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 Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 28 Jul 2014 (Monday) 15:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why Canon, when Nikon...

 
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Aug 17, 2014 07:02 |  #331

davesrose wrote in post #17099073 (external link)
For effective dynamic range, it's more important to reach the saturation point. Let's take a look at bit depth. Suppose there's a perfect sensor/AD system that can fill all 16,384 tonal levels that a 14bpc system is capable of. If Sony ADC and Canon sensor tech mated and you had some perfect 0-16384 tonal range;)

A perfect 14-bit AD would have to admit that it would only manage 0-16383.

If you threw out the first bit, you'd be throwing out only 2 tonal values. If you threw out the last bit, you'd be throwing out 8192 tonal values.

Only valid if there was valid data in that lowest bit. If it's just noise then there was no tonal values to lose. Canon doesn't have valid data in that bit. And not in the next bit either. And just a hint of information in the next bit.

And then we still haven't worried about banding that could make a couple more bits unusable.

I think in this thread, we've debated the SNR of of the sensors quite a bit.:D I'll add my two cents about the actual brand trends. It's apparent Sony/Nikon sensors have better noise handling and resolution. If you factor the extra resolution, what advantage with Canon's sensor sensitivity has becomes less significant. It's certainly evident Sony is providing pressure for Canon to keep updating their DSLRs...and that's a good thing. We can either look at the glass is half empty or glass is half full. When I first got my 5Dc, the Nikon vs Canon camps were pretty much the opposite of what they are now (that Nikon had better AF/ Canon had better sensor). I don't see why their strengths won't keep switching back and forth: it's been going on for 70 years. I'm interested in seeing if Canon does introduce a sensor with the foveon type sensor patents they have. I suspect the September announcements will be for the 7DII, while the 5DmkIII will still be updated next year.

Earlier rumours seemed to indicate that it will not be a foveon-type sensor. But maybe new factors or rumours have surfaced.


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Aug 17, 2014 07:05 |  #332

Glenn NK wrote in post #17100365 (external link)
Actually it's the other way around. The brightest stop carries twice the level of information of the next brightest stop and so on.

Tonal information is only lost when one or more of the channels are clipped.

But a problem with color information is that the white balance setting can trick us into clipping one color channel and so change the captured color. So there are problems with making full use of that brightest stop.


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
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,727 posts
Likes: 525
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Aug 17, 2014 07:25 |  #333

pwm2 wrote in post #17101004 (external link)
No. DR is the difference between the noise hiss in your loudspeakers when you don't play musing to the highest volume you can play before they clip.

No, in audio, DR is the range of DB of volume. In photography, it's the range of luminance (be it your scene, what the sensor records, and the contrast range of your output image). As for the rest of all your replies, I don't see much contradictions to my original posts. It appears the only thing you're arguing is sensor DR. Never did I say 14bit processing leaves a clean 14bit file. You'll see in my last post I prefaced the situation of utilizing full 14 bits with a hypothetical "magic" sensor that can fill a full 14 stops. A 14bit processor gives you 14bit tonal "precision".

You're also missing context in some of my posts: my comparison of DVD to blu-ray was in response to teamspeeds assertion that the image quality of an upscaled image can be just as good as a native image. Ditto about perlin noise in 3D graphics (that's completely irrelevant as that's intended procedural noise).

As I've already stated, the Sony sensor is clearly superior at noise handling and extra resolution. I have yet to see it's highlight recovery though: the largest value in tonal DR. With the Sony sensor, you can be more confident there isn't noise while pushing shadows. But if we look at tonal DR, that's just 16 shades of grey (if looking at the first 4 stops). Lets say the sensor and situation can record up to 13 stops of light. The last stops (where your highlights are) is much greater then that: over 2048 shades of grey just in the last stop. Effective DR is more significant at the higher stops of light. From the information I've seen, the Sony sensors really reign supreme for shadow recovery. If we believe the DXO info that the Canons have a higher saturation point (and I suspect so, if their performance exceeds the Sony at high ISO), then it only confirms the fact that you should be ETTR more with a Canon.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,727 posts
Likes: 525
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Aug 17, 2014 07:48 |  #334

pwm2 wrote in post #17101077 (external link)
But a problem with color information is that the white balance setting can trick us into clipping one color channel and so change the captured color. So there are problems with making full use of that brightest stop.

It is easier to process color: you can't recover blown highlights, though. While you have greater latitude making sure WB is correct, traditional sensors have twice the density of green receptors (where most luminance info is) as the red and blue receptors (which are considered chroma receptors).


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,727 posts
Likes: 525
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Aug 17, 2014 08:30 |  #335

pwm2 wrote in post #17101050 (external link)
Next thing - don't believe our eyes can see so huge dynamic range. Lots of our dynamic range comes from our eyes adapting as we move our view to different parts of the scene. So the iris changes size and chemical processes changes the sensitivity. So lots of stops are just virtual HDR from multiple exposures and our brain combining it into a "make believe" huge dynamic range.

Same thing with our ears - we have muscles that can tighten the ear drum to adjust the sensitivity. The biological sensors doesn't have magical super-range.

I don't know why you went back to reply to all my previous posts at once, but if you want to be specific: there is one muscle in the inner ear that attaches to the malleous to dampen vibrations to the inner ear. The human brain is also quite different then a microchip, and can filter out ambient sounds. The eye being able to scan, and having two types of photo receptors is just an example of how a digital system is way different. Because our eyes can accomodate and percieve around 20 stops of light, so then digital systems should evolve to render equivalents with their technologies.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Aug 17, 2014 10:52 |  #336

davesrose wrote in post #17101108 (external link)
As I've already stated, the Sony sensor is clearly superior at noise handling and extra resolution. I have yet to see it's highlight recovery though: the largest value in tonal DR. With the Sony sensor, you can be more confident there isn't noise while pushing shadows. But if we look at tonal DR, that's just 16 shades of grey (if looking at the first 4 stops). Lets say the sensor and situation can record up to 13 stops of light. The last stops (where your highlights are) is much greater then that: over 2048 shades of grey just in the last stop. Effective DR is more significant at the higher stops of light. From the information I've seen, the Sony sensors really reign supreme for shadow recovery. If we believe the DXO info that the Canons have a higher saturation point (and I suspect so, if their performance exceeds the Sony at high ISO), then it only confirms the fact that you should be ETTR more with a Canon.

We've seen that DR is commonly measured by determining the full well capacity (saturation) and noise floor (the luminance value above which a signal can be detected) and expressing that as a ratio. This is completely different from the concept of tonality (external link) (the number of steps from darkest to lightest luminance in the DR - the DR is the height of the staircase, the tonality is the number of steps to get to that height)
I think we may be discussing different things here. I cannot understand your points above because I am unfamiliar with (I don't know what you mean by) "tonal DR" and "effective DR". Could you explain what you mean by those terms and how they are different from the data above (full well to noise)?


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,727 posts
Likes: 525
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Aug 17, 2014 11:19 |  #337

AJSJones wrote in post #17101397 (external link)
We've seen that DR is commonly measured by determining the full well capacity (saturation) and noise floor (the luminance value above which a signal can be detected) and expressing that as a ratio. This is completely different from the concept of tonality (external link) (the number of steps from darkest to lightest luminance in the DR - the DR is the height of the staircase, the tonality is the number of steps to get to that height)
I think we may be discussing different things here. I cannot understand your points above because I am unfamiliar with (I don't know what you mean by) "tonal DR" and "effective DR". Could you explain what you mean by those terms and how they are different from the data above (full well to noise)?

http://www.cambridgein​colour.com/tutorials/d​ynamic-range.htm (external link)

I think the main thing we're not seeing eye to eye on is the definition of dynamic range, as relating to computer graphics. The main aspect of DR in photography is the ratio of your brightest luminance vs your darkest. Tonal range is not completely separate: it is the digital representation of the DR of an image (light intensity is now contrast range). The final dynamic range of any posted images is 8bpc. The scene has one DR scale. The sensor has another. Your final image is another. In previous posts, you've been putting a lot of significance towards the noise floor of a sensor: which does make your lower stops of light cleaner.

However, the reason computer graphics have 16 and even 32bpc image files is to adequately simulate light intensity in tonal form.

I am wondering how Nikons handle highlight recovery. In previous examples of HDR images, the initial exposure looks a bit underexposed from what I'm accustomed to shooting a Canon. Yesterday, I took a few shots of a HDR image just to show how with a Canon you should be shooting for the highlights. From what I see, this is how I'd shoot to get effective DR with a Canon:

IMAGE: http://www.rosenberg-illustration.com/camera/unprocessed_resized.jpg

My histogram is showing a lot of clipping at white, but based on experience, I know my highlights are recoverable. I also don't have to bump up my shadows: with a Sony sensor, you would be able to have more latitude to bump up shadows. How well the Sony sensor is at adjusting those highlights is what I wonder. I don't have the time, since photography is more a hobby, but I would be interested in demoing a D810's DR when it comes to saturation point.

Here's my processed image- I didn't have clipping in any of the bright areas:

IMAGE: http://www.rosenberg-illustration.com/camera/processed_Canon_resize.jpg

The examples of DR I've seen from the Sony sensors aren't pushing into highlights. Instead, a similar image like this is exposed in a way that would indeed show a lot of noise in a Canon....here's my approximation of the scene's exposure that's recoverable in the Sony/ may not be acceptable for a Canon:

IMAGE: http://www.rosenberg-illustration.com/camera/unprocessed_dark_resize.jpg

Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
VaDimZH
Senior Member
Avatar
956 posts
Gallery: 607 photos
Likes: 3054
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Arlington,WA
     
Aug 17, 2014 11:27 |  #338

pwm2 wrote in post #17101034 (external link)
People want BD or 4K video instead of DVD video or VHS video. But that is irrelevant to this debate. 4k video can resolve more features than DVD. But you can't compare the noise of one pixel from a 4k video with one pixel from a DVD video. And you can't compare one pixel from the 36MP D800E with one pixel from a 22MP 5D3. You need to scale! You need to scale! You NEED to scale!

Scale up or scale down doesn't matter. Scale up and you lose quality in the 22->36MP conversion. Scale down and you reduce noise in the 36MP->22MP conversion. In the end, the D800E still wins. Wins, wins, wins. Despite starting with almost twice as large pixels on the sensor, it still have more noise per pixel in the shadows of a ISO 100 capture. The larger pixels can't help what the ADC conversion destroys.

The only important thing here is that when you compare, then the same features captured in the photo needs to fill the same area of your monitor or of a print. So scaling MUST be performed!

See ? I told you,Nikon D810 is the best camera today ! :(


Body: Canon 5D
Optics: Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM
Flash: Canon 430EX III RT
Bag: Think Tank SPEED FREAK V2.0
Monitor: NEC PA272W-BK-SV
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Aug 17, 2014 11:49 |  #339

pwm2 wrote in post #17101034 (external link)
...

Scale up or scale down doesn't matter. Scale up and you lose quality in the 22->36MP conversion. Scale down and you reduce noise in the 36MP->22MP conversion. In the end, the D800E still wins. Wins, wins, wins. Despite starting with almost twice as large pixels on the sensor, it still have more noise per pixel in the shadows of a ISO 100 capture. The larger pixels can't help what the ADC conversion destroys.

...

Which is fine if ISO 100 shadow noise matters to you. It doesn't to me; probably less than 10% of my shots are at ISO 100. I'm constantly at 800, often at 1600, and wish I could go higher with less noise.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,876 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 9009
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Aug 17, 2014 12:05 |  #340

archer1960 wrote in post #17101490 (external link)
Which is fine if ISO 100 shadow noise matters to you. It doesn't to me; probably less than 10% of my shots are at ISO 100. I'm constantly at 800, often at 1600, and wish I could go higher with less noise.

Noise banding makes Canon sensors less desirable at high ISO as well. All around, Canon sensors are lacking, relative to what others are capable of. In terms of low light performance, the a7s, and Nikon DF perform quite a bit better in low light than any of Canon's offerings.

Canon has some catching up to do.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
     
Aug 17, 2014 12:38 |  #341

If anyone is interested, here's a review of the D810 vs. 5D3. Enjoy!
Btw, the banding is mentioned. :)
http://youtu.be/VR7Kje​q2aH4 (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
     
Aug 17, 2014 12:39 |  #342

mystik610 wrote in post #17101513 (external link)
Noise banding makes Canon sensors less desirable at high ISO as well. All around, Canon sensors are lacking, relative to what others are capable of. In terms of low light performance, the a7s, and Nikon DF perform quite a bit better in low light than any of Canon's offerings.

Canon has some catching up to do.

I agree. I've been using the A7s with the Sony 55 1.8. Awesome combo for low light shooting. :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Glenn ­ NK
Goldmember
Avatar
4,630 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Victoria, BC
     
Aug 17, 2014 12:43 |  #343

davesrose wrote in post #17101443 (external link)
My histogram is showing a lot of clipping at white, but based on experience, I know my highlights are recoverable.

Just wondering; do you have your in camera Contrast setting set to minus 2 or minus 3? Apparently this puts the in camera JPEG (on the LCD) closer to what the actual RAW file will be in terms of clipping highlights.


When did voluptuous become voluminous?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,727 posts
Likes: 525
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Aug 17, 2014 12:56 |  #344

Glenn NK wrote in post #17101594 (external link)
Just wondering; do you have your in camera Contrast setting set to minus 2 or minus 3? Apparently this puts the in camera JPEG (on the LCD) closer to what the actual RAW file will be in terms of clipping highlights.

My normal routine for checking exposure is having faithful profile with -2 contrast. When I have tried -4, it appears to go a bit too black for me. Adjusting the profile's contrast takes the highlights down, but then also compresses the shadows. It's a balance of estimating no blocking up of shadows, and not clipping highlights. The DR differences with the Sony sensors seem to be those shadow areas.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Aug 17, 2014 13:20 |  #345

davesrose wrote in post #17101443 (external link)
http://www.cambridgein​colour.com/tutorials/d​ynamic-range.htm (external link)

I think the main thing we're not seeing eye to eye on is the definition of dynamic range, as relating to computer graphics.

The topic, where I came in was only the DR of the sensors from Sony and Canon. All other discussions of DR would be the same for both sensors, and therefore not relevant to the difference between them. Those other items are important, but don;t affect the comparison of the sensors.

davesrose wrote in post #17101443 (external link)
I don't have the time, since photography is more a hobby, but I would be interested in demoing a D810's DR when it comes to saturation point.

It sounds like you are talking about how Sony/Nikon cameras set exposure (i.e how close they come to the saturation limit.). Otherwise what does "a D810's DR when it comes to saturation point" mean? The DR is the ratio of the "saturation point" to the noise. We keep increasing the exposure until we reach the 39,000 electrons (or whatever) and that becomes the digital value of 16383. Sensels that yield a value of 16382 and below will be below clipping IN BOTH cameras. The DR differs because the lowest signal that can be distinguished from noise is much lower in the Sony than in the Canon.


My picture galleries (external link)

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

54,306 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why Canon, when Nikon...
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
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 jasmineleeviray
825 guests, 193 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.