# Another mention of a 70+ megapixel EOS R camera



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 16, 2019)

> The internet seems to be recycling our original post about a 70+mp EOS R camera with IBIS being next EOS R camera to be released.
> We haven’t heard anything additional since early March about the next EOS R camera. We were told then that the camera would be 70+mp, have IBIS, two card slots (one being SD), and we’d see the return of the joystick.
> It makes a ton of sense for Canon to introduce IBIS on a high-resolution EOS R, as camera stability gains higher importance as you increase megapixels and 70mp+ is a lot of pixels.
> On a side note, I’ve experienced a learning curve for getting sharp images from the Leica Q2 and it’s likely down to the doubling of resolution over the original Q. You may have...



Continue reading...


----------



## noms78 (Apr 17, 2019)

If true I hope it will have the option to shoot lossless raw @ 36-40mp and at this lower resolution the image quality must be at least as good as the 5d4 / EOS R. I doubt the ISO performance @ 75MP will be better than those two cameras.


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 17, 2019)

The 5Ds R really didn't have much of a learning curve from my point of view. I always thought the high mp harder to get sharp discussion was blown out of proportion by those who were justifying not making the move to the high mp body. Not saying I am a master at technique, but mine was adequate. The only real learning curve I remember was figuring out how to handle all those huge RAW files.


----------



## tmc784 (Apr 17, 2019)

How much for the body only ?


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 17, 2019)

noms78 said:


> If true I hope it will have the option to shoot lossless raw @ 36-40mp and at this lower resolution the image quality must be at least as good as the 5d4 / EOS R. I doubt the ISO performance @ 75MP will be better than those two cameras.


probably not and why would this matter? if you want a smaller MP camera, this one is not for you.
and yeah it's probably close enough to compare against the R at 30MP downsized, if you're intelligent about it.
but this is for people that want big files, not people that are trying to make the camera something it's not really.


----------



## riker (Apr 17, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> probably not and why would this matter? if you want a smaller MP camera, this one is not for you.
> and yeah it's probably close enough to compare against the R at 30MP downsized, if you're intelligent about it.
> but this is for people that want big files, not people that are trying to make the camera something it's not really.


I strongly disagree. There are many of us who work in a wide variety of scenarios. Sometimes we need high resolution, sometimes high framerate, sometimes none of them. We do not want multiple cameras for multiple purposes when it can be easily covered by one body. Or there could simply be a photographer who is shooting events and report where 8-10 FPS is nice but of course wants high resolution for private use when travelling and shooting landscape.
I fail to see how anyone would not welcome a lower resolution and higher framerate option on a high resolution camera.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 17, 2019)

takesome1 said:


> The 5Ds R really didn't have much of a learning curve from my point of view. I always thought the high mp harder to get sharp discussion was blown out of proportion by those who were justifying not making the move to the high mp body. Not saying I am a master at technique, but mine was adequate. The only real learning curve I remember was figuring out how to handle all those huge RAW files.



I was surprised by that as well since it has the same pixel density as an APS-C Canon camera. But I have to admit I rarely had good results with the shutterspeed = 1/focal length rule, or (f_1.6) for crop. I've always needed (f_2) or faster on non-IS lenses.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 17, 2019)

riker said:


> I strongly disagree. There are many of us who work in a wide variety of scenarios. Sometimes we need high resolution, sometimes high framerate, sometimes none of them. We do not want multiple cameras for multiple purposes when it can be easily covered by one body. Or there could simply be a photographer who is shooting events and report where 8-10 FPS is nice but of course wants high resolution for private use when travelling and shooting landscape.
> I fail to see how anyone would not welcome a lower resolution and higher framerate option on a high resolution camera.



Exactly. High resolution has three potential drawbacks: (1) worse DR and high ISO, (2) lower writing speed that affects continuous shooting and (3) much bigger raw files. Otherwise a high-res camera is better than low-res in all regards.

The latter two drawbacks may be fixed by simple in-camera downsampling to lower-res raws; the first one is probably harder to deal with. 75mp will probably be awesome for landscapes but only in case they remove AA filter and the DR is at least on par with 5DIV. If there's something like low-res 18mp mode with better high ISO and DR, it'd be an absolute must-buy thing for me.
But given Canon's history, I won't be surprised if the DR of the prospective camera is actually worse and there's no low-res high-DR mode.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 17, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> I was surprised by that as well since it has the same pixel density as an APS-C Canon camera. But I have to admit I rarely had good results with the shutterspeed = 1/focal length rule, or (f_1.6) for crop. I've always needed (f_2) or faster on non-IS lenses.


Micro-jittering in the hands may be not noticeable but it's there. The reciprocal rule never worked for me either. Without an IS and a tripod, I shoot while trying to relax and while exhaling...


----------



## scyrene (Apr 17, 2019)

noms78 said:


> If true I hope it will have the option to shoot lossless raw @ 36-40mp and at this lower resolution the image quality must be at least as good as the 5d4 / EOS R. I doubt the ISO performance @ 75MP will be better than those two cameras.



Genuine question: can it be called lossless if you're downsampling? You're losing some data by combining pixels, surely?


----------



## scyrene (Apr 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Exactly. High resolution has three potential drawbacks: (1) worse DR and high ISO, (2) lower writing speed that affects continuous shooting and (3) much bigger raw files. Otherwise a high-res camera is better than low-res in all regards.
> 
> The latter two drawbacks may be fixed by simple in-camera downsampling to lower-res raws; the first one is probably harder to deal with. 75mp will probably be awesome for landscapes but only in case they remove AA filter and the DR is at least on par with 5DIV. If there's something like low-res 18mp mode with better high ISO and DR, it'd be an absolute must-buy thing for me.
> But given Canon's history, I won't be surprised if the DR of the prospective camera is actually worse and there's no low-res high-DR mode.



(1) is essentially a myth for stills, as has been demonstrated numerous times on these forums (where's dtaylor when you need them?).


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 17, 2019)

tmc784 said:


> How much for the body only ?


Get prepared for North of 3.5k, maybe even more than 4k.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 17, 2019)

noms78 said:


> … I hope it will have the option to shoot lossless raw @ 36-40mp and at this lower resolution the image quality must be at least as good as the 5d4 / EOS R
> ...


IMO in that case the IQ should be better than from the mentioned bodies.
Would be nice if this would also have a positive effect on higher FPS then, but I doubt that. 

I'd prefer high FPS and high ISO over high MP count.

But as I mentioned before in other threads I can fully understand that the first "pro" EOS R will address the high MP market.
Studio and landscape shooters are probably easier convinced to EVF over OVF that is still preferred by sports and wildlife shooters.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 17, 2019)

scyrene said:


> (1) is essentially a myth for stills, as has been demonstrated numerous times on these forums (where's dtaylor when you need them?).


Smaller pixels impact DR as they have lower signal to noise ratio. It doesn't mean any higher-res sensor will be worse than lower-res sensor, but high-res makes it harder to keep DR on the same level. 70-75mp sounds like a lot, Canon's never been good at high-res high-DR sensors. That is their only 50mp sensor is so-so in terms of DR.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 17, 2019)

scyrene said:


> Genuine question: can it be called lossless if you're downsampling? You're losing some data by combining pixels, surely?


You lose resolution of that matters, but you decrease noise. So high ISO will look better, although it doesn't have to be done in camera, you can get the same result in post processing.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Apr 17, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> probably not and why would this matter? if you want a smaller MP camera, this one is not for you.
> and yeah it's probably close enough to compare against the R at 30MP downsized, if you're intelligent about it.
> but this is for people that want big files, not people that are trying to make the camera something it's not really.



Why doesn't it make sense to have a lower MP option? Not every shooting situation requires 70 MP, especially true considering we don't have it yet.

Pro sports cameras aren't even up to 30 MP yet. If I had a 70 MP @ 5 fps and a 35 MP @ 8 - 10 fps option, both raw or raw + jpg with no caveats relating to focus and exposure/etc., that would be really handy.


----------



## amorse (Apr 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Smaller pixels impact DR as they have lower signal to noise ratio. It doesn't mean any higher-res sensor will be worse than lower-res sensor, but high-res makes it harder to keep DR on the same level. 70-75mp sounds like a lot, Canon's never been good at high-res high-DR sensors. That is their only 50mp sensor is so-so in terms of DR.


I had always thought the 5DS had pretty good DR according to the available measurements. Even before Canon was using their newer sensors - it appears to have better DR than the 5D III, the 6D I and II, and comparable to the newer 80D. In the Canon lineup, I wouldn't suggest it's pulling the average DR down because of its higher resolution, maybe more so for its age.



Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 17, 2019)

amorse said:


> I had always thought the 5DS had pretty good DR according to the available measurements. Even before Canon was using their newer sensors - it appears to have better DR than the 5D III, the 6D I and II, and comparable to the newer 80D. In the Canon lineup, I wouldn't suggest it's pulling the average DR down because of its higher resolution, maybe more so for its age.
> 
> 
> 
> Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting



It definitely didn't look bad among 5DIII and 6D. But follow your own link and add Nikon D810 that was released a year before 5DS..


----------



## scyrene (Apr 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Smaller pixels impact DR as they have lower signal to noise ratio. It doesn't mean any higher-res sensor will be worse than lower-res sensor, but high-res makes it harder to keep DR on the same level. 70-75mp sounds like a lot, Canon's never been good at high-res high-DR sensors. That is their only 50mp sensor is so-so in terms of DR.



The 5DS(r) uses an older-style sensor (than, say, the 5D4), I understand, so it's a difficult comparison to make - in any case this is not unambiguous evidence that the resolution is the cause of any differences.

Incidentally, while the pixels are smaller, and _pixel-level_ noise may be higher, I understand that image noise will be the same (as another FF sensor of the same generation), and since noise reduction can be carried out more finely, the finished image may actually be cleaner from a higher-resolution sensor (people seem to confuse pixel- and image- level noise in these discussions, ditto motion blur etc).



Quarkcharmed said:


> You lose resolution of that matters, but you decrease noise. So high ISO will look better, although it doesn't have to be done in camera, you can get the same result in post processing.



Quite. My question was merely a matter of terminology. As for in-camera versus PP downsampling, I imagine those asking for the former expect a faster fps, but since it must take extra processing power to do it, I'm not sure if that would be the case (though it would save storage space on the memory card).


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 17, 2019)

scyrene said:


> (1) is essentially a myth for stills, as has been demonstrated numerous times on these forums (where's dtaylor when you need them?).



Hey now...I have to sleep sometime!


----------



## amorse (Apr 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It definitely didn't look bad among 5DIII and 6D. But follow your own link and add Nikon D810 that was released a year before 5DS..


That's true, but my point was the 5DS dynamic range didn't appear to be hindered by it's high resolution, it was hindered by Canon's sensor design and that despite being Canon's highest resolution option available, it still outperformed the bulk of other Canon sensors released in a similar time frame. You could compare literally any Canon dslr or milc to the D810 and find the same result, the DR limitations don't appear to be truly linked to resolution but rather sensor design.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 17, 2019)

scyrene said:


> The 5DS(r) uses an older-style sensor (than, say, the 5D4), I understand, so it's a difficult comparison to make - in any case this is not unambiguous evidence that the resolution is the cause of any differences.



Yeah I agree 5DS was a bad example as we need another lower-res sensor of the same generation to compare how pixel size affects the DR, but I'm not sure if there's any from Canon. They started pushing their dual pixel tech.



scyrene said:


> Incidentally, while the pixels are smaller, and _pixel-level_ noise may be higher, I understand that image noise will be the same (as another FF sensor of the same generation), and since noise reduction can be carried out more finely, the finished image may actually be cleaner from a higher-resolution sensor (people seem to confuse pixel- and image- level noise in these discussions, ditto motion blur etc).



Yes it may even be better after downsampling.




scyrene said:


> Quite. My question was merely a matter of terminology. As for in-camera versus PP downsampling, I imagine those asking for the former expect a faster fps, but since it must take extra processing power to do it, I'm not sure if that would be the case (though it would save storage space on the memory card).



I think writing to the card takes more time that in-camera processing, that's why in-camera downsampling may help increase the burst rate. Roughly speaking, say you have internal in-memory RAW data of the size of S and it takes T time to write. Now we want to downsample and shrink it to the size of S/2, it will now only take T/2 time to write. But in-camera downsampling will take much less than T/2 time to process, so in total writing of downsampled data will be between T/2 and T. I guess it'll be closer to T/2.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It definitely didn't look bad among 5DIII and 6D. But follow your own link and add Nikon D810 that was released a year before 5DS..



+3ev on the 5Ds is virtually identical to +4ev on the D810. +4ev on the 5Ds falls between +5ev and +6ev on the D810. With a little NR you can reliably do a 4 stop push on the 5Ds for a large print. +5 gets really noisy/gritty so I wouldn't count on it except perhaps for small prints.

I've repeatedly posted a 7D landscape shot where I did a 2.5ev push to open shadow detail that was just above pure black (zone IX). Excluding scenes that would have required 2-3 exposures on any camera, I found it was extremely rare to not be able to capture a scene's dynamic range on the 7D sensor using ETTR techniques and a little NR in post.

5Ds DR is not "bad" by any real world definition of DR, and there's very little practical difference in terms of DR between shooting a 5Ds and a D8x0. There's even less difference between a 5D4 and D8x0. If I were to sum the differences up, on the 5Ds you should be careful to ETTR wide DR scenes, and you might need to apply some additional NR in post.

DR is discussed _ad nauseam_ on forums. That made some sense when it was 5D3 (banding issue) vs. D800. It really doesn't make sense today.

If I were to guess, Canon's 70mp sensor will likely use the same architecture as the 5D4 for similar DR. And there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth that its' graph on DxO or PtoP doesn't match Nikon's or Sony's best even though the real world practical impact is nil.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yeah I agree 5DS was a bad example as we need another lower-res sensor of the same generation to compare how pixel size affects the DR, but I'm not sure if there's any from Canon. They started pushing their dual pixel tech.



For both off-chip ADC sensors (Canon prior to 5D4) and on-chip ADC sensors (Nikon/Sony) the highest DR sensors are also the highest resolution ones. One can point out that Canon's 5Ds sensor isn't exactly the same generation as a 6D II, but with Nikon/Sony we see variable resolutions within the same generation.

For the record, larger pixels *should* result in higher DR not because of read noise but because of well capacity. It's odd that this is not the case right now.

As to downsampling in camera: I think everyone would welcome a mode whereby you could shoot 35mp at a higher fps (say 5/8 or 5/10). But I can't think of an example of Canon doing this before. I certainly wouldn't mind them trying it now.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 17, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> I'm not an expert on this but downsampling 4:1 would mean you get four doses of "read noise" and while that often offsets, statistically speaking 4 of them on average are going to be twice as bad as 1. So while 4 small pixels could theoretically capture the exact same photons as 1 big one, and the downsampling (let us say) perfectly averages those out to the right photon count, you'll still have more noise.



Smaller pixels have worse signal-to-noise ratio but they're actually less noisy in terms of ADC processing. Bigger pixels have bigger SNR but the noise part of that ratio is bigger. I may be totally wrong on that but I recall a paper with explanation why multiple small pixels + downsampling may be better than one big pixel.

Anyway when I downsample in Lightroom, if I shrink each side by 2, it'll remove a lot of noise from the high-ISO shots. At a cost of resolution, of course.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 17, 2019)

twoheadedboy said:


> I think writing to the card takes more time that in-camera processing, that's why in-camera downsampling may help increase the burst rate. Roughly speaking, say you have internal in-memory RAW data of the size of S and it takes T time to write. Now we want to downsample and shrink it to the size of S/2, it will now only take T/2 time to write. But in-camera downsampling will take much less than T/2 time to process, so in total writing of downsampled data will be between T/2 and T. I guess it'll be closer to T/2.



MRAW options have never given us a speed increase in the past, why all of a sudden would it do so now?


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 17, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> I was surprised by that as well since it has the same pixel density as an APS-C Canon camera. But I have to admit I rarely had good results with the shutterspeed = 1/focal length rule, or (f_1.6) for crop. I've always needed (f_2) or faster on non-IS lenses.



That makes sense, if the old 1/FL was from the days of film or low-density FF sensors. A rule that worked for an 18mpx crop sensor won't necessarily work for 24mpx...


----------



## stevelee (Apr 17, 2019)

Downsampling is an art and a science. An online acquaintance years ago adopted an iterative method after his tests. He made dye transfer prints of his photos, and needed to preserve as much quality as possible in showcasing them on his web site.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 17, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Downsampling is an art and a science. An online acquaintance years ago adopted an iterative method after his tests. He made dye transfer prints of his photos, and needed to preserve as much quality as possible in showcasing them on his web site.


The key to that is ‘years ago’ software has moved on in leaps and bounds and the iterative process of upsampling and downsampling has been proven to be unnecessary and ineffective. Of course there are different programs with different algorithms that preform differently, especially with specific subject detail levels, but the iterative process has been set aside for years now.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 17, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> MRAW options have never given us a speed increase in the past, why all of a sudden would it do so now?



It was discussed above in the context of very large 75mp files, perhaps around 70-80mb each. The burst speed is also limited by physical factors such as mirror, shutter etc. But most importantly the camera doesn't write to the card right away, it writes to the buffer and raw size affects how many frames fit into the buffer. Then the buffer gets flushed to the card and the size of the contents affects the waiting time.


----------



## Act444 (Apr 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Exactly. High resolution has three potential drawbacks: (1) worse DR and high ISO, (2) lower writing speed that affects continuous shooting and (3) much bigger raw files. Otherwise a high-res camera is better than low-res in all regards.



I would add a 4th and that is needing a higher shutter speed to freeze action/get a sharp image, which requires more light, a faster lens or higher ISO. Coupled with #1 above, I’d consider that to be a big negative. 

An honorable mention might be that it is much more demanding of your lenses and this is noticeable particularly if you view at 100%, print large or crop heavily. (I know not everyone here does those things though)


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It was discussed above in the context of very large 75mp files, perhaps around 70-80mb each. The burst speed is also limited by physical factors such as mirror, shutter etc. But most importantly the camera doesn't write to the card right away, it writes to the buffer and raw size affects how many frames fit into the buffer. Then the buffer gets flushed to the card and the size of the contents affects the waiting time.



I realize that. but you didn't answer the question at all.

MRAW has never provided those options in the past, ie: on the 5Ds / 5DsR,etc so why would they magically occur now?

it's still the reading of the sensor, and the initial processing of 75mp that is the problem.

there's zero in the way of evidence that canon can or will do a higher speed MRAW version of a 70+ MP sensor size.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 17, 2019)

Act444 said:


> I would add a 4th and that is needing a higher shutter speed to freeze action/get a sharp image, which requires more light, a faster lens or higher ISO. Coupled with #1 above, I’d consider that to be a big negative.
> 
> An honorable mention might be that it is much more demanding of your lenses and this is noticeable particularly if you view at 100%, print large or crop heavily. (I know not everyone here does those things though)



so many myths.


image dr will be approximately the same regardless of pixel density.
shutter speeds will be approximately the same at comparable image sizes
your lenses will perform better again, with comparable image sizes.

the point is that 70MP allows you to oversample your image. 30MP does not.

it does not necessarily mean that a) you can print massively bigger b) crop massively more. While you may be able to, you are in diminishing returns.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 17, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> +3ev on the 5Ds is virtually identical to +4ev on the D810. +4ev on the 5Ds falls between +5ev and +6ev on the D810. With a little NR you can reliably do a 4 stop push on the 5Ds for a large print. +5 gets really noisy/gritty so I wouldn't count on it except perhaps for small prints.



In your sample, +3ev on the 5Ds is actually slightly worse than +4ev on the D810. And +4 vs +6 look the same, just different patterns of noise. 2stop difference is huge.



dtaylor said:


> I've repeatedly posted a 7D landscape shot where I did a 2.5ev push to open shadow detail that was just above pure black (zone IX). Excluding scenes that would have required 2-3 exposures on any camera, I found it was extremely rare to not be able to capture a scene's dynamic range on the 7D sensor using ETTR techniques and a little NR in post.



Again the sample from 7D doesn't prove anything about 5Ds vs D810 comparison. And for that matter, again I'd like to point out it wasn't a push from almost complete black, all the details can be seen in the shadows on the 'before' image, if it's almost black to you, check your monitor calibration.



dtaylor said:


> 5Ds DR is not "bad" by any real world definition of DR, and there's very little practical difference in terms of DR between shooting a 5Ds and a D8x0. There's even less difference between a 5D4 and D8x0. If I were to sum the differences up, on the 5Ds you should be careful to ETTR wide DR scenes, and you might need to apply some additional NR in post.
> 
> DR is discussed _ad nauseam_ on forums. That made some sense when it was 5D3 (banding issue) vs. D800. It really doesn't make sense today.
> 
> If I were to guess, Canon's 70mp sensor will likely use the same architecture as the 5D4 for similar DR. And there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth that its' graph on DxO or PtoP doesn't match Nikon's or Sony's best even though the real world practical impact is nil.



I actually played with 5Ds sample raw files some time ago as I considered buying it, the resolution is fantastic as well as overall image quality, but only within its limits. Overall quality isn't comparable to 5DIV. That is for how I use it, I liked 5DIV more.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 17, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> I realize that. but you didn't answer the question at all.
> 
> MRAW has never provided those options in the past, ie: on the 5Ds / 5DsR,etc so why would they magically occur now?
> 
> ...



I'm not so interested in the burst speed actually. 5fps is enough for me. Even less. I was guessing about downsampled mode with higher DR and/or better noise at high ISO. Burst speed was just a wishful thinking. And I elaborated that internal downsampling may be faster than writing to the card so maybe Canon will use it. Maybe not.

Overall I believe Canon can deliver a 75mp camera, but I doubt it'll fully satisfy the picky audience of this forum, including DR, burst speed etc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Overall I believe Canon can deliver a 75mp camera anything and/or everything, but I doubt it'll fully satisfy the picky audience of this forum...


Fixed that for ya.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 17, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fixed that for ya.


I hope you don't charge for the repair I didn't ask for!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I hope you don't charge for the repair I didn't ask for!


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> In your sample, +3ev on the 5Ds is actually slightly worse than +4ev on the D810.



If you scroll around the image you can find spots where the 5Ds appears better, but you also quickly realize that at any spot it's splitting hairs with differences that could be due to very slight differences in other factors, even just the default color profiles.



> And +4 vs +6 look the same, just different patterns of noise.



The D810 noise is worse in the screenshot I posted, and that's made undeniably clear from scrolling around the image. Though again, the 5Ds @ +4 is not as good as the D810 @ +5, which is why I said between 5/6ev.



> 2stop difference is huge.



*Show us.* Show us a real world image you've shot where you pushed shadows +4.5ev, +2ev over my 7D shot, and the difference was huge. You've got a 5D4 which should be able to handle that so if DR is so important, so often, and so huge you should have landscape shots that illustrate it. 

I'm tired of words from people on this topic. The lack of images *very strongly suggest* to me that the people who bring up DR on forums are *not* the people shooting wide DR scenes and producing wide DR prints. And that they therefore have no real idea of the relative impact, what it actually means to shoot two cameras 1ev apart, or 2ev apart, or 3ev part.



> Again the sample from 7D doesn't prove anything about 5Ds vs D810 comparison.



Again, you've posted *nothing.*


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 17, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> What's this?



Expose to the Right. It means having your histogram shifted as far to the right as possible without unrecoverable highlights, even if that means parts of the image appear overexposed prior to post processing.

ETTR allows for maximum shadow recovery (DR) and, because of the way ADCs work, maximum tonality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> If I were making an AE system for a mirrorless, the sensor can see the image... so you can actually see how bright the brightest stuff is, and how dark the darkest stuff is. If you're getting 0's and max values, then by default try to equalize the number of pixels falling off each end.


The problem is that on current cameras (DSLRs in live view and MILCs), the live image, the histogram and the highlight warnings (‘blinkies’) are based on the jpg conversion algorithm. From the WYSIWYG standpoint, that makes sense – the live image in the VF/LCD should reflect your picture style, HTP, etc. But for judging exposure, it’s not that helpful because what appears blocked or blown on the jpg may be completely recoverable from the RAW file. It’s not a perfect solution, but Google ‘Canon uniWB’ for an interesting workaround.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 17, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> If I were making an AE system for a mirrorless, the sensor can see the image...



AE systems could absolutely be more sophisticated than they are. But as Neuro pointed out, the live data is generally (always?) based off a JPEG version. To do some of the clever things you mention would require judging exposure by the RAW.




> A little off-subject but what about a special burst mode that stops shooting when it thinks the shot is good from the standpoint of camera motion, and only writes that to card? So even if a slow shutter only has a 10% hit rate, you don't need to take 10 photos then go back to lightroom and see if any of them are actually good. The camera just tells you that you got a good one, whether its the first or the 30th...



There's probably a smartphone that already does this. ILC's are behind smartphones when it comes to clever tricks like this.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 17, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> "A little off-subject but what about a special burst mode that stops shooting when it thinks the shot is good from the standpoint of camera motion, and only writes that to card? So even if a slow shutter only has a 10% hit rate, you don't need to take 10 photos then go back to lightroom and see if any of them are actually good. The camera just tells you that you got a good one, whether its the first or the 30th..."
> 
> There's probably a smartphone that already does this. ILC's are behind smartphones when it comes to clever tricks like this.



In burst mode, iPhones will automatically flag images with the best sharpness, although the others aren't automatically discarded (I'm sure other brands of phone do something similar).


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 18, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


>



Nice clean shadows in the image, seems to be high DR, did you shoot it on Nikon or Sony?


----------



## syder (Apr 18, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> If you scroll around the image you can find spots where the 5Ds appears better, but you also quickly realize that at any spot it's splitting hairs with differences that could be due to very slight differences in other factors, even just the default color profiles.
> 
> The D810 noise is worse in the screenshot I posted, and that's made undeniably clear from scrolling around the image. Though again, the 5Ds @ +4 is not as good as the D810 @ +5, which is why I said between 5/6ev.
> 
> ...



Worse, the response you got suggests that the DRones cant even tell when noise is better or worse!? That's probably a good point to stop responding and move on, your point has been made.

Thanks for your thoughtful and illuminating posts with actual data and images to support your claims. Its unfortunate that isnt how most of the internet works.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 18, 2019)

syder said:


> Thanks for your thoughtful and illuminating posts with actual data and images to support your claims. Its unfortunate that isnt how most of the internet works.



Thank you for the compliment.

I think it's time for me to stop replying to the same points in the same circle, and to borrow my friend's D800E for a day for some comparison landscapes and perhaps an interior real estate shot. Images would illustrate very clearly just how huge or not huge the DR differences are in practical use. No one would have to trust my words, I could post everything to flickr and everyone could make up their own minds. (Note: I've done this casually before, but I would want to put more effort into the scenes and into getting the best out of each RAW with documented steps before making it public.)

My replies would be so easy at that point: "See this link."


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 18, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> If you scroll around the image you can find spots where the 5Ds appears better, but you also quickly realize that at any spot it's splitting hairs with differences that could be due to very slight differences in other factors, even just the default color profiles.



Ok, I went to https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/10 and added D810 to compare 5Dsr and D810 across the whole sample image. 5DSr lags more than 1 stop but less than 2 stops. 5DSr at +2ev is slightly better than D810 at +4ev but much worse than D810 at +3ev. Same for 5DSr at +4ev - it's slightly better than D810 at +6ev but much worse than D810 at +4ev. It's consistent with these measurements 
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 5DS R,Nikon D810 that give them 1.8 stop difference at base ISO.

And so you're saying the practical difference is nil? 1.8 stops is nothing?



dtaylor said:


> *Show us.* Show us a real world image you've shot where you pushed shadows +4.5ev, +2ev over my 7D shot, and the difference was huge. You've got a 5D4 which should be able to handle that so if DR is so important, so often, and so huge you should have landscape shots that illustrate it.



But it's pointless unless I shoot both 5DSr and D810 side by side. Or 5DIV and 7D side by side. I don't know how a landscape shot from the 5DIV alone can illustrate anything about the 7D.
I'm happy enough with dpreview and photonstophotos where they did measurements in the same conditions.



dtaylor said:


> Again, you've posted *nothing.*



It doesn't make the sample from your 7D more relevant. It's still irrelevant and proves nothing in the context of this conversation.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 18, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> 5DSr at +2ev is...much worse than D810 at +3ev.












> 5DSr at +4ev...much worse than D810 at +4ev.



Tempted to download the 5Dsr file and show this same clip but with a little NR.






> I don't know how a landscape shot from the 5DIV alone can illustrate anything about the 7D.



DR is so very important, and even 1ev of additional DR is so huge, that you can't shoot a scene to show the difference.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 18, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> For the record, larger pixels *should* result in higher DR not because of read noise but because of well capacity. It's odd that this is not the case right now.



Here is a half-baked thought: maybe they aren’t actually saturating the sensor at native response (e.g., “base ISO”) before they hit the quantization limit (2^14 in most cases).


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 18, 2019)

And?.. In your sample 5DSr has more grain in the shadows next to the feathers in +2ev vs +3ev comparison.
+3 vs +4 and +4 vs +5 are even more indicative:




The difference is quite striking and shows how quickly 5DSr images degrade when lifting the exposure - that means the noise was there from the beginning and gets amplified. D810 is much cleaner overall.



dtaylor said:


> DR is so very important, and even 1ev of additional DR is so huge, that you can't shoot a scene to show the difference.



To show the difference between what and what? I don't have 7D or 5DSr or A7rIII to compare them to my 5DIV. And for the purpose of this forum conversation, I wouldn't bother to go and borrow them from somewhere. A single image from 5DIV will not prove anything. At the same time the samples from dpreview are good enough.


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 18, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> And?.. In your sample 5DSr has more grain in the shadows next to the feathers in +2ev vs +3ev comparison.
> +3 vs +4 and +4 vs +5 are even more indicative:
> 
> View attachment 183933
> ...



A typical example of a flawed comparison. Normalize the two samples to the exact same framing and size and make the comaprison. Pictures are not displayed in the same fashion as this comparison.


----------



## bwud (Apr 18, 2019)

It is worth mentioning that, in most cases, DR increases are due to slightly lower noise, not increases in well capacity. Therefore the gains are in extremely low levels. This is why people often push shadows in order to demonstrate it. Unfortunately, it’s a game of diminishing returns.

I posted this example a few years ago. It shows an extreme compression from a camera said to have wide DR (A7Rii); its highlights are pulled down and its shadows are pushed up, and then some. The result? Shadows look flat. They might not look _noisy_, but they have little detail by definition; those portions simply didn’t receive much exposure. To get good details there, multiple exposures would be required.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 18, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Here is a half-baked thought: maybe they aren’t actually saturating the sensor at native response (e.g., “base ISO”) before they hit the quantization limit (2^14 in most cases).



I've read that the ADC's aren't linear in which case that's probably not it. But I couldn't say for certain.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 18, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> And?.. In your sample 5DSr has more grain in the shadows next to the feathers in +2ev vs +3ev comparison.



It literally does not.



> +3 vs +4 and +4 vs +5 are even more indicative:



Not when you're magnifying one more than the other.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 18, 2019)

takesome1 said:


> A typical example of a flawed comparison. Normalize the two samples to the exact same framing and size and make the comaprison. Pictures are not displayed in the same fashion as this comparison.


You can do it, the results are the same. 5Ds gets slightly better but still lags behind D810.



dtaylor said:


> Not when you're magnifying one more than the other.



As above, there's no magnification, there's 'comp' button which will downsample 5DSr image to match D810. The results are still not in favour of 5DSr.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 18, 2019)

bwud said:


> Unfortunately, it’s a game of diminishing returns.
> 
> I posted this example a few years ago. It shows an extreme compression from a camera said to have wide DR (A7Rii); its highlights are pulled down and its shadows are pushed up, and then some. The result? Shadows look flat.



And that right there, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference between real world experience and graphs. I've also had shots where I blended two exposures even though one could handle the push in terms of noise because the tonality and fine detail was better with the blend.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 18, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> As above, there's no magnification,



Of course there is. When you pixel peep (100%; 1:1) higher resolution images are effectively magnified more.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 18, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Of course there is. When you pixel peep (100%; 1:1) higher resolution images are effectively magnified more.


 But it's not a magnification. It's exactly what you said, a 1:1 view where 1 pixel from the image corresponds to 1 pixel on the screen. "Comp" option shows the 5DSr's image downsampled and D810's image as 1:1.


----------



## Mbell75 (Apr 18, 2019)

So the EOS R was Canon's answer to the a7iii and we won't be seeing a REAL pro body? Just a budget turd and a 75 MP camera thats sure to cost over $4k that no one is asking for or wants? The 5Ds sold next to nothing. What makes Canon think a mirrorless version of it will sell any better? Where is the 30-35MP pro, mirrorless version of the 5DIV and the 20-25MP pro, mirrorless version of the 1DxII? Canon is a joke.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 18, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But it's not a magnification. It's exactly what you said, a 1:1 view where 1 pixel from the image corresponds to 1 pixel on the screen. "Comp" option shows the 5DSr's image downsampled and D810's image as 1:1.



A typical FHD monitor resolution is 96 ppi. (4k is typically >200 ppi.)

8688 / 96 = 90.5"
7360 / 96 = 76"

Both cameras have a FF 35mm sensor, so...magnification.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 18, 2019)

Mbell75 said:


> The 5Ds sold next to nothing.



_Citation needed._



Mbell75 said:


> Canon is a joke.



Feel free to go to a Sony forum.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2019)

Mbell75 said:


> Canon is a joke.


Takes one to know one.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 18, 2019)

Mbell75 said:


> So the EOS R was Canon's answer to the a7iii and we won't be seeing a REAL pro body?


If you had wanted "a REAL pro body", you should have bought the 1DX II.

Looks like you just wanted to whine.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 18, 2019)

Mbell75 said:


> So the EOS R was Canon's answer to the a7iii and we won't be seeing a REAL pro body? Just a budget turd and a 75 MP camera thats sure to cost over $4k that no one is asking for or wants? The 5Ds sold next to nothing. What makes Canon think a mirrorless version of it will sell any better? Where is the 30-35MP pro, mirrorless version of the 5DIV and the 20-25MP pro, mirrorless version of the 1DxII? Canon is a joke.


There won’t be one “pro” body, there will be several high end bodies.

Expect a high megapixel body, a good wedding shooter body (like 5D4), and a sports body (like the 1DX2). Obviously, they are not all being released at the same time.

Note that the sales for the lower end bodies should be far higher numbers for the lower units plus some who buy lower units will then go on to buy higher units. Fot sales reasons, it makes sense to release the lower units first.

Remember too, these are rumours. It is rumoured that a high megapixel body is coming. That does not mean it is next, or even if it will arrive at all.

P.S. when you use words like turd and joke in a post you essentially remove yourself from a reasoned discussion and invite attacks.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 18, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But it's not a magnification. It's exactly what you said, a 1:1 view where 1 pixel from the image corresponds to 1 pixel on the screen.



That’s magnification for sure, unless your screen is 36mmx24mm


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 18, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> I've read that the ADC's aren't linear in which case that's probably not it. But I couldn't say for certain.



I’m not sure they’d need to be linear. It would be enough if they are not matched to a sensor.

That would allow multiple cameras to use similar circuit design and bills of material, simplify the tuning process.
Let’s say the cameras can use their full well capacity. If so, at the base ISO setting, shouldn’t the 5Div (larger wells) take longer to overexpose than the 5Ds (smaller wells), all else being equal?

It doesn’t; they apply the speed ratings such that full exposure is roughly the same between models, meaning the same photon count converts to charge for a given focus plane exposure and same sensor size.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Fair enough, but you can equally well make a historgram and highlight/lowlight warnings based on the RAW, couldn't you?
> 
> Just because the CPU doesn't show the user that data on a graph doesn't mean the CPU doesn't have access to it, does it?


Who is ‘you’? I can’t. Canon could, if they choose to do so. I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one...RAW files have been around for a long time, histograms are still based on JPGs.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 18, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> ...........
> 
> P.S. when you use words like turd and joke in a post you essentially remove yourself from a reasoned discussion and invite attacks.


Mbell75 has 14 postings, every single one a rant against Canon.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 18, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> What makes you think it's not already done this way? How do you think it's done, if not this way?



They’re based on JPEG. It is known. Some cameras (I think Leica has one) which offers an approximate RAW histogram.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 18, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Mbell75 has 14 postings, every single one a rant against Canon.


Yet another reason to be civil and objective, isn't it?


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 18, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Takes one to know one.



 It must be an off day for Neuro. We have come to expect better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> What makes you think it's not already done this way? How do you think it's done, if not this way?


As stated above, the review image/histogram/highlight warning are all based on the processed data (8-bit converted, most in-camera settings applied), not the RAW image/stream.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Why do you think those have any importance to the camera's internal methodology? I think those are just features on the periphery built for you the photographer, not for the camera's internal processing. What I suggest might be less than 20 lines of code. You wouldn't say OMG, we're doing this whole JPG conversion and making a histogram for the user, so we have to use that histogram, even though it totally doesn't aid us in figuring out how to expose to maximize detail captured, and even though the tiny bit of extra code that would do the job exactly could be written while waiting for the bus.


What are you arguing here? Of course Canon could provide a RAW histogram, as I mentioned several posts back. They could have implemented that feature at any time, as I also mentioned several posts back. But they haven’t...as I mentioned several posts back. Those are the facts. If your point is, Canon should give us a RAW histogram option, I’d certainly use one if they do. But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for one, and I would not recommend that you do so, either (as...wait for it...I mentioned several posts back).


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 19, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Why do you think those have any importance to the camera's internal methodology? I think those are just features on the periphery built for you the photographer, not for the camera's internal processing. What I suggest might be less than 20 lines of code. You wouldn't say OMG, we're doing this whole JPG conversion and making a histogram for the user, so we have to use that histogram, even though it totally doesn't aid us in figuring out how to expose to maximize detail captured, and even though the tiny bit of extra code that would do the job exactly could be written while waiting for the bus.


Then write the code. You should be able to knock out those 20 lines in a few minutes. Let us know how it works when you are done. Harry could probably help you. Honestly, a tool like that would be more helpful in the film era. Personally, perfect shadow detail ain't real high on my wish list. Knock yourself out. I didn't realize we had so many coders with so much knowledge around here.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 19, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Then write the code. You should be able to knock out those 20 lines in a few minutes. Let us know how it works when you are done. Harry could probably help you. Honestly, a tool like that would be more helpful in the film era. Personally, perfect shadow detail ain't real high on my wish list. Knock yourself out. I didn't realize we had so many coders with so much knowledge around here.


BTW, a digic processor does not run an interpreter, it requires code that has been compiled into machine language. Your "20 lines of code" becomes quite large at the machine level, plus you are going to need a huge amount of memory to hold the 70+ Megawords of array to hold that image, and since it requires real-time operation you can not interfere with resources and CPU cycles required for other processes.

It also takes a lot more computing power to analyze a 70+ megapixel RAW file for histograms and zebras than it does to analyze a 1 megapixel JPG file, so not only does he have to write the code and determine if it reacts badly to other code, but he will have to somehow find more CPU cycles.... a lot more!

There is always a reason why things are done the way that they are.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 19, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> BTW, a digic processor does run an interpreter, it requires code that has been compiled into machine language. Your "20 lines of code" becomes quite large at the machine level, plus you are going to need a huge amount of memory to hold the 70+ Megawords of array to hold that image, and since it requires real-time operation you can not interfere with resources and CPU cycles required for other processes.
> 
> It also takes a lot more computing power to analyze a 70+ megapixel RAW file for histograms and zebras than it does to analyze a 1 megapixel JPG file, so not only does he have to write the code and determine if it reacts badly to other code, but he will have to somehow find more CPU cycles.... a lot more!
> 
> There is always a reason why things are done the way that they are.



I’m not sure there is a huge amount of value in a raw histogram. I don’t think i would change my shooting style much. Using the raw would only affect extreme exposures. It wouldn’t make much difference in the mid tones, so ETTR (or L I suppose) is the likely application.

Since people who shoot raw by definition develop after the fact, a programmatically lighter and less data intensive method might be an automated ETTR function. Flag the hottest pixel in each channel after quantization, and automagically back exposure off a fraction. No need to read the whole file and map the distribution.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 19, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I think writing to the card takes more time that in-camera processing, that's why in-camera downsampling may help increase the burst rate. Roughly speaking, say you have internal in-memory RAW data of the size of S and it takes T time to write. Now we want to downsample and shrink it to the size of S/2, it will now only take T/2 time to write. But in-camera downsampling will take much less than T/2 time to process, so in total writing of downsampled data will be between T/2 and T. I guess it'll be closer to T/2.



If that were the case, then frame rates for higher MP cameras could closer to the rate of lower MP cameras until the buffer is full. That does not happen.

In fact, the opposite is more true. A 7D Mark II can go at 10 fps for almost 30 raw frames, but once it bogs down then it is not much faster than a bogged down 5Ds.

The 5Ds, on the other hand, goes only half as fast as the 7D Mark II prior to filling the buffer, then goes at about the same much slower rate.




SwissFrank said:


> I'm not an expert on this but downsampling 4:1 would mean you get four doses of "read noise" and while that often offsets, statistically speaking 4 of them on average are going to be twice as bad as 1. So while 4 small pixels could theoretically capture the exact same photons as 1 big one, and the downsampling (let us say) perfectly averages those out to the right photon count, you'll still have more noise.



You are correct about read noise. But Poisson distribution ("shot") noise is just the opposite, since it is totally random. Averaging 4 pixels into one will _always_ decrease the amount of shot noise. There would also be no difference in terms of off-sensor dark current noise.

At low ISOs, read noise is more of a concern. At high ISOs, though, shot noise is what dominates.




dtaylor said:


> For both off-chip ADC sensors (Canon prior to 5D4) and on-chip ADC sensors (Nikon/Sony) the highest DR sensors are also the highest resolution ones. One can point out that Canon's 5Ds sensor isn't exactly the same generation as a 6D II, but with Nikon/Sony we see variable resolutions within the same generation.
> 
> For the record, larger pixels *should* result in higher DR not because of read noise but because of well capacity. It's odd that this is not the case right now.



Well capacity affects the highlight end of things. When most people speak of DR, what they really mean is pushing underexposed shadows. They couldn't care less about the highlights because they never get close to FWC if they are limiting exposure based on the jpeg preview "blinkies" that are 1-2 stops or more below FWC. If you don't push to the right to exploit the higher full well capacity of larger pixels when shooting, it makes no real difference when you start pushing the shadows in post instead of when you set your Tv and Av (unless the manufacturer has radically altered the "ISO rating" for the same amount of amplification).




QuisUtDeus said:


> That makes sense, if the old 1/FL was from the days of film or low-density FF sensors. A rule that worked for an 18mpx crop sensor won't necessarily work for 24mpx...




The 1/FL rule was for viewing an approximately 8.5X enlargement ratio from 36x24mm cropped to 30x24mm (for the aspect ratio) to 8x10" display size. Pixel peeping a 50MP sensor at 100% on a 24" HD monitor is like looking at a piece of a 120x80" enlargement! Enlarge a 35mm negative to 120x80 and you'll see a lot of blur you couldn't at 8x10".




rrcphoto said:


> MRAW has never provided those options in the past, ie: on the 5Ds / 5DsR,etc so why would they magically occur now?
> 
> it's still the reading of the sensor, and the initial processing of 75mp that is the problem.
> 
> there's zero in the way of evidence that canon can or will do a higher speed MRAW version of a 70+ MP sensor size.



BINGO!

Every single speed issue Canon has right now can be explained by slow sensor readout times. All of them.

Still frame rates for high rez sensors.
Full frame 4K video.
AI Servo tracking between each frame for mirrorless.

It's all about sensor readout speed at Canon right now. Accept it or move on.




3kramd5 said:


> Here is a half-baked thought: maybe they aren’t actually saturating the sensor at native response (e.g., “base ISO”) before they hit the quantization limit (2^14 in most cases).



Or maybe those who are obsessed with DR think the sensor is already saturated when the JPEG preview blinkies start flashing?




Quarkcharmed said:


> But it's not a magnification. It's exactly what you said, a 1:1 view where 1 pixel from the image corresponds to 1 pixel on the screen. "Comp" option shows the 5DSr's image downsampled and D810's image as 1:1.



So you don't have to magnify a 17.14µm² pixel more than a 23.81µm² pixel to see both at the same size? What kind of sorcery is that?



Mbell75 said:


> So the EOS R was Canon's answer to the a7iii and we won't be seeing a REAL pro body? Just a budget turd and a 75 MP camera thats sure to cost over $4k that no one is asking for or wants? The 5Ds sold next to nothing. What makes Canon think a mirrorless version of it will sell any better? Where is the 30-35MP pro, mirrorless version of the 5DIV and the 20-25MP pro, mirrorless version of the 1DxII? Canon is a joke.



Yep. Just like we didn't see the 1D X Mark II and 5D Mark IV a few months after the 5Ds/5Ds R.




3kramd5 said:


> I’m not sure they’d need to be linear. It would be enough if they are not matched to a sensor.
> 
> That would allow multiple cameras to use similar circuit design and bills of material, simplify the tuning process.
> Let’s say the cameras can use their full well capacity. If so, at the base ISO setting, shouldn’t the 5Div (larger wells) take longer to overexpose than the 5Ds (smaller wells), all else being equal?
> ...



No, because those larger wells are also collecting photons at a higher rate for the same light density _per unit area_. If you've got cylindrical rain buckets and one has twice the diameter of four others, all will still fill at the same rate in terms of inches per hour. That's because the large bucket has four times as much rain falling into it, the same as it has four times the surface area and four times the volume per inch of height. But it will take the rain in all four of the smaller buckets to equal the _volume_ of the water in the larger one.

The advantage of larger wells is that the randomness of photons (poisson distribution) is averaged out better the larger your sample size is.

In the rain bucket analogy, since water drops are not perfectly distributed evenly as they fall (just as photons are not), each of the four small buckets will have slightly different amounts of water in them. That difference is what we call "shot noise". But when we dump the water from the four small buckets into another large bucket, most of those differences will be averaged out. We will very likely have less deviation between the large bucket that collected rain and a large bucket the was filled from four small buckets that collected rain than the variation we will see between each of the four smaller buckets.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 19, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> What makes you think it's not already done this way? How do you think it's done, if not this way?



Because if you do it for the highlights, you'd also need to do it for the shadows, which means you'd have to process the entire image _extremely_ flat and it would look like crap on the rear LCD. Then the other 98% of potential buyers besides the 2% DRone crowd would look at that crappy flat image on the LCD when they shoot three or four shots under the really crappy lighting at the trade show or on the sales floor at the camera store and say, "There's no way I'm buying a camera that takes pictures that look that crappy!"


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 19, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Why do you think those have any importance to the camera's internal methodology? I think those are just features on the periphery built for you the photographer, not for the camera's internal processing. What I suggest might be less than 20 lines of code. You wouldn't say OMG, we're doing this whole JPG conversion and making a histogram for the user, so we have to use that histogram, even though it totally doesn't aid us in figuring out how to expose to maximize detail captured, and even though the tiny bit of extra code that would do the job exactly could be written while waiting for the bus.



"the camera's internal methodology?"

What internal methodology would that be?

Metering?

How is the camera going to examine the raw histogram of an exposed shot when it is calculating Tv and/or Av and/or ISO _before_ the shot is taken?

Analog amplification?

Are you suggesting the camera should somehow miraculously adjust the analog amplification of the sensor based on the data it reads _after_ the analog information has been amplified and converted by the ADC?

ISO "override?"

So if I dial in my Tv, Av, and ISO in full manual exposure mode you want the camera to alter the analog amplification of the sensor so that the highlights are always just shy of saturation on every shot? Again, how will the camera adjust analog amplification of data it can't process until after it has already been amplified?


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 19, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> I’m not sure there is a huge amount of value in a raw histogram. I don’t think i would change my shooting style much. Using the raw would only affect extreme exposures. It wouldn’t make much difference in the mid tones, so ETTR (or L I suppose) is the likely application.
> 
> Since people who shoot raw by definition develop after the fact, a programmatically lighter and less data intensive method might be an automated ETTR function. Flag the hottest pixel in each channel after quantization, and automagically back exposure off a fraction. No need to read the whole file and map the distribution.



How can you "back off exposure in each channel _after_ quantization" when the analog amplification, which is the _only_ way to increase the SNR in the shadows, _must occur_ _before_ _quantization_? Once you do ADC, the SNR is locked in. Any adjustments to signal are also made to noise.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 19, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> How can you "back off exposure in each channel _after_ quantization" when the analog amplification, which is the _only_ way to increase the SNR in the shadows, _must occur_ _before_ _quantization_? Once you do ADC, the SNR is locked in. Any adjustments to signal are also made to noise.


I expect we were discussing the histogram you see before you take a photo.

My (also half baked) thought was: the camera could evaluate a raw data feed to establish max exposure, and back off by adjusting exposure time when you press the shutter release. In AE modes, the shutter release triggers metering. Same thing here. Whatever you’ve set, back off enough to not clip the brightest channel. If nothing has clipped, no change.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 19, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> I expect we were discussing the histogram you are before you take a photo.
> 
> My (also half baked) thought was: the camera could evaluate a raw data feed to establish max exposure, and back off by adjusting exposure time when you press the shutter release.



Again, that would take TONS more processing of each frame displayed on the rear LCD screen/EVF at 15-30 fps.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 19, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Again, that would take TONS more processing of each frame displayed on the rear LCD screen/EVF at 15-30 fps.


Nothing would need to be displayed.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 19, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Fair enough, but you can equally well make a historgram and highlight/lowlight warnings based on the RAW, couldn't you?
> 
> Just because the CPU doesn't show the user that data on a graph doesn't mean the CPU doesn't have access to it, does it?



Correct, that's why Magic Lantern has a RAW histogram option: https://wiki.magiclantern.fm/camera_help#histogram

I've also read post from people saying a very flat picture style will also get you closer to actual RAW. But as pointed out earlier in this thread, it screws up the picture in EVF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Correct, that's why Magic Lantern has a RAW histogram option: https://wiki.magiclantern.fm/camera_help#histogram
> 
> I've also read post from people saying a very flat picture style will also get you closer to actual RAW. But as pointed out earlier in this thread, it screws up the picture in EVF.


As I stated, Canon _could_ implement such a feature, but I doubt they ever will. The number of users who would want that is likely insignificant.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 19, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> If I were making an AE system for a mirrorless, the sensor can see the image... so you can actually see how bright the brightest stuff is, and how dark the darkest stuff is. If you're getting 0's and max values, then by default try to equalize the number of pixels falling off each end.


I don't think that such an equalization corresponds to any meaningful property of the resulting photograph, _even if_ all that you shoot is calibration charts.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 19, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Fair enough, but if scene DR < sensor DR capability, why not automatically ETTR to the extent allowed by keeping the shutter speed hand-holdable (if indeed the camera senses it's hand-held, and it uses reciprocal rule, corrected for IS, and potentially also adjusted by a user preference setting to go longer or shorter than recip would advise)?


If scene DR < sensor DR capability, why not automatically ETTL to freeze the action?

The good thing is that once you get a camera that supports CCAPI, you will be able to write those 20 lines of code (although it will cost you the battery life).


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 19, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Still, it's a bit assinine to flippantly suggest I program the camera when not even Magic Lantern has yet gotten code running on an R. Are you saying the inability to actually implement a solution means there's no point in idly musing how exposure should work? If you don't give a crap what your shadow noise is like, fair enough, but then what are you even doing in the conversation?



No, it is asinine for you to flippantly suggest that it would only take 20 lines of code that could be knocked out while waiting for a bus, when in fact, you actually have zero idea as to what it would take. Zero. While I do "give a crap" about shadow noise, I also know how to bracket and expose properly. If shadow noise is a problem with a photo I took, then I did something wrong.



SwissFrank said:


> Is shadow detail so low on your list that even when you can optimize it you prefer not to?


Absolutely not, but I'm not the one sitting around claiming 20 lines of code written at a bus stop is going to be the solution either.  Do us all a favor, write the 20 lines of code and tell us all how to install it. Otherwise, quit claiming knowledge and expertise insight that you don't really have. People aren't fooled as easily as you'd like them to be. You have absolutely no idea what it would take to do what you are pining for. You just want to act like you do.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As I stated, Canon _could_ implement such a feature, but I doubt they ever will. The number of users who would want that is likely insignificant.
> ...



Then you weren't reading. I even repeated it for you. 



neuroanatomist said:


> Who is ‘you’? I can’t. *Canon could, if they choose to do so.* I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one...RAW files have been around for a long time, histograms are still based on JPGs.





neuroanatomist said:


> What are you arguing here? *Of course Canon could provide a RAW histogram, as I mentioned several posts back.* *They could have implemented that feature at any time, as I also mentioned several posts back.* But they haven’t...as I mentioned several posts back. Those are the facts. If your point is, Canon should give us a RAW histogram option, I’d certainly use one if they do. But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for one, and I would not recommend that you do so, either (as...wait for it...I mentioned several posts back).



How is that not correct? Or did you just fixate on the 'the number of users who would want that is likely insignificant' bit? That's also correct. The vast majority of ILC users never shoot RAW images.




SwissFrank said:


> I know you know a lot about photography and I don't want to get bad blood over an argument over what's technically feasible. So pls don't take this personally, but just as a statement of fact. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but you seem to be convinced that the camera can only have one histogram in it and that is the one it shows the user if the user asks to see it and also the one used to render the live preview. Actually, though, software could totally show you a RAW histogram while showing you a JPG rendering in the EVF. It could do the reverse as well. Or it could show you a JPG histo, a JPG-range EVF image, and also be using a RAW histo to control exposure. Calculating two histograms from one image shouldn't take notably more time than calculating one. And once calculated there's no reason at all the camera would then have to show it to the user, or use it to simulate exposure in the EVF. A histogram of a 20-stop scene (assuming a sensor with that DR comes along) in 1/10 stop buckets would be less than 1k of memory.


One last time, and I do mean that. CANON COULD IMPLEMENT A RAW HISTOGRAM. Is that clear enough for you? Please, go back and read the capitalized words one more time. Or the blue text above. Heck, read them all. Then do it again. Then once more, for good measure. This is the second time you've argued that Canon can implement a RAW histogram _after _I already stated they could, if they wanted to. If they did, of course they would not eliminate the 'standard' (jpg-based) histogram, that's a rather silly strawman you've created there. Honestly, the fact is you seem sadly confused on this whole issue, you keep perseverating on arguing that something is possible when we both agree that it's possible. The fact of the matter is that Canon has not chosen to do so, nor have they chosen to implement hundreds of other features for which a handful of people on this forum have expressed a desire. Feel free to re-state your repetitive argument that Canon can add a RAW histogram in a pointless attempt to convince me of something that I've stated repeatedly is true...I'm out.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 20, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> No, it is asinine for you to flippantly suggest that it would only take 20 lines of code that could be knocked out while waiting for a bus, when in fact, you actually have zero idea as to what it would take. Zero. While I do "give a crap" about shadow noise, I also know how to bracket and expose properly. If shadow noise is a problem with a photo I took, then I did something wrong.
> 
> 
> Absolutely not, but I'm not the one sitting around claiming 20 lines of code written at a bus stop is going to be the solution either.  Do us all a favor, write the 20 lines of code and tell us all how to install it. Otherwise, quit claiming knowledge and expertise insight that you don't really have. People aren't fooled as easily as you'd like them to be. You have absolutely no idea what it would take to do what you are pining for. You just want to act like you do.


I doubt that one could declare the variables in 20 lines of code......


----------



## Joules (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I doubt that one could declare the variables in 20 lines of code......


As far as I remember, magic lantern uses mostly C or C++ for its code. Guessing Canon would do the same. You can write a LOT of statements in 20 literal lines of code with a language where statements are separated by semicolons


----------



## AlanF (Apr 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Then you weren't reading. I even repeated it for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I feel like using that animated gif on occasion.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 20, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Good question. I have two answers:
> 
> 1) maybe because ETTR is preferable, to minimize shadow noise? In fact I'm not even saying shadow noise IS the priority, I meant the proposal as more of a question, and appreciate your answer that maybe it isn't.
> 
> ...


One of the reasons why I am waiting for the effing G7X III is that with it I expect to be able to write code that will run on my phone, connect to my camera, put it into manual mode and control its aperture, shutter speed and ISO as I would want them to be controlled in my personally designed scene modes - and maybe even automatically choose scene modes based on deep neural network classification of the live view content, but that will surely require a lot of phone battery power. Maybe my phone will also be able to predict the exact moment to take the shot.

That would definitely bring posting cats on the internet to a totally new level.

Granted, I could already try doing it on EOS RP, but I'm not going to buy a $1.3k camera just for that. When its price drops below $1k or Canon makes a 70+ MP cat shooter controlled with CCAPI, I may consider buying them.

(I cannot yet say that I am totally serious, but this is definitely not just a joke)


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 20, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> I coded it up; see my reply to Don Haines. And you know what? I coded it up literally waiting for a bus, because I don't want to take my Ferrari out in the rain. It was more like 9 lines, including some constants that surely are already defined elsewhere.
> 
> I'm curious what makes you think I have zero idea about this stuff? I've been writing machine language on 8-bit CPUs (a tougher task than most embedded systems today) since the 70s for instance, and programmed Linux system-on-a-chip systems. I've written software for a digital synthesizer, a very similar type of embedded system to a digital camera. I've used Photoshop since 5.0, and wrote software to do such things as HDR and focus stacking before there were even words for these things. I've been a professional software engineer since 1991 and a pretty elite one if paycheck is anything to go by. But maybe it's not. Maybe you can make good money as a programmer having zero idea how to program, zero.


And yet, you still have not installed it to prove your work. So until then, the code is worthless and unproven. Harry may be able to give you a lift if his helicopter is out of the shop. That should save you a few nickels in bus fare until it stops raining and you can get the Ferrari out again.  What makes me think you know nothing about programming a Canon camera? I'll gladly acquiesce when you've got your code running and do a working demo.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Just point out the error if you see one. ...but it turns out you're not, and are simply calling bullshit on things you don't understand.
> 
> But what the heck is your actual point?


His point is that even if your code is perfect, unless it’s installed and running on your camera, including full and debugged integration with the camera’s firmware, it’s useless. Not worth the time you wasted writing it. 

Hey, maybe you could get your code incorporated into Magic Lantern? Then ML could have a RAW histogram. Oh, wait...ML _already has_ a RAW histogram, as was pointed out earlier in this thread. 

So other than repeatedly arguing points previously stipulated, writing code that cannot be tested or used, and asking for a feature from people who have zero power to implement it instead of asking those who do, what have you accomplished here?


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 21, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> I coded it up literally waiting for a bus, because I don't want to take my Ferrari out in the rain.



I would have been impressed if you had a back up vehicle for rainy days.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 21, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Nothing would need to be displayed.




Don't the vast majority of mirrorless cameras (maybe even all of them?) not do a full scan/processing of the sensor to display preview images and information, such as histograms, on the EVF? Don't they use line binning or other such shortcuts to reduce the processor load required to provide the EVF with those things? Wouldn't that mean in order to process the output from the entire sensor to do such precise metering it would require additional processing compared to what they are now doing?


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 21, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Correct, that's why Magic Lantern has a RAW histogram option: https://wiki.magiclantern.fm/camera_help#histogram
> 
> I've also read post from people saying a very flat picture style will also get you closer to actual RAW. But as pointed out earlier in this thread, it screws up the picture in EVF.



Even Magic Lantern's RAW histogram feature doesn't actually use the full data of the RAW capture, but the RAW data from the much lower resolution video feed.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 21, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Don't the vast majority of mirrorless cameras (maybe even all of them?) not do a full scan/processing of the sensor to display preview images and information, such as histograms, on the EVF? Don't they use line binning or other such shortcuts to reduce the processor load required to provide the EVF with those things? Wouldn't that mean in order to process the output from the entire sensor to do such precise metering it would require additional processing compared to what they are now doing?


Perhaps, but doing it once ought not be significantly taxing. Maybe sensor read speeds would need improvement first, though.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 21, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Perhaps, but doing it once ought not be significantly taxing. Maybe sensor read speeds would need improvement first, though.


If you are going to display the image on the LCD screen, then you need to process the RAW files, and in order to get the colour information you have to read each pixel. Obviously, Canon has already written the software to do so


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 21, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> If you are going to display the image on the LCD screen, then you need to process the RAW files, and in order to get the colour information you have to read each pixel. Obviously, Canon has already written the software to do so


Michael was suggesting, I believe, that some subset of the full resolution is rendered for the live view display. It’s plausible but I have no idea if it’s true.


----------



## Joules (Apr 21, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Michael was suggesting, I believe, that some subset of the full resolution is rendered for the live view display. It’s plausible but I have no idea if it’s true.


It is true. For people who want to know stuff about the internal workings of Canon's non-dual pixel cameras, the magic lantern forum contains a ton of information.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 1, 2019)

CR for the humour ... even when I don't understand much, there is always a laugh.

Jack


----------



## Mbell75 (May 1, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> There won’t be one “pro” body, there will be several high end bodies.
> 
> Expect a high megapixel body, a good wedding shooter body (like 5D4), and a sports body (like the 1DX2). Obviously, they are not all being released at the same time.
> 
> ...



The 6Dii was a turd and the 5Ds was such a niche camera aimed at such a small number of shooters that hardly anyone bought it. Those are the first two mirrorless versions you want to make? Really? Not a mirrorless 5DIV or 1DxII which are much better cameras and much better sellers? Pure stupidity on Canon's part. Besides, the EOS R is the mirrorless 5DIV Im sure. Canon is inept, they lack the ability to keep up with Sony in processors and sensors. They don't have a prayer at making anything to keep up with the a9. They should just stick to making lenses, thats always been their strength anyways.


----------



## Mbell75 (May 1, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> You can't even punctuate and you're going to tell the company that utterly dominates the IL camera market how to do its job? If "pure stupidity" is the secret to market dominance, I imagine you will go far!



They dominated the DSLR space by catering to people who like dirt cheap cameras. Hardly anything to brag about.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2019)

Mbell75 said:


> The 6Dii was a turd and the 5Ds was such a niche camera aimed at such a small number of shooters that hardly anyone bought it. Those are the first two mirrorless versions you want to make? Really? Not a mirrorless 5DIV or 1DxII which are much better cameras and much better sellers? Pure stupidity on Canon's part. Besides, the EOS R is the mirrorless 5DIV Im sure. Canon is inept, they lack the ability to keep up with Sony in processors and sensors. They don't have a prayer at making anything to keep up with the a9. They should just stick to making lenses, thats always been their strength anyways.


Please go back to your cave. You are boring the grownups in the room.


----------



## uri.raz (May 1, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The problem is that on current cameras (DSLRs in live view and MILCs), the live image, the histogram and the highlight warnings (‘blinkies’) are based on the jpg conversion algorithm.



Just wondering - why are those based on jpg, even if the camera is set to record raw?


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 1, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Just wondering - why are those based on jpg, even if the camera is set to record raw?



Must be frustrating for those in the know. I, with limited background having read through the thread at 2 AM would say it's all there. In other words a re-read may be in order if that question still remains.

A dumb question from me. If I shoot fully manual relative to exposure and end up with my birdie pics having some highlight blinkies and then use DPP to adjust to what I believe is overall a correct exposure, what have I lost in terms of quality. Does a bit of +- shadow or highlight adjustment really degrade my shots that much? I have no photographic training other than shooting and reading articles and that's where I presently am at - perhaps ignorance is bliss.

Jack


----------



## takesome1 (May 1, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Must be frustrating for those in the know. I, with limited background having read through the thread at 2 AM would say it's all there. In other words a re-read may be in order if that question still remains.



If everyone read the forums and did google searches for the subject they are debating the forums would likely die.
Ignorance is one of the basic building blocks for internet forums
well...
that and 3rd grade English teachers looking to hone their skills by being the grammar police.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Must be frustrating for those in the know. I, with limited background having read through the thread at 2 AM would say it's all there. In other words a re-read may be in order if that question still remains.


I don't think the question was answered (well, maybe it was answered, but only with, "Because Canon said so," which I didn't find an acceptable answer from my parents and I don't think so here, either. 



uri.raz said:


> Just wondering - why are those based on jpg, even if the camera is set to record raw?


Unfortunately, I think the answer really is, because Canon said so. We could speculate until the cows come home as to their motivation, but we can't know. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because the LCD review display has to show an 8-bit image, and it's logical for the histogram and highlight warnings to be consistent with that image. Maybe this was said above (I didn't go back and look) but even if you're shooting RAW the camera does a jpg conversion for the review display and to save as a thumbnail in the .CR2/.CR3 container (that's why, for example, some RAW converters show a low-res image that is quickly refined into a high res image – that low res image is the .jpg preview in the file container that is displayed while the RAW data are loaded). 




Jack Douglas said:


> A dumb question from me. If I shoot fully manual relative to exposure and end up with my birdie pics having some highlight blinkies and then use DPP to adjust to what I believe is overall a correct exposure, what have I lost in terms of quality. Does a bit of +- shadow or highlight adjustment really degrade my shots that much? I have no photographic training other than shooting and reading articles and that's where I presently am at - perhaps ignorance is bliss.


The consequence is an increase in shadow noise. If the ISO isn't too high to begin with and the exposure lift is not that much, you may not even notice it.


----------



## Don Haines (May 2, 2019)

Mbell75 said:


> The 6Dii was a turd and the 5Ds was such a niche camera aimed at such a small number of shooters that hardly anyone bought it. Those are the first two mirrorless versions you want to make? Really? Not a mirrorless 5DIV or 1DxII which are much better cameras and much better sellers? Pure stupidity on Canon's part. Besides, the EOS R is the mirrorless 5DIV Im sure. Canon is inept, they lack the ability to keep up with Sony in processors and sensors. They don't have a prayer at making anything to keep up with the a9. They should just stick to making lenses, thats always been their strength anyways.


The 6D2 was a well received camera by the buying public. That made it a success. The Mirrorless version of it is also a great financial success. The RP is also a great financial success. You have to understand that it is the lower end cameras that generate most of the revenue, and quite frankly, as a shooter of higher end gear, I prefer that Canon gets the bugs out before they release a camera that I want.


----------



## Don Haines (May 2, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Michael was suggesting, I believe, that some subset of the full resolution is rendered for the live view display. It’s plausible but I have no idea if it’s true.


I would strongly suspect that you are right, but then again, since canon has the ability to output small JPGs, once again the software is already written


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 2, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I would strongly suspect that you are right, but then again, since canon has the ability to output small JPGs, once again the software is already written


And also the display is much lower resolution than the sensor, so it must scale. It probably scales as soon as necessary so as to not create a bottleneck.


----------



## uri.raz (May 2, 2019)

takesome1 said:


> well...
> that and 3rd grade English teachers looking to hone their skills by being the grammar police.



Yes, it's easy to pick on people who speak English as a 2nd language, especially as they're participating in an informal conversation, not trying to pass the TOEFL exam.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 2, 2019)

The vast majority of folks including those on CR are decent and like myself are not the least bit interested in putting anyone down who does their best to converse in English but are ESL. What generally provokes negativity is not comments which have grammar issues, rather the idiotic comments such as have been referenced here regarding one individual who really has nothing to contribute. 

Jack


----------



## Del Paso (May 2, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> I still see walls of white lenses at sports events and the White House. That's probably not a feather in Canon's cap either I'm sure.
> 
> Why are you on this forum anyway? You clearly don't think well of Canon so I can't imagine you're using the system. You're apparently a new member but I hear from a couple members that they've already blocked you. They won't be the last at the rate you're going.


We all know that pro- photographers mount their big whites on dirt-cheap EOS 1 cameras. 
It seems to be a favorite sport for some forum "members" to distort reality, in order to ridicule whatever isn't sold by their beloved company (no need to name it...)


----------



## Del Paso (May 2, 2019)

Mbell75 said:


> They dominated the DSLR space by catering to people who like dirt cheap cameras. Hardly anything to brag about.


Stupid comment!


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 2, 2019)

A pretty good thread until individuals of a certain ilk persist in the usual. Time to un-watch and not gives these individuals any audience.

Jack


----------

