photog7320

The response I would expect from a child. Go troll someone else.

@Chris Dodkin - "They will provide a bridge adapter to EF, "

Yes but anyone could make that prediction.

"but will at the same time kill future EF system development...The EOS EF system will be EOL."

Dead wrong as they're introducing two very high end EF lenses at the same time as the EOS R.

I'm sure you'll claim that somehow you're actually right.

@BlueBomberTurbo - never head this. Do you have an example which demonstrates it?

Also: shifting exposure bias would not fool DxO's testing.

If it mounts EF glass directly (as is rumored) then I don't care what the initial EF-R lenses are. I can just use my existing EF glass.

Canon needs no such thing. They've moved ADCs on chip with the 1DX II, 5D4, and 80D sensors. Their DR is now a NR slider tick away from Sony's best.

@EskeRahn - "and again you confirmed that you DO care what others say, and good for you."

No, but nice try.

@EskeRahn - "But to pretend to not care is the way a stubborn child reacts."

No, demanding people should care when there is no obligation for them to care is the way a stubborn child reacts. That's a certain segment of the European left every time they hold their noses up and try to shame American beliefs and behaviors.

"But as you replied to the post you disproved your own statement"

Communicating X does not disprove X.

@entoman - I hadn't until you mentioned it. Then I kicked each one up to 2 to prove the point.

Passive aggressive attempts to insult and misdirect are proof of your insecurity in your beliefs.

@falconeyes - "While a majority really likes the US, a few topics (climate, NSA, creatonism, Trump) makes us (i.e., me) speechless and is ridiculed in any discussion I ever witnessed outside the US."

We don't care.

(cont.)

Furthermore, blaming any current weather event on warming which has been observed is ignorant. We've seen about 0.8C of warming since the late 1880s, half of which the UN IPCC attributes to nature. Neither 0.8C nor 1.5C or even 2C warming would be enough to cause the changes so many people attribute to it. The general public has confused the dire predictions of changes under, say, a +6-8C warming scenario with the real world that hasn't even seen +1C yet and is just experiencing normal weather.

I cringe every time an "educated" person, American or European, starts to lecture and act superior about "climate change." To a person if I quiz them about the actual theory and data they fall apart. They've never read a scientific paper, never read an IPCC report, and never looked at the data themselves.

Public opinion on this is at least a decade behind the data. I would say within 10-15 years, once public opinion catches up, climate change will be a dead political issue.

@entoman - The vast majority of climate change activists and politicians are in fact completely ignorant about climate change. Almost no one in the general population understands the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

The dire, run away warming predictions of the UN's IPCC which were made in the 1990s have not materialized. They were based on a hypothesized water vapor feedback to CO2 induced warming. CO2 is a weak GHG, but a strong positive water vapor feedback can amplify its warming.

We can look at the last three decades of data and conclusively say that the water vapor feedback either doesn't exist or is very weak. Forcing from anthropogenic CO2 will likely never exceed +1.5C even if we're still outputting CO2 a hundred years from now. It may never exceed +1C.

(cont.)

This has NOTHING to do with climate change and EVERYTHING to do with forest mismanagement. If you don't want devastating fires to sweep large areas then you MUST clear dead brush, create fire breaks, and manage the overall fuel load with periodic controlled burns.

Ask any firefighter who has been on the job long enough to see the shift in forest management. They all hate it and they all blame the state government.

And please don't reply with "muh drought!" The entire American southwest goes through cycles of severe drought and heavy rain, and has done so dating back through the Little Ice Age (much colder than today) and the Roman Optimum (very likely warmer than today).

This is state government land mismanagement, plain and simple.

@Barney Britton - "Western societies are not set up to treat non-males the same as they treat males. It's a fact. Fact, fact, fact."

That's probably the most racist, sexist, and closed minded comment in the entire thread. And from a dpreview employee no less.

@Joed700 - "However, I won’t be sharing my RAW files here because it contains copyright info. That’s why I did the screen shots rather than pure jpegs."

I would never share or keep the files, only return them as I processed them. But I understand if you don't want to share them.

"Anyhow, I’m not sure if you’ve ever shot with Sony sensors. The DR at base ISO is what I would consider “worry free”."

I have. I wouldn't necessarily call them "worry free" because some scenes can still exceed their range requiring careful ETTR or HDR techniques to capture. But...with Sony sensors there are more scenes where you can be carefree about exposure and still be OK. Shooting landscapes with Canon you really want to be sure to ETTR all the time.

By the same token, you simply have a wider safety net from gross underexposure with Sony.

I still don't think the differences are so great as to warrant some of the flak Canon gets...but I do not deny them either.

Have a fun and safe time in Greece!

@Joed700 - "When I tried to recover the shadow areas (black circles), I got no detail."

With the possible exception of the deepest black point in #3, those scenes do not appear to have wider scene DR than the 7D image I posted. I can also recover some detail in the JPEGs themselves.

Do you have the RAWs? Would you be willing to share them with me, via DM if you don't want to post them publicly? I would really like to try processing them for shadow recovery and giving you the steps/settings to compare to your processing.

If I can't do anything with them, hey, you proved your point. If I can, well...the latest Sony/Nikon sensors still have more DR than even a 5D IV. But maybe with a few extra tricks it won't matter as much.

@Joed700 - "First of all, I don't know why you would say you see nothing on my gear profile"

I was quoting what you said about my profile and then responding to the quote.

"I'm sharing the following screen captured shots of my recent trip to Iceland. I'd circled the area where DR is lacking on the 6D: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2044823514/photos/3786711/screen-shot-2018-07-14-at-10-23-15-pm."

Finally...a photo to discuss. Thank you!

"I'm referring to the first three photos from the left in my gallery. In order to preserve highlight (the sky), I deliberately underexpose by about 1 stop."

One note: you should have at least 0.5ev of highlight recovery available to you in RAW. When seeking maximum single shot DR, I always ETTR with the brightest highlights I want to preserve right on the edge of clipping. Now, the fact that I'm looking at processed JPEGs may be throwing me, but I'm guessing the exposures weren't ETTR since there's room on the highlight end of the JPEGs.

cont.

Joed700 - "No, I do have quite a few of those photos"

You obviously do not. If you did, posting a link would have wasted far less time than attacking me personally.

"I looked at your photo gear profile and you have nothing."

I never bothered to fill out my 'photo gear profile' to show off to anyone here. Nor do I deflect from a challenge with an ad hominem. If you looked at my posting history you would quickly figure out what gear I've used at different time periods, complete with sample images related to technical discussions. Including a real world 7D shadow push example that exceeds anything you've shown us, since you've shown us nothing: https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/61293632/c3518a36c0cc46deb0a74e33700646e1

Why is it in every last discussion of DR when I challenge a naysayer to produce real world photos that show this supposed great deficiency of Canon, they cannot do so? They can attack me personally and brag about their experience, but no photos.

@Joed700 - so you don't have any such photos. Got it.

@Joed700 - "Something I had but now they took it away is a downgrade"

They didn't take anything away from you. The graph you've chosen shows a less than 0.5ev difference in DR. DxO reports it as 0.2ev.

That difference is probably the same exact tech at a slightly different pixel density. Which means in print there is no difference.

"Can I show you a picture where the 6D lack DR? There are plenty of YouTube videos..."

No. Can YOU show me a photograph that YOU tried to create but could not because of limited DR?

I don't care about YouTuber click bait. I don't care about black cats underexposed by -5ev. And I especially don't care about people imagining they've taken a shot on a Sony or Nikon that can't be taken on a Canon when it quite clearly can. There's plenty of that trash on the Internet.

Show me the RAW file where your 6D failed you.

@Joed700 - "So to cut the story short, why would I downgrade to the 6D II and pay extra money for it?"

It's not a downgrade. And you could not discern the DR difference between 6D's in the real world. That said, if you don't want any of the new features then you wouldn't upgrade.

"Canon could have easily equipment the 6D II with DR that’s the same as the 80D/5D4, but didn’t.."

So you know the logistics of Canon's fab lines? What's open? What's not? What it costs to manufacture a chip on a line that would allow on chip ADCs?

"This is the turning point for me to leave Canon, speaking from the perspective of a consumer rather than a brand loyalist."

Can you show us even one photo where your 6D did not have enough DR for what you were trying to achieve?