alundeb wrote:
I think you are confusing "Higher DR is always helping image quality" with "Image quality is always better with higher DR". Nobody ever said the latter on this forum. But if it feels good to bastardize the benefits of high DR, go on
ggreene wrote:
The key going forward for the low ISO DR people is to get more Canon board of directors into landscape photography. Then you have a better shot at controlling the development direction of sensors.
You jest, and this applies to many posts on this board, not just yours, but there are several common misconceptions about the difference between Canon and Exmor sensors that are worth addressing.
Firstly dynamic range is not a concept that exclusively relates to landscape photography. You can have deep shadows in any type of photography and you can overexposure in any type of photography.
Secondly the key benefit of Sony's Exmor sensor design is not simply low ISO DR. The principal advantage is almost zero read noise. This translates to greater DR in good light since DR is the difference between the saturation point and point at which detail is consumed by noise. In low light photon noise is far higher than read noise anyway so both sensors are pretty much equal with respect to DR.
* So in low light there's no advantage to the Sony sensor, right? Wrong.
With a Canon sensor you need to set the ISO correctly when working in low light so that the signal is high before it is read out, if you set it too low and have to brighten the image in post you amplify the read noise which can destroy the image quite quickly.
The Sony has has virtually no read noise in the first place, so you don't get a penalty for setting the ISO too low. Forget constantly battling with the auto-ISO implementation which is almost always flawed (e.g. no exposure compensation) or missing entirely (1Ds III and earlier), with Exmor you can just leave the ISO at 100 and never touch it. It's more than just convenience, though. When you set the ISO correctly on a Canon sensor any parts of the image that weren't dark will get blown out. Shooting in a dim room with small windows you can expect them to be rendered pure white.
So the Canon sensor at say ISO3200 and the Sony at ISO100 will have essentially the same noise and DR. But the Canon will blow anything in the top 5 stops, or to put it another way the Sony will have an extra 5 stops of headroom (on top of the 1-2 you get when shooting RAW).
This is a huge deal if you're shooting somewhere where the light changes very rapidly, such as a concert. You might need ISO3200 to correctly expose the vocalist, but when the roving spotlight hits him or when the strobes come on that might drop to ISO200 and sometimes the metering gets it wrong, but if you shoot manual and aren't forced to choose ISO value it's simple.
Matt Grum wrote:
You jest, and this applies to many posts on this board, not just yours, but there are several common misconceptions about the difference between Canon and Exmor sensors that are worth addressing.
I understand the advantages and would love for Canon to give us the DR boost at some point. I just don't run into those situations very often. When I boost shadows I'm typically only doing 1 or 2 stops and the 1DX handles that just fine. It also handles blown highlights very well even if I expose to the right.
I don't constantly feel the need to interject the DR mantra into every single thread on the forum or say that Canon is doomed because of it.
mttran wrote:
Not here yet ? it's due on this coming Friday
There will be no "1DsX." Why are you guys waiting so patiently for something that will not come out. This thread will go nowhere and nothing will come out at PhotoPlus. If it is then it would have already leaked by now. All this guy does is regurgitate years old news for fun.
If you want a high MP camera so badly, then switch to a Nikon D810.
and this applies to many posts on this board, not just yours, but there are several common misconceptions about the difference between Canon and Exmor sensors that are worth addressing.
We are all aware of the differences because we have heard them ad nauseum and we are not disputing them, and don't need to hear the blah, blah, blah, again.
Imagemaster wrote:
We are all aware of the differences because we have heard them ad nauseum and we are not disputing them, and don't need to hear the blah, blah, blah, again.
You would love to hear this - if such sensor would be part of a Canon camera.
retrofocus wrote:
You would love to hear this - if such sensor would be part of a Canon camera.
Why the need to make predictions just so you can come back and say that you were proven right? We could discuss the reasons, but I'm not a mental health professional...
ggreene wrote:
I understand the advantages and would love for Canon to give us the DR boost at some point. I just don't run into those situations very often. When I boost shadows I'm typically only doing 1 or 2 stops and
I'm not sure you do, as my post wasn't about DR, but not having to bother setting ISO and not getting over exposure when working in low light.
ggreene wrote:
the 1DX handles that just fine. It also handles blown highlights very well even if I expose to the right.
It does OK, you can pull back a stop or so... it's not quite the same as being able to pull 7 or 8 stops or effectively so many stops that you don't ever have to worry about over exposure. I don't believe anyone shooting events has never overexposed a low light shot. Normally you delete them and move on without thinking too much about it, if one is used to that, then I can see why one wouldn't feel like one was missing something...
Imagemaster wrote:
We are all aware of the differences because we have heard them ad nauseum and we are not disputing them, and don't need to hear the blah, blah, blah, again.
I don't recall what I discussed being brought up previously, I certainly haven't heard it discussed "ad nauseum". I have heard:
"I don't need low ISO DR because I never lift shadows", "I don't need extended DR as I don't shoot landscapes" etc.
But never
"I don't need colossal amounts of headroom in low light because I've never had overexposure in any area of a low light shot"
Matt Grum wrote:
This is a huge deal if you're shooting somewhere where the light changes very rapidly, such as a concert. You might need ISO3200 to correctly expose the vocalist, but when the roving spotlight hits him or when the strobes come on that might drop to ISO200 and sometimes the metering gets it wrong, but if you shoot manual and aren't forced to choose ISO value it's simple.
I have covered concerts with everything from an old rebel XT to the 5D3 and honestly, I often find that a blown highlight can add to a photo. Just like organic high ISO noise adds to concert photography. It is a highly specific situation, sure, but it is one that I know a good deal about having worked in that industry for a while now. That, and Canon has more latitude at higher ISOs on its sensors than Sony does. Furthermore, Sony introduce ugly artifacting due to its inherent in-line processing of the noise that makes their cameras utterly awful in low light for anything but technology demos. Somehow Nikon sorted out that problem and probably has the best looking high ISO noise out of any of the manufacturers right now despite using Sony's sensors.
Matt Grum wrote:
I'm not sure you do, as my post wasn't about DR, but not having to bother setting ISO and not getting over exposure when working in low light.
Really, you sure had me fooled with: Firstly dynamic range is not a concept that exclusively relates to landscape photography. You can have deep shadows in any type of photography and you can overexposure in any type of photography.
Secondly the key benefit of Sony's Exmor sensor design is not simply low ISO DR. The principal advantage is almost zero read noise. This translates to greater DR in good light since DR is the difference between the saturation point and point at which detail is consumed by noise. In low light photon noise is far higher than read noise anyway so both sensors are pretty much equal with respect to DR. ...Show more →
Sure sounds about DR to me.
I don't recall what I discussed being brought up previously, I certainly haven't heard it discussed "ad nauseum".
Well I guess you just haven't been reading ALL the posts.
I was just explaining the DR point so I could move on from it
kezeka wrote:
I have covered concerts with everything from an old rebel XT to the 5D3 and honestly, I often find that a blown highlight can add to a photo.
I've covered concerts with a 30D, 5D, 1DsII, 1DIV and 5DIII. A blown highlight is usually not a problem. A blown entire person is, and that has happened many times when the lights move very quickly or when there is a strobe on.
kezeka wrote:
Canon has more latitude at higher ISOs on its sensors than Sony does
But you don't have to use the Sony sensor at high ISO, you can use it at ISO100 with effectively no penalty and have all the headroom you could possibly need. That's the whole point.
kezeka wrote:
Nikon sorted out that problem and probably has the best looking high ISO noise out of any of the manufacturers right now despite using Sony's sensors.
Sounds like it's not a problem with the sensor then. Anyway my point was not "Sony is better", but that there are many reasons to want ultra-low read noise, it's not just about DR or lifting shadows.
Sure, I'll call it: NO new camera announced at PPE other than the C100 Mk II already announced a couple of days ago.
For anyone who has ever been to a big trade show, you know it takes more than a minute to set one up... and union labor rules in big city convention centers mean that non Canon people often do some of the work of setting up displays. From union electricians, decorators, and teamsters... lots of hired hands, who are not bound by NDAs, handle Canon's property from freight door to show floor... which often takes several days for really big tradeshows. With everyone having cellphones, Canon will certainly be aware of their "exposure", and will no doubt choose to break their own news.
But as for a new higher megapixel pro body in the 1D form factor in the near future, it is noteworthy to observe that Canon is now rebating the 1DX by $800.00 body only... no lens or printer purchase required. An $800.00 rebate is one of the most sizeable rebates Canon has offered on a body alone. This could mean that there is some excess inventory that needs clearing, in anticipation for a production line changeover to an over 50+ mp body in early 2015.
Focus Locus wrote:
... as for a new higher megapixel pro body in the 1D form factor in the near future, it is noteworthy to observe that Canon is now rebating the 1DX by $800.00 body only... no lens or printer purchase required. An $800.00 rebate is one of the most sizeable rebates Canon has offered on a body alone. This could mean that there is some excess inventory that needs clearing, in anticipation for a production line changeover to an over 50+ mp body in early 2015.
Interesting thought. If Canon comes out with a 50+ MPx camera with a frame rate that meets or exceeds 10 fps (i.e. 1DX territory), that would be amazing!
Even if it had a 1.3x crop factor "high fps" mode (saving only the central pixels to get higher fps), then it would still be shooting 30 MPx at high fps.
Archive 2014 · OMG - 1DsX in NYC...
