# Canon U.S.A. Announces New 120 MP Ultra-High Resolution and 2.7 MP Ultra-High Sensitivity CMOS Sensors



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 21, 2019)

> MELVILLE, NY, June 20, 2019 – As image sensors are a driving force in innovating industries, Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, is pleased to announce two new CMOS (complementary metal-oxide semiconductors) sensor products, the ultra-high resolution 120MXSI and ultra-high sensitivity 35MMFHDXSMA. These sensors help expand the company’s lineup of industrial vision products, and offer integrators and end users additional capabilities when developing solutions in a variety of applications1.
> 
> “As a result of Canon’s success in developing and manufacturing advanced CMOS sensors for our own purposes, we expanded to create a business platform offering select sensor capabilities for use in industrial vision applications,” said Kazuto Ogawa, president and chief operating officer, Canon U.S.A., Inc. “These two new CMOS sensors reflect Canon’s dedication to this new business, and reinforce our commitment to developing high-quality imaging solutions.”
> 120MXSI
> The...



Continue reading...


----------



## bitcars (Jun 21, 2019)

Maybe there will be a color and high pixel version 35MMFHDXSMA for the rumored astronomy R body.


----------



## AA (Jun 21, 2019)

OK. Does the 100MP sensor have Dynamic Range? Any of it? 

I'm no troll, but since I added an A7R III, I now know what we've been missing out on for years. While Canon lenses area amazing, Canon sensors SUCK. They really do. The difference between a Canon and a Sony sensor is literally day and night (as far as shadow detail is concerned).

Here is hoping Canon will catch up, and I don't need to switch to Sony completely.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 21, 2019)

bitcars said:


> Maybe there will be a color and high pixel version 35MMFHDXSMA for the rumored astronomy R body.


The astro rumor originated on this site with members. Nothing from Canon about it, nor from any credible sources as far as I am aware of. Canon mentioned a "head scratcher" that nobody expects, but did not say it would be an astro camera. That idea just came from brainstorming by members here, wondering what the "head scratcher" could possibly be.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 21, 2019)

AA said:


> OK. Does the 100MP sensor have Dynamic Range? Any of it?
> 
> I'm no troll, but since I added an A7R III, I now know what we've been missing out on for years. While Canon lenses area amazing, Canon sensors SUCK. They really do. The difference between a Canon and a Sony sensor is literally day and night (as far as shadow detail is concerned).
> 
> Here is hoping Canon will catch up, and I don't need to switch to Sony completely.


Every single digital camera ever made has a dynamic range. Canon sensors do not suck. My goodness.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 21, 2019)

"...including astrological observation..."


----------



## amorse (Jun 21, 2019)

Kit. said:


> "...including astrological observation..."


Ya know, it's funny - I was just thinking that my camera should give me horoscope. Maybe that is indeed the head scratcher we've all been wondering about!


----------



## amorse (Jun 21, 2019)

AA said:


> OK. Does the 100MP sensor have Dynamic Range? Any of it?
> 
> I'm no troll, but since I added an A7R III, I now know what we've been missing out on for years. While Canon lenses area amazing, Canon sensors SUCK. They really do. The difference between a Canon and a Sony sensor is literally day and night (as far as shadow detail is concerned).
> 
> Here is hoping Canon will catch up, and I don't need to switch to Sony completely.


I don't know, that sounds a lot like trolling.

Technically, wouldn't a camera with literally no dynamic range not be a camera at all? As in it could generate only one on/off response? Could it even do that? Trying to figure out what a camera with no DR would actually be is beyond me.


----------



## mk0x55 (Jun 21, 2019)

AA said:


> OK. Does the 100MP sensor have Dynamic Range? Any of it?



These sensors are very likely not for photography applications - either pro, prosumer or consumer. Those are industrial sensors; and I have no doubt that they have plenty enough dynamic range for what they are meant.

Yes, Canon has had sensors with less than stellar dynamic range, but please don't be one of those lazy whiners. Instead, find ways to overcome the limitations - exposure stacking, mean stacking, natural-looking HDR... Yes, it gives you extra work, but it will make you a more capable image producer, which is not a bad thing, no matter what your next camera is going to be.
There are scenes in which not even the best of Hasselblad or PhaseOne will have enough dynamic range. There is no good substitute for skill.


----------



## mk0x55 (Jun 21, 2019)

AA said:


> The difference between a Canon and a Sony sensor is literally day and night (as far as shadow detail is concerned).



A couple of stops more in deep shadows (much less advantage in well exposed areas - and especially if you shoot ETTR - exposed to the right [of the histogram, before clipping useful detail]), but I wouldn't call it day and night. Especially if you compare the 5D4 with the newest of 35mm Sony to date.

Have you ever seen what it does to the resolution of tonal transitions and the resolution of textures if you lift heavy shadows? I suggest you to try this and then you might actually change your mind about how big the DR issue actually is.

If you want really crisp images with great texture and tonal detail across the tonal range, little noise and great colors for pixel peeping (because for ordinarily-sized prints it very rarely matters), you need to apply extra work in postprocessing, often even if you use the newest of Sony sensors including medium format ones. Also, don't forget to color-profile your camera & lenses (extra tip)... using something like the ColorChecker Passport from X-Rite. That will make way more difference to the quality of images than a little improved dynamic range of your sensor.
Let me repeat: THERE IS NO GOOD SUBSTITUTE FOR SKILL.

Lastly, talking about Sony vs. Canon... what do you think is more waterproof, dustproof and shockproof? What do you think is more ergonomical and fun to shoot? (Forget about the weight, because the lens you mount on your camera will effectively eliminate any significant benefits from using Sony's lighter bodies).


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 21, 2019)

Sadly, I think these useful and thoughtful responses are simply a waste of good energy when directed towards some individuals but kudos for making the effort. This is my conclusion after having read tons of DR posts on CR over the last few years.

Jack


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 22, 2019)

AA said:


> OK. Does the 100MP sensor have Dynamic Range? Any of it?
> 
> I'm no troll, but since I added an A7R III, I now know what we've been missing out on for years. While Canon lenses area amazing, Canon sensors SUCK. They really do. The difference between a Canon and a Sony sensor is literally day and night (as far as shadow detail is concerned).
> 
> Here is hoping Canon will catch up, and I don't need to switch to Sony completely.


Yes you are a troll. Canon 5D IV sensor dynamic range is excellent. As far as shadow details is concerned. In fact, even superior in DPRAW mode.


----------



## jvillain (Jun 22, 2019)

Canon can make new sensors for every thing except cameras. I wonder what weapons systems these will show up in.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 22, 2019)

jvillain said:


> Canon can make new sensors for every thing except cameras. I wonder what weapons systems these will show up in.


Consider that Canon has to remain a viable company if they are to keep producing products that in some cases are not all that profitable, i.e. some of the equipment I enjoy possible wouldn't be available if it were not for Canons involvement in other areas such as copiers and industrial equipment. In other words I take exception to this comment.


----------



## DrToast (Jun 22, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> A couple of stops more in deep shadows (much less advantage in well exposed areas - and especially if you shoot ETTR - exposed to the right [of the histogram, before clipping useful detail]), but I wouldn't call it day and night. Especially if you compare the 5D4 with the newest of 35mm Sony to date.



Exactly. If you're going to compare Canon to Sony sensors, you need to know which sensor you're comparing. The Sony A9 vs. Canon 1Dx II? I'll take the Canon all day long. If you're talking about the Sony A73 vs. Canon 5d4, I'd say the Sony is better, but the Canon is respectible. Now if you're comparing the Sony A73, to the Canon 6D2, then I'd say the Sony is significantly better. 

In general Sony makes better sensors, but Canon has closed the gap considerably with the 5D4 and 1Dx II.


----------



## 6degrees (Jun 22, 2019)

Is a new pro Canon RF body around the corner? To make Canon RF 85mm F1.2, 50mm F1.2, 28-70 F2 to shine?


----------



## francomade (Jun 22, 2019)

People are too obsessed with every micro detail of the camera sensors. As much as I respect awesome Sony sensors capability, here I am enjoying my canon EOS R. 

'When there is poor lighting, you find light and readjust." Cheers!


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 22, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> Let me repeat: THERE IS NO GOOD SUBSTITUTE FOR SKILL.



True. But it doesn't mean there's a good substitute for good DR. Exposure blending and HDR are not a good substitute for images taken in one shot. I always prefer to minimise the amount of shots needed to produce one image, and ideally it's just one shot.
And no, knowing and using HDR and blending DOESN'T make you a better photographer. If your car often breaks and you know how to fix it and work around its issues, it doesn't make you a better driver on the road.


----------



## keithcooper (Jun 22, 2019)

The 120MP design is APS-H, so and EOS R sensor based on it would be ~175MP (~16,350h x 11300v)

No far from the S1R ~187MP multishot mode I tried recently with Canon lenses, which held up just fine.

Of course if the 175MP EOS R had similar sensor IS multi-shot, we'd get ~700MP in a shot which comes to an image of roughly 32700h x 22600v

That's too big for jpeg files and would need to use a format like .PSB (300k pixel limit). I'm by no means sure it could be used with any of the current RAW formats - perhaps time to borrow FITS from the astronomers? 

I guess we'd still get the customary whinging about needing new cards/computers/disks... 
...That and the usual "I don't need it, so no-one needs it" comments ;-)

Not entirely sure what I'd use the images for - perhaps two shifted up/down and stitched to get square gigapixel images... ;-)


----------



## Timedog (Jun 22, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> If you want really crisp images with great texture and tonal detail across the tonal range, little noise and great colors for pixel peeping (because for ordinarily-sized prints it very rarely matters), you need to apply extra work in postprocessing,


What type of processing techniques are you talking about? Like stuff beyond what you can do on Lightroom? I want to get really good at postprocessing and will take all the advice I can get.


----------



## keithcooper (Jun 22, 2019)

Timedog said:


> What type of processing techniques are you talking about? Like stuff beyond what you can do on Lightroom? I want to get really good at postprocessing and will take all the advice I can get.


For myself a true understanding of sharpening (inc. when/where it's not needed) at all stages in my workflow, from RAW to printing has contributed greatly to my own photography (that's using PS - lightroom doesn't cut it for big prints IMHO) 

A couple of articles about the importance of print that I've put together that might be of relevance?









Printing your photos - 5 steps that will improve all of your photography


Printing your photos is a useful skill. 5 steps towards making great prints that will help you improve all of your photography




www.northlight-images.co.uk













10 reasons your photo prints don't look right - problems with printing photographs


Why do your photo prints not look right? From prints too dark, and prints not matching your screen, Keith Cooper looks at ten of the most common reasons that prints don't work




www.northlight-images.co.uk


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> True. But it doesn't mean there's a good substitute for good DR. Exposure blending and HDR are not a good substitute for images taken in one shot. I always prefer to minimise the amount of shots needed to produce one image, and ideally it's just one shot.
> And no, knowing and using HDR and blending DOESN'T make you a better photographer. If your car often breaks and you know how to fix it and work around its issues, it doesn't make you a better driver on the road.


Except that we aren't just drivers.


----------



## Pape (Jun 22, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> True. But it doesn't mean there's a good substitute for good DR. Exposure blending and HDR are not a good substitute for images taken in one shot. I always prefer to minimise the amount of shots needed to produce one image, and ideally it's just one shot.
> And no, knowing and using HDR and blending DOESN'T make you a better photographer. If your car often breaks and you know how to fix it and work around its issues, it doesn't make you a better driver on the road.


You dont need to be better driver to reach your goal . roads are full of sucky drivers who get everyday to their destination  i dont quite know what this is to do with photographing
Or do we talk again about those so called good drivers who take needles risks on road and underexpose their pics .


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 22, 2019)

AA said:


> I'm no troll, but since I added an A7R III, I now know what we've been missing out on for years. While Canon lenses area amazing, Canon sensors SUCK. They really do. The difference between a Canon and a Sony sensor is literally day and night (as far as shadow detail is concerned).



I would ask for examples proving this but we all know they would never be posted.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 22, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> True. But it doesn't mean there's a good substitute for good DR. Exposure blending and HDR are not a good substitute for images taken in one shot.



For still scenes they are a better. Properly exposed shadows have better fine detail and tonality than shadows pushed hard. And multiple exposures can capture a wider DR than any sensor can in a single shot.

Motion can be an issue, but for still scenes blending and HDR can produce superior images.


----------



## Diko (Jun 22, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> True. But it doesn't mean there's a good substitute for good DR. Exposure blending and HDR are not a good substitute for images taken in one shot. I always prefer to minimise the amount of shots needed to produce one image, and ideally it's just one shot.
> And no, knowing and using HDR and blending DOESN'T make you a better photographer. If your car often breaks and you know how to fix it and work around its issues, it doesn't make you a better driver on the road.


 What kind of f**** images do you take?!?!?

Recently I posted a photo of harsh sunny day light and deep shadows and I got all out that looked almost like an HDR from a single image....

I really don't understand what more do you expect?!?!? If I go to a club event dark with lasers (no flash)- I go with 50mm f1.4 and with some bearable ISO (means with noise that is OK for LR to remove) @*1/200*s I get all the fun.

Already we have awesome DR. What comes next is a bonus and if you can't manage to get all the light from 5D4 @moment, I suggest you might consider moving to another job/hobby.


----------



## Cochese (Jun 22, 2019)

Diko said:


> What kind of f**** images do you take?!?!?
> 
> Recently I posted a photo of harsh sunny day light and deep shadows and I got all out that looked almost like an HDR from a single image....
> 
> ...


Whoa there. Calm down. Take a breather. I've never had an issue with the DR of the 5DMIV, except the banding that happens when I photograph fire works (not present in any other canon camera I've used for the last 9 years), but if you think this is the end all and be all of DR, you're seriously kidding yourself. The current Sony sensors perform amazingly, and if you actually got to use one and compared the same shots side by side, you'd immediately notice the difference in favor of the Sony. 
That's not to say the Canon sensor is bad, just that the Sony is clearly leaps and bounds ahead. 
You'll pry my 5DMiv out of my cold dead hands, but better is better. And anything that would make life easier is definitely better. The Sony will pull shadows and highlights that will impress you just as much as going from a 5DII to a 5DIV at times.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 22, 2019)

The second I saw this article I knew it’d be a dynamic range debate!


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 22, 2019)

Cochese said:


> The current Sony sensors perform amazingly, and if you actually got to use one and compared the same shots side by side, you'd immediately notice the difference in favor of the Sony.



I've struggled to find the difference under test conditions. Perhaps you can post side-by-side real world examples for us?


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 22, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> The second I saw this article I knew it’d be a dynamic range debate!



Is there a Canon forum, post, or news article any where on the Internet that DOESN'T devolve into a DR debate?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 23, 2019)

Diko said:


> What kind of f**** images do you take?!?!?
> 
> Recently I posted a photo of harsh sunny day light and deep shadows and I got all out that looked almost like an HDR from a single image....
> 
> ...


 From your message I gather you're awesomely cool, but I'm not sure how what you said it's related to my message.
I discussed HDR and exposure blending, do you understand what it is? Do you understand the difference between scenes that require high DR and dark scenes such as club environment?

My point was, I'd better get one image from one shot rather than from multiple shots+exposure blending.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 23, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I discussed HDR and exposure blending, do you understand what it is? Do you understand the difference between scenes that require high DR and dark scenes such as club environment?



Club environment? You never brought that up. Wouldn't that be at ISO 3200, 6400, or higher? DR is pretty much the same for a given generation and sensor format in that case because of the prevalence of shot noise. DR differences appear in deep shadows at ISO 100 where read noise is dominant.

Speaking of your older post...



> And no, knowing and using HDR and blending DOESN'T make you a better photographer. If your car often breaks and you know how to fix it and work around its issues, it doesn't make you a better driver on the road.



That's quite the false analogy. HDR and blending are examples of photographic technique, not "fixes" for a "broken" camera. They can make you a better photographer if they improve the technical quality of your work. They're not applicable in all cases, but they're fairly useful in landscapes, especially landscapes which exceed the DR of any sensor.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 23, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Motion can be an issue, but for still scenes blending and HDR can produce superior images.



Even for still scenes, the less blending the better. Of course HDR produces better images in cases where the sensor doesn't cope, still it's better to have less blending/merging.



dtaylor said:


> Club environment? You never brought that up.



I was responding to this post https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...gh-sensitivity-cmos-sensors.37271/post-780301




dtaylor said:


> That's quite the false analogy. HDR and blending are examples of photographic technique, not "fixes" for a "broken" camera. They can make you a better photographer if they improve the technical quality of your work. They're not applicable in all cases, but they're fairly useful in landscapes, especially landscapes which exceed the DR of any sensor.



HDR is a technique, but it's not a creative technique but a workaround for technology imperfection. Better sensor means less HDR in terms of taking multiple shots. 
Dodging/burning on the other hand is an example of a creative technique.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 23, 2019)

amorse said:


> I don't know, that sounds a lot like trolling.
> 
> Technically, wouldn't a camera with literally no dynamic range not be a camera at all? As in it could generate only one on/off response? Could it even do that? Trying to figure out what a camera with no DR would actually be is beyond me.


Having just on/off would be one stop of DR.

Zero? That would be an array where all elements were set to the same number, and could not be changed from that number


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 23, 2019)

Cochese said:


> Whoa there. Calm down. Take a breather. I've never had an issue with the DR of the 5DMIV, except the banding that happens when I photograph fire works (not present in any other canon camera I've used for the last 9 years), but if you think this is the end all and be all of DR, you're seriously kidding yourself. The current Sony sensors perform amazingly, and if you actually got to use one and compared the same shots side by side, you'd immediately notice the difference in favor of the Sony.
> That's not to say the Canon sensor is bad, just that the Sony is clearly leaps and bounds ahead.
> You'll pry my 5DMiv out of my cold dead hands, but better is better. And anything that would make life easier is definitely better. The Sony will pull shadows and highlights that will impress you just as much as going from a 5DII to a 5DIV at times.



“These sensors help expand the company’s lineup of industrial vision products”

These are for industrial imaging. Things like security cameras, car back up displays, etc. You are about as likely to see these in a “photography camera” as you are likely to see the Oly medical sensors.....

We can debate the relative merits of Sony or Canon DSLR sensors all we want, but it has no relevance here. It is like debating the relative merits of a screwdriver and a hammer, they are different tools designed for different tasks.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 23, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> It is like debating the relative merits of a screwdriver and a hammer,


As they say in Russia, "a hammered screw holds better than a screwed nail".


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 23, 2019)

amorse said:


> Ya know, it's funny - I was just thinking that my camera should give me horoscope. Maybe that is indeed the head scratcher we've all been wondering about!


Only if it links to Tinder or Grinder. Oops! Wrong spelling of horoscope. My bad.


----------



## mk0x55 (Jun 23, 2019)

Timedog said:


> What type of processing techniques are you talking about? Like stuff beyond what you can do on Lightroom? I want to get really good at postprocessing and will take all the advice I can get.


I doubt Lightroom itself is enough - for this we need a tool that can do some advanced work with layers and masking. I never really used Lightroom primarily and don't use it at all any longer (I used DxO PhotoLab and now almost exclusively use Capture One), but as Lightroom improves, I can imagine that new useful features come up and might even allow for this kind of postprocessing.

For example, I mean stuff like *exposure blending* - let me give an example: Let me have a high dynamic range scene, and decide to take 3 images of it: First, I take a slightly underexposed shot (underexposed so that the significant highlights do not get overexposed). Second, I take a normally exposed shot. Third, I take an overexposed shot (by 2 stops or so). Note that you can take more and more heavily overexposed shots; based on your needs. Once I have these shots, I develop them into 16-bit TIFF files in such way that I normalize the exposure levels down to the level of the underexposed shot to make it easier to work with later in the postprocessing (NOTE: the overexposed images will most likely have a lot of areas blown out in it once brought down by 3+ stops). After developing the images, I import all three into my image processing program (currently Affinity Photo, previously Photoshop), as layers of a single image. Then I align those images; and start to stack them using luminosity masks - so that I keep highlights from the underexposed shot, brought-down shadows from the overexposed shot, and the rest from the normal shot. Sometimes the luminosity masks won't work on their own (e.g., when having moving objects like grass, trees, etc.), so that I will have to do manual tweaks there; or use something like Photoshop's edge detection (maxing it out on each blended layer, basically), which tends to help. Lastly, I adjust the blended image's parameters like exposure, contrast, color curve, etc. to the levels I want for my final image. I find this technique very capable, and one that tends to yield very natural results of the resulting image (unlike traditional HDR...). On the downside, it can add quite a bit of work, depending on the volatility and complexity of the scene (too many small moving portions with high contrast tends to be quite a challenge).

If you have a very static scene (in which things don't move) and don't want to have to deal with luminosity masks (or even more laboriously doing the masking manually), you can do *mean stacking* by taking e.g. four exposures with the same settings, which you either directly in the camera, or in postprocessing, can merge using pixel-level averaging. The effect of this will be drastically reduced noise levels in the final, stacked, image. Note however, that (1) this can cost some sharpness; and (2) shadowy areas will have less detail compared to the method described above (exposure blending); because our digital sensors are simply incapable of capturing as much texture detail in shadows as they can close to the values of sensor saturation (highlights that are not overexposed). Hence, I would say that exposure blending tends to be a superior method compared to mean stacking - exposure blending gives more detail across the tonal range, even in the shadows; and is more applicable for more volatile scenes. One scenario in which mean stacking wins over exposure blending is when you e.g. have a busy road, a brige or so; and want to take enough exposures so that you can then in postprocessing mask out parts of them so as to remove moving objects like people, cars, bikes, boats, waves, etc.

Lastly, there is traditional *HDR*, but that one I generally would do not advise - it is way too easy to do and often produces way too cheap and unrealistically looking images compared to exposure blending. One type of scenario in which HDR might be OK tends to be architectural photography; but I believe that you can always achieve greater results with more control by exposure blending. There actually are HDR features in most image processors - Lightroom, Photoshop, Affinity Photo, as well as dedicated HDR tools like Photomatix Pro, Aurora HDR... but again; HDR is a last resort solution to me.


----------



## mk0x55 (Jun 23, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> True. But it doesn't mean there's a good substitute for good DR. Exposure blending and HDR are not a good substitute for images taken in one shot. I always prefer to minimise the amount of shots needed to produce one image, and ideally it's just one shot.
> And no, knowing and using HDR and blending DOESN'T make you a better photographer. If your car often breaks and you know how to fix it and work around its issues, it doesn't make you a better driver on the road.


For e.g. portrait shots; having too low dynamic range might mean a problem, for which I would need more light control - and that is another thing that is always great to have. E.g., when having to shoot in the middle of the day and harsh sunlight, I might need to go for a polarizing filter mounted on the lens, and a light diffuser placed above the model to make the light softer and so reduce the contrast (lower the DR of the scene) on the model's face and body.

Knowing the techniques helps me overcome these problems more cheaply than buying a more capable camera. Consider also that some scenes are so contrasty that no photographic digital sensors can capture the full DR to a satisfactory degree. Knowing this stuff is never a downside.

I'd also claim that knowing how to fix my car makes me a better and safer driver on the road. If my car is half-broken so that it can't operate in a reliably safe manner and can fail badly, resulting in loss of control and injury or death of someone or damage to property; knowing how to fix the car prior to a mishap, will make me a better and safer driver. 
Not to say that the shear knowledge of how my tools operate has the potential of making me a better operator (that applies to both cars and cameras), because I know the limits of my tools better than someone who has no clue.


----------



## mk0x55 (Jun 23, 2019)

Diko said:


> If I go to a club event dark with lasers (no flash)...


A serious word of warning: Consider avoiding environments with lasers when shooting with your digital cameras. Lasers use concentrated beams of coherent light that can KILL sensors in extremely short times. Shooting in such conditions is a major NO-NO to me.
In case you happen not to believe me: 



There are more evidentiary videos like that out there...


----------



## Cochese (Jun 24, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> “These sensors help expand the company’s lineup of industrial vision products”
> 
> These are for industrial imaging. Things like security cameras, car back up displays, etc. You are about as likely to see these in a “photography camera” as you are likely to see the Oly medical sensors.....
> 
> We can debate the relative merits of Sony or Canon DSLR sensors all we want, but it has no relevance here. It is like debating the relative merits of a screwdriver and a hammer, they are different tools designed for different tasks.


----------



## Cochese (Jun 24, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> “These sensors help expand the company’s lineup of industrial vision products”
> 
> These are for industrial imaging. Things like security cameras, car back up displays, etc. You are about as likely to see these in a “photography camera” as you are likely to see the Oly medical sensors.....
> 
> We can debate the relative merits of Sony or Canon DSLR sensors all we want, but it has no relevance here. It is like debating the relative merits of a screwdriver and a hammer, they are different tools designed for different tasks.



Cool yeah, I got the concept. But I was responding to somebody else. So, carry on.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 24, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> For e.g. portrait shots; having too low dynamic range might mean a problem, for which I would need more light control - and that is another thing that is always great to have. E.g., when having to shoot in the middle of the day and harsh sunlight, I might need to go for a polarizing filter mounted on the lens, and a light diffuser placed above the model to make the light softer and so reduce the contrast (lower the DR of the scene) on the model's face and body.
> 
> Knowing the techniques helps me overcome these problems more cheaply than buying a more capable camera. Consider also that some scenes are so contrasty that no photographic digital sensors can capture the full DR to a satisfactory degree. Knowing this stuff is never a downside.
> 
> ...


 
“A good craftsman never blames his tools”


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 24, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> For e.g. portrait shots; having too low dynamic range might mean a problem, for which I would need more light control - and that is another thing that is always great to have. E.g., when having to shoot in the middle of the day and harsh sunlight, I might need to go for a polarizing filter mounted on the lens, and a light diffuser placed above the model to make the light softer and so reduce the contrast (lower the DR of the scene) on the model's face and body.



In portraiture with controlled light, you won't have DR-related issues with any modern FF camera, you'll also be fine with 10-year-old cameras. In the harsh daylight, you'll probably use diffuser even with a medium-format Hasselblad just to change the quality of light.

Things change when you have to work with natural/available light and there you'll suddenly be getting more keepers with a better sensor, especially when you shoot some action.Will it make you a better photographer?



mk0x55 said:


> Knowing the techniques helps me overcome these problems more cheaply than buying a more capable camera. Consider also that some scenes are so contrasty that no photographic digital sensors can capture the full DR to a satisfactory degree. Knowing this stuff is never a downside.



No, it's not a downside, but not a big advantage either. You'll probably learn HDR-like techniques regardless of the camera you use, but with low-DR sensor you'll be using them more frequently. My point is, the more frequent use of HDR doesn't make you a better photographer.



mk0x55 said:


> Not to say that the shear knowledge of how my tools operate has the potential of making me a better operator (that applies to both cars and cameras), because I know the limits of my tools better than someone who has no clue.



20-30 years ago many photographers had dark room processing skills which are totally irrelevant now. Were they better photographers than the ones who use exposure blending and luminosity masks in Photoshop?


----------



## scyrene (Jun 24, 2019)

AA said:


> I'm no troll
> 
> The difference between a Canon and a Sony sensor is literally day and night (as far as shadow detail is concerned).


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 24, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Even for still scenes, the less blending the better.



Why exactly is 'less better' here?



> HDR is a technique, but it's not a creative technique but a workaround for technology imperfection.



So are focusing and setting exposure. Most of our craft involves studying and applying technique to get what we want out of the technology. So yes, knowing more does contribute to being a better photographer.



> Better sensor means less HDR in terms of taking multiple shots.



Do you know why I always challenge "SONY DR!" posters to post side-by-side, real world examples? It's because they can't. The DxO (or photons to photos) measured difference between a 5D4 and a A73 or A7r3 is so small that it's nearly impossible to demonstrate in the real world. It will show as slightly more noise in the deepest shadow zone on the 5D4, an amount of noise that disappears with a tick or two on a NR slider or even just with printing as opposed to pixel peeping. It's difficult (though possible) to show the difference between a 5Ds and an A73 series body, and that's a >2ev difference.

In short: there will never be a situation where a 5D4 or R needs HDR but an A73 does not. It's just not going to come up.

Those tests are not absolute statements of DR and the sensor data does not jump to black beyond the test number. Those tests look for arbitrary noise thresholds and output a number when the threshold is crossed. Consumers look at those tests and then imagine all kinds of capability for the camera with the higher number, capability that does not actually exist. I don't think I've ever seen a greater example of consumer rationalization than I have with these DR debates. It's like two exotic super car owners arguing about a 2mph difference in top speed when neither car ever sees more action than a daily commute in bumper-to-bumper traffic.



> Dodging/burning on the other hand is an example of a creative technique.



I don't see how this is deemed 'creative' yet blending is not. Blending can be used to draw emphasis to certain areas of an image just the same.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 24, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> 20-30 years ago many photographers had dark room processing skills which are totally irrelevant now. Were they better photographers than the ones who use exposure blending and luminosity masks in Photoshop?



They were better photographers than they would have been otherwise. Still are if they're still shooting film. Again, everything we do involves technique to get what we want from the technology we have.

I know you're trying to narrowly define 'better/worse' as a measure of creativity or artistic intent, but you can't achieve your vision without first understanding the relevant techniques. Mastering more techniques = greater artistic freedom.


----------



## mk0x55 (Jun 24, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> In portraiture with controlled light, you won't have DR-related issues with any modern FF camera, you'll also be fine with 10-year-old cameras. In the harsh daylight, you'll probably use diffuser even with a medium-format Hasselblad just to change the quality of light.
> 
> Things change when you have to work with natural/available light and there you'll suddenly be getting more keepers with a better sensor, especially when you shoot some action.Will it make you a better photographer?


This becomes a bit philosophical. I'd say it depends on how you look at it and what you aim to optimize - either just the photographer (person), or the system consisting of the photographer and his/her tools - the complete capability to readily produce great results. Both gear and skill will improve the latter. Gear will not necessarily improve the former, but skill will.

Now to the skill, specifically here skill related to making final images that comprise more DR from the scene than the sensor allowed to capture in a single exposure (also called HDR)...:


Quarkcharmed said:


> No, it's not a downside, but not a big advantage either. You'll probably learn HDR-like techniques regardless of the camera you use, but with low-DR sensor you'll be using them more frequently. My point is, the more frequent use of HDR doesn't make you a better photographer.


Whether the advantage is big or small, significant or insignificant, really depends on the context in which the photographer is. I agree with you that in many situations this has not been a great advantage to me (resulting in anything day-and-night); however, it has always when I chose to do it, had its significance.
Also, not having a camera that performed poorly enough to trigger my psychological desire to achieve better results and invest time and effort in trying to overcome the limitations and develop for me methods that make the process easier; I would have a lesser chance of doing so. This is a cause-consequence thing. The more capable camera one learns with, the lazier one tends to become... because of the lesser motivation to improve the results that already are closer to perfection. I'd say this in general; knowing however that this does not quite work for the case when the camera is extremely poorly performing... (Yerkes-Dodson law comes into mind).



Quarkcharmed said:


> 20-30 years ago many photographers had dark room processing skills which are totally irrelevant now. Were they better photographers than the ones who use exposure blending and luminosity masks in Photoshop?


I would say this also depends. The trick is that it is logically fallacious to try to evaluate whether the added possession of a skill or a tool in person 2 would do the person a better photographer than person 1 (irrespectively of whether this one possesses it or not) when not knowing all the significant specifics about both people. The more valid scenario would be to compare a single photographer prior to obtaining the skill or the tool, versus after having obtained it. Much like with the driver and the car fixing skills (from our previous posts). There I would claim that adding more knowledge about your toolset and its use always has the potential of making you a better operator.
I unfortunately cannot answer your question in a valid enough way; but I can claim that if I learned and trained photography with dark room processing, the event of me going through it would no doubt make me a better photographer - e.g. due to training the ability to better see beforehand and nail the scene in the field. Also, simply because I believe that training any kind of photography more would make me a better photographer thanks to the added experience. Even if I only learned it theoretically; it could have improved my reflectedness on postprocessing as such and therefore contributed to my capability to edit pictures - digitally or in a dark room.


----------



## Diko (Jun 24, 2019)

Cochese said:


> Cool yeah, I got the concept. But I was responding to somebody else. So, carry on.


 Like me? Next time check the name. I wasn't responding to you at all.

As for the HDR and blending. I am afraid I am doing it myself as well as long as it goes for Architecture. I don't know but hardly would believe that SONY has been so far for me to make a single photo in those case. And you know why? Because we officially are talking in difference less than a bit (13 & 14 bits) in DR. Between SONY and CANON. I am not sure for the MF (even though they are SONY's) if above 14 bit is achievable.



mk0x55 said:


> ....Shooting in such conditions is a major NO-NO to me. ...There are more evidentiary videos like that out there...



Yep. Your's somewhat darker and I don't understand why point at the lasers? Check this: *DR preview with ISO 2500 1/125 F1.4 5D4*





As for the DR and its potential for further development. Already was said that better sensors exist for industrial utilization. When would they come th photo and video - don't know. The info is greater for the current techs at hand. The ones created are either monochrome, or smaller factor (due to the huge data flow for processing).

And yet again. Do you work or hobby with your gadget or you just need to compare with SONY, NIKON, Hasselblad, *Quarkcharmed* ?



Quarkcharmed said:


> In portraiture with controlled light, you won't have DR-related issues with any modern FF camera, you'll also be fine with 10-year-old cameras. In the harsh daylight, you'll probably use diffuser even with a medium-format Hasselblad just to change the quality of light.


Yeah, right. The mirror of my old 40D is broken. Otherwise I would have given it to you to try to make any descent shoot with good DR @ ISO 3200 (1600 was extreme already, and of course with worser DR than the same ISO on5D4). Quite extreme statement which makes me doubt your experience even further.



Quarkcharmed said:


> Things change when you have to work with natural/available light and there you'll suddenly be getting more keepers with a better sensor, especially when you shoot some action.Will it make you a better photographer?


 Yes it will - for the customer. I have best lenses for the job can crop the way I want and get the best of the best keepers. That is a true "catch the moment" - and the customer is amazed. But I got that NOW. Don't deny the SONY's better sensors, but my point is - they are not THAT MUCH better and for everyday use I am perfect. HDRs are very specific photos for very specific occasions. ;-)



Quarkcharmed said:


> 20-30 years ago many photographers had dark room processing skills which are totally irrelevant now. Were they better photographers than the ones who use exposure blending and luminosity masks in Photoshop?



For their thime. They were the best! I admire them truly and am full of respect, to play poker like that. Make awesome photos, develop them and hope that something didn't f*** up. All the time staying in blind.

They shot what they couldn't see. We shoot what the others haven't see.

What I mean: 

- Sometimes 2 identical photos of a duo. On each one the first or second model looking where I don't want them to look. Merging together in less than 2 min.

- A too dark or too bright place - too little or too big - we make people see them in a different way, controlled and developed by us.

Our skills to see what the others can't; imagine what the others won't and show what the others would appreciate is our proof of how great we are.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 24, 2019)

AA said:


> OK. Does the 100MP sensor have Dynamic Range? Any of it?
> 
> I'm no troll, but since I added an A7R III, I now know what we've been missing out on for years. While Canon lenses area amazing, Canon sensors SUCK. They really do. The difference between a Canon and a Sony sensor is literally day and night (as far as shadow detail is concerned).
> 
> Here is hoping Canon will catch up, and I don't need to switch to Sony completely.


Thanks for the warning about Canon sensors.
I'll throw my Eos 5 D III and 5 D IV into the next river, and buy plenty of Wonderful Sonys with their magnificent sensors. I now understand why all my pictures were so dull ! A maximum of 0,5 EV additional DR makes a world of difference, I now know it!


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 24, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> Thanks for the warning about Canon sensors.
> I'll throw my Eos 5 D III and 5 D IV into the next river, and buy plenty of Wonderful Sonys with their magnificent sensors. I now understand why all my pictures were so dull ! A maximum of 0,5 EV additional DR makes a world of difference, I now know it!



Apparently the difference between night and day is just 1ev


----------



## mk0x55 (Jun 24, 2019)

Diko said:


> [...] and I don't understand why point at the lasers? [...]


Sure, there is no wise point doing that willingly except that the photographer might at some point fail to realize that there is a laser source in the frame, which might lead to a three-grand-down situation (or something like that).  

I would say... it is surely fine for one who is confident in the ability to avoid damage (or face it); but my strategy in this case would be to avoid the risk exposure.


----------



## mpmark (Jun 24, 2019)

AA said:


> Canon and a Sony sensor is literally day and night (as far as shadow detail is concerned).



Stop with the "day and night" garbage! They're really marginal differences, and I don't know how many times I care to pull the shadows or highlights sliders 2+ stops for any reason. Dont think I've ever gone to those limits. If your photography really makes a difference between 14 and 13.5ev then you've got bigger issues to be honest.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 25, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> This becomes a bit philosophical. I'd say it depends on how you look at it and what you aim to optimize - either just the photographer (person), or the system consisting of the photographer and his/her tools - the complete capability to readily produce great results. Both gear and skill will improve the latter. Gear will not necessarily improve the former, but skill will.



Ok, lets get back to the original statements. Obviously you do need to have certain skills and know the photo-stacking techniques (if they're required for your work). My point was, those techniques are workarounds, so they don't make you a better photographer compared to other hypothetical people with better sensors who use workarounds less.



mk0x55 said:


> The more capable camera one learns with, the lazier one tends to become... because of the lesser motivation to improve the results that already are closer to perfection. I'd say this in general; knowing however that this does not quite work for the case when the camera is extremely poorly performing... (Yerkes-Dodson law comes into mind).



I think it's very specific to one's personal mindset - that is, my photography improved with camera upgrades because I wanted to match my own camera(s).



mk0x55 said:


> I unfortunately cannot answer your question in a valid enough way; but I can claim that if I learned and trained photography with dark room processing, the event of me going through it would no doubt make me a better photographer - e.g. due to training the ability to better see beforehand and nail the scene in the field. Also, simply because I believe that training any kind of photography more would make me a better photographer thanks to the added experience. Even if I only learned it theoretically; it could have improved my reflectedness on postprocessing as such and therefore contributed to my capability to edit pictures - digitally or in a dark room.



In my childhood I had a little darkroom and did all b&w processing myself - the photos were ok but obviously not brilliant at all. Then I gave up on photography for some years until I got a DSLR. Literally all my darkroom/film processing skills became totally obsolete. All I brought from those days was the notion of exposure, ISO etc. - not really related to the darkroom. With my first DSLR, the artistic quality of my photos was as bad as in film days, but the technical quality improved tremendously. Just because of the gear. Had a become a better photographer after I bought my first DSLR? - not at all.

My point is, certain skills and techniques do make you better (such as composition, dodging/burning etc.), and certain skills are just necessary workarounds.



Diko said:


> been so far for me to make a single photo in those case. And you know why? Because we officially are talking in difference less than a bit (13 & 14 bits) in DR. Between SONY and CANON. I am not sure for the MF (even though they are SONY's) if above 14 bit is achievable.



I wasn't even mentioning Sony in this conversation, but both Canon 5dIV and Sony A7rIII are 14-bit. 14-bit sensor can have 14 stops of DR max, it's a theoretical limit. In practice it's less than 14, of course. However, 1 bit difference means 1 stop and two times more information. The new 16-bit sensors will be FOUR times better in the sense of theoretical limits of DR and precision. 14 bits means each pixel can have 2^14 = 16386 values, 16 bits - 2^16 = 65536. That effectively means wider range of values for shadows and therefore cleaner shadows.



Diko said:


> And yet again. Do you work or hobby with your gadget or you just need to compare with SONY, NIKON, Hasselblad, *Quarkcharmed* ?



Please read the thread back - I didn't even mention Sony and Nikon and I wasn't comparing Canon vs Sony. I mentioned Hasselblad but not for comparison.



Diko said:


> Yeah, right. The mirror of my old 40D is broken. Otherwise I would have given it to you to try to make any descent shoot with good DR @ ISO 3200 (1600 was extreme already, and of course with worser DR than the same ISO on5D4). Quite extreme statement which makes me doubt your experience even further.



We were talking about the portraiture with *controlled* light, why would you shoot at ISO 3200 under the controlled light? 40D will be ok at ISO100 and with the controlled light - not up to date with the noisy shadows, but ok.
With the available light, the whole point was, you get more keepers with a better sensor. At ISO 3200, 40D will fail in many cases where 5DIV will produce keepers.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 25, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> My point is, certain skills and techniques do make you better (such as composition, dodging/burning etc.), and certain skills are just necessary workarounds.



And your point is false because blending and HDR are not just 'work arounds', they give you more freedom. Very much like dodging and burning.



> I wasn't even mentioning Sony in this conversation, but both Canon 5dIV and Sony A7rIII are 14-bit. 14-bit sensor can have 14 stops of DR max, it's a theoretical limit.



Sensor ADCs are not perfectly linear which is why they can have more than 14 stops of DR. (In normal shooting for the Sony, and in DP RAW for the Canon.)



> The new 16-bit sensors will be FOUR times better in the sense of theoretical limits of DR and precision.



MF backs have advertised 16-bit ADCs for years yet they do not have more DR than the highest DR FF sensors. Noise on the shadow side is the limiting factor, not the ADC resolution.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 25, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> And your point is false because blending and HDR are not just 'work arounds', they give you more freedom. Very much like dodging and burning.



HDR is a technique to overcome sensor limitations (or any other photo media limitations). Better sensors are less limited hence less HDR needed. As in my previous post, you have 40D and shoot landscapes and you need to do HDR often. Then you buy a 5DIV and realise now you need HDR not so often. Have you become a better photographer just because you bought a 5DIV? Or were you a better photographer when you had a 40D and had to use HDR more often?



dtaylor said:


> Sensor ADCs are not perfectly linear which is why they can have more than 14 stops of DR. (In normal shooting for the Sony, and in DP RAW for the Canon.)



Ev/stops are not linear but logarithmic by nature, +1 stop means 2 times more light (photons), +14 stops means 2^14 = 16384 times more light. That fits into 14 bits exactly. If you're saying that a sensor can have say 15 stop DR with a 14-bit ADC, then the value of 16384 will actually represent a value of 32768. I don't think it works like that.
DxO measurements are obscure and I don't know how exactly they measure the DR. These guys seem to provide more reasonable measurements


Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting





dtaylor said:


> MF backs have advertised 16-bit ADCs for years yet they do not have more DR than the highest DR FF sensors. Noise on the shadow side is the limiting factor, not the ADC resolution.



Analog noise is the factor but there's also digital noise related to the fact the shadows are represented by the smaller range of values than the highlights. In the darkest shadows, a 1-stop difference is represented by values 1 and 2, and in the brightest highlights, it's 8192 vs 16384 - much better range to play with.
16 bits vs 14 bits leave 4 times more values for shadows.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 25, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> HDR is a technique to overcome sensor limitations...



Dodging and burning are techniques to overcome film/paper limitations. They can still be used creatively to produce images that cannot be produced without them. Same for HDR and blending. Hell, HDR practically has it's own "look" that some love and some hate.



> Or were you a better photographer when you had a 40D and had to use HDR more often?



You're a better photographer for knowing HDR because *HDR allows for additional creative options.*



> Ev/stops are not linear but logarithmic by nature...



Exposure has a linear portion, *and ADCs do not perfectly map this portion to bits.*



> If you're saying that a sensor can have say 15 stop DR with a 14-bit ADC, then the value of 16384 will actually represent a value of 32768. I don't think it works like that.



It observably works like that, though not in a single abrupt jump as you portray it.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 26, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Dodging and burning are techniques to overcome film/paper limitations. They can still be used creatively to produce images that cannot be produced without them. Same for HDR and blending. Hell, HDR practically has it's own "look" that some love and some hate.



A just HDR-merged image doesn't have any specific 'look', it looks like a normal out-of-camera image, which you could clearly see if you've ever done any HDR merge. So called HDR look is the result of further processing.



dtaylor said:


> You're a better photographer for knowing HDR because *HDR allows for additional creative options.*



You have the same options with a better sensor but without an HDR merge. But no sensor will do dodging and burning for you.



dtaylor said:


> Exposure has a linear portion, *and ADCs do not perfectly map this portion to bits.*



I wasn't aware of exposure having a linear portion. And I don't think it has actually. Exposure is a logarithmic function of amount of light, it doesn't have any linear parts in it.
Linear means some graph, with one axis being the exposure value and another - what exactly? Do you maybe have a link to a paper on that? 



dtaylor said:


> It observably works like that, though not in a single abrupt jump as you portray it.


 I didn't portray any abrupt jumps, you probably misunderstood my message.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 26, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> You have the same options with a better sensor but without an HDR merge.



Except that you don't. And it actually takes a little work to get a HDR image to look natural which is why I prefer blending. And before you say "ah ha! blending is not artistic!" blending is an advanced form of dodging and burning.



> I wasn't aware of exposure having a linear portion. And I don't think it has actually.



So all those years Kodak and Fuji were lying on their data sheets?



> Exposure is a logarithmic function



You realize those are not mutually exclusive, right?



> Linear means some graph, with one axis being the exposure value and another - what exactly?



Density or digital value, depending on medium.



> I didn't portray any abrupt jumps, you probably misunderstood my message.



This was an abrupt jump: _...then the value of 16384 will actually represent a value of 32768..._

There's not one big leap of missing tones at the end of the scale.


----------



## st jack photography (Jun 26, 2019)

AA said:


> OK. Does the 100MP sensor have Dynamic Range? Any of it?
> 
> I'm no troll, but since I added an A7R III, I now know what we've been missing out on for years. While Canon lenses area amazing, Canon sensors SUCK. They really do. The difference between a Canon and a Sony sensor is literally day and night (as far as shadow detail is concerned).
> 
> Here is hoping Canon will catch up, and I don't need to switch to Sony completely.



It is a rule on this forum that you have to be a fanboy and suck Canon's you-know if you want to leave a comment. I mean, you cannot have opinions like that, Canon fans cant handle the truth. I know, I was one for years, and now when I come here to drop truth I get hated, lol. Meanwhile my 5DSR and all my L lenses sit in the closet gathering dust since I started doing street shooting with my SONY rx1rm2. I can back up everything you say. CANON YOUR SENSORS ARE GD TRASH!!!!!! I am holding on to my 5DSR but I sold my R and my g5. Sucky cameras, poor sensors, poor features, just trash. The R is trash. Glad I got a full refund. I can't believe how many people suck that RF hype up. Yeah, a adapter for my EF L glass. How elegant, Canon. Meanwhile the M series is abandoned. Can you put an RF on an M camera. Lame, Canon. Lame. The R and RP is trash, the mount is trash because it excludes the M(EF-M) mount, and the high-megapixel body coming is going to be trash too, just like the 5dsr, with zero DR, bad ISO, funky AA/low pass, SLOW buffer, SLOW AF. My 5dsr does a 5fps, 7-shot RAW burst, and hangs, but my SONY does 20fps, 28-shot RAW burst and the SONY files are almost twice as big but the camera is 3 times smaller. It's pathetic!

SO I have to choose between a sony full frame with a lens designed for aps-c (E-mount) or pick a Canon with passable RF glass but the worst sensor in the business? I choose neither, at the moment. I may just go to Hasselblad Real MF altogether, as the full frame market is as clueless as the people that attempt to use them. Right now I really love my SONY 35mm, fixed lens, leaf shutter camera, with its badass BSI sensor and blistering shoot speeds, but when I tire of it, I think I may be done with full frame. I may as well go to Medium Format, and just buy the occasional jewel like the full frame rx1rm2, or the zeiss zx1, or the Leica q2. Those are full frame cameras that know how to get it done.

I would be happiest if Canon would buy all of my glass and 5DSR body back at fair market rate for used, because I am most likely done with Canon and the huge collection of obsolete EF L glass I have at present. Man, I bought a lot of stuff off of those guys back when they rocked! At that time it was worth ignoring the failures like no good 50mm lens, 8-blade apertures, and non-rounded diaphragms, but no more.

Oh where oh where is the innovation like the 1987 EOS EF AF triumph?


----------



## Pape (Jun 26, 2019)

you really need 20fps on street shooting?
I guess if wanting all perfect


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 26, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Except that you don't. And it actually takes a little work to get a HDR image to look natural which is why I prefer blending. And before you say "ah ha! blending is not artistic!" blending is an advanced form of dodging and burning.



To me neither blending nor HDR is artistic. It's mostly mechanical process. HDR merge in lightroom, for example, is almost fully automatic, you only choose the amount of deghosting.



dtaylor said:


> So all those years Kodak and Fuji were lying on their data sheets?



What data sheets? On how film respond to exposure?



dtaylor said:


> You realize those are not mutually exclusive, right?



I realise logarithmic function is not linear so yes those are mutually exclusive.



dtaylor said:


> Density or digital value, depending on medium.



If it's a digital value, the value itself is a linear function of number of photons (which in turn gets multiplied by quantum efficiency). Double the amount of photons and you double the value. Then the exposure is the logarithm of that value, and the resulting curve is logarithmic and not linear.



dtaylor said:


> This was an abrupt jump: _...then the value of 16384 will actually represent a value of 32768..._
> 
> There's not one big leap of missing tones at the end of the scale.



Well if 0 maps to 0 and 16384 maps to 32768, it can be a smooth curve in between. Why does it have to be an abrupt jump? But anyway it doesn't work like that in ADC converters, it just doesn't make sense. Again the voltage gets converted to a digital value. It may get amplified before conversion, and there's also distortions and errors in the signal, but in general, 1 Ev = 2 times difference between the values after ADC. Therefore the difference between 0 and 16384 is 14 stops, not 15 and not 14.5.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 26, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> To me neither blending nor HDR is artistic.



The sum total of your use of them does not determine if they are artistic or not. Plenty of people do make artistic use of them.



> What data sheets? On how film respond to exposure?





> I realise logarithmic function is not linear so yes those are mutually exclusive.



Stop being obtuse. You know exactly what data sheets and graphs I'm referring to and you know a characteristic curve has a linear portion. You also properly interpreted my statement which is why you argue about the details in every post after arguing about the definitions of words.

Sensors with the highest DR compress a nearly 15ev space into a 14-bit encoding. This is observable fact not subject to your theorizing. Enroll in an EE course if you want to learn more about ADCs and when/why this happens.


----------



## caffetin (Jun 26, 2019)

what is this.sensor for cameras or something else?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 26, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Stop being obtuse. You know exactly what data sheets and graphs I'm referring to and you know a characteristic curve has a linear portion.



No, I don't know. If you put the digital value from a pixel on one axis and EV number on another, you get a logarithmic curve, full stop. With no linear parts in it. If you have a link, please show it to me.



dtaylor said:


> Sensors with the highest DR compress a nearly 15ev space into a 14-bit encoding. This is observable fact not subject to your theorizing. Enroll in an EE course if you want to learn more about ADCs and when/why this happens.



It's not possible to encode 15ev space into 14 bits, unless ADC is non-linear. Just physically not possible. And as far as I'm aware, even Sony sensors use linear ADCs.


----------



## Quirkz (Jun 26, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Having just on/off would be one stop of DR.
> 
> Zero? That would be an array where all elements were set to the same number, and could not be changed from that number



And if your pixel is as small as a photon, that’s all the DR you’ll ever need


----------



## Quirkz (Jun 26, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It's not possible to encode 15ev space into 14 bits, unless ADC is non-linear. Just physically not possible. And as far as I'm aware, even Sony sensors use linear ADCs.



If they’re linear, do the Sony ADCs output at 14 bits? Serious question, not trolling - if they’re linear, but output at a higher bit depth than the final output, it’s trivial to compress at the point it’s written to file. 

Where do you get your data/specs on the Sony ADC implementations? Surprises me that they’re linear, I’d heard otherwise, but have no solid data at all, just heard speculation.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 27, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> If they’re linear, do the Sony ADCs output at 14 bits? Serious question, not trolling - if they’re linear, but output at a higher bit depth than the final output, it’s trivial to compress at the point it’s written to file.
> 
> Where do you get your data/specs on the Sony ADC implementations? Surprises me that they’re linear, I’d heard otherwise, but have no solid data at all, just heard speculation.


I've only seen linearity mentioned somewhere several times but no i don't have technical specs. However Sony raw output is known as 14-bit and TIFF-based, that implies linearity. If ADC squeezes 15-bit range into 14 bits, the output will need to be converted back to 15 bits using some inverse-to-ADC function but it's not happening. So it's linear and 14 bits all the way through.


----------



## Quirkz (Jun 27, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I've only seen linearity mentioned somewhere several times but no i don't have technical specs. However Sony raw output is known as 14-bit and TIFF-based, that implies linearity. If ADC squeezes 15-bit range into 14 bits, the output will need to be converted back to 15 bits using some inverse-to-ADC function but it's not happening. So it's linear and 14 bits all the way through.



Ah, right, so you you’re not entirely sure. I was hoping you could point me to solid data. 

Dtaylor is correct though, at least in the general case. In my audio engineering days for telecom, we squeezed 16 bit audio in to 8 bit all the time using non linear mapping. Exactly the same principle. 

I finally found the article that stated it’s non linear encoded: dated 2014, when at the time, Sony was doing a non linear encoding from 14 bits to 11 bits. Then further compressing with an adaptive delta down to 8 bits. This is what caused their shitty rep previously in their raws. 






RawDigger: detecting posterization in SONY cRAW/ARW2 files


Lossy compression of raw data is currently the only option available in Sony cameras of series NEX, SLT, RX, ILCE, ILCA, and the recent DSLR-A. The first part of this article is showing how to detect artifacts caused by this compression. We will be discussing the technical details of this...




www.rawdigger.com





Still haven’t found anything on their newer files though. Who knows, maybe they’re actually linear


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 27, 2019)

Very interesting paper, thanks. However I think it's not about ADC linearity. It's all about processing and compression *after* ADC, because cRAW is a compressed lossy format.
Crucial point we were discussing here, does voltage from a sensor pixel get lineary converted in ADC into the digital value, e.g. in the range of 0..16383 ?



Quirkz said:


> Ah, right, so you you’re not entirely sure. I was hoping you could point me to solid data.
> 
> Dtaylor is correct though, at least in the general case. In my audio engineering days for telecom, we squeezed 16 bit audio in to 8 bit all the time using non linear mapping. Exactly the same principle.
> 
> ...


----------



## Quirkz (Jun 27, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Very interesting paper, thanks. However I think it's not about ADC linearity. It's all about processing and compression *after* ADC, because cRAW is a compressed lossy format.
> Crucial point we were discussing here, does voltage from a sensor pixel get lineary converted in ADC into the digital value, e.g. in the range of 0..16383 ?



Right, and I think the answer to that is: in the absence of real data, none of us know, and can only speculate. However, it is entirely possible, and actually quite common, to map large ranges of numbers in to smaller ranges using non linear encoding. Whether that is the case specifically with recent Sony cameras, no one seems to be able to point us to a reliable reference.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 28, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> Right, and I think the answer to that is: in the absence of real data, none of us know, and can only speculate. However, it is entirely possible, and actually quite common, to map large ranges of numbers in to smaller ranges using non linear encoding. Whether that is the case specifically with recent Sony cameras, no one seems to be able to point us to a reliable reference.


Yes it's an assumption but very plausible. If the sensor/pixel signal fits (potentially) say 15 bits before ADC and gets compressed into 14 bits in ADC, then it'll need to be decompressed later on back into 15 bits, but Sony raw files are said to be 14 bits.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 4, 2019)

st jack photography said:


> It is a rule on this forum that you have to be a fanboy and suck Canon's you-know if you want to leave a comment



No - just don't be a whiny, flamebaiting troll about it.


> Canon fans cant handle the truth



Your _opinion_ isn't the "truth". Never was, never will be.

Maybe just learn to use the cameras properly?


----------

