# Dynamic Range & Camera IQ



## paulgmccabe (Sep 26, 2012)

I'm a 550D user who has just yesterday ordered a 7D. I've never even looked through the viewfinder on a FF camera, let alone held one.

I do know my way around my camera, but on these boards I keep hearing people talking about Dynamic Range when comparing cameras or making wish lists of improvements.

Can somebody please point towards a good explanation of DR and also comparisons between similar cameras (e.g. D800 and 5D M2/3) so I can understand it better and how it impacts me? Also any explanation of camera IQ would be helpful.

Cheers.


----------



## poias (Sep 26, 2012)

This visually explains quite a bit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcdead/7091087059/#


----------



## V8Beast (Sep 26, 2012)

Dynamic range is a very important element in overall image quality, no question. That at said, I find it somewhat surprising that people rarely discuss the impact of tonal range on image quality on your typical online forum. A lot of what I shoot has varying shades of grays and blacks, and in order for the sensor to pick up the subtle shifts in tonality, having a wide tonal range trumps dynamic range by a large margin. Of course, if you're shooting a high-contrast subject, DR is king, but the image can still benefit from a broader tonal range nonetheless. 

At the risk of getting shot by the APS-C lynch mob, I'd say that the biggest advantage of a full-frame sensor over a crop - for what I shoot, at least - are the improvements in tonal range.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 26, 2012)

paulgmccabe said:


> Can somebody please point towards a good explanation of DR and also comparisons between similar cameras (e.g. D800 and 5D M2/3) so I can understand it better and how it impacts me? Also any explanation of camera IQ would be helpful.



From Wikipedia: Dynamic range, abbreviated DR or DNR,[1] is the ratio between the largest and smallest possible values of a changeable quantity.... In photography the quantity is luminous intensity (brightness) and the end points are the beginning of pure black and pure white. It's generally measured and expressed in stops of exposure (one stop more being twice as much light; one stop less being half).

For example: you take a picture of a beach sunset with the sun, clouds, ocean, beach, cliff, and a cave all in the scene. As you get closer to the sun details get brighter and brighter until they are pure white. As you get closer to the cave details are darker and darker until they are pure black. The range between the point of brightness where detail transitions to pure white and the point where detail transitions to pure black is the dynamic range.

It impacts you because there are scenes in real life with a brightness range that exceed a sensor's ability to record detail. So you either have to expose to lose some detail to pure black, pure white, or both; or shoot multiple exposures and merge them manually or using HDR software.

I'm going to be blunt: like most things in photography, differences between equipment are exaggerated beyond reason in forums and discussions. It's human nature. If you look for it in a RAW converter, there is a consistent difference in DR between the Canon 7D and the 5D2/5D3 of approximately a stop. The D800 adds approximately 1-1.5 more. These estimates depend greatly on the level of shadow noise you are willing to accept for your purposes, something fans in forums never seem to take under consideration. They will howl and cry about differences seen on a monitor zoomed to 200%, and ignore that the differences are nearly impossible to see _when you are purposely looking for them_ in a 20" print.

The difference is there, and it can be noticed in some situations. But generally speaking you will still get the shot, you might just have a little more noticeable noise / less detail at the extremes. Also, generally speaking, for landscape shots with really impressive DR / noise / detail you will be shooting and blending multiple exposures with any current body.


----------



## preppyak (Sep 26, 2012)

paulgmccabe said:


> Can somebody please point towards a good explanation of DR and also comparisons between similar cameras (e.g. D800 and 5D M2/3) so I can understand it better and how it impacts me? Also any explanation of camera IQ would be helpful.
> 
> Cheers.


Most explanations are gonna be a little technical, but I think this one does a decent job

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm

As for comparisons, sadly most of what I have seen are video tests, I can't seem to find any straight photo tests. The reality is that it would be extremely difficult to test, as getting an objective test would mean you'd have to use the same lens on each camera, at the same settings at the same time. I dont know a lot of people with multiple 14-24's, a D800 and a 5D Mark III. The moral of the story is generally that the D800 has more dynamic range, it allows you to photograph scenes that have darker shadows and brighter lights than the 5d Mark III. But, that is one aspect of a photo, and depending on what you are shooting, there are many, many other aspects.


----------



## jcns (Sep 26, 2012)

paulgmccabe said:


> I'm a 550D user who has just yesterday_* ordered a 7D. I've never even looked through the viewfinder on a FF camera, l*_et alone held one.
> 
> I do know my way around my camera, but on these boards I keep hearing people talking about Dynamic Range when comparing cameras or making wish lists of improvements.
> 
> ...


did you think 7d is a full frame camera?


----------



## K-amps (Sep 26, 2012)

I have to think that Canon sensors cannot be all that bad in DR and that coding of RAW data also has a part in it. Sort of reminds me of the Audio compression days when Sony introduced ATRAC compression and while in the Engineers minds, the compression was efficient, the critics hated the sound. They said it lacks something, Sony Engineers countered that they only masked the inaudible parts...

As I look at that D800 pic linked above, in the original shot, it seems underexposed; however the information in the shadows was not "thrown away" and hence retrievable....

Could it be that Canon is throwing away RAW data they think is unusable while users are pulling a lot of it in PP?


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 26, 2012)

poias said:


> This visually explains quite a bit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcdead/7091087059/#



*I guarantee you* that if you posted that shot but changed the EXIF to say "Canon 7D" people would do nothing but complain about the noise levels ;D

That is better than you could do with a 7D or 5D3, but not by leaps and bounds. I've lifted shadows on a lot of Canon RAW files. For all the howling and complaining about the DR/noise differences between Canon and Nikon sensors (at this time), lifted Canon shadows look about the same in ACR *except* for banding noise. Banding is what caps how far you can push it. Depending on the shot and target print size you end up only going to 60-80 on the ACR slider, which is where the banding starts to become apparent, where this user reports maxing it out to 100. So the difference is there, but it's not the end of the world.

That's not to say I don't admire the D800 and eagerly await Canon's answer. The 7D and 5D2/5D3 are 24-30" print cameras for critically reviewed landscapes, with the 5D2/5D3 being a bit better at 30". The D800 easily breaks into the >40" range.


----------



## molnarcs (Sep 26, 2012)

That's exactly my experience working with NEF files from the d7000 - approximately 30pts more on the shadow slider compared to the 7D. That's roughly one stop. For architecture/interiour work (almost always high contrast scenes) this is quite significant. Basically, it's the difference between being able to stay within Lightroom for all the post-processing I do, or having to take a trip Photoshop. This affects about 40-60% of my work. 

That said, for JPEG shooters it doesn't matter at all, and it doesn't matter to you if you don't rely on pushing shadows in LR too much. Which reminds me, that it looks like that 2EV difference between Canon and Nikon sensors (as measured by DxO) translates only to about 1 stop in practice when using Lightroom. 



dtaylor said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > This visually explains quite a bit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcdead/7091087059/#
> ...


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 26, 2012)

molnarcs said:


> That's exactly my experience working with NEF files from the d7000 - approximately 30pts more on the shadow slider compared to the 7D. That's roughly one stop. For architecture/interiour work (almost always high contrast scenes) this is quite significant. Basically, it's the difference between being able to stay within Lightroom for all the post-processing I do, or having to take a trip Photoshop. This affects about 40-60% of my work.



Granted that it can definitely result in more post work and/or a different shooting style if you're always shooting at the edge. I don't want to completely discount the advantage. I just get tired of those who act like Canon should stop making cameras until they improve their sensors


----------



## unfocused (Sep 26, 2012)

Agree 100 percent with DTaylor's comments.

Adding a very biased personal perspective. 

In the film days, this was called the Zone System and it was popularized by Ansel Adams. The basic concept remains the same. Film (now sensors) and the final medium (photographic prints, photo-mechanical reproduction and now, monitors) cannot reproduce the full range of tones that exist in nature.

You have two choices when trying to capture scenes with a broad range of tones: You can "clip" the highlights/shadows by letting them go either completely white (for highlights) or completely black (for shadows). Or, you can try to compress the tonal range into something that is reproducible, preserving detail in both. 

Right now, the fad in photography is to try to compress as much of the range as possible, creating "High Dynamic Range" scenes, which is a misnomer, because the range is not actually "higher" instead it is compressed and often looks very artificially so, like the example shown early in this thread. Some people think that looks great. Others think it is artificial looking and excessively dramatic. 

Ansel Adams was a big proponent of compression and his Zone System was built entirely on teaching people how to compress the tonal range of film and paper. However, Adams' goal was to try to reproduce a tonal range that looked natural and reflected how the human eye (at least in his view) actually saw the scene. Many of today's HDR images make no attempt to reproduce the scene as a human eye might see it, but instead opt for overly dramatic misinterpretations. 

The counterpoint in photography is the image that allows areas to go pure white and pure black while retaining the important detail in the middle tones. 

As with most things in life, the decision should be personal and should be based on what your goals are. In my view, moderation is probably the best approach. But, that's a subjective decision.

The appeal of a wider dynamic range in sensors is that the sensor can preserve shadow and highlight detail in the file that can be brought out in the final image. Again, as DTaylor has pointed out, this can often be done in post-processing in Photoshop. I frequently use multiple layers of smart objects, adjusting the highlights and shadows in Camera Raw, masking certain areas and combining them in Photoshop. But then, I'm not a big fan of the HDR look and in most cases prefer the challenge of composing and capturing scenes within the limitations of the camera's existing dynamic range.


----------



## jrista (Sep 26, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > This visually explains quite a bit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcdead/7091087059/#
> ...



   So true!   




dtaylor said:


> That is better than you could do with a 7D or 5D3, but not by leaps and bounds. I've lifted shadows on a lot of Canon RAW files. For all the howling and complaining about the DR/noise differences between Canon and Nikon sensors (at this time), lifted Canon shadows look about the same in ACR *except* for banding noise. Banding is what caps how far you can push it. Depending on the shot and target print size you end up only going to 60-80 on the ACR slider, which is where the banding starts to become apparent, where this user reports maxing it out to 100. So the difference is there, but it's not the end of the world.



Actually, there is one other aspect of noise in most Canon cameras (the 1D series seems to be largely, though not entirely, excepted from this): Blotchy color noise in the deep deep shadows! I actually am not bothered as much by the banding/hatching noise in Canon cameras as much as I am by that really nasty, blotchy, muddy color noise...which primarily seems to exhibit reddish...when you really reach in deep into shadows with a .CR2 file. 

I think the comparison of the D800 to 5D III really exemplified that best: http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html. This was the review that demonstrated to me the true benefit of the D800's extra couple stops of DR. But if it wasn't for the blotchieness in the 5D III shadows....even if there was some banding...I could still WORK WITH IT! With all that nasty red and blue color-noise blotchieness, though, you have to apply some aggressive extra NR, which eats away at the detail....detail you can see is there...just underneath the noise...probably just as good as the D800....but which will be blurred away by the extra NR needed to clean up that muddy color noise. If it wasn't for all that color noise, pattern noise wouldn't be so bad. There are ways to clean up patter noise....astrophotographers have been cleaning it up with dark frames and bias frames and the like for years. And you can clean it up pretty nicely, too. But color noise....meh. I think that is Canon's true bane in the shadows....blotchy, muddy, red and blue....NASTY!!


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 27, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> I have a completely different view, with the D800 I can act completely different than what I can do with my Canon cameras, which I have shown a number of times at dpreview
> With Canon, you must have the camera on a tripod and take 2-3-4 exposures,



There is no way the D800 sensor can record so much that you need 3 or 4 exposures on Canon to match. That's ridiculous. You might need 2 if you absolutely must have the same noise characteristics in the shadows. But if we're being that picky, at 2 you will get a better final image.

BTW, with AEB I hand hold multiple exposure shots all the time. It doesn't work for action, but I never need it there.



> with the D800 I can have the camera by hand and take one shoot and then working with the same raw file and produce one after shadows and the other for highlight, midtone, and then put them together.
> A certain difference in freedom of taking photos and with a good results because of 14 stops DR in the d800 compared to 11 stops in 5dmk2 and that not including pattern noise



3 stops? No. Not if you do the same thing with the Canon file (develop 2 versions from the RAW and merge).

The D800 is better, yes, but this is the kind of exaggeration I'm talking about.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 27, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> paulgmccabe said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a 550D user who has just yesterday ordered a 7D. I've never even looked through the viewfinder on a FF camera, let alone held one.
> ...


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 27, 2012)

I initially skipped this one because the whole thing was quoted...



> *You can take a look here http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=42598514*


*

Sorry, I question that test and presentation. I don't see banding that bad on my crop body.*


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 27, 2012)

?


Mikael Risedal said:


> I'd beware of anyone out to prove a point with deliberately doctored images in a internet forum. The 5D Mark II image is either doctored or from a damaged or defective camera. A 5D mark II does not have poor images like those shown.
> However, I will say that Low ISO, the D800 does have a lot of usable DR, but at High ISO, it has less than the 5D MK III. It tends to be more important at very high ISO's for me than at low ISO's, but thats just me.
> Here is a image from my D800 which really suprised me with its ability to capture a interior along with a bright sunny outdoors.




Do not get rude, I have 2 x 5dmk2 and they show this pattern noise, I have tested cameras since 1978, scanners since 1990 and digital cameras since they come so I know what Im doing. 
5dmk2 mk3 has 11 stops DR and then the pattern noise are not including in the measure. Nikon has 14stops
http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_5D_MkIII.html
http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_5D_MkII.html
http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD7000.html
http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD800.html


Rude? Are those your images? Posting obviously altered images seems to me to be rude.
I have been into photography for quite a few more years than you, started on digital earlier, and have owned or used many digital cameras, including two 5D Mark II's, two 5D Mark III's and a D800.
I've never seen the banding like that shown in the images, except on forums where the images were under exposed and then pulled up several stops. You have to really manipulate the images in post, or have a defective camera. If your 5D Mark II's produce images like those with a proper exposure, and you did not send them back ???
I'd prefer to see information from and intrepreterted by the actual tester.
Sensorgen.org charts are derived DXO information, just a repeat of the same info.
"One source, the one which is used for the data on this site is DxOmark.com."
DXO's own chart illustrates the higher DR for the 5D Mark III at high ISO's and the excellent DR for the D800 at low ISO's. It pretty well matches what I've seen with my cameras.


----------



## jrista (Sep 27, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



There is something so seriously wrong with that 5D II image. There is red banding and FPN throughout the entire image, even the highlights. There is NO WAY that image was properly exposed in the first place. I've seen that kind of banding in sample black-frame 5D II images, but only after pushing exposure by about 8 stops, or by opening the image in PS/ACR and using the levels tool to drop the white point to within a fraction of the black point. The 5D II's maximum saturation is 64600e- and its read noise at ISO 100 is 28e-. That is a ratio of 2307:1! No friggin way your going to see that kind of banding with a minor curve bump like you've demonstrated. That exposure would have to be underexposed by many stops to exhibit like that. I cry fowl!!

BTW, banding noise IS READ NOISE. Read noise is a bit too specific, as that generally refers to the noise introduced by the ADC. I tend to refer to electronic noise, which comes in a variety of forms, but is all very low relative to maximum signal (even when there is 28 electrons worth!) Its a bunch of bullhonkey when you mentioned before that banding is not taken into account when determining DR...absolutely it is, its simply that DR is computed as the AVERAGE of read noise to maximum saturation. Since it is the average of electronic noise, that that would mean your computing DR as the ratio between what would roughly be 14e- and 64600e-, a ratio of 4614:1 (or 11.something stops), so some electronic noise...such as banding...will show through in very deep shadows.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Sep 27, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > paulgmccabe said:
> ...



i am not a pro. photographer or whatever. i am a software/system guy. however, i am willing to match your d800 pix that you have shown with just one shot (do not need multiple shots) using my canon 7d (do not need to use my 5d mark III), except the sharpness (you should know why).

i am the one who just recently start to learn photography (little bit more than 6 months starting from a t3, move up to 7d and buy another 30d for learning purpose, and recently again bought another 5d mark III for low light support. i can prove it that i am not a pro but i can match your image with just one shot)

both canon and nikon have their own pros and cons. they are both good. i really hate when coming to talk about technical data and apply that to favor one over another. if i take pictures with two different cameras and you can recognize which one is nikon, which one is canon then i will BUY YOUR THOUGH.

note: "Here is a image from my D800 which really suprised me with its ability to capture a interior along with a bright sunny outdoors". image will show all details when taking with right exposure and white balance (thought that you should know that).

-- au revoir


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 27, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> read it again



I don't need to. Several people have now pointed out that they do not see banding that bad on 5D's, and I don't see banding that bad even on a 7D. Don't blame the camera for mistakes you might have made in your test, processing, or presentation.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 27, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Do not get rude,



He wasn't.



> I have 2 x 5dmk2 and they show this pattern noise, I have tested cameras since 1978, scanners since 1990 and digital cameras since they come so I know what Im doing.



And that means nothing if your results cannot be replicated.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 27, 2012)

I've got a 5d2 and a 7d where the banding is quite noticeable without even having to push shadows very much.

image I posted here:

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9299.0

was shot raw with my 7D; ISO 100, 1/1000, f/8, all internal processing and ALO off. Firmware 1.2.5
PP in DPP used; +0.33 EV, contrast -2, highlight -5, shadow +5 to open up some "depth" in the foreground.

if shadow is left at 0, the banding is almost not discernable.
But any value above 0 the banding begins to appear in the dark area below the trees, this is in an area of RGB value of about 50, 35, 25, as processed, so not exactly near black and this is not much of a shadow push, frankly.

If I'd have had the lens I needed with me I could have shot this on my D5100 and the dark area would have been TOTALLY CLEAN even if I wanted to push it up to where the foreground was completely visible at lower midtones.

attached crop of banded shadow area at DPP settings describe above, (+5 shadow)
crop taken from below left of center

I've only tested 2 7D bodies, they were equally this bad. Some of you may have better ones, count yourself lucky. 
The readout channel mismatch between the dual processors working on the 7D sensor's dual readout is likely responsible for the 8 pixel wide vertical stripes.

I'm reluctant to even try the v 2.0.3 firmware as it still may be buggy altho v2 firmware did improve my 5D2's banding considerably, if not enough to make me love it.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Sep 27, 2012)

very interesting thread this is...these are tests i would never do on my own.
question is...how often do you have to PP your images so much to this extent? I've personally maybe only faces extreme DR scenarios like once or twice a year... maybe I'm just not shooting enough or I'm only shooting in ideal conditions..but for me..if the situation isn't ideal..I'd rather not shoot. maybe the Canon cameras suffer from all these mentioned problems..but unless you're saying every one of your shots are like this...I'm sure 99% of the time it performs great!


----------



## nightbreath (Sep 27, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> very interesting thread this is...these are tests i would never do on my own.
> question is...how often do you have to PP your images so much to this extent? I've personally maybe only faces extreme DR scenarios like once or twice a year... maybe I'm just not shooting enough or I'm only shooting in ideal conditions..but for me..if the situation isn't ideal..I'd rather not shoot. maybe the Canon cameras suffer from all these mentioned problems..but unless you're saying every one of your shots are like this...I'm sure 99% of the time it performs great!



_The paraggrapgh below contains thoughts straight out of my head that don't have any facts behind them. This is how I understand the camera IQ, so please correct me if I'm wrong._

For my work tonal range may be more important than dynamic range and can help me in getting all these nice colours in the image. While there's visible difference in DR (longitude of the RAW data, as I understand it – from black to white) of Canon vs. Sony sensors, I don't see any leaps in tonal range (latitude of the RAW data, number of tones) improvements:


5D Mark III -> 8.65 bits
D700 -> 8.65 bits
D800 -> 8.53 bits
D7000 -> 8.5 bits
5D Mark II -> 8.48 bits
1Ds Mark III -> 8.44 bits
7D -> 7.89 bits

I'll be glad to hear everyone's thoughts on the topic 

P.S. Tonal range data is taken from DXO screen measurements.


----------



## nightbreath (Sep 27, 2012)

Any thoughts on tonal range affecting IQ? Or everyone is so obsessed with DR that there's no point in mentioning this?


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 27, 2012)

paulgmccabe said:


> I'm a 550D user who has just yesterday ordered a 7D. I've never even looked through the viewfinder on a FF camera, let alone held one.
> 
> I do know my way around my camera, but on these boards I keep hearing people talking about Dynamic Range when comparing cameras or making wish lists of improvements.
> 
> ...



For decades photographers have pursued higher and higher DR in camera's since the original daguerreotype. How much have we improved? Eh, Its hard to say in camera tech.

But,

In-out camera technique such as filters, timing, scouting, HDR (if you like that sorta thing), you can can easily photograph stuff that's far, far beyond anything a bare sensor can capture. Like 20 Stops.

So if you want better DR, Work on your technique to achieve so.


----------



## ecka (Sep 27, 2012)

Image quality, dynamic range, high ISO noise, graphs, numbers, SNR (signal to noise ratio) ... all that makes a lot of sense when you know what it is all about. For me it's all about camera's per-pixel color reproduction performance. All the different tests are just for judging the same thing from different perspectives.
The easy answer for FF vs crop - pixel pitch. For example, 5D3 pixels (6.25 µm) are bigger than 7D pixels (4.3 µm), therefore they get more light and produce stronger signal (better SNR). 5D2 has even (slightly) bigger pixels, but the older sensor and processor technology makes it inferior to 5D3. SNR deficiency impacts false color (image noise basicaly) and false resolution of the "bayer filter" type sensor.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 27, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> Any thoughts on tonal range affecting IQ? Or everyone is so obsessed with DR that there's no point in mentioning this?



tonal range is going to be similar for most cameras because they have a similar overall signal to noise ratios around midtones, despite the differences in overall DR

if the SNR is improved, and thereby DR will likely improve along with it, then it's possible to use more digitizing bits to define a particular pixels signal level and that can lead to finer tonal gradations. (12 vs 14 vs 16 bit for example)

This is where medium format digital has an advantage with their big clean pixels and 16 bit digitizing, they seem to be able to produce better tonal gradients in the midtone and lower levels which make for smoother looking images than you get from smaller sensors. You can see this same effect to some extent by comparing FF 35mm digital with compact cameras.

however, most of that's rendered moot when final output is 8 bit-per color jpeg or similar 8 bit files used for printing.

until the final output is capable of utilizing more than 8 bits per color you're not likely to get more than 8 bits unless you interpolate downwards from higher sampling precision.

also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but tonal range reduces as you move towards the darker areas simply because there are less bits there to work with (smaller numbers describing the intensity levels)
I think the tonal levels DxO mark measures are likely done around middle gray.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 27, 2012)

Mikael Risedal - the 7D yields nearly 11 stops in RAW, and a solid 10 in JPEG with HTP, and this is confirmed by multiple sources. Unless the testing was done in JPEG with HTP off, those graphs are simply wrong.

Side note - what drives me nuts about photographic conversations (and political conversations for that matter) is that people generally take sides. Once they have their side, they are hypercritical of any information that might support the other side, and completely uncritical of any information they deem to support their side. They also make the differences between the two sides seem larger than Mount Everest. This thread is degrading into that kind of nonsense.



> There is no sign that Canon have invest 1 billion or more in new sensor lines to keep up with others.



You know darn well (or should know by now) that the difference in shadow noise between Canon and Sony sensors is due to a patent that is difficult to work around, and has nothing to do with the fab facilities or other tech on the sensor. As I recall from detailed discussions on dpreview, Canon is ahead on other points. But the way they read data off the sensor, and the banding that results, is what stands out at this time in (fanboy) Internet arguments.



> Therefore it will be very interesting to se what the 46Mp roomers are about, and if it is the old 7d sensor stitched to a 24 x36mm then Canon has lost their credibility in my eyes



I would rather have the 7D sensor scaled to 46 MP than the D800 sensor. The differences in resolution and DR are small either way, but I would rather have the resolution. And I regularly push the DR in my photos.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 27, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Rude? Are those your images? Posting obviously altered images seems to me to be rude.
> I have been into photography for quite a few more years than you, started on digital earlier, and have owned or used many digital cameras, including two 5D Mark II's, two 5D Mark III's and a D800.
> I've never seen the banding like that
> 
> ...



That has to be the most ridiculous thing ever. What picture would you EVER take that looks like either of them? Since the answer is obviously none, the test is ridiculous and meaningless. I've used both the 5D2 and 5D3 and even pushing photos, nothing has ever looked like that. You get a picutre back:


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 27, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Now we come to the core, with a Sony sensor you can use the camera differently, you can underexpose to get highlights that are far above average gray...



Typical "defend my team" use of adjectives instead of mathematical precision: "far above". You can get about 1.5 additional stops of DR. Noticeable, can be nice to have at times, but not the end of the world. (Few people would consider a 10-15% gain "far above".)

While I'm at it...most of these comparisons expose the bodies in the same way. You would give the Canon a bit more exposure and recover the highlights in post. That's even noted in some of the comparisons, including one you linked.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 27, 2012)

Aglet said:


> tonal range is going to be similar for most cameras because they have a similar overall signal to noise ratios around midtones, despite the differences in overall DR
> ...
> This is where medium format digital has an advantage with their big clean pixels and 16 bit digitizing, they seem to be able to produce better tonal gradients in the midtone and lower levels which make for smoother looking images than you get from smaller sensors. You can see this same effect to some extent by comparing FF 35mm digital with compact cameras.
> ...
> however, most of that's rendered moot when final output is 8 bit-per color jpeg or similar 8 bit files used for printing.



Truth. There are tonal and color differences with big jumps (compact >> DSLR >> MF), but not so much with small jumps. And those differences don't necessarily make it to screen or print.


----------



## jrista (Sep 27, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> There is something so seriously wrong with that 5D II image. There is red banding and FPN throughout the entire image, even the highlights. There is NO WAY that image was properly exposed in the first place. I've seen that kind of banding in sample black-frame 5D II images, but only after pushing exposure by about 8 stops, or by opening the image in PS/ACR and using the levels tool to drop the white point to within a fraction of the black point. The 5D II's maximum saturation is 64600e- and its read noise at ISO 100 is 28e-. That is a ratio of 2307:1! No friggin way your going to see that kind of banding with a minor curve bump like you've demonstrated. That exposure would have to be underexposed by many stops to exhibit like that. I cry fowl!!
> 
> BTW, banding noise IS READ NOISE. Read noise is a bit too specific, as that generally refers to the noise introduced by the ADC. I tend to refer to electronic noise, which comes in a variety of forms, but is all very low relative to maximum signal (even when there is 28 electrons worth!) Its a bunch of bullhonkey when you mentioned before that banding is not taken into account when determining DR...absolutely it is, its simply that DR is computed as the AVERAGE of read noise to maximum saturation. Since it is the average of electronic noise, that that would mean your computing DR as the ratio between what would roughly be 14e- and 64600e-, a ratio of 4614:1 (or 11.something stops), so some electronic noise...such as banding...will show through in very deep shadows.







*Sorry nothing wrong with this comparison, this is a example how you can handle the cameras , equal in terms of exposure and then adjust the images identical in Photoshop.

AND there is nothing as a proper exposure, some of you are living in a MYTH.
Banding and pattern noise from Canon are produced for instant that the 8, 16 readout locations not are in line with each other
*
[/quote]

The 5D II images appear to be very under exposed to me (and apparently, not just me). A "proper" exposure is one in which the image is NOT under exposed. And since the tests are comparing the recoverability aspects of both cameras, then you should be over exposing the 5D II image a bit, as Canon sensors have considerable highlight headroom. I bet you could over-expose the 5D II image by 2 stops, fully recover all the highlights, and have shadows that look nearly as good as the D800's.


----------



## ecka (Sep 27, 2012)

hjulenissen said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Image quality, dynamic range, high ISO noise, graphs, numbers, SNR (signal to noise ratio) ... all that makes a lot of sense when you know what it is all about. For me it's all about camera's per-pixel color reproduction performance.
> ...



It's like saying "I care about milk, not cows" . I'm talking about pixel color accuracy and fake resolution. Have a look at some Sigma DP2 Merrill RAW samples (ISO 100) and you'll see what's the difference between the real 15 megapixel resolution and the fake 18 or 22 megapixel resolution from 7D or 5D3. Properly interpolated Merrill's RAW can give you a nice 30-40 megapixel Bayer-like image.
Please don't reply if you don't care.


----------



## jrista (Sep 27, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...


*
sorry but you are wrong, there is nothing like a proper exposure , you can expose as much as possible without clipping
and even then you can see the differences in the scene depending on how high/large dynamic range the scene has.
There is always a difference between 11 stops or 14 and 14 without pattern noise or banding
SO GO down in levels.

*
[/quote]

Well, I'm tired of swapping anecdotes with you. When you are ready to talk facts with proper reference and theory, I'll be waiting.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 27, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> sorry but you are wrong, there is nothing like a proper exposure ,



:

There is most certainly a proper exposure if you wish to maximize image quality given the medium you are working with. This is true for B&W, slide, color neg, and each specific model of digital sensor. If Canon's strength is on the highlight side and Nikon's on the shadow side then you must tailor exposure to each one.


----------



## ecka (Sep 27, 2012)

hjulenissen said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > hjulenissen said:
> ...



I suggest you start reading more carefully. I never said that I care more about the cow than the milk. I care about both actually. The thing is - if "cows" are fine then the "milk" is fine automatically, but not 'vice versa'.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 27, 2012)

ecka said:


> It's like saying "I care about milk, not cows" . I'm talking about pixel color accuracy and fake resolution. Have a look at some Sigma DP2 Merrill RAW samples (ISO 100) and you'll see what's the difference between the real 15 megapixel resolution and the fake 18 or 22 megapixel resolution from 7D or 5D3.



Foveon is another area of great hyperbole in photography. An 18 MP Bayer sensor does not have "fake" resolution. There are 18 million sample points of luminance data. And a Foveon sensor does not have 3x its pixels in resolution. 15 MP Foveon has 15 million sample points of luminance data.

Foveon sensors do have more sample points of color data, and this results in better images then a mere count of MP would suggest. That can be seen and should not be denied. But it's not the night and day difference claimed by fans. Nor will they scale to match 30-40 MP Bayer images. This is the hyperbole. Go ahead and photograph a landscape with foliage using the Sigma and a D800e and see how the Sigma fares scaled to match.

With that out of the way, I wish Foveon would have had a chance with a larger and more aggressive company like Nikon or Canon. The technology is interesting. If it could have been pushed up in MP and ISO at a faster pace it might have had a much greater impact on the market. Again, it's not night and day. But it's certainly a strong edge in IQ.


----------



## jrista (Sep 27, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > It's like saying "I care about milk, not cows" . I'm talking about pixel color accuracy and fake resolution. Have a look at some Sigma DP2 Merrill RAW samples (ISO 100) and you'll see what's the difference between the real 15 megapixel resolution and the fake 18 or 22 megapixel resolution from 7D or 5D3.
> ...



Well said! ;D



dtaylor said:


> With that out of the way, I wish Foveon would have had a chance with a larger and more aggressive company like Nikon or Canon. The technology is interesting. If it could have been pushed up in MP and ISO at a faster pace it might have had a much greater impact on the market. Again, it's not night and day. But it's certainly a strong edge in IQ.



Ditto. I was pretty excited when I saw the patent from Canon for a layered sensor design. I've looked at it a few times, and I'm not sure it compared to the current Foveon patens from Sigma, but I really hope/wish they would develop the technology further. I could totally go for a 22mp layered sensor.


----------



## ecka (Sep 28, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > It's like saying "I care about milk, not cows" . I'm talking about pixel color accuracy and fake resolution. Have a look at some Sigma DP2 Merrill RAW samples (ISO 100) and you'll see what's the difference between the real 15 megapixel resolution and the fake 18 or 22 megapixel resolution from 7D or 5D3.
> ...



I mentioned the Foveon X3 as a benchmark for Bayer sensor in terms of resolution (per-pixel color accuracy at low ISO). I'm not saying that Foveon X3 has 3x it's pixels in resolution. It's more like Foveon X3 delivers 95% of it's sensor resolution, while Bayer delivers only 30-80% of it's sensor resolution (depending on pixel size). Sigma cannot compete at ISO 400+, it's too noisy, but at ISO 100 there is a nigh and day difference compared to 18MP APS-C and even 22MP FF seems to be not quite as good. Google it  . It does scale nicely up to 30-40MP, even if it is foliage landscape. However, D800E may have the edge, but it's not like night and day difference .


----------



## jrista (Sep 28, 2012)

ecka said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



I think your falling into the same trap as most when comparing a Foveon with a Bayer. Bayer is only limited relative to Foveon in terms of *color fidelity.* A layered sensor design is capable of much greater color fidelity and accuracy because its capturing a full quantity of color information at every photosite. That also gives it another slight edge as it does not need a low-pass filter to eliminate color moire, since color moire doesn't exhibit. However Bayer sensors ARE detecting luminance data at every photosite, and there is no question they are capable of discerning a finer gradation of detail than a Foveon sensor...DESPITE the fact that their pixels are interpolated. I'm not sure an 18mp FF sensor is really going to be a significant edge, resolution wise, over a Foveon. But an 18mp APS-C sensor is going to resolve considerably more detail than a 15mp Foveon, and for that matter more detail than a 36.3mp sensor. Similarly, a 46.1mp FF sensor is going to be capable of the same resolving power as an 18mp APS-C. 

The three-fold difference in luminance resolution and a far greater number of color pixels, several stops better ISO performance, and much greater spatial resolution, even when factoring in interpolation, gives a significant edge to Bayer in this case.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 28, 2012)

jrista said:


> ..the patent from Canon for a layered sensor design. I've looked at it a few times, and I'm not sure it compared to the current Foveon patens from Sigma, but I really hope/wish they would develop the technology further. I could totally go for a 22mp layered sensor.



they could, maybe
but isn't that layered sensor exactly what they're now using as the color-sensitive AE sensor that's been used in most bodies since the 7D came out with it...
I like it, metering and AWB has been much better since it's arrived


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 28, 2012)

jrista said:


> Ditto. I was pretty excited when I saw the patent from Canon for a layered sensor design. I've looked at it a few times, and I'm not sure it compared to the current Foveon patens from Sigma, but I really hope/wish they would develop the technology further. I could totally go for a 22mp layered sensor.



Maybe the 3D is a 46 MP *layered* sensor. Shut all the Nikon guys up ;D

Only problem is that if that were true it would cost $10k


----------



## Aglet (Sep 28, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Ditto. I was pretty excited when I saw the patent from Canon for a layered sensor design. I've looked at it a few times, and I'm not sure it compared to the current Foveon patens from Sigma, but I really hope/wish they would develop the technology further. I could totally go for a 22mp layered sensor.
> ...



I asked a Canon rep if they intended to do anything like that back when Foveon first hit the scene.
The negative response was, of course, meaningless.
Like politicians, mfrs will deny deny deny until it suits them to do otherwise.
So, here's hoping Canon has some geniune ingenuity to show us for next year.

Somehow I can just imaging their engineering staff pacing feverishly, saying, _"Dammit! How could you announce something like that?!? We don't even have a working prototype!"_


----------



## PVS (Sep 28, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> *I can discuss facts whenever you want
> I do not think I am the one who has trouble to understands facts= DR full well capacity, QE and read out noise+ banding and pattern noise*



First of all - all that bolding is childish and unnecessary, it doesn't really help you make your point come through, it just makes you seem rude.

Secondly, stop confusing DR with exposure latitude, DR isn't actually about how much you can under/over expose, especially not about doing it in post-process. Seriously.


----------



## rpt (Sep 28, 2012)

Aglet said:


> Somehow I can just imaging their engineering staff pacing feverishly, saying, _"Dammit! How could you announce something like that?!? We don't even have a working prototype!"_


I know the feeling. When you are hit with that kind of situation as the person responsible for delivery, you are angry and wonder "what were they thinking?". But then in hindsight, it is better to be challenged rather than be left alone in one's comfort zone. This is the story about a multitasking communication software my group developed that worked on DOS 3.x! And for those who wonder why it is a big deal, well one is only allowed to use the words "multitasking" and "DOS" in a sentence when the word "NOT" is placed in between them...


----------



## Meh (Sep 28, 2012)

@dtaylor and @jrista...... +1 as usual

People please listen to what these gentlemen are saying and ignore all the rest


----------



## ecka (Sep 28, 2012)

jrista said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > I mentioned the Foveon X3 as a benchmark for Bayer sensor in terms of resolution (per-pixel color accuracy at low ISO).
> ...



I get it, you (me too; we) take "quantity over quality" , because it is good enough and because Foveon X3 is worse in many other ways (obviously). However, that doesn't change anything. Foveon X3 is still a benchmark for Bayer sensor resolution.


> 18mp APS-C sensor is going to resolve considerably more detail than a 15mp Foveon


I disagree. 15mp Foveon will give you more 'true data' of what you are shooting, because considerable amount of 18mp Bayer resolution is fake+destroyed, due to false color and AA filter. For screen, 2x2 pixel binning eliminates those problems and gives us Foveon-like quality at 1/4 of the original sensor resolution (~5mp is plenty for screen, including some cropping). For print, 15mp Foveon with 1.5-2x interpolation is an adequate competition for today's 20+mp Bayer output.
18mp APS-C is going to resolve more detail than 18mp FF? This is only true if you are measuring mp/inch, which is ridiculous, because for current level of technology 'same image resolution / smaller pixels = lower IQ'. Let's keep it at mp/image level.
I'm not sure if Foveon could evolve into something much better, but future cameras may have Bayer sensors with hundreds of megapixels and high levels of pixel binning - like 4x4 sRAW for clean Foveon-like 20+mp resolution at high ISO settings and/or higher fps, 3x3 mRAW or 2x2 standart RAW. That's my vision .


----------



## ecka (Sep 28, 2012)

hjulenissen said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > I suggest you start reading more carefully. I never said that I care more about the cow than the milk. I care about both actually.
> ...



3mp camera with fantastic per-pixel performance won't produce poor quality images. It will produce fantastic 3mp images. Why it is so hard to understand? :-\
If 36mp camera has mediocre per-pixel performance and fantastic image quality, then perhaps it means that you don't need 36mp for what you do. 20mp camera may be just as good and even better in term of high ISO, fps, file size, etc. Why do you need those useless, false, made-up bits of information?


----------

