cpe1991 wrote:
Art has described himself as sucks at BIF - he is basically a bird portrait man with an emphasis on composition and colour whereas Ari is a dedicated BIF whizz. I can't compete in any way with Arbitrage for his extreme BIF photography but I have never had any problems getting a high proportion of tack-sharp images of large birds in flight or even fast flying puffins etc using a 5DIV, 5DSR, 7DII etc with 100-400mm II, 400mm DO II etc even with extenders when I get them in the central 9 points.
Indeed. This is why I referred to Ari. I can imagine a guy like him making such a move to chase an improvement in 5% of his frames but that also speaks to Canon and Nikon having more similarities than differences in AF. Just because Nikon is a small step ahead in one area of AF when it comes to BIF doesn't make Canon incapable of producing a competent AF system. All of the fantastic avian photography coming from Canon users is sufficient proof of that. I think the issue would be less clear if an individual was trying to photograph a small, erratic subject against complex background but when a 5D4 can't track an egret it is a problem of hardware, configuration or technique.
TeamSpeed wrote:
I enjoy these too, but unfortunately a vast majority of people won't use the DR and high ISO capabilities despite the 90D seemingly being better. So many seem to give up with the 7D2 and 80D past 3200, many don't push shadows more than maybe 2 stops. Those folks either don't process their raw/jpg very well, have no patience to do, or just use the wrong tools, so these capabilities on the APS-C bodies are lost on them.
I see posts all the time like "I cannot push my 7D2 past 1600", etc. and I think they are really missing some capabilities/opportunities.
I do know that if Canon can get an APS-C to have something in striking distance of the 5D4, then a very high resolution FF mirrorless will be in high demand....Show more →
I can't comment specifically on the 90D, but I strongly agree with what I read as your assessment of many posters who write that some camera won't work well in some edge cases — "pushing past 1600" on the 7D2, photographing wildlife with a 5DsR, shooting scenes with large dynamic range on non-Sony sensors, pushing shadows, etc.
There are, of course, limits to what you can do with any camera and some cameras are measurably better at various performance aspects than others. However, the differences are typically far less stark than sometimes portrayed, and often become trivial when the camera is in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.
For my part, I spent three years working on a project photographing classical musicians, mostly working and living backstage. The lighting was awful (unlike stage lighting) and I almost always had to work handheld in very low light, pushing ISO quite a bit. In the end, with post-processing that wasn't all that complicated, images from the project were used in a series of large marketing posters (and smaller presentations) and they looked very good.
alundeb wrote:
I wouldn't mind if you have the discussion here. It is relevant as to "How much do we know about the 90D dynamic range yet". On the other hand, it would likely be an endless discussion.
My opinion is that PDR is a very sensor good metric, perhaps the best all-round metric. But as with all single number metrics, it does not tell the whole story. It will depend on your application which metric is most useful. For me, full well capacity (how is the maximum image quality) and fixed pattern noise (ten times more annoying than random noise) is almost all I care about. From a single PDR value at base ISO, it is impossible to tell either of those. (You can tell what FWC has to be as a minimum, but not how two cameras actually compare). To be fair, it is not possible with EDR either
To elaborate more on the full well capacity, cameras with good full well capacity and high read noise, such as the 5DS R, score relatively low on PDR but in reality have fantastic image quality under ideal conditions. If people read PDR numbers only, they may get the impression that many APS-C sensors are better, and even some 1" compact cameras would be close. That would be misleading in most situations. Even compared to other FF cameras with much higher dynamic range, I often find the 5DS R files to print better at 24x16" (That's mostly because of the resolution). ...Show more →
I'm largely in agreement except for the "single number metric" part.
I think it's important to look at the entire PDR curve.
Maximum PDR is only one point and it can be important if there's plenty of light and high dynamic range is needed.
It's also sometimes overvalued. If you only need 8 stops then a camera with 10 stops versus one with 9 stops isn't necessary.
As for single value metrics there is another on the PDR page at PhotonsToPhotos, the Low Light metric.
This is expressed as ISO and as EV in the sort-able table below the interact chart.
EV is best for making comparisons.
As the name implies the Low Light metric is important if you have a limited amount of light.
In the case of the Canon EOS 5DS R Maximum PDR is only 9.80 which is statistically identical to the Canon EOS M50 at 9.84 and far below the Sony ILCE-7R at 11.71
On the other hand the Canon EOS 5DS R has a Low Light value of ISO 4145 (10.37) which is way better than the Canon EOS M50 at ISO 1409 (8.82) and statistically identical to the Sony ILCE-7R at ISO 4108 (10.36)
Using any metric to determine if a camera meets your needs requires understanding what your photographic needs are!
It's instructive to look at the full curves and table here
gdanmitchell wrote:
I can't comment specifically on the 90D, but I strongly agree with what I read as your assessment of many posters who write that some camera won't work well in some edge cases — "pushing past 1600" on the 7D2, photographing wildlife with a 5DsR, shooting scenes with large dynamic range on non-Sony sensors, pushing shadows, etc.
There are, of course, limits to what you can do with any camera and some cameras are measurably better at various performance aspects than others. However, the differences are typically far less stark than sometimes portrayed, and often become trivial when the camera is in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.
For my part, I spent three years working on a project photographing classical musicians, mostly working and living backstage. The lighting was awful (unlike stage lighting) and I almost always had to work handheld in very low light, pushing ISO quite a bit. In the end, with post-processing that wasn't all that complicated, images from the project were used in a series of large marketing posters (and smaller presentations) and they looked very good. ...Show more →
I routinely shoot the 7D2 at ISO 6400, sometimes even to 12800. The 90D seems like it will help with this post processing nicely.
This was ISO 8000, and I had to go there simply due to using the slow Sigma 150-600.
This was from the SL2 of all cameras, ISO 6400. So one can really get the most out of these cameras with some experience and tools and technique.
TeamSpeed wrote:
I routinely shoot the 7D2 at ISO 6400, sometimes even to 12800. The 90D seems like it will help with this post processing nicely.
This was ISO 8000, and I had to go there simply due to using the slow Sigma 150-600.
This was from the SL2 of all cameras, ISO 6400. So one can really get the most out of these cameras with some experience and tools and technique.
I too shoot a 5DSR at iso6400 and push through 1 - 2 ev if necessary. iso6400 is in the iso invariant region so you can push in post instead of upping the iso. DxO PRIME transformed my use of high iso since before I was reluctant to go above iso1600 when cropping. I am excited about the 90D with its high resolution sensor.
bclaff_too wrote:
It's instructive to look at the full curves and table here
I look forward to seeing where the 90D falls on that chart. We discussed in another forum the slight offsets between the SL2, 80D, and G1X3. While I can't say I can make out those differences in my use that is probably the ordering I'd put them in in my overall notion of their image quality. OTOH, the 6D2 seems to bat above its specs in my use, considering where it falls compared to the 5D4. My current cameras. Its interesting to add the 10D and 5D to the chart to see where we've come.
In the upper optical black area from 90D and M6 II the pgm files have two brighter lines. Does it matter for Hraw?
Thanks for the video! (I was about to say that the example image was incorrect but fortunately realized that it is a 5D ).
I think that most "old" Canon cameras at ISO 100 didn't reach the maximum DN in the raw files. In fact, it there could be little differences between channels (even both greens). And even worse things, like false spikes after the actual white point, making it very difficult to write an algorithm to find it (starting from the top to the bottom one could be fooled by them). In hraw I needed to estimate the white point for the "clipping" tool and had to resolve using too much heuristics which will not work in 100% of cases. So in the end the software may require to allow the user to manually enter the values to be fully usable. Neither the EXIF seems to store the white point. Well, I think that it there is some propietary tag, but too conservative (perhaps preventing the use of the upper data due to sensor non linearity woes). Newer cameras clip at 16383 but since they cook the raw data... I'd won't get scared if they scale even the green channel.
For the noise measures only the left masked area is used (discarding the top, which is "assigned" to the horizontal upper black area). And some pixels are additionally discarded from the left and the right (the last because perhaps are too close to the pixels receiving light). The application reports the used area, e.g. for the 90D, instead of 144x4732 pixels at (0,0) it uses 136x4652 at (4,76) skipping the top band:
bclaff_too wrote:
I think perhaps we should discuss this "offline" rather than dragging this thread off topic.
But clearly I disagee. PDR is a much better metric than 8MP EDR or any other metric I'm aware of.
I think our debate has been very constructive, including expressing different views or ideas which is useful to change or consolidate them. Even if sometimes things are too specialized everybody can always skip a rare post. All I know about the innards of the gear is thanks to the forums and webs which have stimulated my interest (most of the time I only read as a lot of people; I write only from time to time). Manufacturers always use rhetoric to describe their products, hiding us just what we want to know, and don't worry educating even when misconceptions become widespread (e.g. I was not so long years ago in the "give me less but better pixels" huge group).
In early and late (and foggy!) light I often have to go to 3200 when photographing migratory birds and their landscape with my 5DsR... and occasionally 6400. It works pretty well once you understand how to post-process the files.
Dan
cpe1991 wrote:
I too shoot a 5DSR at iso6400 and push through 1 - 2 ev if necessary. iso6400 is in the iso invariant region so you can push in post instead of upping the iso. DxO PRIME transformed my use of high iso since before I was reluctant to go above iso1600 when cropping. I am excited about the 90D with its high resolution sensor.
gdanmitchell wrote:
In early and late (and foggy!) light I often have to go to 3200 when photographing migratory birds and their landscape with my 5DsR... and occasionally 6400. It works pretty well once you understand how to post-process the files.
Dan
I would imagine that includes feeding it enough exposure, so you aren't underexposing it by multiple stops. I've found that shooting the higher ISO's (Canon's) work best when shot in the simplicity of the exposure triangle at face value for the amount of available light.
rustum wrote:
I remember taking similar bird pic in Dallas aquarium. I guess these birds are common in most of the zoo / aquarium.
I don't know about zoos but the second one reminds me of some of the birds I've encountered in Costa Rica or Ecuador. We'll see how the 90D handles bright highlights and retains details in the dark feathers. Typically I'd use a 5D IV.
Is anybody buying this camera based on it's DR?
I realize the DR maybe the only thing available to analyze, but I would have to imagine a 10 fps auto focus with a 32 MB file that WORKS would be a much bigger selling point.
Yaryman wrote:
Is anybody buying this camera based on it's DR?
I realize the DR maybe the only thing available to analyze, but I would have to imagine a 10 fps auto focus with a 32 MB file that WORKS would be a much bigger selling point.
Just my 2¢.
Perhaps not that reason alone but near 1EV increase in High ISO DR is pretty significant. It could certainly tip the scales for some considering an upgrade.
Yaryman wrote:
Is anybody buying this camera based on it's DR?
I realize the DR maybe the only thing available to analyze, but I would have to imagine a 10 fps auto focus with a 32 MB file that WORKS would be a much bigger selling point.
Just my 2¢.
Personally I could care less about 10 fps. The characteristics that are important to me are resolution (certainly no issues with the 90D), focusing, high ISO noise and DR. The joystick should help with focusing. We can know the focusing will be at least equivalent to the 80D. Focusing is largely a matter of software and the Digic 8 should allow significantly improved focusing, hopefully at the 7DII level. The high ISO noise looked very good based on the images posted from Atlanta. DR is the remaining unknown. It seems that the DR might be greatly improved or only slightly improved over the 80D.
I have already put my money down, but am still curious about the DR. I do a lot of landscape photography where bright skies and dark foregrounds are an issue.
Yaryman wrote:
Is anybody buying this camera based on it's DR?
I realize the DR maybe the only thing available to analyze, but I would have to imagine a 10 fps auto focus with a 32 MB file that WORKS would be a much bigger selling point.
Hard to say. I suppose we might speculate that some will say that they would not buy it based on DR, so it is a positive sign for Canon if they are both increasing photo site density and improving DR to address the concerns of those who think it is an issue.
Having said that, I agree with your point that being able to put together a 32.5MP APS-C sensor in a camera that works well at 10fps and provides good AF performance is a more important metric. (We shouldn't necessarily expect 1-series performance at the likely price point of this camera, but the specifications seem pretty impressive.) The rest of the feature set seems pretty attractive, too.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Hard to say. I suppose we might speculate that some will say that they would not buy it based on DR, so it is a positive sign for Canon if they are both increasing photo site density and improving DR to address the concerns of those who think it is an issue.
Dan
Good point. And can you imagine the collective rabble of the internet - even this forum, alone - if the 90D were released with the same DR as the 80D? Despite the increased mp count, I imagine there would be a huge uproar if there were no increases in DR, considering how many people scream about Canon being 'behind' Sony on DR. I find it quite funny that Canon increased mp count, improved DR, and there are a number of people going, "Pfft. Who cares?"
Sooooo many people claim to care, if the result had been the other way.
