5D4 Dynamic Range

[JackM]

A quick single shot example:

processed in Lightroom

Straight Out Of Camera

 

[stevedavidsonphotography]

A quick single shot example:

processed in Lightroom

Straight Out Of Camera

The 5D4 is awesome !

 

[Dan_168]

A quick single shot example:

Looks good, almost as good as the one from the "dark side".

 

[hotdog321]

I agree. My first assignment with my 5D IV bodies after upgrading from the III was to shoot a group shot back lit at noon in Houston (I couldn't choose the time or location). I was shocked at how open the shadows were and still showed the sunlit city in the background.

 

[EJ Fudd]

just out of curiosity, Maine?

 

[JackM]

just out of curiosity, Maine?

Ayuh.

 

[BlueRay2]

the shadow lifting looks natural, not cooked up HDR looking ;-) thanks for the post.

 

[JackM]

the shadow lifting looks natural, not cooked up HDR looking ;-) thanks for the post.

 

[Badwater]

Interesting looking photos. One is very vibrant and saturated, while the other looks like a mistake. Great job.

 

[JackM]

Interesting looking photos. One is very vibrant and saturated, while the other looks like a mistake. Great job.

Thanks. I went to walk my dog at the little town beach and I slung my camera over my shoulder as I left, just in case of a good sunset, which this wasn't really. Of course I didn't bring a tripod, but I tried to get 3 bracketed shots to make an HDR. That didn't work out, but this is the darkest of the 3 shots. In the middle shot, the brightest parts of the sky and clouds are blown, and there is camera shake. So I figured I'd just see what I could get away with by only processing the dark shot. I'm impressed. I don't know what I would do with any more DR.

 

[photog7320]

I'm impressed. I don't know what I would do with any more DR.

This is the thing spec sheet fans can't understand. I found it extremely rare that my old crop 7D couldn't handle a scene's luminous range, with the exception of scenes that would blow past anything including a Nikon D8x0.

Looking over those RAWs where the 7D "failed", I'm confident the 5Ds could have handled them had I owned it (er...had it existed) at the time. Given careful ETTR and proper processing of course.

The 5D4? A big step up in DR. As a practical matter it's a match for the Sony chips on DR. In testing 1ev separates them, but that 1ev is equivalent to a processing change like increasing NR slightly. It's a beast on DR.

But whenever the topic comes up there's some spec fan who still insists that Canon has "poor sensors and poor DR." :-| There are also a number of sites where people post relatively tame scenes and claim only a Sony sensor could have photographed them (head smack).

I've posted this before, but here's a sensor that actually is "poor" on DR by today's standards holding bright clouds while opening up canyon shadows. Not as impressive as your scene of course. But not too shabby either.

With the possible exception of banding on the 5D3, Canon was never as bad at DR as they were made out to be.

 

[JackM]

Completely agree, Daniel.

 

[dpr4bb]

I'm impressed. I don't know what I would do with any more DR.

This is the thing spec sheet fans can't understand. I found it extremely rare that my old crop 7D couldn't handle a scene's luminous range, with the exception of scenes that would blow past anything including a Nikon D8x0.

So brazenly disingenuous and self-serving, it’s laughable. The large DR advantage of a D8x0 over a 7D is plenty useful. This has been demonstrated in numerous reviews on this very site. You know about this as it has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, yet you keep on trucking with deceptive and misleading statements like the above. What game are you playing here?

Looking over those RAWs where the 7D "failed", I'm confident the 5Ds could have handled them had I owned it (er...had it existed) at the time. Given careful ETTR and proper processing of course.

The 5D4? A big step up in DR. As a practical matter it's a match for the Sony chips on DR. In testing 1ev separates them, but that 1ev is equivalent to a processing change like increasing NR slightly. It's a beast on DR.

But whenever the topic comes up there's some spec fan who still insists that Canon has "poor sensors and poor DR." :-| There are also a number of sites where people post relatively tame scenes and claim only a Sony sensor could have photographed them (head smack).

I've posted this before, but here's a sensor that actually is "poor" on DR by today's standards holding bright clouds while opening up canyon shadows. Not as impressive as your scene of course. But not too shabby either.

With the possible exception of banding on the 5D3, Canon was never as bad at DR as they were made out to be.

 

[JackM]

I'm impressed. I don't know what I would do with any more DR.

This is the thing spec sheet fans can't understand. I found it extremely rare that my old crop 7D couldn't handle a scene's luminous range, with the exception of scenes that would blow past anything including a Nikon D8x0.

So brazenly disingenuous and self-serving, it’s laughable. The large DR advantage of a D8x0 over a 7D is plenty useful. This has been demonstrated in numerous reviews on this very site. You know about this as it has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, yet you keep on trucking with deceptive and misleading statements like the above. What game are you playing here?

So let's see your images.

 

[acps]

I'm impressed. I don't know what I would do with any more DR.

This is the thing spec sheet fans can't understand. I found it extremely rare that my old crop 7D couldn't handle a scene's luminous range, with the exception of scenes that would blow past anything including a Nikon D8x0.

So brazenly disingenuous and self-serving, it’s laughable. The large DR advantage of a D8x0 over a 7D is plenty useful. This has been demonstrated in numerous reviews on this very site. You know about this as it has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, yet you keep on trucking with deceptive and misleading statements like the above. What game are you playing here?

So let's see your images.

I mean, he's not wrong - the 7D was noise city once you started lifting shadows more than a little. Could you work around it? Sure. Did it make it a bad camera? Not at all. But there are PLENTY of scenes I shot with my 5D4 that would not have been handled anywhere near as well by my 7D. To suggest otherwise is flat out wrong

 

[Dan_168]

I'm impressed. I don't know what I would do with any more DR.

This is the thing spec sheet fans can't understand. I found it extremely rare that my old crop 7D couldn't handle a scene's luminous range, with the exception of scenes that would blow past anything including a Nikon D8x0.

So brazenly disingenuous and self-serving, it’s laughable. The large DR advantage of a D8x0 over a 7D is plenty useful. This has been demonstrated in numerous reviews on this very site. You know about this as it has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, yet you keep on trucking with deceptive and misleading statements like the above. What game are you playing here?

Haha, you know you are in Canon forum, right? DR is way over rated even the crop sensor has more than enough, just like FF and high ISO is over rated per Nikon forum before D3 was announced, just like Miorrorless is useless no one wants it until two weeks ago, now Z7 is the most exciting product ever, LOL, feature/capabilities you don't have is never important, LOL, so check back after Canon produced a 75 MP FF with enormous DR, then we will tell you how we are now able to capture all those picture which you can't do in the past, LOL, just human nature. by the way I shoot with Nikon and Canon and Sony, Pro SLR and mirrorless, as old as 1Ds II to 1Dx to 7R II and D850. so I have camera with all kinds of DR capability and know when I prefer use what.

 

[photog7320]

So brazenly disingenuous and self-serving, it’s laughable.

Oh kiss off. My portfolio / RAW library includes a large number of high DR scenes, both landscapes and interior real estate. I can look at a scene and know if I can do it in a single frame or if I need to blend two or more, and I can certainly measure RAWs after the fact.

It is exceedingly rare to encounter a scene with a range that exceeds a Canon off-sensor ADC camera but does NOT also exceed a camera with on-sensor ADCs.

I know this from first hand experience. It also explains the lack of real world examples of the supposed huge gap between what one camera can shoot and the other cannot.

The off-sensor ADC RAW might need more work, and might wind up with less shadow detail / more shadow noise. The on-sensor RAW might be able to support a larger final print/view size. Those are certainly differences and advantages. Just not what they're made out to be in forums by posters with no sample images (ahem).

The large DR advantage of a D8x0 over a 7D is plenty useful. This has been demonstrated in numerous reviews on this very site.

Do you actually photograph anything in the real world? It's useful on the rare occasion when a scene falls just within the DR of the former (and therefore 3-4ev outside the latter). Most scenes fall within the DR of both, or blow past both.

You know about this as it has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions,

Waving your hand and alluding to 'numerous reviews' without actually pointing to one for discussion proves nothing. It's a cheap shot that you take because you are either A) too lazy to get into an actual technical analysis about specific RAWs, or B) to afraid to and therefore dishonest.

You think a specific review contains sample shots that prove your point? Then link it. Or be quiet. I have the confidence to say that because I've re-processed some of the RAWs from DPR reviews and found that it's trivial to make an acceptable print from an image that looks like a disaster in the review. DPR processes to accentuate DR differences when discussing DR. I won't call it #FakeNews, but it would be more honest if they explicitly said they were looking at hardware apart from any/all processing.

What game are you playing here?

You follow me around acting like a troll with no images to post. What game are you playing?

 

[photog7320]

I mean, he's not wrong - the 7D was noise city once you started lifting shadows more than a little.

My example was more than "just a little." I have a single frame version of that scene, and a blended two frame version. The two frame version has less noise/more detail in the deepest shadows while pixel peeping. You cannot see the difference in 17x22" Epson 3880 prints on Hot Press Bright. (One of the highest resolving print scenarios in existence. A 3880+HPB easily out resolves Fuji and Noritsu lab prints.)

Could you work around it? Sure. Did it make it a bad camera? Not at all. But there are PLENTY of scenes I shot with my 5D4 that would not have been handled anywhere near as well by my 7D. To suggest otherwise is flat out wrong

Did you shoot those scenes side by side and try?

I'm not suggesting the 7D can hang with a 5D4 or Sony sensor on DR. It cannot. I am saying that with a little effort the gap between them in terms of scenes where the 7D just cannot make an acceptable print, or where there are large differences at print or final view size, is smaller than most would assume.

Now contrast that with the forum posters who worship DxO and/or Sony and act like the 5D4 has poor DR.

DR differences and their practical impact have always been exaggerated.

 

[dpr4bb]

So brazenly disingenuous and self-serving, it’s laughable.

Oh kiss off. My portfolio / RAW library includes a large number of high DR scenes, both landscapes and interior real estate. I can look at a scene and know if I can do it in a single frame or if I need to blend two or more, and I can certainly measure RAWs after the fact.

It is exceedingly rare to encounter a scene with a range that exceeds a Canon off-sensor ADC camera but does NOT also exceed a camera with on-sensor ADCs.

I know this from first hand experience. It also explains the lack of real world examples of the supposed huge gap between what one camera can shoot and the other cannot.

The off-sensor ADC RAW might need more work, and might wind up with less shadow detail / more shadow noise. The on-sensor RAW might be able to support a larger final print/view size. Those are certainly differences and advantages. Just not what they're made out to be in forums by posters with no sample images (ahem).

The large DR advantage of a D8x0 over a 7D is plenty useful. This has been demonstrated in numerous reviews on this very site.

Do you actually photograph anything in the real world? It's useful on the rare occasion when a scene falls just within the DR of the former (and therefore 3-4ev outside the latter). Most scenes fall within the DR of both, or blow past both.

You know about this as it has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions,

Waving your hand and alluding to 'numerous reviews' without actually pointing to one for discussion proves nothing. It's a cheap shot that you take because you are either A) too lazy to get into an actual technical analysis about specific RAWs, or B) to afraid to and therefore dishonest.

You think a specific review contains sample shots that prove your point? Then link it. Or be quiet. I have the confidence to say that because I've re-processed some of the RAWs from DPR reviews and found that it's trivial to make an acceptable print from an image that looks like a disaster in the review. DPR processes to accentuate DR differences when discussing DR. I won't call it #FakeNews, but it would be more honest if they explicitly said they were looking at hardware apart from any/all processing.

What game are you playing here?

You follow me around acting like a troll with no images to post. What game are you playing?

When you claim, brazenly and deceptively, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that a 7D has practically the same DR as a D8x0, then don’t get upset if somebody calls you on it.

It’s obvious what you’re doing here, but thankfully, brand fanatics such as yourself are deservedly condemned to the fringes; otherwise, we would have missed out on the improved DR that Canon engineers have finally provided us in their latest sensor technology, and that would have been a real shame.

 

[photog7320]

When you claim, brazenly and deceptively, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that a 7D has practically the same DR as a D8x0,

That's not what I claimed. Do try to keep up.