biza43: Other people actually know what and who the camera is for, and it is intended to be used:
Quoting: "The image quality is simply stunning, with incredible detail especially at lower ISOs. And though high ISO isn't a strong suit of these cameras, their performance in this area is quite decent."
There are so many fallacies in your post, it's hard to figure out where to start. But here are a few pointers:- pushing shadows many stops doesn't have to result in "flat" images, that's a user choice. It can leave you with a smoother rolloff at the dark end, highlight end or both too.- having that extra range, doesn't mean you have to use it, but even if you only use half of it, that extra bit of shadow information is much cleaner too. Less shadow noise not just results in extra information, but also in cleaner information in the other stops of shadow information that you choose to use.- quoting Imaging Resource out of context isn't going to win any argument either. They specifically referred to resolution when calling the low image quality stunning. Their full review mentioned the lower DR as a clear downside."Dynamic range still significantly lower than competing models from Nikon and Sony"
newworld666: Just wondering why you aren't tired after so many years of systematic Canon bashing .. Just take a few minutes to understand what are in Canon's RAW pictures and you will get a much better JPG results of the 5Dsr than what you publish based on an inappropriate Adobe Standard profile applied to +4 or +5 EV dynamic .
Basically it's so ridiculous to compress 14EV ou dynamic to 8EV dynamic (Max JPG's file format) or 10EV Dynamic of the best 4K monitor's at more than 1500€
But at least publish really what is in a 5DSR RAW converted correctly to jpg extract from you rawhttps://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-FvDHHFb/0/O/i-FvDHHFb.jpg
and here is a detail (D810 on the left and 5Dsr on right)https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-kkgkWbb/0/O/i-kkgkWbb.jpg
In such ridiculous situation D810 is in a way a bit better, but definitely not as much as you pretend with your eternal Canon bashing
I'm perfectly capable of understanding the compression of DR to fit the desired output medium, compression that practically every camera currently employs to different extends in the built in jpeg engines (DRO, D-Lighting, ALO etc.) and most RAW editing photographers use to different extends in RAW converters.
I'm also quite aware of how our brains dynamically compose images from different "exposures" captured by our eyes when continually scanning scenes. And that output DR compression is mostly a matter of taste.
I'm not sure which part you think I don't understand about your generalizations though.
"Nobody would like the see a picture 14Ev compressed in a 8 ou 10 EV"
It's probably best to keep talking for yourself rather than everyone else.
" Electronically pre washed Exmor RAW Files vs true complete RAW like Canon's file .."
You mean your illusion, as demonstrated already in my post above. Even in some areas after you "washed" those Canon files the best you could, shadow noise in the Canon image remains much higher and detail much lower. You can't magically reduce image noise from a single image to such an extend without affecting detail somewhere, as also witnessed in the mushy trees and other apparent artifacts in your edited version.
You call Dpreview's well thought out tests and conclusions "Canon bashing", yet you make general claims about Exmor sensors without a shred of proof. In other words, the mirror will do you good.
You mean, apply tons of NR and all kinds of other extra processing to the Canon image to make it look better compared to the Nikon shot without such NR, sharpening etc.
Yeah, that would be a fair comparison, a much more level playing field. Uhuh.
Even your NR edited conversion still lags miles behind the D810 conversion with NR turned off in terms of shadow noise and detail:http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/56952070/8690ddfed5d645c3a2abfda3e746212b
Also because your editing isn't doing favors to begin with as witnessed below, with on the left the Dpreview 5DS conversion without NR, in the middle your edited version and on the right the Nikon D810 with some color NR applied. Notice the mushy trees (NR killed all low contrast detail), horrible stairstepping (overly ambitious large radius sharpening) and thick sharpening halos (yellow chimneys) only visible in your version:http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/56952087/c432804e8bea4bcbb93e6fd2d6ad1f27
Arkienkeli: Open page 11 and place the sample frame over the dark patch of trees in the park, left side of the picture…
And these were shot with base ISO, not some ungodly six figure ISOs...
Pushing lower ISO's can also substitute shooting at higher ISO's using the same physical exposures (F stop and shutterspeed), with the benefit of retaining more (up to several several stops) highlight information in high DR low light scenes (most low light scenes that include the light sources), while maintaining similar noise results. As demonstrated in quite a few articles here.
josseee: the colours are truly amazing. One thing I as a sony shooter envy a lot. Sony should team up with canon to provide the ultimate sensor :)
Of course custom color profiles affect everything. The error in thinking would be to say it's only skin tones where default profiles differ to begin with with. The crushed blackd issue in the current 5DS profile affects more than black cat fur too.
armandino: Sometimes I think getting so far in the detailing out all the little aspects there is a loss of the big picture. If you dissect the 5DS and the A7RII the Sony comes ahead no question asked. However:if you asked any Pro heading into a big contract in a properly equipped studio to pic only one camera, either the 5DS or the A7RII, the photographer would pick the Canon without a blink. Why? If you are a pro you know the answer.Since these camera are targeting the Pros and advanced users, the final score should reflect that a bit more in my opinion.Note that I have chosen an A7RII over a 5Ds. But only because I have a 1DX, a 5DIII and a D645 of back it up.
No, it is not. The DR in low light is mostly defined by the noise floor (in turn mostly defined by read noise). That noise floor is what affects shadow editing flexibility at low ISO and shadow noise directly visible at high ISO. It's the main reason why in extremely low light (in this case read : extremely high ISO) the A7S cameras still pull ahead. Not because of the signal to noise ratio measured at 25% gray (DXO noise graphs, similar to A7RII) but because of record low read noise directly visible in the DR graph.. And also in the studio comparison at Dpreview when set to the low light scene.
High ISO DR is visible through shadow noise at high ISO. Shadows tend to be quite dominant in low ligt too... So I guess it depends how one defines what low light is really about.
sparky33: Also for the a7r2 video comparison (leaving the Sony's overheating issues aside) - anyone pause the video and notice just how much better (pleasing) the Canon's skin tones were? The a7r2 looked pretty plastic. Not sure why one body was ISO 8000 and the other 12800...but anyway.And before someone from DPreview says "the Canon only goes from ISO6400 to H-12800" - true. But the Sony will do ISO 12800 - and strangely enough from the tests I've seen, at least in FF mode, the a7r2 gets noisy at around ISO12800 (not in APS-C mode). Just makes one wonder, and no I do not have a tin-foil hat.
No, there is no wrong or right in this sense. Their methods of normalization are sound when it comes to comparing quantitative levels of noise, DR etc. But what they don't measure is metering accuracy in the sense of ISO values corresponding with visual output brightness. You'd need a calibrated light meter and actual converted output (ooc jpeg or converted from RAW) for that. DXO looks at binary RAW data, not using metadata or RAW converter calibration variables, that can and usually are part of the end result.
Two different things that don't necessarily interfere with one another in the sense that the latter doesn't change the impact of the former (their measurements).
... Or you create custom profiles. At best, we're comparing Adobe RAW defaults here, worse, one of many in camera profiles.
DXO reported ISO's are not a reading of sensor sensitivity based on output metering and don't tell the viewer whether there is (metering) "cheating" involved or not, since it doesn't account for the full chain of amplification towards visual output, including digital amplification under the hood (of for example the RAW converter, helping increase highlight headroom).
If camera A gets a sensitivity rating of ISO 800 at DXO while camera B gets 1200, at the same indicated ISO, camera A *can* still show a brighter (or similar) *visual* exposure in the actual output at the same physical exposure (including same transmission values). This is also explained on their website.
Fri13: Strange that Olympus E-M5 II was left out, as it would provide best image quality from all those for studio (product photography) and landscape (same limits as 1s long exposures) or even stationary portraiture (with film we were custom to have models stay still for second).
And it is one of the best high-end ILC by the features as well.
The E-M5II resolution is easily ruined by shuttershock and the lenses don't seem capable to extract the full potential. Here's a best case scenario and it still loses against a Sony plus 55mm Zeiss:http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=oly_em5ii&attr13_1=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr16_0=400&attr16_1=400&attr126_0=highres&attr171_1=off&normalization=full&widget=194&x=-0.19988727911679868&y=-0.8485348618866433
Notice that at ISO 200, the output is even softer, due to shutter shock.
alexne: like it or hate it. You can count on someone copying it.
Yes, very unique though.
wklee: Hasn't it been said that Apple waits to get things right before introducing a product??
Yeah, it is a battery. What's different about it?
6. has a status light that is only visible when removing the phone (thus the on screen info is actually a necessity)7. has no on/off button, unlike practically any other battery case. Thus no user control over the actual charging action, once attached.
nzmacro: Hello, my name is Danny and I need help !!
I feel embarrassed when I shoot my mirrorless cameras while others seem cheerful, relaxed and confident using their DSLR's. My pitiful EVF is like looking at a blurry TV screen, while others are shooting through a bright clear window.
My mirrorless cameras fail in comparison to those gorgeous DSLR's I so want, but can't afford. I feel daunted to say the least.
I got sucked into mirroless by those that said you could fit them in a pocket because they are so small, but when I mount the 800 F/5.6 on it, I find I need much larger pockets.
I want my money back and DPR should pay for it, its here I got talked into it !!
So come on DPR, replace my mirrorless with a Canon 1Dx and 600 F/4 .... PLEASE.
Hint: Danny was being sarcastic. Check his galleries.
otto k: Future DSLR camera will have hybrid OVF/EVF and will function as MILC with mirror up and like a SLR with mirror down. They will have all the benefits of MILC except for body size and wide lens size. But as soon as you go longer than ~35mm there really is no lens size difference between the two. Some mythical compact FF 70-200/2.8 will never exist unless there are serious basic changes in lens design and that would have nothing to do with mirror.
MILC advantages are the possiblity to have very compact (jacket pocket-able) camera with prime or collapsible normal zoom. Just like Sony a5100/6000 with 20/2.8 (or 16-50 pz) or Samsung NX500 with 30/2 (or 16-50 pz) or Panasonic GM5 with 20/1.7 (or 12-32). You get the picture.
"they were allowed to use their own sensor in a Sony device."
Allowed according to popular internet myth.
photominion: the ergonomics always get left out..
while a small body might be nice to have, a full frame sensor still asks for rather large lenses. Especially, if they're supposed to deliver perfect sharpness all across the frame.That said, a tiny body with a huge lens simple feels awkward to work with, especially when you have buttons/controls on both sides of the body and have to let go of the lens to adjust settings.
On a tripod this may not play a role, but then again, when you bring a tripod and work with heavy lenses anyways, why would you need 200g weight saved on the camera body?(You'll need to bring 3 spare batteries anyways, which almost nullifies that weight gain)
What people tend to ignore is thatA) Canon and Nikon batteries are 60% to 80% larger and twice the size, while providing about 3 to 4 times as long battery life when using the OVFB) but when using LV (the LCD), for example an A7RII has 55% longer battery life than a 6D despite that much smaller and lighter battery.
Meaning, for mixed use (including use of LV for critical focusing and exposure purposes, possibly even video), the differences are much smaller. Even if you were to carry twice as many spares, the battery argument for size and weight quickly falls flat. In other words, it will largely depend on your type of usage too, whether the actual battery life and extra spares required, is a real issue or not.
Cpstirn: I love & distrust Sony. I own NEX7 - A7r - A7r2. Why the love? Great technology. The distrust? Spring 2015- I took my A7r into a brick and mortar repair dept. (Good guys). I had scratched my sensor. Sony's outsourced repair service took 6 monthes to fix it. The brick and mortar guys expressed deep concern about not getting a quicker repair. Search the internet you will see many express disappointment. Before buying my A7R2 - I emailed several very high up Sony Execs. One's who say they like to hear from customers. I wanted to know if they could assure me better repair service. None responded. I bought the A7r2 first day on sale - at the brick and mortar store anyway. The camera is just so damn good. I was sold an insurance with it as an effort to protect me. I hope I never have to test it. And yes - I know there is a Pro Support system available for a fee from Sony. Although I am Pro -- with three Sony's. I am one Zeiss lens short of their qualification system.
They've actually supported many of their formats, long after they lost their economic value (read: sales that can actually lead to profits).Think Betamax and Betacam, DAT, MD, Memorystick, etc. On the subject of photography, they actually support many dozens of lenses (by providing full functionality for them) that were produced as early as '84 with full AF and stabilization, from different makers (Minolta being the most obvious) on cameras sold today. Hint, very few camera makers can say the same.
pitaw: What ? ...only 290 shots max onthis camera, what about if you're using live view, some video clips and large tele lens? ...poor battery life indeed.
The camera effectively shoots in LV all the time.... With the LCD it's 340.
The 5DS scores 200 shots in LV using the LCD, using the same CIPA method for measuring.