# DRones vs. anti-DRones: how to resolve the controversy



## pierlux (Sep 25, 2014)

Rejoyce! I've got the answer! I suggest all the contenders come to Italy and debate the DR contention this way...

English filmmaker Jonathan Glazer directed this ad for Canon Come and See.

See more about Calcio storico Fiorentino:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imI7dpzKIoE


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 25, 2014)

Yikes! Too manly for me. I am getting injured just watching that.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 25, 2014)

pierlux said:


> how to resolve the controversy


Only two possibilities:
1. Canon designs or buys a sensor equal or better than exmor.
2. Canon to file for bankruptcy and will stop designing sensors and selling cameras.

I vote for "1." 

PS.: And even if "1." would happen soon, the sensor wouldn't be good enough to them... I suppose.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 25, 2014)

I for one hope that canon doesn't start procuring Sony sensors for its SLRs; that's too many eggs in one basket. Aptina, Samsung, anyone other than Sony.

However, if low-ISO dynamic range becomes a major market differentiator, I suspect Canon is more comfortable with its vertical integration and will invest in a new fab.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 25, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > how to resolve the controversy
> ...



When the G7 X came out, immediately the complainers started. Now that its revealed that its a Sony sensor, they look pretty dumb, having already said how poor it is.


----------



## racebit (Sep 25, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> When the G7 X came out, immediately the complainers started. Now that its revealed that its a Sony sensor, they look pretty dumb, having already said how poor it is.



The same dumb as people defending that Canon does not need Sony sensor, and now Canon comes using a Sony sensor...


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 25, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > how to resolve the controversy
> ...



Option 1 wouldn't work, DRones are anti-Canon as much as anything. There is no possibility of Canon making something good enough to satisfy them.


----------



## racebit (Sep 25, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Option 1 wouldn't work, DRones are anti-Canon as much as anything. There is no possibility of Canon making something good enough to satisfy them.



No.
Anti-Canon = everything Canon does is bad.
Canon fanboy = everything Canon does is good.
Neutral = Canon is best at many things but not everything.

Anti-Canon peoole wouldn't care if Canon used Sony Sensors or not. They would just buy/promote Nikon or Sony cameras and be done with. 
The people that care to complain about Canon, do so because they recognize Canon has the best cameras, only does not have the best sensors. They get frustrated because they would like to have the best of all worlds, but they cannot, they have to choose, either the best camera (read AF, UI, ergonomics, reliability, etc) and best lenses, or the best sensor (read DR, low light sensitivity, noise).


----------



## risc32 (Sep 25, 2014)

how about a good old fashioned staring competition? no? rock, paper, oh never mind...


----------



## pierlux (Sep 25, 2014)

risc32 said:


> how about a good old fashioned staring competition? no? rock, paper, oh never mind...


Glad you (and ActuancePhotography) catched the right mood, this was meant as a fun thread, just to ease the tension. Don't take it too seriously.


----------



## V8Beast (Sep 25, 2014)

If you have a problem with drones you need to call Jack Bauer ;D


----------



## NancyP (Sep 25, 2014)

Stop. Yakking. And. Go. Out. And. Shoot! People spend too little time actually experiencing DR, too much time talking about it. 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2014)

racebit said:


> Anti-Canon = everything Canon does is bad.
> Canon fanboy = everything Canon does is good.
> Neutral = Canon is best at many things but not everything.



Ok, so that makes me Neutral.


----------



## dstppy (Sep 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> racebit said:
> 
> 
> > Anti-Canon = everything Canon does is bad.
> ...


Speaking of "Fair and Balanced", where *IS* dilbert today? He missed the first page of the high MP sensor thread . . .


----------



## Valvebounce (Sep 25, 2014)

Hi dstppy. 
Just wondering, are you the guy that goes to a seance and tries to summon the devil! 

Cheers, Graham. 



dstppy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > racebit said:
> ...


----------



## LarryC (Sep 25, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > how to resolve the controversy
> ...



+1. It's interested that everything that Nikon beats Canon at is unimportant to good photography but everything that Canon beats Nikon at is critical. It's assured that as soon as Canon surpasses Nikon/Sony in DR, MP DXOmark scores and resolution (any they will at some point) those will become important features. Unless you shoot Nikon, at which point Nikon shooters will argue that 36MP is more than enough and existing DR is plenty, and DXOmark favor Canon.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 25, 2014)

LarryC said:


> ... as soon as Canon surpasses Nikon/Sony in DR, MP DXOmark scores ... and DXOmark favor Canon.


To me this seems impossible. At least almost...
Beacause of DxO, not because of Canon.


----------



## dpc (Sep 25, 2014)

This has become a dreary topic, to say the least. It's bleeding into various threads. There seems no reasonable resolution (?!?). How can there be? People have expressed their views ad infinitum. It's come to the point of thrashing personalities, which is unfortunate and counter-productive. I can see little more to be said about it. People have various opinions which often clash. Why don't they just move on and, if they have to keep flogging a dead horse, why don't they establish a thread specifically for this topic and leave it there. I was the vice-principal of a largish elementary school in a former incarnation. This discussion has taken a turn that reminds me of some of the more objectionable recess behaviour I was called upon to deal with.


----------



## heptagon (Sep 25, 2014)

dpc said:


> why don't they establish a thread specifically for this topic and leave it there.



Because this currently is the most pressing issue for about 50% of the people here. People can cope with artificially dumbed down camera software - magiclantern alleviates some of that pain. People can deal with ergonomics. People can deal with lenses - most are fine and many 3rd party alternatives are available cross platform. But people cannot deal with an image which cannot be processed in the way they like because of high shadow noise. Then they look over to their neighbor and despite all the shortcomings of the other camera systems his image shows a higher resolution and less noise. Many of us often hit this barrier.

This is not the reason why there is complaining... that will never stop... but it is the reason why this one topic is so prevalent.


----------



## dpc (Sep 25, 2014)

heptagon said:


> dpc said:
> 
> 
> > why don't they establish a thread specifically for this topic and leave it there.
> ...



Well, I guess the solution is obvious then. Buy into a camera system that meets your needs. I'm not sure how you determine that 50% of the people here (wherever 'here' is) find this their most pressing issue. That aside, all the complaining in the world isn't going to get you what you want Canon to do. They'll do what they think is right for their company. That may not satisfy you, but that's the way of the world. My primary issue is with the vitriolic nature of some of the posts around this topic. Completely unnecessary. My secondary issue is the hopeless character of this debate. And should you wonder if I'm some kind of Canon 'fanboy', I could care less what camera system anyone has. When I first got into digital photography it was my intention to go Nikon and I only bought into Canon because I got a better deal. Having said that, I'm happy enough with what I have. Anyway, that's all I have to say on the matter.


----------



## jthomson (Sep 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> racebit said:
> 
> 
> > Anti-Canon = everything Canon does is bad.
> ...



No, you are :

Neuro = CR GEEK


----------



## V8Beast (Sep 26, 2014)

dstppy said:


> Speaking of "Fair and Balanced", where *IS* dilbert today? He missed the first page of the high MP sensor thread . . .



I was wondering the same thing. Maybe he's lost in a sea of Canon shadow noise or, momentarily, found something else to hate and complain about incessantly instead of purchasing a better product for his needs ;D


----------



## Kahuna (Sep 26, 2014)

Change the subject.. Maybe we can argue pro life versus pro choice. I'm sure it would be easier to resolve and that would leave everyone time to go use their deficient equipment...


----------



## Aglet (Sep 26, 2014)

LarryC said:


> ..Unless you shoot Nikon, at which point Nikon shooters will argue that 36MP is more than enough and existing DR is plenty, and DXOmark favor Canon.



Well, I can already say my d800s are good enough that I can easily sit out a generation or three of body updates. They provide adequate performance for how I want to use them.
If the rumored organic sensor comes out from the Panasonic-Fuji collaboration that will be interesting.
And I'm looking forward to trying the 7d2 and it's funky new AF system. Speaking of which, the DP AF should be a feature on the hi-rez metering sensor as well, that could REALLY help with the AF performance.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 26, 2014)

racebit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Option 1 wouldn't work, DRones are anti-Canon as much as anything. There is no possibility of Canon making something good enough to satisfy them.
> ...



I maintain that the real DRones actually are anti-Canon. As soon as the feature they're currently complaining about is fixed, they'll find something else. They hide their anti-Canon motivations with the odd logical statement, but you can be sure the complaining will never cease.
Right now it's easy for everyone to jump on the same bandwagon, so it's hard to tell the difference between the "squeaky wheel" Canon fanboy and the DRone. Once the wheel gets some oil you'll be able to pick out the DRones easily enough.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 26, 2014)

LarryC said:


> It's assured that as soon as Canon surpasses Nikon/Sony in DR, MP DXOmark scores and resolution (any they will at some point) those will become important features. Unless you shoot Nikon, at which point Nikon shooters will argue that 36MP is more than enough and existing DR is plenty, and DXOmark favor Canon.



DRTV did a funny video "[Stuff] Canon and Nikon fanboys say" that addressed this. It was pretty funny.


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 26, 2014)

LarryC said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > pierlux said:
> ...



I've lost count now of how many posts I've read where one side says this about the other. Can't people (on both sides) see how ridiculous this sounds?

I'm with the original poster and to be honest I think the winners of his football game should then proceed to a real Roman-style gladiatorial contest. Then shoot the winner.


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 26, 2014)

I do not thing it will be easy to resolve. There are a few issues that will keep this alive until Canon beats all other sensors or joins them. I do not think that Canon will go out of business. They will swallow their pride and put a Sony Sensor in a DSLR before Canon will go bankrupt. 


Human Nature people hate admitting their wrong.
Pig headed stubbornness of people that cannot see another point of view.
The people that are never satisfied no matter how good their gear is.
Trolls Trolls TROLLS will you stop feeding the TROLLS ALREADY. 
The above list will be complaining about something until the end of all internet forums. 

I wish that DR did not bleed into other discussion and ruin them. The 7D II discussions for example.

I am pragmatically in the more DR camp. The real issue is the read noise. DR was not something I ever noticed until I bought my Nex6 but the read noise is much more noticeable. 

I cannot use my Sony for what I do with my Canon cameras. I cannot use my 6D or 60D for what I do with my Nex6. I am not going to drop all my Canon gear and buy a Nikon the ergonomics are a crime against humanity.

Lets face it a Sony Camera + Meta-bones adapters really means who needs auto focus. Because it is so slow you will be manual focusing most of the time. That is what I like about the Nex6 it forces my to slow down and compose my shot. But that is not for everyone.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 26, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> The people that are never satisfied no matter how good their gear is.
> Trolls Trolls TROLLS will you stop feeding the TROLLS ALREADY.



In this case, imho it's rather easy to tell trolls apart from people really struggling with the sensor:

There's a fix for low dr at low iso available, it's called Magic Lantern, it gives you 14.5ev+, installation only takes a couple of minutes and it's free. Unless someone has tried ML and evaluated if this software fix works for him/her, crying that one's pictures are crappy because of low dr is trolling.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Unless someone has tried ML and evaluated if this software fix works for him/her, crying that one's pictures are crappy because of low dr is trolling.



Assuming that one has a camera body for which ML is available... I'd have buy a different FF camera to use ML, or take the IQ hit with APS-C.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Unless someone has tried ML and evaluated if this software fix works for him/her, crying that one's pictures are crappy because of low dr is trolling.
> ...



Indeed, but I didn't want to add "except 1d owners" because that would have sounded like a cheap & envious comment. But except for the latest 70d, m2 (and of course 7d2), Magic Lantern is available for all non-1d models starting with the digic4 50d. For 1d, Canon made it known they don't want to ml ported or they'll take action.


----------



## TeT (Sep 26, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> Pig headed stubbornness of people that cannot wont acknowledge another point of view.



All things being equal I choose pigheaded stubbornness every time....


----------



## Tugela (Oct 8, 2014)

Have the queen bee come out and lay down the smack!!


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 8, 2014)

I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 8, 2014)

Aglet said:


> If the rumored organic sensor comes out from the Panasonic-Fuji collaboration that will be interesting.



Why the word "rumored"? They put out a press release with sample images using it. http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n130611.html


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Oct 8, 2014)

Canon does not seem to have a dynamic range _problem_, from what I can tell. 

The problem appears to be, instead, a small group of people who hold strong opinions and won't shut up. They can remain safely hidden behind an anonymous identity and can never be held feet to the fire in the real world for their frothing at the mouth. 

Which, to your point, always comes down to the Tools of the Trade for some people will never "good enough."

It's said that the third time's a charm. So here goes my last and final offer: 
DRones, here's your opportunity to show me what your deep knowledge and carefully developed thoughts are worth. I bring super-large prints to a pub near me. The prints will include work from Sony's latest "wonder sensors" as well as from Canon's 6 year old sensor tech. You look real carefully at the prints and tell me which camera made which image. For every guess you get correct, I buy you a beer. For every guess you get wrong, you buy me a beer. Deal?



9VIII said:


> ... DRones are anti-Canon as much as anything. There is no possibility of Canon making something good enough to satisfy them.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Oct 8, 2014)

LOL!

I was searching for a way to say exactly this, but the words failed me.

Well said. Very well said, indeed.



RLPhoto said:


> I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.


----------



## David Hull (Oct 8, 2014)

heptagon said:


> dpc said:
> 
> 
> > why don't they establish a thread specifically for this topic and leave it there.
> ...


Then they should simply buy the product that they want and be done with it. What these people are really saying is that DR and resolution aren't the most important things that they need (or just WANT) otherwise they would made a switch.


----------



## Khnnielsen (Oct 8, 2014)

In the DR-wars I am a neutral observer.

And just for the record - both sides of the argument is equally intolerable. The fact that "DRone" has become a widespread term, really underline that.

If you disagree with someone, you can just call them a "DRone" and label them as talentless geeks who shoot lens caps all day.

It won't be resolved. This is the internet after all, where pigheaded people can argue all day, and forget everything about a civil discussion.


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 8, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.



Careful. I get flamed every time I make a similar observation. According to some of the most vocal DR "advocates," most people seeking more DR do indeed produce stunning images.......it's just that they keep those images top secret, and no one is allowed to see them.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 8, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.
> ...


I think you mistake that I want to be correct on that statement. I really hope that I'm wrong and a Droner can prove me wrong. IE: dilbert.


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 8, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I'd love to be proven wrong. dilbert has vowed to post images that makes Canon shooters envious once he switches to SoNikon. For his sake, hopefully that new camera will come in a bundle that includes a functioning ballhead and cable release.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Oct 9, 2014)

Improved dynamic range would be great. Improved shadow noise would be great. 

Questions that still remain for me regarding advocates of DR and shadow noise improvement....does it consistently make your photos better? Will you be able to accomplish a whole lot more if those two areas are improved a little bit? Have you actually handled files from the Sony 36.3 MP sensor?

As I have stated previously, I have done the Sony experiment for several months. Taken as a whole, there is no real noticeable improvement in my photos on average. There may be several shots here and there that I appreciated the improved malleability of in post. But generally speaking, I didn't notice anything about the end products that led me to say to myself, "man, I love having this sensor because it makes my photos noticeably better all the time." 

The truth of the matter is, I hardly ever noticed it. What I did notice though was that I hated the OOC colors when using AWB the most out of every camera that I own currently. I also noticed that I could zoom in a little further to look at things that no one ever looks at in my photos. 

The few times I enjoyed having it:
-long exposure night time shooting
-poorly exposed captures

In essence, what resolved the issue for me was actually putting my money where my mouth was and just picking up the rig to use for an extended period. Others that are curious about it but have not handled it should go and do so for themselves. Most of the debating about theoretical improvements or lack thereof should cease.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > pierlux said:
> ...



Who was complaining? And wasn't it clear it had a SOny sensor from teh start? AFAIK, all the tech people who post about DR and so on, were 99% sure it was the sensor from the RX100 the moment they read the initial press release.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > pierlux said:
> ...



And yet some years back some us were actually raving all over the net about how great Canon was and most us still rave about the lenses and UI. Some of us used to flat out recommend new buyers go with Canon.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.



Why do those who don't care about the issue always have to get personal and bring it down to such things?

You don't see those who care about the issue running around trying to subtly or not so subtly hint that the pics of those who don't care all stink do you?

Fact is that some of the DRoners shoot a lot more and have better portfolios than some who don't care. And that some who don't care have much better portfolios than those who do. And, most importantly, whatever the case, none of that has anything to do with anything.

If someone says 1+1=2 they are not wrong because their photos stink and if someone has amazing photos and says 1+1=3 that doesn't mean 1+1=3. You are conflating things that have nothing to do with each other.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 9, 2014)

The best way to resolve the controversy is either:

1) Those unsatisfied with Canon's sensors should write, email, and correspond in any way possible TO CANON. Posting on this forum does nothing positive if you actually want Canon to improve their sensor technology.

2) Those unsatisfied with Canon's sensors should buy another camera that they think will be better if they can afford to.

If not - well, keep quiet, because it does no good. All it does is make Canon users annoyed - and even worse, may spoil their photographing experience. I was perfectly happy with my Canon camera and always have been. Why? Because even the earliest Digital Rebel produced better pics than my old film cameras. What today's cameras can do is incredible. 

But now, this constant drum-beat of "more DR," "Are Canon sensors now two generations behind...", etc, etc, has me - and I'm sure many others - no longer satisfied, or at least wondering if we should get a different camera. 

Well, Thanks you DR pushers. Congratulations on being spoil sports. You have done a remarkable job! Mind you, it does nothing to solve your problem with limited DR. You have accomplished nothing but making others as miserable as you are.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> You don't see those who care about the issue running around trying to subtly or not so subtly hint that the pics of those who don't care all stink do you?



Of course you see that, constantly and in no way subtly. Not in a personal way, as in 'your photos stink'. But, if Canon sensors have "poor IQ", deliver "sub-par/unacceptable IQ", and/or just plain "suck" (all of which are quotes from 'those who care about the issue'), that's tantamount to saying pictures taken by those using Canon dSLRs are poor, sub-par, or just plain suck. Has it really not occurred to you that statements like 'Canon sensors deliver poor IQ' are a slam on the images of anyone using them, and how some people might just find that a little wee bit offensive?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > You don't see those who care about the issue running around trying to subtly or not so subtly hint that the pics of those who don't care all stink do you?
> ...



Saying that the sensor is behind on low ISO DR is not at all the same as saying that anyone who uses a Canon has sucky portfolio! 

And it's not even saying that all shots taken will be behind ones taken with other cameras even from a raw lowest level technical perspective. As I've said you can take billions of photos where it won't make any difference at all that matters. For those that just look at some overall DxO score and say the Canon sensors flat out all-around stink, maybe they imply that at the deepest technical level the images taken with them won't quite have the same noise/color or whatnot, but most of the people who post a ton about DR don't go to that extreme and again even for those very few who both do and post a lot, they are definitely not trying to say that any photo taken with a Canon is useless or stinks much less with zero artistic or technical merit.

I don't see what that has to do with comments like only photographic morons who can't take a shot, don't know how to step outside of a lab, don't know how to post-process care about DR or comments that a large majority of those who care about DR supposedly have terrible portfolios.

And I don't see what having a great or terrible portfolio has to do with a technical comment anyway. It's a false argument.

Nat Geo published a book a while back and many photos had bits of motion blur, OOF, tons of noise but they were still mostly all cool photos so I also don't say everything has to be technically perfect for a photo to not be junk either.

Mostly I just go out and have great fun and enjoy using my camera. But I certainly hit scenarios often enough where more DR would be really nice so I don't have any problem when on tech forums trying to push to get Canon to invest what they need to to move forward (or to get on them for silly games they play with AutoISO or microfocus in this body and then not the next and then back in again as a 'new' feature or not putting in basic usability features ML gives for video or not moving to a more natural video processor than the waxy, blurry one they keep using, perhaps to try to make their Cxx line and such look better, while other brands charge forward). I didn't even used to complain about little things, but after years of seeing some of the games they play and years of seeing anyone who ever dared bring up anything Canon was not perfect at get tarred and feathered and trashed and a lot of bogus technical claims being posted all over I probably became a lot more combative and started posting a ton more about such things.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Saying that the sensor is behind on low ISO DR is not at all the same as saying that anyone who uses a Canon has sucky portfolio!



Saying that the sensor is behind on low ISO DR is not at all the same as saying the sensor is poor, sub-par, or sucks. But 'those who care about the issue' quite often state the latter. Poor, unacceptable IQ is tantamount to poor, unacceptable images. 

Canon sensors having less low ISO DR is an objective, testable fact. 'Poor, unacceptable image quality' is a *value judgement* on the sensor and, by extension, the pictures it produces.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Saying that the sensor is behind on low ISO DR is not at all the same as saying that anyone who uses a Canon has sucky portfolio!
> ...



Even the ones who say it's poor in general, just mean in relation to other current stuff and I hardly think they mean to imply than any images taken with it are of poor and unacceptable quality in general and even if one actually did it's still just talking about tech, not someone's composition or style or whatnot and not personally trashing them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Even the ones who say it's poor in general, just mean in relation to other current stuff and I hardly think they mean to imply than any images taken with it are of poor and unacceptable quality in general...



When were you elected their spokesperson? 

If you want to handwave around semantics, that's fine. "_Canon sensors suck balls at low ISO, compared to the norm today...it's just the simple truth of the matter._" Implication...anyone shooting with Canon sensors at low ISO who's pleased is happy with image quality that sucks balls. Nice.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 9, 2014)

I managed to listen to radio bit this morning on the way to work

Worth listening to all of it, as there are sections pertinent to the various behaviors we see on forums, like this, scattered throughout the episode.

Accused troll Brenda Leyland's death sparks debate over how (or if) cyberbullies should be confronted

http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/current_20141008_80336.mp3

It's a free download, courtesy of canadian taxpayers, i mean _citizens_, like me. Enjoy. 

EDIT: ooops, forgot to include the episode title


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 9, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.
> ...


If you don't care then why did my personal observation offend you? I believe your conflating things beyond what they are. In the end, I bring things down to the end product, and unfortunately for most droners DR is the least of their problems with their pictures.

Edit: I'd like to add that jrista is considered a droner by most here but the stark difference is that Jon DID make the move to an A7R and Jon DOES shoot photos that are good.(IMHO) However I can't say the same for the likes of many many other droners.


----------



## DominoDude (Oct 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Edit: I'd like to add that jrista is considered a droner by most here but the stark difference is that Jon DID make the move to an A7R and Jon DOES shoot photos that are good.(IMHO) However I can't say the same for the likes of many many other droners.
> ...



I don't mind talks about dynamic range, and how it can/should be improved. What I do mind is that it has had a habit of showing up in just about any kind of threads. No matter what they was about in the first place.

Occasional sidesteps, jokes and so forth is ok, but blindsidedly turning (just about) any topic into a matter of dynamic range is not benefiting the forum and its readers. With the lack of hard moderations from mods, it comes down to us to judge if what we post is placed in the correct topic.

Do we want to be a believable source of information, facts and rumours? Then it is up to us to make it worthy of people reading and visiting this site.

Do a search on "Dynamic range" or "DR", and then look at the result and ask yourself "Is that really posted in the right place?"
Too often I have seen I. Flungdung and I. Too sitting in opposite corners of the same sandbox tossing S___ at each others. None has acted their age.

_Edit_: I didn't censor the alternative wording for fecal matters. That was done by someone else.


----------



## David Hull (Oct 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > You don't see those who care about the issue running around trying to subtly or not so subtly hint that the pics of those who don't care all stink do you?
> ...


Yep... I think you hit it right on the head. What generally fires me up on these things is some goofball making a statement like "Canon needs to improve their IQ" as if there were a problem with Canon IQ in some general sense. If there were any truth in that statement at all it would be evident in every image out there, which it clearly is not. I really doubt that any one could distinguish which images were shot by which system given that they were well produced and presented in a proper blind test.

Most of this DR stuff (not all of it but a great deal of it) is nothing more than hype.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 9, 2014)

David Hull said:


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


Canon does need to improve it's IQ and DR..... but then again, so does Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Hasselbad, Red ....... and with any of these you can safely say that the current crop of cameras is better than those from 5 years ago, and the ones that will be out in 5 years will be better than todays.... and with none of crop or FF cameras is it the major limitation....

Lens choice has more effect on IQ than sensor choice....


----------



## Otara (Oct 9, 2014)

Apparently, now, theories and math and known facts are all useless and pointless...only the experience of a "handful of pros matters, and what a pro says goes. "

They're not pointless but this kind of stuff boils down to whether theory and facts show whether a measurable difference exists and then the next question after that is whether any difference found actually matters, ie is meaningful. 

The test of 'do the people demanding this actually seem to be ending up with better pictures when they have it' is trying to find a way to address the meaningful aspect. It isnt perfect, but nor is focussing on measurement alone.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 10, 2014)

This is a serious question for those who use this forum to write about and champion for more DR from Canon sensors. Mind you, I have no doubt that your experiments and those tests done by others do indeed show that Canon's sensors do not measure up to the competition in terms of DR. So, I concur, Canon's sensors are not as good when it comes to DR (although this does not mean that Canon's sensors are lower in IQ or "worse" than any others. It just means in one area they are sub-par). 

Certainly, when a new camera is discussed or released, pertinent factual information regarding the cameras specs (including DR) would be expected to be discussed. 

But why do you come onto canon Rumors and complain? Why do you come onto Canon Rumors to demonstrate the lack of DR in sample photos? Why do you bring up the subject on Canon Rumors in thread after thread? What are you trying to prove? What is the purpose of your complaining, or demonstrating?

Why not take every minute and every word you write and send it to Canon in an email or a letter? Why waste your time debating here on this site - hammering the DR theme over and over again in multiple threads? Why not accept the fact that some folks will defend Canon in all cases. Why not accept the fact that not everyone thinks that DR range is the most important aspect of a sensor? Why not accept the fact that by pointing out Canon's sensor shortcomings, you make people feel more negatively about their photographing experience? *Is that the goal - to make people feel less satisfied with the cameras they have spent their hard earned money on?*

If you have a BMW and I have a Toyota, would you rub it in my face 10 times every day how my car could be better? Even if I am perfectly happy with my Toyota?

And then you wonder why people are upset with the constant hammering. Please, be smart enough to know that people are tired of the negativity. And smart enough to know that if you really want change, this forum is not the place where your message will reach the decision makers at Canon.


----------



## DominoDude (Oct 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> ...
> I don't know if it's assumed that I am the one who starts DR discussions in every thread or not, but for a while it's felt like that's the sentiment. I don't participate in every thread here. I participate in a key few most of the time. Those threads are usually the big ones. The major announcements, the ones that bring up a major third party camera, etc.
> ...


As you might notice I didn't use the word "start" or "every" in the quoted passage and neither was my intention, but if you insist there is 165+ postings by you (jrista) that includes the phrase "dynamic range". I don't care much about who starts it, I care much more about who is smart enough to realize that this is not the right time and place to continue.

And to be honest, yes, I have found a way to not be overly disturbed by a lot of the postings about DR - you, and a few others are on my block list. That way I can switch you on and off as I see fit. I'm sure that I miss out on a lot of knowledge that you have this way, but it's a lot easier to scroll through topics without having minor novels to wade through. If you are content with the way you have acted so far, I'm certain that you will continue in the same way. If that means I will read more or less of your future postings is something to ponder.

English might not be my first language, but at least give me the benefit of being at least twice as smart as you expect. Don't read anything into my posts that I haven't insinuated very clearly from the start. If I want you to feel like you are the target, you will know because it says so in clear text.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 10, 2014)

Otara said:


> Apparently, now, theories and math and known facts are all useless and pointless...only the experience of a "handful of pros matters, and what a pro says goes. "
> 
> They're not pointless but this kind of stuff boils down to whether theory and facts show whether a measurable difference exists and then the next question after that is whether any difference found actually matters, ie is meaningful.
> 
> The test of 'do the people demanding this actually seem to be ending up with better pictures when they have it' is trying to find a way to address the meaningful aspect. It isnt perfect, but nor is focussing on measurement alone.



The only reason many got into the theories in math is because they noticed stuff in their photography. Stuff like shadow banding and not enough dynamic range. So it actually started, for many, in the so-called 'real' world.


----------



## Otara (Oct 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> Otara said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently, now, theories and math and known facts are all useless and pointless...only the experience of a "handful of pros matters, and what a pro says goes. "
> ...



'Evidence' is again in the measurable category, not really in the 'meaningful' category. This whole thread shows that in regards to how important the two images were to you compared to many others.

To put it one way, you can see these differences very clearly and think they are highly important. Twenty years from now they probably will mean squat and probably be invisible compared to the overall progress made in that time. The magnitude wont have changed, but how meaningful that difference is probably will have.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> I don't mind talks about dynamic range, and how it can/should be improved. What I do mind is that it has had a habit of showing up in just about any kind of threads. No matter what they was about in the first place.



That derailing of threads, combined with the repeated posting of the exact same arguments and images in multiple threads, is what gave rise to the term DRoning. 



David Hull said:


> What generally fires me up on these things is some goofball making a statement like "Canon needs to improve their IQ" as if there were a problem with Canon IQ in some general sense. If there were any truth in that statement at all it would be evident in every image out there, which it clearly is not. I really doubt that any one could distinguish which images were shot by which system given that they were well produced and presented in a proper blind test.



Exactly. 




Otara said:


> They're not pointless but this kind of stuff boils down to whether theory and facts show whether a measurable difference exists and then the next question after that is whether any difference found actually matters, ie is meaningful.



In fact, there is general agreement on the technical differences. Whether or not the differences are meaningful is an individual decision. But when people make blanket statements about 'poor IQ' from Canon sensors, that's essentially imposing their value judgements on others. 




DominoDude said:


> English might not be my first language, but at least give me the benefit of being at least twice as smart as you expect. Don't read anything into my posts that I haven't insinuated very clearly from the start. If I want you to feel like you are the target, you will know because it says so in clear text.



Some people have a tendency to assume a general statement is specific to them, or assume a specific statement ambiguously referring to someone else actually refers to them, and if that statement is negative they take it as a personal affront. It's not the first time that's happened here recently...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2014)

dak723 said:


> *Is that the goal - to make people feel less satisfied with the cameras they have spent their hard earned money on?*



Probably not the goal in most cases. Perhaps a happy coincidence for some who post such comments. 




dak723 said:


> Please, be smart enough to know that people are tired of the negativity. And smart enough to know that if you really want change, this forum is not the place where your message will reach the decision makers at Canon.



That would be nice, and it's been suggested in several occasions to no avail.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 10, 2014)

dak723 said:


> But why do you come onto canon Rumors and complain? Why do you come onto Canon Rumors to demonstrate the lack of DR in sample photos? Why do you bring up the subject on Canon Rumors in thread after thread? What are you trying to prove? What is the purpose of your complaining, or demonstrating?



It gets brought up, mostly, in threads where it is relevant.

People chat about tech, good and bad, be it computer, cameras, cars, etc. and compare various models of this or that.

Sometimes people notice a problem and wonder what causes it.



> Why not take every minute and every word you write and send it to Canon in an email or a letter? Why waste your time debating here on this site - hammering the DR theme over and over again in multiple threads?



Sending more than one or two letters does do anything and might even be counter productive (unless maybe they just keep a running numerical tally and won't eventually notice if the same person sends the same letter 100 times ;D ? ). If lots of people bring it up all over the place maybe it spirals into enough attention for Canon to decide to go to a new fab sooner rather than another 15 years from now. And more attention can get more people to actually write in.

It took a firestorm for them to add manual exposure control to 5D2 video or to fix 1D3 AF and so on and going to a new fab is an ever bigger deal for them than that stuff.

Anyway, I doubt that you will hear about it a real lot for much longer as it's gotten to the point where if Canon hasn't already started taking some steps it's almost too late for anything to arrive in any reasonable time frame at this point. So either they have and people who care will have their needs met soon or they won't and it will be clear it will be yet another 4-5, if not 10-15 years which will be too long to wait for many at this point so they finally will all leave or go deeply into split systems.

Some of the ones bringing it up the most actually really like a lot about Canon, which is why they bring it up so much. They really were hoping to make it so that they wouldn't eventually have to leave. And since sensors take a long time, they started the fire well ahead of the time when they'd feel they didn't want to wait any longer. If you wait until that point it's too late, since it takes a long time for action to happen.



> Why not accept the fact that some folks will defend Canon in all cases.



That is a point. Sometimes it seems a shame though to leave a thread and have it seem like all the tech stuff they wrote was technically correct and/or that you were just some troll who slunk off after getting 'exposed'. It's one thing if they say the DR stuff doesn't really affect them. It's another when they say stuff like more DR actually make a sensor worse, or that DxO is all BS even their charts and the numbers on the charts (not just the overall scores) are pure BS, or that 1+1=9, or that nobody but a lens cap shooting dweeb could ever need more dynamic range for any shot. I guess you feel that if you don't response some random reader might tune in and think those who didn't bother responding back were tacitly agreeing.




> Why not accept the fact that not everyone thinks that DR range is the most important aspect of a sensor?



I think most of us do and for sure more of us accept that than the Canon defenders accept that some people have a legit, real world desire for more dynamic range.



> Why not accept the fact that by pointing out Canon's sensor shortcomings, you make people feel more negatively about their photographing experience?



Hopefully they don't. Some people might not be used to tech/science discussions and take it the wrong way though I guess.



> *Is that the goal - to make people feel less satisfied with the cameras they have spent their hard earned money on?*



no



> If you have a BMW and I have a Toyota, would you rub it in my face 10 times every day how my car could be better? Even if I am perfectly happy with my Toyota?



That is not the point (and it's unfortunate it if it ends up seeming that way) and many who point a flaw in the Toyota own only the Toyota themselves.


----------



## David Hull (Oct 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > Most of this DR stuff (not all of it but a great deal of it) is nothing more than hype.
> ...


I have played quite a bit with images from Sony based cameras and I am not denying the advantages that are there for certain specific applications. When I said hype, I am really referring to the way these demos are usually presented. Take a look at the recent bologna from Tony Northrup for example. This sort of thing can be quite misleading IMO.


----------



## fragilesi (Oct 10, 2014)

I actually don't see jrista as a problem at all. Having read through some of his posts (apologies his stamina for writing exceeds mine for reading so I won't claim to have read them all) I can see his knowledge dwarfs mine but he's presented enough evidence to convince me of the point.

The thing that I find irksome is the posts that often follow his and the more reasonable DR aficionados by others saying things like the following (emphasis is mine):-

- Canon *cameras* or *systems* are years behind their competitors.
- Canon need to do something now or it's all over for them.

That's just opinion and in my mind a long way from the truth. I think the 7D2 which has suffered a lot from this debate due to timing is going to be a stunning camera for the intended audience. It will capture images, situations and moments that many other cameras that it is in the same price bracket as will simply miss altogether. Does that mean those other cameras are years behind? No, they just have different strengths and weaknesses.

I, and possibly a number of others, take exception to how this issue is raised to above all others by some. And once again I refer people to jrista's post about renting the Sony. He made his point about DR and backed it up but was already recognising that the Sony had other problem areas that could be significant. For what he was doing it was better, for what some others do it won't be.

It's a relative weakness for certain types of photography, it isn't make or break any more than the Sony's weaknesses are. Canon spends its money on a variety of things, maybe it's been outdone in sensors but I think it's ahead of most in other areas. It seems, you just can't have it all wherever you look.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 10, 2014)

Let's just be clear; no one here is anti dynamic range _per se_. It is a fundamental part of photography, and a genuine lack of it in the medium is limiting. 

There are plenty who are 'anti-DRones though, myself included. Someone who states on this forum that they personally find Canons DR limiting compared to Exmor is not a DRone, until that is, the drone on and on about it, whereupon they may well qualify to join the DRone club.

But a real DRone, as has been pointed out by fragilesi above, is someone who makes the most asinine and ridiculous assertions as to their perceived limitations of Canon's IQ, to the extent that one assumes that whenever they look at a technically brilliant image shot on a Canon they think " imagine what the noise would be if those shadows were lifted four stops". Or they look at a well executed HDR shot on a camera using Exmor and think " wow, if only I had a Sony I could take images like that".

Unfortunately the recently self appointed King of the DRones has made some of the most inflammatory statements that I've seen on CR, bringing the forum down to the worst level of Internet 'expert discussion'. Cut out those sort of statements and everyone will get along a lot better.


----------



## David Hull (Oct 10, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> I actually don't see jrista as a problem at all. Having read through some of his posts (apologies his stamina for writing exceeds mine for reading so I won't claim to have read them all) I can see his knowledge dwarfs mine but he's presented enough evidence to convince me of the point.
> 
> The thing that I find irksome is the posts that often follow his and the more reasonable DR aficionados by others saying things like the following (emphasis is mine):-
> 
> ...



- Canon *cameras* or *systems* are years behind their competitors.
- Canon need to do something now or it's all over for them.

That is the sort of stuff that prompts my "Hype" remark.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 10, 2014)

dilbert said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > V8Beast said:
> ...


That sounds like you have a lot of work on and DR would be the least of those things.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 10, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 10, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


And I'm sure DR is only a miniscule part of making those photos.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2014)

dilbert said:


> It's not really that odd and confusing. Prior to there being good evidence, people could just shout louder about DR not being a problem. Since good evidence has been introduced, they are faced with admitting that they were wrong or continuing to shout loudly or even louder and nobody likes admitting that they were wrong.



There was good evidence right from the start. The existence of a difference in low ISO DR between Exmor and Canon sensors is not in question. The general significance and impact of that difference is the issue...for some, it means everything whereas for others, it means little to nothing. The latter group far and away outnumbers the former.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > It's not really that odd and confusing. Prior to there being good evidence, people could just shout louder about DR not being a problem. Since good evidence has been introduced, they are faced with admitting that they were wrong or continuing to shout loudly or even louder and nobody likes admitting that they were wrong.
> ...



Also, even the loudest DRones are happy to talk of _"the detail in the shadows is wonderful, and the shadow falloff is really clean and smooth. "_ when they think they are talking about an Exmor file, even if they aren't..............


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The latter group far and away outnumbers the former.



This has left me confused - how would you know that? Or are you just talking of the number of posters in this thread?


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 10, 2014)

dilbert said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Conveniently short memory, eh? I recall you mentioning you were going to spend your next tax return on a SoNikon, and come back and post images that you can never take with a Canon to make all Canon shooters on here envious. 




> Actually, what it will come with is a tripod mount that attaches to the lens, thereby shifting the center of gravity and the weight that the ball friction needs to keep horizontal. As it stands, in the 70-300 range, I'm only aware of the Canon 70-300L having a lens collar for tripods.



Yeah, keep blaming the gear, buddy. I've shot with heavy long lenses without tripod collars more times than I can count. A sturdy tripod, a cable release, and locking up the mirror works wonders.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, what it will come with is a tripod mount that attaches to the lens, thereby shifting the center of gravity and the weight that the ball friction needs to keep horizontal. As it stands, in the 70-300 range, I'm only aware of the Canon 70-300L having a lens collar for tripods.
> ...



Ain't that the truth, I have forgotten my 300 f2.8 IS collar before and used that perfectly well with the camera mounted on the tripod, I virtually never use the collar on my 70-200 f2.8 IS, just use the L-Plate on the body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The latter group far and away outnumbers the former.
> ...



There were close to 14 million dSLRs sold last year. How many of those people do you think know what low ISO DR is, much less care about it?

I did forget to mention an intermediate (but still minority) group...those who know what it is, care about it, but do not think it's the most important factor in camera performance or even in image quality. Based on posts from members of this forum, I suspect even that group outnumbers those for whom DR means _everything_ about IQ and camera performance.


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 10, 2014)

Here ya go, dilbert:



dilbert said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > V8Beast said:
> ...


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Thinking of the percentage of DSLR owners I know personally (not on forums), I am going to go with about 5%, 700K. I would also guess that there are 12 million of them that never get past the point of using the running man, head or mountain settings.


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 10, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Sending more than one or two letters does do anything and might even be counter productive (unless maybe they just keep a running numerical tally and won't eventually notice if the same person sends the same letter 100 times ;D ? ). If lots of people bring it up all over the place maybe it spirals into enough attention for Canon to decide to go to a new fab sooner rather than another 15 years from now. And more attention can get more people to actually write in.



I think you greatly underestimate how seriously companies take customer complaint letters and over-estimate forum banter. Having worked lots of low-level customer service jobs when I was paying for college, I can assure you that it's much harder to ignore a complaint letter submitted directly to a company than it is to ignore forum banter or even a phone call. A random complaint letter makes it much higher up the totempole then you might think, especially when it bears some semblance of intelligence 

Interestingly, one of those low-level customer service jobs was at Toshiba when Masaya Maeda was running the show. As soon as he took over, he demanded that the entire company begin transitioning to digitized documents because he felt paper was for cavemen. Considering that was 14 years ago, that doesn't sound like a person who's content resting on antiquated technology. 

IMHO, Canon determined that the potential money to be made by improving sensor DR didn't, from a business perspective, justify the investment required to improve sensor DR. At least for this generation of bodies. Either that, or they don't have the technology to do it. 

I'm sure many forum members have been asked to participate in Canon's surveys and market research studies. If the majority of those surveyed expressed gross dissatisfaction with DR, I don't see how they could ignore it.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 10, 2014)

dilbert said:


> It's not really that odd and confusing. Prior to there being good evidence, people could just shout louder about DR not being a problem. Since good evidence has been introduced, they are faced with admitting that they were wrong or continuing to shout loudly or even louder and nobody likes admitting that they were wrong.



I think this is the one point that those campaigning for more DR miss the point entirely. Yes, there is good evidence that other sensors have better DR than canon sensors. 

That does not mean that there is *a problem* with Canon sensors.

If one sensor is about 90% as good as another, that does not mean the 90% sensor has *any problems*.

Would we all like more DR? Of course! Although I find it somewhat ludicrous that some folks believe that they can't take acceptable landscapes with a Canon camera. Perhaps they take landscapes only in the most demanding circumstances - such as sunsets or very low light. Perhaps they are blowing up these same images to 24" or more. For most of us, this is not the case, so "warning" people about the shortcomings of Canon's sensor is not necessary and totally misleading, in my opinion.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> There were close to 14 million dSLRs sold last year. How many of those people do you think know what low ISO DR is, much less care about it?



I don't know, that's why I'm not putting up figures.

I do know that I though dr was not a big issue (well, far less than iso noise anyway) until I started shooting with the 14.5+ dr of Magic Lantern. Only then I realized how often some part of my old 60d shots was clipped because I couldn't ettl it w/o losing to much iq. With the 6d shadow noise has certainly gotten better and you can properly expose even with 90% of the data on the very left edge of the histogram, but this still loses resolution.

My guess is you can only really say how many people care about dr once they've shot with a high(er)-dr camera, otherwise there's no real choice and keeping to the old ways is the probable behavior.



> _The Architect: As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly ninety-nine percent of the test subjects accepted the program provided they were given a choice - even if they were only aware of it at a near-unconscious level._


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> Here ya go, dilbert:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



DRoners are very accomplished at rewriting history, forgetting they ever said that, outright denying they ever said that, saying a completely new idea or theory was what they were always going on about, quietly dropping an authoritatively stated equation when it is shown to be faulty, announcing they will provide 'proof' but never do, loudly decrying 'you just don't understand', saying 'but if the scene did have more DR than that I would have been in trouble', outright refuse to answer simple questions and just produce lengthy replies that repeat old positions and avoid any real discussion, etc etc, it seems to be a subset speciality of theirs.

P.S. And then bitch about how they are persecuted by the "antiDR crowd" (which is farcical because nobody has ever taken an anti DR position, just an anti DRoners position) whenever they are pushed into a corner because their self satisfying and ludicrous comments are questioned.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, keep blaming the gear, buddy. I've shot with heavy long lenses without tripod collars more times than I can count. A sturdy tripod, a cable release, and locking up the mirror works wonders.
> ...



It seems the DRoners would benefit from using two L-plates, not just one. Preferably one on the back and one on the front to warn other photographers to give them a bit of room.


----------



## Khalai (Oct 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> What happens if Canon loses their place in the high end market? Do they even care? Or would they just be happy selling Rebels and EOS-Ms to the masses, because, well, you know...that's what makes the bottom line big and fat and black. It's what makes Canon the top DSLR seller in the world. Even if they lost a few hundred thousand high end DSLR sales, they would still be selling GOBS of the other stuff. The alternatives are not perfect...yet. However that is rapidly changing...Nikon's high end DSLRs, while they lack certain things I really like about Canon equipment, are still way up there. The A7 series has it's flaws, however Sony has been making progress on all fronts, not just the sensor front. Their new AF system has all the same capabilities, including tracking capabilities, as a Nikon or Canon AF system. Canon's older sensor technology, and history of providing the bare minimum features possible in any given device for as long as possible, are affecting them on other fronts as well. Video, an area where Canon exploded into only a couple years ago, is also an area where the competition is packing in the IQ and the features, in cheaper products, and gaining massive headway against not only Canon but some of the ancient established players. Red and Sony being two of those key competitors (with Red having raced past Canon now to challenge Arri.)



Let's just hope that Canon will not remain stationary and upgrade their sensors as well. Like you said, you dislike certain things Nikon does (or does not), Sony is not without its quirks. So Canon really needs only to step-up its sensor tech, everything else is pretty much matured - lens lineup (few primes due to upgrade, but apart from 35/1.4 and 50/1.4, nothing too urgent), flash system, autofocus tracking, UI and handling...

I personally think that you may be stressing the DR importance a bit too much. And if that's really your top no.1 priority, you just have to compromise - there is no ideal system out there...


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Maybe what you think the "High End Market" is and what Canon thinks the "High End Market" is are two different things. I have a feeling what you think the "High End Market" is, is different than what I believe it to be. IMO the high end market is the big whites. 

Where DR matters on landscape photos I can sell all my gear and replace it with Nikon. I could completely retool for under $7K. Multiply that x4 for retooling my white lenses. 

I might buy that Canon is loosing some of the higher end model camera sales because of this. But the margin isn't as big as some would like to claim. It is likely a small margin.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 10, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> Canon does not seem to have a dynamic range _problem_, from what I can tell.
> 
> The problem appears to be, instead, a small group of people who hold strong opinions and won't shut up. They can remain safely hidden behind an anonymous identity and can never be held feet to the fire in the real world for their frothing at the mouth.
> 
> ...



Easy and cheap way for you to get drunk


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> This is exactly right. Canon sensor IQ (the quality of the data in their RAW images) is poor relative to the current best sensor IQ of today. Canon sensor IQ isn't second, or third...in the grand scheme of things, overall, Canon sensors come in dead last...RELATIVE TO OTHER CAMERAS/SENSORS OF CURRENT CAMERAS TODAY.



False. Canon sensors come in 'dead last' on ONE SPECIFIC MEASUREMENT. And by 'dead last' I mean 'better then any color film and the majority of digital sensors historically, i.e. better then what we've had available to shoot for most of our lives.'

Most shots simply do not need to have their shadows pushed. 

Most of the shots that do are well within the range of what you can do with any modern Canon sensor. 

Most of what's beyond that needs HDR on ANY modern camera. 

And that tiny sliver of leftover images...which are in between the limits of Canon's +3 stop shadow latitude and Exmor's +5 stop shadow latitude...can still be easily captured on Canon with a couple frames, or a single frame of Magic Lantern dual ISO.

Resolution? It's very hard to find the differences between the 5D3 and Sony's 36 MP sensor even in a 36" print. A 5D3 with Canon's best glass is not "dead last" in terms of actual resolved detail. In fact, it's near the top of the list. (Even DxO supports this statement in their lens scores.)

High ISO? The 5D3 hangs with pretty much anything FF except the Sony 12 MP A7S. The 70D hangs with anything APS-C. Initial shots from the 7D2 look phenomenal for crop.

Lenses? Canon is without question first. Nobody has the depth or breadth of their lens library, or of their lens design and manufacturing capabilities. Other companies have excellent glass and may have the better version of a particular lens, but taken as a whole Canon is top dog.

If I ran into situations where that +5 stop shadow latitude mattered, I wouldn't be here every day complaining about it. I would buy different equipment. 

As is I can hike a location like Zion, shoot handheld, push shadows like an angry Sith Lord, and produce technically perfect 16x24 prints.

I can also hand hold a 3-frame bracket...with no IS...at 8 fps on my 7D. Give me IS and the 10 fps of the 7D2 and I just might be able to hand hold 7-frame HDR brackets. (Can't wait to try this.) Top that DR!



> This is a purely impersonal debate about technology, and the merits of different technologies. Trying to turn it into an insult is just a smoke screen,



Is DEAD LAST a technical term?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The latter group far and away outnumbers the former.
> ...



Since the question of "meaningful difference" is subject to human opinion...quite a bit actually.



> Do you honestly think that gives you a right to go around harassing the minority?



Implying it's not the other way around :



> History is packed with episodes where the majority was dead wrong, and the minority, sometimes even just one man, was dead on.



Yeah...we're talking about read noise in digital camera sensors when shadows are pushed +3 to +5 stops. This is a truly miniscule first world issue, not a turning point in human history.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> If I ran into situations where that +5 stop shadow latitude mattered, I wouldn't be here every day complaining about it. I would buy different equipment.



Wait...you're saying that instead of incessantly whining and complaining on an Internet forum where it doesn't really matter, you'd actually *do something* about it?? What a novel idea! :

Of course, just as R2-D2 was made on Naboo while C-3PO was made on Tattooine, there's more than one source of DRoids DRones. If that extra DR and shadow latitude mattered significantly to you, and if you then bought different equipment, you too could be a DRone if you came back to CR forums to 'teach' us all how poor Canon sensors were compared to the system to which you switched.


----------



## DominoDude (Oct 10, 2014)

From some Spanish site that I can't understand (used and included on a Swedish photoforum), but it is a bit hard to draw the conclusion that the major segments are in direct relation to the worst image quality.

http://obj.fotosidan.se/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=136357&d=1412254066


----------



## emko (Oct 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > If I ran into situations where that +5 stop shadow latitude mattered, I wouldn't be here every day complaining about it. I would buy different equipment.
> ...



yea i don't understand the b***ing about the DR and MP that Canon clearly lacks if its important to you just sell the Canon and go with the company that offers what you need. I didn't switch yet i will see what happens with the next cameras if Canon does not improve i will switch to Nikon in the mean time i got a A7R for the DR and MP works great.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> From some Spanish site that I can't understand (used and included on a Swedish photoforum), but it is a bit hard to draw the conclusion that the major segments are in direct relation to the worst image quality.
> 
> http://obj.fotosidan.se/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=136357&d=1412254066



But...but...Canon sensors have 'poor IQ' that is 'unacceptable' and 'sub-par'. How can it possibly be that by a wide margin the majority of photos winning a 2014 World Press Award were shot with Canon cameras? It was like that last year, too...it's really sad that all those award-winning image makers haven't read CR forums to learn how Canon's antiquated sensor technology prevents anyone from taking a decent picture with a Canon sensor. 

:


----------



## unfocused (Oct 10, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> From some Spanish site that I can't understand (used and included on a Swedish photoforum), but it is a bit hard to draw the conclusion that the major segments are in direct relation to the worst image quality.
> 
> http://obj.fotosidan.se/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=136357&d=1412254066



Whenever this comes out, I am always looking to buy one of those "sin datos" cameras. They seem to always come out on top. They must have great dynamic range. Until I can buy one, I guess I'll just have to settle for Canon.


----------



## DominoDude (Oct 10, 2014)

unfocused said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > From some Spanish site that I can't understand (used and included on a Swedish photoforum), but it is a bit hard to draw the conclusion that the major segments are in direct relation to the worst image quality.
> ...



Si si, me no habla statistico, but "sin datos" sounds good indeedimucho.


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 11, 2014)

dilbert said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > Here ya go, dilbert:
> ...



You've stated your intentions of taunting Canon users with pictures that our Canon cameras can't match. That's the point. Nitpicking over semantics is merely an attempt to divert focus from your stated intentions, which you claim you never stated: ie "taunt you all with pictures that your Canon cameras can't match." 

Replacing "vow" with "state" or "express" doesn't change the context of you said in the least bit. Nice try, though.


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 11, 2014)

dilbert said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > > Actually, what it will come with is a tripod mount that attaches to the lens, thereby shifting the center of gravity and the weight that the ball friction needs to keep horizontal. As it stands, in the 70-300 range, I'm only aware of the Canon 70-300L having a lens collar for tripods.
> ...



Possibly, but since you brought up a 70-300, I presume we're talking about long lenses, in which case my experience applying the aforementioned techniques (sturdy tripod, cable release, mirror lock) with a 70-300L, 70-200 f/2.8L, and 100-400L are still applicable to the discussion.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 11, 2014)

dilbert said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...


Not as much as a proper ball head.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 11, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



You know that if one person says it does not matter at all and the next says it is all important they become opposites.
In this case both are wrong. 

One says that you make poor pictures because you do not have a body with more DR.
The other says you focus to much on DR and your pics are crap.

I read the arguments and think both of those individual's pics are probably lacking because neither concedes any ground and say that it is the combination of all things that make great pics. 

There are work arounds for not having a good ball head, there are work arounds for DR.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 11, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


The difference is does the person work around them. In dilbert case, not so much and why I said DR is the least of the problems others and I have observed with his photos. Which in kinda like ignoring the gaping hole in the wall to work on a miniscule paint chip. 

But I'm sure he'll get a high DR body and his photos will still continue to be what they are. That's the real tragedy here.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Oct 11, 2014)

It's amazing how many electrons can be expended discussing/fighting-over minutia. Just because an observer can find a difference between Sony and Canon sensors doesn't mean that the difference plays any meaningful role in serious image production.

I'm with you on this, RLPhoto. Any perceived/imagined DR "problem" is all too easy to work around. 

To me, it's as if DRones use this small (yes, observable, but only under test conditions) difference as an excuse for being _unable_ to make a great image. It's as if they're saying "... if only I had [fill in the blank] I'd be able to make great images. But because I don't have, I can't and won't."

Balder-dash!




RLPhoto said:


> ... The difference is does the person work around them. In dilbert case, not so much and why I said DR is the least of the problems others and I have observed with his photos. Which in kinda like ignoring the gaping hole in the wall to work on a miniscule paint chip.
> 
> But I'm sure he'll get a high DR body and his photos will still continue to be what they are. That's the real tragedy here.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 11, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> I'm with you on this, RLPhoto. Any perceived/imagined DR "problem" is all too easy to work around.



Oh my, we're going full circle, aren't we? Just as I thought even the fiercest dr antagonists seem to conclude that for some applications (think "noon beach volleyball") 11ev or 14ev dr might make a real difference, it's back to square one with everything "easy to work around"


----------



## DominoDude (Oct 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> LOL. I'm assuming you guys are just joking around, because "sin datos" basically means "without data". I guess that's the Spanish term for the "other" piece of the pie that covers the range of other and supposedly uninteresting camera models.



Yes, joking. That should be the ones that didn't reveal their origin, and it could possibly be anything from home built systems to camera obscuras made of shoe boxes. Could also be that the pie charts data comes from the EXIF digested from photos and some stripped them out. I haven't bothered to examine the truthfulness of the data because I lack enough knowledge of Spanish, but I assume it has some bearing and that it's not totally biased.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 11, 2014)

Khnnielsen said:


> If you disagree with someone, you can just call them a "DRone" and label them as talentless geeks who shoot lens caps all day.



Which most are. 

It has been demonstrated _time and time and time again_ that most of the "problems" these trolls ascribe to inadequate sensors, actually come from their own incompetent conversion and post processing decisions; or from a deliberate attempt to fake the "proof" that a problem exists. 



> It won't be resolved.



It _could_ be though - if they'd just STFU and accept that their opinion _*isn't the only valid one*_ here.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 11, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> It's amazing how many electrons can be expended discussing/fighting-over minutia. Just because an observer can find a difference between Sony and Canon sensors doesn't mean that the difference plays any meaningful role in serious image production.
> 
> I'm with you on this, RLPhoto. Any perceived/imagined DR "problem" is all too easy to work around.



See that is the problem, if Canon is not the very best at something, then the problem can never, in any circumstance, ever, be real for anyone and the actual real world difference is always trivial and can, in all, cases, be not just worked around, but easily worked around. In the case of low ISO DR that is simply not true.

And yet every time people say oh the DR crowd just goes on about nothing because nobody ever claims that the DR isn't better or that it can't matter at times, well as you see yet again, that is not true, again and again, there are those who insist anything from a sensor with more DR is worse to there is no real world problem ever and then these latter groups tend to start up with the personal insults and say that it's only poor or incompetent photographer who might remotely have an issue or that maybe the issue is real but it doesn't matter since anyone who cares would for some reason be a guarateed to be such a terrible photographer that it would be irrelevant anyway since a technical better stinking photo still stinks or stuff about lens cap shooting dweebs or whatnot.

How about instead of trashing that guys photography and coming up with all sorts of whatever that is entirely besides the point you just stick to the facts.

If with what and how you shoot, it is at all times, trivial to get around DR, then awesome for you, but that doesn't mean that is the case for every single person. And ironically again, the DR side gets bashed for supposdely being the ones who make the grand sweeping statements and insisting that everyone needs to have their real world experiences. It seems to me it is the opposite.




> To me, it's as if DRones use this small (yes, observable, but only under test conditions) difference as an excuse for being _unable_ to make a great image. It's as if they're saying "... if only I had [fill in the blank] I'd be able to make great images. But because I don't have, I can't and won't."
> 
> Balder-dash!



Balder-dash indeed!

I dare you to find posts where those wanting Canon to improve DR go around blaiming lack of DR or whatever for a supposedly inability to ever make a great photo. Who has said that?

And once again, if it's difference only observable under lab conditions then how come the only reason people ever got into the 'lab' to investigate these things was because they first saw issues with their real world shooting? And what of the real world examples where the difference shows up?




RLPhoto said:


> ... The difference is does the person work around them. In dilbert case, not so much and why I said DR is the least of the problems others and I have observed with his photos. Which in kinda like ignoring the gaping hole in the wall to work on a miniscule paint chip.
> 
> But I'm sure he'll get a high DR body and his photos will still continue to be what they are. That's the real tragedy here.



And above is another example for V8Beast who claims nobody every goes down the first path of personally trashing someone's photography. Of course if someone dares point out that a few of those who insult others work personally (in many cases without ever having even seen any of it) have sometimes had nothing but a few OOF cat shots, then suddenly it's oh see the DR crowd just goes around and picks and insults people. NO! They were just pushed to the point of pointing out some hypocrisy.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'm curious to know how many people who say that DR is mostly just hype have actually played with enough Exmor-based RAW files to really understand the differences.



Well _I_ Have - at great length; and yes, I do understand the differences.

And - guess what? - Unlike the DR whiners, I've taken that experience, and that knowledge, and I've used it as a baseline against which to judge how best to get _excellent_ results out of my Canon files. 

*In other words, I've looked at the differences and worked out how to make them go away*. 

That's what grown-ups do, isn't it? See a "problem" (the quotation marks are used intentionally and advisedly) and work out how to deal with it? 

What they don't do is subvert every single discussion on every single subject, into a platform for their inability to add address what is, when all's said and done, _their_ problem.

As has been pointed out before, any photographer who routinely needs to dig multiple stops into the shadows, needs lessons on how to use a camera, not a different sensor.

But we _all_ know that in fact photographers _do not_ need to recover shadow detail all the time - nor "a lot of the time" nor even "enough times to make it pretty important". The DRoning isn't _really_ about what they actually _need_ in order to raise their photographic game (supposedly, judging by the sheer amount of noise about it, to some stratospheric new height which Canon couldn't possibly achieve), it's about a piddly little non-issue that they've allowed to become an all-consuming obsession.

What it is, is _unhealthy_. And a clear indication that they're happier to blame someone/something else for their shortcomings. rather than to figure out for themselves how to address them.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 11, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> label them as talentless geeks who shoot lens caps all day.
> 
> Which most are.
> 
> It has been demonstrated _time and time and time again_ that most of the "problems" these trolls ascribe to inadequate sensors, actually come from their own incompetent conversion and post processing decisions; or from a deliberate attempt to fake the "proof" that a problem exists.



Haha, ah yes and once again, V8Beast are you still going to claim that NOBODY says that DR never makes any difference and that it's not the other side that constantly starts taking it personal and constantly subtly, or in this case, very much not, tries to imply or directly state that anyone who might ever have a use for more DR are just dweebs, trolls, incompetent morons?




> *It won't be resolved. *
> 
> It _could_ be though - if they'd just STFU and accept that their opinion _*isn't the only valid one*_ here.



Wow, that is rich Keith. Really rich to write that just after YOU wrote that nobody could ever have any reasonable need for more DR unless they are an incompetent, talentless troll geeks. Do you not see the irony and utter hypocrisy? Everyone who thinks there could ever be a realistic need for more DR is an incompetent troll of a dweeb who just needs to STFU and accept that their opinion is not the only one? : ;D  

Meanwhile I will readily admit that not everyone will be bother by the lack of DR other than in rare cases and that one can take billions of shots where it makes not practicable difference at all. (although once again that doesn't mean that some don't regularly come across scenarios where it would help them to have more DR, in realistic, reasonable scenarios)

Do you see us going around saying that anyone who doesn't ever have a need for more DR is a talentless moron? I haven't seen that a single time ever.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 11, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Strange, I don't recall ever making any such vow.



Just as well, really - _because it's simply not possible, is it?_ 

Not outside of the ridiculously contrived "proofs" we see on here every so often...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 11, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> As has been pointed out before, any photographer who routinely needs to dig multiple stops into the shadows, needs lessons on how to use a camera, not a different sensor.
> 
> But we _all_ know that in fact photographers _do not_ need to recover shadow detail all the time - nor "a lot of the time" nor even "enough times to make it pretty important".



Ah yes, once again it's Keith Reeder keeping the open mind and not daring to proclaim that his style of photography is the only kind. He'd never, ever believe that his own point of view is the only one. : ;D ;D ;D ;D

Only the geeks and freaks and talentless morons go around 'insisting' things and decided that everyone has to have their same exact needs as they go around saying things like not everyone will care about the DR issue .


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Oh my, we're going full circle, aren't we? Just as I thought even the fiercest dr antagonists seem to conclude that for some applications (think "noon beach volleyball") 11ev or 14ev dr might make a real difference, it's back to square one with everything "easy to work around"



Have you ever shot beach volleyball? You don't need 14 or even 11 stops. I used to shoot it with a Canon 10D in JPEG. 8 stops was more then enough. Everything is bright.

You should have said surfing. Sunlit water foam vs. black wetsuit and often shaded face. That could be a real challenge on the old 10D, 20D...since the 7D I haven't had any DR issues. JPEG+HTP could be a bit noisy back in the beginning, but with the firmware buffer update (now I only shoot RAW) and newer versions of ACR and the various plugins I use...there's nothing to improve upon as far as DR is concerned.

Landscapes and interiors are the last challenging subjects. Landscapes easily exceed any sensor, but they're still so HDR/GND. Same for interiors. Again I'll say that jrista's interior room test scene was better then most I've seen, but while it proved Exmor has less read noise (no shock), it also proved how little this really matters. The highlights were still blown to preserve the shadows. A real shot for a magazine would either A) go ahead and completely blow out the shuttered windows in a pleasing fashion, or B) use HDR.

If this was 8 stops vs. 14 the "DRoners" would have a point, and I would probably be shooting Nikon. But it's more like 12.5 (5D3) vs. 13.5, or 13 vs. 13 (APS-C), with a shadow latitude difference of +2.5 vs. +5. You're not capturing that much more, if any, tonal range...you can just reposition the shadow tones higher on the scale without read noise interfering.

Yeah, I see it. Yeah, it might occasionally be an important difference. No, it's not worth all this discussion.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> .those who know what it is, care about it, but do not think it's the most important factor in camera performance or even in image quality.



It's like you've been reading my private correspondence..!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 11, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > .those who know what it is, care about it, but do not think it's the most important factor in camera performance or even in image quality.
> ...



Until a Canon, one day, comes out 0.21 stops higher DR across the board than any other maker and then that 0.21 extra tops will just be absolutely critical! That will be the amount that finally just happens to push things over to the edge to where it can make a real world difference and not just some times but ALL times. :


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Oct 11, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> Interestingly, one of those low-level customer service jobs was at Toshiba when Masaya Maeda was running the show


Oh yeah - Toshiba, the company that makes the sensor in the Nikon D7100, which is _significantly_ more prone to low ISO banding and noise than the sensor in my 70D (and at high ISOs too, for that matter).

_What's that? A Canon with better DR than than a comparable Nikon?_

Funny how the Nikon fanboys on here are always so quiet about this...

Kinda proves that buying-in isn't always a guarantee of success; and that maybe Canon's tech isn't as far behind as the whiners like to assert - I mean: Toshiba _must_ be using more state-of-the-art fab than Canon, right? 

_Or maybe that *doesn't* matter as much as the DRones think it does..._


----------



## Skulker (Oct 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> .those who know what it is, care about it, but do not think it's the most important factor in camera performance or even in image quality.



If only a few more people on here would take a balanced view, like this, there would be a lot less stupid posts.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 11, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> See that is the problem, if Canon is not the very best at something, then the problem can never, in any circumstance, ever, be real for anyone and the actual real world difference is always trivial and can, in all, cases, be not just worked around, but easily worked around.



LOLWUT?

Canon does not have a well supported mirrorless system, or a FF mirrorless. I love my M, but if you want a complete MILC kit, or a FF body for adapted rangefinder glass, the problem is not trivial and cannot be worked around.

There. Canon is not best at everything 



> In the case of low ISO DR that is simply not true.



So when I'm hiking and I lift my DSLR up and hand hold AEB 3 frames that I blend later...that's not an easy work around?

What is the situation, exactly, where the shadow latitude difference is both large and not easily worked around?



> I dare you to find posts where those wanting Canon to improve DR go around blaiming lack of DR or whatever for a supposedly inability to ever make a great photo. Who has said that?



At one point (sorry jrista) the forum was being pointed towards Nikon HDR shots on Flickr with the claim that A) they were not HDR, and B) Canon could not produce the same at all even though Flickr is loaded with the same types of shots from Canon bodies.

You see this same kind of confirmation bias from certain online reviewers.

* Reviewer sees some small difference in a lab test where A is better then B.
* Reviewer takes and shoots only A in the field.
* Reviewer loves the results and writes about how only A could do it.
* Reviewer fails to test B in the field, and fails to look at the body of work from others using B.

Classic example is the recently released D750 review where the reviewer shot some junk in a corner at -5ev which the 5D3 could not match, then proceeded to glow about D750 wedding shots that the 5D3 (or even a 7D) could have easily matched. It was practically a bait and switch.

For most people, once you've psychologically convinced yourself that XYZ is better, then everything produced by XYZ automatically becomes evidence of how wonderful it is without any critical consideration of the question: could ABC have done the same thing? Is XYZ really making a difference in all these examples? Psychologically many will continue to insist that XYZ is far better even if you swap labels and they are praising ABC by accident! (The human mind is a strange thing  )

This isn't limited to DR. You will see the same nonsense in lens comparisons (for example). Heck, you'll see it in scientific fields were people are supposed to be aware of it and trained to avoid it.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 11, 2014)

dilbert said:


> What part of the world do you live in? Because by the sounds of it, wherever you do live, the wind don't blow there and the earth doesn't rotate either.



You can't HDR an interior because of the wind or the rotation of the Earth? ???

As for landscapes...neither GND nor manual blends have any issue with movement as long as there's not a large moving section that crosses the line or mask. You're not going to HDR a sprinter, but wind is seldom an issue in a landscape. I can hand hold a 3 frame bracket for crying out loud. Just how hard is this wind blowing that things radically change in <0.5s?

HDR tools also have features to compensate for motion.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 11, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Funny how the Nikon fanboys on here are always so quiet about this...



Funny how most of the 'Nikon fanboys' here have used Canon longer than you have.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 11, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> HDR tools also have features to compensate for motion.



... that is like in *unidirectional* motion esp. from camera shake, or otherwise I'm not up to date and the latest hdr assembly softwares have managed to de-blur moving clouds, grass or leaves in the wind :-\


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 11, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> So when I'm hiking and I lift my DSLR up and hand hold AEB 3 frames that I blend later...that's not an easy work around?



Not when that doesn't blend well because of shake or motion or when the shadow exposure at 3 stops lower becomes too slow to handhold at lower ISO at f/6.3-f/13.




> *I dare you to find posts where those wanting Canon to improve DR go around blaiming lack of DR or whatever for a supposedly inability to ever make a great photo. Who has said that?*
> 
> At one point (sorry jrista) the forum was being pointed towards Nikon HDR shots on Flickr with the claim that A) they were not HDR, and B) Canon could not produce the same at all even though Flickr is loaded with the same types of shots from Canon bodies.



How do you get that from that???
Where did he say that meant nobody could get a great photo out of a Canons sensor?



> For most people, once you've psychologically convinced yourself that XYZ is better, then everything produced by XYZ automatically becomes evidence of how wonderful it is without any critical consideration of the question: could ABC have done the same thing? Is XYZ really making a difference in all these examples? Psychologically many will continue to insist that XYZ is far better even if you swap labels and they are praising ABC by accident! (The human mind is a strange thing  )



But the thing is most people who complain about banding and DR, noticed it in their real world work before every reading anything about it or about other cameras so....

And there is also the psychology of some not be able to handle that something they bought is not the best at every single thing or that their team, I mean brand of use, can't win all games.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 11, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> As for landscapes...neither GND nor manual blends have any issue with movement as long as there's not a large moving section that crosses the line or mask. You're not going to HDR a sprinter, but wind is seldom an issue in a landscape. I can hand hold a 3 frame bracket for crying out loud. Just how hard is this wind blowing that things radically change in <0.5s?



Only relatively few shots like ocean horizon or mountain range horizon shots get helped by GND. For forest stuff wind can be quite a problem with leafs and branches going all over or water moving like crazy or mists going crazy in post storm winds. Not always though of course, I mean sure sometimes you can take multiple shots with a tripod (although that is more of a drag, and you do waste time and as golden hour lighting changes you miss other shots inthe meantime or bog down people hiking with you and annoy them, although those are different sorts of issues and yeah beggars can't be choosers) and occasionally they can patch hand-held (but not always so well as you'd like).

Although it's a bit rare to need it, sometimes for wildlife or sports you do hit HDR scenarios and multi-shots are utterly unworkable in those cases just about always (other than for stable perched bird).




> HDR tools also have features to compensate for motion.



And you get weird artifacts and fixing them takes ages upon ages when it is possible patch it up.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 11, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Not when that doesn't blend well because of shake or motion



I haven't had either prove to be a problem in practice.



> or when the shadow exposure at 3 stops lower becomes too slow to handhold at lower ISO at f/6.3-f/13.



You find yourself confronted with scenes which are low light, yet you're not using a tripod or IS lens, and somehow these low light scenes also present a huge luminance range? ???

(Side note: I actually have been in this situation once. But an IS lens would have helped more then an Exmor sensor.)



> Where did he say that meant nobody could get a great photo out of a Canons sensor?



He has never said that, but he was...at the time...basically claiming that you could not get the same quality landscape shots out of Canon. Again, a quick Flickr search would have broken the confirmation bias spell.



> But the thing is most people who complain about banding and DR, noticed it in their real world work before every reading anything about it or about other cameras so....



I'm not buying that. jrista...yeah, I think he noticed it long ago. But most people generating chatter on the Internet right now are doing so because they saw a Fred Miranda or Tony Northrup review. (I respect the former, the latter not so much. Never the less they both make the same fundamental error.)



> And there is also the psychology of some not be able to handle that something they bought is not the best at every single thing or that their team, I mean brand of use, can't win all games.



That might be at play here if even ONE Canon user had ever said that Canon is better at low ISO DR. But none of them have 

For the record, Canon read noise SUCKS when you underexpose by more then 3ev and try to put the shadow tones back in post. I just never really have to do that.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 11, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Only relatively few shots like ocean horizon or mountain range horizon shots get helped by GND.



Manual blends cover the rest pretty well.



> For forest stuff wind can be quite a problem with leafs and branches going all over or water moving like crazy or mists going crazy in post storm winds.



How often do you face this situation yet you would have to HDR on any camera? That's a point the "DRoners" keep missing. You guys treat the Exmor sensors as if they never require HDR, as if the shadow depth is unlimited. Nonsense. jrista's own example would have required HDR to be publishable. 

How often are you shooting a scene with more luminance range then Canon can handle...but not more then Exmor can handle...with close up foliage...and with wind so heavy that HDR or blending is impossible? Seriously, how many shots per year are we talking here?



> and occasionally they can patch hand-held (but not always so well as you'd like).



I regularly, confidently hand hold AEB 3 frame brackets. It's the C1 setting on my DSLR. I can even do so with the M though in fairness that is with an IS lens.



> Although it's a bit rare to need it, sometimes for wildlife or sports you do hit HDR scenarios and multi-shots are utterly unworkable in those cases just about always (other than for stable perched bird).



That is exceedingly rare. I'm struggling to imagine a scenario where...again...you're out of bounds on the Canon sensor but still in bounds on the Exmor.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 11, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> How often are you shooting a scene with more luminance range then Canon can handle...but not more then Exmor can handle...with close up foliage...and with wind so heavy that HDR or blending is impossible? Seriously, how many shots per year are we talking here?



A 3ev difference is in my experience often just the range you need to prevent clipped sky while retaining good shadow resolution. And the nature moves a lot, esp. if you look at 100% crop. If you doubt it, get out more :-> ... then you'll see it doesn't take heavy storms to make leaves and grass move noticeably. _Are you watching closely_ ("The Prestige")?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> A 3ev difference is in my experience often just the range you need to prevent clipped sky while retaining good shadow resolution.



Do you mean a +3ev shadow push in post? That's within Canon's range. Hitting the limit, you will move those NR sliders, but absolutely doable.

Do you mean 3ev difference between the cameras? There's not that much difference.



> And the nature moves a lot, esp. if you look at 100% crop. If you doubt it, get out more :-> ... then you'll see it doesn't take heavy storms to make leaves and grass move noticeably. _Are you watching closely_ ("The Prestige")?



Nature moves a lot...in <0.5s...across the entire frame...thereby defeating a manual blend? :


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 11, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ... The difference is does the person work around them. In dilbert case, not so much and why I said DR is the least of the problems others and I have observed with his photos. Which in kinda like ignoring the gaping hole in the wall to work on a miniscule paint chip.
> ...





LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > label them as talentless geeks who shoot lens caps all day.
> ...



I take it I've said something that offends you ? Man, I must have been a real d!ck to get called out twice in a span of 6 minutes ;D

My claims were based on my personal observations, which I admit could have very well missed insults directed at the pro-DR crowd. I'm sorry that I choose to ignore most of this preposterous back-and-forth squabbling. I was incorrect in my assessment, and extend my sincere apologies. Does that work for you ;D? 

Please humor me for just a moment, though. Are the anti-DR guys the only one hurling insults? From my perspective, the insults are originating from both sides, but maybe I'm just crazy.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 11, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Do you mean a +3ev shadow push in post?



No, +3ev beyond Canon's acceptable (ymmv) range - but I can't really tell about exmore as I'm using the 16bit raw files from ML that have more shadow resolution.



dtaylor said:


> Nature moves a lot...in <0.5s...across the entire frame...thereby defeating a manual blend?



Of course you can manual blend a lot, but that doesn't count as "easily circumvented" as speculated above. How bad small movement is of course depends on the export/view size, but in my experience when doing a 2x bracket with there's simply double the chance that something moved or happened in the scene. I'm not much of a landscape photog, but I know this can happen in nature macro.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > How often are you shooting a scene with more luminance range then Canon can handle...but not more then Exmor can handle...with close up foliage...and with wind so heavy that HDR or blending is impossible? Seriously, how many shots per year are we talking here?
> ...



There isn't a 3EV difference in practice, whatever DxO says. Remember that photographically 11 to 12 EV is a lot anyway, and, as I've said many times before, to hit this amount of EV range you have to begin including the light source itself in your exposure. There is then a slim window to make use of the 'extra' 1 stop or whatever, but the light source is normally much more than a 13, 14 or 15 EV range can cope with. 

Remember there are many people on CR who have used and/or owned a camera body that uses Exmor. I don't see any of them changing.

The examples of pushing four or five stops is just academic. In all my 'landscape' type shots I'm only ever pulling about 1.5 stop, pushing 1.5 - max.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Of course you can manual blend a lot, but that doesn't count as "easily circumvented" as speculated above.



I would consider it "easily circumvented." Soft brush on a mask? Not long at all.



> How bad small movement is of course depends on the export/view size, but in my experience when doing a 2x bracket with there's simply double the chance that something moved or happened in the scene. I'm not much of a landscape photog, but I know this can happen in nature macro.



Are we all talking about the same thing? For movement to impact a manual blend the movement would have to cross the scene in a manner that makes mask creation difficult. There's no movement within the individual frames.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 11, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Nature moves a lot...in <0.5s...across the entire frame...thereby defeating a manual blend? :



if you're shooting rocks, or anything else when the air is dead calm... Rarely the case for most of us.



> I would consider it "easily circumvented." Soft brush on a mask? Not long at all.



how much time each of us have to devote to _fixing_ problems in photoshop varies
I have little and much prefer simple global adjustments on files that can stand up to such adjustments.



> But most people generating chatter on the Internet right now are doing so because they saw a Fred Miranda or Tony Northrup review.



Not necessarily true, but not false either.
I discovered this forum when I went looking for information on the horrible levels of shadow banding on my 7D and blue-sky banding my 5d2 exhibited.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 11, 2014)

Aglet said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > > I would consider it "easily circumvented." Soft brush on a mask? Not long at all.
> ...



+1, generally the notion "I'll fix it in post" gives me the creeps as I'm already sitting in front of the pc much more than I'd like to. If you want to postprocess the one great keeper you have with full-blown PS adjustments, fine, but for anything else I'd like to stay in Lightroom - which excludes inter-shot blending.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 11, 2014)

Aglet said:


> if you're shooting rocks, or anything else when the air is dead calm... Rarely the case for most of us.



I think you guys are reading "exposure blend" and thinking "HDR." Again, when you manually blend exposures using a mask it's like a GND filter. There's no motion in the frames being blended. For motion to be an issue it would have to large enough and fast enough to cross your mask in the time the shots are taken.



> I discovered this forum when I went looking for information on the horrible levels of shadow banding on my 7D and blue-sky banding my 5d2 exhibited.



I don't see shadow banding on the 7D until >3 stops.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> You find yourself confronted with scenes which are low light, yet you're not using a tripod or IS lens, and somehow these low light scenes also present a huge luminance range? ???



It's not that uncommon, although not always the case, that for a forest scene to be such that if you expose to not clip the bright sunlit parts you can do that at f/6.3-f/11 at reasonable handheld speeds and often the brightness difference turns out to be such that the shadows would be serviceable enough with another nearing 3 stops more DR and that if you expose 3 more stops for an extra shot as required by Canon that can flip the shutter speeds into questionable zone.




> > But the thing is most people who complain about banding and DR, noticed it in their real world work before every reading anything about it or about other cameras so....
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not buying that. jrista...yeah, I think he noticed it long ago. But most people generating chatter on the Internet right now are doing so because they saw a Fred Miranda or Tony Northrup review. (I respect the former, the latter not so much. Never the less they both make the same fundamental error.)



All I know is that most of us who have talked about it a lot for years in the forums very much did first notice in real world work. I'm sure that is case for many others who post about. That said, I'm sure some of the chatter from infrequent posters on the ad thread on DPR and such might have heard about it from TN or FM or DxO.



> > And there is also the psychology of some not be able to handle that something they bought is not the best at every single thing or that their team, I mean brand of use, can't win all games.
> 
> 
> 
> That might be at play here if even ONE Canon user had ever said that Canon is better at low ISO DR. But none of them have



That is not how it works, they simply have to say they are as good or close enough that it doesn't matter or that they are different but it doesn't ever matter for anyone ever anyway and plenty do that. Also there is one who flat out says Canon is better, not because it has more DR, but because it has less ;D. KGW on DPR says that having more DR is too much for current RAW files and that Canon has much better image quality because it has less DR. He says that: 1. having more DR tricks and forces one to process all files in an extreme HDR garish style : 2. that it squeezes to much range into too few bits and simply ruins the quality of Nikon/Sony images compared to the smooth mid-tones of Canon. : And he pounces all over anyone who has ever mentioned DR and goes on and on about they have no deep understanding of sensors or files or electronics and so on and trashes them for technical knowlege and runs them off as Nikon trollls.



> For the record, Canon read noise SUCKS when you underexpose by more then 3ev and try to put the shadow tones back in post. I just never really have to do that.



First, it's disingenuous to refer to as underexposing by 3 stops since by definition that means you leaving 3 stops free at the top and you well know that is not the case.

Second, it's perfectly fine if you just about never have to dig into the bottom depths of files. And it's fine to say that. What some others say is not so fine.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> How often are you shooting a scene with more luminance range then Canon can handle...but not more then Exmor can handle...with close up foliage...and with wind so heavy that HDR or blending is impossible? Seriously, how many shots per year are we talking here?



Lots, since it turns out that we get a lot of wind around here and so do many other places, water flows and forest scenes happen to just be about at the range that exmor DR can just handle with single shot. Sure there are some shots beyond even Exmor, but I find many more for what I shoot that do fit and the ones that do fit in Exmor range require less extreme tone mapping and are easier to avoid the HDR look with too. If the tech were 3-4 stops worse on both sides now, then I'd find what you find, that Exmor is too often not enough anyway. But it just so happens that as the DR is for both sides not, Canon often falls just short for me and Exmor has just enough for a lot of the stuff I encounter. But sure there are shots where even Exmor will fail for single shot.




> > Although it's a bit rare to need it, sometimes for wildlife or sports you do hit HDR scenarios and multi-shots are utterly unworkable in those cases just about always (other than for stable perched bird).
> 
> 
> 
> That is exceedingly rare. I'm struggling to imagine a scenario where...again...you're out of bounds on the Canon sensor but still in bounds on the Exmor.



sun dappled Wild Turkey or Ruffed Grouse in a forest. Pileated Woopecker with sun on head and rest in shade.
Granted for sports and wildlife I don't get bothered by it nearly so much. it wouldn't hurt to have it though, but it's not a regular basis issue for what I do there in my particular case.

There have been a few games where you had to shoot extreme backlighting and on the older sensors back then 20D, the faces get a bit ugly and lacking in detail. Not a regular thing though.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 12, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



+1 PP is such a time pig as it is and for finely detailed forest type stuff, going into to every little glint and leaf and blade and so on or dealing with halos and oddities if you shortcut, a nightmare, crazy time waster, and this is for the shots that you could take at least two frames and have that work.

Anyway, at the end of the day if all Canon sees and hears is that it's not that big of a deal, nobody but a few will care, we will be stuck with this old 500nm fab for another decade or two, literally. So I don't see that it does anyone any good to minimize it. Even if you don't need it, it won't hurt you and a new fab might bring stuff that you do care about more too. Plus at least once in a blue moon you must mess up the exposure on a one of shot and at least you'll be able to rescue that better. And for those who do care more, we'll it would be great. Less money to get all your gear from one brand than a mix. Less to carry and drag around which can be a pain, literally. Canon does make awesome lenses, has a very nice UI and so on so it is nicer if Canon improves their sensors to go to a different system.


----------



## Otara (Oct 12, 2014)

"Even if you don't need it, it won't hurt you "

Uh no - unless that improvement costs nothing, something else wont be done, or cost will increase or both. When you're talking a new fab, thats more than a few dollars. It remains to be seen how easy dual pixel for video and increased DR at the same time is for instance and thats a feature many would value over a measurable but not meaningful (to them) increase in DR. 

Its unlikely to be an everyone wins scenario in the short to medium term. If a feature gets overvalued, other features inherently end up being undervalued by comparison.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 12, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It's not that uncommon, although not always the case, that for a forest scene to be such that if you expose to not clip the bright sunlit parts you can do that at f/6.3-f/11 at reasonable handheld speeds and often the brightness difference turns out to be such that the shadows would be serviceable enough with another nearing 3 stops more DR and that if you expose 3 more stops for an extra shot as required by Canon that can flip the shutter speeds into questionable zone.



It has been uncommon for me apparently. I can count on one hand the instances where I've faced this, and that was without IS.



> All I know is that most of us who have talked about it a lot for years in the forums very much did first notice in real world work. I'm sure that is case for many others who post about. That said, I'm sure some of the chatter from infrequent posters on the ad thread on DPR and such might have heard about it from TN or FM or DxO.



Fair enough.



> First, it's disingenuous to refer to as underexposing by 3 stops since by definition that means you leaving 3 stops free at the top and you well know that is not the case.



No, by definition that means middle gray is 3 stops below where it should be. You're doing that to extend your highlight range.



> Second, it's perfectly fine if you just about never have to dig into the bottom depths of files. And it's fine to say that. What some others say is not so fine.



That's fair...but they say it over and over and over again 

Meanwhile, for the words posted, there are precious few examples of that sliver between Canon's limit and HDR for every camera.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 12, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lots, since it turns out that we get a lot of wind around here and so do many other places, water flows and forest scenes happen to just be about at the range that exmor DR can just handle with single shot.



I'm not sure I buy it...but if true then shoot an Exmor camera or load up Magic Lantern. Not sure what else to say. Posting about it here certainly won't push Canon to change their ADC arrangement.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Anyway, at the end of the day if all Canon sees and hears is that it's not that big of a deal, nobody but a few will care, we will be stuck with this old 500nm fab for another decade or two, literally. So I don't see that it does anyone any good to minimize it. Even if you don't need it, it won't hurt you and a new fab might bring stuff that you do care about more too. Plus at least once in a blue moon you must mess up the exposure on a one of shot and at least you'll be able to rescue that better. And for those who do care more, we'll it would be great. Less money to get all your gear from one brand than a mix. Less to carry and drag around which can be a pain, literally. Canon does make awesome lenses, has a very nice UI and so on so it is nicer if Canon improves their sensors to go to a different system.



The thing is, we don't know yet what fabrication line the 70D and 7D2 sensors are made on... but we do know that going to the 20.2Mpixel design from the 18Mpixel design, the ISO performance increased slightly... The more complex lithography required for DPAF should have meant a reduction in high ISO performance, so they must have done something to counter it, and using their existing 180nM line (P/S sensors) seems like the most likely scenario... Also, it costs a lot more money to keep 2 fabrication lines open than one, so my bet is that the death of the 500nM fabrication run is already happening.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> No, by definition that means middle gray is 3 stops below where it should be. You're doing that to extend your highlight range.



I don't think it makes sense to talk about exposures that way with digital sensors.
The whole middle gray is centered thing is kind of bogus. And different manufacturers default the point on the linear capture to different values anyway.
The proper exposure is one where you don't clip anything that you want to retain and where you put enough light on to minimize noise as best as you can without clipping (or going quite so far as to make processing tricky and leaving too few highlight tones).

Calling it like "people going around underexposing 3 stops" makes it sound like they are making mistaken exposures. You may not have meant to imply that, but many of those who post like that do, since they then say stuff, like learn how to set a proper exposure [insult insult].


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> I wonder if Chipworks will dissect the 7D II sensor. It's been a long time since they dissected a Canon sensor...



Not so.

https://chipworks.secure.force.com/catalog/ProductDetails?sku=CAN-EOS-70D_Pri-Camera&viewState=DetailView

For $16k you can find out everything you want to know.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Lots, since it turns out that we get a lot of wind around here and so do many other places, water flows and forest scenes happen to just be about at the range that exmor DR can just handle with single shot.
> ...



Maybe not. Then again they have to be taking notice how it's getting brought up more and more and how more and more people go crazy over every little thing like the ad campaign. Not signs of well content userbase. Maybe they get afraid enough to decide to move forward and to not cripple the silliest little things in other cases either?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, at the end of the day if all Canon sees and hears is that it's not that big of a deal, nobody but a few will care, we will be stuck with this old 500nm fab for another decade or two, literally. So I don't see that it does anyone any good to minimize it. Even if you don't need it, it won't hurt you and a new fab might bring stuff that you do care about more too. Plus at least once in a blue moon you must mess up the exposure on a one of shot and at least you'll be able to rescue that better. And for those who do care more, we'll it would be great. Less money to get all your gear from one brand than a mix. Less to carry and drag around which can be a pain, literally. Canon does make awesome lenses, has a very nice UI and so on so it is nicer if Canon improves their sensors to go to a different system.
> ...



Perhaps, but then it's curious that after the long time between 7D models that they didn't start to implement some of their dual ISO read or column on sensor ADC patents and stuff at all yet.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I believe they just did the 70D. The report costs $200 though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> Are the anti-DR guys the only one hurling insults? From my perspective, the insults are originating from both sides, but maybe I'm just crazy.



Personally, I'd consider being labeled a "thug" insulting. 

_*thug*
THəɡ/ noun
1. a violent person, especially a criminal._


----------



## I_Miss_Minolta (Oct 12, 2014)

Photography is an artistic endeavor and there have always been two sides to any artistry: on one hand you the creative types and on the other data types.

Look at music:
The creative types are concerned with conveying tones that excite the emotions of the listener.
The data types are concerned with repeating notes patterns on a page, you know, the "underlying data?"

And literature...poetry:
The creative types are concerned with exciting emotion and thought in the reader.
The data types are concerned with the texture of the page and the quality of the type-face under a magnifying glass, you know, the "underlying data?"

And photography is no different; we have the same two, special types:
Our creative types are concerned with composition, lighting, focus...on capturing the wonderment of what we call, "existence."
Our data types are all about dynamic range and shadow detail--the ones and zeroes of the, "underlying data."

So there you go...two wonderful sides to an artistic coin. Love it. Embrace it.

Note: I made up that silly B.S. regarding the music and literature data types--they don't exist.


----------



## David Hull (Oct 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


I would like to know what ADC they are using, I suspect that it is something like the Analog Devices ADDI 7004. Their sensors seem to be just fine regardless of what geometry they are making them in. They seem to be getting in excess of 15 stops of DR out of the latest ones (6D for example), if you believe Sensorgen. They just toss it away on the bottom end due to an implementation that is not optimized performance at the bottom end of the ISO range like the Sony stuff is. In terms of the sensor itself, it appears to be every bit as good as anything that Sony has produced (except for whatever they put in the A7s, or whatever that one is that can see in the dark).


----------



## David Hull (Oct 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


I think that is what is doing the job for Sony. They have a very low speed SAR style ADC so they get the full benefit of their sensor noise figure all the way down to minimum gain. Canon can't do that since their high speed ADC (pipeline architecture, I suspect) can only give about 12.5 effective bits even though it is a 14 bit converter -- that's just all those things do.


----------



## fragilesi (Oct 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> I would encourage you to get more personal experience with topics before writing about them in a manner that reeks of someone that has read up on something on the Internet and decided that this then makes them an expert on the topic. Being an Internet arm-chair expert is easy, problem is that such expertise is doesn't understand where reality disrupts the theory. And there are a few arm-chair experts on here, not just you.



I'm curious. What impression of you do you _think_ replies like that give?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 12, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The proper exposure is one where you don't clip anything that you want to retain and where you put enough light on to minimize noise as best as you can without clipping (or going quite so far as to make processing tricky and leaving too few highlight tones).



I would agree. But whether you increase exposure to minimize noise or decrease exposure to preserve more highlight detail, you are shifting tones away from where you want them to be in print. Hence the reference to middle gray.



> Calling it like "people going around underexposing 3 stops" makes it sound like they are making mistaken exposures. You may not have meant to imply that, but many of those who post like that do, since they then say stuff, like learn how to set a proper exposure [insult insult].



I did not mean to imply that, but how else should I describe it? We are over and under exposing to achieve certain things.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2014)

I saw this.... and for some strange reason it made me think of this thread...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDG_WBIQgc


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 12, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Maybe not. Then again they have to be taking notice how it's getting brought up more and more and how more and more people go crazy over every little thing like the ad campaign. Not signs of well content userbase. Maybe they get afraid enough to decide to move forward and to not cripple the silliest little things in other cases either?



In all honesty I hope so. I certainly would not mind less low ISO shadow noise even though I do not consider it as important as some do.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I saw this.... and for some strange reason it made me think of this thread...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDG_WBIQgc



Ah, Don ! If only DRones were knocked down so easily. I wonder how long it was before the drone was back up and flying. If it was a CR DRone it'be about one minute


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > The proper exposure is one where you don't clip anything that you want to retain and where you put enough light on to minimize noise as best as you can without clipping (or going quite so far as to make processing tricky and leaving too few highlight tones).
> ...


for most of my shots I am able to expose in the middle. The histogram looks good and nothing runs off of either end... but for many shots (10 percent ?) I could use more range. 2 stops more DR would change that percentage from 10 percent down to about 1 percent... so yes, you can count me as one of those people who would like more DR out of their camera.

And the thing is, If I had those two extra stops, I would still expect more in the next camera... It is natural to expect improvements, just as it is natural to expect technical/scientific people to evaluate performance and identify weaknesses and strengths.. but why attack the messenger? If it doesn't matter to you, then say "that's nice" and ignore the whole debate. If it does mater to you, then debate the facts, not the person.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I saw this.... and for some strange reason it made me think of this thread...
> ...



This one probably needed more DR (Damage Repair).


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Who urinated in your Cheerios? :

I have literally thousands of brackets shot for blending...most of which were hand held...and have processed probably into the mid-hundreds out of the total number shot. The majority of processed shots have been 2-3 frame manual blends made with layer masks. A handful were done with various HDR tools. Motion between frames simply hasn't been an issue with the manual blends, though I can think of a few HDR software attempts I ended up doing manually specifically because of motion.

But feel free to make more ignorant posts about other forum members if it helps you get over whatever set you off today


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > What part of the world do you live in? Because by the sounds of it, wherever you do live, the wind don't blow there and the earth doesn't rotate either.
> ...



In general I would agree, but I have had lots of problems where there are significant waves.... but then again, that is the large moving section that you mentioned as an exception, so that means that I really agree.

+1


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Don, the problem seems to me to be that people give an opinion that is personal or state a spurious "fact", and then get defensive when that opinion is questioned, they take it personally so the cycle begins.

For instance, I agree with you, more will be very welcome and even when it gets here yet more will be expected, but I could take issue with your numbers, which might sound personal to some, I suspect very few people have "issues" anywhere near 10% of the time (and in a subtle way you set yourself up for what might appear to some a personal attack, initially you put a question mark next to the 10% but then dropped it), if they did then all the film shooters ever, and every digital camera up to now would be found wanting an unacceptable amount of the time, and in general, my experience is, that just isn't true. Of course there will be people who shoot a specific type of scene where those numbers might be accurate, and you could very well be one of them, but to suggest that camera DR capabilities fail 10% of the time is not true for me, or for many of the photographers I speak to regularly and for whom I print.

People are very quick to take rebuttals of their personal opinions personally, they are unwilling or emotionally unable to accept that the comment they made to invoke the rebuttal wasn't a soundly based fact they can back up with supporting independent evidence.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 12, 2014)

I have DR problems a lot but that's because I get only get 7-9 stops of DR in many of my shots because so many are at high ISO.

If I had my choice, which I don't because of the quantum nature of light, I'd rather have two more stops of DR at high ISO than at low ISO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don, the problem seems to me to be that people give an opinion that is personal or state a spurious "fact", and then get defensive when that opinion is questioned, they take it personally so the cycle begins.



I'd say _'and'_ instead of 'or'. The crux of the 'problem' is when people give an opinion that is personal and state that opinion as a spurious fact. Consider the following sets of examples:

[list type=decimal]
[*]"Canon sells more dSLRs than any other manufacturer."
[*]"A Canon dSLR best meets my needs." 
[*]"Canon dSLRs are the best." 
[/list]

[list type=decimal]
[*]"Current Canon sensors have less low ISO DR that their competitors."
[*]"The IQ of current Canon sensors doesn't meet my needs." 
[*]"Canon sensors have poor IQ." 
[/list]


In each case, statement (1) is simple fact, generally not disputed. Statement (2) is a personal opinion, and completely valid whether or not others share that opinion. Statement (3) is that personal opinion stated as a spurious fact. Statements like #3 are generally untenable, yet people who make statements like that tend to get defensive when their statements are rightfully questioned. 

Stating your opinion as opinion is fine...stating your opinion as fact will draw a challenge. Defending that opinion as fact just makes you look foolish. Restating that spurious fact over and over in thread after thread will not only draw a challenge, it will piss people off.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...


I take a lot of shots outside and end up with the problem of bright skies and dark trees... and bird shots where you can expose for the bird, you can expose for the sky, but not both. That said, although when you edit the pictures you can tell that you have run out of DR, almost all of the time (at least for me) it really doesn't make a noticeable difference in the final picture.

I am going to throw the following image out as an example.... In the original shot I ran out of DR to catch the highlights and the lowlights. Technically, I would have needed at least three stops on each end to capture the detail.... and in the end I ended up darkening the picture (artistic reasons to try and capture a mood) and had a picture with far less DR than the camera could capture. Yes, I know that if I lifted the shadows 5 stops to get detail in the trees that there would be noise...... but I wanted them dark anyway..... I ended up DROPPING the shadows, so for the final product none of that mattered 


Conclusion: Although more DR is a good thing, quite often our current cameras have more than enough, and often the benefits of more DR are not noticeable on the final product.

EDIT: I scrolled through a folder where I keep my "nicer" pictures with lightroom. I was surprised to find how many had the histogram all the way to both sides.. that's where I got my 10 percent number. BTW, I ran through my folder of pictures from work (mostly indoors with controlled lighting) and found very few where it was noticeable, yet with my personal pictures, particularly outdoors shots with skies and/or clouds, there was that 10 percent number....

These are just my observations, and I will be the first to say it is not scientific and "your mileage will vary".


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Don, the problem seems to me to be that people give an opinion that is personal or state a spurious "fact", and then get defensive when that opinion is questioned, they take it personally so the cycle begins.
> ...



Well done, you described the basics of newbie trolling.
You throw in a few #2's and get interest in what you are saying, then you drop in a #3 to explode the topic.
A thread will really get moving when you have a troll on each side.

People who post #3's are not required to provide back-up or proof to establish a statement. I think that bothers many in this forum as they are well educated and are in a profession that they have to provide proof to back up their work.

In this forum I can say "Lenses made by Nikon are not as good as those made by Canon". It is my choice whether I give hard proof, no proof or even respond at all to whoever questions the comment. Many find it frustrating when someone chooses not to offer proof.


----------



## lintoni (Oct 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Do you think you may be accused of being a drone (with or without capital letters) because you post basically the same message(s) over and over again? What is it? Do you think that people are going to agree with what you say if you repeat it often enough?


----------



## lintoni (Oct 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think you may be accused of being a drone (with or without capital letters) because you post basically the same message(s) over and over again? What is it? Do you think that people are going to agree with what you say if you repeat it often enough?
> ...


Well, simple repetition does become rather tedious, you don't help yourself. 

As far as what you've just posted, you couldn't help taking a side swipe at dilbert, which is a bit hypocritical considering the number of lengthy posts from you complaining that it's getting insulting and personal. Oh dear, he didn't like a couple of your photos, so toss a personal insult his way?

Insulting. Really.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The crux of the 'problem' is when people give an opinion that is personal and state that opinion as a spurious fact. Consider the following sets of examples:
> ...



Statements like #3 are _opinions_, they cannot be 'proven'. Instead, certain people post exhaustive evidence supporting a #1-type statement (which is already generally accepted), and they _think_ it 'proves' their #3-type statement...which remains merely their opinion. Disagreement with that opinion leads them repost (and often re-re-re-re-post) the same or equivalent proof of that already-accepted fact that, as expected, fails to prove their unprovable opinion.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



But, as always, you take that out of context, my comment was in reply to a specific assertion, and assumption, of yours where you said I lump you in with "normal complainers", I was replying to a personal question from you, see how keeping the context of a comment changes the way people might perceive it?

Besides, you never stick to the facts, your posts play out exactly as Neuro so eloquently laid out, I have tried to engage you in non confrontational discussions on the "facts". Even in your completely "unbiased DR thread" you decided that the Exmor file was usable, I said for my purposes it isn't, you then get super defensive, I post a crop of your "holding detail outside the window" that illustrates there isn't any detail outside the window, you then wax lyrical about it was just an off the hip test and if you had been presented with that kind of need for shadow lift the Exmor would have been "better", Duh, we have all agreed that from day one, but you were not in that situation, your images didn't prove anything and your opinions are just that, your opinions.

As for your making mistakes, well we all do, but you are not _" willing to admit when I'm wrong"_ your normal initial response is to attack, you then, when people can be bothered to correct you, get overwhelmed by straight forward evidence that you are wrong, then you get defensive and then paranoid and now, as in your latest 11mm pincushion nonsense, delete your replies. That is not admitting you are wrong, that is being pig headed in the face of being shown to be wrong and then getting in a bad mood about it.

If you can't see that the way you are, and the way you say it, is what elicits the responses it does, not your message, then you are beyond help.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> It's insulting and it's personal. And when I say that, I'm not referring to the technical facts. I've been wrong on a couple recently. Fine, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. That's a trait I don't think *any* of you exhibit, though.



Well, no one can dispute your _willingness_ to admit when you're wrong – like an opinion, that's a personal belief. But I will point out that less than 24 hours ago, you refused to admit that you were wrong about a simple, rather trivial fact:



neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ...the kind of wicked *pincushion* you'll get at 11mm.
> ...





jrista said:


> Good grief. I know what it means.





jrista said:


> Maybe it's not pincusion distortion... Whatever the hell you want to call it... whatever



"I know it...well, maybe not...whatever," not what I'd call admitting your mistake. Especially since in your subsequent post, you were back to insisting you knew what pincushion distortion meant. You soon deleted that post...I'm sure you remember it though, it's the one where you got insulting and personal by calling the people pointing out your mistake a group of violent criminals.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> EDIT: I scrolled through a folder where I keep my "nicer" pictures with lightroom. I was surprised to find how many had the histogram all the way to both sides.. that's where I got my 10 percent number. BTW, I ran through my folder of pictures from work (mostly indoors with controlled lighting) and found very few where it was noticeable, yet with my personal pictures, particularly outdoors shots with skies and/or clouds, there was that 10 percent number....
> 
> These are just my observations, and I will be the first to say it is not scientific and "your mileage will vary".



To support your ymmv observation - it's the same with me, outdoor shots with sky (and movement != bracketing or = tedious inter-frame blending) often could use a bit more dr.... 

... but you only realize if you really look for it, it's easy getting used to the usually "good enough" 11ev. Probably the reason why in the good ol' times people used these gradient sky filters :->. The question is how many of these shots actually have detail hidden in the clipped highlights or if a quick smudge over with the -ev brush would do it, too.


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 12, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Anyway, at the end of the day if all Canon sees and hears is that it's not that big of a deal, nobody but a few will care, we will be stuck with this old 500nm fab for another decade or two, literally. So I don't see that it does anyone any good to minimize it. Even if you don't need it, it won't hurt you and a new fab might bring stuff that you do care about more too. Plus at least once in a blue moon you must mess up the exposure on a one of shot and at least you'll be able to rescue that better. And for those who do care more, we'll it would be great. Less money to get all your gear from one brand than a mix. Less to carry and drag around which can be a pain, literally. Canon does make awesome lenses, has a very nice UI and so on so it is nicer if Canon improves their sensors to go to a different system.



So if I understand correctly, the purpose of incessantly complaining about the lack of DR in Canon sensors is to get Canon to notice, light a fire under Canon's ass, and inspire them improve DR? That objective, by nature, requires repeating the same sentiment (Canon's DR sucks) over and over again on a forum. That action, by nature, is one that many people on this forum find very irritating. Naturally, those people will eventually voice their displeasure. 

What I don't understand is that when people happy with their Canon gear voice their displease, the pro-DR guys all of a sudden start complaining that they're being bullied, and complain that they're being personally insulted? I'm not saying that personal insults are OK, but seriously, what do you expect? Should I go stand in front of a church, proclaim the virtues of Islam, and expect a welcoming response? 

The notion that the pro-DR guys are innocent angels in all this, and only the brainwashed happy Canon guys are throwing the insults, is absolutely ridiculous. You must have missed the posts where the DR advocates state their intentions of saving the anti-DR guys from their ignorance, showing them the error of their ways, and showing them how much happier they'd be if that had equally high standards of IQ and DR. That must constitute objective commentary in your book.


----------



## David Hull (Oct 12, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, at the end of the day if all Canon sees and hears is that it's not that big of a deal, nobody but a few will care, we will be stuck with this old 500nm fab for another decade or two, literally. So I don't see that it does anyone any good to minimize it. Even if you don't need it, it won't hurt you and a new fab might bring stuff that you do care about more too. Plus at least once in a blue moon you must mess up the exposure on a one of shot and at least you'll be able to rescue that better. And for those who do care more, we'll it would be great. Less money to get all your gear from one brand than a mix. Less to carry and drag around which can be a pain, literally. Canon does make awesome lenses, has a very nice UI and so on so it is nicer if Canon improves their sensors to go to a different system.
> ...



_*So if I understand correctly, the purpose of incessantly complaining about the lack of DR in Canon sensors is to get Canon to notice, light a fire under Canon's ass, and inspire them improve DR?*_

I think that if history proves anything with regard to this particular issue -- it proves that this strategy has been ineffective. We've been slapping this around for about 8 years that I can remember. Apparently this DR thing isn't producing enough market churn to raise Canon's interest in making a change. One guy hit the nail on the head, I think, by saying something like "Just because sensor B is only 90% as good as sensor A, doesn't mean sensor B sucks (or is even close to unusable).


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > EDIT: I scrolled through a folder where I keep my "nicer" pictures with lightroom. I was surprised to find how many had the histogram all the way to both sides.. that's where I got my 10 percent number. BTW, I ran through my folder of pictures from work (mostly indoors with controlled lighting) and found very few where it was noticeable, yet with my personal pictures, particularly outdoors shots with skies and/or clouds, there was that 10 percent number....
> ...


agreed....
here is another example from today... as you can see from the histogram, it is run up to the edges on both sides and technically, a bit more DR would have extended detail in the highlights and in the shadows..... but the reality is that there is very little of the picture where this extended range would have made a difference and in the end, you probably could not notice the difference.

This was shot on a 60D. EVERYTHING out there now for current DSLRs beats it for DR.... but most of the time it is good enough.... and yes, I WANT MORE DR!!!, so I pre-ordered a 7D2


----------



## unfocused (Oct 12, 2014)

David Hull said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > So if I understand correctly, the purpose of incessantly complaining about the lack of DR in Canon sensors is to get Canon to notice, light a fire under Canon's ass, and inspire them improve DR? That objective, by nature, requires repeating the same sentiment (Canon's DR sucks) over and over again on a forum. That action, by nature, is one that many people on this forum find very irritating. Naturally, those people will eventually voice their displeasure.
> ...



That's really the crux of the debate isn't it.

A handful of people (and it really is just a handful) are extremely dissatisfied with _*one metric*_.

Unfortunately for them, it is a metric that doesn't seem to be a major concern for most other photographers. The majority say, yes, they'd be happy with a little more dynamic range. But, it's not the major factor we consider when selecting a camera.

Repeating the same points over and over again, berating others for their failure to consider this a top priority, playing the martyr when others disagree and voice that disagreement, predicting the imminent doom of a multi-national company unless they address this one metric and basically discounting every other innovation the company produces as being insignificant in comparison to this one, small, metric – all of these strategies have proven ineffective. Yet, they persist because now, it's no longer about that metric, it's become a religious crusade.

But, something that gets ignored in these diatribes is that there are a whole host of other features that many of us would like to see adopted and we may feel just as intensely about those metrics as the "Dynamic Rangers" feel about theirs. 

Interestingly, the Dynamic Rangers seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the legitimacy of any of these others metrics. 

One small example: when the specifications for the 7DII came out, I expressed disappointment that it failed to incorporate touch screen technology. I was informed by the most verbose of the Dynamic Rangers that that was not a professional feature, was useless and essentially implied I was an idiot for thinking it should be included. 

There are similar dismissive comments from the Dynamic Rangers regarding wifi implementation in the 7DII. 

This isn't a post about the relative merits of either feature, but rather an illustration of how the Dynamic Rangers seem unwilling to accept that any other metric might be worthwhile and that several of them are more than willing to toss about disparaging comments when someone brings up other features. 

Have I tried to turn every thread into a discussion of touch-screen technology? Have I tried to raise wi-fi with every post I write? 

No, because I understand something that the Dynamic Rangers seem incapable of grasping: Camera manufacturers spend millions on research in order to target their products to specific markets. If a feature I want doesn't make it, it is because the demand isn't yet great enough.

Whining on forums isn't going to change that. Rational, reasonable explanations that can persuade others can be effective over time, but when it comes to dynamic range, the rational, reasonable explanations have all been written and if it hasn't changed anyone's mind by this point, one more post of biblical proportions is unlikely to make a difference. 

At some point, it's time to just give it a rest. Maybe in six months, a year or two years, the issue will bubble to the surface and a majority will demand change. Or more likely, Canon will make incremental improvements, the perceived gap will shrink and it will even less of a concern to the majority.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> here is another example from today... as you can see from the histogram, it is run up to the edges on both sides and technically, a bit more DR would have extended detail in the highlights and in the shadows.....



Not true.

That's the histogram for the default conversion, which does not come close to extracting all available DR in the raw data (It's a CR2 file).

You could have large spikes on the left edge and right edge of the default conversion and a lot of clipping showing on both sides and still have plenty of DR left.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> This was shot on a 60D. EVERYTHING out there now for current DSLRs beats it for DR.... but most of the time it is good enough.... and yes, I WANT MORE DR!!!, so I pre-ordered a 7D2



You didn't pull down the highlights in LR, this is the one, most important thing to do when dr-limited esp. on crop. And btw you're trowing away dynamic range by not using full iso stops (your shot was @iso320) :-> ... but why try to max out your old gear when you can buy new toys


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > here is another example from today... as you can see from the histogram, it is run up to the edges on both sides and technically, a bit more DR would have extended detail in the highlights and in the shadows.....
> ...


Interesting.... I did not know that!

So what conversion works better?


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > This was shot on a 60D. EVERYTHING out there now for current DSLRs beats it for DR.... but most of the time it is good enough.... and yes, I WANT MORE DR!!!, so I pre-ordered a 7D2
> ...


This was the straight out of the camera RAW image with no processing applied. In processing I slightly bumped up the shadows and slightly pulled down the highlights...

And I thought the native ISO's on the 60D were 160, 320, 640, etc etc it seems to have the best noise performance on those ISOs..... Should I really be using 100, 200, 400, 800 etc etc ?


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



You would have to expose so that only the pixels you want blown in the final are actually blown in the raw data. That isn't easy.

That will result in you having a lot more blown pixels in the default conversion than you want. You'll need -exposure or -highlights to get them back.

If there are dark areas you want brighter, you'll need +shadows for them.

The only real way to know if you're bumping up against the DR limits of your shot are to set -5 exposure and see if you still have some solid areas that are bright (those are almost certainly blown in the raw data) and then set enough +exposure and/or +shadows to make the darkest areas at the levels you want them in the final, and then see if they are too noisy for your taste or for you to see the detail you want in those areas.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Don, can you post another image of that with the clipping warnings activated?

The reason is whilst the histogram is a representation of the RAW file it is pushed into the Melissa RGB colour space that is basically Prophoto but with a different gamma curve applied to it that means you can very easily have useful information well outside the indicated range.

I have posted this comparison many times. As can be seen, the histogram is a relatively poor indicator of what information is still there!


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...


The clipping warning covered a very small area of the shot. You really had to watch the shadows one as you toggled it off and on to see it.... the highlights warning was just spots on the clouds.

I was using the picture as an example where the software detects clipping, yet the image is perfectly fine. My bet is that if my camera had a half stop more DR, that I would not have gotten clipping.... but that said, the resulting image would most likely have been indistinguishable from what I have now.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> .... but the reality is that there is very little of the picture where this extended range would have made a difference and in the end, you probably could not notice the difference.



Here's an example of this from today, the sky was clipped, but after some brushing around in LR it doesn't matter since it was all grey anyway (well, bluish grey). I call the shot "_Thinking of DR discussions_" :->


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 12, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > .... but the reality is that there is very little of the picture where this extended range would have made a difference and in the end, you probably could not notice the difference.
> ...



Other end of the horse would have been more appropriate.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 12, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > .... but the reality is that there is very little of the picture where this extended range would have made a difference and in the end, you probably could not notice the difference.
> ...



He may have been saying "goodbye Jon". It appears that jrista has left the building...


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 13, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I was using the picture as an example where the software detects clipping, yet the image is perfectly fine. My bet is that if my camera had a half stop more DR, that I would not have gotten clipping....



Your camera could have had 20 more stops of DR and you would have had the same clipping. That clipping is based on the rendering of the raw image into Melissa RGB (ProPhoto primary colors with an SRGB tone curve). Since the tone curve is fixed, more raw DR would make no difference to the clipping warnings when they are generated in this fashion.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 13, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I was using the picture as an example where the software detects clipping, yet the image is perfectly fine. My bet is that if my camera had a half stop more DR, that I would not have gotten clipping....
> ...


Good to know! Thanks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> (BTW, the only way to stop getting notified in the new replies list of your activity in threads is to delete yourself entirely from those threads (in case anyone was curious)...



Or Profile > Modify Profile > Notifications, tick the checkbox(es) then click Unnotify. 

EDIT: in retrospect, I think you meant the new replies list (link at top right), not actual notifications. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## ewg963 (Oct 13, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> I do not thing it will be easy to resolve. There are a few issues that will keep this alive until Canon beats all other sensors or joins them. I do not think that Canon will go out of business. They will swallow their pride and put a Sony Sensor in a DSLR before Canon will go bankrupt.
> 
> 
> Human Nature people hate admitting their wrong.
> ...


+1000000000000000000000000000000000


----------



## brad-man (Oct 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



I hope you reconsider removing yourself from _all_ debates/discussions. You are one of the more knowledgeable and helpful participants on this forum and have much to offer. Just give the sensor argument a rest...at least until the 5DlV is released


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 13, 2014)

ewg963 said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > I do not thing it will be easy to resolve. There are a few issues that will keep this alive until Canon beats all other sensors or joins them. I do not think that Canon will go out of business. They will swallow their pride and put a Sony Sensor in a DSLR before Canon will go bankrupt.
> ...



Why on earth do you both think Canon will put a Sony sensor in one of their FF cameras? They do not feel they are 'behind' in sensor tech, in many of the metrics used to measure sensors they aren't.

We all love car analogies here, and we love to pull them apart even more, but what you are saying is similar to saying this years Ford doesn't have the top in class BHP figures, even though it does have the best MPG, towing capacity, torque figures, and the best sales record, because of this next year Ford will have to use a GMC engine. Get real.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 14, 2014)

brad-man said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



Don't worry, he is as prolific as ever.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=20664

And I agree, the place would be poorer without him.


----------

