Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: gdh on May 02, 2015, 02:10:09 pm
-
Canon 5Ds Dynamic range--any accurate information not just speculation??
I've researched the specs but none seem to deal with dynamic range--anyone have any specifics? I've read the speculations and the guesses based on extrapolations but is there anything official from Canon or from someone who has actually tested(if that's possible at this point)?
Thanks for any information
Dennis
-
Canon 5Ds Dynamic range--any accurate information not just speculation??
I've researched the specs but none seem to deal with dynamic range--anyone have any specifics? I've read the speculations and the guesses based on extrapolations but is there anything official from Canon or from someone who has actually tested(if that's possible at this point)?
Hi Dennis,
Not necessarily 100% representative (because from a pre-production model), but according to RawDigger I get the following suggested values based on what's assumed to be masked pixels that only exhibit read-noise:
READ-NOISE (StdDev) @ ISO 100, before Black-Point subtraction:
R = 5.82 , G = 5.85 , B = 5.77 , G2= 5.83 .
Saturation (14-bit) is presumably at 14733, although one color plane has an outlier of 15441, and an un-clipped black-point of on average 2047.
That would give an engineering dynamic range of Log(14733/5.82)/Log(2) = 11.31 stops (screen mode in DxOMark terminology).
All as expected from the info that was given that it would be comparable to 5D3 levels (which has significantly large sensels).
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. If one were to subtract the Black-point from all readings, that would bring the DR to 11.8 stops.
-
Not necessarily 100% representative (because from a pre-production model), but according to RawDigger I get the following suggested values based on what's assumed to be masked pixels that only exhibit read-noise:
READ-NOISE (StdDev) @ ISO 100, before Black-Point subtraction:
R = 5.82 , G = 5.85 , B = 5.77 , G2= 5.83 .
Saturation (14-bit) is presumably at 14733, although one color plane has an outlier of 15441, and an un-clipped black-point of on average 2047.
That would give an engineering dynamic range of Log(14733/5.82)/Log(2) = 11.31 stops (screen mode in DxOMark terminology).
Hi Bart,
All in line with what Canon said, it's basically the 7DII pixel in a FF area then?
P.S. If one were to subtract the Black-point from all readings, that would bring the DR to 11.8 stops.
Have you tried a PTC?
Jack
-
All in line with what Canon said, it's basically the 7DII pixel in a FF area then?
Hi Jack,
Yes, it seems to look similar, although the sensels have a slightly different pitch. So it is probably somewhat different, but maybe pretty similar in technology.
Have you tried a PTC?
No, I just have 2 Raws, and I have difficulty seeing at first glance what's different in the settings that were used. The camera was running at some 33 degrees Celsius, according to the EXIF, so I don't know if that is typical or not. Maybe it was running a bit hot due to a long shooting sequence.
I prefer to use sequences of 1/3rd stop real exposure frames, because we do not know if something specific is happening with noise reduction. I also prefer to subtract image pairs, to eliminate pattern noise and PRNU and improve overall robustness of the data.
Canon usually doesn't fiddle with the Raw data, no noise reduction, no lossy compression or tone curves, doesn't pre-scale for White Balance, and leaves the black-points intact. However, I'd prefer to have that confirmed in practice, rather than rely solely on masked pixels. We also have seen in the past that e.g. apertures wider than f/2.8 have an influence on gain, just as DxOMark suggested, so actual practice may show other things as well that a single frame might not reveal. I also do not know if the nominal ISO 50 is any different from ISO 100, or if there are other jumps or a just a linear increase in gain as ISO goes up.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Having now tried the (natural looking) HDR feature in Lightroom CC the DR of the new Canon 5DS is of much less concern now than the quality of the pixels.
-
Yes, sensors as we know them have been eclipsed by the introduction of this disruptive technology. From now on all we will need is a single high quality pixel, shifted/stacked/stitched ;)
-
Having now tried the (natural looking) HDR feature in Lightroom CC the DR of the new Canon 5DS is of much less concern now than the quality of the pixels.
I've used HDR in both Photoshop and Photomatix Pro. While you can do some really great things with either, neither is a substitute for available DR at time of capture. They are work arounds.
Most current sensors can capture the DR of the vast majority of imaging opportunities. However, expanded DR sensors allow some forgiveness and are obviously better when extended DR opportunities present themselves. All else equal, it is better to have the higher DR sensor at your command.
-
I've used HDR in both Photoshop and Photomatix Pro. While you can do some really great things with either, neither is a substitute for available DR at time of capture. They are work arounds.
On the contrary. Properly executed HDR imaging will trounce the 14 stop DR that a single sensor shot can hope to achieve. The best solution for DR is to record more photons and thus boost the Signal to Noise ratio. Obviously not all subjects are equally suited for bracketed exposures, but then not all of them need to be.
Most current sensors can capture the DR of the vast majority of imaging opportunities. However, expanded DR sensors allow some forgiveness and are obviously better when extended DR opportunities present themselves. All else equal, it is better to have the higher DR sensor at your command.
It always helps, but there is more than one road that leads to technical quality.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Looking at the dpreview samples the 11 something stop figure for 5Ds is believable. Shadow detail is slightly less than with D810.
But like I have said before, internal lens reflections start to mess with maximum shadow detail even before that 14 stop figure the Nikon sensor alone can achieve. It the the sensor-lens combination that matters in the end.
-
All else equal, it is better to have the higher DR sensor at your command.
All else being equal it would be nice if the 5Ds had 18 stops of DR but unfortunately it doesn't.
What has been demonstrated from the limited RAW files available and with first generation file support in Lightroom is a very sharp, detailed high resolution file with great colour (better than the Sony/Nikon?) and with the help of the new HDR engine in Lightroom CC an excellent solution to my 18+ stop request.
I'm still on the fence between the 5Ds and the rumoured Sony competitor but the DR difference is no longer in contest to which I choose.
-
On the contrary. Properly executed HDR imaging will trounce the 14 stop DR that a single sensor shot can hope to achieve. The best solution for DR is to record more photons and thus boost the Signal to Noise ratio. Obviously not all subjects are equally suited for bracketed exposures, but then not all of them need to be.
It always helps, but there is more than one road that leads to technical quality.
Cheers,
Bart
On the contrary, in extreme DR situations, the higher DR sensor, all else equal, can execute the HDR multi shot scenario just as well AND provide a single capture of better quality than the lower DR sensor. Hence, the higher DR camera will allow one to execute a larger universe of shots than the lower DR camera. The 1st question to ask is how much DR is required for the shots intended to be executed with this camera? If the answer to that question is more than the DR provided, then only the incompetent would prefer to have less DR at their disposal than more.
And you are correct that there is usually more than 1 way to skin the cat, but the higher DR sensor is the one that provides the most options and flexibility.
-
On the contrary. Properly executed HDR imaging will trounce the 14 stop DR that a single sensor shot can hope to achieve.
Hi Bart,
I would agree in theory and only in images where there are effectively two separate, different exposures (say inside the room and outside the window). Otherwise in continuous tone images in practice I've found HDR blending by the usual best practice suspects to almost always provide less than satisfactory (to me) transitions so far (say 14 stops by a single capture vs 3x 11 stop captures 1 or so stop apart). YMMV.
Jack
-
I would agree in theory and only in images where there are effectively two separate, different exposures (say inside the room and outside the window). Otherwise in continuous tone images in practice I've found HDR blending by the usual best practice suspects to almost always provide less than satisfactory (to me) transitions so far (say 14 stops by a single capture vs 3x 11 stop captures 1 or so stop apart). YMMV.
If you found the results of HDR unsatisfactory it was because of the software you used and/or the way you used it, not because of the real potential of a bracketed series of shots.
Information contained in 3 shots 1EV apart from an 11-stops DR sensor CAN be linearly fused to achieve the equivalent to a single shot from a 13-stops DR sensor. The general formula would be:
DR_equivalent = DR_sensor + (N_shots - 1) * EV_interval
13 = 11 + (3 - 1) * 1
15 = 11 + (3 - 1) * 2
...
This DNG file contains the best information that could be gathered from 2 shots 4EV apart from a 8-stops DR sensor (Canon 350D). It is indistinguisable in terms of DR from a 12-stops DR sensor RAW file (e.g. a Nikon D800 RAW file):
12 = 8 + (2 - 1) * 4
HDR composite (http://www.guillermoluijk.com/download/rawvirtual.dng)
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/virtualraw/resultado.jpg)
-
See Bill Claff's preliminary numbers charted here:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55774910
-
If you found the results of HDR unsatisfactory it was because of the software you used and/or the way you used it, not because of the real potential of a bracketed series of shots.
Thanks Guillermo. Yes, that was my complaint.
Jack
-
If you found the results of HDR unsatisfactory it was because of the software you used and/or the way you used it, not because of the real potential of a bracketed series of shots.
Information contained in 3 shots 1EV apart from an 11-stops DR sensor CAN be linearly fused to achieve the equivalent to a single shot from a 13-stops DR sensor. The general formula would be:
DR_equivalent = DR_sensor + (N_shots - 1) * EV_interval
13 = 11 + (3 - 1) * 1
15 = 11 + (3 - 1) * 2
This is inarguable true, but not the point. Yes, if your camera is DR limited below the DR of the shot you are trying to execute AND you have the ability to shoot an exposure bracket set AND you have the tools and talent to post process the shots, you can execute it. Or you can execute the shot in a single capture with much simpler file handling and processing with a sensor that provides 13 or more stops of DR. In addition, you can also execute shots that don't allow for a bracket set and exposure stacking.
-
This is inarguable true, but not the point. Yes, if your camera is DR limited below the DR of the shot you are trying to execute AND you have the ability to shoot an exposure bracket set AND you have the tools and talent to post process the shots, you can execute it. Or you can execute the shot in a single capture with much simpler file handling and processing with a sensor that provides 13 or more stops of DR. In addition, you can also execute shots that don't allow for a bracket set and exposure stacking.
In theory yes but often the need to composite or HDR an image is because it falls outside the DR capabilities of any photographic sensor currently available. Sure we all want more of everything but wanting a Sony sensor solely for its DR just (for me) became obsolete if all else remains unchanged (36Mpix and 13 stops DR) on the new A7rII as the 5DsR files I just downloaded look amazing.
-
... as the 5DsR files I just downloaded look amazing.
Looking amazing indeed. But the amazingness range is not what is being discussed here - especially when evaluated on typically 8-stop DR monitors or prints.
-
In theory yes but often the need to composite or HDR an image is because it falls outside the DR capabilities of any photographic sensor currently available.
I agree. And even a modest +2EV exposure bracket will improve the signal(!) level of the deepest shadows by 4x over the same signal level that gets its detail from the higher DR of a Sony sensor without bracketing. Granted, the read noise remains at a relatively higher level, but it's hard to beat real signal which becomes 30% less noisy because it has more photons. That's significant, and helps shadow color accuracy. So even a recent Sony sensor would benefit from exposure bracketing, less out of necessity, but shadow quality still benefits.
Sure we all want more of everything but wanting a Sony sensor solely for its DR just (for me) became obsolete if all else remains unchanged (36Mpix and 13 stops DR) on the new A7rII as the 5DsR files I just downloaded look amazing.
Indeed. I also wouldn't object to a sensor with higher native DR, but the image quality (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=pentax_645z&attr13_3=phaseone_iq180&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=35&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.8865862646935765&y=-0.5073328456241897) already does look quite nice (even from an ACR conversion). I'm looking forward to how Capture One does. And given that the noise of the 5DS looks much better than we're used to, a mild noise reduction will not hurt detail but benefit the 'pushability' of shadows. Canon Raw files may also benefit from the fact that Read noise is not clipped, and therefore a good Rawconverter can be very effective in addressing noise in the Raw stage of conversion.
Color rendition is mainly a matter of profiles, but the images that I've seen so far do seem to have a slightly richer color. Maybe the profile does it, but apparently there is little wrong with the data it can work with.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Looking amazing indeed. But the amazingness range is not what is being discussed here - especially when evaluated on typically 8-stop DR monitors or prints.
Indeed but the main criticism I've read why people think the 5Ds is a fail is all down to DR even before they have seen (until now) RAW files that demonstrate what the camera can do. Sure, some people don't like the effort of using polarisers or grad filters to tame contrast and only recognise a good camera as one which can be pushed and pulled in post but I see no problem now with the 11.8 stop DR of the 5Ds. Maybe the Sony will be 56Mpix, even more DR and better colour and have a greater pixel level detail rendering this topic irrelevant but until that day I'm still very interested in the Canon.
-
Not necessarily 100% representative (because from a pre-production model), but according to RawDigger I get the following suggested values based on what's assumed to be masked pixels that only exhibit read-noise:
READ-NOISE (StdDev) @ ISO 100, before Black-Point subtraction:
R = 5.82 , G = 5.85 , B = 5.77 , G2= 5.83 .
Saturation (14-bit) is presumably at 14733, although one color plane has an outlier of 15441, and an un-clipped black-point of on average 2047.
I just had a look at an ISO 50 shot, and that gave:
READ-NOISE (StdDev) @ ISO 100, before Black-Point subtraction:
R =5.45 , G = 5.53 , B = 5.43 , G2 = 5.44
Saturation (14-bit) is presumably at 14733 (all 4 color-planes clip at that level), with the same Black-Point level at 2047.
That would give an average engineering dynamic range of Log(14733/5.46)/Log(2) = 11.40 stops (screen mode in DxOMark terminology), 0.09 up from ISO 100. So there seems to be a slight benefit for e.g. studio users with powerful flash, wider aperture and marginally better noise and DR performance. I do not know if the change in ISO setting induced gain leads to half 'sensitivity'. To determine the exact ISO delta, it would be required to take a series of exposure pairs at various ISO settings.
In the attached histogram of the Read-Noise sample, there seems to be a 5 ADU gap which suggests some sort of odd amplification, but it is not present at actual exposure levels. I'm not yet sure what to make of that. Maybe something to do with the masked photosites.
I also notice a slight difference in G1 versus G2 levels, like in other Canon cameras, so maybe that's intentional. It does mean that a Raw converter should treat the 4 color planes as individual planes, and not group the G planes together.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So far the files look very good, and for the price point for 50MP, if I had to shoot a simple bracket, so be it. I do hope that this will add some sensibility to other 50MP cameras on the market in regards to base price.
I still wonder why both Canon and Nikon cannot add a moveable screen to these wonderful cameras. Not all of us have the flexibility of a 20 year old anymore and the advantages of a moveable screen are huge.
These cameras will do very well indeed.
Paul
-
I still wonder why both Canon and Nikon cannot add a moveable screen to these wonderful cameras. Not all of us have the flexibility of a 20 year old anymore and the advantages of a moveable screen are huge.
Hi Paul,
I agree that an articulated LCD would be very welcome. I also frequently shoot from different shooting heights, and it wears my trousers out when I need to use a hoodman loupe for focusing in Live View close to the ground. That's why I use a tethered (or wireless) Tablet with Helicon Focus for critical focusing.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
Not that it makes much of a difference, but screen mode in DxOMark terminology refers to the clipping raw value (12686 DN at ISO100) divided by the signal at which SNR = 1. Assuming a similar fwc as the 7DII and using your values above for read noise, the signal at which SNR=1 works out to around 6.5 DN. So 'screen' DR at ISO 100 should be about 10.93 stops. Double check my math, given recent history :)
Noting that Bill Claff puts Photographic DR at 9.84 stops at ISO 100, I think DxO "screen DR" seems likely to come in higher than your estimate. [The D810 comes in at 11.02 stops PDR at ISO 100, for comparison.]
-
READ-NOISE (StdDev) @ ISO 100, before Black-Point subtraction:
R =5.45 , G = 5.53 , B = 5.43 , G2 = 5.44
Saturation (14-bit) is presumably at 14733 (all 4 color-planes clip at that level), with the same Black-Point level at 2047.
That would give an average engineering dynamic range of Log(14733/5.46)/Log(2) = 11.40 stops (screen mode in DxOMark terminology)
Hi Bart,
Not that it makes much of a difference, but screen mode in DxOMark terminology refers to the clipping raw value (12686 DN at ISO100) divided by the signal at which SNR = 1. Assuming a similar fwc as the 7DII and using your values above for read noise, the signal at which SNR=1 works out to around 5.68 DN. So 'screen' DR at ISO 100 should be about 11.12 stops. Double check my math, given recent history :)
Jack
-
In the attached histogram of the Read-Noise sample, there seems to be a 5 ADU gap which suggests some sort of odd amplification, but it is not present at actual exposure levels. I'm not yet sure what to make of that. Maybe something to do with the masked photosites.
I see it in the histogram of the actual image as well. In the Nikon world this is quite common and known as prescaling or pre-conditioning.
-
Not all of us have the flexibility of a 20 year old anymore
apparenly elderly japanese males are still quite slim and agile ;)
-
Hi Bart,
Not that it makes much of a difference, but screen mode in DxOMark terminology refers to the clipping raw value (12686 DN at ISO100) divided by the signal at which SNR = 1. Assuming a similar fwc as the 7DII and using your values above for read noise, the signal at which SNR=1 works out to around 5.68 DN. So 'screen' DR at ISO 100 should be about 11.12 stops. Double check my math, given recent history :)
Hi Jack,
When I measure an EOS 7D Mark II file (ISO 100 is the lowest I have found) the same way I did the 5DSR one, I get:
R = 5.52 , G = 5.48 , B = 5.46 , G2 = 5.40, with a clipping level of 13583 (BP = 2047).
That would produce Log(13583/5.47)/Log(2) = 11.28 stops, DxOMark reports 11.11 stops.
If I subtract the black point and keep the read noise I'd get Log(11536/5.47)/Log(2) = 11.04 stop, so that would be closer.
When I measure an EOS 5D Mark III file (ISO 50) the same way I did the 5DSR one, I get:
R = 6.32 , G = 6.27 , B = 6.13 , G2 = 6.21, with a clipping level of 15283.
That would produce Log(15283/6.23)/Log(2) = 11.26 stops, DxOMark reports 10.97,
If I subtract the black point and keep the read noise I'd get Log(13236/6.23)/Log(2) = 11.05 stop, so that would be closer.
In the same vein, with BP subtracted, the 5DS R would come out as 11.18 when using my quick and dirty method, a bit above both predecessors.
So you're right that I'm overstating the value that DxOMark will probably report as Screen DR, thanks for pointing that out. Quick and dirty estimation is just that, quick and dirty.
It still means that the 5DS R has probably (we'll see for sure when DxO gets a production model to test) a similar, or even a bit better DR than both, with a smaller sensel pitch. I've seen some samples that Iliah Borg processed of ISO 6400 shots with his Rawconverter, and they even looked usable compared to others. Not that I would likely choose ISO 6400 on the 5DS/5DS R, It probably tops out at 1250 or 1600 and then further pushing in postprocessing is better, but still.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Jack, did I go into a timewarp? By all appearances, I replied to your message before you wrote it. How did that happen?
-
Noting that Bill Claff puts Photographic DR at 9.84 stops at ISO 100, I think DxO "screen DR" seems likely to come in higher than your estimate. [The D810 comes in at 11.02 stops PDR at ISO 100, for comparison.]
Bill Claff uses a higher ('photographic') noise level as basis, which obviously is a bit arbitrary, so his DR numbers will always be lower. Some people accept a higher noise level as minimum, others lower levels. I prefer to use Engineering DR (lowest possible) if solid data (requires subtracting equally exposed image pairs) is available. Lowest possible noise levels make sense if e.g. software is used that can average multiple exposures, or apply effective noise reduction.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bill Claff uses a higher ('photographic') noise level as basis, which obviously is a bit arbitrary, so his DR numbers will always be lower. Some people accept a higher noise level as minimum, others lower levels. I prefer to use Engineering DR (lowest possible) if solid data (requires subtracting equally exposed image pairs) is available. Lowest possible noise levels make sense if e.g. software is used that can average multiple exposures, or apply effective noise reduction.
All fine. But I think this would still suggest that the DxO "print" DR for the 5Ds would be higher than Jack calculated.
-
All fine. But I think this would still suggest that the DxO "print" DR for the 5Ds would be higher than Jack calculated.
That's possible, but I'll wait for DxOMark to come up with their real numbers. So far things look slightly better than anticipated. Very usable (due to low pattern noise) but not earth shocking. It's as announced.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Jack, did I go into a timewarp? By all appearances, I replied to your message before you wrote it. How did that happen?
Luke, it's all about black holes and quantum mechanics ;)
As far as the estimates are concerned I agree with Bart, for consistency and comparability it's best to wait for DxO to do their thing, and you are probably right that the 5DS' pixel is a little better than the 7DII's. As far as PDR is concerned, keep in mind that Bill's threshold for the denominator shifts the weight to shot noise vs read noise, compared to DxO.
Jack
-
DPReview has added a page of tests and discussion of the 5Ds with regard to dynamic range:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/7
In summary, a slight improvement but not up to the level of cameras equipped with Sony sensors. They attribute the difference to off chip A/D converters on the Canon cameras vs integrated on chip A/D coverters on Sony sensored cameras.
-
In theory yes but often the need to composite or HDR an image is because it falls outside the DR capabilities of any photographic sensor currently available. Sure we all want more of everything but wanting a Sony sensor solely for its DR just (for me) became obsolete if all else remains unchanged (36Mpix and 13 stops DR) on the new A7rII as the 5DsR files I just downloaded look amazing.
My point wasn't that a D810 for example would cover the DR of every situation. The point was that having 14 stops is better than 11 stops even when one is forced to make a single capture of a scene with a wider DR than 14 stops. Those extra 3 stops allow you to capture more of the scene DR even if your intended output won't hold that range. It allows more options in post processing. Note that we are talking about a very small number of photo opportunities where DR exceeds even 10 stops!
-
Indeed but the main criticism I've read why people think the 5Ds is a fail is all down to DR even before they have seen (until now) RAW files that demonstrate what the camera can do. Sure, some people don't like the effort of using polarisers or grad filters to tame contrast and only recognise a good camera as one which can be pushed and pulled in post but I see no problem now with the 11.8 stop DR of the 5Ds. Maybe the Sony will be 56Mpix, even more DR and better colour and have a greater pixel level detail rendering this topic irrelevant but until that day I'm still very interested in the Canon.
I don't see it as a fail, but it is a real world limitation and makes the price not quite as attractive. A big portion of the audience for a 50MP camera are landscape guys which is the same audience for extended DR cameras! I'm biased to my D810 because I already own it, but if I was deciding between a 36MP, 14 Stop, $3000 camera, a 50MP, 11 Stop, $5000 camera just doesn't seem like such a great trade for my needs. If I shot in a studio or something, then trading some DR and cash for MPs might be a no brainer.
-
Note that we are talking about a very small number of photo opportunities where DR exceeds even 10 stops!
Not as small as you think. Backlit shots are pretty common as are low light shooting where the light sources in shot will clip, just like sunsets and dappled light through trees is particularly hard work. DR being outside my cameras ability seems quite common to me.
-
Not as small as you think. Backlit shots are pretty common as are low light shooting where the light sources in shot will clip, just like sunsets and dappled light through trees is particularly hard work. DR being outside my cameras ability seems quite common to me.
The real question then becomes, "Is that a problem?"
With film I used fill-flash if feasible, with digital I use a bit of shadow recovery, but if the exposure makes the shadows dark, then they probably should be dark. If the exposure blows out the background, maybe it should blow out the background (otherwise one loses the sense of the actual lighting conditions).
It is my impression that many of the purported noise problems (in general) come from over-correction of shadows, or lack of (possibility to adjust) technique. Also, when the sensor noise is well-behaved (no banding or pattern noise), noise reduction software is very effective, in those cases that shadows do benefit from more lifting. In many cases, bracketing is a very good option.
I wouldn't mind a sensor that is capable of huge dynamic range, but underexposure still means that fewer photons made it to contribute (color is already perceptually reduced in shadows) to the image. If at all possible, better technique directly provides more solid image quality.
Maybe Canon prefers a more professional type of use for the studio version of the 5 series, where lighting technique is a skill that the users do master? That's probably also why they capped the highest ISO setting to 6400, with an optional digital extension to 12800.
Granted, they presumably also do not have the chip design for on sensor amplification, but that may be the result of a deliberate choice made earlier. They concentrated more on motion/video design, and other technology. Their research budget is still immense, so it's not due to their lack of knowledge, or lack of filed patents (they rank in the very top in the USA for more than a decade already). Maybe they also anticipated a decline in the potential market size, and reassigned budget to where it made more sense (like lenses, in anticipation of their upcoming high MP offerings)?
I think they are glacially slow in the perception of brand loyal users, but they are probably also very clever in the long run.
Cheers,
Bart
-
All else being equal everyone would choose a camera with more DR. It would be a black and white decision if not for the fact that all else is seldom equal. Questions like the following show the many shades of gray involved in such a choice. If your success rate in photographing wildlife went up considerably due to the speed and flexibility of a 200-400mm zoom with an instantly switchable 1.4x teleconverter, do you give it up for more DR? Will you miss more shots due to lack of DR or spending time swapping a teleconverter in and out? Different systems don't have all of the same lenses, and when they do the quality is often appreciably different. New sensors come along frequently relative to lens updates. Would you rather wait for a new sensor/camera model or for an update of a given lens that's lacking compared to what you already have? If you have $20-$30K invested in lenses and other brand specific equipment, how much DR difference is needed to justify switching versus waiting? There are lots of similar questions and there is no correct answer to any of them. They don't all apply to everyone and answers to the ones that do depend on everything from the type and style of photography you do, how often you run into high DR situations that you can't handle, and your budget. No single company has the best image sensor, widest selection of best quality lenses, best feature set, best service and support, and best everything else. The best system really depends on your individual needs and DR is one important consideration among many. Fortunately it has become difficult to put together a system that is incapable of capturing outstanding photographs, but it is still important to know the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of any system and use them accordingly.
-
The real question then becomes, "Is that a problem?"
With film I used fill-flash if feasible, with digital I use a bit of shadow recovery, but if the exposure makes the shadows dark, then they probably should be dark. If the exposure blows out the background, maybe it should blow out the background (otherwise one loses the sense of the actual lighting conditions).
It is my impression that many of the purported noise problems (in general) come from over-correction of shadows, or lack of (possibility to adjust) technique. Also, when the sensor noise is well-behaved (no banding or pattern noise), noise reduction software is very effective, in those cases that shadows do benefit from more lifting. In many cases, bracketing is a very good option.
I wouldn't mind a sensor that is capable of huge dynamic range, but underexposure still means that fewer photons made it to contribute (color is already perceptually reduced in shadows) to the image. If at all possible, better technique directly provides more solid image quality.
There is a lot of good in your post. When I first got the D810, I forgot that while fill light is a good way to reduce DR to fit the sensor (since I rarely needed it), it is also good to flatter the subject by filling in shadows, defining shapes and showing texture. Some times a little fill flash or reflected light makes the difference. I got enamored with the DR of the D810, but it only took a few weeks of spending tons of time in post fixing things to remind me.
And Dean, that is why I added "all else equal". In your case, you are trading something in the body for effectiveness and flexibility of a particular lens. Each of us has to decide whether a trade is worth it or not. Since all the lenses I need or would buy (except maybe the T/S lenses) are available in for Nikon, I don't need to make that trade.
All I know is after switching to Nikon at the end of the film era, and riding intro to digital with them, when they lagged, in the sensor area to Canon, Nikon shooters didn't defend them. They pissed, and moaned and complained and switched to other brands and basically forced Nikon to fix the problem. I just think it is more likely Canon would fix their sensor issues if their user's weren't quite so 'forgiving'!
-
DPReview has added a page of tests and discussion of the 5Ds with regard to dynamic range:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/7
In summary, a slight improvement but not up to the level of cameras equipped with Sony sensors. They attribute the difference to off chip A/D converters on the Canon cameras vs integrated on chip A/D coverters on Sony sensored cameras.
Thanks for the link. Those dpreview comparisons really highlight the deficiencies of the 5DSR dynamic range compared with Nikon cameras.
The impression I get is, if you're shooting a contrasty scene with a DR (or Subject Brightness Range) of 6 stops or greater, and you want to raise the deepest shadows, then the 5DSR will show significantly more noise in those shadows than the cropped-format Nikon D7200.
As I understand, the 5DSR pixel is of similar quality to the 7d Mk II pixel. There might be a slight improvement, maybe 0.1 or 0.2 EV better, but let's get things into perspective. Any improvement less than 0.5 EV is not worth getting excited about.
The Nikon D7200 pixel is slightly smaller than the Canon 7D2 pixel, yet it's DR is 2.68 EV better at ISO 100. At ISO 800, the DR of the D7200 pixel is still around 1 EV better than the 7D2 pixel.
The images below tell the story.
-
The real question then becomes, "Is that a problem?"
Yes, if parts of the image are incorrectly exposed.
With film I used fill-flash if feasible, with digital I use a bit of shadow recovery, but if the exposure makes the shadows dark, then they probably should be dark. If the exposure blows out the background, maybe it should blow out the background (otherwise one loses the sense of the actual lighting conditions).
But if you do not want black/murky shadows or blown highlights….
Using fill flash changes the look of a picture and if it's a look you do not want, it's not practical.
-
Looking at Bart/Jack's DR figures for the 5DS, it seems the final DxO's values will not be far from the 7DII at pixel level. Applying to those figures a SNR correction for 8Mpix ("Print" criteria in DxO), I have obtained the following simulation showing where the 5DS's DR will probably fall:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/rd5ds.png)
The 12,44EV figure comes from 7DII's 11,11EV, statistically normalised from 50Mpx to 8Mpx:
SNR linear improvement: [(8688*5792)/(3464/2309)]^0,5=2,508 -> pushing 7DII "Screen" curve by 1,33EV: 11,11+1,33=12,44EV.
Regards
-
DR tested in this 5DS-R vs D810 vs 5D Mk III vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq3ISUHsfsQ
Colour accuracy mentioned in this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ7NC9nSESg
Meanwhile Sony US has a fire sale:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-us-lists-crazy-low-prices-a7r-for-199-only/
;D
-
Regardless of issues of dynamic range, one advantage for owners of Canon gear, who might wonder if they should upgrade to a 50mp camera, or wonder if they really need 50mp, is the effect those extra pixels have on upgrading all of one's Canon lenses.
The resolution difference between the 36mp of the Nikon D810 and the 50mp of the 5DSR is marginal, as shown in the youtube video above. However, the resolution difference between the 22mp of the 5D3 and the 50mp of the 5DSR must be very significant.
In terms of sharpness and detail, a 5DSR with a single good quality zoom should be equivalent to a whole basket load of high quality primes for use with a 5D3. ;)
-
Looking at Bart/Jack's DR figures for the 5DS, it seems the final DxO's values will not be far from the 7DII at pixel level. Applying to those figures a SNR correction for 8Mpix ("Print" criteria in DxO), I have obtained the following simulation showing where the 5DS's DR will probably fall:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/rd5ds.png)
The 12,44EV figure comes from 7DII's 11,11EV, statistically normalised from 50Mpx to 8Mpx:
SNR linear improvement: [(8688*5792)/(3464/2309)]^0,5=2,508 -> pushing 7DII "Screen" curve by 1,33EV: 11,11+1,33=12,44EV.
OK OK, now you can congratulate the Oracle ;D
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/rd_5ds_prediccion.gif)
Regards
-
OK OK, now you can congratulate the Oracle ;D
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/rd_5ds_prediccion.gif)
Regards
Brilliant! The tested DR values are so close to those you calculated, they are the same for all practical purposes.
However, I have to admit I'm a little disappointed at the huge DR difference between these two cameras. 2 & 1/3rd stops at base ISO is huge. I was hoping for at least a slight improvement, but I guess Canon just doesn't have the manufacturing capability.
-
So the Sensor in the two new cameras does not have the DR of the Nikon D810 or the Sony Alpha 7R, so where does that leave Canon users with collections of L Series glass and/or Zeiss ZE lenses? Do we sell up and start again (at what cost)? If these Camera Bodies are pitched at Professional or Semi-Professional photographers for studio work using studio lighting, what is the actual consequence of having improved potential detail retrieval but essentially similar DR to the Canon EOS 1DX? How crucial will this be to studio output made under artifical lighting?
-
So the Sensor in the two new cameras does not have the DR of the Nikon D810 or the Sony Alpha 7R, so where does that leave Canon users with collections of L Series glass and/or Zeiss ZE lenses? Do we sell up and start again (at what cost)? If these Camera Bodies are pitched at Professional or Semi-Professional photographers for studio work using studio lighting, what is the actual consequence of having improved potential detail retrieval but essentially similar DR to the Canon EOS 1DX? How crucial will this be to studio output made under artifical lighting?
If professionals have been using Canon gear, why would the results now be suddenly worse? If there was no reason to switch to Nikon before, now is even less with the new Canon giving similar or theoretically better resolution. DR has stayed the same, but if t has been good enough until now, why not also tomorrow?
-
So the Sensor in the two new cameras does not have the DR of the Nikon D810 or the Sony Alpha 7R, so where does that leave Canon users with collections of L Series glass and/or Zeiss ZE lenses? Do we sell up and start again (at what cost)? If these Camera Bodies are pitched at Professional or Semi-Professional photographers for studio work using studio lighting, what is the actual consequence of having improved potential detail retrieval but essentially similar DR to the Canon EOS 1DX? How crucial will this be to studio output made under artifical lighting?
Extra dynamic range is only an advantage for certain types of photography, basically when the RAW has to be heavily processed to lift the shadows.
Canon vs Sony war in brief:
- Base ISO applications with controlled light (studio) and JPEG shooters: no winner.
- Base ISO applications (typ. using a tripod) where uncontrolled high contrast scenes can be involved (landscape, architecture, interioism): Sony wins by 2 stops
- High ISO applications with low light (sports, photojournalism, night photography): no winner (at high ISO Canon performance equals Sony's)
Regards
-
Agreed. It is the point I was hoping to get out of this Canon VS Nikon VS Sony debate. It does depend what you are going to use the camera for.
-
Shoot at ISO400 which is a pretty standard ISO these days and there is basically ½ stop benefit to using a Nikon/Sony over the Canon which is not going to make any practical difference to the images. I'm hoping the new BSI sensor in the A7RII addresses this and gives the Sony sensor a much shallower drop in DR as ISO increases as the new sensor makes little difference to the high ISO noise performance looking at examples I've seen.
-
Extra dynamic range is only an advantage for certain types of photography, basically when the RAW has to be heavily processed to lift the shadows.
Exactly. Single shot high dynamic range scenes, that also have shadows that need to be lifted a lot in post-processing will benefit.
And although the shadows of the recent Sony sensors are less noisy due to lower read-noise, they are still shadows that received very few photons (and thus are affected by a lot more shot noise). There is simply no alternative for real detail and color from (lots of) photons, so (if possible) exposure bracketing will still produce better quality than a single high DR capture.
Cheers,
Bart
-
How crucial will this be to studio output made under artifical lighting?
I wouldn't think it would be much concern at all in any environment where one has the luxury of being able to arrange artificial lighting, or where the circumstances are suitable for bracketing exposure to merge to HDR.
The increased resolution afforded by 50mp is a big upgrade for those who already use Canon equipment. If I didn't use Nikon equipment, I'd be thrilled to bits at the prospect of upgrading to 50mp with no loss of DR at the pixel level, compared with the 5D3, at least from base ISO to ISO 400.
However, I wouldn't be nearly as thrilled to upgrade from a 36mp D800E to a 50mp Canon with such a significant drop in DR. One of the advantages of the ISO-invariant nature of the latest Nikon cameras, such as the D810 and D7200, is that one doesn't have to be so careful and obsessive about 'correct' or ETTR exposure. If the lighting conditions and desired shutter speed require a raising of ISO, one can simply underexpose at a lower ISO with reduced risk of inadvertently blowing highlights, and with no disadvantage of greater noise compared with raising ISO. It makes for quicker and easier shooting in manual mode.
-
Very interesting discussion, I will add that I found very little advantage using the a7r over my 5d mark3 for most of my hotel photography. Hence, most of it involves hdr bracketing. Now in the instances when I am limited to 1 picture like natural light people photography I think there might be a little difference, but I have not tested it enough to make any conclusion. I am thinking about making a food photoshoot for that purpose just to see how much I can process shadows with the a7r over the 5diii.
-
Very interesting discussion, I will add that I found very little advantage using the a7r over my 5d mark3 for most of my hotel photography. Hence, most of it involves hdr bracketing. Now in the instances when I am limited to 1 picture like natural light people photography I think there might be a little difference, but I have not tested it enough to make any conclusion. I am thinking about making a food photoshoot for that purpose just to see how much I can process shadows with the a7r over the 5diii.
How do you convert you raw files if I may ask?
I have found that C1 Pro does a much better job than LR for large DR images, probably as a result of their digital back heritage.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have found that C1 Pro does a much better job than LR for large DR images, probably as a result of their digital back heritage.
Can you show us some comparison shots, Bernard, of the same shadows in the same image, processed with the two different converters?
How would you quantify the differences? For example, would you say that the shadows in the C1 Pro converted RAWs look as good as the shadows in the LR converted RAWs which have had 1/3rd of a stop greater exposure, or 1/2 a stop greater exposure, or more?
Are there perhaps certain disadvantages in using C1 Pro, compared with LR? Are there also perhaps certain disadvantages in using only LR as opposed to the full Photoshop program with options of further selective noise reduction after conversion in Camera Raw?
Hope I haven't opened a can of worms. ;)
-
How do you convert you raw files if I may ask?
I have found that C1 Pro does a much better job than LR for large DR images, probably as a result of their digital back heritage.
Cheers,
Bernard
I merge the raw pictures with the Photoshop CS6 Merge to HDR tool in 32bit mode and save as tiff. Then I open it in Adobe Camera Raw and do the exposure, contrast and color adjustments. I guess I can open the same tiff file in Capture One. Correct me if I am wrong, but Capture One Pro 8 does not have an HDR merge feature, right? If you use Capture One you have to relay on another program to do the HDR processing, right?
-
Very interesting discussion, I will add that I found very little advantage using the a7r over my 5d mark3 for most of my hotel photography. Hence, most of it involves hdr bracketing.
If your regular workflow involves HDR bracketing, there is no advantage for you in a high perfomance sensor regarding dynamic range, because you'll be always using RAW data with a good exposure, i.e. a high SNR. Two shots from my 10-year old APS Canon 350D manage to capture the same DR as a single shot from the Nikon D810. If I shoot three times vs one on the Nikon, the little Canon easily outperforms the FF body.
The advantages of having a high dynamic range sensor become practical in single shot applications where the RAW file is to be strongly processed.
Regards
-
- Base ISO applications with
controlled light (studio) and JPEG shooters: no winner. ...
...
The advantages of having a high dynamic range sensor become practical in single shot applications where the RAW file is to be strongly processed.
Generally agreed. However, what used to be considered 'strong' processing with DR-limited cameras in the past is becoming more 'normal' in these days of 12+ stops of usable tones - and many current cameras can produce OOC images that intelligently squeeze more of the captured DR into them automatically and pleasingly, based on pre-analyzing the scene. For instance Nikon has Auto ADL and Highlight-weighted metering for just such a purpose. I am sure other manufacturers have their own version of it.
Jack
-
If I shoot three times vs one on the Nikon, the little Canon easily outperforms the FF body.
But capturing and processing brackets is fiddly compared with regular camera operation.
If the scene and your effort allows 3 shots, then the Nikon user might spend those 3 shots to do a high resolution/wide angle stitch. If the Canon user wants to do both high DR and pano, she would have to do 3x3=9 shots.
DR is like resolution, even if you seldom needs it, is does not hurt. When you actually need it, having it natively is a heck of a lot more ergonoic than having to use band-aids.
-h
-
But capturing and processing brackets is fiddly compared with regular camera operation.
If the scene and your effort allows 3 shots, then the Nikon user might spend those 3 shots to do a high resolution/wide angle stitch. If the Canon user wants to do both high DR and pano, she would have to do 3x3=9 shots.
DR is like resolution, even if you seldom needs it, is does not hurt. When you actually need it, having it natively is a heck of a lot more ergonoic than having to use band-aids.
-h
I'd prefer to use the term "technique" rather than "band-aid". The term "band-aid suggests that the photographer has been injured and needs first aid to recover. Where as like all photographers we work within our means (equipment and software) by using techniques and equipment that suit our purposes to maximise the outcome with minimal risk of failure.
In my case, to use your example, the time and effort required to take nine shots and then process them (execution) is miniscule compared with the time and effort required to implement (plan, travel, make a cup of coffee, turn on the computer etc. etc.)
So maximum sensor DR is a nice idea but when all else is considered it is only that: a nice idea but not essential.
:)
-
So maximum sensor DR is a nice idea but when all else is considered it is only that: a nice idea but not essential.
Just like stitching, HDR is not applicable to all scenes. At least as far as I remember, because I haven't had to use the technique for 5-6 years now.
If you shoot on a regular basis wide DR scenes with moving objects, using a high DR camera is a no brainer.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just like stitching, HDR is not applicable to all scenes. At least as far as I remember, because I haven't had to use the technique for 5-6 years now.
If you shoot on a regular basis wide DR scenes with moving objects, using a high DR camera is a no brainer.
Cheers,
Bernard
My comment was prefaced and qualified by "In my case".
As to the situation you posit: Yes I agree :)
-
I'd prefer to use the term "technique" rather than "band-aid". The term "band-aid suggests that the photographer has been injured and needs first aid to recover.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band-Aid
"The term "band-aid" has entered usage as both a noun and verb describing a temporary fix. (E.g. "Band-aid solutions were used to fix the leak.")"
So my use of the term suggests that using bracketing is a "fix" for a camera with too low DR
In my case, to use your example, the time and effort required to take nine shots and then process them (execution) is miniscule compared with the time and effort required to implement (plan, travel, make a cup of coffee, turn on the computer etc. etc.)
Ok. Does that mean that you always bracket, no matter what? Or are there cases where you fire a single shot? If so, what if that image happens to be a great shot, but highlights were slightly clipped or shadows are a bit noisy for your taste?
I find that family pictures at the beach in harsh light is challenging. I don't want to blow detail in sky (or even the sun in the frame), but peoples faces can be very dark, especially if they are in deep shade. One or more powerful external flashes helps, but are not really what you want to bring along. Doing 3 brackets of every image would be annoying and movement would make HDR challenging. If some camera magically can give me 2 stops or so of less shadow noise in this scene, it seems like having something for nothing.
So maximum sensor DR is a nice idea but when all else is considered it is only that: a nice idea but not essential.
I am not depending on a camera for bread on my table. Nothing is essential.
DR is one fundamental aspect of digital cameras/sensors, just like spatial resolution and color characteristics. If you don't need state-of-the-art, then good for you, then you have more flexibility in choosing a camera (or keeping your old one).
-h
-
h
I'm not arguing with you or your position!
All I am saying (for those who have dropped in on this conversation) is that each of us has different technical and aesthetic needs in this broad church called photography. I use different cameras lenses and techniques for different needs. It's like choosing which saw to use when you are given a piece of wood to cut.
Please don't take me too seriously! ;D
(PS I do understand the common usage of the term "Band-Aid": my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek when I wrote that bit)