# D7000 replacement in April...



## Ew (Feb 4, 2013)

Nikon rumors puts the d7000 replacement for April...
I'm betting that canon will play catchup as we've been seeing of late, and they will be forced to push out whatever pre-prod version of the 7d replacement by May.

What I'm really hoping for though is that Canon doesn't bite, and starts to lead with their own timeline...


----------



## jrista (Feb 4, 2013)

Ew said:


> Nikon rumors puts the d7000 replacement for April...
> I'm betting that canon will play catchup as we've been seeing of late, and they will be forced to push out whatever pre-prod version of the 7d replacement by May.
> 
> What I'm really hoping for though is that Canon doesn't bite, and starts to lead with their own timeline...



I don't think Canon will actually release anything to the shelves until it is really ready. The "release" of the 1D X proves that. It was paper released the better part of a year ahead of when it actually hit the street, so I don't think there should be any fear that Canon won't do their customers justice for a product once it (and it's feature set) are announced.


----------



## aznable (Feb 4, 2013)

Ew said:


> Nikon rumors puts the d7000 replacement for April...
> I'm betting that canon will play catchup as we've been seeing of late, and they will be forced to push out whatever pre-prod version of the 7d replacement by May.
> 
> What I'm really hoping for though is that Canon doesn't bite, and starts to lead with their own timeline...



7d isnt a competitor of d7000....d7000 will get a new sensor+electronics to maintain the fr


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 5, 2013)

As far as the sensor is concerned, Canon have yet to "catch up" to the D7000, let alone its replacement. I doubt they will, because crop sensor performance hasn't been a priority for Canon for a long time, if ever. But their crop camera body performance overall, has been ok, other than the Rebel series and the 60D.

But frankly, I don't see a new Sony-designed crop sensor having 14 stops of dynamic range...and even if it did, it would fall off quickly above ISO 800 or so.

That's the real difference though, Nikon has to have someone else design and build their sensors. Canon does their own. I admire that. But the current Canon sensor was designed in what, 2007? 2008? The 7D came out in Fall 2009, so certainly the sensor was designed many months before that. It's very, very old technology now.


----------



## mbpics (Feb 5, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> As far as the sensor is concerned, Canon have yet to "catch up" to the D7000, let alone its replacement. I doubt they will, because crop sensor performance hasn't been a priority for Canon for a long time, if ever. But their crop camera body performance overall, has been ok, other than the Rebel series and the 60D.
> 
> But frankly, I don't see a new Sony-designed crop sensor having 14 stops of dynamic range...and even if it did, it would fall off quickly above ISO 800 or so.
> 
> That's the real difference though, Nikon has to have someone else design and build their sensors. Canon does their own. I admire that. But the current Canon sensor was designed in what, 2007? 2008? The 7D came out in Fall 2009, so certainly the sensor was designed many months before that. It's very, very old technology now.



http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D5200-New-sensor-and-new-leader/Measurement

The D5200 sensor has 13.9 stops of DR, and it is a NIKON-designed sensor, manufactured by Toshiba. I love this move for Nikon, as they're now seemingly in charge of their own sensor development and not tied down to any specific fab, as Canon is.


----------



## jrista (Feb 5, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


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



Just because you are such a DR buff, you should look into Topaz DeNoise 5. It is one of the first packages to include a usable debanding feature. It works pretty well, especially when run on the RAW file. I think you might be surprised at how much DR a Canon sensor already has when you eliminate the banding. It is not 100% perfect, but it gets you a lot of the way towards what an Exmor offers, without actually having to buy a new camera. I've been fairly pleased with it in the few cases, with my 7D, that I've had to deband. _The noise floor drops considerably, *which has the implicit consequence of improving DR.*_


----------



## Aglet (Feb 5, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> well let us hope so, I have lot of L lenses waiting for a camera with 14 stops DR, high resolution and no pattern noise, banding at lower levels and base iso. IF I could use for example my 70-200/2,8 IS MK2 on my d800 i would be very happy in this time of waiting for something new from Canon, but I can not. Next step from Sony will be stacked sensors with a large/huge fill factor because the electronics will be placed under the silicon surface in a own layer.



+1

and, FWIW, the new Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR can also create some hideously bad bokeh, just like the Canon.
Darn thing ruined a few shots for me this weekend with its mutiple-contoured bokeh of background structures. :-\
Of these 2, I'd still prefer the Canon if I could attach it to my D800, it's just sharper.


----------



## jrista (Feb 5, 2013)

mbpics said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > As far as the sensor is concerned, Canon have yet to "catch up" to the D7000, let alone its replacement. I doubt they will, because crop sensor performance hasn't been a priority for Canon for a long time, if ever. But their crop camera body performance overall, has been ok, other than the Rebel series and the 60D.
> ...



Keep in mind, people have been complaining about banding noise in the 5200 when shadows are lifted by around 2 stops. I have not seen any super serious example of it so far, but the D5200 sensor does not seem to really fare any better than Canon sensors (which can usually only withstand about 2 stops shadow lifting). The numerous mentions of banding in the 5200, and the mentions about how similar it is to Canon 5D II banding, make me wonder even more about the objectivity of DXO.

I also encourage anyone who disputes that DXO is truly neutral to download DXO Optics Pro and test it out on Canon raw files. Of all the available CR2 RAW editors, DXO Optics Pro seems to fare the worst, by far...especially in the noise and NR department. (Lightroom performs significantly better with CR2 files and NR, as does DPP, obviously.) The poor performance of DXO Optics Pro with CR2 files makes me wonder whether DXO really knows how to process them correctly, and whether that may somehow factor into the growing rift between anything Nikon and anything Canon in their tests.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 5, 2013)

jrista said:


> Keep in mind, people have been complaining about banding noise in the 5200 when shadows are lifted by around 2 stops. I have not seen any super serious example of it so far, but the D5200 sensor does not seem to really fare any better than Canon sensors (which can usually only withstand about 2 stops shadow lifting). The numerous mentions of banding in the 5200, and the mentions about how similar it is to Canon 5D II banding, make me wonder even more about the objectivity of DXO.



D5200 is showing shadow banding?!? 

ARGHHH! damnit!  That'll be seriously disappointing.
I haven't had a chance to research on it yet, was hoping it would be as smooth as the D5100 and D800.
The denser AF system would be handy for some action work.
That doesn't bode well then for higher end Nik DX bodies, not yet announced.

maybe I should buy a couple more tilted D5100s while they're still on the shelf at $400. FWIW, they're just as good up to a large enough print size.

Addendum:
One area on DxOmark where you _might_ find evidence of low ISO shadow banding is if you look at the full review for a camera\measurements\Full SNR\log display.
E.G. On the 5D2, low ISOs you see the curve suddenly hook down at the dark end.
This may not be the entire reason or consistent enough to use as a banding guideline because they don't show this hook for the nasty-bandy 7D and show hooks on the 40D, which I have and does not show up any low ISO banding.


----------



## jrista (Feb 5, 2013)

Aglet said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Keep in mind, people have been complaining about banding noise in the 5200 when shadows are lifted by around 2 stops. I have not seen any super serious example of it so far, but the D5200 sensor does not seem to really fare any better than Canon sensors (which can usually only withstand about 2 stops shadow lifting). The numerous mentions of banding in the 5200, and the mentions about how similar it is to Canon 5D II banding, make me wonder even more about the objectivity of DXO.
> ...



Well, the Nikon sensor design does not use CP-ADC with digital CDS like Exmor does. They use what could be called a form of "bucket ADC", which is what a lot of Canon's patents around parallel readout seem to involve. The Nikon design reads out columns in buckets through ADC's dedicated to those sets of columns. I doubt they could actually use a full column-parallel ADC like Exmor, as that would infringe on Sony's patent. They may have a deal with Sony to use Exmor in Nikon cameras, but I do not believe that deal extends to Nikon using Sony patents in their own sensor designs manufactured by other fabs. 

Canon is probably in the same boat. They have not yet released any sensor with Exmor-like performance because there are a number of patents for Exmor in the way. I do believe Canon has something similar. It may not actually be column parallel, it may be block parallel, and who knows exactly how it will affect (improve?) noise characteristics. 

Anyway, if you want Exmor quality, you'll have to get something that actually has an Exmor in it. That will may even end up being the case for the next decade or so, depending on exactly when the Exmor patents were filed and granted.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 5, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> I have tested all nikons zoom around 70-200 including the new 70-200/4 , no one can match my 70-200/2,8 is mk2



We should start a new thread on this because I've been getting more disappointed with overall performance of new lenses, especially the zooms.
They can be razor sharp but sometimes they also cause very ugly bokeh in some situations.

Have you had a chance to test any other brand 70-200mm?
I have a Tamron that is also quite sharp but I haven't been using it for closer focus work to see if it also produces ugly bokeh.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 5, 2013)

Interesting points about the banding noise, my older XXD Canon sure has tons of it above ISO 2500. I need to try some software to fix some of my work, that's for sure. Photoshop works well until the banding starts.

Notice in your link to Nikon's own data, that the DR falls to about 10 stops by ISO 800. I mean, who really cares if you've got 13, or 14 stops below that? What counts is what's above ISO 800. 

If you're shooting below ISO 800, you're still going to use highlight tone priority if you have elements in the image which are extremely bright and you don't want them to look too pale or blown out...or at least I do. That is COMPRESSING the dynamic range of what gets stored on the file. You certainly don't need that many stops down where the noise is lowest anyway...because a jpg is only 8 bits. Does this sound wrong to you? If so, what would you do with a "future" sensor that was 16 or 18 stops at ISO 100? Shoot raw, then print from a 48 bit upsampled TIFF file (probably 20 GB in size) and display the resulting "print" on a transparent backlit, multi-stage screen using some exotic led's or xenon lamps? Get real. Our eyes see huge dynamic range, but print media can't display it. They can only display a dynamically compressed approximation, as in HDR technique, etc. It's called "painterly" for a reason. The reason is dynamic range compression.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 5, 2013)

As for the Canon 70-200 f4/L having "terrible bokeh"...I've had mine for 3 years, and I love the bokeh. It is very smooth, at least on my crop camera. I don't notice much bokeh at the wider end, but near to 200mm, it seems very smooth to me. (Closeups of wildflowers, etc...really "pop"). 

For comparison, I've had my 135 f/2L even longer, for 4 years. Sure its bokeh is quite a bit smoother, loads stronger...and very lovely...but to call the 70-200 f/4's terrible...is wrong. It's more than nice enough, especially considering the price. Perhaps the IS version has bad bokeh...it certainly has a totally different element grouping and design. I wouldn't know.

Or it could be, that all of you who don't like yours, got a bad sample, and mine is the only good one? I'm ok with that.

The 135 f/2 spoils me. I personally don't feel the need to drop over $2k on a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. Sure they're nice, but for that money, I would just put that towards a 200 f/2, or something else. I would especially not buy one if I had the better noise performance of a full frame camera. At 3.5 pounds, it doesn't feel that much lighter than the 200 f/2...at least not to me. The longer, heavier supertelephotos...do indeed feel way more hefty to lug around, though. I think the relative short length of the 200 f/2 is a big factor here. 

As for sharpness, it's also hard to fault my 70-200 f/4. There are some very slight left-to right sharpness oddities as it goes from around 90mm to 130mm...but other than that, it's pretty uniform. And even at 200mm...recently my work called for scaling an image up to 9000 x 6000, for a 20x30 print...and it looks fairly sharp even at that size. This shot was at f/4.5 at about 1/2000 shutter, ISO 320, "infinity" focus, AF on center point. The sharpness is barely going away by the bottom corners, not consequencial. If it had been, I could have "fixed" that in ACR easily enough...even before scaling it up.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 5, 2013)

Well, I never notice banding noise at ISO 800 or below, even with loads of exposure, saturation, brightness, or other boosting in post...especially not below ISO 1600. It's really ISO 2500 on mine, where it is completely unusable. However, if the image's subject content "disguises" the banding noise, sometimes I can get away with it even up to ISO 3200. 6400 is good for not-remotely-pro casual shots, at least on mine. From what I have seen, the 7D's noise performance is only barely better than mine, so that's not saying much for it.

As for people who never shoot above ISO 800, I assume you're always either doing long exposures, flash photography, shooting in bright sunlight at all times...or otherwise shoot a really fast lens such as f/1.4 (but even it is never in low light)? I have a couple of those, and still wind up needing higher than ISO 800, when shooting my "wildlife landscapes" at sunset, or dusk.

I never said "everyone" shoots above ISO 800. I just said that's where a loss of DR counts, because there's always more than enough DR below that.


----------



## Apop (Feb 5, 2013)

I also dont think the d7000 is a competitor of the 7d,

Ok IQ wise it may be true, but then the newly released 650d is also a competitor  (slightly lower noise then a 7d).

I owned both the d7000 and 7d, the bodies got such a different feel to them, the 7d feels more rugged.
Also the AF system (imo) is superior on the 7d , not to mention higher fps

De d7000 was a great camera, but the size and placement of the shutter button did not make it comfortable for me.

It will be interesting to see how the 60d replacement fares against the d7000 replacement...


----------



## David Hull (Feb 5, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Interesting points about the banding noise, my older XXD Canon sure has tons of it above ISO 2500. I need to try some software to fix some of my work, that's for sure. Photoshop works well until the banding starts.
> 
> Notice in your link to Nikon's own data, that the DR falls to about 10 stops by ISO 800. I mean, who really cares if you've got 13, or 14 stops below that? What counts is what's above ISO 800.
> 
> If you're shooting below ISO 800, you're still going to use highlight tone priority if you have elements in the image which are extremely bright and you don't want them to look too pale or blown out...or at least I do. That is COMPRESSING the dynamic range of what gets stored on the file. You certainly don't need that many stops down where the noise is lowest anyway...because a jpg is only 8 bits. Does this sound wrong to you? If so, what would you do with a "future" sensor that was 16 or 18 stops at ISO 100? Shoot raw, then print from a 48 bit upsampled TIFF file (probably 20 GB in size) and display the resulting "print" on a transparent backlit, multi-stage screen using some exotic led's or xenon lamps? Get real. Our eyes see huge dynamic range, but print media can't display it. They can only display a dynamically compressed approximation, as in HDR technique, etc. It's called "painterly" for a reason. The reason is dynamic range compression.



You might give the NR plug-ins from Topaz or Nik a try but I don't think they were effective on the two dimensional pattern noise that was present in the older cameras. On the newer stuff like the 5DIII and 6D where the noise pattern is much less and only vertical, they appear to be quite effective (at the expense of some slight detail reduction).

To me the only real benefit of the additional DR is that you can pull the shadows a bit more on those cameras w/o worrying about pattern noise -- there are a few cases where this would be beneficial. However, to get any benefit from this at all, you will need to run your camera with the ISO set at ISO 400 or less (preferably ISO=100). I have always found it interesting that in the majority of the examples provided, the shot could be made with either camera if it were used correctly. By that I mean that in almost every case, the shooting scenario does not preclude the use of a multi shot approach -- take a look at the examples provided in this thread.


----------



## jrista (Feb 5, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> yes, You can believe that if its suits you.
> this is my 5dmk2 and my d800, exposed in the same way to get the high lights in the sky intact
> then the darker parts are lifted and adjusted the same. The results from the Canon is visible more pattern noise , banding, lower signal , less color information.



You should run the 5D II RAW image through Topaz DeNoise 5, and use the debanding feature. You might be surprised how much DR is recovered. The blacks may not be as rich, as Canon uses a bias offset which eats a chunk of shadow DR, but the noise would very likely disappear. DeNoise has shadow tone recovery features as well, which could restore or deepen some of those shadow tones. Once you eliminate the banding noise, Canon sensors fare a hell of a lot better against there competitors.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 5, 2013)

Interesting points from all of you. I do need to try Topaz...however mine is currently an older XXD body, not a 5D2.

Mikael, that's a good illustration of your point. However, in that situation, multi-shot HDR is really more called for, in my opinion. My body has a bit worse noise than the 5D2...hahaha. How would the D3s compare using similar under-exposed technique at low ISO, to the D800 (accounting for image dimensions, however you might want to do that)?

My cousin has the 5D3, and he mostly uses Lightroom 4 (although he has CS6). I tried to reduce some of the "grain" noise on a couple of his RAW shots done at around ISO 4000...on his computer using LR4. I must say, LR4 is far less effective at reducing that, than CS5 ACR is, on similar grain noise on my own files, done with my older body. Of course, those have similar amounts of noise way down at ISO 1250...haha. His files were exposed normally, not under-exposed. This grain noise seems to have a hard texture...sort of like you're trying to sand it smooth with sandpaper that is too fine. You can argue over which type of noise it is, I'll read it.

I can see why the D800 gets such high marks from DXO, but still, I don't think it tells the whole story. And ergonomically, the D800 is unusable for me. Also, I don't care for Nikon's lens lineup...especially their 135 f/2 lens. That alone would make me not ever switch to Nikon. Talk about a lens for old farts, looks like it was designed in the 1950's. There are plenty of other reasons too, of course.


----------



## jrista (Feb 5, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Interesting points from all of you. I do need to try Topaz...however mine is currently an older XXD body, not a 5D2.
> 
> Mikael, that's a good illustration of your point. However, in that situation, multi-shot HDR is really more called for, in my opinion. My body has a bit worse noise than the 5D2...hahaha. How would the D3s compare using similar under-exposed technique at low ISO, to the D800 (accounting for image dimensions, however you might want to do that)?
> 
> ...



HDR is really the right way to go for high DR scenes, even with the D800. One thing no one ever discusses is the loss of color fidelity in the shadow tones when doing extreme shadow lifting like that. It doesn't really matter if there is banding noise there or not...you are still losing the same amount of color fidelity with either a Canon or a Nikon camera. The only way to really preserve the color fidelity of the shadows in a high DR scenario is to take bracketed shots, and combine as HDR in post. You should end up with much greater (i.e. orders of magnitude greater) color fidelity in the shadows, as well as finer highlight tonality, when using HDR vs. under-exposing and lifting shadows by 3-5 stops.


----------



## jrista (Feb 5, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Well, as always, you are entirely missing the point.  However, there is no point in arguing with you, as your position is staunch... I really don't know why you don't just go out and get a D800 and be done with it. Why wait when you clearly prefer an alternative brand?


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> I have much more money invested in Canon L lenses than Nikon , and I have a d800 since april last year.
> Theres is no problem for me to have more than one system , and I do not understand you answers as long we are discussing DR, APS, sensors etc
> 
> one statement before was there is no APS with 14 stops DR- yes there are, Nikon and Pentax
> ...



Nikon has only used Sony Exmor technology when the sensor was fabricated BY SONY. You missed the point I was trying to make before regarding the D5200 sensor. But, I'm not going to explain it again.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 6, 2013)

jrista said:


> I also encourage anyone who disputes that DXO is truly neutral to download DXO Optics Pro and test it out on Canon raw files. Of all the available CR2 RAW editors, DXO Optics Pro seems to fare the worst, by far...especially in the noise and NR department. (Lightroom performs significantly better with CR2 files and NR, as does DPP, obviously.) The poor performance of DXO Optics Pro with CR2 files makes me wonder whether DXO really knows how to process them correctly, and whether that may somehow factor into the growing rift between anything Nikon and anything Canon in their tests.



What does RAW processed images from DxO have to do with their sensor tests which test the RAW file, untouched, directly?


----------



## Aglet (Feb 6, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> As for the Canon 70-200 f4/L having "terrible bokeh"...I've had mine for 3 years, and I love the bokeh. It is very smooth, at least on my crop camera. I don't notice much bokeh at the wider end, but near to 200mm, it seems very smooth to me. (Closeups of wildflowers, etc...really "pop"). ..



I don't know about the f/4 Ls
I DO know the f/2.8 L II can have horrid bokeh, I posted an example in the lens gallery. It's far from the only one I've got.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 6, 2013)

jrista said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > yes, You can believe that if its suits you.
> ...



Skuze me for bein' cheeky but..

You otta try a camera from Nikon, Pentax, Fuji or Olympus then you won't have to try smearing the banding away with software plugins.


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

Aglet said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



I've tried Nikon, Pentax, and Olympus. Can't stand the Pentax and Olympus cameras. They have good low ISO IQ, but that is where it all stops. Nikon cameras also have good low ISO IQ, and they have a hell of a lot better selection of lenses...but I can't stand their ergonomics. I'd also take Canon glass over any other glass, including Nikon's, any day! There is a hell of a lot more to IQ than simply sensor. Canon definitely lacks in that department, but they excel at everything else, and its the whole package that really leads to consistent IQ. 

And if we are trying out each others ideas, I still say actually try DeNoise 5. When applied to the RAW, the debanding doesn't smear, and the results are pretty amazing. They might as well call it DR Recovery rather than Debanding, as that is basically what it does.


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > yes, You can believe that if its suits you.
> ...



It is a contrived scenario. The D800 image has clearly been exposed better. The 5D II image has much deeper blacks, indicating it was underexposed relative to the D800, thus putting at a relative disadvantage (above and beyond any actual disadvantage it may actually have). The whole point of those shots is to purposely make the majority of the image "black", requiring multiple stops of shadow recovery. The bulk of the pixel area of Mikael's 5D bashing images are lifted 4, 5, 6 stops, which is a ludicrous comparison in any but the most extreme of the extreme circumstances. I think that is a bit of a DPReview Nikonian forums "fad"...they do that a lot over there, just for sh*ts and giggles.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 6, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> yes, You can believe that if its suits you.
> this is my 5dmk2 and my d800, exposed in the same way to get the high lights in the sky intact
> then the darker parts are lifted and adjusted the same. The results from the Canon is visible more pattern noise , banding, lower signal , less color information.



well... number of people and i, in this forum, have been asking for your raw files but we have not seen anything yet. however, i do not know how good you are in photography? but if i have a chance to meet you, i must see how good you are in photography as well as operating dslr(s). this message is written by a person who uses dslr for just almost a year, feb 10, 2013 will be a year to be exact.

note: as canon already states, it offers only two stops recovery. and if you are a photographer who shoot under or over expose for more two stops, you should change your career. one thing that i should let you know that you should not think that i know nothing about nikon. in fact, i play around with nikon cameras every single time being at costco...


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 6, 2013)

Jrista, I don't think I've given you the credit you deserve for your posts here. Very good. I especially like them on page 1 of this thread...I hadn't read it close enough.

You all seem to be doing well, but there's too much arguing. What is this, a pissing contest? 

Regarding Pentax...um, I do know for a fact, that their sensor is the same as Nikon's crop sensor from the D7000. Is that the same as the D5200? I don't know or really care. Whether it's made by Sony, Toshiba...Minolta...Contax...Voigtlander...Ongaku...Koetsu...Feastrex...Mitsubishi...Tata Motors...Adrian Newey...Danicka Patrick kissing a nerd for charity...I don't know.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2013)

As always, if you want to 'prove' your point, it helps to design your 'test' with a bias toward your desired outcome (such as ETTL vs. ETTR).


----------



## David Hull (Feb 6, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



True, but until they do there is an option for those using the later cameras that tend to produce a more unidirectional form of banding (and less of it at that). And… since this tends to be more evident in the shadow areas, any smearing is probably less obvious. The point is, there are several viable work-arounds for any low ISO deficiencies that the Canon sensors might have. At this point, I consider this to be a feature that Nikon has and Canon does not. Like any other "feature" one has to determine how important it is to what they want/need to do. For those who prefer Canon (for whatever reason that might be), there are options for the fairly limited number of real world cases where the read noise poses a significant problem. To me, this is a rational way to look at it which bypasses most of the hype.

Yes, I am the same guy from DPR. I have to sau that I like their UI a lot better it is harder to keep track of things here.


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


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



Oh yes...the obfuscation is so thick you could drown in it.  They don't want anyone to know they additionally underexposed the 5D II by another couple of stops to put it in particularly bad light relative to the Exmor cameras. Is that not the fundamental crux of bad science? Hide your data?


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> As always, if you want to 'prove' your point, it helps to design your 'test' with a bias toward your desired outcome (such as ETTL vs. ETTR).



HAH! Awesome! +1000000000


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


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



It means you've proclaimed something. That's all. You have yet to produce the original RAW files, WITH EXIF data, as many people have asked, so we can all verify that. Since none of you DPR guys have ever offered the original RAW files, it is hard to simply take you at your word, especially given that it is so apparent you have something against Canon (almost on a personal level). 

No one here will ever take you seriously until you produce the untouched RAW files with metadata for these contrived examples. As has been mentioned before, when exposed properly on any camera, those photos could have been taken without any evidence of visible noise, even with a couple stops of shadow pushing if it was really, really necessary.



Mikael Risedal said:


> This is so interesting, Jrista and Neuro, explain please , I have done at least 50 different comparison and used the same exposure time and f-stop . WHY should it not be an adequate test?
> Do you two mean that a Canons shall be richer exposed than other cameras regarding time or F-stop



Because you refuse to produce your source data. You only provide screenshots of two processed images in an image editor, and expect everyone to simply take your word on the "facts" as you proclaim them. Sorry, but that isn't good enough. Produce the RAWs with unmodified EXIF, or we'll continue to ridicule your little contrived examples of "evidence" of Canon's supposed raging inferiority.


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> You can ask David Hull, I have lent my raw files to many photographers at Dpreview (as to the famous Hans Kruse ), in the end all have agreed with me regarding the benefits of low read out noise.
> You can defend Canon in absurdum, there are two different sensors and one is with a modern read out analog to digital chain, and one from 2004 with 14 times higher read out noise at base iso



Telling us you sent your RAW files to select individuals who already agree with you is just as absurd. It also does not extricate you from your current predicament. You are making bold claims that purposely put Canon sensors in atrociously horrible light, when everyone who has used a Canon camera knows intuitively that they could take the same photos without the noise problems. We have all asked you to PROVE your claims, or at least make it clear that you are purposely creating a contrived scenario for the sole purpose of exposing nature of read noise in the deep shadows of a Canon image. You have repeatedly refused to do so, as have other "brilliant minds" from DPR. Sorry bub...your hiding something, every one knows that, and yet you just keep digging yourself a deeper hole. 

To be honest, I'm fine and dandy with you perpetually digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole...it just proves my case for me. So please, happily keep doing what your doing. :


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 6, 2013)

jrista said:


> Oh yes...the obfuscation is so thick you could drown in it.  They don't want anyone to know they additionally underexposed the 5D II by another couple of stops to put it in particularly bad light relative to the Exmor cameras. Is that not the fundamental crux of bad science? Hide your data?



Riiiiiight.
There you go again.
Everyone from sensor sites to Fred Miranda, to DxO, to Michael, to myself, to numerous posters on DPR, etc. are all in league in a conspiracy against Canon! Everyone get out your tinfoil hats, quick!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> As always, if you want to 'prove' your point, it helps to design your 'test' with a bias toward your desired outcome



Fair enough, nobody has ever argued that Nikon doesn't lack some lenses or doesn't have some negatives, many of us has said so ourselves too, repeatedly, the problem is that anytime someone mentions Canon is worse at that something the Canon fanboys go nuts and try to hide it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 6, 2013)

jrista said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > You can ask David Hull, I have lent my raw files to many photographers at Dpreview (as to the famous Hans Kruse ), in the end all have agreed with me regarding the benefits of low read out noise.
> ...



Yeah sure, you'd come up with some other excuse then that he had manipulated his RAW files or something and how can you trust it unless he flies to the US and retakes the shots in front of you and there are three witnesses to track the file from his camera into your computer. You asked for my detailed DR procedure and went crazy that I was supposedly hiding it and then I quickly revealed it and.... it made no difference, you just made up 30 other excuses, until like two months later, you vaguely admitted it all before going back to more excuses.

Nikon has plenty of problems too but there is no need to try to hide the DR thing, if it never affects you fine, whatever, but every time it comes up do you need to extend every thread to thirty pages just to try to cover it up? You have even admitted yourself, in the past, that there is a difference.


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yes...the obfuscation is so thick you could drown in it.  They don't want anyone to know they additionally underexposed the 5D II by another couple of stops to put it in particularly bad light relative to the Exmor cameras. Is that not the fundamental crux of bad science? Hide your data?
> ...



I was not talking about Fred Miranda, DXO, or yourself. I was specifically talking about Mikael, and no one else and nothing more. He has regurgitated the same set of contrived comparison examples over and over all over the net, however only a few very select individuals have ever actually seen the original RAW images. Sorry, but yes...I stand by my statement about the obfuscation there being so thick you could drown in it, in explicit regard to Mikael's obfuscatory approach to proving his claims at the request of MANY members here.

I have also never said anything derogatory about Fred Miranda. I have great respect for the man, as I do many other individuals and organizations. I have no qualms about voicing my skepticism about DXO's results, approach, or the validity and usefulness of their tests and results. I am not alone in those sentiments, either. As for DPR, that place is a cesspool of religious brand wars, and to be frank, it is rather irksome that an increasing number of those tards have migrated here to push buttons and generally wreak havoc on what is otherwise supposed to be some fun and entertaining speculation about future Canon products. Mikael specifically, as he makes a lot of claims but never actually backs them up with verifiable fact. 

I respect you, LTRL, for at least providing concrete evidence of your claims, as you did with the 5D III noise tests. I was very hopeful that Canon would have fixed something, and ultimately it was proven they did not. I don't believe the claims made about Canon sensors are as dire and severe as they are frequently made out to be, even by such as yourself, and I argue hard against such claims, even against you. But the same point stands. We are here to speculate about future Canon products and technology. I believe there IS hope for Canon, and I believe Canon DOES have some vastly superior (relative to itself) CMOS technology up its sleve that will begin to trickle into the market soon. At the very least, I HOPE that technology will trickle into the market soon, and that is kind of the point of CR, or at least part of the point. Is our right to be hopeful going to be banned (right along with all the other rights that have been or are being banned these days)? Are you, Mikael, and the rest of the DPR crew going to continue to stomp all over and purposely dash the hopes of Canon fans, just for sh*ts and giggles? (Because there does not seem to be any other viable reason for you guys to repeatedly bring out the same old diatribe again and again whenever anyone in these forums gets excited or hopeful about Canon's future or existing technology...)


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Nikon has plenty of problems too but there is no need to try to hide the DR thing, if it never affects you fine, whatever, but every time it comes up do you need to extend every thread to thirty pages just to try to cover it up? You have even admitted yourself, in the past, that there is a difference.



Sure, I recognize that there is a difference. I've never denied that, not once multiple analyses of both the D800 and 5D III were out. But again, as I've said for over a year at this point...you guys are missing my point. The key point is that in the vast majority of situations, the added DR doesn't matter. It is one factor out of dozens that affect IQ. I've argued that I do not believe DXO's approach to describing DR with their "Print DR" statistic is entirely valid, or that it has any real meaningful bearing on what a camera can do at the hardware level. I'll stand by those claims until the end of time, but when it comes to the DPR crew here...you guys perpetually miss the point. I am not, and have not since the actual release of the 5D III, ever claimed that Canon's sensors have as much DR as the D800. You guys seem to think I am saying that, and why you can't let go of that nitpicky point is beyond me. My point is the difference is meaningless in the majority of cases, and when it does matter, it is only one factor out of many that affects IQ. In the cases where low ISO DR is critical, which is primarily landscape photography, hell yes! The D800 trounces the 5D III, walks all over pretty much every other camera on earth except a couple other Nikon cameras. But again...that's not my point. Not my current point. Wasn't the majority of my past points. Stop missing the point. 

And last, but not least, one final point. You complain that I draw threads on pages and pages arguing with you guys. You seem to think I am solely at "fault" for those things. One, don't forget, you and the rest of the DPR crew are always involved in those threads as well. Two, you guys are usually the ones who instigate the debate in the first place. Three, you repeatedly instigate the same debate over and over about a single point...dynamic range...even when the prior discussion in the thread has NOTHING to do with DR, or even sensors. If you guys want to debate, I'm happy to debate. If multi-page long debates tick you off..._*stop starting them, or don't get involved and don't read them.*_


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 6, 2013)

LOL!

Sorry guys, I have not been around for a couple of days so now I see the "D7000 replacement in April..." topic and open, read last two pages without seeing anything about the D7000 or its replacement. Going to read from the beginning to see how the topic developed but just had to suggest this: Perhaps we should have a "Canon sensors vs those in Nikons" board under gear talk? Or perhaps "Canon bashing" (I for one would go there every now and then for sure ;D)? 

Cheers!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2013)

well_dunno said:


> Sorry guys, I have not been around for a couple of days so now I see the "D7000 replacement in April..." topic and open, read last two pages without seeing anything about the D7000 or its replacement. Going to read from the beginning to see how the topic developed...



Here's how:

Q: What was the weather like in Stockholm last week?

A: Sunny, and when I underexposed by 4 stops to capture the detail of the sun shining down on the Storkyrkan then pulled up the shadows by 4 stops to see the cobblestone detail of the Slottsbacken, the Canon 5DIII failed miserably with banding and noise, but fortunately I had my D800 with me - and look at this perfect shot!


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 6, 2013)

This has turned into a terrific thread... +1 Googleplex...


----------



## DanielW (Feb 6, 2013)

Damn, I can see clearly now: complete lack of sense of humor


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> well_dunno said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guys, I have not been around for a couple of days so now I see the "D7000 replacement in April..." topic and open, read last two pages without seeing anything about the D7000 or its replacement. Going to read from the beginning to see how the topic developed...
> ...



LOL! 

I recall you had a spilled coffee issue when reading the "ask something no one knows nor ever thought of nor wondered and wait, Neuro will give you the answer" part (sorry for the misquote but something of that kind), if you recall that post a year ago... I was wondering if you have any solution to it as I seem to have spilled some on the carpet due to your post... 

Cheers!


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 6, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > well_dunno said:
> ...



sorry, a prof. photographers who under/over expose for more than 2 stops will not going to be earn my respect. i do not allow myself to make big mistake in predict exposures; therefore, i have made a tool and developed my own way of seeing light.

under/over exposure over two stops? sorry to say that he/she is an un-prof. photographer. are you one of them? if someone wants more DR, then go for HDR with CS6 since it is available 32 bits now...


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 6, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > .......if someone wants more DR, then go for HDR with CS6 since it is available 32 bits now...
> ...



thanks for the tip... that means someone has to buy a light room 4 if he/she wants to stick with CS5.


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 6, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> i do not follow you, was that a answer to me?



Nej da, a very funny thread a year ago or so which I was referring to


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 6, 2013)

_"In addition to the D7000 successor, which most likely will replace also the D300s, Nikon is rumored to announce a new D4x DSLR this year (the camera may have a different name, we will call it D4x until we get more info)."_

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/02/04/more-nikon-d4x-rumors.aspx/#more-53312

D300s was the competitor of the 7D, wasn't it?


----------



## DanielW (Feb 7, 2013)

Even though it seems to me that this thread is leading nowhere anymore, it has become so much fun to watch! :


----------



## jrista (Feb 7, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> *Some of you must start to understand exposure time, f-stop and picture results.
> *
> according Jrista and others we need to exposure Canon more= longer than Nikon D800, I will now take a film example so you all understand, you who have used film, I can use shutter speeds and aperture with Nikon as I have a 400iso film but with Canon I have to use a film more like 100iso and expose the camera longer to get a better results in the shadows . I think it's time that you to understand the relationship between exposure time, aperture, and selected ISO, therefore I expose cameras exactly the same regarding time / f-stop when I compare 5dmk2 5dmk3 1DX with d800 at base iso, 100iso and then I show the results in the shadows from the two cameras. Here the Canon shows banding , pattern noise due the read out from the sensor and to AD



You can feel free to make your case and argue your points all you want, but Mikael, DO NOT put words in my mouth, man. I never said anything of the sort, so stop procalaiming I have. The only thing I've actually said is that I believe your hiding the actual exposure settings used for both cameras in those little example comparisons you post all over the place. You are inferring something incorrect from my statements, then worse, proceeding to tell others that I've said something I most certainly did not. Sometimes LTRLI has the same issue, interprets (either intentionally or otherwise) what I say incorrectly, and assumes I've made some claim I have not. Please...stop, and stop telling the rest of the world I've said things I haven't.

I no longer wish to be party to the derailing of this thread, so I'm out. But seriously, stop misinterpreting my posts, and stop telling everyone else I've said things or claimed things I have not.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 7, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



1. if the sky to bright, what do you need to show... there is nothing to show there according to what i know (i.e. sunny day at noon. SOUND LIKE NEURO SAID IT RIGHT. YOU WANT TO "CAPTURE THE DETAIL OF THE SUN SHINING DOWN...")
2. if sky is your subject, why do you care about other?
3. if you want to include everything in your photo? hdr is your choice (well, sorry i have to say this. only suck photographer wants to include everything in his/her image. that is what we are calling snapshot.)
4. everything in this world has its own limitation, find a way to work around with it

note: i am not sure if they are your picture that i have seen online, but if it is yours, they are just normal, nothing highlight nor telling a story... next time, if you are going out to take photos again, suggest to take a look latest video from brian peterson posted on adorama (DO NOT INCLUDE EVERYTHING IN YOUR PHOTO)

psychologically, i do not think that you can re-learn this part since you already develop these shooting habit for number of years.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 7, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> No that is not my test pictures , but you can se similarity, any problems with that?



you are on this forum for almost a year with those test images, not talking about other forums yet. now you are saying that those are not yours. however, re-create another example and send RAW files to us then we will talk more about it.

hate to say this out but if you want to challenge about exposures (one shot only, no taking a look at histogram and re-take. yep that is the way that i am forcing myself while learning), i am ready whenever you have time to travel to LA or Arizona for photography events, especially in this coming MAY, THE BIG PHOTOSHOW.

note: no challenge on strobist since i am just starting to learn...


----------



## Cfunkexplosion (Feb 7, 2013)

Mikael,

In October, you posted:

"The old sensor tech in Canon is not up to date 2012 and in a comparison with Sony, not much to discuss."

And yet you have posted 44 pages criticizing Canon sensors, most often on dynamic range and read noise. 

Serious question: why spend time on a Canon forum arguing the same limited point ad infinitum?


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 7, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> I heard you, and keep going and try miss credit me.
> which one will you have d800 and 1dx? 5dmk2 and d800, 5dmk3, 5dmk2 and d800 a test noise made by the _suede and me published at Dpreview.
> sun set 5dmk2 d800. I have 100 of them , but I must find them
> choose, in the mean time Im going to sleep the time is 0228



remember to find them upon waking up tomorrow and YES, WE ALL WANT RAW FILESSSSS...


----------



## Cfunkexplosion (Feb 7, 2013)

I think you mean "discredit."

I'm not really sure how much credibility you're really going to have when the vast majory of your posts are the same regurgitation of your dislike of Canon sensors.


----------



## DanielW (Feb 7, 2013)

Maybe we all should go sleep and then start a new thread tomorrow. This one is better off left alone.
Good night everyone.


----------



## mbpics (Feb 7, 2013)

Why would anyone ever expose an outdoor scene so as to not clip the sun and then expect to recover the entire frame from a single shot? The only time I would ever expose that way is if I want to go for a specific look, like here: 

http://500px.com/photo/22313897 
http://500px.com/photo/24730871

If you'll notice, these were taken with a Nikon (!!!) D700 and are not b&w conversions; the sky conditions and exposure I chose yielded that look in camera. 

I in fact deliberately chose the D700 over either the 800 or the then-rumored 600 because I had experience dealing with the Sony sensor in the D7000/5100 and find them very fussy to work with in post (pixels too small, too much NR required on a per-shot basis). I've taken many great shots at my 200 ISO base and have never found myself lacking in DR, even though my D700 has a sensor that's only slightly "better" than the 5DII according to DXO, and has the pixel count of a 5D!

Edit: I CAN POST MY RAWS IF THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT


----------



## Aglet (Feb 7, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > No that is not my test pictures , but you can se similarity, any problems with that?
> ...



PBD, your incessant yammering on this aspect only shows how narrow-minded you are being. Data is data. Whether it's from Michael's cameras or Fred Mirandas or mine, the results are the same!


----------



## Aglet (Feb 7, 2013)

ishdakuteb said:


> 1. if the sky to bright, what do you need to show... there is nothing to show there according to what i know (i.e. sunny day at noon. SOUND LIKE NEURO SAID IT RIGHT. YOU WANT TO "CAPTURE THE DETAIL OF THE SUN SHINING DOWN...")
> 2. if sky is your subject, why do you care about other?
> 3. if you want to include everything in your photo? hdr is your choice (well, sorry i have to say this. only suck photographer wants to include everything in his/her image. that is what we are calling snapshot.)
> 4. everything in this world has its own limitation, find a way to work around with it
> ...



Seriously?!? This is how you think?
Then I think you do not understand the whole concept of artistic intent - which is just fine since you are defending using tools that limit artistic expression.
Some of us prefer to work with hardware with less limitations to provide us with a greater latitude of creativity. 
Ultimately, it seems to be this is what it comes down to; some of us want to manipulate our images and some of you are happy with them out of the camera. Artists vs snapshot documentarians.

*DING!*
And _there's_ the bell!

Another round begins with Fact moving to the middle of the ring while BS tries to circle around and gag Fact with the odor of BS.

Fact dodges, moves to get some fresh air but it's pointless, BS is EVERYwhere! Boy can BS ever move!

Fact relies on his standard trick, facts. But no matter how many facts he throws, none of them land a solid hit on BS. Even when Fact comes out with new facts, BS is still unfazed. What a fighter!

Can BS defeat Fact!? We've gone countless rounds and there's still no clear winner. Every time Fact appears to win on a technical, BS rises to the challenge! How long can this fight continue!? Can Fact ever keep BS down!? Will they declare it a draw!? I don't think so! Neither Fact nor BS will tolerate the other coming out on top. This promises to be a lot longer fight people!

*DING! DING!*

And there's the bell again! Fact and BS are off to their respective corners for a little rest and words with their coaches. Another round will start in a few moments, folks. Don't leave your seats!
This is a battle you don't want to miss!

And now a word from our sponsor...
Kodachrome!


----------



## weekendshooter (Feb 7, 2013)

Aglet said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > 1. if the sky to bright, what do you need to show... there is nothing to show there according to what i know (i.e. sunny day at noon. SOUND LIKE NEURO SAID IT RIGHT. YOU WANT TO "CAPTURE THE DETAIL OF THE SUN SHINING DOWN...")
> ...



What on earth are you getting on about...

If you think the definition of artistic expression is being able to meter to get the sun without clipping and lift the rest of the frame 5 stops to compensate then you and Mikael should do everyone else a favor and go stare at the sun for a nice long while the next time you're out shooting 

Everyone in this thread has gone insane. If you think your choice of either Canon or Nikon (or Sony, or Fuji, or whoever else) is what's limiting your "artistic expression," no amount of reasoning will talk any sense into you. I've had a great time following these gearsturbation threads but it's all getting a little too absurd.

I feel like all of these threads are an elaborate inside joke to bait lurkers like me to sign up and give CR guy more pageviews, but I'm afraid that's giving you people too much credit.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Seriously?!? This is how you think?
> Then I think you do not understand the whole concept of artistic intent - which is just fine since you are defending using tools that limit artistic expression.
> Some of us prefer to work with hardware with less limitations to provide us with a greater latitude of creativity.
> Ultimately, it seems to be this is what it comes down to; some of us want to manipulate our images and some of you are happy with them out of the camera. Artists vs snapshot documentarians.
> ...



Ahhhh...so, you're saying that if one is an 'artist', one must be using a Nikon camera with a Sony sensor, and if one is using a Canon camera with its unbearably poor DR, one is capable of merely 'taking snapshots'.

Is that ringing in your ears making it hard for you to think, or are you really intending to be that pompous and insulting?


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 7, 2013)

I would like to see Aglet's best photo work, so I can learn from a true master. Does he have photos online anywhere? I think I've seen Mikael's best work, and it is lacking. Mikael, you should visit England, they have nicer landscapes.

As for underexposing to get highlights...you're still limiting the number of bits at the dark end, are you not? So what if there's less noise with the D800? I could post some shots I've done where I've lifted underexposures by 3 or 4 stops with my 5 year old crop camera, and was able to get something usable...sure it has some banding noise (only used CS5). But what Mikael is showing here, to me looks like he's used NR on the Nikon image, and none on the Canon...which is why you all keep asking for the RAW files. Most of those red splotches go away with a heavy amount of color NR, while also sliding the "color detail" slider down close to zero...and again that's just in ACR. 

A jpeg is only 8 bits. How does DXO "print" their pictures? Are they printing from a 16 bit or 32 bit file of some kind? If so, how many different shades of ink are going into that print? Not billions, right?

Frankly, the most reproduced "apparent" dynamic range I've seen, has been on my own home theater screen. It's micro-glass beaded, and as long as you're near the plane of the projector, the highlights jump out at you in a very vibrant, natural way...and colors get very saturated. You could never see that in a print on any kind of paper...maybe it could get close on aluminum, if it was lit with a very bright source at the correct temperature. But the folks who will print your image on aluminum (that I know of)...only use either 8 bit jpeg, or 8 bit TIFF files.


----------



## DanielW (Feb 7, 2013)

I'd say moderators should close this thread, as it's no longer helpful in any way.
Daniel


----------



## dlleno (Feb 7, 2013)

The thread is valuable IF we can look at the RAW files. the evaluation results will be bantered about and argued, but frankly those of us who are interested in knowing what is truly important about them, and what can be learned (if anything) that helps Canon users understand their cameras better -- we will be able to parse the signal from the noise. 

in fact, we've been able to do just that all along. its pretty easy to recognize clear, factual, important, and compelling information versus the sound of axes being ground 

without the RAW files, though, I agree nuke the thread.


----------

