Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BobShaw on August 25, 2016, 01:12:31 am
-
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV - Body Only or 24-70 f2.8
30.4 Megapixel Full Frame CMOS Sensor with Dual Pixel RAW
DIGIC 6+ Image Processor
7 FPS Burst Mode Shooting
4K Video Recording 24, 25 and 30fps
61-Point Autofocus with 41 Cross-type Points
3.2” Touchscreen LCD Monitor
Dust and Weather Sealed Construction
Dual SD and CF Memory Cards Slots
-
I'm surprised there wasn't more interest here when the really solid rumours came out over the last few weeks.
It looks like a significant step up from the 5D3, and a really solid body for anyone who doesn't need super high resolution and shoots moving subjects.
Sure, it looks incremental on spec alone. But it's all in the detail:
- Canon's made a big leap in DR over their previous-generation sensors. I would expect this to outperform even the 1Dx2 in whole-image DR, perhaps by as much as half a stop. Certainly not class-leading, but it closes the gap significantly and makes the DR gap less of a deal-breaker.
- Dual-pixel RAW. This allows some refocusing during RAW conversion, after the image has been taken. This is huge! How many compositionally-great shots have been ruined because the camera focused on an eyelash rather than on the subject's eye, or focused on the ear or snout rather than the eye of an animal? It also allows for mitigation of diffraction effects.
Needless to say, it looks pretty good for wedding and event photographers. Depending on how effective post-exposure refocusing turns out to be, this could also be great for photojournalism and wildlife photography.
I want to see what Sony manages to bring out in the A9. Even the A7r2 never misses a (human) eye...
-
- Dual-pixel RAW. This allows some refocusing during RAW conversion, after the image has been taken. This is huge! How many compositionally-great shots have been ruined because the camera focused on an eyelash rather than on the subject's eye, or focused on the ear or snout rather than the eye of an animal? It also allows for mitigation of diffraction effects.
Needless to say, it looks pretty good for wedding and event photographers. Depending on how effective post-exposure refocusing turns out to be, this could also be great for photojournalism and wildlife photography.
This is interesting and Canon has managed to generate a tiny bit of GAS in me with this innovation for the first time in years! ;) It remains to be seen what degree of re-focusing is possible considering that the 2 "sensors" are extremely close to each others.
Now, is this capability going to be available in raw converters other than CPP? It seems a bit doubtful and if it is CPP only, would this not cause problems with lack of color consistency if you need to process in CPP a sub-set of your images where "re-focusing" is needed and the bulk in your raw converter of choice?
Overall the 5Dmkiv sounds like a solid upgrade.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If only they'd upgrade the 5Ds with the same technology.
Out of all Canon cameras, that's probably the one which could have most used the increased DR and dual-pixel technology. But it was the last full-frame camera released without it.
-
It remains to be seen what degree of re-focusing is possible
From the preview article on DPR https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-first-impressions-review it's sounding like a very subtle option. I'd guess it will only be of use to a minority of users shooting very low DoF work.
is this capability going to be available in raw converters other than CPP?
The other question is not just will the capability be available, but will the big files will be usable at all ?
Then there's the question of do you want the, probably very minor, benefits the format offers at the price of double the amount of data to store and manipulate ?
Another interesting question this asks is will there be a way of choosing which of the two viewpoints you want, then extracting that RAW file from the big file ? I doubt that will be an immediate option, but maybe one for some independent software authors.
We'll have to wait for the answers.
-
From the preview article on DPR https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-first-impressions-review it's sounding like a very subtle option. I'd guess it will only be of use to a minority of users shooting very low DoF work.
That's often all it needs.
The ones where you look at the thumbnail or the 12.5% zoom and think, 'Great shot', only to zoom in to 100% and think, 'D'oh! It focused on the eyelash/snout/ears'. That actually works out to a fair number of shots.
It can compensate for mechanical/electronic error, not human error. It's not designed to save the ones where you should have focused on a completely different subject. But those aren't usually the shots you really want to save, anyway.
-
That's often all it needs.
If this is just an either or, it still might not move in the correct direction anyway. We'll have to wait and see how it's implemented in practice.
That actually works out to a fair number of shots.
Maybe for you, for many others it's simply not an issue in the first place.
-
Looks good, but I wonder will it have auto micro AF adjustment like the new Nikons ?
-
I'll just add that having used a friend's 1DX2 on a shoot last week, the latest iteration Canon PDAF using liveview/touch screen is absolutely epic.
I was doing continuous autofocus on a moving subject with a 70-200 mm lens, locking onto her face in an instant when I tapped the screen, and keeping it in focus as she moved around the frame, only starting to hunt when she left frame.
And being PDAF using the image sensor, there's no need for AF microadjustment- and back or front focus issues with lenses goes away, because it is focussing on the actual image plane in real time.
It was better than me with a follow focus rig, for sure. And it is useable in stills mode using live view.
I gather the 5D Mark IV has the same tech. With that plus Canon skin tones and promised improved dynamic range, I'll be checking it out.
5D cameras are always great all-rounders.
Cheers, Hywel
-
Maybe for you, for many others it's simply not an issue in the first place.
So, what's your magic formula for making an AF system lock onto the exact feature you want?
The AF picks a feature within the AF point you've chosen, and that's not always going to be the eye.
-
So, what's your magic formula for making an AF system lock onto the exact feature you want?
I mainly photograph static objects. Luminous LANDSCAPE
But even for people shots I've never really had big problems. Just shoot at a sensible aperture and make sure the AF micro setting is correct.
-
Now, is this capability going to be available in raw converters
Adobe needs to update DNG spec first...
-
The HDR compressed video is interesting - I wonder whether it can do non-tone-mapped HDR video.
Edmund
-
The "Wedding Speciale"
-
The HDR compressed video is interesting - I wonder whether it can do non-tone-mapped HDR video.
Edmund
Every digital image you've ever seen - whether made from one exposure or multiple exposures - has been tone-mapped. So, no.
Ever seen an image processed with a flat response curve? (even a flat line is a tone-mapping curve of sorts). It looks awful - most of the image appears black. That's because the human eye doesn't have a flat response curve either. A tone mapping curve is a vital component in converting sensor data into an image. It's not the sole preserve of HDR images.
Bad tone mapping curves and excessive local contrast enhancement (usually with excessive radius)? That's what gives HDR a bad name, but is just as easily applied to single exposures.
-
I'm surprised there wasn't more interest here when the really solid rumours came out over the last few weeks.
LuLa has camera cliques and EOS does not have one here now. The current ones are the elite Leica/Hassy/P1 crowds and the geriatric Sony mirrorless crowd. :)
-
LuLa has camera cliques and EOS does not have one here now. The current ones are the elite Leica/Hassy/P1 crowds and the geriatric Sony mirrorless crowd. :)
I thought all the octogenarians were still using Leica film rangefinders, not Sony mirrorless...
I don't understand the cliques. Prefer to use whatever works best for the situation. Right now, that means A7r2, Zeiss/Canon/Leica/Sigma lenses and stitching for landscapes/non-action, and Canon bodies/lenses for things that move. And the most useful thing anyone could bring out wouldn't be a body or a lens, but a drone/gimbal combination stable enough for a multi-second exposure while hovering.
-
And the most useful thing anyone could bring out wouldn't be a body or a lens, but a drone/gimbal combination stable enough for a multi-second exposure while hovering.
Only for a few hundred people in the world. Niche within a niche.
Most would just like to see prices drop significantly.
-
Only for a few hundred people in the world. Niche within a niche.
Nope - they'd sell millions of stripped-down versions to people using them to shoot selfies and group shots from longer-than-stick range.
Cue the full-sized version for landscape and architectural photographers wanting to shoot from a vantage point other than ground level on solid ground.
-
Yes, looks like a solid update. A nice improvement an existing workhorse. A jack of all trades!
One always wishes for more but you kind of know that what you are getting is an incremental improvement. The dual pixel processing was a surprise.
I currently own the 5D3 and A7R2. The improved 5D4 sensor will be welcomed.
-
Yes, looks like a solid update. A nice improvement an existing workhorse. A jack of all trades!
One always wishes for more but you kind of know that what you are getting is an incremental improvement. The dual pixel processing was a surprise.
I currently own the 5D3 and A7R2. The improved 5D4 sensor will be welcomed.
A worthwhile update, no doubt.
But a "jack of all trades"? Some future 5Dmk7 may become one, if by that time Canon drops their Cinema line, of which they are currently so protective. Or a Magic Lantern FW becomes widely available for 5D's, enabling decent movie formats and possibly implementing 4k with supersampling and w/o that horrendous crop... On Nikon ups their game in video dept to the point Canon would have to un-cripple their non-Cinema FF offerings.
One of the reasons my 5Dmk2 is now collecting dust is that, after Sony a6000, I cannot stand its horrible AF (mainly focus/recompose) anymore. Yeah, it was an oh-so-smart move, to cripple 5Dmk2 to "protect" their 1D series, and cripple Ms to protect their DSLRs... Did they make me buy 1D (for AF) or crop DSLR (for size/weight)? Nope, they made me switch.
Canon obviously have some other people in mind, not me, when they decide on feature sets of their products. OK, fair enough, who am I to question their ways? Net result though is that I for one watch new Canon offerings as if they were in some parallel universe. Interesting, yes, but completely irrelevant.
shadowblade noted that there weren't much interest... Well, that (^^^) was why; at least for me.
-
Depending on the increase in dynamic range, I could have a bit of GAS for this. What I really need is a brain upgrade.
-
I thought all the octogenarians were still using Leica film rangefinders, not Sony mirrorless...
wrong! octogenerians are using Sony mirrorless (who else can afford FE lenses and needs in body stabilization) while millenials are as crazy about Leica film rangefinders as baby boomers were about Ford Falcons
-
wrong! octogenerians are using Sony mirrorless (who else can afford FE lenses and needs in body stabilization) while millenials are as crazy about Leica film rangefinders as baby boomers were about Ford Falcons
The closest most octogenarians get to a camera is a colonoscopy.
On second thoughts, that's actually pretty close...
-
The closest most octogenarians get to a camera is a colonoscopy.
On second thoughts, that's actually pretty close...
I think this is a case where one is free to tell someone that he is speaking with his ...
Edmund
-
Now, is this capability going to be available in raw converters other than CPP?
Well Adobe say they're working on it http://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-to-support-dual-pixel-raw-photo-format-in-canon-5d-mark-iv/
Not sure I'd bet when it might actually arrive or how well it will work first time though.
-
Well Adobe say they're working on it http://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-to-support-dual-pixel-raw-photo-format-in-canon-5d-mark-iv/
Very nice, it's also an incentive for Capture One to add deconvolution sharpening (if that's what's used) to it's capabilities, and employ that for this new feature.
Not sure I'd bet when it might actually arrive or how well it will work first time though.
I'd assume that would require Adobe to use a better Deconvolution quality than what's been used in the Details panel so far, so it may take a few iterations to get it right (like initially abysmal Fuji Xtrans, and relatively poor Pentax multishot Raws).
At least Canon has shown (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcQ9MSRRvn4) what is possible with Dual pixels (beyond 'Real time' Phase Focus in Video and Live View), now competition has a goal to work towards or surpass if possible. Healthy competition is good for innovation.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. The street example in this Swedish article (http://www.kamerabild.se/tester/vi-har-provat-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv?nodePage=3) demonstrates a significant correction range for refocusing.
-
Well Adobe say they're working on it http://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-to-support-dual-pixel-raw-photo-format-in-canon-5d-mark-iv/
Not sure I'd bet when it might actually arrive or how well it will work first time though.
they have to change the DNG standard for that... because in Adobe's world : raw - (using Adobe's software) - > dng -> ACR/LR must be exactly the same as raw -> ACR/LR ... or meanwhile they can use crippled method with linear DNGs, just like was the situation with Panasonic optics correction data in RW2 raw file... for quite some time RW2 -> DNG was only possible with linear (= demosaicked) DNGs... until Adobe updated DNG standard to support relevant tags.
-
now competition
Adobe hardly consider DPP as a competition for LR ... no DAM for example
-
Adobe hardly consider DPP as a competition for LR ... no DAM for example
Correct, and it shows in Raw conversion image quality. Most people value the DPP image quality and colors, although the postprocessing possibilities of LR/ACR are more extensive. But that's more about postprocessing than image quality.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The closest most octogenarians get to a camera is ... their phone! Phones are much more pleasant than colonoscopies.
-
The closest most octogenarians get to a camera is ... their phone! Phones are much more pleasant than colonoscopies.
Many of my 80-year-old patients don't have smartphones. The majority are also either too demented to use a camera, lack the eyesight to use one, require both hands on a walking frame, are too arthritic to press the buttons or are so shaky they struggle with a spoon, let alone a camera.
-
Well, there's one of the major health care issues of the day - health disparity related to income disparity. The seniors who are healthy at age 60 and who use modern tech (generally top quintile of income, or second quintile and savvy) are the ones that will live to over 80 and be able to use autofocus phone cams. My social circle has lots of vigorous older people. My neighbor is a 99 year old musician. My camera club members' average age is 55 to 60. Skewed sample! General population is as you describe, frail or with bad eyesight at age 80.
-
At least Canon has shown (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcQ9MSRRvn4) what is possible with Dual pixels (beyond 'Real time' Phase Focus in Video and Live View),
Looking at what DPReview have achieved with it https://www.dpreview.com/news/1177471835/testing-image-microadjust-on-the-canon-5d-mark-iv it's not worth worrying about.
"However, the degree of correction we're seeing is so small that we wonder whether it's worth the additional effort "
Given the extra overheads and penalties of bigger files sizes with all the penalties incurred with that and the potential problems with file compatibility, it seems a bit of a non-feature to me.
-
Looking at what DPReview have achieved with it https://www.dpreview.com/news/1177471835/testing-image-microadjust-on-the-canon-5d-mark-iv (https://www.dpreview.com/news/1177471835/testing-image-microadjust-on-the-canon-5d-mark-iv) it's not worth worrying about.
It's a joke! Not a huge fan but DPR did some interesting testing to reveal three options where one was acceptable and two unacceptable. Want Bumps for this, upgrading from a 5DMII, less bumpy ;D .
-
Wow, the internet is aglow with crap about 5DIV video.
Honestly, I'm more interested in Trumps opinion on Mexican hair care products than video.
What's it like for photos folks ?
-
I don't get all the complaints, apart from the fact every Canon 5D release has the same effect. It seems like a decent upgrade, some solid new features and a bit of innovation too. I will reserve judgement till later - lets see how the Dynamic Range pans out.
-
Now this may not be a joke (thanks to Illiah for brining this to my attention):
http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Canon-dual-pixel-technology (http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Canon-dual-pixel-technology)
-
Now this may not be a joke (thanks to Illiah for brining this to my attention):
http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Canon-dual-pixel-technology (http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Canon-dual-pixel-technology)
Interesting article, thanks for the link. There may indeed be the way to gain additional stop in hightlights. That said, it seems to be Canon themselves who's blowing them; quote from the article:
PS Low ISO raw files from other recent Canon camera models do not reach the maximum number, 16383, possible with 14-bit data; Canon 5D Mark IV does. So, the main subframe may be formed by adding the data numbers from both subpixels and clipping the result to 16383, while the auxiliary subframe contains the data for only one set of subpixels, and at base ISO it seems to be "full-well limited".
That is, those channels/subframes originally have good, non-saturated/unclipped data. Then, instead of averaging them, they add them (thus blowing some highlights) and clip, making recovery of the second channel (the one not stored in the RAW) impossible. Yes, still having at least one of the original channels is very nice, but why not store the original frame/channel data?
P.S. Canon should also get credit for not calling 5Dmk4 a "60-megapixel camera" as at least one other company we all know would ;)
-
why not store the original frame/channel data?
BTW, one of the reasons I can think of myself is maintaining better compatibility with existing RAW converters. After all, if they keep the range <black-level>..16,383, existing converters can basically ignore the subframe and just treat the main frame as the only one, so required changes for converters to be able to somehow process dual-pixel RAW files would be absolutely minimal.
Then again, that seems to be a heavy price to pay for missed opportunities...
-
If one is to average both, he needs to normalize them first to prevent banding. Normalization makes subtraction to restore the "B" pixels values problematic, not to mention that such normalization is problematic in itself, and Canon already suffered a lot of badmouthing for noise and especially for banding. Another variable that we do not know yet is the non-linearity of the highest 1 stop in the aux raw. If it is highly non-linear, I can see why Canon decided on clipping of the sum. Migrating to 15-bit format would be logical solution, but all third-party raw converters will be off-line for half a year or so (unless, of course, Canon would publicly document the new format, fat chance, really). Having no alternative to DPP folks would start complaining, that lesson from Kodak failure is well-learnt by both Canon and Nikon, and I think SONY are also realizing that. IMHO another reason not to go to 15-bit format for the main subframe is that that would also cause serious size increase, with very marginal benefit. On a side note, nothing is cast in stone, Canon may be changing firmware as we speak ;)
-
Now this may not be a joke (thanks to Illiah for brining this to my attention):
http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Canon-dual-pixel-technology (http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Canon-dual-pixel-technology)
Interesting, but just because the data is there doesn't mean we can easily(ever ?) utilise it.
-
Interesting, but just because the data is there doesn't mean we can easily(ever ?) utilise it.
Why not? It may take a bit of time before software developers pick it up because it's not mainstream yet, but if there are advantages besides faster and more accurate focus, someone will exploit it.
I also disagree with those who say that it's a joke. Maybe they see no benefit for their limited use, and based on the minimal effect it has on refocusing a 35 mm (!) Wide angle lens, but that doesn't mean it cannot be useful for others.
Once the data is captured, it's up to the software engineers to exploit what's possible with that data. Many people are unaware of a booming development in R&D, called Computational Photography. We are now only seeing the first practical steps of what has been in the making for many years and what will additionally be possible several years from now.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Why not?
In the real world the software companies won't bother going to expensive lengths to support a minor feature on a single camera model, it would make no economic sense.
Not even Canon have bothered with their own software.
-
In the real world the software companies won't bother going to expensive lengths to support a minor feature on a single camera model, it would make no economic sense.
Not even Canon have bothered with their own software.
Are we talking about the same thing???
Digital Photo Professional, Canon's free Raw converter utilizes the dual pixel technology in post-processing or those Raws that can also record the data. Who's to say other companies won't adopt similar (patents may apply) technology?
You say Never, I say never say Never.
Cheers,
Bart
-
In the real world the software companies won't bother going to expensive lengths to support a minor feature on a single camera model, it would make no economic sense.
Not even Canon have bothered with their own software.
Not all is lost as of yet! ;D
http://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-to-support-dual-pixel-raw-photo-format-in-canon-5d-mark-iv/
-
Yes, the 'format' may be 'supported' but they don't say that they're supporting potential the extra stop of DR. They only mention the focus/Brokeh/flare issues.
There's no mention of extracting an extra stop of DR from the files. Given the ludicrous amount importance this aspect seems to command at the moment, I would have expected Canon to shout about it if it was available.
-
Not all is lost as of yet! ;D
http://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-to-support-dual-pixel-raw-photo-format-in-canon-5d-mark-iv/
Iliah, quick ( :P ) question: can this dual-pixel format be represented as a DNG?
In other words, imagine Canon had adopted DNG as their format some time ago. Would there be way to represent this data in a DNG in a meaningful way, so that not only use DNG as a container, but specify the "meaning" of the extra data? So that converters would "know" what to do with it?
-
Not all is lost as of yet! ;D
http://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-to-support-dual-pixel-raw-photo-format-in-canon-5d-mark-iv/ (http://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-to-support-dual-pixel-raw-photo-format-in-canon-5d-mark-iv/)
No, it's not lost in our real world (the one where speculation and FUD is not accepted so easily)! ;D
-
> can this dual-pixel format be represented as a DNG?
Same way it is with Fuji S5 and other dual-pixel Fuji cameras.
> imagine Canon had adopted DNG as their format
Well, that's somewhat hard to imagine.
> Would there be way to represent this data in a DNG in a meaningful way, so that not only use DNG as a container, but specify the "meaning" of the extra data? So that converters would "know" what to do with it?
That would mean publishing the document that specifies what are the interpretations for Canon undocumented Makernote tags ::)
-
> can this dual-pixel format be represented as a DNG?
Same way it is with Fuji S5 and other dual-pixel Fuji cameras.
> imagine Canon had adopted DNG as their format
Well, that's somewhat hard to imagine.
> Would there be way to represent this data in a DNG in a meaningful way, so that not only use DNG as a container, but specify the "meaning" of the extra data? So that converters would "know" what to do with it?
That would mean publishing the document that specifies what are the interpretations for Canon undocumented Makernote tags ::)
OK... There are indeed questions that can't be answered with simple "Yes" or "No" (like, say, "Did you quit drinking cognac every morning?"), but I'll still take the liberty of interpreting your answer as a "No".
You see, every now and then there's outcry on these forums: "Just adopt DNG already! The only reason manufacturers don't do that is the sizes of their egos!", whereas my answer had always been it's far more complicated than that. Semantics/interpretation of new data (e.g. this dual-pixel layout) is one complication, competitive advantage (e.g. Sony's compression, which I personally consider brilliant) is another, and so on and so forth...
-
> There's no mention of extracting an extra stop of DR from the files.
Why, to get answers one needs to meet the right people, have the right reputation, and ask the right questions.
> I would have expected Canon to shout about it if it was available.
Given the level of comprehension, they should not, or they will be asked why they trimmed it before ;D
-
> "Did you quit drinking cognac every morning?"
That's an easy one. Replace cognac with a single malt, and the answer is "No". I have it in my morning coffee.
> You see, every now and then there's outcry on these forums: "Just adopt DNG already!
Right. But just adopting DNG does not solve much. Opening the format solves more. Question of meta-metadata ;)
-
> can this dual-pixel format be represented as a DNG?
Same way it is with Fuji S5 and other dual-pixel Fuji cameras.
except it is still different (given the possible usage for "focus adjustment" - you can't do this with Fuji data), so while you can purely technically physically write it it is not exactly documented (in DNG standard that is) for software to interpret it and the whole point is in that.
-
except it is still different (given the possible usage for "focus adjustment" - you can't do this with Fuji data), so while you can purely technically physically write it it is not exactly documented for software to interpret it and the whole point is in that.
I was a bit sarcastic. Parallax between those 2 sub-pixels, by the way, is not enough for meaningful re-focusing. It is useful, however, for selective sharpening and blurring in conversion. Fuji indeed is a different case from this point of view, literally.
-
Digital Photo Professional, Canon's free Raw converter utilizes the dual pixel technology in post-processing
but (unless I am grossly mistaken) DPP does not use half-sensel data for clipped /in combined frame/ data "restoration", does it ?
-
It is useful, however, for selective sharpening and blurring in conversion.
certainly if a pair of subsensels tells that their sensel belongs to the area which is sufficiently within DOF you might want to apply sharpening proportionally based on how much it is defocused (estimated)... if a pair of subsensels tells that their sensel belongs to the area which is sufficiently OOF you might want to blur that instead, do heavy denoising (and not sharpen at all) for a better background rendering... and attempts at LoCA correction as well can be made differently based on that
-
certainly if a pair of subsensels tells that their sensel belongs to the area which is sufficiently within DOF you might want to apply sharpening proportionally based on how much it is defocused (estimated)... if a pair of subsensels tells that their sensel belongs to the area which is sufficiently OOF you might want to blur that instead, do heavy denoising (and not sharpen at all) for a better background rendering... and attempts at LoCA correction as well can be made differently based on that
True. 5D4 gives a taste of the things to come with more pixel density in regular-sized sensors.
-
but (unless I am grossly mistaken) DPP does not use half-sensel data for clipped /in combined frame/ data "restoration", does it ?
No, not as a separate function, but maybe they do something with it in regular exposure correction? DPP has never been a good tool for highlight recovery, maybe they assume that a photographer knows how to correctly expose an image?
There is a small issue, and that is that the dual pixels are sampling at a slightly (half a pixel) different position so strictly the signals do not share the same input signal, which they do after binning for the main Raw plane. How that would work out when one wants to use it for highlight recovery remains to be seen. It was not designed for that purpose.
Cheers,
Bart
-
> There is a small issue, and that is that the dual pixels are sampling at a slightly (half a pixel) different position so strictly the signals do not share the same input signal, which they do after binning for the main Raw plane. How that would work out when one wants to use it for highlight recovery remains to be seen.
Consider this raw, dual-pixel, ISO 400:
http://www.kamerabild.se/sites/kamerabild.se/files/_91A0045.CR2
The main frame:
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/IliahBorg/_91A0045-20160831-153739-RawDigger-ScreenShot.png)
The auxiliary frame:
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/IliahBorg/_91A0045-20160831-153806-RawDigger-ScreenShot.png)
IMHO well worth working to make that sky rendered not as a blob ;)
-
I have the usual issue of not understanding what the fuss is about, and why DNG always creeps into the discussion.
This is a case of spatially offset multiple level sensing, the Fujis did it too. No theoretical innovation here. For me the problem is there is no "canonical" image. But maybe that was the case with Bayer also? To me, reconstituted imagery is hamburger rather than steak. Adobe serve a mediocre meal which please most comers, while Illiah is a master of cooking the hamburger for gourmets, but -no disrespect- that still doesn't unchop the meat. And you still have different sampling frequencies for RB and G, with all the afferent effects.
Edmund
-
I have the usual issue of not understanding what the fuss is about, and why DNG always creeps into the discussion.
This is a case of spatially offset multiple level sensing, the Fujis did it too. No theoretical innovation here. For me the problem is there is no "canonical" image. But maybe that was the case with Bayer also? To me, reconstituted imagery is hamburger rather than steak. Illiah is a master of cooking the hamburger, but that still doesn't unchop the meat.
Edmund
Life in Russia teaches you to cook from whatever you have available. Ever heard of kasha cooked from an axe? ;) http://lukoshko.net/story/kasha-iz-topora.htm
-
Life in Russia teaches you to cook from whatever you have available. Ever heard of kasha cooked from an axe? ;) http://lukoshko.net/story/kasha-iz-topora.htm
I'm sorry it's written in strange monky letters which I cannot effort to understand :)
Edmund
-
I'm sorry it's written in strange monky letters which I cannot effort to understand :)
Edmund
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Soup ;)
-
why DNG always creeps into the discussion.
Because it is much more appropriate to discuss its inherent limitations when we have real case on our hands, with some real technical details.
Anyway, it is much, much more appropriate to discuss it here than in a "dedicated thread": "Oh dear Lord, ACR xx.yy is out, and it still does not support Z! If only those stupid, stubborn manufacturers adopted DNG! Let's file another petition blah blah blah"...
-
Anyway, it is much, much more appropriate to discuss it here than in a "dedicated thread": "Oh dear Lord, ACR xx.yy is out, and it still does not support Z! If only those stupid, stubborn manufacturers adopted DNG!
Which of course would be true; ACR, LR and every 3rd party raw converter today would be able to access that (our) raw data (new feature or otherwise). Today, only one will (new feature or otherwise) and that's the one from Canon. If you don't think it cost companies and thus their customers money for this updating silliness, probably not worth continuing.
-
I have the usual issue of not understanding what the fuss is about, and why DNG always creeps into the discussion.
because ACR/LR have a huge marketshare __AND__ the way Adobe code works /it is their strategic goal/ : raw -> (Adobe code capable to do conversion) -> dng -> ACR/LR must be exactly the same as raw -> ACR/LR
-
Which of course would be true; ACR, LR and every 3rd party raw converter today would be able to access that (our) raw data (new feature or otherwise). Today, only one will (new feature or otherwise) and that's the one from Canon. If you don't think it cost companies and thus their customers money for this updating silliness, probably not worth continuing.
and did Adobe update the DNG standard to provide the documented way to use sub sensel data frame for the purposes DPP uses it ? so the same question comes again as when Panasonic introduced the optics correction in RW2 raw files and the time it took Adobe to get the new version of DNG standard out to account for those new features... as many times noted (including this thread already) - the core issue is that manufacturer does not want make the information public (DNG or not - does not matter)... so dcraw code and refactored/enhanced derivatives like libraw are acting as DNG standard (in terms of describing how to access and interpret data)... and why is it that you never worry about Adobe owning your parametric adjustments instead of documenting them so that you can take your work /namely raw conversion you invested your time in/ elsewhere ?
-
IMHO well worth working to make that sky rendered not as a blob ;)
Hi Iliah,
Yes, sky is low enough in detail that both half pixels see approximately the same input. Things may be different in areas with very high detail, near the Nyquist frequency, and with a Bayer CFA that has a different sampling density for Green versus Red/Blue. Small specular highlights, stars / starbursts / glint, highlights on jewelry, sharp roof edges or similar.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Iliah,
Yes, sky is low enough in detail that both half pixels see approximately the same input. Things may be different in areas with very high detail, near the Nyquist frequency, and with a Bayer CFA that has a different sampling density for Green versus Red/Blue. Small specular highlights, stars / starbursts / glint, highlights on jewelry, sharp roof edges or similar.
Cheers,
Bart
Well, I'm not ready to make that much of the tiny difference between those two subpixels. If you look at what demosaicking does, you may see the error there outweights many optical factors. Not to mention that the problem with blown-out sky is important enough in itself to be addressed.
-
and did Adobe update the DNG standard to provide the documented way to use sub sensel data frame for the purposes DPP uses it ?
No idea but does DPP support DNG? If not, it's moot.
-
because ACR/LR have a huge marketshare __AND__ the way Adobe code works /it is their strategic goal/ : raw -> (Adobe code capable to do conversion) -> dng -> ACR/LR must be exactly the same as raw -> ACR/LR
Not sure converting to dng is one of strategic goals for Adobe.
-
Not sure converting to dng is one of strategic goals for Adobe.
Or as many incorrectly suggest, a means as a forced upgrade (just saw that silly idea today on the Adobe forums). Without a free DNG converter, people with older versions of ACR/LR would have to update their software to use a new camera. They can work with their old Adobe software with the new cameras as long as their computers/OS can run that old Adobe software product. Adobe gets heat for providing a free method of accessing the data they own and should be able to use from day one of a camera release in older Adobe software products. The horror, the horror!
-
Or as many incorrectly suggest, a means as a forced upgrade (just saw that silly idea today on the Adobe forums). Without a free DNG converter, people with older versions of ACR/LR would have to update their software to use a new camera. They can work with their old Adobe software with the new cameras as long as their computers/OS can run that old Adobe software product. Adobe gets heat for providing a free method of accessing the data they own and should be able to use from day one of a camera release in older Adobe software products. The horror, the horror!
Well, I think we can thank Barry Pearson for his over-zeal.
-
Well, I'm not ready to make that much of the tiny difference between those two subpixels. If you look at what demosaicking does, you may see the error there outweights many optical factors. Not to mention that the problem with blown-out sky is important enough in itself to be addressed.
Off-forum I said that if the pixels are square, then the 5D4 would be a 45Mp camera if correctly processed; somebody smarter than me pointed out that if it were monochrome it would be 60Mp. So I think one might agree that those subpixels can be made to work a bit harder by means of smart de-bayering or rather de-canoning.
Edmund
-
They agreed to dolls and mirrors, problem solved ;)
-
They agreed to dolls and mirrors, problem solved ;)
Ah, more color, less neutrality. Neat.
Edmund
-
Actually the IV is a good example of why a company needs to have its own converter.
DNG considered harmful.
Edmund
-
How did they miss the chance to release this camera without an AA filter?
Didn't Canon learn that the AA is mostly a non issue for stills? And this being mainly a still, they could have done a version without a AA. If this didn't have the AA filter, I would be excited. I do wish it competed to at least 36-42mpixels to at least edge the Sony.
I guess this means wait for the 5DsRII
-
Not sure converting to dng is one of strategic goals for Adobe.
I did not say converting (as in Adobe wants all people to convert their non DNG raw files to DNG)... I said that Adobe writes the code in such manner that both options will produce the identical result/output... they have to
-
That would be a nice touch...even nicer if it was removable wireless :-)
-
Same here. Still keeping my 6D. No true incentives for me.
I've been waiting for years now to see an articulated LCD screen in a pro Canon camera. Seems like it's never gonna happen :(
-
this might be of interest
http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Canon-dual-pixel-technology
one stop extra in the highlights
-
this might be of interest
http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Canon-dual-pixel-technology
one stop extra in the highlights
Of course, that doesn't tell us what the base DR of the sensor is...
Either way, with increased DR compared to the 5D3 due to the on-sensor ADC, as well as a further stop from dual-pixel technology, it looks promising.
I'm hoping for a 50+ MP 5Ds2 with similar technology soon. Yes, it would mean a very short product cycle for the 5Ds/5Dsr. But, so what? The 5Ds was the last camera released without the improved sensor. It's also the camera which would benefit, more than any other, from the technology, due to its intended use. The 5D4 is positioned against the D750's successor as a wedding/general-purpose camera, and looks like it will do pretty well at that (although we haven't seen what Nikon has in mind yet). The 5Ds/5Dsr are positioned directly against the D810 and A7r2, and falls flat in one of the key areas of importance for many users of such cameras. The new sensor technology can rectify this.
-
The 5D4 is positioned against the D750's successor as a wedding/general-purpose camera
https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/slrs/canon_eos5dmkiv = "The EOS 5D Mark IV will go on sale in early September with an MSRP of $3499."
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9542152490/nikon-announces-d810-full-frame-dslr = "The D810 will be available in late July for $3299.95"
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7222282087/nikon-d750-fx-dslr-announced = "The Nikon D750 will be available in September body-only for $2299.95"
do you think you will buy the successor of D750 or the successor of D8*** if you are going to buy Nikon and spend the same money ?
-
Of course, that doesn't tell us what the base DR of the sensor is...
Hi,
Assuming that Rawdigger interprets the Raw file correctly, and based on a single camera, the Base DR (@ISO 50 and ISO 100 are the same) of the sensor is about 12.64 stops. Add something like 1 stop if the Dual Raw pixels could be exploited by software during Raw conversion.
In more detail, for single pixel mode, after Black point subtraction for the Saturation level, and read noise based on the masked pixels:
Sat / sigma log2 Dynamic range
R : 15872 / 2.09 --> DR_R = 12.89
G : 15872 / 2.49 --> DR_G = 12.64
B : 15872 / 2.87 --> DR_B = 12.43
G2: 15872 / 2.44 --> DR_G2 = 12.67
Either way, with increased DR compared to the 5D3 due to the on-sensor ADC, as well as a further stop from dual-pixel technology, it looks promising.
Yes, a very attractive package.
I'm hoping for a 50+ MP 5Ds2 with similar technology soon. Yes, it would mean a very short product cycle for the 5Ds/5Dsr. But, so what?
It may not be in Canon's interest to rush things. They have a typical far away Japanese planning horizon, and tend to use steady incremental upgrades to their models. In research they are much farther ahead.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And this might be of interest
Dual pixel raw can make interesting Stereoscopic image (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58309929)
The technique is simple, just use Canon's DPP to produce two images that have Left and Right Bokeh shift applied, and use another application to turn the image pair into a Stereoscopic format. StereoPhoto Maker (http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/stphmkr/index.html) will allow to produce such stereo images (e.g. Anaglyph) from image pairs.
Since the stereo-base is very small (typically less than human vision), close-up subjects work best.
Cheers,
Bart
-
No detailed DR measure yet? Usually they come right after camera availability?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've been waiting for years now to see an articulated LCD screen in a pro Canon camera. Seems like it's never gonna happen :(
Canon can be frustrating at times with some of the things they leave in or take out. Given that I have great luck with all of their cameras. I've owned every 1ds and x camera, a bunch of 1d and only the 5d2, as the 5d3 produced a file I found harder to color and was a little too smooth for my tastes.
I guess it depends on what you shoot and what you are use to and lately Canon get's little love on forums and blogs, but they've always worked for me.
I'm not dissing Sony as they are quite innovative, though I have a difficult time with Sony color. Maybe it's me, or the fact I'm just not that use to Sonys but my a7sII seems to have a mind of it's own. Granted I shoot it mostly for motion footage and it's an 8 bit camera with a small bit rate in motion settings, but we can shoot one scene and the color is great, the next scene is like a totally different camera.
But other's rave about it's low light capabilities so maybe it's me.
BC
-
No detailed DR measure yet? Usually they come right after camera availability?
I'll answer my own question, the DxO measures of the 5Div have been published.
As expected they are significantly improved compared to previous Canon bodies and will serve all-round shooters very well.
A bit less impressive for tripod shooters where the 5D mkiv only equals the performance of an 8 years old D3x, but still good enough that most of the negative talk about Canon DR should come to a stop.
It is great to see them solve this issue!!!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'll answer my own question, the DxO measures of the 5Div have been published.
Hi Bernard,
As has been my experience before, the DxOMark figures are close to the basic values everybody can detect by using RawDigger. They of course have a more extensive series of measurements, but the basics are usually consistent with what users can determine. I expected (Reply #86 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113097.msg932379#msg932379)) an average DR of 12.64 @ base ISO , DxoMark reports a 'Screen' DR of 12.6 EV . So much for the DxOMark doubters.
As expected they are significantly improved compared to previous Canon bodies and will serve all-round shooters very well.
A bit less impressive for tripod shooters where the 5D mkiv only equals the performance of an 8 years old D3x, but still good enough that most of the negative talk about Canon DR should come to a stop.
It's a welcome improvement, but complainers will always complain.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Is that 12.6 stops with or without the extra stop from dual pixel RAW?
Just as importantly, is there any hint of pattern noise in the shadows? After all, that is what limited the 5D2's useable DR to less than 8 stops (well below the technical DR limit) and continued to impact on the 5D3, to a lesser degree.
-
Is that 12.6 stops with or without the extra stop from dual pixel RAW?
Without. AFAIK, there is currently no Raw converter that can exploit the additional stop, so that bonus is something for the future.
Just as importantly, is there any hint of pattern noise in the shadows? After all, that is what limited the 5D2's useable DR to less than 8 stops (well below the technical DR limit) and continued to impact on the 5D3, to a lesser degree.
The new sensor design apparently got rid of (most of) the pattern noise. But time and testing of multiple samples will tell.
Cheers,
Bart
-
AFAIK, there is currently no Raw converter that can exploit the additional stop, so that bonus is something for the future.
Will there ever be a bonus? Half the pixel, half the FWC. Where would the additional stop of headroom come from if the half pixel is already maxed out?
-
Will there ever be a bonus? Half the pixel, half the FWC. Where would the additional stop of headroom come from if the half pixel is already maxed out?
Hi Jack,
Half the pixel, half the FWC, but also half the photosite aperture / exposure.
The mathematical approach would be to reduce the post-processing exposure of the combine channel, and add the half pixel exposure. More elegant schemes can be made, based on clipping or highlight roll-off
Cheers,
Bart
-
Half the pixel, half the FWC, but also half the photosite aperture / exposure.
I still don't get it Bart: half the area, half the FWC. Wouldn't the full and half pixel saturate at the same exposure? With the same gain the count would be half in the saturated half pixel.
Jack
-
I still don't get it Bart: half the area, half the FWC. Wouldn't the full and half pixel saturate at the same exposure? With the same gain the count would be half in the saturated half pixel.
Hi Jack,
It seems like the full pixel is stored after summing the 2 subpixels, so if half a pixel is ETTR then the full pixel is at ETTR +1 EV (in the focus plane**). One obviously attempts to ETTR the full pixel, in which case the half pixel offers 1 additional stop of highlight recovery at ETTR -1 EV.
** Due to the phase shift at OOF areas, the registration would be have to be re-established for each pixel, which is complex and fraught with opportunity for errors, so that's probably why Canon have not implemented it.
It's an interesting find by Iliah Borg, but currently more a theoretical benefit than a practical one.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm still surprised that a full-frame format such as the 5D4 appears to have one full stop less DR at base ISO than the cropped-format Nikon D7200.
At higher ISOs the 5D4 has better DR of course, as one would expect, but not better to the same degree that the D7200 is better at base ISO. For example, between ISO1600 and 6400, the 5D4 is around 1/2 to 2/3rds of one EV better than the D7200. Only above ISO 12,800 is the 5D4 DR better by one full stop and more.
Since I never use ISOs above 6400 because of unacceptable noise in general, I don't see much advantage here with regard to 5D4's DR capability.
-
We can only hope that the D900 will leverage the same Toshiba sensor tech as the D7200. That would put us firmly over 15 stop DR and would be a real 16bits sensor, probably the first ever, although the Sony 100mp MF part may be there already.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'd find a full-frame successor to the D810, with D7200 pixels, irresistible, even at a higher price than the current D810.
The pixel count of such a camera would be 54mp, and its DR noticeably better than the current D810, as you mention, Bernard. 4k video with the facility to extract single frames in RAW, would be an attractive bonus. I'd be willing to pay extra for that also.
When one compares the 5D4 with the D7200 at the pixel level, on DXOMark graphs, the DR advantages of the 5D4 at high ISO are even less, and the DR advantages of the D7200 at base ISO are even greater than one full stop.
Cheers!
-
I'd find a full-frame successor to the D810, with D7200 pixels, irresistible, even at a higher price than the current D810.
The pixel count of such a camera would be 54mp, and its DR noticeably better than the current D810, as you mention, Bernard. 4k video with the facility to extract single frames in RAW, would be an attractive bonus. I'd be willing to pay extra for that also.
When one compares the 5D4 with the D7200 at the pixel level, on DXOMark graphs, the DR advantages of the 5D4 at high ISO are even less, and the DR advantages of the D7200 at base ISO are even greater than one full stop.
Cheers!
I'd like it in a Sony A7 body, or in a 70-80MP version for the A9 (after all, Sony owns Toshiba's imaging division). Nikon's long flange distance is rather crippling when it comes to lens selection - it can't really mount any lens that's not specifically made for the Nikon mount (apart from medium-format lenses, which don't tend to be that sharp on the smaller format).
-
I'd like it in a Sony A7 body, or in a 70-80MP version for the A9 (after all, Sony owns Toshiba's imaging division). Nikon's long flange distance is rather crippling when it comes to lens selection - it can't really mount any lens that's not specifically made for the Nikon mount (apart from medium-format lenses, which don't tend to be that sharp on the smaller format).
Hi,
All my lenses are either Canon or Nikkor. They cover the full range I want, from 14mm to 400mm, and include a selection of primes, zooms and Tilt-Shifts. I don't want the expense of buying yet more lenses, but it makes sense to get the most out of my existing lenses, and using a body with a high megapixel sensor does that.
When the Sony A7R2 was released, that seemed like an ideal solution for me, until I read of all the trouble people were having with their adapters that might work reasonably well with certain models of lens but not with others. I'm convinced that using lenses designed for the body is the best and most hassle-free approach.
Adapters also add to the weight of the system, offsetting any advantage of a lighter body, and introduce more complexities when changing lenses that require different adapters.
-
I hope that adapters are in their infancy and that in coming years they'll be much better. If this happens it could herald a real and significant change.
I only have three AF lenses for my A7 and everything else is covered by manual lenses via Novoflex adapters.
-
Hi,
All my lenses are either Canon or Nikkor. They cover the full range I want, from 14mm to 400mm, and include a selection of primes, zooms and Tilt-Shifts. I don't want the expense of buying yet more lenses, but it makes sense to get the most out of my existing lenses, and using a body with a high megapixel sensor does that.
When the Sony A7R2 was released, that seemed like an ideal solution for me, until I read of all the trouble people were having with their adapters that might work reasonably well with certain models of lens but not with others. I'm convinced that using lenses designed for the body is the best and most hassle-free approach.
Adapters also add to the weight of the system, offsetting any advantage of a lighter body, and introduce more complexities when changing lenses that require different adapters.
So, adapters aren't perfect. With a Nikon body with a long flange distance, you don't even have the option of using one. You're stuck with whatever they decide to release in a native Nikon mount, and are carrying the additional weight whether you're using an adapter at the time or not.
To me, that's like complaining that cars need roads, so we'll just stick with horses.
-
So, adapters aren't perfect. With a Nikon body with a long flange distance, you don't even have the option of using one. You're stuck with whatever they decide to release in a native Nikon mount, and are carrying the additional weight whether you're using an adapter at the time or not.
To me, that's like complaining that cars need roads, so we'll just stick with horses.
I'm not stuck with whatever Nikon releases. I have a number of Canon lenses and bodies. Whenever Canon releases a new body that has some significant advantage (from my perspective) over the D7200 or D810, I'll buy it.
The 5DSR and the 5D4 are of great interest to me, and I have considered their merits, but they are not quite there, from my perspective.
However, if money were no object, I'd probably buy them. Okay? ;)
-
Most of us could afford a 5DMkIV any time we want. The question is what value it would deliver over the gear we already own?
What I find a pity is that it almost looks like Canon isn't targeting any longer people asking themselves this question. They appear to be focusing on delivering incremental value to the people already invested in their system, and sure enough they do, but I don't see anything in the way they spec their camera revealing an ambition to gain marketshare.
Am I the only one feeling this way?
Cheers,
Bernard
Update: just read this M5 related rant at DPreview: https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/4495586328/the-canon-eos-m5-is-a-great-mirrorless-camera-and-a-big-disappointment
-
I'm not stuck with whatever Nikon releases. I have a number of Canon lenses and bodies. Whenever Canon releases a new body that has some significant advantage (from my perspective) over the D7200 or D810, I'll buy it.
The 5DSR and the 5D4 are of great interest to me, and I have considered their merits, but they are not quite there, from my perspective.
However, if money were no object, I'd probably buy them. Okay? ;)
Well, you're stuck with Nikon lenses on the D810, and Canon sensors for the Canon lenses. Or you could put the Canon lenses in front of an A7r2 and get the advantages of a top-tier sensor with a wider lens selection.
-
Most of us could afford a 5DMkIV any time we want. The question is what value it would deliver over the gear we already own?
What I find a pity is that it almost looks like Canon isn't targeting any longer people asking themselves this question. They appear to be focusing on delivering incremental value to the people already invested in their system, and sure enough they do, but I don't see anything in the way they spec their camera revealing an ambition to gain marketshare.
Am I the only one feeling this way?
Cheers,
Bernard
So what is the market to be shared? I don't know. I'll leave that to Canon and others to guess/divine. Is it the photojournalist and wedding market?....not challenging technically (very challenging in other ways), demanding of reliability and predictability of hardware and ease of use and workflow. So maybe Canon is selling to those whose equipment shutter counts are getting up and looking for a replacement where an incremental improvement is a bonus. The 5D IV costs the same as the mark III did (ignoring inflation). It uses the same lenses. It uses the same batteries.
Boring for us but earning for them: Canikon and Client alike.
-
Well, you're stuck with Nikon lenses on the D810, and Canon sensors for the Canon lenses. Or you could put the Canon lenses in front of an A7r2 and get the advantages of a top-tier sensor with a wider lens selection.
I know I could. It was the disadvantages that put me off, that is, imperfect, malfunctioning adapters which gave me the impression there would be too much stuffing around.
I also prefer optical viewfinders.
-
There are always people looking to update cameras every few years, or move from Rebels to high end crop (7D2) or full frame camera. I can't imagine that a 5D3 owner would need to go out and get the 5D4 unless they are desperate for some of the incremental improvement.
-
I can't imagine that a 5D3 owner would need to go out and get the 5D4 unless they are desperate for some of the incremental improvement.
but 5DIV is not "incremental" improvement technically... it might be an incremental improvement from photographer's own abilities (to use camera) standpoint
-
There are always people looking to update cameras every few years, or move from Rebels to high end crop (7D2) or full frame camera. I can't imagine that a 5D3 owner would need to go out and get the 5D4 unless they are desperate for some of the incremental improvement.
Have you compared the DXOMark results for the 5D4, Nancy? The improvements of the 5D4 over the 5D3 are definitely more than incremental with respect to certain parameters that some of us consider important.
Whilst the increase in pixel count of the 5D4 sensor might be considered an incremental improvement (31mp from 23mp), 4k video is double the resolution of standard HD. That's a bit more than incremental, wouldn't you say? ;)
Okay! So maybe you are not interested in video. What about dynamic range? Whilst the maximum DR of the 5D4 at base ISO is not quite up to the standard of the Nikon D810, it's a hell of a lot better than the DR of the 5D3.
According to those reliable DXO graphs, the 5D4 has a whopping 1.76 EV greater DR at base ISO, than the 5D3. Even at ISO 800, the DR of the 5D4 is one full stop greater. You don't think that's just incremental, do you? ;)
-
On the other hand so many 5D3 users have been claiming for such a long time that DR does't matter that they may really believe it by now. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bear in mind that the 5D4 is not meant to be a high-resolution, base-ISO camera like the 5D2 was, or the D810 and A7r2 are. With the arrival of the 5Ds, that burden's been take off the 5D4. Rather, it is a general-purpose body most suited to event and wedding photographers, who often shoot at higher ISOs (but also sometimes at base ISO with flash or in sunlight), who may shoot a bit of video, need a higher frame rate, etc. The sort of photographer who might use a D750, or, in earlier days, a D700.
Viewed in that light, the 30MP resolution is actually a pretty large jump in resolution from 22MP and the DR is competitive, if not ground-breaking or best-in-class for landscape photographers. For wedding or event use, it certainly looks like it'll beat anything else on the market at the moment, with the possible exception of the D810 (and only if your style is more set shots rather than spontaneous shots). It remains to be seen what Nikon brings out in the D750 and D810 replacements, and how Sony's A9 handles in event photography (sports and fast action are probably a bridge too far at the moment, but events and weddings are an obvious first target in Sony's move from digital back to full-fledged camera system). In any case, it seems likely that the 5D4 will beat the A9 and D810 replacement price-wise, at least.
Really, it's the 5Ds that's the disappointment, not the 5D4. If they made a 50MP sensor with their new, on-chip ADC technology, it'd probably hit the 14-stop DR mark (by DXO's metric, which uses a 1:1 SNR as the baseline). But, being Canon's last sensor based on their old technology, it's essentially crippled as a landscape camera. It holds the resolution advantage (just), but probably not for much longer - Sony's next-generation high-resolution sensor seems almost certain to beat it by 20MP or so, and may even hit the 15-16 stop DR range (possibly with a new RAW format), although the earthquake probably set them back by six months or so. I wouldn't expect the 5Ds to hold to the usual 3- to 4-year product cycle, but, Canon being Canon, anything could happen.