p.7 #1 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
Paul Mo wrote:
Plenty of them around regionally in S.E. Asia - but they are all in the hands of (mostly) working photogs.
The 1 series in particular is seen as a very serious proposition - a pro's camera.
Of course both the 1 series and 5D's are outnumbered hugely by Canon croppers which are cheaper to buy and easier to find a home for, as well as being cheaper to feed.
^^^^ This.
I tended to find many cropper camera with 'L' lenses kits.
I met several couples/families from a good friend I visit every time I go over to Taiwan.
Both just recently purchased cropper cameras with 'L' lenses.
Plus this is what I noticed at the last airshow I went to.
Granted ... there are plenty-plenty of aisian folk rolling with cell phones.as there camera. You will be more apt to see some modification kit on a cell phone to help take better images in Taiwan ... china.
p.7 #3 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
Especially now that the 80D has joined the f8 AF capability for TC use.
Tom_W wrote:
A 100-400L in a cropper like the 7D2 or 80D makes a decent portable birding package for a reasonable price.
Sep 07, 2016 at 01:16 PM
R.H. Johnson Offline • • • • [X]
p.7 #4 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
chez, Funny how things turn around over time. :-)
good observation. i remember on this very forum the bashing that an extreme minority took on the topic of Live View. and to quote, "Funny how things turn around over time. :-)" some of the very adamantly opposed are now advocates of LV and can't live without it.
I am hoping that Dual Pixel will be one of the technologies that will create a fundamental change in the way we do things as photogs. LV certainly did this and may be that DP as well.
it will be interesting too see what Magic Lantern will implement with DP. as well as Canon when the user feedback is in.
oh, i forgot chez has hidden me so he will never see this post
p.7 #5 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
Tom_W wrote:
A 100-400L in a cropper like the 7D2 or 80D makes a decent portable birding package for a reasonable price.
Even better, a 7D2 or 80D with a 150-600. 600mm on a 1.6x cropper provides some serious reach and you get all x-type points since the AF thinks it f/5.6 and have 2/3rd stop advantage over 100-400L + 1.4x. I have both and AF of the 150-600 seems faster than 100-400II + 1.4, but IQ is similar. Looking forward to seeing how the new Tammy performs.
p.7 #6 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
Not wishing to hijack this thread, however just a thought on phones with a zoom. I thought this was quite an elegant solution for those with a compatible phone.
Getting back to the DR of the 5div. With that potential extra stop of highlight headspace, how would one actually achieve this. What would be the hands on step by step procedure?
By the way, I was able to get my hands on a 5Div this morning. Touch screen very useful when i remembered that it had one, so used to using the buttons for the menu. Also the spirit level in the optical viewfinder is useful though being black, it might be a problem to use if it is against a dark background or at night. It would be useful if the colour could be changed between white, black red or yellow.
The other thing that i wish the camera (all cameras) could do was have custom format sizes that could be changed by the user. Am I the only person that would like such a function, if not lets let canon know this, and perhaps we can get somethings changed on the firmware.
p.7 #8 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
gdanmitchell wrote:
Sigh.
But 13.5 stops of DR? I'm expecting all of the folks who felt that DR was the be all and end all to come rushing back to Canon.
Any day now. ;-)
I'm in the position where I need to rebuild my system, sold all my DSLR gear off to cover a house down payment, and I'm actually thinking of switching over to the D5 because of the improved high ISO even with the crap low ISO DR. The 5DIV probably needed the extra low ISO DR, but I would have been much happier with the 1DX2 if it had a big jump in high ISO performance and total crap low ISO DR. On the other hand 4K60P with amazing AF, minimal rolling shutter, and simple stills extraction is hard to deny.
p.7 #9 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
You know in 2018 Nikon is going to release the D5s with low ISO dynamic range cleaned up right? Lol
I honestly think the 5d4 is the best overall camera you can buy right now unless you need reach and more speed.
whumber wrote:
I'm in the position where I need to rebuild my system, sold all my DSLR gear off to cover a house down payment, and I'm actually thinking of switching over to the D5 because of the improved high ISO even with the crap low ISO DR. The 5DIV probably needed the extra low ISO DR, but I would have been much happier with the 1DX2 if it had a big jump in high ISO performance and total crap low ISO DR. On the other hand 4K60P with amazing AF, minimal rolling shutter, and simple stills extraction is hard to deny.
p.7 #10 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
gdanmitchell wrote:
But 13.5 stops of DR? I'm expecting all of the folks who felt that DR was the be all and end all to come rushing back to Canon.
Any day now. ;-)
RustyBug wrote:
Don't hold your breath ... suddenly, it'll be "not that important", or still not "class leading", or some other, "other".
How about... other: 13.5 stops is theoretically available using an awkward workflow which includes double sized RAWs, but will inevitably suffer from artifacts in some scenarios.
The standard DR is likely close enough now. However to motivate a move back the Canon would have to be ahead in some area that was relevant to me, not merely close enough.
I probably wont be coming back because I discovered that I really like a) electronic viewfinders b) in body image stabilisation. Can't see either of those on a full frame Canon any time soon.
p.7 #11 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
Matt Grum wrote:
I probably wont be coming back because I discovered that I really like a) electronic viewfinders b) in body image stabilisation. Can't see either of those on a full frame Canon any time soon.
Cool beans @ finding what you like. That's always a good thing, no matter the name on the Rose.
+1 @ I don't see Canon going to those things either.
Not that it should really matter, but I do appreciate someone simply saying, "Hey, I like this better."
Imo, that's good stuff without all the effort to denounce the other. We (self included) should all rise to that level of class deserving of good FM membership.
Matt Grum wrote:
How about... other: 13.5 stops is theoretically available using an awkward workflow which includes double sized RAWs,
Is the "awkward workflow" to achieve 13.5 ... or is it to raise the 13.5 to 14.5 ... with 13.5 being from the regular workflow?
p.7 #12 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
Matt Grum wrote:
How about... other: 13.5 stops is theoretically available using an awkward workflow which includes double sized RAWs, but will inevitably suffer from artifacts in some scenarios.
p.7 #13 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
RustyBug wrote:
Is the "awkward workflow" to achieve 13.5 ... or is it to raise the 13.5 to 14.5 ... with 13.5 being from the regular workflow?
It's 13.5 stops with the regular workflow, I got that wrong.
The main point still stands - it needs to be better in order for me to switch back, not just approximately equal. Of course better is highly subjective. For me there's just one area where the mark IV is significantly better and that is AF in extreme low light, however I don't do that very often. If money were no object then I'd definitely get one.
p.7 #14 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
+1 @ "approximately equal" or "equal enough" vs. other things (whatever they might be) that tug or don't tug at a person against other "not equal" or "different enough" counterparts.
All of which are indeed highly subjective for a given person, to a given utility, to a given preference.
The #1 reason a person doesn't take action to make a change is simply that whatever is potentially warranting a change ... well, it simply isn't bothering them enough to warrant the change.
p.7 #15 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
I'm wondering how many of us lift shadows more than two stops on a regular basis. I had a look at the DPR comparison 5D4 vs 5D3 vs 5DsR vs A7Rii vs D810. The 5D4 has a n advantage, sure, but two stops lift at ISO100 on the 5DsR is at least as good as three stops on the 5D4. And 3 on the 5DsR is comparable to 4 on the 5DsR. The A7Rii seems pathetic in comparison regarding its reputation and the D810 still doesn't show noise when lifted 5 stops.
When I saw the results I thought I made the right choice getting the 5DsR as I don't shoot images that require more than two stops shadow lifting. But since DR is such a much talked about thing, I can only assume that many photographers actually want to use that ability. So what type of shots do we talk about? I haven't had a single problem with shadows lifting in over 10.000 first images on my now 4 month old 5DsR.
p.7 #16 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
rabbitmountain wrote:
I'm wondering how many of us lift shadows more than two stops on a regular basis. I had a look at the DPR comparison 5D4 vs 5D3 vs 5DsR vs A7Rii vs D810. The 5D4 has a n advantage, sure, but two stops lift at ISO100 on the 5DsR is at least as good as three stops on the 5D4. And 3 on the 5DsR is comparable to 4 on the 5DsR. The A7Rii seems pathetic in comparison regarding its reputation and the D810 still doesn't show noise when lifted 5 stops.
When I saw the results I thought I made the right choice getting the 5DsR as I don't shoot images that require more than two stops shadow lifting. But since DR is such a much talked about thing, I can only assume that many photographers actually want to use that ability. So what type of shots do we talk about? I haven't had a single problem with shadows lifting in over 10.000 first images on my now 4 month old 5DsR. ...Show more →
That's long been my feeling. There are situations in which more DR is a good thing, and anyone should welcome ongoing improvements in this area. However, I could never figure out why it became such a huge deal for so many folks.
I photograph a lot of subjects and in a lot of varying conditions — everything from street photography to events to landscapes and more. I often have to push and pull things in post to get the best results from a raw capture. I'll take more DR if I can get it, but I won't give up other things (or switch to a new brand or type of camera) to get it, since other things are typically at least as important or more so. The number of photographs that I could have made with more DR and that I couldn't make with the equipment I use is approximately zero.
p.7 #17 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
Maybe it's also the fact that we know how good the competition is regarding DR. Canon finally improving its low ISO DR is suddenly big news. However, the fact is that a late 2016 tech 5D4 still lags behind a two year older tech D810. So we know it's possible, yet the largest market share manufacturer still can't keep up. Apparently that brings an itch. So it's relative numbers, not absolute numbers. DR wasn't such a hot issue back in the day the 5D classic saw the light. It had the ultimate IQ, a Full Frame sensor which was quite unique for its level and was considered way better than the direct Nikon competition, even though the D200 DR (11.5) was a bit better than the 5D (11.1). I understand we all want better specs through the years, but as technology surpasses manys photographic needs or abilities, it seems to get harder and harder to determine which level of quality is good enough for each photographer.
For my needs, wanting to shoot a combo 2 different camera bodies (one of high fps and one with smaller form factor), of the latter type a 5D3 was already good enough and I bought one new 7 months ago. I merely exchanged it for a 5DsR 3 months later to enjoy the high resolution. I think here is where it ends for me. I have no interest in a 5DsRii. At least not that I can think of at this point.
p.7 #18 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
rabbitmountain wrote:
However, the fact is that a late 2016 tech 5D4 still lags behind a two year older tech D810...
Presuming, for the sake of discussion, that that is the case, why does it matter?
No product, in any product area, is perfect and supreme at every possible parameter that can be measured — no different with cameras than cars or anything else. If the tool works extremely well, I don't see how it matters that something else is measurably "better" in some particular area.
p.7 #19 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
gdanmitchell wrote:
That's long been my feeling. There are situations in which more DR is a good thing, and anyone should welcome ongoing improvements in this area. However, I could never figure out why it became such a huge deal for so many folks.
I photograph a lot of subjects and in a lot of varying conditions — everything from street photography to events to landscapes and more. I often have to push and pull things in post to get the best results from a raw capture. I'll take more DR if I can get it, but I won't give up other things (or switch to a new brand or type of camera) to get it, since other things are typically at least as important or more so. The number of photographs that I could have made with more DR and that I couldn't make with the equipment I use is approximately zero.
YMMV,
I completely agree that DR needs to be considered in the context of the overall package. Which is why, despite the fact that Canon's sensors are still lagging behind Sony's best sensors by a little over one stop of DR, I'm nevertheless very happy with the 5DIV. It's a great overall package that will fit my needs/wants very nicely.
As for the "huge deal" some have made of the DR issue, for me at least, and I suspect for many others, this issue had as much to do with concerns about the future--i.e., where Canon was going/not going with its seńor tech--as it did about the present state of affairs. With the releases of the 80D and 1DXII, and now the 5DIV, my concerns in this regard have been largely assuaged. ...Show more →
p.7 #20 · Canon 5D4 dynamic range analyzed from RAWs
I completely agree that DR needs to be considered in the context of the overall package. Which is why, despite the fact that Canon's sensors are still lagging behind Sony's best sensors by a little over one stop of DR, I'm nevertheless very happy with the 5DIV. It's a great overall package that will fit my needs/wants very nicely.
As for the "huge deal" some have made of the DR issue, for me at least, and I suspect for many others, this issue had as much to do with concerns about the future--i.e., where Canon was going/not going with its seńor tech--as it did about the present state of affairs. With the releases of the 80D and 1DXII, and now the 5DIV, my concerns in this regard have been largely assuaged.
gdanmitchell wrote:
That's long been my feeling. There are situations in which more DR is a good thing, and anyone should welcome ongoing improvements in this area. However, I could never figure out why it became such a huge deal for so many folks.
I photograph a lot of subjects and in a lot of varying conditions — everything from street photography to events to landscapes and more. I often have to push and pull things in post to get the best results from a raw capture. I'll take more DR if I can get it, but I won't give up other things (or switch to a new brand or type of camera) to get it, since other things are typically at least as important or more so. The number of photographs that I could have made with more DR and that I couldn't make with the equipment I use is approximately zero.
