# The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 6, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/the-ramp-up-to-august-announcements-is-starting-cr2/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/the-ramp-up-to-august-announcements-is-starting-cr2/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Northlight is reporting that Canon pro dealers in Germany are being invited to events in July to prepare for August announcements. This is pretty normal, certain dealers in most countries get advanced knowledge of the upcoming gear to prepare for dealer ordering and marketing.</p>
<p>If the pro dealers are involved, you can expect a prosumer DSLR at least. We also expect some higher end lenses to be added to the lineup.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_7dmk2.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 6, 2014)

Anyway, the arrival of 7D Mark ii. : Who waited a few years, you can wait a few more months until Photokina.


----------



## Tugela (Jun 6, 2014)

Ummm....no.....we can't. ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 6, 2014)

Tugela said:


> Ummm....no.....we can't. ;D



+1000000000000000000000000000000000
;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 6, 2014)

I'm interested in what's coming, but not really wanting a 7D MK II. APS-C sensors are limited in light response, so a small improvement night happen, but who knows, I certainly hope that something big happens. At very least, the dual pixel sensor, and better / faster live AF.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 6, 2014)

Whether or not the 7DII is worth it all depends on whether or not they also put out a full frame camera with similar capabilities. Something full frame, with similar cropping ability (high pixel density) and decent AF would be the ultimate body for me.
(Of course, it would also cost twice as much, so the 7D could still win just on the value basis.)


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 6, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Whether or not the 7DII is worth it all depends on whether or not they also put out a full frame camera with similar capabilities. Something full frame, with similar cropping ability (high pixel density) and decent AF would be the ultimate body for me.
> (Of course, it would also cost twice as much, so the 7D could still win just on the value basis.)



for me 5Dmk3 AF as a minimum would be required, i don't see the point of a next gen 7D not having this AF system


----------



## ayanamiadolf (Jun 6, 2014)

I mainly do Portrait shooting

I have a 7D but I currently use my dad's 70D because its incredibly excellent DPAF with face detection. I never get out of focus no matter how large the aperture is despite len issue. I don't think anyone can do that with viewfinder despite speed unless you are some kind of professional photographer. 

Of cause I am waiting for the 7D2. If I have to say any function that I want most with the 7D2, I would like to have a hybrid viewfinder which can lunch DPAF, with face detection of cause. Sometimes it is difficult to focus only using the display.And with a higher pixel cmos and Digic 6 is enough for me.


----------



## CANONisOK (Jun 6, 2014)

I'm ready to pay the early adopter penalty.  Where do I sign up?!?


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 6, 2014)

Dying to hear about the 7D replacement too, but what happened to the Powershot announcements like the SX60?


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 6, 2014)

It will be another rebel/kiss/XXX D announcement. 750D will be what Canon will announce and probably still using the ancient 18MP sensor from 7D.


----------



## l_d_allan (Jun 6, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm interested in what's coming, but not really wanting a 7D MK II.



To me, the importance of the 7dii announcement is that the technology from that camera eventually ripples down to ##d and Rebels ###d series ... and may be not be all that long of an eventually.


----------



## RGF (Jun 6, 2014)

7D M2 would be nice but I hope they offer something like 1Dx with crop sensor. Same electronics / ergonomics as the 1Dx. Now that would be VERY NICE. ;D


----------



## jimenezphoto (Jun 6, 2014)

I gave up waiting. Saved for so long that I had enough for a 70D and a 6D with 24-105mm. Love both cameras, no regrets.....


----------



## Botts (Jun 6, 2014)

RGF said:


> 7D M2 would be nice but I hope they offer something like 1Dx with crop sensor. Same electronics / ergonomics as the 1Dx. Now that would be VERY NICE. ;D



For me it would be 7D ergos (add a grip if you need), but same FPS, AF, and electronics as the 1Dx.

My 6D is my quality camera, the 7D2 would satisfy my need for speed!


----------



## TrabimanUK (Jun 6, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Ummm....no.....we can't. ;D
> ...



Cubed


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 6, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> ... you can expect a prosumer DSLR at least. We also expect some higher end lenses to be added to the lineup...


Whatever may be announced – and hopefully be released shortly after – will be highly welcome, as well as shoot down in flames for requirements and dreams not being fulfilled. 
It will be fun to read all the complains when the weather or my mood is not right for taking pictures 

As for Canon did let us wait quite long for pro and prosumer products this year (with the exception of the 16-35 F4 IS), I hope they won't mess up with the releases and QC 

And I still hope that there will be not only a few releases. But we'll see ...



Tugela said:


> Ummm....no.....we can't. ;D


Thanks Tugela, you made my day. *rotfl*
;D


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 6, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>If the pro dealers are involved, you can expect a prosumer DSLR at least.</p>



Not holding my breath. FF is where Canon needs to fight back.

Expecting (hoping for ) 5DIV announcement end of 2014. Time line for that camera in August would of course be very nice.


----------



## SwampYankee (Jun 6, 2014)

I can't help but notice recent discounts on the 1DX. Canon might give their current 5DIII sensor one last squeeze and put out a 24MP Pro camera with some additional features.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 6, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <p>If the pro dealers are involved, you can expect a prosumer DSLR at least.</p>
> ...


If I were you and depending on what you expect for a 5D4 I wouldn't hope for your expectations. 
My guess for new pro/prosumer DSLRs is: 
7D2 (or what it will be called) announced around photokina, released hopefully this year.
High MP/new sensor tech FF (3D/1D XS or what it will be called) announced maybe this year, released maybe in 2015. And this won't be a 5D3 successor!
5D4 (or what it will be called) maybe announced in 2015, released maybe in 2015 as well.

But we'll see and maybe you are right.

Interesting how well Canon can keep the rumor leaks dry these times.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 6, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm interested in what's coming, but not really wanting a 7D MK II. APS-C sensors are limited in light response, so a small improvement night happen, but who knows, I certainly hope that something big happens. At very least, the dual pixel sensor, and better / faster live AF.



I'm betting we'll see the 7D replacement and a few FF with DPAF around the 6D level. Maybe a both a 6D and 7D Mk II model. Maybe they'll call it the 6.50D to keep with rebel style naming....


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 6, 2014)

My prediction on the 7D II is that it will be just like the 5DIII. The camera will NOT live up to the overwhelming hype and demand, but after some time passes, people will actually use the camera and realize that it is an amazing upgrade.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 6, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > If the pro dealers are involved, you can expect a prosumer DSLR at least.
> ...



Exactly why does Canon need to "fight back" on full frame cameras? The 1DX and the D4S are practically twins. The 5DIII and the 6D are both absolutely crushing their Nikon equivalents in sales. 

If you are looking for a 5DIV announcement in August you better set your clock for 2016 at the earliest.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> My prediction on the 7D II is that it will be just like the 5DIII. The camera will NOT live up to the overwhelming hype and demand, but after some time passes, people will actually use the camera and realize that it is an amazing upgrade.



Agree with the sentiment, but not quite the story. The 5DIII exceeded expectations when it was released in all but one area – people didn't like the price. 

Go back and look at some of the whining that occurred on this site prior to the release. The two most common threads at the time were 1) Canon is going to "cripple" the autofocus and 2) I don't need more megapixels, I want better high ISO performance but Canon is going to put too many megapixels in the sensor.

Canon exceeded expectations. People who bought the camera were thrilled. The same whiners have had to move on to new complaints. No matter what Canon releases, there is a subset of people on this forum who will whine.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> My prediction on the 7D II is that it will be just like the 5DIII. The camera will NOT live up to the overwhelming hype and demand, but after some time passes, people will actually use the camera and realize that it is an amazing upgrade.


I see a lot of truth in these words. Well said, mackguyver.


----------



## Tugela (Jun 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> My prediction on the 7D II is that it will be just like the 5DIII. The camera will NOT live up to the overwhelming hype and demand, but after some time passes, people will actually use the camera and realize that it is an amazing upgrade.



DSLRs are already mature technology when it comes to stills, so improvements in that area are going to be incremental but not ground breaking. That is just how it is. To be honest, my old T3i is just fine for most applications, so what more would a new camera offer, besides improved low light performance? For most applications going from an image being 97% perfect to 98% perfect is not a critical difference.

The biggest advances will come in treating cameras as integrated imaging systems that can perform all tasks well. That would include things like video and data/system integration with other devices. So I think that is where you will see most of the big advances in a new camera such as the 7D2 or 5D4. Particularly, this will probably involve the video capabilities, since current Canon DSLRs are fairly crude in this regard. Cameras such as the GH4 and a7S are where the future lies, not cameras like the traditional Canon/Nikon instruments. The biggest question really is whether Canon will embrace the future with their new cameras, or if they will be like Nikon and embrace the past.


----------



## dadgummit (Jun 6, 2014)

My hope is for a dual pixel sensor, with all of the live view and video capabilites as the 70D.

Add some of the same goodies that the 2-year-old 5d3 has like weather sealing, raw video, raw hdr, dual card slots, etc. but make sure to keep the 100% optical VF and the flash that fits around it. 

20mp is fine (though the competition seems to be favoring 24mp) with hopefully a little better hi ISO noise (I know it is not going to be full frame but technology marches on.

Give it the 5d3's af system which is just amazing in its accuracy and speed. Please please leave the steaming pile of 70D af system far behind!!

Give it dual processors and 7+ FPS


----------



## jrista (Jun 7, 2014)

TrabimanUK said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



Cubed. How quaint. I'll factorial that, please! 

Joking aside, I'm interested to see what, if anything, Canon has done with their sensor tech. I am really, truly hoping that Canon isn't just stuffing a bunch of video-related "improvements" into the 7D II. I'm hoping it gets some significant stills photography enhancements, preferably a fully integrated sensor design: on-die CP-ADC, on-die Digital CDS, DPAF, and maybe stacked pixels (i.e. Foveon style). I think that would finally send a message that Canon still has the necessary oomph to take back the sensor IQ crown, with high DR and better color fidelity than the competition. 

Maybe then these forums could finally ditch the persistent Nikon fanatics and actually have some more interesting conversations for once. Maybe about ART, rather than technology.


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 7, 2014)

A 7Dii most likely and possibly the announcement of the higher megapixel cam (if one even exists).

A new 50mm to compliment the body, yeah I can see that.

But with the 1DX only 2 years old, (I got one of the first in the UK two years ago next week) and with the 5D3 being a similar age I cannot see revised versions of these until next year.

I was one of those 1ds3 users who waited over 4 years for the full frame pro body announcement.

Market wise I don't believe Canon is suffering, Nikon and Sony are, Canon? Nope.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 7, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Exactly why does Canon need to "fight back" on full frame cameras? The 5DIII and the 6D are both absolutely crushing their Nikon equivalents in sales.



Do you buy your camera equipment according to their sales figures? 

My purchases are directed by my needs as a photographer. I did not buy the 5DIII after extensive testing - because it just did not bring anything useful to me. So for my money Canon will have to "fight back" or my next DSLR will not be a Canon unless I have a 5DII break down. Simple as that. 

YMMV.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 7, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly why does Canon need to "fight back" on full frame cameras? The 5DIII and the 6D are both absolutely crushing their Nikon equivalents in sales.
> ...



What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? As far as I can see the only thing the 5D MkIII doesn't do significantly better than the 5D MkII is low iso shadows, even then it is better, just not significantly better. And seeing as how the "best" competitors are only performing a stop or so better in this one metric I'd like to know what you, personally, would like from Canon. Also, what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 7, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Exactly. 

And, no I don't buy anything based on sales figures. But I also don't presume my individual preferences determine a company's strategy. The statement that Canon needs to "fight back" implies they are losing some sort of competition and I pointed to their sales figures because they indicate just the opposite; and ultimately that is the only competition that really matters. 

It's perfectly understandable to state that you were comfortable with your 5DII and for your purposes the current generation of full frame cameras didn't offer enough improvement to justify trading up. But, there is a world of difference between that statement and concluding that Canon *needs* to fight back.


----------



## chanceslost (Jun 7, 2014)

jrista said:


> Maybe then these forums could finally ditch the persistent Nikon fanatics and actually have some more interesting conversations for once. Maybe about ART, rather than technology.



Right, if we stop arguing about sensors, we can focus on Sigma ART vs. Canon L lenses. ;D


----------



## NancyP (Jun 7, 2014)

Anxiously awaiting the 7D2, hoping that it will be "1DX-lite" AF (fewer points needed) with f/8 AF, better high ISO performance, and 8-10 fps with really deep RAW buffer, 30 RAW would be nice.

ART, what? Sigma? What'shisname that posts here? Oh, THAT art......... I am having a little fun with a haul of used photo books (monographs and curated multi-photographer exhibits) that just showed up at my local bookstore. Good rainy day occupation.


----------



## saveyourmoment (Jun 7, 2014)

imo if Canon would like to nail it, then they should show a Sony A7r with the technology and AF of the 1DX... that would be an earthquake in the camera business...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 7, 2014)

unfocused said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



How dare you bring sound logic to this debate... LOL


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 7, 2014)

These would peak my interest...

*"EOS 7D-II"* - $2,200 (Shutter rating 300,000 shots)

DPAF 16.2Mp @ 11fps, (Min. RAW buffer 26), 61pt AF system
ISO 100-25,600 (decent IQ up to ISO 3200)
Integrated battery grip, LP-E4N
CFast 2.0, HDMI 2.0, Wifi+GPS, Headphone out
Video: 1920x1080 96p, 60p, 50p, 30p, 25p 24p

*"EOS 4D-R"* - $4,500 (Shutter rating 400,000 shots)

DPAF 29.5Mp @ 8fps, (Min. RAW buffer 22), New AF system
ISO range: 100-25,600 (decent IQ up to ISO 6,400) 
Integrated Battery Grip, LP-E4N
Built-in Speedlite Radio Transmitter
CFast 2.0, HDMI 2.0, Gigabit LAN, Headphone out
Video: UWTV 4K, DCI 4K, HDR video, Slow motion, FHD crop video modes
And because the fourth dimension is time, programmable intervalometer function ;D


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 8, 2014)

A compact 1DX would be immense.


----------



## Larry (Jun 8, 2014)

jrista said:


> Maybe then these forums could finally ditch the persistent Nikon fanatics and actually have some more interesting conversations for once. Maybe about ART, rather than technology.



With all due respect (which is plenty, …for your many informative posts about technology , "Canon Rumors" is the place for art-rather-than-technology discussions because, …? ???


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 8, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> These would peak my interest...
> 
> *"EOS 7D-II"* - $2,200 (Shutter rating 300,000 shots)
> 
> ...



Wow...

An integrated battery grip would...make me consider switching to another brand, I suppose.


----------



## jrista (Jun 8, 2014)

Larry said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe then these forums could finally ditch the persistent Nikon fanatics and actually have some more interesting conversations for once. Maybe about ART, rather than technology.
> ...



Because that's what cameras are all about...making photographic art. Sure, it's a piece of technology, but they aren't designed to be collectors items that we obsess over the technical details of...just for the sake of obsessing over technical details. 

Cameras are the engines of photonic artforms. The technology is just a means to an end...and while I'm the first to stand up and correct the discussion when someone starts spouting missleading factoids, that isn't really what we should be worried about. We should be concerned with the ACTUAL outcomes.

In that respect...the actual outcomes of pretty much all cameras on the planet these days put the vast majority of film-era photography to shame. Higher resolution, better color, better moments, better everything. We obsess over the technology so much these days that it's to the detriment of our art. Notice that I haven't been around quite as much lately? I'm trying to put more of my time into the art, instead of into debates about the technology. 

(I've always been interested in astrophotography, and I'm very good at imaging the moon, but I've recently taken the deep dive into full blown wide field deep sky astrophotography. It's the most amazing, intriguing, beautiful...and concurrently complex, technical, and TIME CONSUMING form of photography I've ever seen. The depth and complexity of our night sky is just...amazing, and I really have to focus to make any headway. I struggle with technology...DSLRs, as much as Canon DSLRs specifically (especially the 350D and 450D, modded for high Ha sensitivity or even monochrome use) are used in astrophotography, are so woefully inadequate for the job. But the technology is only part of it. The rest is the artistic aspect. Once you've dealt with all the technical aspects, set up your mount, calibrated it, pointed it at an interesting nebula, and exposed dozens or hundreds of frames...then you have to turn all that technical data into a piece of artwork...and THAT is truly the most difficult part. I may spend 8 hours gathering data, and days processing it. So...maybe art is just on my mind these days. )

I spent a lot of time on these forums...and while I am happy to admit I don't know everything, I do know some things extremely well. I'm happy to have helped educate you guys to some of the oft-misunderstood facts about the technology that supports your art, and help you formulate more realistic hopes for future technology. But...these days, it's all the same old debate: "Nikon has more DR! Sony has more DR! Canon must suck!" Same old debate.  There are still those who think that ISO 100 DR is the only thing that matters for IQ, when demonstrably, significantly fewer people shoot at ISO 100 than shoot at ISO 400 and up, where DR differences are minimal to meaningless. Canon technology does exceptionally well at higher ISO, and the rest of their non-sensor technology (not the least of which are their lenses) is superior to most every other option out there with a few rare exceptions (i.e. the Otus). 

Just kind of tired of saying the same old thing, usually to the same old thick-headed, stubborn individuals, and not having the message sink in. (Especially when their responses demonstrate the most blatant and extensive ignorance...I'm constantly asking myself: "Geeze...I have to explain it AGAIN? How can I explain it differently, how can I dumb it down enough, that they might actually GET it this time?" Then I realize that they are probably just over-invested trolls...and try to go back to my processing...) Personally, I think it would be a nice change of pace for the lagging aspects of Canon technology to no longer be an issue, and instead start talking about how to use the technology Canon (and others, like Adobe) are giving us to _*make better art*_. 

Because...if were not using our cameras to make AWESOME, MIND BLOWING ART, the kind of art that makes people stop and go:  WWOOOWW!  ......_what's the point? _ ???

(Mind you, I do not consider myself that kind of artist yet...I think I have some good works, but I know that I have a LONG way to go before I can create the kind of work that really gives people pause and reason to meditate on the images they see. I need to spend a LOT more time with my camera and lens to learn what needs to be learned to become an expert or master of the art. It would be nice to discuss the nuances of _the art_, though...to discuss technique and vision and aesthetics....rather than technology...just for once.)



BTW, if you want some WOWs...try this guy out: Deep Sky Colors I think he may just be the best astrophotographer on the planet...he does huge mosaics with the deepest exposures, with the richest colors, taken under the darkest skies on earth, the guy will drive over 7000 miles just to produce one mosaic...and every single one of his images just blows my mind so much I'm not even able to utter the word "wow". It's just. Mind. Blown. No words.

^^ This is my goal. If I can become skilled enough to make just one image that compares to this guys work before I die....then I'll die a happy photographer.


----------



## K-amps (Jun 8, 2014)

I'd like to be wrong.... but I fear Canon might disappoint many who desire f/8 AF, Foveon type or other radical sensor design, or 4k video all tech that could match the wow factor that the 5d2 and 7dc had when they came out... They seem to have been quite conservative since then. There have been many incremental improvements (like the 5d3/1dx over their predecessors, Dual Pixel AF) ; but Canon enthusiasts are waiting for a "wow" factor announcement.


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 8, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> *"EOS 4D-R"* - $4,500 (Shutter rating 400,000 shots)
> 
> DPAF 29.5Mp @ 8fps, (Min. RAW buffer 22), New AF system
> ISO range: 100-25,600 (decent IQ up to ISO 6,400)
> ...



Wired Ethernet is dead. Even laptop manufacturers are dropping it. Better to use something modern like a Thunderbolt port that can support mini-DisplayPort, HDMI, Ethernet, etc. all in one tiny connector (with appropriate adapters).


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 8, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Wired Ethernet is dead.


Not hardly, only for mobile devices. Wired Ethernet will be dead when WiFi can achieve gigabit speeds on congested networks. But then we'll have 20gigabit wired Ethernet ;D 


> Better to use something modern like a Thunderbolt


Too proprietary, it would alienate PC users.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 8, 2014)

jrista,

I agree with you 100%. My biggest weakness in sports photography is composition. I feel like things get moving too quickly and I can't compose the way I want to and even in post, when cropping, I still struggle with composition. I'm a scientist by training and I feel as though I focus too much on the technical aspects of shutter speed, aperture, ISO, DOF, etc. that any art form is hopelessly lost. Hopefully that is something I can change.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 8, 2014)

jrista said:


> ...Because that's what cameras are all about...making photographic art. Sure, it's a piece of technology, but they aren't designed to be collectors items that we obsess over the technical details of...just for the sake of obsessing over technical details.





bdunbar79 said:


> jrista,
> 
> I agree with you 100%. My biggest weakness in sports photography is composition. I feel like things get moving too quickly and I can't compose the way I want to and even in post, when cropping, I still struggle with composition. I'm a scientist by training and I feel as though I focus too much on the technical aspects of shutter speed, aperture, ISO, DOF, etc. that any art form is hopelessly lost. Hopefully that is something I can change.



Probably going to regret this. If you are serious about photography as an art form, please read this http://www.blog.unfocusedmg.com/?p=220

The books I reference there will give you a great start. But be forewarned, they are not "how to" manuals, but rather explorations of what constitutes art in photography. 

Now, if you think the arguments on this forum over technology are something, just try discussing photography as art. Bear in mind that many people never progress beyond the "Ansel Adams" view of photography. That's not a criticism of Adams. In his time, he did much to advance photography as an acceptable art form. But, too many people have failed to move on. What was cutting edge 80 years ago, isn't any more. 

There are some fantastic artists practicing today, but appreciating them requires people to move out of their comfort zones. Andreas Gursky really is incredible, but there have been discussions on this forum that simply demonstrate how ignorant commenters can be. Martin Parr is great fun. Ryan McGinley's images perfectly capture his generation. I'm an admirer of great portrait photography and Rineke Dijkstra is terrific. 

Yet, frankly, if any of these photographers posted an image on this forum, they'd be attacked mercilessly because their images don't fit into neat little rules.

Brett,
You mentioned composition. The best writing that exists on composition is a bit of a "rant" by Edward Weston. I think of it whenever someone mentions the "rule of thirds." In my view, Weston has never been equaled for the pure beauty of his images and exquisite compositions. Yet, his commentary is very enlightening. To paraphrase, he said that more pictures are ruined by following rules of composition than by anything else. In essence, his point was that the only composition that mattered was whether or not the photograph worked.

Oftentimes Weston's simple quote: "Composition is the strongest way of seeing" is completely misinterpreted by hack photographers. If you read his whole commentary, you'll see that what he meant is the only thing that matters when composing a picture is to make it the strongest image possible. But too many people read this small snippet and think it means that somehow following arcane "rules" of composition will improve an image. That is the exact opposite of Weston's point.

This is a much more appropriate quote: “When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches.” – Edward Weston


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? ... what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.



I want more pixels. I take lots of street shots and often have to crop a lot. At least 30 would be very useful. 36 would be great. If I could get 100 I would take it.

I also want better low light focussing performance. In low light shooting relatively fast moving subjects I have to take 3 shoots to be sure to get one right - both with the 5DII and the 5DIII (this was the deal breaker for me).

Finally, much better high iso. 5DIII is of course a little better than 5DII but not the jump in performance I would like to see.

That's pretty much it - quite a modest list when it comes to number of items. Time will tell if Canon will deliver.


----------



## jrista (Jun 8, 2014)

unfocused said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ...Because that's what cameras are all about...making photographic art. Sure, it's a piece of technology, but they aren't designed to be collectors items that we obsess over the technical details of...just for the sake of obsessing over technical details.
> ...



Your misunderstanding. My question is not about what art is. That's impossible to define...everyone has their own view on what art is. I know what art is. I've read dozens of books on the subject, in my past I've taken art classes covering oil and water painting, pastels, basic pencil drawing, etc. The problem isn't understanding art. I understand art, and it's various forms. 

The question is, how does one achieve the artistic vision they have in their mind? It's one thing to be able to visualize something a certain way in your mind...and an entirely different thing to actually reproduce your vision in an actual artform. For all the work a camera does for you, where in classical arts all of the work is entirely up to you...it is no easier to fully realize your artistic vision with photography than it is with a brush and paints. It never mattered the medium for me...my difficulty was always converting my vision into actual art, in the way I wanted the art to be presented. I think that is ultimately the focal point of most artists art.

That is what I am referring to. That is where I think discussions need to take place. No one needs anyone else telling them whether their images are art or not. I personally do not believe every photograph ever taken was art...a lot of it simply isn't, but that doesn't matter. The person who took the photo, even if it only meets "snapshot"-but-not-art criteria, may have had some vision in their mind that they simply could not realize. THAT is where I think the most important discussions about photography should take place. The process of turning vision into art, or maybe even just discussing what vision is, how to improve your artistic minds-eye vision, etc.



unfocused said:


> Brett,
> You mentioned composition. The best writing that exists on composition is a bit of a "rant" by Edward Weston. I think of it whenever someone mentions the "rule of thirds." In my view, Weston has never been equaled for the pure beauty of his images and exquisite compositions. Yet, his commentary is very enlightening. To paraphrase, he said that more pictures are ruined by following rules of composition than by anything else. In essence, his point was that the only composition that mattered was whether or not the photograph worked.
> 
> Oftentimes Weston's simple quote: "Composition is the strongest way of seeing" is completely misinterpreted by hack photographers. If you read his whole commentary, you'll see that what he meant is the only thing that matters when composing a picture is to make it the strongest image possible. But too many people read this small snippet and think it means that somehow following arcane "rules" of composition will improve an image. That is the exact opposite of Weston's point.
> ...



Totally agreed.

I don't even think that composition is really the crux of art...composition is just a bunch of rules that everyone misunderstands and everyone has a different opinion about regarding application. Discussing composition is really no different than discussing "What art is" itself. It's a lost cause, and I do believe that pigeonholing everyone into specific compositional rules ruins the actual art...because it destroys everyone's *unique *vision.

So I agree...it isn't about rules. That was never my question. It's about realization of artistic vision....WHATEVER that vision may be. It isn't as simple as it sounds, either...realizing your vision is probably the most difficult aspect of photography...period. It's THAT which takes years to hone and refine and ultimately perfect. It should generally only take a photographer a year to fully grasp the fundamental concepts of photography, and maybe two at most to become an expert at choosing the proper exposure (in ANY camera mode, not just Av or Tv or M...one should be able to expose in any camera mode available, and expose perfectly...according to their goals), or focusing accurately, or tracking subjects if they regularly shoot action, or using flash properly, etc. Within two years any dedicated photographer should be an expert at these things, and within a few more, they should have mastered the technical aspects of their art.

It's the artistic vision to actual art conversion process that takes so many years, decades, to ultimately master. Because that process is going to be largely unique to each individual, with a few shared thought processes and processing techniques that ultimately bring about the best quality.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 8, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? ... what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.
> ...



A huge jump in high iso is a pipe dream and THE single least modest thing you could actually ask for since the camera are so close to the primary limit already.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



The best competitors are more like 3 stops not 1 stop better than the 5D3 for low ISO shadows. The 5D3 is basically the same as the 5D2, it actually measures a trace worse for standard DR and has similar banding one direction (far less banding in the other direction though, but so long as you have any in either direction....). At high ISO is where the 5D3 does better than the 5D2 in the shadows.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 8, 2014)

jrista said:


> TrabimanUK said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



We will see, but some rumors hint that the 7D2 sensor will probably be the same old, same old. What I really hope it is the new FF has new tech, if even that sensor doesn't  I guess it will be A7R+adapter (and keep the 5D3 for video and stuff where you need more body performance).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 8, 2014)

jrista said:


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



one little minor thing you overlook.... you are currently posting in the EOS BODIES TECH RUMORS FORUM. Why the heck do you expect or want talk about photographic art in this sub-forum?


----------



## jrista (Jun 8, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> one little minor thing you overlook.... you are currently posting in the EOS BODIES TECH RUMORS FORUM. Why the heck do you expect or want talk about photographic art in this sub-forum?



I mean on these forums in general. It would just simply be nice to get past the whole Nikon/DR thing at some point. I'm not saying we stop talking tech...but there is more to owning a Canon camera than debating DR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 8, 2014)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > one little minor thing you overlook.... you are currently posting in the EOS BODIES TECH RUMORS FORUM. Why the heck do you expect or want talk about photographic art in this sub-forum?
> ...



Nobody is stopping you ignoring the threads you are not interested in debating.


----------



## jrista (Jun 8, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



According to DXO ScreenDR (the ACTUAL dynamic range you get out of a REAL RAW FILE...we don't edit downsampled RAW images, because then it wouldn't be RAW, and we would lose a hell of a lot more editing latitude anyway...so YES, I AM comparing Screen DR, and I believe it is the ONLY valid DR comparison for what most photographers care about: RAW exposure editing latitude):

5D Mark III: 10.97 stops
D800E: 13.24 stops
D800: 13.23 stops

The D800/E are the best still cameras as far as dynamic range goes. That makes the difference 2.27 stops at best, or 2 1/4 stops. 

If we did use Print DR, then it's 11.7 vs. 14.4, which is 2.7 stops, or about 2 2/3rd stops. (Mind, Print DR is NOT ACTUALLY MEASURED. It is extrapolated, but not measured...so a 2.7 stops difference is assumed, not guaranteed.) You don't get a full three stop advantage in either case, however as far as editing RAW images goes, Print DR is irrelevant. We CAN NOT EDIT RAW IMAGES THAT ARE DOWNSAMPLED, BECAUSE RAW CANNOT BE DOWNSAMPLED. We edit RAW files as RAW files...as 100% original, unmodified, full size bayer pixel array data. The sole reason we HAVE the kind of editing latitude we have is because we edit RAW. Therefor, Print DR is irrelevant when it comes to discussing our ability to lift shadows (which IS what EVERYONE thinks about when they think "dynamic range"). Shadow lifting ability is different than total image noise levels throughout the entire tonal grade...but no one really cares about total image noise levels. Above 18% gray, noise, even though it is still present to the same degree, is much harder to see...our eyes pick up small differences at lower intensities better than they pick up small differences at high intensities. 

Everyone cares about shadow lifting or highlight recovery...editing latitude. At best, the difference in terms of editing latitude is 2 1/4 stops, based on actual DXO DR measurements taken directly from real RAW files.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 8, 2014)

jrista said:


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



Meaning? Which dead horse do I beat?

Farcical really when you are the verbose one flagellating the deceased equine.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 8, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? ... what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.
> ...



_"I want more pixels"_ Either get a camera with more pixels or stitch.
_"I take lots of street shots and often have to crop a lot."_ Er, learn to use the right focal length.
_"I also want better low light focussing performance."_ Well no manufacturer is that much better or worse than any other on that, which hardly means Canon need to "fight back".
_"Finally, much better high iso."_ Again, Canon are very competitive in this area, they either lead the competition or are very close, so again, they hardly need to "fight back". 

Those are not features where Canon is trailing, unless you compare them solely to the number of pixels on the 36mp Sony sensor in all its iterations. All you are really saying is you'd like Canon to "fight back" with more pixels because you can't choose the right focal length and everything else they do is comparable to competing product capabilities, hardly a compelling reason for Canon to invest hundreds of millions of dollars on a new sensor fabrication line. I'd hoped your input would be far more worthwhile than you can't choose the right focal length and need mp to sort out your short comings.

If you want a 100mp sensor for cropping purposes just use a P&S, it is effectively the same thing and will give you the same IQ.


----------



## jrista (Jun 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


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



Sorry, thought that last response was from LTRL. My point is moot, given you are a different person. 

As for the deceased equine, I only respond to those who bring the topic up again, in order to correct invalid facts, I don't start the debates myself.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 8, 2014)

jrista said:


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


Fair enough 

I am not above beating a horse, dead or alive, indeed I have to go feed mine in a minute, the ungrateful bloody thing, but I like her really..............


----------



## Niki (Jun 8, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/the-ramp-up-to-august-announcements-is-starting-cr2/"></glusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/the-ramp-up-to-august-announcements-is-starting-cr2/">Tweet</a></div>
> <p>Northlight is reporting that Canon pro dealers in Germany are being invited to events in July to prepare for August announcements. This is pretty normal, certain dealers in most countries get advanced knowledge of the upcoming gear to prepare for dealer ordering and marketing.</p>
> <p>If the pro dealers are involved, you can expect a prosumer DSLR at least. We also expect some higher end lenses to be added to the lineup.</p>
> <p>Source: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_7dmk2.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>
> <p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>



can we just move on to the 7d3


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> _"I want more pixels"_ Either get a camera with more pixels or stitch.
> _"I take lots of street shots and often have to crop a lot."_ Er, learn to use the right focal length.
> _"I also want better low light focussing performance."_ Well no manufacturer is that much better or worse than any other on that, which hardly means Canon need to "fight back".
> _"Finally, much better high iso."_ Again, Canon are very competitive in this area, they either lead the competition or are very close, so again, they hardly need to "fight back".



Somehow your comments make me wonder if you take pictures at all...


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > _"I want more pixels"_ Either get a camera with more pixels or stitch.
> ...



If you followed this site at all you'd know that Private is one of a handful of people here who actually earns a living from photography. Comments like the above only make you look foolish.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 9, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


+1, and note that unless they are sponsored by Canon or Nikon, the vast majority of pros are using older gear, yet taking far better photos than the people whining about DR, megapixels, lens sharpness, etc. on forums.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 9, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? ... what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.
> ...



Fortunately for you, there is an answer. There is an option that satisfies all of those wants. And the answer is...

MEDIUM FORMAT!

Too expensive? Well, that's not Canon's fault.

As a trade-off you could get a 1Dx.


----------



## jrista (Jun 9, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Totally agree here. Canon is highly competitive, and even the leader in some cases, in all of these area. 

@Maiaibing: There are technical specs, and there are real-world results. Technically, the difference between Canon and Nikon at high ISO is marginal, with Canon having a slight lead. In the real world, well, just go look at some actual photos. Canon absolutely EXCELS at high ISO. It does much better than technical measurements, like those from DXO or DPR, would otherwise indicate. But high ISO performance is often the LEAST of the things people who buy the 1D X concern themselves with. AF system performance, accuracy, precision, and the camera's frame rate are often more important, or at least equally important. 

A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras, a bunch of high end Canon lenses, and did his entire next couple of safaris with nothing but Canon gear. Right out the gate, with no other experience other than a couple of days he'd had when he tested the camera on some owls and otters...he was willing to completely move his entire kit from one brand to another. 

To me, that is the kind of real-world performance that speaks VOLUMES more than any test DXO, DPR, Imaging Resource, etc. may do. For most people these days, we already have more than enough resolution. We already have more than enough dynamic range. Noise levels are quite low across the board, even on the noisiest sensors (note that most medium format cameras that people have been using for the last five or six years have the same amount and kind of noise as Canon sensors do...high end, $40,000 medium format digital cameras even have BANDING in the shadows! But it doesn't matter...people still buy them, still use them, because the need to lift shadows by six stops is so small in the grand scheme of things, as to be irrelevant.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > one little minor thing you overlook.... you are currently posting in the EOS BODIES TECH RUMORS FORUM. Why the heck do you expect or want talk about photographic art in this sub-forum?
> ...



Yeah but this a rumors site, here we talk equipment, off-line we talk art and shoot.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Man you just did it again, you can't fairly compare between cameras using Screen DR, you have to use Print DR. I'm start to doubt that you do get normalization after all, either that or are sneakily tricking people to make Canon look better in this scenario (also don't forget the banding differences where the 5D3 has tons more than D800 at low ISO).


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 9, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


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



I'm tired of Mass DR Bating....


----------



## Larry (Jun 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> (Lotsa comment)…
> 
> BTW, if you want some WOWs...try this guy out: Deep Sky Colors I think he may just be the best astrophotographer on the planet...he does huge mosaics with the deepest exposures, with the richest colors, taken under the darkest skies on earth, the guy will drive over 7000 miles just to produce one mosaic...and every single one of his images just blows my mind so much I'm not even able to utter the word "wow". It's just. Mind. Blown. No words.
> 
> ^^ This is my goal. If I can become skilled enough to make just one image that compares to this guys work before I die....then I'll die a happy photographer.



Thanks jrista, for the DSC link. Spectacular images, no question. Being less of a space-image fan than yourself, I'll take a nice framed copy of the night shot "Untouchable Beauty". Assuming it to be as advertised, I am impressed by such capture of natural beauty (of the down-to-Earth sort)  ["...as advertised" meaning not a product of liberal "enhancement", instead, a reasonable facsimile of the real thing. The painted "visions" of the American West so often including waterfalls, rainbow, butterflies (unicorns?), etc., etc., are cloying examples of the opposite (What, no Disney castles?).

You make terrific well-reasoned pleas for emphasis other than technomania for the photo-artist. But, …my question (art-as-subject appropriate here?)still lingers:

Everyone in a guitar building/evaluating discussion forum is well aware of the difference the skill of the player makes in the music produced. Talk of styles and technique abound elsewhere, with heavy subjectivity evident in those posts.

But, it seems to me, the forum where bracing styles, top thicknesses, types and characteristics of woods, effects of string gauges, string spacing for finger style vs. plectrum use, body size, etc. are the expected subjects, ..is not the place for disappointment when the "artistry" of playing the guitar is not emphasized.

"Canon Rumors" to me clearly enough suggests that the forum discussion will (or should) focus on the equipment available or expected to be available from Canon, …simple as that. Are there not sufficient other sites which offer conflicting opinion ad nauseam on what constitutes "art"? ("opinion", because one man's art is another's "WTF?")

I of course, have my own reaction to any given image, but someone else's interpretation may, and probably will, be different. I do not care at all if this is so, and am really not seriously interested. 
If he/she and I similarly appreciate the image, then that is something we may enjoy, i.e., a pleasurable shared experience. If not, neither of our opinions should be devalued for its holder. 

The beauty that is in the eye of any beholder is to some degree a personal treasure. In that sense, arguing against his opinion is to deprive him his uniquely individual experience, …a form, I tend to think it could be said, of theft. :-[ 

It has taken me many years to arrive at what seems to be a fair balance between being fairly strongly opinionated, and yet mindful of the wisdom of the old saying "If you can't say anything nice, …".

I can truthfully say that I benefit much more than I contribute here at CR, I come here to learn more often than my participation might indicate. And your posts are usually the informative kind I come for, helping me understand Canon (and other) equipment.

The other side of the coin, and I make this observation with absolutely no offense intended, is that I would not come here at all, if the posts were predominately peoples' thoughts on art, including your own.

I am here for the things that seem implicit in the forum title, and anyone's "best BIF"," best landscapes", "best macro", although popular with many, and worthy in their own right, with websites galore featuring them, are not what draws me here.

I don't expect any other members to be concerned with, or impressed by my preferences. I am simply commenting on the fact that I think tech-talk is perfectly appropriate here, and I don't at-all miss what I think can accurately be described as "off-topic" in this plainly labeled forum.

The fact that this forum claims to offer one thing I am interested in, and the fact that I am here often, does not make me expect or demand that other interests of mine will be covered here to my satisfaction.

If this forum discusses (broadly)"Canon Rumors", then the hosts have met their claim, and can not be accused of less. They have not "falsely advertised". 

My $.02.

Best wishes.

PS - The writings you have done here, in your efforts to contribute, are similar in kind to what may be offered in any book by its author. And the response will be similar, although in the case of inter-net exchanges, more obvious/emotionally affective.

Some will comprehend and may or may not express gratitude. Many will comprehend less, but still be glad to have been offered the chance. Some will (mistakenly)think they have understood, and comment further based upon that incomprehension, leaving you frustrated (if you focus on these persons). If you take upon yourself the continuing effort to assist the poorer students, and are not sufficiently encouraged by the quicker ones, the task can seem unrewarding.

I suggest that the readers you are able to reach and help, to whatever degree, are the ones to keep in mind. It is almost a certainty that you are appreciated more than you will ever be made aware of. The author writes, the book goes out, readers read, and the effects of the readings can never be completely known. 

When seeds are cast, the hope (and the faith) is that some will grow. The unseen reward is best assumed.


----------



## jrista (Jun 9, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Man you just did it again, you can't fairly compare between cameras using Screen DR, you have to use Print DR. I'm start to doubt that you do get normalization after all, either that or are sneakily tricking people to make Canon look better in this scenario (also don't forget the banding differences where the 5D3 has tons more than D800 at low ISO).



I understand normalization perfectly. Normalization only works for certain things, though. It doesn't tell me everything, and quite specifically a normalized image that has 14.4 stops DOES NOT tell me the actual real-world editing latitude (i.e. the shadow lifting capability) of the D800. It EXAGGERATES it, unrealistically, by another two thirds of a stop at least. I am not trying to trick anyone. I believe DXO is tricking people when it comes to how they "sell" DR. They aren't technically incorrect, however they ARE practically incorrect. 

Your still comparing equipment in an isolated, agnostic context. I'm comparing real-world image workability. There is a difference. PrintDR is only useful within the context of DXO's web site. It has ZERO meaning outside of it. It has ZERO meaning when it comes to actually editing your images. No one downsamples an image, THEN processes it. Everyone processes their images a RAW, in which case, you NEVER downsample, because you CANNOT downsample and still BE editing RAW.

The use of ScreenDR does not change the fact that the D800 has an advantage. Not at all. Screen DR still shows a significant advantage for the D800. This doesn't make the 5D III better, it just doesn't make the D800 even more better than it actually is. The difference is that Screen DR tells you the REAL WORLD editing latitude advantage. A real, tangible thing that, as a photographer, once you are no longer comparing cameras within the limited context of DXO, and actually USING it, you can actually REALIZE.

I could care less about comparing cameras within the limited context of DXO. I could care less about being "fair" within the context of DXO's results. I care about what happens when I have the camera in-hand. I care about what limitations are imposed upon me when I am actually working with a camera's RAW files. I care about the real-world, realizable benefits of the D800's greater DR. I don't deny that it has more DR. Two stops is a LOT more tonal range. A LOT. No one is downplaying that. I just don't like the actual realizable DR benefit of the D800 being inflated. I've seen people spouting numbers like 14.7 and even 14.9 stops of DR (the latter, I think, was for the A7s), when NONE of that is actually a realizable advantage. You don't edit the exposure of downsampled images. You lose WAY too much editing latitude when you convert from a bayer pixel array to RGB pixels. The only number that tells you the real-world editing latitude is Screen DR. It IS a comparable value, within the right context...the context of actually editing images (which is what we all do...we don't compare cameras once we'be bought them...we USE them, and we EDIT their images). If I bring up a D800 and 5D III image in Lightroom, and do the most significant shadow lift I can before noise dominates the shadows...the D800 will get an extra two maybe two and a quarter stops over the 5D III. IT WILL NOT get another three stops, it won't get 3.5 stops, it won't get 4 stops. It will get about two stops of additional shadow lifting, maybe a little more. 

All I care about is being realistic about the ACTUAL capabilities of these cameras. I really don't care about endless, infinite camera comparisons in the unique, isolated, normalized world of DXO. Because when people bring it up here on these forums, they are actually taking photos with the D800, A7r, and 5D III, and sharing their edited results. Not one of the people sharing images will EVER realize the kind of additional editing latitude that Print DR is FALSELY leading them to believe they potentially could. That's what I care about. I'm not here to misslead anyone. 

I also guarantee you...when someone spits out test results showing that the next Canon camera, with some 57 megapixels, get 15.3 stops of DR with a 14-bit ADC, I'll be THE FIRST one to tell them they are completely, categorically WRONG. (I actually really hope it happens, because I'd just love to prove to everyone that I could care less about brand here. )


----------



## nlrela (Jun 9, 2014)

And I am still hoping for the Canon 1D-W ;D

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/canon-announces-the-eos-1d-w-the-professional-dslr-designed-specifically-for-wildlife-photographers/


----------



## jrista (Jun 9, 2014)

Larry said:


> "Canon Rumors" to me clearly enough suggests that the forum discussion will (or should) focus on the equipment available or expected to be available from Canon, …simple as that. Are there not sufficient other sites which offer conflicting opinion ad nauseam on what constitutes "art"? ("opinion", because one man's art is another's "WTF?")



Still not getting what I'm saying. Reread this: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21195.msg402874#msg402874

I am not interested in more "What is art?" talk. I'm interested in "How to I use my equipment to realize my own personal artistic vision?" kinds of talk. That need not be devoid of technicalities...however, it would pleasantly be devoid of the incessant, never-ending, beat-the-dead-horse-forever "Nikon has better DR!!!! BLuihuhuhuhthfphbbt!!" crap. As you say, there are PLENTY of places around the net (around everywhere) to debate what constitutes art. There really aren't that many places where you can discuss HOW to be ARTISTIC, or HOW to REALIZE your ARTISTIC VISION. Those are very, very, very different topics than your run-of-the-mill "this is art, that's not" debate. 



Larry said:


> The other side of the coin, and I make this observation with absolutely no offense intended, is that I would not come here at all, if the posts were predominately peoples' thoughts on art, including your own.



Again, things need not be devoid of technical talk. I just wish people could talk about Canon equipment and not always have every technical topic devolve into the same old useless, pointless, meaningless debate about how Nikon and Sony cameras have more DR. Wouldn't it be nice to just chat about just Canon gear, for a change? Say, when they finally release their big MP camera...wouldn't it be nice to have a conversation about THAT camera, and what THAT camera can do, and how THAT camera can assist you in realizing your personal artistic visions better than THAT cameras PREDECESSOR or Canon alternatives? Without having to worry that someone is going to bring up the DR debate...A-GAIN (which you know will end the useful conversation in the thread, and force it to devolve into the same people saying the same things over and over...AGAIN.)

That's all I'm really getting at. It would be nice to have some cordial conversations about Canon equipment, and how Canon equipment can better your art, without having to worry that some Nikon troll is going to ruin it.  It would just be awesome to start talking about some new Canon camera, and have the ENTIRE thread be JUST about that Canon camera, maybe eventually getting to the point where people start sharing actual photos they have taken with it, start sharing their experiences, etc. Our topics so rarely ever get to that point...they are never allowed to...because it always boils down to brand competition. 

I dunno...I'm just getting tired of having to debate all the time. Would be great to just...chat (fearlessly).


----------



## philmoz (Jun 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> I dunno...I'm just getting tired of having to debate all the time. Would be great to just...chat (fearlessly).



I value the thought and clarity you put into your posts, and the valuable information they provide.

But having watched many threads get sidetracked, and devolve into the same pointless arguments, I can't help think that part of the problem is you keep responding to the same trollish behaviour and flamebait posts.

We all know who the trolls are - if everyone just starts ignoring them, they might eventually get the hint and just go away.

Phil.


----------



## jrista (Jun 9, 2014)

philmoz said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I dunno...I'm just getting tired of having to debate all the time. Would be great to just...chat (fearlessly).
> ...



I've ignored a LOT of these threads that devolve into the DR debate. If it isn't me, it's definitely someone else, or usually a bunch of someone elses. Just search through these forums for *all *of the topics that somehow, eventually, devolve into the DR debate. I maybe participate in about a third of them. There are plenty more that I simply just don't get involved in at all, or leave when the debate starts. Sometimes I'm in a mood to debate and debunk the same old tired myths, but a lot more of the time, I'd rather work on my own photography.

To lay the blame for the entire problem at my feet is rather uncouth, and certainly ignorant of how deep the problem goes and how many people are involved (certainly more than just "the trolls"...there are certainly plenty of them, but there are plenty of others besides myself who hate to let the trolls have the last word.)


----------



## philmoz (Jun 9, 2014)

jrista said:


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



I apologise if you thought I was laying the blame on you - this was not my intent in any way.
The blame lies solely with the individuals who continue to post in a manner designed to antagonise and disrupt the forum threads.

I was only trying to suggest that responding at all, instead of just ignoring them, only plays into their hand and perpetuates the problem.

Phil.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 9, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> I'm tired of Mass DR Bating....


Nice one! LOL


----------



## Larry (Jun 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> Larry said:
> 
> 
> > "Canon Rumors" to me clearly enough suggests that the forum discussion will (or should) focus on the equipment available or expected to be available from Canon, …simple as that. Are there not sufficient other sites which offer conflicting opinion ad nauseam on what constitutes "art"? ("opinion", because one man's art is another's "WTF?")
> ...


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras,



I trust you know Andy was paid to switch. Some thing all major camera brands do as part of their advertising strategy. I doubt he has bought any Canon gear at all (just assuming here as I do not know the specifics on how these deals work); 
"I was recently appointed a ‘Canon Explorer’ ... I’m an ambassador for the brand..."


----------



## jrista (Jun 10, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras,
> ...



I believe he became a "Canon Explorer" after he switched. Also, I don't believe Canon actually pays the Explorers of Light photographers...at least, not directly. They may get equipment, but a LOT of high end photographers get free equipment from all the major brands, often simultaneously. 

If you read Andy's blog, he seems like a pretty sincere guy. I don't think he switched because he was paid off, and if he was, you need to present solid proof of that. (I'm not one for hearsay and rumormongering about how pros can't have honest opinions.)


----------



## kaihp (Jun 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> If you read Andy's blog, he seems like a pretty sincere blunt guy.



There, I fixed it for you ;D


----------



## dslrdummy (Jun 11, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras,
> ...


Check out his website - he bought his two 1Dx's.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> ...
> The D800/E are the best still cameras as far as dynamic range goes. That makes the difference 2.27 stops at best, or 2 1/4 stops.
> ...


The D600/610 are a little better than the D800/E in terms of screen DR.


----------



## jrista (Jun 12, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


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



Indeed, you are right.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Man you just did it again, you can't fairly compare between cameras using Screen DR, you have to use Print DR. I'm start to doubt that you do get normalization after all, either that or are sneakily tricking people to make Canon look better in this scenario (also don't forget the banding differences where the 5D3 has tons more than D800 at low ISO).
> ...




Apparently you have fallen back into the trap where you no longer do understand normalization perfectly.

DxO is mostly used to compare sensor to sensor and in that case it is practically correct to use normalization and NOT practically correct to look at the Screen ratings that you keep pushing.

Screen DR/SNR is NOT useful whatsoever when comparing camera to camera and trying to determine which one has better SNR or DR comparatively. If you use Screen results then you are equating different frequencies of noise to be the same which is a totally false thing to do.

Screen results do tell you what you can get out of it if you chose to try to figure out what you can get out if it using the full resolution and detail of the camera.



> Your still comparing equipment in an isolated, agnostic context.



How can you compare in isolation? The very fact you are comparing means you are no longer looking at things in isolation. The Screen results that you are so fond of are what you use when you are looking at things in isolation.



> I'm comparing real-world image workability. There is a difference.



You are comparing energy scales at different levels as if they were the same and penalizing cameras more and more, the more MP they have, relative to cameras that have lower MPs. If you just want to know what you can get out of a camera using it's full resolution, then yeah, use Screen, but it's not fair to COMPARE ACROSS CAMERAS ONE TO ANOTHER using Screen results.




> PrintDR is only useful within the context of DXO's web site. It has ZERO meaning outside of it.



Totally false. It gives a reasonably fair comparison between what you'd comparatively get out of cameras having different MP counts. I mean try this on for size. Say camera A is 100MP and camera B has 12MP and let us say that camera A compared pixel to pixel has worse SNR and DR than camera B but camera A binned to 12MP has much better SNR and DR than camera B. It would be ridiculous to knock camera A as having worse SNR and DR than camera A and yet that is just what you'd trick people into thinking by all your talk about how useless PrintDR is and how ScreenDR is where it's at.



> It has ZERO meaning when it comes to actually editing your images. No one downsamples an image, THEN processes it. Everyone processes their images a RAW, in which case, you NEVER downsample, because you CANNOT downsample and still BE editing RAW.



Yeah it doens't tell you how it acts at full resolution, but it does tell you how things relatively compare on a fair basis and we are talking about COMPARING various sensors here.



> The use of ScreenDR does not change the fact that the D800 has an advantage. Not at all. Screen DR still shows a significant advantage for the D800. This doesn't make the 5D III better, it just doesn't make the D800 even more better than it actually is. The difference is that Screen DR tells you the REAL WORLD editing latitude advantage. A real, tangible thing that, as a photographer, once you are no longer comparing cameras within the limited context of DXO, and actually USING it, you can actually REALIZE.



Once again you fail to understand how normalization works. Screen does tell you the real world editing latitude.... AT THE MAX RES OF EACH CAMERA, but that is not fair, since you penalize a camera then just for the ability to offer more max res/detail even though if you decide to not take advantage of the extra detail it might actually have better SNR/DR than the camera that is stuck and locked into offering less res/max detail.




> All I care about is being realistic about the ACTUAL capabilities of these cameras.



Yes, ScreenDR tells you realistically what you can get out of the camera using it to it's full max res, but again when people talk about comparing how one camera can do compared to another it can potentially give a misleading take on real world differences.

But ScreenDR can tell you what to expect if you try to use the max res of the other camera and how workable the file would seem if you were to use the full res of both, so it can be useful, to get ideas of stuff like that in comparison, but it's not a fair way to comparatively say one camera does better than another.



> I really don't care about endless, infinite camera comparisons in the unique, isolated, normalized world of DXO. Because when people bring it up here on these forums, they are actually taking photos with the D800, A7r, and 5D III, and sharing their edited results. Not one of the people sharing images will EVER realize the kind of additional editing latitude that Print DR is FALSELY leading them to believe they potentially could. That's what I care about. I'm not here to misslead anyone.



And yet you are misleading everyone.

And I see you just brought up sharing images, so let us say someone posts all their images at 1600x1000 regardless of what camera they shoot. So riddle me this.... are you claiming that shots the guy takes with a 100MP camera will look noisier than ones he takes with an 8MP camera when he posts at 1600x1200 to web just because the ScreenSNR rating says the 100MP camera has worse SNR???



> I also guarantee you...when someone spits out test results showing that the next Canon camera, with some 57 megapixels, get 15.3 stops of DR with a 14-bit ADC, I'll be THE FIRST one to tell them they are completely, categorically WRONG. (I actually really hope it happens, because I'd just love to prove to everyone that I could care less about brand here. )



And, if you were talking about comparing them to 8MP normalized standard, you'd once again be wrong and this time you'd be being unfair to the Canon camera. In fact, we already have such a scenario, your comparison method makes the 5D3 look much poorer compared to the Nikon D700 than is fair.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 17, 2014)

philmoz said:


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



I just have to ask though, what do you consider trolling? Simply telling the truth, even if at times it means not saying that Canon is the best (as many fanboys seem to think), or purposefully trying to agitate people for laughs?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2014)

@ LTRLI – next time you're in Boulogne-Billancourt, stop by DxO HQ and ask to see their prints from the D800 with 14.4 stops of DR. 

:


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> @ LTRLI – next time you're in Boulogne-Billancourt, stop by DxO HQ and ask to see their prints from the D800 with 14.4 stops of DR.
> 
> :



Neuro, I know you know better. So stop trolling.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > @ LTRLI – next time you're in Boulogne-Billancourt, stop by DxO HQ and ask to see their prints from the D800 with 14.4 stops of DR.
> ...



DxO should know better. It's not 'trolling' to point out that the 'Print DR' value is misleading and ludicrous, as is a 'Sports Score' based on the sensor alone, as is insisting that the 70-200/2.8L IS is better than the MkII version that succeeded it, etc.


----------



## jrista (Jun 17, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


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




I understand normalization perfectly. I do not think it is valid in all contexts. Noise frequencies are one thing...but that does nothing to tell you about editing latitide in a RAW editor like Lightroom. YOU CAN NOT EDIT DOWNSAMPLED RAW. That's a misnomer. Downsampled RAW images do not exist. 

Your talking noise frequencies. I'm talking editing latitude. 

The problem here is not that I do not understand normalization. It's that you refuse to look at the problem of comparing cameras from a different angle than the one DXO has imposed upon you. ;P 




LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Screen results do tell you what you can get out of it if you chose to try to figure out what you can get out if it using the full resolution and detail of the camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your misunderstanding. DXO's results are only meaningful when you are on DXO's site (i.e. isolated) comparing cameras that DXO has tested. Many of DXO's results and measurements have no relevance outside of their site, in the real world...such as, oh, say, lifting shadows in Lightroom. Lifting the shadows of a RAW image, an UNSCALED RAW image, in Lightroom?

What if I want to know how to cameras compare IN THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT? Well, Print DR is invalid, it doesn't have the capacity to answer my question in that context. Screen DR, on the other hand, DOES. It tells me the dynamic range of the full sized, unscaled RAW images. I WANT to COMPARE that between cameras. That is NOT an invalid goal. On the contrary, THAT IS WHAT EVERYONE CARES ABOUT WHEN THEY THINK ABOUT DR!! 

Do you get it now?




LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > I'm comparing real-world image workability. There is a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> You are comparing energy scales at different levels as if they were the same and penalizing cameras more and more, the more MP they have, relative to cameras that have lower MPs. If you just want to know what you can get out of a camera using it's full resolution, then yeah, use Screen, but it's not fair to COMPARE ACROSS CAMERAS ONE TO ANOTHER using Screen results.



When it comes to shadow lifting, the number of megapixels doesn't matter. The dynamic range of each and every pixel is what matters. I don't really care about the photon shot noise levels, which permeate the entire signal. I care about the READ NOISE levels, which only exist in the deep shadows. In that context, it is entirely fair to compare across cameras, because what I want to compare is only valid at full resolution. The frequencies of all noise are immaterial, the RMS level of the READ NOISE is what matters.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > PrintDR is only useful within the context of DXO's web site. It has ZERO meaning outside of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally false. It gives a reasonably fair comparison between what you'd comparatively get out of cameras having different MP counts. I mean try this on for size. Say camera A is 100MP and camera B has 12MP and let us say that camera A compared pixel to pixel has worse SNR and DR than camera B but camera A binned to 12MP has much better SNR and DR than camera B. It would be ridiculous to knock camera A as having worse SNR and DR than camera A and yet that is just what you'd trick people into thinking by all your talk about how useless PrintDR is and how ScreenDR is where it's at.



You can only compare cameras using information produced the same way. Print DR, on DXOs site, is only valid when comparing cameras within the context of DXO. It is entirely invalid to use the Print DR value from DXO, and compare it to any dynamic range value derived anywhere else, say DPR. Print DR only gives you a numeric value with which to compare cameras in one specific context...DXO. It does not give you any real-world information beyond that context. 

I am not trying to trick anyone. I believe DXO IS tricking people with their Print DR numbers...they are regurgitated all over the net, OUT OF CONTEX, ALL THE TIME...and that is exceptionally missleading. A D800, for example, ONLY gets 14.4 stops of DR when you assume the DXO formula is used to calculate DR, and you assume that the target image size is an 8x12" 300dpi "print". That's why I refer to Screen DR. When people talk about dynamic range, they are pretty much always (99% of the time) talking about the ability to lift shadows. Shadow lifting isn't really dynamic range...but it's what people interpret dynamic range numbers to mean. The only thing that give you an honest interpretation of the shadow lifting ability of a camera is a DR measurement from the actual RAW image. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > It has ZERO meaning when it comes to actually editing your images. No one downsamples an image, THEN processes it. Everyone processes their images a RAW, in which case, you NEVER downsample, because you CANNOT downsample and still BE editing RAW.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it doens't tell you how it acts at full resolution, but it does tell you how things relatively compare on a fair basis and we are talking about COMPARING various sensors here.



True, for most things. Not true for shadow lifting. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > The use of ScreenDR does not change the fact that the D800 has an advantage. Not at all. Screen DR still shows a significant advantage for the D800. This doesn't make the 5D III better, it just doesn't make the D800 even more better than it actually is. The difference is that Screen DR tells you the REAL WORLD editing latitude advantage. A real, tangible thing that, as a photographer, once you are no longer comparing cameras within the limited context of DXO, and actually USING it, you can actually REALIZE.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fail to understand how normalization works. Screen does tell you the real world editing latitude.... AT THE MAX RES OF EACH CAMERA, but that is not fair, since you penalize a camera then just for the ability to offer more max res/detail even though if you decide to not take advantage of the extra detail it might actually have better SNR/DR than the camera that is stuck and locked into offering less res/max detail.



It is fair! I can't lift shadows with a RAW image that's been downsampled...because I can't downsample a RAW image. I have to convert it to RGB pixels, then downsample it, then save it as, say, a TIFF. The TIFF doesn't have even remotely close to the same editing latitude.

I could care less about the rules DXO enforces on "comparing" cameras. I know what normalization is, and they provide useful details in some contexts. But that is not the context I am usually referring to. There is more to comparing a camera than ONLY comparing JUST the sensor, and JUST a normalized output at that. There are far more things and ways to compare than just the normalized image context. I'm not saying comparing in a normalized context is invalid...it's just incomplete. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > All I care about is being realistic about the ACTUAL capabilities of these cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, ScreenDR tells you realistically what you can get out of the camera using it to it's full max res, but again when people talk about comparing how one camera can do compared to another it can potentially give a misleading take on real world differences.



It depends on the context. DXO's "Landscape" or "Print DR" numbers are used as the biblical dynamic range that you can ACTUALLY WORK WITH in real life...everywhere. There are some huge threads on DPR where people have debated the 14.4 stops DR thing with gobs of actual examples of shadow lifting in Lightroom. I've seen D800 images pushed 6 to 8 stops. By six stops, a lot of red, blue, and green color noise shows up in the shadows, indicating that you have lifted beyond the capabilities of the camera. That is exactly what I would expect based on the Screen DR measure. The Print DR measure, however, tells people that they can lift at least six stops, and more. THAT is what's missleading. THAT is what I have a problem with. DXO's Print DR numbers are only valid WHEN COMPARING WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF DXO's OTHER TESTED CAMERAS, ONLY USING DXO DATA.

Outside of that context, a dynamic range value of 14.4 stops of DR for the D800 is invalid. When people get into lengthy, extended debates about the shadow lifting range of the D800, they should be using 13.2 stops of DR as the reference...which would mean they could lift a bit over 5 stops without seeing noise in the shadows. That is exactly what a lot of the examples on DPR indicate...but the debate still rages on, why? Because DXO says 14.4 stops. 

Anyway, were talking at perpendicular angles here. I understand normalization. Normalization has it's place. Normalization has it's use. When it comes to discussions of dynamic range an the shadow lifting ability of cameras, Print DR is invalid. Screen DR is valid. If you want to COMPARE the shadow lifting ability of cameras, then Screen DR is the value you have to use.

I'm done debating with you on this particular subject at this point. Were just talking in circles around each other. I concede the point about normalization for comparing "fairly" as you say. I've never denied it. But that is different than what I'm talking about, and it ignores the constant debate about WHAT DYNAMIC RANGE ALLOWS in cameras that have more of it (or, to be more precise, allows in cameras that have LESS READ NOISE...because that is primarily what were talking about here...the difference between the D800 and 5D III isn't sensor (pre-read) dynamic range...it's read noise levels (post-read).)

Well, I think most people know what I'm talking about. I believe most people don't think I'm intentionally trying to misslead them or make any particular camera "look bad"...I've praised the D800 for years around here, I have never said it is worse than it really is. I think people know that, and that's all I really care about. 

Later.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> DxO should know better. It's not 'trolling' to point out that the 'Print DR' value is misleading and ludicrous, as is a 'Sports Score' based on the sensor alone, as is insisting that the 70-200/2.8L IS is better than the MkII version that succeeded it, etc.



Full ACK.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Come on man, I know you understand the hows and whys of normalization even if Jrisita does not. Don't play the troll game where you push an agenda only to admit the truth when really pushed later on, it makes into a pure fanboy.

And yeah the overall scores are of dubious nature, but what do they have to do with the individual plots and normalization?

And yeah DxO has had some issued with their lens data, but that is something else entirely. I've bashed them for some of their lens stuff as much as anyone.


----------



## DRR (Jun 17, 2014)

jrista said:


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



I know nothing about this case specifically but a friend of mine has a similar relationship with Panavision. He's a commerical DP and uses Panavision exclusively, and he can use their stuff in his own promotional materials. 

He gets full access to all Panavision equipment, current and discontinued, basically anything they have, cameras, lenses, etc, he can simply ask for and they'll ship it to wherever he needs, for as long as he wants, but he does not own it. 

He does not get paid for this. But obviously it adds to his appeal as a DP for production companies if he can provide all his own equipment for a shoot because the production company does not have to foot that bill. That keeps him working. As part of the relationship he did need to maintain a level of self-promotion but as long as he was working that requirement was basically met. He got a bunch of free t-shirts and other swag but no monetary compensation on a regular basis. If they decided to, for example, feature him and his work in their own promotional materials, he would be compensated for that.

I don't know how Canon handles their Explorers of Light program but my guess is it's something similar. You lose credibility as a company if you pay your brand ambassadors.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> I understand normalization perfectly.



It seem like you do.



> I do not think it is valid in all contexts. Noise frequencies are one thing...but that does nothing to tell you about editing latitide in a RAW editor like Lightroom. YOU CAN NOT EDIT DOWNSAMPLED RAW. That's a misnomer. Downsampled RAW images do not exist.



What does this have to do with fairly judging whether one camera is better, worse, same in regards to DR,SNR??



> Your talking noise frequencies. I'm talking editing latitude.



Yeah because you need to take into the account the former if you are trying to make statements like one camera has better SNR or DR than another and what editing latitude you have when trying to take max advantage of MP account is something else entirely.



> The problem here is not that I do not understand normalization. It's that you refuse to look at the problem of comparing cameras from a different angle than the one DXO has imposed upon you. ;P



No, it's that you don't understand why normalization must be carried out to make statements about what camera does better than another for certain things.




> Your misunderstanding. DXO's results are only meaningful when you are on DXO's site (i.e. isolated) comparing cameras that DXO has tested. Many of DXO's results and measurements have no relevance outside of their site, in the real world...such as, oh, say, lifting shadows in Lightroom. Lifting the shadows of a RAW image, an UNSCALED RAW image, in Lightroom?



Relatively they do!




> What if I want to know how to cameras compare IN THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT? Well, Print DR is invalid, it doesn't have the capacity to answer my question in that context. Screen DR, on the other hand, DOES.



100% misleading, who cares if some 1000MP camera can't pull the shadows well when images are viewed, in all 1000MP glory, at 100% view, compared to some 10MP camera viewed at 100% if if you viewed the image from the 1000MP camera at the same scale as you view the 10MP image the 1000MP camera gave you better SNR and DR???



> It tells me the dynamic range of the full sized, unscaled RAW images. I WANT to COMPARE that between cameras. That is NOT an invalid goal. On the contrary, THAT IS WHAT EVERYONE CARES ABOUT WHEN THEY THINK ABOUT DR!!



That isn't fair to lower MP cameras. As I say, you may be able to maintain the same detail as a lower MP camera and have better SNR and DR even though viewed at a scale where you take advantage of all the extra detail it might, at 100% view, measure worse.

Yeah maybe you want to know how you'd do, taking full advantage of the new camera's resolution compared to what you were getting when you took full advantage of your old, lower MP camera and get a sense of that fine, but at the end of the day it's all the same not fair to slag off on the higher MP camera and say it is worse or not as fully better as it is, normalized to the same scale as your old camera. You might end up thinking that the new model flat out would give worse SNR and DR and perform worse than the old one when it really might not at all or you might minimize the amount that it is better and so on.



> Do you get it now?



Now and before.





> When it comes to shadow lifting, the number of megapixels doesn't matter. The dynamic range of each and every pixel is what matters. I don't really care about the photon shot noise levels, which permeate the entire signal. I care about the READ NOISE levels, which only exist in the deep shadows. In that context, it is entirely fair to compare across cameras, because what I want to compare is only valid at full resolution. The frequencies of all noise are immaterial, the RMS level of the READ NOISE is what matters.



so read shadow noise is magically invariant on scale???



> You can only compare cameras using information produced the same way. Print DR, on DXOs site, is only valid when comparing cameras within the context of DXO. It is entirely invalid to use the Print DR value from DXO, and compare it to any dynamic range value derived anywhere else, say DPR. Print DR only gives you a numeric value with which to compare cameras in one specific context...DXO. It does not give you any real-world information beyond that context.



oh brother, yeah the exact numbers taken alone aren't generally useful but comparing the numbers relatively they are, the relative differences are absolutely generally useful in outside contexts that is the entire point of normalization!



> I am not trying to trick anyone. I believe DXO IS tricking people with their Print DR numbers...they are regurgitated all over the net, OUT OF CONTEX, ALL THE TIME...and that is exceptionally missleading.



Maybe you are not trying to trick people, but you are misleading them by mistake then.
And yeah notice how basically everyone else does use those numbers? But nope, Jrista is the only person the world who actually 'understands' and 'gets' normalization. I mean, OK, here and there a few people make the mistake and assume those numbers are what you'd get just dealing with a RAW file at 100% alone, and it's true for that, to get the true number, in isolation, Screen DR is the one to go, and a few people mix it up and use Print DR for that too, but not that many from what I see.



> True, for most things. Not true for shadow lifting.



Yes, because shadows are magical unicorns.





> It is fair! I can't lift shadows with a RAW image that's been downsampled...because I can't downsample a RAW image. I have to convert it to RGB pixels, then downsample it, then save it as, say, a TIFF. The TIFF doesn't have even remotely close to the same editing latitude.



Who is talking about having to edit the TIFF afterwards???



> I could care less about the rules DXO enforces on "comparing" cameras. I know what normalization is, and they provide useful details in some contexts. But that is not the context I am usually referring to. There is more to comparing a camera than ONLY comparing JUST the sensor, and JUST a normalized output at that. There are far more things and ways to compare than just the normalized image context. I'm not saying comparing in a normalized context is invalid...it's just incomplete.



Of course there is more to comparing than just the sensor, but we happen to be talking about just the sensor here. 





> Outside of that context, a dynamic range value of 14.4 stops of DR for the D800 is invalid. When people get into lengthy, extended debates about the shadow lifting range of the D800, they should be using 13.2 stops of DR as the reference...which would mean they could lift a bit over 5 stops without seeing noise in the shadows. That is exactly what a lot of the examples on DPR indicate...but the debate still rages on, why? Because DXO says 14.4 stops.



If they are viewing full detail at 100% then yes they should only expect to pull 13.2 stops. But if they want to know how many stops better it might do than say a 5D2 it would be the 3 stops relative difference not just the 2 (or whatever the exact numbers are, you get the idea).



> Anyway, were talking at perpendicular angles here. I understand normalization. Normalization has it's place. Normalization has it's use. When it comes to discussions of dynamic range an the shadow lifting ability of cameras, Print DR is invalid. Screen DR is valid. If you want to COMPARE the shadow lifting ability of cameras, then Screen DR is the value you have to use.



No it's when you are relatively comparing that you must use the PrintDR. It's the ScreenDR that you use when you just want to know how much you can pull and lift when viewing the RAWs at 100% view.



> I concede the point about normalization for comparing "fairly" as you say. I've never denied it.


You jsut spent the last 10 paragraphs denying it.



> But that is different than what I'm talking about, and it ignores the constant debate about WHAT DYNAMIC RANGE ALLOWS in cameras that have more of it (or, to be more precise, allows in cameras that have LESS READ NOISE...because that is primarily what were talking about here...the difference between the D800 and 5D III isn't sensor (pre-read) dynamic range...it's read noise levels (post-read).)



Yeah keep trying to conflate what you can get out of a RAW image when working on it at 100% view and what to expect in that context with comparing how sensors do relative to one another. For the former, yeah it is the ScreenDR, for the latter though it is PrintDR.


----------



## Skulker (Jun 17, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras,
> ...



i trust you can back up that claim. He specifically denied that and said he paid for his gear. But maybe you know better.


----------



## Maui5150 (Jun 17, 2014)

T6i!!!!

T6i!!!!


T6i!!!!


T6i!!!!


T6i!!!!


T6i!!!!


T6i!!!!


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 18, 2014)

It's available here

http://www.digidirect.com.au/camera_lenses/canon/wide_angle_zoom/canon_ef_16-35mm_f4l_is_usm

I was in one of their stores on Monday and saw it on display.
Shame, I bought a 16-35 F2.8 in January.
Mind you, I haven't needed IS with this lens.


----------



## jrista (Jun 18, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I understand normalization perfectly.
> ...



You keep missing the point. Your locked into your limited notion of what is "comparable" and what is not. I'm choosing to compare something you have decided is not comparable. Sorry, I disagree. I've always disagreed, I always will disagree. I suspect your in the same position, so this the last I'll say on it in this particular thread.

In the context I'm _always_ referring to, the same context I've been referring to for years, I'm not interested in how the images look in the end. I'm interested in what I can _*do*_ with the _*RAW*_ files. I'm interested in the editing potential...the latitude with which I can push and pull exposure and white balance and color around. RAW files are not scaled. You always work with them at their native size. Scaling does not play a factor when it comes to _*editing*_ RAW files. I don't care what the final outcome looks like. That is ARBITRARY. I can output the same images DOZENS of times at different sizes, for different prints, all with different amounts of dynamic range, all with different SNRs. But when I'm sitting in front of Lightroom, that's all the last thing on my mind. We ALL sit in front of lightroom, pushing exposure around...all the time, day in and day out, year in and year out.

Just because DXO says I get 14.4 stops of DR at an 8x12" 300dpi size *specifically* doesn't mean that's what your going to be sizing to in the end. You may downsample it more, you may downsample it less, you may ENLARGE! DXO's Print DR is an _arbitrarily chosen_ standard FOR THE PURPOSES OF comparing _ONLY within the limited context _of DXO's web site. It doesn't tell you anything about actual, real-world results as if your sitting in front of your computer, using Lightroom to actually WORK with the RAW files those cameras output. It just tells you what you could get IF you downsampled to EXACTLY that size. That's all. And that's fine and dandy...when I'm browsing around DXO's site selecting cameras to compare with their little camera comparer, it gives me a contextually valid result.

It's impossible to edit RAW at an other size than 100%. So 100% size is all that matters when you want to know what you can do, as far as lifting shadows for the purposes of compressing 10, 12, 13.2 or 15.3 stops of dynamic range into the 8 stops of your screen, or the 5-7 stops of print. The output dynamic range is arbitrary...it depends on countless factors that ultimately affect it (which, yes, total megapixel count is one of them, but noise reduction routines, HDR merge/enfuse, etc. are others). You may end up with 14 stops of DR, you may end up with 16 stops of DR in a file you were able to perform some epic noise reduction on. The output isn't what matters when your actually sitting in front of Lightroom actually editing the RAW itself. The RAW file itself, at 100% size, is what matters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 18, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Come on man, I know you understand the hows and whys of normalization...



Sure. There are times when transformation and normalization of data are necessary...but it should be done rationally. I once reviewed a manuscript where the normalization of chemical constituents resulted in a negative solute concentration – you can't have less than zero of something dissolved in a solvent! When normalized values exceed the range of what is physically possible, the normalization method needs to be revised. Quite simply, DxO is BAD 'image science'.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 18, 2014)

DXO should 
1. capture image of identical test target using 3 copies of purchased test cameras and the same optical bench
2. physically print the images using the same physical printer every time and exactly the same print settings 
3. scan those Print-outs using the same scanner and scan settings every time
4. then present to us 100% views of the same, pre-defined image areas of those scans ... 1x Center, 4x halfway out along image diagonals and 4x corners

THEN i might start taking their test method seriously.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 18, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> DXO should
> 1. capture image of identical test target using 3 copies of purchased test cameras and the same optical bench



I came across this image of an unnamed DxO 'scientist' preparing their optical bench for a camera test.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 18, 2014)

Hehe! ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 19, 2014)

jrista said:


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



blah blah blah

you can't compare cameras that way and say that one is better than another, as I've pointed out that can lead to very misleading results.

You are basically saying that all you ever refer to is comparing cameras at 100% view, but then you talk in generalities, which badly confuses many I bet. It seems very misleading. Again, say some 100MP camera has worse SNR per photosite than some 6MP camera but, viewing images at the same scale from each the 100MP camera has MUCH better SNR, well it would not be fair to say that the 100MP has worse SNR than the 6MP camera, but with your 100% view RAW editing latitude only stance that is the impression you give.

Finding out what 100% view RAW editing latitude you have is fine and good, as a stand alone, but you shouldn't be using that in the context of comparing one camera to another and saying that it's overall better or worse for DR/SNR. That is simply wrong and misleading. There is a reason that you are one of the few people left who try to talk in such a manner.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Come on man, I know you understand the hows and whys of normalization...
> ...



And how is it bad image science?
Because it makes Canon look worse for low ISO DR at this point in time? :

(and I bet if the next gen from Canon has better DR than Exmor, that suddenly you will go back to not trying to obfuscate and hide the Print normalized data)

Once again you play sneaky tricks bringing up things like less than zero results or probabilities more than 100% and other various mistakes and then mentioning DxO and trying to trick people into thinking they are doing things of the same nature.

You'd make a good politician.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > DXO should
> ...



You remind me of Carl Rove....


----------



## jrista (Jun 19, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


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



Not comparing "cameras". Just comparing their editing latitude. For all the rest, existing results from DXO, DPR, etc. are sufficient. I JUST mean comparing editing latitude. Which is what all the DR debates are always about...how much can you lift the shadows. That's it. Please don't conflate that with your assumption that I'm "comparing cameras", I am not. You keep ignoring the fact that there is a CONTEXT within which the debate occurs. There is always a context. The context, here on CR, is that the DR debate always ends up referring to how much editing latitude....how much shadow lifting...you have with Camera A vs. Camera B. That's what I'm always referring to, because that's what the debate is always about.

You are personally concerned about total noise levels, and specifically total noise levels in a normalized context. That is COMPLETELY VALID! I'm not debating that. I don't think ANYONE has ever debated that. It's just a different context. Evaluating the total amount of noise in a downsampled image is different than evaluating the editing latitude of a RAW file.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> You are personally concerned about total noise levels, and specifically total noise levels in a normalized context. That is COMPLETELY VALID! I'm not debating that. I don't think ANYONE has ever debated that. It's just a different context. Evaluating the total amount of noise in a downsampled image is different than evaluating the editing latitude of a RAW file.



Then how come you started up all your DxO is all misleading BS with their Print screens, you can't use that nonsense that has no connection and no use whatsoever of the webpage, etc. etc.?


----------



## jrista (Jun 21, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You are personally concerned about total noise levels, and specifically total noise levels in a normalized context. That is COMPLETELY VALID! I'm not debating that. I don't think ANYONE has ever debated that. It's just a different context. Evaluating the total amount of noise in a downsampled image is different than evaluating the editing latitude of a RAW file.
> ...



Print DR only has meaning when you are comparing cameras within the context of DXO. That is the sole valid use of Print DR. Because that is the only place where DXO's specific algorithm for determining Print DR is applied, and where an image size for a 8x12" 300ppi print is the target of that scaling algorithm. That 8x12" 300ppi image, scaled with DXO's algorithm, is the ONLY way to get the dynamic range numbers DXO spits out for Print DR. Outside of that context...Print DR is meaningless. 

IF you are on DXO's site comparing cameras, then it's valid. But to refer to Print DR as *the *dynamic range that anyone, anywhere, at any time, regardless of their processing, output image size, or a myriad of other factors that go into making an image, to refer to Print DR as *THE *dynamic range they have when they use a camera is WRONG. That is NOT the dynamic range of the camera. You cannot know how people are going to process, what dimensions they may scale to. The only thing you can really know is that people are either shooting JPEG, in which case every DR number that DXO spits out is irrelevant...or they are editing RAW images in ACR, LR, or maybe Aperture/Darktable/RawThearapy. EDITING RAW. Print DR has no meaning OUTSIDE of the context of DXO. Such as, oh, I dunno...here on CR?!? Print DR only has meaning when you check off three cameras for direct comparison ON DOX's web site. 

So, here on CR...where the discussions about DR always revolve around lifting shadows with RAW (your one of maybe two people who ever bring up noise _frequencies _specifically, in which case the context is different)...here on CR (and pretty much any other site, like DPR) where DR is interpreted to mean shadow lifting latitude, I refer to Screen DR. It's contextually valid, it has a direct application to what people actually do with their actual images that they actually get out of actual cameras in actual life.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 21, 2014)

jrista said:


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



I don't think so. Here on CR people much more often compare seem to be comparing the relative DR and SNR of one sensor to another and the relative comparison between sensors should be done using PrintDR. A relative comparison is a relative comparison and relative differences on DxO don't magically change as soon as you click away from the DxO page. (although it is true, that what you can get out of a RAW file, as is, 100% view, stand alone, not comparing, is the ScreenDR)

DOn't forget the actual life usage relative differences between cameras should be based off of PrintDR, yeah the absolute #s you get from that might not match anything you do, but the relative difference in how each body would do for you compared to another, you get from the PrintDR (even if again, the absolute #s there alone aren't all that applicable other than in very rare scenarios).


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 23, 2014)

Skulker said:


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



Details of Canon's program are now available. Not much cheaper gear than the rest of us, per diems while traveling, paid presentations + pic royalties (of course). Lots of rules and regulations tying you into Canon (no surprise).


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 3, 2014)

Lets say I take a 20MPx image with a 70D and downsample that to 2 pixels. What will the dynamic range of that downsampled image be? When you downsample, do you gain any additional shadow or highlight detail?

Now I decide to print that downsampled image on paper. What is the maximum dynamic range that the paper and ink can reproduce? I wonder if it is higher than what I shot with the 70D. When you print an image, do you gain additional shadow or highlight detail?

I wonder... after all these are really difficult concepts to grapple with...


----------



## jrista (Aug 4, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Lets say I take a 20MPx image with a 70D and downsample that to 2 pixels. What will the dynamic range of that downsampled image be? When you downsample, do you gain any additional shadow or highlight detail?
> 
> Now I decide to print that downsampled image on paper. What is the maximum dynamic range that the paper and ink can reproduce? I wonder if it is higher than what I shot with the 70D. When you print an image, do you gain additional shadow or highlight detail?
> 
> I wonder... after all these are really difficult concepts to grapple with...



You always lose dynamic range in print. The best papers in the world, printed on top of the line Epson or Canon commercial printers with high end pigment inks with low metamerism and excellent ink density get maybe 7 stops or so of dynamic range. You NEVER gain DR in print. You always lose DR in print, and usually lose out in overall full gamut as well, as the range of reproducible colors, even on the best of the best papers with the best inks under excellent light, don't achieve the same kind of white point brightness, black point depth, nor color saturation extent as a computer screen.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 4, 2014)

jrista said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lets say I take a 20MPx image with a 70D and downsample that to 2 pixels. What will the dynamic range of that downsampled image be? When you downsample, do you gain any additional shadow or highlight detail?
> ...


I think you missed seeing my smiley, but thanks for explaining it for the uninformed.


----------



## crashpc (Aug 4, 2014)

For keeping the format, I´d rather choose 3x2 pixels array :-D
And of course I have the same doubts.


----------



## RodS57 (Aug 8, 2014)

jrista said:


> I dunno...<snip> Would be great to just...chat (fearlessly).



Jrista, 

I agree 100%
I enjoy some of your posts. Yes, only some. The more technical ones are beyond my understanding.

This is my first post so let me say I am not a troll or a canon fanboy. I have a canon because I had a budget in mind and the canon kit (T3i + 18-55 & 75-300) fit my budget. It could have been nikon or jimbob's shoebox camera. I use canon rumors and other sites to get a feel for prospective purchases. My kit now includes the 15-85, 70-300L & the tamzooka.

I still take pictures pretty much the way I did with 35mm film without the expense of film. (ie: in camera jpgs; what comes out comes out; what doesn't doesn't ). Photography is one of several hobbies I have. The main thing is I enjoy it. I would like to expand my capabilities so I am very interested in the 7D2 but I will not take out a second mortgage to get one. 

As for the 'art' part of your argument - good luck. Night sky pictures are amazing. I'm still trying for "that" shot of the moon and hoping for better displays of northern lights this year. 

As for the threads here on the forum, they do tend to degenerate somewhat. Still it is interesting to see/read what other people think.

Cheers


----------

