carry out his usual tests so I look forward to finding out where this new gear lands. He nailed the banding issues on the prior canon bodies so if one person can call it fixed, it should be this guy.


----------



## R1-7D (Feb 12, 2015)

Matt Granger has posted his mini review/preview of the 5Ds and new 11-24mm lens from CP+ for those that are interested. 

http://youtu.be/n8L2bljfLiU


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 12, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> The DR of the 5DR/S IS THE SAME as the 5D MkIII, there is no discussion on that, the only point of interest is the Canon comment that there is improved shadow and highlight latitude. Some say those two comments contradict each other, I think the first is worded ambiguously enough that both might well be true.



I'm still puzzled about the definition of dynamic range (I'm sure we can agree it's about what we find in the raw image data, and not somewhere up the pipeline or at the sensor before it's usable).

_Is dr the noise floor (however that is defined?) *excluding* banding, or must it include banding because it's very hard if impossible to remove in post and thus cannot be counted into the "dynamic range"?_

Depending on this definition, the 7d2-based 5ds probably will have more dr than 5d3 (as in "less banding") or it won't (unlike the ff 6d/1dx which really improve upon the 5d3). Or am I mistaken? What do the dr experts say?


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The DR of the 5DR/S IS THE SAME as the 5D MkIII, there is no discussion on that, the only point of interest is the Canon comment that there is improved shadow and highlight latitude. Some say those two comments contradict each other, I think the first is worded ambiguously enough that both might well be true.
> ...




The noise floor is generally the computed RMS of noise from all pixels from dark frames (usually, you would want to compute it from many dark frames, and generate an average RMS). That would include banding, but bands tend to be outliers, so they don't impact the RMS all that much. The difference between the 5D III DR (10.97 stops) and the possible 5Ds DR (maybe around 11.23 stops) could very well be the difference in banding. That isn't much of a difference, though, assuming the 5Ds does arrive with read noise and FWC similar to the 7D II. 


My problem with these statements (paraphrased) is they conflict:


_A. The 5Ds has the same dynamic range as the 5D III_
_B. The 5Ds has more editing latitude _


You can't have both at the same time. _Maximum _editing latitude is ultimately determined by dynamic range. To speculate a bit. One thing that could be going on is that testers who are saying "more dynamic range" are feeling more freedom from lower banding. They may FEEL they have the ability to push shadows more, because the noise they see has a better characteristic. You often didn't need to push shadows at all in the past to see banding...it was often visible right there in the midtones. That would be zero stops shadow pushing, if that was the case.  Without banding, the difference between not pushing at all (rendering the image to the 8 stops of an 8-bit screen), or pushing a small amount (maybe a stop before banding stopped you)...and pushing up to the three stops allowed by ~11 stops of dynamic range, would _seem _quite huge. 


Perceptually, that would seem like a huge difference. Mathematically, things wouldn't have really changed. If, mathematically, the 5Ds really does have "the same" dynamic range as the 5D III, then logically the claims of more shadow pushing ability are more perceptual than mathematical (and, it would be unlikely that the 5Ds has over 13 stops of engineering DR.)


I don't know what the case is, but trying to reconcile the two statements A and B above, this is one of the conclusions I can draw. You either have the same dynamic range as the 5D III (or slightly better, more like the 7D II)...or you have more dynamic range. To have more dynamic range, you have to have either lower read noise or a larger FWC, or both. You can't have the same dynamic range and lower read noise at the same time...because lower read noise with the same FWC would mean you have more dynamic range. 


At this point, to know any more, we need to see literal tests.


----------



## psolberg (Feb 12, 2015)

> B. The 5Ds has more editing latitude



to me this just means he's switching to pixel talk. and he's right. you do have more latitude to edit if you have more data even if the tonal depth of that data is shallower. 

but whatever. parsing it further is meaningless. And I'm sure since the canon DR and shadow noise problem is as well known as iphones bending, the #1 thing every test will make sure to cover is how, if at all, they have fixed this problem. And given the difficulty of doing a proper test, I'm sure we'll have half the threads claiming it is the best DR on earth, and half of the others claiming it is worse. 

Personally I'm not going to look at computational single digit tests like dxo. I'm going to watch Lloyd Chambers blog as well as a few other highly methodical reviewers. Plus the guy has a lot of experience exposing the DR woes on the 5DMKIII which still to this day many deny.


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2015)

psolberg said:


> > B. The 5Ds has more editing latitude
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah, we need actual data. Hopefully that will start appearing soon after the camera is released. I know a couple astrophotographers who may grab one of these things early, and Bill Claff has started visiting Cloudy Nights. Some people respect his numbers more than DXOs, although they generally show the same gap between Canon and others. Looking forward to him generating PDR numbers for the 5Ds.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 12, 2015)

jrista said:


> The noise floor is generally the computed RMS of noise from all pixels from dark frames (usually, you would want to compute it from many dark frames, and generate an average RMS). That would include banding, but bands tend to be outliers, so they don't impact the RMS all that much. The difference between the 5D III DR (10.97 stops) and the possible 5Ds DR (maybe around 11.23 stops) could very well be the difference in banding. That isn't much of a difference, though, assuming the 5Ds does arrive with read noise and FWC similar to the 7D II.



Thanks for explaining! So this would at least account for some of the confusion over "more" or "less" dr, "usable" or "banding".


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 12, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The noise floor is generally the computed RMS of noise from all pixels from dark frames (usually, you would want to compute it from many dark frames, and generate an average RMS). That would include banding, but bands tend to be outliers, so they don't impact the RMS all that much. The difference between the 5D III DR (10.97 stops) and the possible 5Ds DR (maybe around 11.23 stops) could very well be the difference in banding. That isn't much of a difference, though, assuming the 5Ds does arrive with read noise and FWC similar to the 7D II.
> ...



I think so. Since I brought up the term "usable" initially, the amount of noise in the signal is what I considered the variable allowing the inherit DR from the sensor to be usable or not. It's been mentioned, but just to get everyone on the same page again as this wagon circles back:

Canon 5D3 (Read Noise 33.6 @ ISO 100)
http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS-5D-Mark-III.html

Canon 7D MkII (Read noise 12.9 @ ISO 100)
http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS-7D-Mark-II.html

So assuming the same pixel but on a FF scale, add in additional tweaks to throw out HIgh ISO, significantly reduce operating temps on sensor to further reduce noise, etc... blah blah blah.... Throw in what Rista said about maybe/IF we see the read noise drop from that 12.9 to half, around 6-7 .... Voila

Yes less noise compared to a 5D3 by quite possibly a lot, thereby perhaps, at least perceptually, allowing for a bigger shadow pull free of that nasty read noise you would other raise the middle finger to ;D


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The noise floor is generally the computed RMS of noise from all pixels from dark frames (usually, you would want to compute it from many dark frames, and generate an average RMS). That would include banding, but bands tend to be outliers, so they don't impact the RMS all that much. The difference between the 5D III DR (10.97 stops) and the possible 5Ds DR (maybe around 11.23 stops) could very well be the difference in banding. That isn't much of a difference, though, assuming the 5Ds does arrive with read noise and FWC similar to the 7D II.
> ...




The key thing here is that noise adds to the signal. So, if you have a read noise floor of, say, 20e-, but your bands are 80e-. The bands are infrequent, so they don't actually change the RMS much...but they add 80e- to the signal. That band is going to shift the ENTIRE signal in that row of pixels up by 80e-. Such a band would be visible with very light shadow pushing, well before you actually got to the read noise floor.


Once that band is gone, you could push the shadows a fair bit more before the actual 20e- noise floor became a problem.


There is also the personal tolerance thing. Canon read noise is ugly, plain and simple. It's got bright red blotches, splotches, short little horizontal juts, green speckle. It's the nastiest stuff. I think most people stop pushing before they get very far, because once they see that, they don't want to go any farther. 


That is in contrast to even A7r read noise, which is stored in a lossy-compressed RAW file. A7r read noise is primarily luminance, and primarily gaussian. There is hardly any color noise to start with, and what color noise there is still follows a mostly gaussian distribution. There are very few hot pixels. I have no problem lifting an A7r four stops. The deeper shadows are noisy, but they clean up really nicely, and with just a bit of luminance NR slider in LR.


I think personal tolerance and noise characteristic plays a really big role. There is no question Canon read noise has improved. Compare the 5D II to the 5D III to the 6D, and you will be amazed at the 6D, for sure. But compare the 6D to the A7r or D810...and you'll understand the true value of ultra low read noise. Theoretically Canon could gain DR by increasing FWC as well...but their read noise is just ugly. Even with more FWC, their poor read noise characteristic is still going to give people pause as they start to dig deeper. 


Thus, I think it's going to be really difficult to get any kind of objective commentary about the 5Ds data quality until someone does some objective, mathematical testing on the raw files. It's really difficult for people to decouple their perceptions when visually evaluating, and past tolerance limits could be playing a big role in what people are saying about how much more dynamic range the 5Ds has. It may simply be that lower banding and maybe more gaussian read noise is making people feel they can lift more...but in an objective comparison, things may not be much different.


----------



## Troja (Feb 13, 2015)

jrista said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



if you are counting there are 0,66 stop of more dynamic range in 5ds compared to 7dmk2, which means around 12 stop of dynamic range
better but not good as others


----------



## jrista (Feb 13, 2015)

Troja said:


> if you are counting there are 0,66 stop of more dynamic range in 5ds compared to 7dmk2, which means around 12 stop of dynamic range
> better but not good as others




Where is your the 0.66 stops (2/3rd stops) more DR for the 5Ds coming from? Are you just guessing, or do you actually have concrete data?


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 13, 2015)

....His first post on CR.. hmmm... Maybe one of Keith Cooper's Canon pre-tester contacts : ;D 

If it has 12 stops. Great. I'm buying the 5DS mostly for controlled lighting situations anyway. Two Paul Buff Einstiens and two Alien Bees. Outdoor work too but still portraiture. 6D has been great. Just bought a 5D3 on Ebay for $2200 as a back up full frame because I have a ton of dancers to shoot in few weeks. 

The DR debate is fascinating and I hope Canon steps it up, but I'm real happy with what they deliver now although I understand for some work it isn't the best. C'est la vie folks.


----------



## K-amps (Feb 17, 2015)

iso79 said:


> Dynamic range won't help you become a better photographer!



Usually shoot with a pinhole camera?


----------

