Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions 
Thread started 19 Jul 2014 (Saturday) 11:30
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Chances of 5D MkIV have better dynamic range?

 
pstyle1
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
317 posts
Joined Jun 2012
Location: DC/VA
     
Jul 23, 2014 19:43 |  #31

CRCchemist wrote in post #17051711 (external link)
What are you shooting that makes the 1 stop difference in dynamic range between the D4 and the 5D so necessary to have?

As other's have mentioned here, it's the pattern noise that makes those last couple of stops unusable.

pwm2's link is a perfect example.


5D MkIII x2 + a lot of L's.
www.facebook.com/Peyma​nRazaviPhotography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
form
"inadequately equipped"
Avatar
4,929 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Henderson, NV
     
Jul 23, 2014 20:54 |  #32

I honestly think Canon will be addressing the issue in their next major camera updates. However, the method by which they address it is still a mystery.

D800 shadows are indeed infinitely nicer than 5d3 shadows...until you go past ISO1600 and try to push files. After ISO1600, the 5d3 shadows have less amp glow haze. D810 has apparently reduced the amp glow haze to levels roughly comparable to the 5d3.

If you want to avoid amp glow hazing of the shadows at high ISOs, the dSLRs with the best shadows at high ISO are Nikon Df, D4s and Canon 1dx. The BEST-performing sensor for high ISO is the A7s by about a mile.

The D810 sensor probably has NO disadvantages compared to the 5d3 sensor, whereas the D800 was worse at high ISOs because of amp glow cutting off the dynamic range. If you want great low ISO and don't want to wait, Nikon has that. Sony also has it to a similar degree in mirrorless models.


Las Vegas Wedding Photographer: http://www.joeyallenph​oto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2014
     
Jul 24, 2014 00:21 |  #33

pstyle1 wrote in post #17051863 (external link)
As other's have mentioned here, it's the pattern noise that makes those last couple of stops unusable.

pwm2's link is a perfect example.

I'm honestly shocked. Can anyone here independently and unbiased reproduce that? I'm a little in disbelief at the sample shots in that link. Almost to the point of not believing that the Nikon has such low noise at it's equal same high ISO.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jul 24, 2014 00:58 |  #34

CRCchemist wrote in post #17052326 (external link)
I'm honestly shocked. Can anyone here independently and unbiased reproduce that? I'm a little in disbelief at the sample shots in that link. Almost to the point of not believing that the Nikon has such low noise at it's equal same high ISO.

Pattern noise is visible at low ISO, not high ISO (where random/shot noise overwhelms it).

It's obvious on the 5D2 and 5D3 - try shooting a typical, contrasty landscape, with details reaching into the deep shadows. The moment you try to lift those shadows for more detail, pattern noise rears its ugly head and overwhelms everything. I don't get the same problem with my A7r.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
form
"inadequately equipped"
Avatar
4,929 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Henderson, NV
     
Jul 24, 2014 01:41 |  #35

It's real. Canon sensors (except the 1dx which does better) have a lot of shadow noise at low ISOs.


Las Vegas Wedding Photographer: http://www.joeyallenph​oto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
magwai
Goldmember
1,094 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Guildford, UK
     
Jul 24, 2014 03:38 |  #36

CRCchemist wrote in post #17052326 (external link)
I'm honestly shocked. Can anyone here independently and unbiased reproduce that? I'm a little in disbelief at the sample shots in that link. Almost to the point of not believing that the Nikon has such low noise at it's equal same high ISO.

Yes I have seen it. It is only occasionally limiting for me but since buying my x100s which does not have any pattern noise I am not buying another camera with it. I will keep my 5d2 for now but if Canon really are going to just focus on video and ignore DR for stills then I will sell everything and move. Having said that I am cautiously hopeful that they announce new sensor tech soon.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2014
     
Jul 24, 2014 03:38 |  #37

form wrote in post #17052393 (external link)
It's real. Canon sensors (except the 1dx which does better) have a lot of shadow noise at low ISOs.

So to get those crazy results on that link, you're saying those were shot at low ISO, and then the guy writing the review cranked up the exposure to show that there is some noise evident at low ISO on a Canon?

That doesn't concern me as much because it's kind of a false alarm - since I never have ever had a problem with noise levels at low ISO in the shadows since I'm not trying to increase my exposure in the blacks. I thought those sample shots were both at 25,600 ISO, which I thought was absolutely crazy to see no noise from the Nikon.

Can someone clarify this? Is the A/D converter on the Nikon or Sony cleaning this up before the RAW file is being written?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jul 24, 2014 04:17 |  #38

CRCchemist wrote in post #17052479 (external link)
So to get those crazy results on that link, you're saying those were shot at low ISO, and then the guy writing the review cranked up the exposure to show that there is some noise evident at low ISO on a Canon?

Even a simple curves adjustment will bring it up, and it's very evident if you print large.

If you don't shoot anything that has a wide dynamic range, then you can get around it by exposing to the right.

But, if you shoot architecture with natural lighting, landscapes or anything else with a wide dynamic range, you don't have that option. If you expose so that the highlights aren't blown out, then you have areas of deep shadow that are badly affected by the pattern noise. This forces you to use techniques such as blending bracketed exposures with intricate masks, which doesn't always work and is a pain to do.

That doesn't concern me as much because it's kind of a false alarm - since I never have ever had a problem with noise levels at low ISO in the shadows since I'm not trying to increase my exposure in the blacks. I thought those sample shots were both at 25,600 ISO, which I thought was absolutely crazy to see no noise from the Nikon.

It's not a false alarm if you need the dynamic range.

It reduces the usable dynamic range of the 5D2 or 5D3 to around 8 stops, vs the usable 12-14 stops of non-Canon sensors.

Can someone clarify this? Is the A/D converter on the Nikon or Sony cleaning this up before the RAW file is being written?

The Nikon/Sony A/D converter isn't 'cleaning it up'. It just isn't introducing the noise in the first place. Canon's pattern noise doesn't come from the sensor - it's introduced by Canon's A/D conversion process.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
magwai
Goldmember
1,094 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Guildford, UK
     
Jul 24, 2014 04:19 |  #39

CRCchemist wrote in post #17052479 (external link)
So to get those crazy results on that link, you're saying those were shot at low ISO, and then the guy writing the review cranked up the exposure to show that there is some noise evident at low ISO on a Canon?

That doesn't concern me as much because it's kind of a false alarm - since I never have ever had a problem with noise levels at low ISO in the shadows since I'm not trying to increase my exposure in the blacks. I thought those sample shots were both at 25,600 ISO, which I thought was absolutely crazy to see no noise from the Nikon.

Can someone clarify this? Is the A/D converter on the Nikon or Sony cleaning this up before the RAW file is being written?

Canon has lower DR than most of the competition. For most of us it is not essential but it is nice to have it there as an option in PP.

I believe it is due to "readout noise". I think this means that the actual light sensor has higher DR but some garbage gets introduced in reading the data from the sensor, which is connected to the regular patterns in the noise.

Others can explain better.

Given basically every other major player does not have this issue it really is essential that Canon addresses it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jul 24, 2014 04:35 |  #40

magwai wrote in post #17052499 (external link)
Canon has lower DR than most of the competition. For most of us it is not essential but it is nice to have it there as an option in PP.

I believe it is due to "readout noise". I think this means that the actual light sensor has higher DR but some garbage gets introduced in reading the data from the sensor, which is connected to the regular patterns in the noise.

Others can explain better.

Given basically every other major player does not have this issue it really is essential that Canon addresses it.

It's two separate issues, really.

Canon's sensor has lower measurable DR at low ISO, mostly due to read noise. That's what limits the measured DR on Canon sensors to around 2 stops less than Nikon/Sony's best sensors.

On top of that, however, a lot of Canon sensors also have significant pattern noise (a non-random kind of read noise) that's highly visible in the darkest few stops of the dynamic range. This further reduces Canon's usable DR (since areas affected by pattern noise can't be used for much other than clipping them to black) so that, overall, the 5D2/5D3's usable DR is 4-5 stops worse than the competition. As in, not only can the sensor record 2 stops less dynamic range, but the bottom few stops of what the sensor is capable of recording is also essentially useless due to the pattern noise.

Not a problem if you're shooting low-dynamic-range images, high-key portraits or in controlled lighting, but, when you are shooting subjects more challenging to the sensor, the weaknesses really show through.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2014
     
Jul 24, 2014 08:37 |  #41

It's too bad this conversation is in the rumor section of the website. A lot of people ignore the rumors section because 90% of the time it's all wrong. This is good stuff to know.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Jul 24, 2014 09:52 |  #42

But it has been covered a number of times in other threads.

It originally got covered when the camera models was quite new - but then it was a bit too hot potatoe to discuss because some people did not want to hear about problems with their recently bought (or soon to be bought) cameras.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Footbag
Senior Member
391 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Scranton, PA
     
Jul 24, 2014 14:18 |  #43

I could be wrong, but from the speculation I've read, the Nikon D800 sensor may be truncating the blacks to limit the appearance of noise. The noise is still there, but it's compressed in a way that it can be boosted without showing the noise. It's possible the black point is clipped. In other words, they are mucking with the RAW. It is possible they only do this above a certain exposure length, though.

This doesn't seem like it would impact many types of photography. It does mess with the calibration process for astro-imaging.


Adam
My Astrophoto Gallery (external link)
The Astro Imaging Channel (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2014
     
Jul 24, 2014 20:05 |  #44

Footbag wrote in post #17053485 (external link)
I could be wrong, but from the speculation I've read, the Nikon D800 sensor may be truncating the blacks to limit the appearance of noise. The noise is still there, but it's compressed in a way that it can be boosted without showing the noise. It's possible the black point is clipped. In other words, they are mucking with the RAW. It is possible they only do this above a certain exposure length, though.

This doesn't seem like it would impact many types of photography. It does mess with the calibration process for astro-imaging.

Honestly, I have a background in semiconductor fabrication process, and my undergraduate was in electrical engineering. Experience in semiconductor and analog circuit design leads me to believe that this is the case.

Such a low amount of noise is extremely rare, and it's even LESS likely from a circuit design that is densely packed devices. It's an annoying design consideration but it's the reality of the game. It's obviously a lot to explain here and requires about 30 minutes to explain to somebody why transistors work the way they do, but that sample of no noise innately from the Nikon is a little unbelievable to me. There is always a noise floor.

I don't know what, but something is going on under the hood that is a part of the process of the output data of all the millions of devices on the sensor substrate.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
venom3300
Senior Member
610 posts
Likes: 145
Joined Jan 2014
     
Jul 24, 2014 20:10 |  #45

645Z...


Bodies: Nikon D800,Canon Rebel GII, Pentax K1000
Lenses: Nikon 20mm 1.8, Nikon 24 2.8 MF, Tamron SP 35mm 1.8, Tamron 90 2.8 Macro, Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR I, Nikon AI-P 500mm F4, Nikon TC-16A, SMC Pentax-A 50/1.7, SMC Pentax-M 100/4 Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17,306 views & 0 likes for this thread
Chances of 5D MkIV have better dynamic range?
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Cmontgomery745
2194 guests, 313 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.