# DPReview's turn to beat up the 5DS/5DSr results



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2015)

DXO shared their data with DPReview (aren't they partners?) and the DPReview folks gave their perspective on the results:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3673531883/dxomark-eos-5ds-r-sensor-is-highest-ranked-canon-sensor-yet

(It's not entirely a rehash, they preferred to compare DR at the D810's resolution rather than DXO's weird/arbitrary 8 MP)

Spoiler alert: not particularly flattering. The phrase 'dynamic range' is used as a cudgel numerous times.

- A


----------



## bluemoon (Jul 9, 2015)

so they took a 50MP file and compressed it to 36 thus introducing compression and interpolation of the image. Then they compare it to an original RAW file from the Nikon. How much sense does that make? Why not increase the size of the Nikon image to 50 MP and see what happens then?

This will be sooooo dependent on the software used that it completely negates any chance of comparing the possible sensor advantages.

Also,and I might be off on this one, but they are talking about the amount of light being gathered by the exmor as compared to the Canon sensor. They are saying it lets more light in. Yeah no $hit Sherlock, if you have thinner color coded filters (RGB) in front of the photo cells, you will let more light in. The color in the Canon images is so much richer than the Nikon. 

It just never seizes to amaze me how some ppl are the proclaimed experts without full understanding what they are talking about (not claiming to be one, but even as a laic I see issues with their reporting).

pierre


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2015)

The weirder bit is that some folks claim that with my A7 or D8X0 rig, 'I don't need ND grads or bracketing anymore' (see page 2):

_"The sheer light-gathering and low-noise abilities of cameras like the Nikon D810 and Pentax 645Z mean I hardly find myself shooting with graduated ND filters or using HDR bracketing techniques in the field when dealing with high contrast scenes with these cameras."_

I am an amateur, but it's been my experience that as much as you _can_ push shadows or pull highlights in, you can never do it enough for some scenes -- i.e. the range of brightness in the frame is far greater than what the sensor can record. So I don't think 1, 2 stops difference between the Canon and Nikon means I can pitch my ND grads or cease bracketing, but I defer to the pro landscapers on that front.

- A


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 9, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> The weirder bit is that some folks claim that with my A7 or D8X0 rig, 'I don't need ND grads or bracketing anymore' (see page 2):
> 
> _"The sheer light-gathering and low-noise abilities of cameras like the Nikon D810 and Pentax 645Z mean I hardly find myself shooting with graduated ND filters or using HDR bracketing techniques in the field when dealing with high contrast scenes with these cameras."_
> 
> ...



What you have quoted in blue would have been true had he been using reversal film. But the point is 12 stops EV range is generally more than enough to cover everything in landscape photography, and if it isn't then the chances are '14' won't be much better. The window of opportunity to make use of that available push is smaller than the window in a Nun's lavatory. 

I tried to make use of it without resorting to cartoon-like HDR images, and in all honesty it was wasted on me. I only ever need to push a maximum of two stops, normally only one, and for that I found no real difference between Canon and Exmor, or 12 stops to 14 stops if you prefer. 

The graph you have linked to is very misleading, especially to people who haven't tried a Nikon or Sony with that extra DR.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> The graph you have linked to is very misleading, especially to people who haven't tried a Nikon or Sony with that extra DR.



Agree -- just forwarding. Do not shoot the messenger. 

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jul 10, 2015)

This graph reminded me why I don't give a (insert your favorite phrase here) about dynamic range. The difference between sensors only shows up at ISOs that I seldom shoot at. Once you get into a normal range the differences are so tiny as to be totally irrelevant.

Couple that with the fact that whenever I look at sites that show comparison shots, Canon matches or outperforms competitors in noise at higher ISOs, which is far more important for my shooting than pushing shadows at ISO 100.

The truth is, there is no magic sensor, despite what some people seem to believe. It's all about what you want. What I want is an outstanding, all-around performer. I've got that in the 5DIII and Sony and Nikon have given me no reason to switch.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The problem with the graph



Dilbert, how do you personally use the extra 2 stops of DR you get with your D810?


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > This graph reminded me why I don't give a (insert your favorite phrase here) about dynamic range. The difference between sensors only shows up at ISOs that I seldom shoot at. Once you get into a normal range the differences are so tiny as to be totally irrelevant.
> ...


"Almost everyone?" Would you cite your sources please?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 10, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



When I go into a dynamic environment, I usually set 800 (5D3 or A7R), and adjust up if required or down if possible for a desired aperture/shutter combo. If I know (or am setting) the lighting scenario, I'll tend to go lower.

Also, I am almost everyone.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 10, 2015)

Eeehhh .... I have a 12 cylinder Lamborghini and an 8 cylinder Corvette. To compare their performance, I disable 4 of the cylinders on the Lambo and ... :


----------



## Bennymiata (Jul 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Eeehhh .... I have a 12 cylinder Lamborghini and an 8 cylinder Corvette. To compare their performance, I disable 4 of the cylinders on the Lambo and ... :



Exactly.

Having the highest dr does not make a camera great.


----------



## rs (Jul 10, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Eeehhh .... I have a 12 cylinder Lamborghini and an 8 cylinder Corvette. To compare their performance, I disable 4 of the cylinders on the Lambo and ... :
> ...


No, but it makes a great reason to ignore all the other shortcomings :


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 10, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > The graph you have linked to is very misleading, especially to people who haven't tried a Nikon or Sony with that extra DR.
> ...



No, not meaning that. You do right to highlight this. On the face of it, at low ISO there is a _huge difference. 

When the D800 first came out I tried it casually, and didn't find much difference. In particular the 36 MP wasn't as practical as I thought it might have been - didn't see much difference in practice between that and 21 to be honest. 

However after reading all the crap on the Internet (this never comes from working photographers outside of the Internet by the way) I thought I must be missing something, so tried one again. 

Looking at the graph again, I just can't find a practical way of using that difference between the sensors because 11 EV is already covering so much. If you then go to an artificial situation, say taking a shot inside a room lit by window light where you want to get outside of the window exposed correctly too - in other words you are not only exposing for the incident light (the inside of the room lit by the window) but also the light source itself (the window + what's outside), the the 14 stops can't do it anyway. 

The real answer to more EV range will be true 16 bit raws which will allow more highlight range. At present the Nikons / Sonys etc have no more highlight range than the Canon. 

Didn't mean all that to be in italics : my iPad obviously is lacking in DR._


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Many times, as is true in this case, the question itself is wrong. Or, as Tom Lehrer quoted his philosopher friend Hen3ry, "life is like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it."

To ask what "normal ISO" is would be like asking what "normal volume" is on a sound system: you have to include context for it to make any sense at all. I was hoping you'd see that from my previous post so I wouldn't have to be explicit. It's true that 100 (or even lower) is common in studio environments, and 100-400 is common in landscape photography. On the other hand, there are many many photographers, pro and amateur, who routinely shoot at much higher ISOs. Sport and bird photographers shoot many thousands of frames at ISO 800, 1600 or higher.

In short, I was hoping you'd see that a better question is "what is normal ISO for each person's type of photography." As I (and others) have repeatedly said, you should choose the gear that's right for your type of photography, as I hope you'll choose to do so you're no longer frustrated by your Canon sensor. The question "what is normal ISO," when stripped of context, simply isn't very insightful.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2015)

As a general comment, I'm not a pro and I capture available light handheld 95% of the time. ISO 100 is lovely for bright sunny days or when I've got the tripod, but my photography world lives in the ISO 400-3200 world on most days. Heck, when I shoot concerts, it's common to need 6400 and above.

So please don't mistake the cause of my bile for these DPR/DXO reports as being incorrect data -- that's not it. There's an abundance of data to state that there are better sensors than Canon's depending on your needs. It's just that data doesn't apply *to me*. In the ISO ranges I shoot, the sensors are so damn close in performance it stands to reason that I'd choose my cameras for much larger considerations -- support, lenses, size of the accessories ecosystem, ergonomics, etc.

I just can't stand the insights/judgments/conclusions that follow those charts and graphs, for example:


'It's the 21st best sensor out there.' _To whom?! _ The Low ISO, Low MP Loving Association of America? Some large print work heretofore relegated to MF is now possible with a rig that taps into the largest lens ecosystem on the planet. This is the *1st* best sensor for those folks, one would think.


'I seldom need ND grads any longer because I have 1-2 more stops than the other guys'. Congrats. Enjoy the parlour trick of irradiating your shadows and choking out your highlights for your one shot HDR magic -- just to say you didn't need to bracket or filter.

Ugh.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jul 10, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



As an old Tri-X shooter, I consider ISO 400 normal. When I look at the chart, I see about one-third of a stop difference between the two sensors at ISO 400 -- that is insignificant. Especially if you shoot and know how to process in RAW. 

I'm much more likely to need to go above 400, than to go below it. Any differences above 400 are imperceptible. And, this only registers "dynamic range" and doesn't consider noise. I have had a lot more pictures hurt by noise than by lack of dynamic range, so for me my 5DIII (which performs better than either of these cameras when it comes to noise) is the better choice. 

Bottom line: just because you can measure a difference, doesn't mean you can see or benefit from the difference.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > So I typed into Google, "what is normal ISO".
> ...



A vain hope. This issue also speaks to one of DxO's biases, propagated on DPR - two of the three Subscores are measured only at base ISO.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 10, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> As a general comment, I'm not a pro and I capture available light handheld 95% of the time. ISO 100 is lovely for bright sunny days or when I've got the tripod, but my photography world lives in the ISO 400-3200 world on most days. Heck, when I shoot concerts, it's common to need 6400 and above.
> 
> So please don't mistake the cause of my bile for these DPR/DXO reports as being incorrect data -- that's not it. There's an abundance of data to state that there are better sensors than Canon's depending on your needs. It's just that data doesn't apply *to me*. In the ISO ranges I shoot, the sensors are so damn close in performance it stands to reason that I'd choose my cameras for much larger considerations -- support, lenses, size of the accessories ecosystem, ergonomics, etc.
> 
> ...



Excellent points. You've summed it up well.


----------



## Pookie (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Are you going to argue with Google?



And here is the problem with Dilbert's logic so eloquently pointed out by himself... *if it's on the internet it must be real* 

You should sign up on Matchcom. It's unreal, everyone is a model!!!!


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2015)

Pookie said:


> *if it's on the internet it must be real*
> 
> You should sign up on Matchcom. It's unreal, everyone is a model!!!!



You can totally argue with Google, but _Wikipedia?_ That sh-- is for reals, yo. 

We never went to the moon. Vaccines don't save lives. Obama is secretly a Russian mole. Wolverine is a real person (he lives in Wisconsin). _I read it on the interwebs. Fact._

- A


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


If that's my worst vanity, so be it.  ;D 

Here's another vain hope: I hope Dilbert eventually comes to the understanding that you can't make a broad generalization based on your own life and experience. Growing up in England, a child can be forgiven for believing that the entire world is Anglican, though the experiences of adulthood should be enough to dissolve that illusion. I don't know how old Dilbert is, but more life experience may broaden his perspective.


----------



## NancyP (Jul 10, 2015)

Wolverines and their fans live in Michigan, and hate Ohio.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The very same remarks should be directed at people here: don't define what "normal ISO" means outside of the context of your own personal shooting habits.



The very same remarks should be directed at DxO/DPR: don't define what "normal ISO" means outside of the context of your own arbitrary selections of how to report your data.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> This is a problem with Canon's sensor design that has persisted for quite some time now. In the ISO range 100-400, there is a significant gap in sensor performance between Canon and others and it isn't until 800 that they start to become close.



I hear you, Dilbert -- my fingers aren't in my ears when you bring up the low ISO difference. It surely exists, I concede that. 

But that low ISO difference...

a) ...doesn't punish what I shoot that much -- I'm only shooting ISO 100-400 perhaps a quarter of the time, and I'm not wrestling with the histo too much there.

b) ...doesn't open up cosmic new opportunities for me to capture world-beating images.

c) ...doesn't affect my livelihood as I'm not a pro.

d) ...doesn't magically create a better AF system, lens portfolio, 3rd party ecosystem, etc. for Nikon users.

e) ...isn't worth me walking away from $10k worth of gear.

I think the rift between you any many others on these and similar threads is that (I believe that) you believe these differences are the beginning of the end, absolutely must be rectified, are unsustainable in the longer term, etc. while the rest of us don't see it so grave a situation. 

Respectfully,
A


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another vain hope: I hope Dilbert eventually comes to the understanding that you can't make a broad generalization based on your own life and experience.
> ...


I agree, that's why I don't make generalizations about whether a Canon sensor is appropriate for someone else's uses. For example, you've made clear that a Sony sensor is appropriate for your shooting needs, and I hope to hear your reports on how well yours works for you.



> I will point out that it wasn't me that started this debate about what's normal, rather it was someone suggesting that "ISO 400" wasn't normal (if fact it would appear to be almost normal):


I'd have to see that in context: it's possible that person was referring to normal for them, rather than normal for the general population of photographers.



> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > This graph reminded me why I don't give a (insert your favorite phrase here) about dynamic range. The difference between sensors only shows up at ISOs that I seldom shoot at. Once you get into a normal range the differences are so tiny as to be totally irrelevant.
> ...


He's quite clearly saying a "normal range" for his shooting: the previous sentence creates the context.



> Now that the debate has decided that "there is no normal" (aside from what "normal" means for you personally), we get back to a situation where the performance of the Canon sensor doesn't respond in a linear fashion as do others (and as it should.) *This is a problem *with Canon's sensor design that has persisted for quite some time now. In the ISO range 100-400, there is a significant gap in sensor performance between Canon and others and it isn't until 800 that they start to become close.


The entire foregoing conversation leads to the conclusion that it's a problem only if this affects your shooting style.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> The entire foregoing conversation leads to the conclusion that it's a problem only if this affects your shooting style.



It clearly affects dilbert's shooting style. That's why he said he would said was going to have already said he might someday told us it was none of our business if he will buy an Exmor camera.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I will point out that it wasn't me that started this debate about what's normal, rather it was someone suggesting that "ISO 400" wasn't normal (if fact it would appear to be almost normal):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First, I wasn't aware that we were in sensor court and taking depositions. But, if that's the case, then please quit distorting and misquoting me. 

As I have said, I absolutely consider ISO 400 to be "normal" for me. 

On the chart, at 400 and above (and to some degree at 200 and above) the differences may be measurable, but they are insignificant. "Measurable" is your term. Not mine. 

Many things are measurable, but still irrelevant (which is the term I used). The difference between six inches and six and an eighth inches may be measurable, but for the purpose of procreating, it's not relevant. 

As I patiently explained before, 1/3 of a stop difference at ISO 400, is not significant for me. I know how to properly process an image and I routinely adjust various areas of a photograph by more than 1/3 stop.


----------



## JBSF (Jul 10, 2015)

I have gotten fairly exhausted attempting to follow the slugfest here and in other threads. However in going to the DPReview article, I found the link to Ming Thein's review of the 5DSR. Maybe this is old news, again since I have gotten exhausted and not followed everything. His review of the 5DSR is grounded in ACTUAL USE of both that camera and the D810 while working on the same project. What a concept.

Link:

http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/07/02/canon-5dsr-review-part-1/


----------



## Famateur (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The problem with the graph isn't that the red line is above the blue but rather that one line is almost straight and the other is not.
> 
> *That the Canon line isn't straight indicates that Canon has not yet fixed the problems with their sensor. *



So, if I understand what you've said, the problem with Canon is that it holds its max dynamic range for a few stops of ISO before falling? If Canon "solves" its problems, its max dynamic range would start falling _immediately _as you increase ISO, just like the Sony/Nikon? Hmm...interesting logic. That would be a nice straight line, but...

What if the graph started at the same max dynamic range as Sony/Nikon and kept the same non-straight shape? Wouldn't that be much better? You could boost the ISO a few stops before it falls off. I happen to like the shape of Canon's graph. 

I think the only "problem" might be that Canon's max dynamic range starts a bit lower, but as others have said, the real-world effect for many (most?) shooters is not enough to twist panties over. :-X


----------



## TeT (Jul 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The problem with the graph isn't that the red line is above the blue but rather that one line is almost straight and the other is not.
> 
> That the Canon line isn't straight indicates that Canon has not yet fixed the problems with their sensor. Shadow noise may be mostly gone, yes but the intrinsic problems ... are still there.
> 
> ...



I think that you are a little off in your summation...

The straight line indicates that Nikon damped certain aspects of their sensor or drastically jacked up the front end. 
Straight lines are not natural they are contrived...


----------



## Otara (Jul 10, 2015)

For me its just that when I read dpreview I feel like I'm reading a campaign and thats not what I used to see. It's not quite advertorial but its irritating enough Im going there less and less.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The amount of light collected at ISO 100 is double that for ISO 200 at any given combination of shutter speed and aperture.



Changing the ISO affects the amount of light collected. Another 'fact' from dilbertland. :


----------



## philmoz (Jul 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The amount of light collected at ISO 100 is double that for ISO 200 at any given combination of shutter speed and aperture.


----------



## TeT (Jul 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



You are probably correct, I was trying to not make a firm statement of fact. Just sounds wrong...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The amount of light collected at ISO 100 is double that for ISO 200 at any given combination of shutter speed and aperture.



The amount of light which hits the sensor is double that at ISO 100 than at ISO 200 if *total exposure* is held constant, not the combination of exposure time and aperture.

The amount of light a sensor can gather before saturating is half as much at 200 than as 100.


----------



## tpatana (Jul 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > This graph reminded me why I don't give a (insert your favorite phrase here) about dynamic range. The difference between sensors only shows up at ISOs that I seldom shoot at. Once you get into a normal range the differences are so tiny as to be totally irrelevant.
> ...



This year, about 90% of my photos are at ISO 6400. So that's my normal level.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 11, 2015)

Shame on me, I actually read a few comments in this thread. That's enough jollies for me for a few days. Seriously though, too much of this and there could be permanent brain damage! 

Jack


----------



## ritholtz (Jul 11, 2015)

Pookie said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Are you going to argue with Google?
> ...


There is a reason why DxO mark can print all their marketing crap like this.
"The DxO ONE camera’s score of up to 85 puts it on par with many DSLR cameras, such as the Nikon D7200 and the Sony A7S (both with a score of 87), and is well above such Canon DSLRs as the EOS 5D Mark III (81) and the 7D Mark II (70)"


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 11, 2015)

To say that image quality attributes between ISO100 to 1600 are irrelevant because those ISOs aren't normal is stretching credibility a bit. A significant portion of photographers who value the highest possible image quality that their camera can achieve do stay in the lower ISO ranges whenever they can. Is anyone seriously arguing otherwise? 

Besides, what's wrong with just admitting that Sony/Nikon have an edge at lower ISOs but that Canon catches up reasonably quickly? It's not like we're talking about significant difference to a well exposed image at lower ISOs, anyway. Or are we?


----------



## bwud (Jul 11, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> Besides, what's wrong with just admitting that Sony/Nikon have an edge at lower ISOs but that Canon catches up reasonably quickly?



I can't recall anyone here suggesting otherwise. Certainly might have missed it, but most people have no problem admitting that sony sensors, toshiba sensors, aptina sensors, samsung sensors, etc, have a wider DR at low sensitivities than canon. The only recurring contention is how much it matters.

My canon cameras include the 40D, 5D2, and 5D3. Occasionally I wish I had cleaner shadows; there are maybe 50-100 photos in my library that I consider good, but would consider excellent with greater detail in the shadows. That's maybe 0.1%, but it's real. I decided to gamble on the A7R mk II. Statistically, the improvements will likely be in the noise (haha), but if I save one additional picture from an upcoming once-in-a-lifetime trip, it's worth the gamble. I'll also bring a 5D3 with me. May the most suitable camera win.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 11, 2015)

You might be right. I might be reading more into people's comments than is really there. 

BTW - shadow aren't the image destroying evil that the Sonikon corporation makes them out to be.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Jul 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The amount of light a camera (should be) is capable of responding to at ISO 100 is double that for ISO 200. Similarly each stop of DR represents a doubling in the amount of light recorded. Thus the relationship between ISO and DR should be linear.



School is roughly 20 years in my past, but I believe this relationship is logarithmic. The graph only forms a straight line because the X axis has been manipulated.


----------



## sanj (Jul 11, 2015)

unfocused said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I will point out that it wasn't me that started this debate about what's normal, rather it was someone suggesting that "ISO 400" wasn't normal (if fact it would appear to be almost normal):
> ...



Hahahahaa


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Jul 11, 2015)

bluenoser1993 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > The amount of light a camera (should be) is capable of responding to at ISO 100 is double that for ISO 200. Similarly each stop of DR represents a doubling in the amount of light recorded. Thus the relationship between ISO and DR should be linear.
> ...



May as well correct myself, I realized after posting that both axis are manipulated in the same manner, so my comments are not correct. Sorry :-[


----------



## Famateur (Jul 12, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Maybe I'm just suffering from lack of sleep, but when it comes to the graph, wouldn't the "ideal" graph be a horizontal line? In other words, wouldn't we all want a sensor that can maintain steady/maximum dynamic range throughout its ISO range? Obviously, that's not currently possible with known technology, but who knows what breakthroughs we'll see in the next 20 years. Again, we're talking about the _shape_ of a graph representing a relationship between dynamic range and ISO sensitivity, not technology.

If Canon's graph was the same shape as its current graph, dropping off at the same rate and at the same ISO settings, but the max dynamic range at ISO 100 was equal to Sony/Nikon (i.e. they both start at the same point on the Y Axis), wouldn't that be better than immediately falling off? What makes the _shape _of the graph flawed in that scenario?

It seems to me that the more the graph approximates horizontal slope, the better, but again, 6 hours of sleep in the last 60.


----------



## eml58 (Jul 12, 2015)

Well, I've owned the 5DsR for 3 weeks now, 1500 images later I'm just impressed & very happy with what I have.

It's not a Phase One, but it wasn't meant to be, I've owned a D810, and this is better in every respect, for me.

I can quite honestly say I have never taken any notice of DXO, Dilbert or DP Review, I tend towards making purchasing decisions based on what Photographers have to say about their experience with a particular piece of equipment, then work with the equipment to reduce operator error, so far it's worked Ok for me.

And quite honestly in my view all this discussion of "graphs" is nonsense, and I agree with "Famatuer" regards the extra 1/8", I sincerely hope my wife does as well.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 12, 2015)

bwud said:


> I can't recall anyone here suggesting otherwise. Certainly might have missed it, but most people have no problem admitting that sony sensors, toshiba sensors, aptina sensors, samsung sensors, etc, have a wider DR at low sensitivities than canon. The only recurring contention is how much it matters.



+1. I don't really think brand loyalty or hatred of DXO's shenanigans is at the point we're putting our fingers in our ears and denying anything. Canon's sensors are certainly second best for some applications. I just don't think it's remotely large enough a gap to walk out of my very comfortable, comprehensive first-party Canon ecosystem. 

But as a rank amateur, my livelihood doesn't depend on getting the best / latest tech. Pros may have a different read on this.

- A


----------



## traveller (Jul 12, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Whilst Dilbert's explanations aren't the clearest, for once I have to back him up -the curve on the Canon graph shows the component of total noise that is from read noise, which is proportionally greater at lower ISO values, because read noise is a fixed component (i.e. isn't ISO dependent). If I remember correctly, the older version of the DXO Mark site used to have a version of the graphs that allowed you to see this effect better.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 12, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Assume that I can measure light in ml. With 1ml I can get 1 stop of DR. With 2 ml I can get 2 stops of DR. With 16ml of light, I can get 4 stops. Each time I double the amount of light that I can collect, I can get another stop of DR. At 1ml, it simply isn't possible to get 4 stops of DR because there isn't enough light.



I don't think this is correct, or else I don't follow your explanation. Are you saying it has to do with full-well capacity? Could you explain further? As an example, consider shooting at ISO6400 at noon on a very sunny day. so there's plenty of light. 

My assumption (though I'll defer to those who are trained engineers) has been that it has to do with amplification noise.


----------



## traveller (Jul 12, 2015)

To be honest, I've stopped reading this site's forum so often because of the "Great DR Debate". Let me offer these "fantasy" choices to prospective 5DS(R) buyers:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Canon offers a 5DS R*S* with the Sony 42MP BSI Sensor
[*]Sony announce a firmware upgrade that optimises AF on EF Mount lenses: they are now just as fast as on the 5DS(R); on top of this, it implements full 14 bit uncompressed RAW files
[*]Nikon announce the D850 with the new Sony 42MP BSI sensor and offers a like-for-like trade in to swap all your EF Mount glass for F Mount 
[/list]

Would you take the existing 5DS(R) or one of options 1-3? Your answer probably shows exactly why you are on this forum either running Canon down or defending them.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 12, 2015)

traveller said:


> To be honest, I've stopped reading this site's forum so often because of the "Great DR Debate". Let me offer these "fantasy" choices to prospective 5DS(R) buyers:
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Canon offers a 5DS R*S* with the Sony 42MP BSI Sensor
> ...



I have both a 5DSR and A7R2 on order (I previously ordered the 5DS but recently canceled it in favor of the R). If I could have fantasy option 1 in place of both, that would be a no-brainer. Obviously a whole hell of a lot of internals would have to change. It's not merely the sensor subassy, it's the end to end signal chain. But hey, it's fantasy, so I'll instead opt for 

4: a version of the Pentax 645Z using whatever sensor architecture is in the Red Epic Dragon with offers for a like for like glass swap from EF to medium format.


----------



## rs (Jul 12, 2015)

traveller said:


> Nikon announce the D850 with the new Sony 42MP BSI sensor and offers a like-for-like trade in to swap all your EF Mount glass for F Mount


There's a huge amount of lens development required before that could happen, not to mention a larger diameter lens mount to allow for the 1.2 AF lenses.


----------



## Corneria (Jul 12, 2015)

rs said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon announce the D850 with the new Sony 42MP BSI sensor and offers a like-for-like trade in to swap all your EF Mount glass for F Mount
> ...


You mean f/1.0 (Canon 50/1.0L for example). Nikon has a 50/1.2 Ais, and the new Mitakon 85/1.2 also shows that f/1.2 is no problem for Nikon. It's a pity though that they don't have any AF f/1.2 lenses.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 13, 2015)

Corneria said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > traveller said:
> ...



The Nikon F mount itself is capable of taking at least a 50 mm f/1.2 lens, indeed they make an Ais one. However in going fully electronic Nikon took the decision to go for the cheap option (there's a surprise) and position the electronic contacts in such a way as to make it difficult to fit a fully electronic f 1.2 lens. Compare this with Pentax who had the elegant solution of fitting the contacts through the mount flange.


----------



## clicstudio (Jul 14, 2015)

I, for one can't wait for the day a camera sees what my eyes see. Who cares about 50MP when you can't take a photo of a person next to a window with a view of a bright day and you have to decide if u want the camera to measure the person or the background. If u choose the person, the background will be all white and blown out. If u choose the background. Then the person will be too dark. 
I hate that. No matter how expensive the camera or the lens. It's all about that DR. 
Video cameras can "see" it all already. So why can't photo cameras?
I rather go back to 6pm with the DR of the human eye.


----------

