# Dynamic range testing of the Canon EOS R3 is complete



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 10, 2021)

> The folks at Photons to Photos have completed their dynamic range testing of the Canon EOS R3 sensor. The dynamic range is pretty comparable to the Canon EOS R5.
> 
> 
> Canon EOS R3 vs Canon EOS R5 Dynamic Range
> Head on over to Photons to Photos to learn more.



Continue reading...


----------



## Niko Todd (Dec 10, 2021)

In ES mode, the R3 is much better:
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS R3(ES),Canon EOS R5(ES)


----------



## H. Jones (Dec 10, 2021)

The best part of contributing data to this is finding out the results! Very very cool to see that the ES is very, very close to the mechanical shutter. That matches my real-world experience with shooting in ES, where I haven't noticed notable differences in dynamic range. ISO 100 Electronic shutter has more dynamic range than ISO 159 mechanical shutter, this is really not a difference I'm all that worried about whatsoever.

This is a camera I am totally happy to leave in ES and never click the physical shutter once. Excellent all around.


----------



## Sharlin (Dec 10, 2021)

So… rather than a single big jump in gain, we get two smaller ones, which gives the R3 an edge at very high ISOs (which makes sense in a sports/WL body). At around third of a stop it’s not an insignificant edge either!


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 10, 2021)

Is anyone able to quantify the noise reduction on the R5 ? And in time the R3 which looks like it uses it all the way up the ISO. Kind of jars a bit with me; I can't understand a 24 mp sensor having the same high ISO with NR applied as a 45mp one without ? Given equal generations. 

Bill Claff himself suggested around two thirds of a stop. Is it possible to achieve the same improvement in DR through noise reduction in post ?


----------



## Nelu (Dec 10, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


"The dynamic range is pretty comparable to the Canon EOS R5."
So, a 24MP sensor has pretty much the same dynamic range as a 45MP sensor.
Good job, R5!


----------



## DBounce (Dec 10, 2021)

This falls inline with what I have noticed with my R3 also. Excellent blend of dynamic range, great high ISO performance and speed.


----------



## Tremotino (Dec 10, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> The best part of contributing data to this is finding out the results! Very very cool to see that the ES is very, very close to the mechanical shutter. That matches my real-world experience with shooting in ES, where I haven't noticed notable differences in dynamic range. ISO 100 Electronic shutter has more dynamic range than ISO 159 mechanical shutter, this is really not a difference I'm all that worried about whatsoever.
> 
> This is a camera I am totally happy to leave in ES and never click the physical shutter once. Excellent all around.


Why should dynamic range be lower when using ES?!


----------



## Billybob (Dec 10, 2021)

Not a surprise. There are no major improvements in IQ with current tech. It's good to see that the DR didn't drop significantly at low ISO like the original Sony A9 does. I see that Canon is still "cooking" RAW files at low ISO. I suspect that Nikon's Z9 will be similar in this respect. Anyway, no story here. Since IQ is pretty similar across cameras and companies, let's see how AF performance compares.


----------



## Tremotino (Dec 10, 2021)

Does anyone know the DR of Canon's new 3MP SPAD Sensor? I would love to see a sample photo too!
It should go to mass production next year for autonomous cars and surveillance.

Canon rumors has brought no rumors at all in the last view weeks and months. Just news that are official or pure wishthinking or speculation.
Where are the 2 new lenses comming until the end of this year?


----------



## H. Jones (Dec 10, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> Why should dynamic range be lower when using ES?!


This is a question for someone with far more technical knowledge than I have, but I believe from past things I've read, the reason for it is that without the mechanical shutter closing after each exposure, stray light can impact the image following the exposure, introducing slightly more read noise. That's why you see the option for "Electronic First Curtain shutter," which still has a secondary mechanical shutter, and does not impact DR at all. That way, with the mechanical shutter closed, there is no additional light to generate read noise/heat on the sensor circuits for the brief milliseconds it takes to process the exposure.

Obviously there are ways to manage this, since Canon has improved the ES dynamic range in every release of a camera, but it's still slightly visible in the EOS R3 charts. It really doesn't make a difference at this point, though. Previously, Canon was also limiting Electronic shutter on the R5/R6 to 12-bit readout, but I'm sure with all the marketing around the uncompressed raw at 30 fps, they aren't limiting that anymore.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 10, 2021)

Nelu said:


> "The dynamic range is pretty comparable to the Canon EOS R5."
> So, a 24MP sensor has pretty much the same dynamic range as a 45MP sensor.
> Good job, R5!


When the result is normalized, which it is, why wouldn’t they be the same?


----------



## angelisland (Dec 10, 2021)

Niko Todd said:


> In ES mode, the R3 is much better:
> 
> 
> Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting
> ...



I would call that slightly better at some ISOs, not "much better."


----------



## Joules (Dec 10, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> Why should dynamic range be lower when using ES?!


Most implementations of electronic shutter we've seen so far use 12 bit instead of 14 bit to increase the sensor read speed. Or reduce rolling shutter if you prefer. 

But a file with 12 bit per channel loses two stops of dynamic range if the data is linear, compared to a 14 bit one. That's purely in terms of the number range - in the real world noise means the DR is less than the file permits. So it is a tradeoff. 

The stacked sensor from the R3 and Z9 provide better read out speeds by design, so they don't have to rely on this tradeoff to allow the photographer to take advantage of the benefits of electronic shutter.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 10, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> When the result is normalized, which it is, why wouldn’t they be the same?


Absolutely true: the DR is calculated for the same output size, roughly equivalent to a 10"x12" print held at arms length.


----------



## bclaff (Dec 10, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> Why should dynamic range be lower when using ES?!


Reading pixels in electronic shutter (ES) mode has more noise than in mechanical shutter (MS) mode therefore dynamic range is reduced.
FWIW, unlike certain other cameras, ES mode is still 14 bit it's not reduced to 13-bit or 12-bit.


----------



## bclaff (Dec 10, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Is anyone able to quantify the noise reduction on the R5 ? And in time the R3 which looks like it uses it all the way up the ISO. Kind of jars a bit with me; I can't understand a 24 mp sensor having the same high ISO with NR applied as a 45mp one without ? Given equal generations.
> 
> Bill Claff himself suggested around two thirds of a stop. Is it possible to achieve the same improvement in DR through noise reduction in post ?


I wish there was a better way to quantify the effect of signal processing but I have not found one.

The 2/3 stop figure you cite is an estimate for the R5 at base ISO.


----------



## bclaff (Dec 10, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Absolutely true: the DR is calculated for the same output size, roughly equivalent to a 10"x12" print held at arms length.


Small point, I use 8" on the short side. So in this case 8"x12"


----------



## bclaff (Dec 10, 2021)

Billybob said:


> ... I see that Canon is still "cooking" RAW files at low ISO. I suspect that Nikon's Z9 will be similar in this respect. ...


We will see but I doubt it. No Nikon to date has exhibited this type of signal processing at low ISO settings.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 10, 2021)

bclaff said:


> Small point, I use 8" on the short side. So in this case 8"x12"


Great to see you here!


----------



## SereneSpeed (Dec 10, 2021)

Am I reading it correctly that 200 iso for the R5 has less DR than 400 iso? If so, That suits my studio shooting style beautifully!

Anyone want to give me the Coles Notes version to explain that?


----------



## MythPlayer (Dec 10, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Is anyone able to quantify the noise reduction on the R5 ? And in time the R3 which looks like it uses it all the way up the ISO. Kind of jars a bit with me; I can't understand a 24 mp sensor having the same high ISO with NR applied as a 45mp one without ? Given equal generations.
> 
> Bill Claff himself suggested around two thirds of a stop. Is it possible to achieve the same improvement in DR through noise reduction in post ?


If raw image source from dpreview's publish，you will findout [High ISO Noise Reduction - Standard] in EXIF data.
IS same setting in dpreview's EOS R raw publish.
BUUUUUT~I remember this setting can set as DISABLE in my EOS R!


----------



## SereneSpeed (Dec 10, 2021)

And...  

Is ISO 50 actually that good? I thought I read that IQ suffered when using the expanded ISOs?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 10, 2021)

bclaff said:


> Small point, I use 8" on the short side. So in this case 8"x12"


Actually, Bill, your website has:
"PDR is the dynamic range you would expect in an 8x10" print viewed at a distance of about arms length." But, I presume you adapt this size as necessary.


Sensor Analysis Primer –Photographic Dynamic Range Summary


----------



## bclaff (Dec 10, 2021)

SereneSpeed said:


> Am I reading it correctly that 200 iso for the R5 has less DR than 400 iso? If so, That suits my studio shooting style beautifully!
> 
> Anyone want to give me the Coles Notes version to explain that?


For the R5 ISO 400 tests slightly higher in PDR than ISO 200 in part due to something called Dual Conversion Gain. But the difference is quite small.


----------



## bclaff (Dec 10, 2021)

SereneSpeed said:


> And...
> 
> Is ISO 50 actually that good? I thought I read that IQ suffered when using the expanded ISOs?


You would expect ISO 50 to test identically to ISO 100 since extended ISO 50 is identical to ISO 100 with 1 stop of exposure compensation.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 10, 2021)

I didn’t realise that in the PDR the results are normalised, so I can now understand why the reduced 45 mp competes with the 24mp and NR. However that leaves me surprised that there’s such a difference between FF and crop.


----------



## bclaff (Dec 10, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Actually, Bill, your website has:
> "PDR is the dynamic range you would expect in an 8x10" print viewed at a distance of about arms length." But, I presume you adapt this size as necessary.
> 
> 
> Sensor Analysis Primer –Photographic Dynamic Range Summary


Sure, or maybe as 8"x10" trimmed from an 8"x12"; the important point is 8" on the shorter side.
Regards


----------



## bclaff (Dec 10, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I didn’t realise that in the PDR the results are normalised, so I can now understand why the reduced 45 mp competes with the 24mp and NR. However that leaves me surprised that there’s such a difference between FF and crop.


The larger area sensor requires less enlarging to get to the standard viewing conditions (8" side short for example) so noise is less apparent and PDR is higher.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 10, 2021)

SereneSpeed said:


> Am I reading it correctly that 200 iso for the R5 has less DR than 400 iso? If so, That suits my studio shooting style beautifully!
> 
> Anyone want to give me the Coles Notes version to explain that?


And it is interesting to see the R3 having three steps, indicating potentially "triple gain conversion".... 

As I understand it, dual gain conversion implies that you have separate circuitry optimized for different ISO ranges, instead of one size fits all.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 10, 2021)

bclaff said:


> We will see but I doubt it. No Nikon to date has exhibited this type of signal processing at low ISO settings.


Thanks for this feedback. Until today, I had missed the fact that Canon was applying NR to RAW files entirely. Do we know what this looks like in practice?


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 10, 2021)

MythPlayer said:


> If raw image source from dpreview's publish，you will findout [High ISO Noise Reduction - Standard] in EXIF data.
> IS same setting in dpreview's EOS R raw publish.
> BUUUUUT~I remember this setting can set as DISABLE in my EOS R!


It's not, Bill's data comes from volunteers who go through a protocol he defines that define a series of images from the camera in question.


----------



## bclaff (Dec 10, 2021)

docsmith said:


> And it is interesting to see the R3 having three steps, indicating potentially "triple gain conversion"....
> 
> As I understand it, dual gain conversion implies that you have separate circuitry optimized for different ISO ranges, instead of one size fits all.


Dual Conversion Gain is an extra transistor and capacitor in the pixel. The transistor controls whether the capacitor is in the circuit or not.

That 2nd bump is probably increased noise reduction; it's not triple conversion gain.


----------



## slclick (Dec 10, 2021)

Never known a client or visitor at a gallery to be wowed by spec sheets so.....

R3 shooters, how are your images? I'd like to think you'd be pleased?


----------



## Billybob (Dec 10, 2021)

slclick said:


> Never known a client or visitor at a gallery to be wowed by spec sheets so.....
> 
> R3 shooters, how are your images? I'd like to think you'd be pleased?


I don't have an R3, but I've seen plenty of images and they're beautiful. I think most are simply fascinated to see this data and are happy that the DR really doesn't drop in ES mode.

Bill, your work is most definitely appreciated.


----------



## slclick (Dec 10, 2021)

Billybob said:


> I don't have an R3, but I've seen plenty of images and they're beautiful. I think most are simply fascinated to see this data and are happy that the DR really doesn't drop in ES mode.
> 
> Bill, your work is most definitely appreciated.


Well, to me and many others I know not into the left brain side of art and photography it comes across as mental masturbation and incredibly dull but hey, I'd never ask for everyone to be just like me so carryon.


----------



## Billybob (Dec 11, 2021)

slclick said:


> Well, to me and many others I know not into the left brain side of art and photography it comes across as mental masturbation and incredibly dull but hey, I'd never ask for everyone to be just like me so carryon.


For me, it's force of habit. I had a 40D but picked up a Nikon D90 after seeing its much higher DXOMark score. Both shot beautiful images at base ISO, but I soon realized that the Nikon files were indeed more malleable. Plus, back then the Canon crop-sensor cameras really started falling apart as ISO went up. It wasn't so much increased noise as it was a loss of color fidelity. Higher ISO images--as low as 1600 on my D7--looked almost faded. The Nikon, by contrast, retained color integrity at much higher ISO values (e.g., D90 ISO 6400 was quite useable with a good dose of NR). There were things about Canon that I loved too much to switch--like the lenses for example--so I shot both for years. 

However, today there is very little difference in DR and noise levels between brands. Hence, I no longer make buying decisions based on those characteristics (however, I guess I am still haunted by MP levels). Nonetheless, I always look forward to seeing Bill's analysis of a major camera release. To me, it's purely entertainment. Now I'm sitting back and waiting to see how the Nikon Z9 fares on these fronts. I have my popcorn ready.


----------



## H. Jones (Dec 11, 2021)

slclick said:


> Never known a client or visitor at a gallery to be wowed by spec sheets so.....
> 
> R3 shooters, how are your images? I'd like to think you'd be pleased?



The EOS R3 is easily the nicest camera I've ever used. Just overall the speed and stability of everything in the camera makes it an absolute pleasure to use. Nothing ever slows down, no frames ever get skipped in the EVF, no blackout at all, never hit the buffer, it's just super responsive and a pleasure to take photos with. The EVF unit is an upgrade that's hard to explain, since it has more latitude latitude to show highlights and shadows than the R5. Battery life is pretty close to double my R5's battery life, too. I never notice rolling shutter, far better performance than the R5's rolling shutter, and it's really noticeable.

24mp or not, it's a better experience than my R5 or my 1dx mark II combined. Hard to imagine how cameras could get much better than this.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Dec 11, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Is anyone able to quantify the noise reduction on the R5 ? And in time the R3 which looks like it uses it all the way up the ISO. Kind of jars a bit with me; I can't understand a 24 mp sensor having the same high ISO with NR applied as a 45mp one without ? Given equal generations.
> 
> Bill Claff himself suggested around two thirds of a stop. Is it possible to achieve the same improvement in DR through noise reduction in post ?


I believe super fast readout, stacked sensors like the R3 has are not quite as good as a slower readout sensor when it comes to DR and noise performance.

Compare Sony A9ii to Sony A7Riii or iv and I believe the slower reading, higher MP sensors also have more dynamic range.

It’s actually a great achievement that the sensor of the R3 can match the image quality of the R5 IMO.

I’m sure someone will correct me, if these assertions are not quite right?

cheers


----------



## perplex1 (Dec 11, 2021)

are these DR tests for stills only? Would this also apply to DR in video as well?


----------



## bclaff (Dec 11, 2021)

perplex1 said:


> are these DR tests for stills only? Would this also apply to DR in video as well?


Good question; stills only not video.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 11, 2021)

slclick said:


> Well, to me and many others I know not into the left brain side of art and photography it comes across as mental masturbation and incredibly dull but hey, I'd never ask for everyone to be just like me so carryon.


People can take wonderful photos and be true artists with only the slightest, if any, knowledge or interest in how a camera works. But, if you know the limitations of your gear, its sweet and weak points and how it works, you can get the most of out of it. And believe it or not, some people actaully have a genuine interest in how things work and also enjoy the artistic as well as technical aspects, which is why we really appreciate what the types such as Bill Claff do by working hard, measuring and explaining things to us.


----------



## Tremotino (Dec 11, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> This is a question for someone with far more technical knowledge than I have, but I believe from past things I've read, the reason for it is that without the mechanical shutter closing after each exposure, stray light can impact the image following the exposure, introducing slightly more read noise. That's why you see the option for "Electronic First Curtain shutter," which still has a secondary mechanical shutter, and does not impact DR at all. That way, with the mechanical shutter closed, there is no additional light to generate read noise/heat on the sensor circuits for the brief milliseconds it takes to process the exposure.
> 
> Obviously there are ways to manage this, since Canon has improved the ES dynamic range in every release of a camera, but it's still slightly visible in the EOS R3 charts. It really doesn't make a difference at this point, though. Previously, Canon was also limiting Electronic shutter on the R5/R6 to 12-bit readout, but I'm sure with all the marketing around the uncompressed raw at 30 fps, they aren't limiting that anymore.


Thank you! Very interesting.


----------



## Joules (Dec 11, 2021)

slclick said:


> Well, to me and many others I know not into the left brain side of art and photography it comes across as mental masturbation and incredibly dull but hey, I'd never ask for everyone to be just like me so carryon.


Thank goodness not everyone has to be like you in this regards.

Without humans who are interested in technology and engineering and appreciate observing, measuring and understanding the technical aspects of this world, we wouldn't even be in the stone age yet.

The quality of an image may be something that goes beyond objectively measurable numbers. But nonetheless these numbers have meaningful implications for the images produced by the measured device.

You yourself ask how people like their images, which may be a meaningful piece of information to you. But people perceive and say all kind of silly things, and without the methods of quantifying what ever we can and considering statements by people in the context of these numbers, it becomes really easy to believe things that are out of line with reality.

As Alan said, this is valuable information, and it is factual. You may not have a use for it, but that does not devalue it.

The efforts of the engineers at Canon have paid of greatly with the technical performance of the R5 and R3. If the artist gave no thought at all to these technicalities, the engineers' work goes unappreciated, while still making life easier for the artists if they happen to stumble into a scene that demands capable technology.


----------



## DBounce (Dec 11, 2021)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> I believe super fast readout, stacked sensors like the R3 has are not quite as good as a slower readout sensor when it comes to DR and noise performance.
> 
> Compare Sony A9ii to Sony A7Riii or iv and I believe the slower reading, higher MP sensors also have more dynamic range.
> 
> ...


I’m not surprised at all that the R3 has better dynamic range than the R5… that’s simply progress. I would be disappointed if it didn’t.
From recent articles, the R3 beats Sony and Nikon in dynamic range. The R3 also manages to become the new low-light king. This is outstanding!


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 11, 2021)

DBounce said:


> I’m not surprised at all that the R3 has better dynamic range than the R5… that’s simply progress. I would be disappointed if it didn’t.
> From recent articles, the R3 beats Sony and Nikon in dynamic range. The R3 also manages to become the new low-light king. This is outstanding!


It depends how you read the results. It is equally valid to say the only reason the R3 DR is ‘better’ than the older and more pixel dense R5 is because the R3 cooks it’s RAW files. Any progress made in the extra time to develop went into readout speed (not a small thing for some people) and cooking lessons.


----------



## DBounce (Dec 11, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> It depends how you read the results. It is equally valid to say the only reason the R3 DR is ‘better’ than the older and more pixel dense R5 is because the R3 cooks it’s RAW files. Any progress made in the extra time to develop went into readout speed (not a small thing for some people) and cooking lessons.


’Cooks it’s raw files” … where are you getting this from? I’m not going to argue the point, instead I’ll merely refer you to the the following:

_Canon Eos R3 Advanced User Guide:
Page 152
*”RAW images are raw data from the image sensor that are recorded to the card digitally as RAW or CRAW.”*_

From your statement you either believe:
*A. You know more than Canon about the Eos R3*
or
*B. Canon is lying about the RAW files*

I would like to suggest a third option:
*C. You are mistaken*

Canon consistently makes the top 5 for most patents filed worldwide each year. Is it really that hard to believe they might come up with a few improvements?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 11, 2021)

DBounce said:


> From your statement you either believe:
> *A. You know more than Canon about the Eos R3*
> or
> *B. Canon is lying about the RAW files*
> ...


There is a fourth option:
*D. @privatebydesign has read the website where the measurements were made and you either haven't or missed it there and in the OP.*
This is written in the image in the OP (sorry to repeat the image): The triangles down indicate noise reduction.


----------



## bclaff (Dec 11, 2021)

AlanF said:


> There is a fourth option:
> *D. @privatebydesign has read the website where the measurements were made and you either haven't or missed it there and in the OP.*
> This is written in the image in the OP (sorry to repeat the image): The triangles down indicate noise reduction.
> 
> ...


Yes, and posting the results was delayed as I double-checked and agonized over this.
I don't have a good way to quantify noise reduction so the down triangle only serves as an indication that it is present.


----------



## Joules (Dec 11, 2021)

DBounce said:


> ’Cooks it’s raw files” … where are you getting this from? I’m not going to argue the point, instead I’ll merely refer you to the the following:
> 
> _Canon Eos R3 Advanced User Guide:
> Page 152
> ...


In the section you quote Canon explicitly mentions CRAW, which is absolutely cooked (It uses LOSSY compression).

In the past Canon also had no problem misleading people into thinking mRAW and sRAW had anything to do with proper RAW formats.

And dual pixel RAW hasn't made a return since the 5D IV, has it? So really, the processing step that reduces two physical photosites into one digital value is already baked in for all recent Canon cameras.

Apparently Canon thinks adding a sprinkle of noise reduction into the mix is a good idea.

Just as I'm not aware of anybody having found a meaningful impact on picture quality from using CRAW, I doubt anybody has noticed any artifacts from the noise reduction yet. But that's probably why it is there.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 11, 2021)

DBounce said:


> ’Cooks it’s raw files” … where are you getting this from? I’m not going to argue the point, instead I’ll merely refer you to the the following:
> 
> _Canon Eos R3 Advanced User Guide:
> Page 152
> ...


The camera converts analogue signal (light hitting the sensor) into digital signals of 1's and 0's. And when the light hits the sensor to create an electronic signal the manufacturer needs to program in-camera the algorithms that define what is a valid signal and what is not. There is no such thing as 'raw' data if you define 'raw data' as in 'that is the data that came into the camera through the lens and that is what I have now recorded' - simply because (unlike film) you are not actually recording light. Sony provide an excellent example of that with their 'star eater' software which some astro photographers are very frustrated by where it interprets faint starlight as 'noise'.

You can hear the same thing in audio systems - different DACs will give a different sound to the system because of the way it is programmed to 'interpret' a digital system to analogue output. Or even how different ADCs will convert the sound from a vinyl record to digital output for the speakers.

So yes, the internal program any manufacturer uses is 'cooking' the data. There was a suspicion a few years ago (can't remember which model) that Sony's 'improved' dynamic range was also more a software advance than a real technological (sensor based) advance. 
Cynically you could say that (historically, anyway) that Canon tried to give the user data that was as interfered with as little as possible so the user had maximum ability to get what they wanted, while Sony tried to give something that was most pleasing to the user with less work to do. It looks like Canon may not be edging towards that more cynical end of things. 
All 'maybe', of course....


----------



## bclaff (Dec 11, 2021)

Mikehit said:


> The camera converts analogue signal (light hitting the sensor) into digital signals ... There is no such thing as 'raw' data if you define 'raw data' as in 'that is the data that came into the camera through the lens and that is what I have now recorded' ...


The raw data is the value as it was read from the Analog to Digital Converter (ADC) probably with some offset (Black Level).
Plenty of cameras appear to report this raw data in their raw files.

If the value is manipulated in the firmware before it is written to the then it is "cooked".
Occasional manipulation of isolated pixels such as bad photosite repair isn't considered "cooking".
Changing every (or most) pixels based on inspecting their neighbors is "cooking".

Nearest neighbor algorithms are detectable using a variety of mathematical tools to inspect "raw" files.
My tools can indicate whether an algorithm was applied.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 11, 2021)

bclaff said:


> The raw data is the value as it was read from the Analog to Digital Converter (ADC) probably with some offset (Black Level).
> Plenty of cameras appear to report this raw data in their raw files.
> 
> If the value is manipulated in the firmware before it is written to the then it is "cooked".
> ...


Does that near neighbour cooking lower detail as usually found with noise suppression methods?


----------



## bclaff (Dec 11, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Does that near neighbour cooking lower detail as usually found with noise suppression methods?


Yes, but this is where the inability to quantify the amount of noise reduction hampers our ability to estimate the smoothing (loss of detail).
People seem happy with the results so it's probably academic.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 11, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Does that near neighbour cooking lower detail as usually found with noise suppression methods?


Now that is an interesting question! User feedback I have seen suggest the 24mp R3 is giving resolution output more comparable to earlier 30mp Canon sensors. So how much do the AA filter stack and NR cooked RAW files actually add up to...


----------



## AlanF (Dec 11, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Now that is an interesting question! User feedback I have seen suggest the 24mp R3 is giving resolution output more comparable to earlier 30mp Canon sensors. So how much do the AA filter stack and NR cooked RAW files actually add up to...


I've seen the same reports - they compare it with the 5DIV. But, the 5DIV doesn't stack up well against 24 Mpx sensors from its rivals. Canon has subsequently from the 5DIV weakened its AA-filters, as well as going over to a new type for the 1DXIII and R5. Both the R5 and R6 have asymmetric filters, with hardly any filtering in the vertical direction and weakened in the horizontal. As a result, the R5 45 Mpx sensor is very similar in measured resolution to the Nikon Z7 and D850 45.7 Mpx sensors that are without a filter. I found the R5 to be very similar to the D850 and if anything better than the 50 Mpx 5DSR (with its self-cancelling AA-filter), which Canon had claimed. Canon has really leapt forward with its sensors.


----------



## DBounce (Dec 11, 2021)

AlanF said:


> There is a fourth option:
> *D. @privatebydesign has read the website where the measurements were made and you either haven't or missed it there and in the OP.*
> This is written in the image in the OP (sorry to repeat the image): The triangles down indicate noise reduction.
> 
> ...


This noise reduction ”cooked raw” is nonsense. Case in point, what happens when you add the Sony A7S3 to the chart? A camera that is well established to apply rather aggressive noise reduction at high base ISO 12800. Well from their chart it certainly doesn’t appear to show any noise reduction being applied until a lofty 102,000 ISO. Please explain?… I’ll save you the time… their speculation on noise reduction being applied is just that… speculation.

This might sound radical, but I think I’ll choose to trust Canon over… some website I’ve never heard of before?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2021)

DBounce said:


> This might sound radical, but I think I’ll choose to trust Canon over… some website I’ve never heard of before?


Really? Then why did you suggest that Canon’s 30 fps spec for the R3 was just marketing hype, based on some videographer’s YouTube post where he was probably just using a shutter speed too slow for 30 fps because he didn’t RTFM? I now notice that he subsequently edited his post, "Update: the claimed 30 fps is only available with a shutter speed greater than 1/125 sec. This means that the 180° rule would not support this speed." That's exactly what I suggested was going on with his 'big reveal'. In other words, he confirmed that he posted erroneous information...which you swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Bill Claff has been reporting sensor analyses for many years and is well-respected in this field. He’s reporting real data from RAW file analyses, not just speculating.

Regarding the a7S III being, "...well established to apply rather aggressive noise reduction at high base ISO 12800," is that for still photography or for videography? Given your post linked above where the YouTuber who provided 'all the details' (according to you, that is...) was talking about 'open gate' and 'anamorphic', it seems clear that you have a focus on video. Earlier in this thread, @bclaff made it clear that his data apply to still images, not video. I'd suggest you stop using 'evidence' from the videography world to make conclusions about still photography.

Feel free to slink away from this thread as you did the other one.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 11, 2021)

DBounce said:


> This might sound radical, but I think I’ll choose to trust Canon over… some website I’ve never heard of before?


Photonstophotos.net is the gold standard for DR measurements. And as you don’t appear to have taken it in, the whole of this thread started by the CR Guy is about his measuring the DR of the R3.


----------



## bclaff (Dec 11, 2021)

DBounce said:


> This noise reduction ”cooked raw” is nonsense. Case in point, what happens when you add the Sony A7S3 to the chart? A camera that is well established to apply rather aggressive noise reduction at high base ISO 12800. Well from their chart it certainly doesn’t appear to show any noise reduction being applied until a lofty 102,000 ISO. Please explain?...


I have several objective tools at my disposal to make these decisions but as I indicated earlier it's hard to quantify the amount of signal processing (noise reduction) that is being applied. Ultimately the assignment of the down triangle symbol is a judgement call and I try not us use the symbol which is why the R3 results were delayed as I double-checked.

Regarding the Sony ILCE-7SM3 it's useful to look at the attached Read Noise as a function of ISO setting.
I decided that the drop above ISO 102400 warranted being labeled as noise reduction.
I see no evidence of anything at ISO 12800. There's a slight drop at ISO 4000 that I didn't deem significant.
Naturally you have the right not to accept these results.


----------



## DBounce (Dec 12, 2021)

bclaff said:


> I have several objective tools at my disposal to make these decisions but as I indicated earlier it's hard to quantify the amount of signal processing (noise reduction) that is being applied. *Ultimately the assignment of the down triangle symbol is a judgement call* and I try not us use the symbol which is why the R3 results were delayed as I double-checked.


Ok, so you are saying you are guessing. Exactly what I thought. Canon makes it pretty clear in the manual that they are not applying noise reduction.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 12, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Ok, so you are saying you are guessing. Exactly what I thought. Canon makes it pretty clear in the manual that they are not applying noise reduction.


No they don’t!


----------



## bclaff (Dec 12, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Ok, so you are saying you are guessing. Exactly what I thought. Canon makes it pretty clear in the manual that they are not applying noise reduction.


That's not what I'm saying. And I don't care what is said in the manual; manuals are often inaccurate and I only care what is actually observed.

You can read about 2D Fourier Transforms and Energy Spectra at PhotonsToPhotos



This 2D FT for the Canon EOS R3 at ISO 100 clearly shows noise reduction (otherwise the visualization would be uniform noise)


This Energy Spectrum for the Canon EOS R3 at ISO 100 confirms noise reduction. Otherwise the curves would be more level rather than dipping.

If you don't understand the science that doesn't mean it isn't true.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 12, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Ok, so you are saying you are guessing. Exactly what I thought. Canon makes it pretty clear in the manual that they are not applying noise reduction.


LOL.
You've managed a few pretty silly posts in this thread, but i think this takes the cake so far.


----------



## Joules (Dec 12, 2021)

bclaff said:


> That's not what I'm saying. And I don't care what is said in the manual; manuals are often inaccurate and I only care what is actually observed.
> 
> You can read about 2D Fourier Transforms and Energy Spectra at PhotonsToPhotos
> View attachment 201633
> ...


Thank you very much for what you do and the nice explanations on your site! That statement at the end is something surprisingly many people seem to ignore. 

Just a heads up, your link there is broken due to missing a : near the beginning.

For those curious in why the noise reduction is NOT just a guess, here is the specific article that's being referred to I think:



An Introduction to 2D Fourier Transforms for Sensor Analysis


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Ok, so you are saying you are guessing. Exactly what I thought. Canon makes it pretty clear in the manual that they are not applying noise reduction.


----------



## DBounce (Dec 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> No they don’t!


Saying “no they don’t” doesn’t make it true. *Page 152 in the Advanced User Guide.*


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Saying “no they don’t” doesn’t make it true. *Page 152 in the Advanced User Guide.*


Lol. Read this, from p152:




They call CRAW a RAW image. CRAW uses lossy compression, where in the AUG is that mentioned? If data are eliminated from the image file, how is it still a RAW image? The data are manipulated, but Canon still calls it RAW.

Well, Canon doesn’t say CRAW uses lossy compression in the manual, so it must not be true. 

Dig, dig, dig.


----------



## bclaff (Dec 12, 2021)

Joules said:


> Thank you very much for what you do and the nice explanations on your site! ...


You are welcome.


Joules said:


> Just a heads up, your link there is broken due to missing a : near the beginning.


Thanks. Edited and fixed.


Joules said:


> For those curious in why the noise reduction is NOT just a guess, here is the specific article that's being referred to I think:
> 
> 
> 
> An Introduction to 2D Fourier Transforms for Sensor Analysis


And also perhaps An Introduction to Energy Spectra for Sensor Analysis


----------



## AlanF (Dec 12, 2021)

The upside is that the discussion has drawn Bill Claff into explaining what he does in more detail, which has been a nice education.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Dec 12, 2021)

_Meh..._

DBounce is making a perfectly valid - if arguably poorly articulated - point.

The phrase "noise reduction", as it pertains to photography, has a very specific and unambiguous popular meaning, and Canon sensors _do not_ apply noise reduction in that sense.

Even Bill Claff's own page (written by Emil Martinec, whose opinion on the subject I trust all day long - he _is_ a scientist, and actually created the AMaZE noise reduction algorithm) has this to say about Canon sensors:



> *Correlated double sampling* (sometimes referred to as "on-chip NR"): In preparation for a new exposure, the electrons liberated by photon capture from the previous exposure must be emptied from the sensels; each sensel must be reset to a state of zero exposure. If this process is not completely effective, there may be residual electrons present in the sensel prior to the next exposure, and these electrons will throw off the count of photons from this new exposure. The fluctuations in the number of electrons present after zeroing out the sensel constitutes the _reset noise_.
> 
> An advantage of CMOS sensors is their ability to read the state of the pixels non-destructively -- the state of the sensor (its count of electrons) can be read off without affecting that state. This feature can be used to eliminate the reset noise as follows. After the sensor is reset from the previous exposure, the state of the sensor is read, giving a count of the residual electrons of the reset noise while leaving those electrons in place; then, after the exposure, the sensor is read again, the result being the residual electrons plus those added via photon capture during the exposure. Taking the difference of the two readings gives the photo-electron count of the exposure while subtracting off the reset noise. This before-and-after reading of the sensels is known as _correlated double sampling_ (CDS). On CCD sensors, the electrons in a CCD sensel must be extracted from the sensel and transferred to the edge of the sensor in order to do the readout; CDS can be performed in this per-column readout circuitry rather than separately within each sensel. The double read adds time to the readout when done serially at the edge of the sensor rather than in parallel at each sensel. CDS is a feature of most current CMOS DSLR sensors, see for instance the product literature by Canon and Sony.



(I've fixed the link to the Canon paper).

In short, this isn't noise _reduction_ in the common use of the phrase, but noise _filtration_ prior to the RAW file being written.

Not the same thing _at all - a fact he (or rather Emil) explicitly acknowledges:_



> *In-camera filtering of raw data*: All the above noise reduction methods involve manipulations at the level of individual pixels; never is a pixel value compared to or mixed with neighboring pixel values in attempting to eliminate noise. These methods are thus quite different from what is conventionally called noise reduction in image processing.



*It's the pejorative, lazy and inaccurate terminology that rankles.*

And yes, it's still RAW data - noise being excluded from the data written to file means that all of the meaningful image data is retained. This is perfectly consistent with any reasonable definition of "RAW", such as that on Wikipedia (with my emphasis):


> A camera raw image file contains *minimally processed* data from the image sensor of either a digital camera, a motion picture film scanner, or other image scanner



Nothing about Canon's approach falls outside of this definition. It's not semantics, it's simply _not true_ to say that Canon files have "baked-in noise reduction" - this phrase has a specific (negative) implication, and is fundamentally inaccurate on its face.

I mention the "Canon paper" referenced (by a broken link) on Bill Claff's page.

It adds this to the equation relating to random noise:



> Canon’s highly effective method for random noise suppression is called complete electronic charge transfer, or complete charge transfer technology. Canon designed the photodiode and the signal reader independently to ensure that the sensor resets the photodiodes that store electrical charges. By first transferring the residual discharge — light and noise signals — left in a photodiode to the corresponding signal reader, the Canon sensor resets the diode while reading and Light Reset switch As residual noise charges N1 and N2 are not equal, some noise will inevitably remain. N1 S N1 S N2 S = optical signal N1, N2 = noise Reset 1 Optical signal is read Reset 2 Noise read Signal & noise accumulation ( S + N1 ) – ( N2 ) = S + N The difference between fixed-pattern and random noise Previous functionality Fixed-pattern noise: appears on the same pixels even at different times of day. Example: Caused by dark current leakage, irregular converters each pixel, etc. Suppressed by noise reduction and on-chip noise reduction technology. Random noise: appears on different pixels at different times of day. Example: Flickering light, thermal noise, etc. Cannot be reduced with noise reduction and on-chip noise reduction technology, so the noise itself must be prevented. V. WHY CMOS? 19 holding the initial noise data. After the optical signal and noise data have been read together, the initial noise data is used to remove the remaining noise from the photodiode and suppress random noise, leaving a nice, clean signal.



Again, we're talking about a method which filters out noise prior to the RAW file being written, not noise reduction _per se_, as it's commonly meant.

It is perfectly legitimate to consider what results to be a RAW file. In the absence of any definitive definition, it is entirely reasonable to consider _the file_ _that results - _being only data, and needing to to be converted into an image format - as a RAW file.

*The problem with this thread isn't whether Canon does on-chip "management" of noise - that's never been in doubt (the Canon paper above is from 2008, AFAIK) - but whether there's even the slightest legitimacy in calling it "baked-in noise reduction".*

There isn't, and it isn't. The phrase as it's commonly used implies that something useful has been lost, and there's simply no basis for that assumption.




*OMB*


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 12, 2021)

bclaff said:


> Yes, but this is where the inability to quantify the amount of noise reduction hampers our ability to estimate the smoothing (loss of detail).
> People seem happy with the results so it's probably academic.


Perhaps the most important statement in this entire discussion...

*"If people are happy with the results it is probably academic.*" As usual on these forums, people seem so concerned with the process and ignore the results. "How dare they cook the RAW files" is often indignantly shouted! Constant arguments about compressed or uncompressed RAW. Even over-exaggeration about the slightest differences in DR, that have been demonstrated to be undetectable by the human eye are constantly discussed.

Yes, it is good to know something about the technology and the scientific results. But if it doesn't actually effect the end result - and what the photo looks like - then that is the most important knowledge that we gain from the information.

Too many folks seem to be hung up on the nuts and bolts of the information. It is what we learn from the information that is important, in my opinion.


----------



## bclaff (Dec 12, 2021)

Onemanbanned said:


> The phrase "noise reduction", as it pertains to photography, has a very specific and unambiguous popular meaning, and Canon sensors _do not_ apply noise reduction in that sense.


Yes they do.


Onemanbanned said:


> Nothing about Canon's approach falls outside of this definition. It's not semantics, it's simply _not true_ to say that Canon files have "baked-in noise reduction" - this phrase has a specific (negative) implication, and is fundamentally inaccurate on its face.


I have clearly demonstrated that a neighboring pixel algorithm has been applied. That is baked-in noise reduction.


Onemanbanned said:


> I mention the "Canon paper" referenced (by a broken link) on Bill Claff's page.


Do I have a broken link? Can you supply some details so I can fix it?


Onemanbanned said:


> Again, we're talking about a method which filters out noise prior to the RAW file being written, not noise reduction _per se_, as it's commonly meant.


Filtering at the pixel level is one thing (like CDS or noise shaping) but consulting neighboring pixels is another.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Dec 12, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> *"If people are happy with the results it is probably academic.*" As usual on these forums, people seem so concerned with the process and ignore the results. "How dare they cook the RAW files" is often indignantly shouted!


Yep - even when there's no actual cooking of _the files_ in the first place.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Dec 12, 2021)

bclaff said:


> Yes they do.


Despite your assertions, Bill, you've never proven it.

Unless your Fourier analyses are the _only_ way, and are proven to be 100% accurate _in every possible scenari_o, you're speculating based on the results you see.

You've pretty much admitted to that in this very thread.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2021)

Onemanbanned said:


> *It's the pejorative, lazy and inaccurate terminology that rankles.*
> 
> And yes, it's still RAW data - noise being excluded from the data written to file means that all of the meaningful image data is retained.


Is a lossy compressed RAW image still a RAW image? It is, according to Canon’s terminology.


----------



## bclaff (Dec 12, 2021)

Onemanbanned said:


> Despite your assertions, Bill, you've never proven it.
> 
> Unless your Fourier analyses are the _only_ way, and are proven to be 100% accurate _in every possible scenari_o, you're speculating based on the results you see.
> 
> You've pretty much admitted to that in this very thread.


The Fourier analysis is 100% reliable and is confirmed with the spectral analysis.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 12, 2021)

Onemanbanned said:


> _Meh..._
> 
> DBounce is making a perfectly valid - if arguably poorly articulated - point.
> 
> ...


I am not a scientist. I consider this discussion academic and interesting. I am very happy with the output of my Canon cameras.

What I don’t get from your comment is an explaination for the dips in the relevant graphs that Bill Claff points to as evidence of ‘noise reduction’. Presumably, using the ‘filtering’ techniques you mention above Canon applies that to all iso levels? So why are those graphs not consistent lines or curves?

Could it be because at different points in the iso scale different processes are applied and at some of those points a noise reduction process, as it is more commonly understood and Mr Claff refers to as a 'nearest neighbor process', is in fact applied?

Using one previously described process does not preclude sometimes also using another.


----------



## bclaff (Dec 12, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Is a lossy compressed RAW image still a RAW image? It is, according to Canon’s terminology.


The question is not whether the file is "raw" but rather whether signal processing consulting neighboring pixels amounting to noise reduction has been performed. Such processing correlates pixels statistically with their neighbors.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 12, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Saying “no they don’t” doesn’t make it true. *Page 152 in the Advanced User Guide.*


You said_ "Canon makes it pretty clear in the manual that they are not applying noise reduction."_
I said _"No they don't"_

Here is page 152 from the Advanced User Guide in it's entirety, at no point is the term Noise Reduction mentioned. Neither is Highlight Tone Priority (HTP) which is 100% known to 'cook' the RAW file.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 12, 2021)

People who are unfamiliar with the longstanding tradition of Bill Claff providing excellent, repeatable dynamic range data for new cameras may bridle at some of the implications of the observations. But they should know that Bill has developed his methodologies openly over years with input from this and other communities. The data he produces, and his interpretations - which are made cautiously, which doesn't imply "speculation" or "guessing" - are useful to photographers who are looking to judge the capabilities and direction of various camera systems. 

One of the hardest factors to suss out in this endeavor is the degree to which image data is fundamentally better/purer due to hardware advancements, and image data which appears better because of software interpretation - that may or may not present downsides as well. The dynamic range data Bill produces is rather immutable. Whether you think it appropriate to call it "cooking" or not is a semantic question the science won't answer, but it is indeed happening. 

Whether a software-induced increase in perceived dynamic range is desirable, or has disadvantages - such as Sony's "star eater" issue - is often up to the individual photographer. Some appreciate a sophisticated algorithm improving the perceived data in a fashion that I likely couldn't quite do as well in post. Others will bridle at the implication that they don't have full control over the "pure" data, and will often suffer from the conceit that they'd do better doing the manipulation themselves. 

Ever since I've been fooling around with Canon 1 series cameras, Canon has pursued a policy of "strategic ambiguity." They provide the quality perception boost, but they consider the "RAW" data to be that which comes out the end of the processing chain, so they need not address the nature of the processing that was done. This explains the manual talking about the RAW files being the raw data. Canon has decided semantically to consider the data that comes out the sausage machine to be, by definition, the raw data. This means they're true to their word in writing the manual as they have. 

-tig

[Side note: 
I'm perhaps halfway through the process of creating an R3 review for CanonRumors and Camnostic. I'm scheduled to talk to some CPS people in bit more than a week to ask some remaining questions. I will be certain to ask about this, but I do not expect a direct answer due to my experience in the past with this. The first time I asked a Canon rep about this was back when the 1DX II was new. With that camera and the 6D Mark II, as well as the SL2 and a few others, they concentrated in their marketing (more than with other cameras) on processor upgrades. I asked a rep why it is that after noting the increased frames per second, autofocus points, other new features, etc., a photographer should care about the processor version? What sort of benefit was it that an upgraded processor could provide that wasn't redundant to these other features? He responded that it marked the class of image quality improvements that could be made when taking shots. He indicated that this is one of the two reasons that the 1 series had a superior look and quality - the other reason being the sensor hardware. He did not tell me that Canon "cooks" the files, but he did indicate that the capacity of the processor was a direct factor in image quality. My sense has been ever since - corroborated with multiple conversations with Canon USA employees - that the firm wants to market the processor improvements as a proxy for image quality improvements in software, without implying that the pros aren't getting their "raw data." Which, in some interpretations, is a contradiction.]


----------



## Joules (Dec 12, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> "How dare they cook the RAW files" is often indignantly shouted! Constant arguments about compressed or uncompressed RAW. Even over-exaggeration about the slightest differences in DR, that have been demonstrated to be undetectable by the human eye are constantly discussed.


Were did you see any shouting? I have not perceived any outrage over the noise reduction Canon employs of late.

It's been there in the R5 all along, and that body has been praised at every possible point. Now Canon seems to have expanded the range over which they apply it, but as it seems to have no meaningfull downsides, there's no point in complaining. Nobody's stars are being eaten and yet - likely the most important facet of them all - Canon finally domimates the DR rankings with both the R5 and the R3. Look who's d00med now! 

It is simply interesting what Canon does with their sensors behind the scenes, and since they don't market official numbers for DR, noise, read speed and so on, testing on third party sites and discussions about their findings are the only way to give tickle this interest.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2021)

bclaff said:


> The question is not whether the file is "raw" but rather whether signal processing consulting neighboring pixels amounting to noise reduction has been performed. Such processing correlates pixels statistically with their neighbors.


Sorry, I was asking an unrelated question concerning Canon’s lossy CRAW format based on the point being made (or attempted, at any rate) about terminology. Personally, I don’t consider the output of a lossy compression to remain a RAW image (regardless of whether or not the removal of those data is discernible in my output).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> One of the hardest factors to suss out in this endeavor is the degree to which image data is fundamentally better/purer due to hardware advancements, and image data which appears better because of software interpretation…


Lenses are an interesting parallel here. Canon now has three RF lenses, one of them an L-series lens, where they chose to sacrifice geometric distortion correction in the optical design in favor of forced correction in software (although obviously they can only force correction in their own software).

Is that ‘better’? I don’t know, but I’m happy with the output of my RF 14-35/4L and I don’t think we’d see a 16/2.8 lens with full optical corrections for $300.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Dec 12, 2021)

Good results indeed. Coherent with the rest : got my hands on the R3 last tuesday and what specifically impressed me is how easy and pleasant it is to use. The handling is probably the best I've ever experimented. The most impressive is the fact that it's so light while feeling so tough (10g more than a D850 with still a full pro shape and handling !).
I tried the eye focus control too, but I must say that with glasses, it seems a bit quirky, at least to calibrate.
Anyway, it's an impressive camera, and the sensor that goes with it looks promising too.
Very well done Canon !


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> The handling is probably the best I've ever experimented.


My one handling gripe so far is the omission of the lower lug for the E1 hand strap. I really hope RRS includes one in the design of their R3 L-plate.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 12, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> My one handling gripe so far is the omission of the lower lug for the E1 hand strap. I really hope RRS includes one in the design of their R3 L-plate.


Darn it! I have come to rely on the Peak Design hand strap.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Dec 12, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> My one handling gripe so far is the omission of the lower lug for the E1 hand strap. I really hope RRS includes one in the design of their R3 L-plate.


Well, I've had no time to test that so far, but it seems E1 won't be the best solution anyway (and is discontinued by now). Maybe the Nikon AH-4 could do better for you, don't know. There are some other (and maybe better) solutions, I think, anyway.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Well, I've had no time to test that so far, but it seems E1 won't be the best solution anyway (and is discontinued by now). Maybe the Nikon AH-4 could do better for you, don't know. There are some other (and maybe better) solutions, I think, anyway.


The E1 design works great for me with other bodies. Canon discontinued it in favor of the E2, which includes a 1/4”-20 attachment (it’s basically the E1 with the add-on screw-in attachment, if you have a gripped camera (except the R3) you take off the 1/4”-20 attachment and just attach the strap itself to the lower lug.

The Nikon AH-4 is like the E2, with a lower attachment that uses the camera’s tripod socket.

The problem with that attachment method is it precludes use of a camera plate (e.g., Arca Swiss type) for mounting on a tripod. Having to unscrew a strap attachment to use a tripod would be a PITA. Moreover, that Arca-type camera plate is where I attach my BlackRapid strap or Spider Holster Arca clamp. So for me, if I can’t attach the hand strap to a camera plate (RRS, Kirk, etc.), I’ll have to forego the hand strap that I would otherwise always have attached to the camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 12, 2021)

The SmallRig designed R3 L-Plate has the ability to mount a hand strap. I’ve used a few SmallRig items now and whilst they are not the quality of some in my limited experience they have easily done the job well.









SmallRig L-Bracket for Canon EOS R3 3628


<p><strong>SmallRig L-Bracket for Canon EOS R3 3628</strong></p> <p><strong><img src="https://image.smallrig.com/public/1651906326101_.jpg" /></strong></p> <p><strong><img src="https://image.smallrig.com/public/1651906309425_.jpg" /></strong></p> <p><strong><img...




www.smallrig.com


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Dec 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The SmallRig designed R3 L-Plate has the ability to mount a hand strap. I’ve used a few SmallRig items now and whilst they are not the quality of some in my limited experience they have easily done the job well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


... or maybe simply replace the original screw with that kind of thing could be enough : https://www.amazon.com/Release-Tripod-Bracket-Adapter-Mounting/dp/B073YQNT9Y


Amazon.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Darn it! I have come to rely on the Peak Design hand strap.


The PD Clutch is a good option. I use their wrist strap on my M6 and R (and I’ve attached an anchor to an R3 lug). But I’d prefer the RRS modular L-bracket.



privatebydesign said:


> The SmallRig designed R3 L-Plate has the ability to mount a hand strap. I’ve used a few SmallRig items now and whilst they are not the quality of some in my limited experience they have easily done the job well.


Thanks! Modular, too. I’ll wait to see what the RRS design looks like (they haven’t finalized it, or at least not posted it), and if there’s no lug I’ll try the SmallRig version.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 12, 2021)

bclaff said:


> The Fourier analysis is 100% reliable and is confirmed with the spectral analysis.


Bill, you should be thanked, not just for joining the discussion and explaining things more in depth, but also for being patient with those "internet experts" who read a few articles and then cherry-pick a few sentances to "prove" their point, when, of course, they are not experts and have no point other than to try and show they are smarter than the real expert. Must be frustrating, but then again, this is just photography and the same thing happens on much larger, more important issues. Nonetheless, thanks.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Dec 13, 2021)

I've always found @bclaff's findings interesting and informative. Clearly many people have different definitions of what they consider raw, what is NR, and what is "cooked".

My definition of RAW is the representation of the response to the light hitting the sensels on the sensor with no transform of that data to turn it into full RGB that conforms to a given colorspace like ProPhoto or sRGB. You have color managed, and you have raw. Color managed is typically full RGB at each pixel spot and a given colorspace, and RAW is a bunch of sensel values that needs processing to turn it into full color managed RGB.

With respects to NR or "cooked", frankly, unless it's completely destroying useful image data, I just do not care. Pretty much every manufacturer does it in one form or another in the never ending quest for better image quality, and you can't turn it off, so get over it. If it really made the image data worst for most of the users, the manufacturer probably wouldn't do it, and I have way more other things to worry about than whether or not my CR3 files are being "cooked" or have NR applied before being written out, like oh, I don't know.... Booking that next job so I can pay rent.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> With respects to NR or "cooked", frankly, unless it's completely destroying useful image data, I just do not care. Pretty much every manufacturer does it in one form or another in the never ending quest for better image quality, and you can't turn it off, so get over it. If it really made the image data worst for most of the users, the manufacturer probably wouldn't do it, and I have way more other things to worry about than whether or not my CR3 files are being "cooked" or have NR applied before being written out, like oh, I don't know.... Booking that next job so I can pay rent.


As discussed earlier, this is essentially an academic discussion. Any ‘cooking’ of the RAW file is baked in and cannot be undone. I like knowing what is happening ‘behind the scene’, and I’m grateful to Bill for his analyses…but I’m not going to return my R3 because he uses downward-pointing triangles instead of circles on a plot.


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 13, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


All the graphs are really "cool". But the "money" is in IQ. 

The Z9 has superior IQ to the R3 and 1DXMKIII

Canon seems to be pushing this "ultra-high ISO" advantage.... I don't shoot in the dark but perhaps it's a new trend in sports photography.

Turn off the lights and take pictures of the NFL, NBA, MLB and the Olympics in darkness.... Could catch on  

Next time... We'll have to shut 80% of the lights in Yankee Stadium....

IQ ='s Money also known as revenue.... My clients don' pay for charts and graphs.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> All the graphs are really "cool". But the "money" is in IQ.
> 
> The Z9 has superior IQ to the R3 and 1DXMKIII
> 
> ...


Thanks for illustrating that not everyone has high IQ.



I’m talking about image quality, of course.


----------



## Canyondust (Dec 13, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> All the graphs are really "cool". But the "money" is in IQ.
> 
> The Z9 has superior IQ to the R3 and 1DXMKIII
> 
> ...


As an engineer and owner of an engineering company the data from PP is of great interest.
As a photographer for 34 years the data from PP is of great interest.
As a photography company the data is of great interest.

Here in the UK we have not had an opportunity to use the R3 and our main bodies are the R5.
We regularly shoot at very high ISO so understanding how to get the best from the camera and our post processing flow is vital to the business and sanity.

I think it's unlikely we would move to the R3 but I look forward to having some time with one in the future.

As for the Nikon I've not used one and haven't read enough to have suitable knowledge to form an opinion. 

I think the advantages of the R3 being advertised are wide and diverse and not just high ISO performance.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 13, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> All the graphs are really "cool". But the "money" is in IQ.
> 
> The Z9 has superior IQ to the R3 and 1DXMKIII
> 
> ...


Your comments are usually shots in the dark.


----------



## DBounce (Dec 13, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> All the graphs are really "cool". But the "money" is in IQ.
> 
> The Z9 has superior IQ to the R3 and 1DXMKIII
> 
> ...


Did your clients pay for your work prior to the Z9? Only people on sites like this pixel peep. But that said, high ISO is not only about shooting at night. It’s also useful when you require a fast shutter speed and need to crank up the ISO to compensate. Or don’t Nikon shooters do that? And what about dynamic range? I hear the Z9 has worst dynamic range than the Z7… so it stands to reason it will have less than the R3. Resolution is only one aspect to image quality.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 13, 2021)

I’ve been enjoying the discussion of Raw files and how raw are Raw. In real life I don’t have that much problem with noise. Even my shots of Venice taken near dark from a moving ship with the G5X II (1” sensor) are noisy mostly in the expanse of sky. I did apply some Photoshop noise reduction, although given that my printer uses just 8 or 9 inks, noise in the dark sky is unlikely to show up on a print. I like the best picture of the lot enough to be tempted to get the Epson printer that adds purple ink to the mix to see if expanding the gamut that direction will make the sky look a bit more like the very deep blue I see on screen. The picture now is framed and on display in three states, so I’m not the only one who likes it even as is.

More to the point of how raw is Raw, is the file that is written to the card already the product of demosaicing or is that handled by the software in the computer? 

I gather that we can’t really see a Raw picture until it is interpreted in some way. Would it be clusters of red, blue, and two green dots, or would it be the half white non-gamma interpreted weirdness?


----------



## vangelismm (Dec 13, 2021)

I am a simple man, can anyone just say when and if both cameras behave isoless?


----------



## Bishop80 (Dec 13, 2021)

stevelee said:


> More to the point of how raw is Raw, is the file that is written to the card already the product of demosaicing or is that handled by the software in the computer?
> 
> I gather that we can’t really see a Raw picture until it is interpreted in some way. Would it be clusters of red, blue, and two green dots, or would it be the half white non-gamma interpreted weirdness?



Generally speaking, Canon RAW stores the bayer CFA data, "undemosaiced" pixels. There are differences in CR2 vs CR3, dual pixel, etc.
Your image editor (Canon DPP, Lightroom, etc) reads the CFA-encoded data and demosaics it for your screen according to it's knowledge of the physical color filter array layout. 
There are many demosaic algorithms and I'm not sure which one Canon uses for camera JPG files.
Note that the TIFF spec and, by extension, the DNG spec have provisions for Color Filter Arrays (like Bayer) or LinearRaw pixel arrays.


----------



## Bonich (Dec 13, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> Why should dynamic range be lower when using ES?!


Cameras giving 12 bit color depth in ES and 14 in MS do have less dynamic range.
How to transfer 12 steps dynamic range with just 12 bit code depth?

The R3 provides 14 bits color depth while shooting 30 FPS in ES, the R5 provides 12 bit while shooting 20 FPS in ES, 14 bit with 12FPS in MS.
This gives the experience of less dynamic range in ES.


----------



## Canyondust (Dec 13, 2021)

Bonich said:


> Cameras giving 12 bit color depth in ES and 14 in MS do have less dynamic range.
> How to transfer 12 steps dynamic range with just 12 bit code depth?
> 
> The R3 provides 14 bits color depth while shooting 30 FPS in ES, the R5 provides 12 bit while shooting 20 FPS in ES, 14 bit with 12FPS in MS.
> This gives the experience of less dynamic range in ES.


Eos R5 (from the manual) quote 13Bit MS H+


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 13, 2021)

Bonich said:


> Cameras giving 12 bit color depth in ES and 14 in MS do have less dynamic range.
> How to transfer 12 steps dynamic range with just 12 bit code depth? [..]


With some form of curve, like the Gamma curve for displays.


----------



## bclaff (Dec 13, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lenses are an interesting parallel here. Canon now has three RF lenses, one of them an L-series lens, where they chose to sacrifice geometric distortion correction in the optical design in favor of forced correction in software (although obviously they can only force correction in their own software).


Wandering a little Off Topic (OT) but FWIW distortion correction is generally stored in the image as metadata and is then applied regardless of the software.
One way to see the data is to convert to DNG and look at the "opcode" tags.
You can also use programs like Exiftool to strip out the distortion correction and see the "raw" distorted image.
You might do this is you wanted to apply your own corrections.
In this respect it's not analogous to the raw image data issue since that cannot be "un-cooked".


----------



## bclaff (Dec 13, 2021)

You can judge this by looking at the Shadow Improvement chart at PhotonsToPhotos.
The "level" section are "ISOless". ISO 400 to 1000, ISO 1280 and up
The R3 is not typical because the various levels of noise reduction complicate things.


----------



## bclaff (Dec 13, 2021)

Bonich said:


> Cameras giving 12 bit color depth in ES and 14 in MS do have less dynamic range.


However, even if ES is the same bit depth as MS it often has higher read noise and lower dynamic range; the R3 is an example.


Bonich said:


> How to transfer 12 steps dynamic range with just 12 bit code depth?


As it turns out you can capture n+0.5 stops of dynamic range with an n-bit Analog to Digital Converter (ADC).
The limiting factor is something called Quantization Error and it's very technical.
You can see Quantization Error in Practice but it's not light reading.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2021)

bclaff said:


> Wandering a little Off Topic (OT) but FWIW distortion correction is generally stored in the image as metadata and is then applied regardless of the software.
> One way to see the data is to convert to DNG and look at the "opcode" tags.
> You can also use programs like Exiftool to strip out the distortion correction and see the "raw" distorted image.
> You might do this is you wanted to apply your own corrections.
> In this respect it's not analogous to the raw image data issue since that cannot be "un-cooked".


The reference to being 'forced' is that for the three lenses in question (RF 24-240, RF 16/2.8, RF 14-35/3L), Canon has disabled the ability to turn off distortion correction in-camera (it's ON and the selection is grayed out), and in Canon's DPP when you set distortion correction to zero, it is still corrected. My testing of corrections for the RF 14-35L are posted here.

I was not aware that those corrections are written to metadata in a way that can be applied by other RAW converters. Certainly when images from those lenses were opened in non-Canon RAW converters (Adobe, Capture One) early on, prior to availability of lens profiles, the uncorrected distortion was manifestly evident to the great dismay of a small corner of the internet.


----------



## bclaff (Dec 13, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The reference to being 'forced' is that for the three lenses in question (RF 24-240, RF 16/2.8, RF 14-35/3L), Canon has disabled the ability to turn off distortion correction in-camera (it's ON and the selection is grayed out), and in Canon's DPP when you set distortion correction to zero, it is still corrected. My testing of corrections for the RF 14-35L are posted here.
> 
> I was not aware that those corrections are written to metadata in a way that can be applied by other RAW converters. Certainly when images from those lenses were opened in non-Canon RAW converters (Adobe, Capture One) early on, prior to availability of lens profiles, the uncorrected distortion was manifestly evident to the great dismay of a small corner of the internet.


Interesting. If Canon locks you in to their software (which others do not) I think that's too bad.
You're probably right but "proof" would be a raw file converted to DNG and then inspected for "opcode" tags.
Message or email if you're interested and need details.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 13, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> All the graphs are really "cool". But the "money" is in IQ.
> 
> The Z9 has superior IQ to the R3 and 1DXMKIII
> 
> ....


Just curious as to how you have come to this conclusion.

Have you, by chance, used the Z9 and R3? Which would, of course, be the only way that you could compare their IQ and make a judgement.


----------



## Pixel (Dec 14, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I’ve been enjoying the discussion of Raw files and how raw are Raw. In real life I don’t have that much problem with noise. Even my shots of Venice taken near dark from a moving ship with the G5X II (1” sensor) are noisy mostly in the expanse of sky. I did apply some Photoshop noise reduction, although given that my printer uses just 8 or 9 inks, noise in the dark sky is unlikely to show up on a print. I like the best picture of the lot enough to be tempted to get the Epson printer that adds purple ink to the mix to see if expanding the gamut that direction will make the sky look a bit more like the very deep blue I see on screen. The picture now is framed and on display in three states, so I’m not the only one who likes it even as is.
> 
> More to the point of how raw is Raw, is the file that is written to the card already the product of demosaicing or is that handled by the software in the computer?
> 
> I gather that we can’t really see a Raw picture until it is interpreted in some way. Would it be clusters of red, blue, and two green dots, or would it be the half white non-gamma interpreted weirdness?


Actually a RAW file is black and white or shades of gray and the color is applied post capture.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 14, 2021)

Pixel said:


> Actually a RAW file is black and white or shades of gray and the color is applied post capture.


In the demosaicing process?


----------



## Bishop80 (Dec 14, 2021)

Pixel said:


> Actually a RAW file is black and white or shades of gray and the color is applied post capture.





stevelee said:


> In the demosaicing process?


It can be a color, or grayscale, whichever you prefer. From a software perspective, your raw file has numbers representing illuminance at photosites (after hardware and firmware have done their thing). Each photosite was covered by a red, green, or blue color filter; knowing the photosite's location in the sensor array will tell you which.
Now, if you *interpret* a photosite number as the filter's color brightness, and display it as such, then you get a (funky) color image.
But if you interpret a photosite number as luminance only (not caring which RGB color the number represented), then you have a grayscale image.
Until you demosaic the Bayer pattern data into RGB pixels, I suppose it's neither, or both.


----------



## jayli (Dec 14, 2021)

My biggest problem with my Canon cameras is not the overheating but the mediocre dynamic range. See the lab test results from CineD. https://www.cined.com/lab-tests/ If the R3's new stack BSI sensor is only comparable or slightly better in ES mode with R5's dynamic range, it puts it way behind its competition even after trying its latest tech on sensors. This is not the typical Canon I would expect. Canon should be the "if I want to get something good, I can" type of company. Until I see dynamic range being hyped in their marketing, I won't buy another Canon camera.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Dec 14, 2021)

jayli said:


> My biggest problem with my Canon cameras is not the overheating but the mediocre dynamic range. See the lab test results from CineD. https://www.cined.com/lab-tests/ If the R3's new stack BSI sensor is only comparable or slightly better in ES mode with R5's dynamic range, it puts it way behind its competition even after trying its latest tech on sensors. This is not the typical Canon I would expect. Canon should be the "if I want to get something good, I can" type of company. Until I see dynamic range being hyped in their marketing, I won't buy another Canon camera.


Canon Europe actually said the dynamic range on their site for clog 3. Also how is the DR crappy. it doesnt look right or unusable. You people kill me with the exaggerations. You go ape shit over a stop or less than stop like the camera is unusuable or cant look comparable to any modern camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2021)

bclaff said:


> Interesting. If Canon locks you in to their software (which others do not) I think that's too bad.
> You're probably right but "proof" would be a raw file converted to DNG and then inspected for "opcode" tags.
> Message or email if you're interested and need details.


Thanks, Bill. No, there's no lock in – Canon RAW files are supported by every 3rd party converter of which I'm aware (personally, I use DxO PhotoLab). This is just another mainly academic issue, IMO, although perhaps a bit less so than 'baked-in' NR because in the case of the geometric distortion it's not baked in (just forcibly applied only by Canon's software). In fact, in the tests I linked above I found that the RF 14-35mm can actually deliver an FoV of ~13.5mm when processed with DxO's geometric corrections, so there's some real-world benefit in this case.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 14, 2021)

bclaff said:


> The raw data is the value as it was read from the Analog to Digital Converter (ADC) probably with some offset (Black Level).
> Plenty of cameras appear to report this raw data in their raw files.
> 
> If the value is manipulated in the firmware before it is written to the then it is "cooked".
> ...


Thanks Bill - this is my first visit to the site after I posted. 
Even if you want being as technically precise as possible there is still the possibility of misinterpretation. And when terms like 'noise' or dynamic range' become surrogate markers for how good a product is, it can be a case of 'little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. Which I was hoping to highlight. 

When it comes to these in-depth technical knowledge of these things I can get easily lost, but you seem to be able to strip it down to essentials and get your point over very effectively. All with accessible data to support it. Kudos to you!


----------



## deleteme (Dec 15, 2021)

I guess. what I am seeing in either mechanical or ES modes is a nearly invisible difference in DR.

IOW we are at a place where the improvements are technically measurable but functionally identical.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 16, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> ...we are at a place where the improvements are technically measurable but functionally identical.


This is how I feel. It's nice that various sites attempt these types of tests, but I feel as though the technology has reached a point where there is little practical value to these tests. For owners who care about these sorts of things, it can provide some bragging rights or confirmation bias in affirming a purchase decision that has already been made. But, I would never make a decision to buy or not buy a product based on test results from Mr. Claff, DXO or DPR. That's not meant as a put down, but rather just an acknowledgement that technology has improved to the point where "technically measurable but functionally identical" has become the norm.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Dec 16, 2021)

unfocused said:


> This is how I feel. It's nice that various sites attempt these types of tests, but I feel as though the technology has reached a point where there is little practical value to these tests. For owners who care about these sorts of things, it can provide some bragging rights or confirmation bias in affirming a purchase decision that has already been made. But, I would never make a decision to buy or not buy a product based on test results from Mr. Claff, DXO or DPR. That's not meant as a put down, but rather just an acknowledgement that technology has improved to the point where "technically measurable but functionally identical" has become the norm.


I couldn't agree more. Sure there are niche scenarios where it can make a difference, but for working professionals that do actual paid work assignments, from an overall image quality perspective, even entry level cameras are adequate and have been so for a while. What camera you get should depend on what features it has (like shooting frame rate, body size, buttons, etc), not based on how it stacks up on an image quality performance chart. I'm of the opinion that anybody who says any cameras made in the last few years is unusable because of performance, is just using that as an excuse to justify whatever decision they made to go with whatever camera they have. They're all more than good enough for paid work from an image quality perspective.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Dec 16, 2021)

All cameras are equal, but some cameras are more equal than others.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 16, 2021)

DBounce said:


> Ok, so you are saying you are guessing. Exactly what I thought. Canon makes it pretty clear in the manual that they are not applying noise reduction.


Yer as ignerant as I am when it comes to this. Best to admit it and shut up.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 16, 2021)

unfocused said:


> This is how I feel. It's nice that various sites attempt these types of tests, but I feel as though the technology has reached a point where there is little practical value to these tests. For owners who care about these sorts of things, it can provide some bragging rights or confirmation bias in affirming a purchase decision that has already been made. But, I would never make a decision to buy or not buy a product based on test results from Mr. Claff, DXO or DPR. That's not meant as a put down, but rather just an acknowledgement that technology has improved to the point where "technically measurable but functionally identical" has become the norm.


Agree completely. What would make a thread like this interesting, is some real world examples. Early on someone mentioned the performance with electronic shutter. Rather than a graph, let's see some examples of shots taken with ES and others with mechanical shutter. Instead of charts showing a 1/4 or 1/2 stop improvement in DR, let's see some actual shots so we can see real world differences (or no difference as the case may be). I'm not saying the charts are wrong or that the info is bad or mistaken in any way, but if you are a photographer, then actual photos are what matters. Personally speaking, once Canon went to their newer architecture, I have yet to take a photo where I needed more DR. A few years back, I did choose the R over the RP because the RP had the older architecture and I do take a lot of sunset photos which can be a challenge (and yes, the charts helped me decide, but not until I took actual photos with each camera and saw how much I could lift shadows, post process, etc.). But nowadays, the differences seem so small between cameras that they do seem functionally identical in terms of DR. I would argue, that DR is now the least important factor when choosing a new camera. Whether you need more MP or not, more FPS or not, a larger buffer or not, seems far more important in differentiating one camera from another.


----------



## tron (Dec 17, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> The EOS R3 is easily the nicest camera I've ever used. Just overall the speed and stability of everything in the camera makes it an absolute pleasure to use. Nothing ever slows down, no frames ever get skipped in the EVF, no blackout at all, never hit the buffer, it's just super responsive and a pleasure to take photos with. The EVF unit is an upgrade that's hard to explain, since it has more latitude latitude to show highlights and shadows than the R5. Battery life is pretty close to double my R5's battery life, too. I never notice rolling shutter, far better performance than the R5's rolling shutter, and it's really noticeable.
> 
> 24mp or not, it's a better experience than my R5 or my 1dx mark II combined. Hard to imagine how cameras could get much better than this.


Canon should sell R3 with RF1.4X as a gift and a free subscription to Topaz Gigapixel.


----------

