Canon SX50, 50D, Sony A58.
Big thanks to DPR for the improved Exposure Latitude test (page 12). Depends a bit on where you look, but to my eyes 70D pushed 2 stops look about the same as D5500 pushed 3 stops, and 70D pushed 4 stops look app. the same as D5500 pushed 6 stops, so with a moderate 2-3 stops push the D5500 is about 1 stop better and the difference increases to 2 stops with a bigger 4-6 stops push. Very interesting, IMO.
MJ Fine Art Photography: Hmm... You guys seem real proud that you have proven Sony liars about the dynamic range. Just one thing to note though. In your test of the A7R vs the A7s you made one huge mistake that renders your test conclusions mute. You tested one camera at its' base ISO(A7R base ISO100) but not the A7s(base ISO 3200). Not every camera has the same base ISO or the same point at which the highest dynamic range is achieved. For a test whose entire point is determining best dynamic range the obvious first thing to figure out is the actual base ISO of the camera in question and test at that point.
Googled a bit.. seems that ISO 3200 is the native (lowest?) ISO if shooting video in S-log2 mode. Just a video thing. Nothing to do with still images.
Steen Bay: "Raw images were pushed 6 EV, with some additional shadow lifting to make darker tones visible." (Exposure Latitude, page 11).
A 6 stops base ISO push (+ additional shadow lifting) is a bit extreme IMO, at least if done with a Canon DSLR. All it shows is that Canon cameras can't do that, but it doesn't tell you how much it is possible to push Canon's base ISO shadow with an acceptable result. So please consider to also show in the reviews how less extreme base ISO pushes look, like for example "ISO 100 + 4 stops" and "ISO 100 + 2 stops". Think it would be useful to also show what the cameras can do, instead of just showing what they (Canon) can't do.
Yes, understand it's hard to design a proper RAW DR test, but I'm sure that you (and the rest of the team) will come up with something that makes the reviews even better than they already are. Thanks for listening.
Can't quite see why a "comparison point" is needed. What I'm interested in here is base ISO DR. How many stops the base ISO shadows can be pushed with a reasonable result. To get an idea about that it's just necessary to underexpose for example 2, 4 and 6 stops and lift the shadows afterwards.
"ISO-invariance" is a different thing, and guess it's useful to know about that too if you want to shoot ISO-less, but don't think it's necessary to mix it up with the tests of base ISO DR.
Yes, understand that you don't have infinite time & resources, but what I suggested would just require 2 extra shots at base ISO. 4 stops underexposed (and pushed) and 2 stops underexposed/pushed. Most people will probably never (or only very rarely) push the base ISO shadows more than 2-4 stops anyway, and if they don't, then maybe even a Canon DSLR would be doing just fine.
"Raw images were pushed 6 EV, with some additional shadow lifting to make darker tones visible." (Exposure Latitude, page 11).
Wye Photography: It will be very interesting looking at sample pix from all over the zoom range especially at the long end. Will I laugh or cry or both!
An ideal camera for pedos, it's bound to sell well!
Full size (16mp) moon shot here :
Daniel Lauring: Still no RAW support? Why Nikon? That takes it out of the competition for birders on a limited budget.
But P900 will give you more than twice (2.15x) as many "pixels on the duck" as Canon SX60 (RAW + 1365mm equivalent) at full zoom. Maybe that could bring it back in the competition.
ozturert: Well, Sony needs to remove all AA filters ASAP. These samples are way too soft. Even the ones with Zeiss 55mm. Actually they need to switch to something like Faveon to remove that "smoggy-smudgy" look. I'm saying this to all, Canon-Nikon-Sony-Pentax etc..
"Original (6000x4000)" is available.
"This F3.4-6.5, 50X optical zoom is equivalent to a whopping 24-1000mm". Even better/worse. It's actually equivalent to a "whopping" 24-1200mm (like SX50).
Amin Sabet: Great review, and I love the demonstrations of exposure latitude and ISO invariance. Really well done!
Hope to see these tools include D810 soon.
"Hope to see these tools include D810 soon."
And 6D too. In the conclusion they say that "The main competitor to the D750 is Canon's EOS 6D.", so think it would have been natural to use 6D in the exposure latitude test, instead of the 5D3 that has less DR and more banding than 6D. Wouldn't make a huge difference, the D750 would still be far ahead, but still.
ottonis: First of all: terrific job with that comprehensive and sophisticated review, DPR! Hats off!
I have one question, though:
When using the studio comparison tool it appears to me that the D750 is on par or even slightly better than Sony A7s in low-light up until ISO 6400 -12800. THis is a huge feat, IMO, considering the A7s has been specifically designed to provide top-notch low-light sensitivity, low noise floor and high-ISO IQ.
I don't know how to read out the exif data, so someone may help me out: have the aperture and shutter speed been the same across the D750 and A7s for this particular studio comparison?
Thanks in advance and keep up the great job, guys!That being said:
Hold the mouse over the 'i' below the crops to see exif. The f-stop and shutter speed are the same for D750 and A7s, but the 6D gets 1/3 stop less exposure (uses 1/3 stop faster shutter speed). Don't know why.
Dimitris Servis: How does it work at iso 50?
"ISO 50 costs you 1 stop Raw DR compared to ISO 100. If you can't see it; your scene doesn't have enough DR."
ISO 50 has 1 stop less 'headroom' (above metered middle gray) and 1 stop more 'footroom'. The total RAW DR is the same at both ISOs.
Steen Bay: The 'Exposure Latitude' and 'ISO Invariance' tests (page 13) are very interesting. Hope that you (the review team) will add more cameras, like e.g. the 6D, Canon's currently best FF camera regarding DR. It won't be dramatically better than 5D3, but 6D has a bit more DR (0.4 Ev according to DxO), and it also has less banding than 5D3.
You write about 'ISO-invariance'.. "However, this way of shooting confers an image quality advantage if you make the effort to work around these inconveniences.". Wouldn't put it like that. With an ISO-invariant (or ISO-less') camera you can get more safety highlight headroom when shooting in low light, but that'll just be an advantage if you otherwise would have blown important highlights. If you just 'expose properly' (increase the ISO, but not so much that important highlights are blown) when shooting with an 'ISO-variant' camera like 5D3, then you'll be fine.
"1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 stop pushes are already in the ISO-invariance widget"
And a 6 stop push too, but that's a completely different thing than 1-6 stop pushes at base ISO. In the ISO-invariance wignet the exposure is 6 stops below full saturation (ETTR) at base ISO in all 6 examples. That's why the D750 in all 6 examples have higher noise than it has with a 5 stops push in the Exposure Latitude wignet above.
iAPX: The ISO-invariant part is incredibly interesting, having a D610, I will test it with it, to see if this technic gives good results with -2EV or -3EV of exposure, divising ISO by 4 or 8: 800 ISO instead 6400 ISO for example gives a far better dynamic, and at same time while shooting live shows, it enable to shoot at much faster speeds, increasing the potential of a 70-200 f/2.8.
I am glad I learned a new way to do things, that could give immediate benefits!
The f/stop and shutter speed aren't supposed to change if you shoot 'ISO-less', just the ISO. If you shoot at ISO 800 instead af ISO 6400, then you'll get 3 extra stops of safety highlight headroom. If you don't need that extra headroom (if you don't normally blow important highlights when shooting at ISO 6400), then the end result will be the same as before.
P.S. - Maybe the 5 stops push in the Exposure Latitude test is a bit extreme. Many (or even most) photographer will probably never want/need to lift the shadows that much. How about also showing how e.g. a 2-3 stops push will look? Think it could be useful/relevant, because 3 stops latitude probably will be enough for most people in most situations.
The 'Exposure Latitude' and 'ISO Invariance' tests (page 13) are very interesting. Hope that you (the review team) will add more cameras, like e.g. the 6D, Canon's currently best FF camera regarding DR. It won't be dramatically better than 5D3, but 6D has a bit more DR (0.4 Ev according to DxO), and it also has less banding than 5D3.
Just another Canon shooter: Thank you for adding a page about DR. It was time to make this "more official". Canon cannot pretend anymore than they do not know what everybody is talking about.
BTW, why comparing the 7DII to the D7000? Why not to the D7100? The latter is newer, and ... suffers from banding (still better DR than any Canon).
Let's say you're shooting in low light with an ISO-less (or ISO-invariant) camera at base ISO (ISO 100). Don't think that any cameras are quite ISO-less yet, but let's say it is and that you choose 1/60, f/4, which will give you an exposure 5 stops below ETTR. Another photographer with a Canon camera will also use 1/60, f/4 and increase the ISO to ISO 3200, or maybe just to ISO 2500 to be on the safe side. Or maybe he'll use Auto ISO with -1/3 or -2/3 EC.
Also, if you have a camera with EVF (or use live view), then things like 'exposure simulation' (WYSIWYG), live histogram and maybe zebras/blinkies make it much easier to get the 'correct exposure', including ISO, without blowing important highlights. Like I said, don't think that the possibility to shoot ISO-less is such a big deal.
Notice that I said "unused headroom" and "final image". If you shoot at base ISO with an ISO-less camera and your exposure is x stops below full saturation (below ETTR), then you have lost x stops of DR.
@Rishi Sanyal - 5 extra stops of unused safety highlight headroom if shooting with an ISO-less camera in low light won't give you more DR i the final image. The extra headroom is just an advantage if you otherwise would have blow important highlights. If exposing 'properly' when shooting at higher ISOs, without blowing important highlights, then the extra headroom that ISO-less shooting gives you won't be needed. OK, the extra headroom could maybe be nice to have if in a hurry, but I really don't think it's a big deal. Just protect the highlights when you shoot at higher ISOs (don't increase the ISO too much), just like you have to do when shooting in good light at base ISO. Then you'll be fine.