Interesting discussion in Canon thread.

[tbcass]

Do you see a parallel here with Sony discussions about SLT light loss or 4/3 and APS discussions about noise levels compared to FF. No camera brand or type is perfect and the idea that switching brands will solve all your problems isn't true so be happy and get the most out of what you have.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

"ttran88 wrote:

Canon fans really were hoping the hero 5DS/R was going to bring the Canon banner up with the big boys from Nikon and Sony. And shut the critics up once and for all. But Well in reality Canon is no where near the big boys. The hate for DXO Mark and its irrelevance continues. Canon fans must wait till Canon submits and care about their sensors and start buying Sony sensors than DXO Mark will be of importance. Till then enjoy the 80% tile. LoL

I don't think Canon users were expecting nor cared about a 2 stop DR difference. Or a 2/3 stop exposure difference or whatever. There are other things that make a system. Exaggerating the usefulness of these differences just highlights those people who don't have much practical experience taking photos."

 

[Douglas F Watt]

Do you see a parallel here with Sony discussions about SLT light loss or 4/3 and APS discussions about noise levels compared to FF. No camera brand or type is perfect and the idea that switching brands will solve all your problems isn't true so be happy and get the most out of what you have.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56135668

"ttran88 wrote:

Canon fans really were hoping the hero 5DS/R was going to bring the Canon banner up with the big boys from Nikon and Sony. And shut the critics up once and for all. But Well in reality Canon is no where near the big boys. The hate for DXO Mark and its irrelevance continues. Canon fans must wait till Canon submits and care about their sensors and start buying Sony sensors than DXO Mark will be of importance. Till then enjoy the 80% tile. LoL

I don't think Canon users were expecting nor cared about a 2 stop DR difference. Or a 2/3 stop exposure difference or whatever. There are other things that make a system. Exaggerating the usefulness of these differences just highlights those people who don't have much practical experience taking photos."

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography.

Yes that's an interesting post and as usual Tom I think you are spot on.

Or as Mark Twain would say there are lies, damnedable lies, and then there are statistics.

Although things like 2 EV of DR, or 30% light loss from an SLT mirror sound huge, the reality is that their typical visible impact on photos is anywhere from minimal to zero. Only in extreme situations do any of these putatively big statistical issues make a whit of truly visible difference.

I sometimes blame DPR in part for this relentless focus on statistical performance – but as I say that I realize you can't even blame the Professional reviewers/media, we all have to take responsibility for helping to create this culture of obsessive focus on statistical performance evaluations.

While some of this resides in the usual addiction that gearheads have to the false idol of Max performance (and let's face it, a lot of people in DP are gearheads, myself included), the blogosphere and the relentless focus on statistical measurement – which I see as the engineering version of pixel peeping – has created a culture in which someone cannot be satisfied or worse, believes that they shouldn't be satisfied unless they've got the best measuring gear.

This obsessive focus really has derailed and to some extent replaced the focus on getting the best possible photo. Getting the best photo and getting the best gear used to be seen as synergistic but increasingly I'm beginning to see them as competing behavioral vectors. To the extent that you're obsessed with your gear, and the minutia of its performance, you are oftentimes not taking pictures, and worse, you're no longer enjoying your photography because you're obsessing about it so much.

--
DFW

 

[Doc Marvin]

......When the chisel becomes the goal rather than the statue...

 

[tbcass]

......When the chisel becomes the goal rather than the statue...

That one little phrase says it all!!!!!

 

[Dave Oddie]

Yes that's an interesting post and as usual Tom I think you are spot on.

Or as Mark Twain would say there are lies, damnedable lies, and then there are statistics.

Although things like 2 EV of DR, or 30% light loss from an SLT mirror sound huge, the reality is that their typical visible impact on photos is anywhere from minimal to zero. Only in extreme situations do any of these putatively big statistical issues make a whit of truly visible difference.

As far as DR goes I thought DPR did a very good job here of explaining exactly why what you say above is simply not true.

The point out higher DR allows you to expose for the highlights and reduces the need for for graduated filters of HDR bracketing. Real world use of cameras where higher DR is clearly an advantage.

I don't think exposing for the highlights is something you only do in extreme situations.

DR is one area where digital still trails being negative film and the more of it the merrier.

 

[tbcass]

As far as DR goes I thought DPR did a very good job here of explaining exactly why what you say above is simply not true.

DR is one area where digital still trails being negative film and the more of it the merrier.

Nobody ever said more DR is useless but in my experience it's rarely important for properly exposed photos. I almost never find that I wish my A77ii had more DR. Greater DR does allow one to get away with being careless with exposure.

 

[Ed at Ridersite]

As far as DR goes I thought DPR did a very good job here of explaining exactly why what you say above is simply not true.

DR is one area where digital still trails being negative film and the more of it the merrier.

Nobody ever said more DR is useless but in my experience it's rarely important for properly exposed photos. I almost never find that I wish my A77ii had more DR. Greater DR does allow one to get away with being careless with exposure.

If you shoot much wildlife, DR is very important. There's simply too much lighting variation from shot to shot to make adjustments on the fly. If you try, you'll definitely miss some keepers.

 

[tbcass]

If you shoot much wildlife, DR is very important. There's simply too much lighting variation from shot to shot to make adjustments on the fly. If you try, you'll definitely miss some keepers.

I do shoot wildlife and I have none of the problems you describe. The camera does an excellent job of compensating for the changes in lighting.

 

[Douglas F Watt]

Yes that's an interesting post and as usual Tom I think you are spot on.

Or as Mark Twain would say there are lies, damnedable lies, and then there are statistics.

Although things like 2 EV of DR, or 30% light loss from an SLT mirror sound huge, the reality is that their typical visible impact on photos is anywhere from minimal to zero. Only in extreme situations do any of these putatively big statistical issues make a whit of truly visible difference.

As far as DR goes I thought DPR did a very good job here of explaining exactly why what you say above is simply not true.

The point out higher DR allows you to expose for the highlights and reduces the need for for graduated filters of HDR bracketing. Real world use of cameras where higher DR is clearly an advantage.

I don't think exposing for the highlights is something you only do in extreme situations.

DR is one area where digital still trails being negative film and the more of it the merrier.

Hi Dave

I meant to say one EV instead of two EV but it's still the same issue. Outdoors extra dynamic range is significant, but there are many scenes, particularly indoors in which there is not enough dynamic range to push the sensor into either crushed blacks or blown highlights. My point was not to get stuck in an argument about dynamic range versus noise but rather simply to say that there is an obsessive approach to all these issues that is amplified in the blogosphere and by the relentless focus on performance statistics. Yes it would be great to have a sensor with a hypothetical range of 20+ EV. No argument there.

Let me throw the question back to you in another form. Do you think that for most photographers a bigger impact on their work would emerge from an extra two EV or from significantly improving their composition skills?

 

[K E Hoffman]

......When the chisel becomes the goal rather than the statue...

When the chisel maker ships it to you dull and brittle and tells you "We make the best chisels" how often will that affect the statue?

The Sensor is just the most easily quantifiable part of a lack luster camera design philosophy, that has become Canon. A far Cry from the statements they may with the A1 or the Elan line for film.

 

[K E Hoffman]

As far as DR goes I thought DPR did a very good job here of explaining exactly why what you say above is simply not true.

DR is one area where digital still trails being negative film and the more of it the merrier.

Nobody ever said more DR is useless but in my experience it's rarely important for properly exposed photos. I almost never find that I wish my A77ii had more DR. Greater DR does allow one to get away with being careless with exposure.

 

[Jeadm]

As far as DR goes I thought DPR did a very good job here of explaining exactly why what you say above is simply not true.

Not sure what you were linking to, the article or a specific comment. I thought this particular comment and image links therein by Rishi summed it up well http://www.dpreview.com/articles/36...st-ranked-canon-sensor-yet?comment=6186630159

 

[Jeadm]

Let me throw the question back to you in another form. Do you think that for most photographers a bigger impact on their work would emerge from an extra two EV or from significantly improving their composition skills?

Putting it that way there's also your argument for never spending more on better bodies or glass. It's certainly good and prudent advice for beginners who think buying expensive equipment magically makes their photography better, so there's definitely a time and place for that. I think the hypothetical we're exploring here is with the assumption it's a competent shooter looking to get the most out of their stuff.

Then there's this:

Canon 5DS tulip sunrise: http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/3673531883/5DS-TulipSunrise-FullSize.jpeg

Sony A7R tulip sunrise (w/Canon glass): http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/7945517371/a7R-TulipSunrise.jpeg

Obviously it's not apples to apples but something to think about. For details on the Canon shot, go here http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/7 , scroll down and read the "Real World Dynamic Range" section.

 

[cplunk]

......When the chisel becomes the goal rather than the statue...

That one little phrase says it all!!!!!

 

[Douglas F Watt]

Let me throw the question back to you in another form. Do you think that for most photographers a bigger impact on their work would emerge from an extra two EV or from significantly improving their composition skills?

Putting it that way there's also your argument for never spending more on better bodies or glass. It's certainly good and prudent advice for beginners who think buying expensive equipment magically makes their photography better, so there's definitely a time and place for that. I think the hypothetical we're exploring here is with the assumption it's a competent shooter looking to get the most out of their stuff.

Then there's this:

Canon 5DS tulip sunrise: http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/3673531883/5DS-TulipSunrise-FullSize.jpeg

Sony A7R tulip sunrise (w/Canon glass): http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/7945517371/a7R-TulipSunrise.jpeg

Obviously it's not apples to apples but something to think about. For details on the Canon shot, go here http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/7 , scroll down and read the "Real World Dynamic Range" section.

Of course, and I'm certainly not suggesting that good equipment doesn't matter – that would be pretty silly, particularly given how much money I've spent on lenses lately . And by the way, I think that the margins provided by glass are often times more significant than the margins provided by incremental sensor upgrades but again that's also a point one could debate and kick around for hours.

It's not either/or (Equipment versus technique, composition, etc.). But I do believe that webzines and the blogosphere have moved us close to if not past the point of diminishing returns. In other words, how much of our energy is spent worrying about our gear and its performance, particularly in terms of chasing those last statistically significant but perhaps from an image standpoint marginal improvements? This is not again to suggest that equipment is not important.

Let's keep in mind that there are powerful commercial interests behind all this, and that those commercial interests – Sony included – would love to see us spend a fortune to get the very best gear even if the margins provided by that extra thousands of dollars were really quite modest.

My two cents worth.

Oh, and as a postscript, for some people, those slim margins may be worth many thousands of dollars, but again that's a personal judgment and not something that can be objectively evaluated.

--
DFW

 

[tbcass]

Good tools matter.

It's not only the experience of using a good tool, as a hobbyist I want a camera that enjoyable to use, but also the results, which may end up the same either way, but be quicker and easier to get to with better tools.

The point is many people are more interested in the tool than actually using it. That carpenter made use of his tools. Many haven't taken the time to hone their skills as a photographer but instead their life is primarily the pursuit of the best tool without developing their skills.

 

[cplunk]

Good tools matter.

It's not only the experience of using a good tool, as a hobbyist I want a camera that enjoyable to use, but also the results, which may end up the same either way, but be quicker and easier to get to with better tools.

The point is many people are more interested in the tool than actually using it. That carpenter made use of his tools. Many haven't taken the time to hone their skills as a photographer but instead their life is primarily the pursuit of the best tool without developing their skills.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography.

I understand the point. I just don't entirely agree with it.

Sure, there are people more interested in the tool than actually using it. Personally, I do have 4-5 pretty fancy hammers, ant-vibe handles with magnets to hold the nail for starting, knurled heads to prevent slipping. And it's pretty rare for me to try pounding a nail into anything (and I get the crooked a lot). But I don't think there are really "many" that obsessed with cameras that aren't also using them in some manner.

A part of developing any skill is some level of understanding of the tools used. And I think that assuming that others, in their pursuit to find the best tools for themselves and their use of it, aren't also developing their skills and concerned with the results is a bit of a mistake.

 

[Roses]

Do you see a parallel here with Sony discussions about SLT light loss or 4/3 and APS discussions about noise levels compared to FF. No camera brand or type is perfect and the idea that switching brands will solve all your problems isn't true so be happy and get the most out of what you have.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56135668

"ttran88 wrote:

Canon fans really were hoping the hero 5DS/R was going to bring the Canon banner up with the big boys from Nikon and Sony. And shut the critics up once and for all. But Well in reality Canon is no where near the big boys. The hate for DXO Mark and its irrelevance continues. Canon fans must wait till Canon submits and care about their sensors and start buying Sony sensors than DXO Mark will be of importance. Till then enjoy the 80% tile. LoL

I don't think Canon users were expecting nor cared about a 2 stop DR difference. Or a 2/3 stop exposure difference or whatever. There are other things that make a system. Exaggerating the usefulness of these differences just highlights those people who don't have much practical experience taking photos."

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography.

I have actually ran up against the edge case scenarios a few times, and I've only been doing this photography thing for two years, shooting primarily RAW for one.

Don't get me wrong. I love the A77II. But high ISO performance is not as good as non-SLT cameras. My husband and I are likely going toward A7rII, full frame, because there are times when flash is simply not possible.

As for the dynamic range of Canon cameras, it's not so much even the dynamic range as the exposure latitude. I just can't lift the shadows as much without introducing ugly noise and patterns in the shadows.

That is among my favorite things about Sony sensor cameras. Here is an example of after we hiked up to around 8770 ft. in altitude, the sun was high in the sky and harsh, and I took a photo of my husband and our younger son:

No exposure bracketing, post-processed in Lightroom

The whites are from snow in the mountains, and they are both in the shadows. This is a case where good dynamic range is helpful, on-camera flash would have caused an unnatural look, and off-camera flash would not be possible (they were sitting on top of some high rocks, and we did not pack any off camera flash poles).

My husband took this one of us. You can see the rock better.

Before Lightroom processing the sky looked blown out, but the RAW files retain some of the information. It's not just about dynamic range "score," but also about how well the shadows and highlights can tolerate being pushed. In that regard I feel like Sony sensors do a better job.

--

http://www.lightfinity.net

 

[steelhead3]

You may want to try Capture 1 (free for Sony), it is not only about sensor but also raw converter. It can be a little frustrating in the beginning but their are a number of how to videos available.

 

[Roses]

You may want to try Capture 1 (free for Sony), it is not only about sensor but also raw converter. It can be a little frustrating in the beginning but their are a number of how to videos available.

I tried Capture 1, DXOMark and Lightroom. Ultimately I settled on Lightroom due to the presets workflow plus the selective adjustment tools/remove spots tools. Capture 1 free version did not have these that I saw, unless I missed them.