Did they post its DR curve :-).
Detail Man: Richard Butler and Rishi Sanyal:
These two articles about sources of image-noise are well presented and explained in your statements of clarification made in comments sections.
I like the way that DPReview writers appear to have the adopted the terminology "ISO-invariant" / "ISO-variant" in lieu of the (IMO, less descriptive) terms "ISO-less" / "ISO-full", and recall suggesting the alternate use of those particular terms in this post replying to "gollywop":
... when he was in the course of editing his to be published DPReview article here:
... and which he continued to use in his subsequent DPReview published article here:
The more information regarding these subjects that is made accessible to readers within articles published on the DPReview site (in addition to appearing in forum posts), the better !
Yea, doesn't make a whole lot of difference. people who want to know will figure it out anyway. Maybe Canon will bold down a Sony sensor and we can all stop talking about eventually ;-).
Everyone here wants to work in the term "sensor" somewhere but that is not valid in the case of Canon. I think I would just say "camera" and forget about “sensor” particularly in the case of Canon since in the "downstream" read noise comes in somewhere long after the signal has left the sensor.
I think your terms (LDRN/HDRN) are fine but the "downstream" concept seems to be unique to Canon from what I can tell. I get what DPR is trying to convey but I am not even sure that the concept applies to the Sony architecture since the digitization appears to be right at the detectors themselves (I suspect there is some buffering there but it is quiet). Sony really doesn’t have a “downstream” while Canon has a whole analog signal path that doesn’t exist with the other guys. But as for your question, Yes, I do think your terms are better since they don’t use the term ISO and are more descriptive of what is actually going on – good point.
"ISO-Invariant" and "ISO-variant" make more sense to me. Never did like the term "ISO-Less".
Jonathan Brady: My first thought? MAN... DPR is REALLY going after Canon and just burying them! They must be in cahoots with Nikon/Sony. My second thought? Instead... Maybe they're just trying to educate the masses who will then demand a superior product from Canon which will (hopefully) give them the swift kick in the *** that they obviously need and the whole market can move forward with better products. Yes... Image sensor noise (and thus, exposure latitude and DR) is simply one aspect of a cameras performance, but when one company is so obviously outclassed, it's hard not to beat that dead horse. PS, I'm a Canon user. And yes I recognize they're behind in low ISO noise performance due to the DOWNSTREAM noise added by their imaging pipeline.
No mention of any particular manufacturer that I saw here. All these noise sources are present to varying degrees in any camera. FWIW: there is no "problem" different system architectures perform differently. Both these systems are performing exactly as they should perform.
David Hull: What is with that fold out screen? At least that is one thing that Canon does right.
Hmmm... Maybe that is why they did it that way then. Good point.
There isn't one (my comment wasn't about the FF body, but about the kludge fold out screen implementation) but the fold out screen methodology that Canon did on the G11 and the 60D was far superior to this IMO. Maybe Canon has a patent or something?
What is with that fold out screen? At least that is one thing that Canon does right.
Looks a bit like the iPhone. Interesting. Rumors are that the iPhone 6 may have a more beveled, bezel-less appearance. I like the look, actually. I could care less about the camera. More MP, so what.
Smeggypants: "So you find that in America your customers equate physical size with quality?"
LOL :) - They got that right. :) :)
Size matters... that's what she said anyway :-)
Approachable yet serious? Sounds like my cat :-)
The typical price for a high quality APP in the iPad is $10-$15 period. Adobe wants to charge 10-12 times that in perpetuity? I think that if Adobe really wants to increase their profitability, they should start packaging and selling whatever it is that they are smoking.
The exposure slider in LR is adjusting "brightness". In earlier versions of LR this control was called brightness. Essentially it takes the "raw numbers" and scales them multiplying them by a constant to make the image brighter and dividing the numbers to make the image dimmer. This is digital "amplification".
Look at how he defines "brightening".
One thing is for sure, the next podcast will be an interesting listen.
I think Jerad has more talents than just photography and the exposure here will (no doubt) drive a few more listeners toward his videos and PC. I would encourage those who are curious to give it a listen, then formulate their own opinion. As horshack pointed out earlier, it ain't going to be everyone's cup of tea but if you have an iPhone or iPod, you can listen to them at double speed which is about right for an evening walk (and makes the singing shorter ;-) ). He has a big following so there must be many who find it entertaining and enlightening.
David Hull: Just dial up his podcast and give it a listen. Then decide if you want to pay $57 for three hours of that. I do still listen to the podcast; I believe that I have heard most of every one of them which I tend to listen to walking to lunch etc. -- a good time for such things. I first heard this guy on TWIP and decided to give him a listen. Occasionally there is something there that is worth the price of admission but you have to put up with a lot of adolescent BS to get to it. Would I pay money for that --- nope. But, as they say, YMMV.
I don't need to be a maker of video guides to comment on one (and that is not what I am doing -- I have not watched it). I don't make movies but I know which ones I like and which ones I don't. The same is true for photographs etc. I don't really know what is in the video guide, but I have watched a couple of Jared's videos and listened to a lot of the podcasts. In terms of "bang for the buck" the podcast has value, but knowing Jared (through what I have seen and heard) I can't imagine paying $57 for three hours of that.
Lets just say that I set a higher standard for the quality of the material that I am willing to pay money for.
I don't really see why you are getting so excited about this, people are entitled to express their opinions. Not everyone likes juvenile, adolescent humor, sexual innuendo, licking microphones, sniffing equipment (what's up with that anyway) and horrible singing. Get a clue -- I am not the only one here with this opinion and it is perfectly valid.
steelski: Fro does not know photo....IMO ;)
Wilkinson -- I wouldn't use the term "exposure triangle" here if I were you, very dangerous.
I have looked at his website -- so what? It's OK, some nice stuff there, perhaps Jerad should stick to photography, since he can't sing well ;-).
What success are you referring to? His success as a photographer or his success as a showman, salesman, entertainer. He has some successful videos, a podcast that has been running for a short while, a lot of video on you tube but what exactly are his credentials as a photographer? He is selling lots of junk on the net, tee shirts, blankets, afro picks (gold ones even), red "black rapid" camera straps with his logo on them... etc. but what about photography? What are the credentials qualify him as a flash expert? I would be more inclined to look to David Hobie or Syl Arena for such advice rather than some Howard Stern "wanabee".
Just dial up his podcast and give it a listen. Then decide if you want to pay $57 for three hours of that. I do still listen to the podcast; I believe that I have heard most of every one of them which I tend to listen to walking to lunch etc. -- a good time for such things. I first heard this guy on TWIP and decided to give him a listen. Occasionally there is something there that is worth the price of admission but you have to put up with a lot of adolescent BS to get to it. Would I pay money for that --- nope. But, as they say, YMMV.
David Hull: I would only buy it if I could be guaranteed that the idiot doesn't sing on it like does on his weekly podcast. Can someone at DPR please review this and give us the "F" bomb count?
OK, no "F" bombs -- good (not that I really care about cleverly well placed "F" bombs). So, OK, How much singing? How many times are you well down the road on a good thought only to stop everything, completely breaking your pacing to ask your assistant "Hey could you check that camera... why is that light flashing?", Hey could you check my levels, were my levels good?" etc. I often listen to the podcast (although lately, I have been tempted to unsubscribe), but I don't think I would want to lay down $57 for 3 hours of adolescent humor, bad singing, microphone licking etc. It is just an opinion though so take it for what it's worth.
In all fairness once in a while there is a piece of valuable photographic insight woven in -- often though this seems to be accidental.
I would only buy it if I could be guaranteed that the idiot doesn't sing on it like does on his weekly podcast. Can someone at DPR please review this and give us the "F" bomb count?