OFFICIAL : 5DS and 5DS R Announced

I agree. They keep getting better and better. I'd love to have a 50MP body right about now.

I was real happy about the announcement until I read deeper. I was ready to jump back in Canon land! The logical thing to do is wait for Sony/Nikon to release 60 MP sensor.

mathogre wrote in post #17420087
Okay, now I'm fine with the 5DS and 5DS R. I was fuming over the loss of two stops. I shoot a lot of night work, marching band, and I'm usually M, 1/500s, f/5.6 (for DoF), and ISO 12,800+.

At which point (12800), the Canon HAS MORE DR!!!

Proper NR would eliminate this deep-shadows noise, which would be, what-1" across in a 5 foot wide print?

David Arbogast wrote in post #17420065
That is not what I am referring to regarding DR (and I am a people). Dynamic range should be a black-and-white clinical term used to describe the actual measurable upper and lower limits of the sensor's light gathering abilities: the range cut-offs being where the sensor is no longer capable of capturing detail. It is the range that DXO measures and documents.

If we want to discuss "effective" or usable DR, then that speaks to relative personal opinion, and we would do well to make the distinction clear. It does raise a good discussion point: If the 5D III sensor has a measured 12-Evs DR, then what what is its "effective" DR? 10-Evs? We have been having this discussion based on the actual measured DR differences (12-Evs vs 14-Evs) and some are asking does that somewhat small performance gap really make a difference? Well, let's get clearer. If the Canon sensor has a diminished "effective" or usable DR, then we are no longer discussing a mere 2-Evs performance gap - it's actually much greater than that.

When Dxomark and other companies are doing tests on dynamic range what they are really testing is the signal to noise ratio across the cameras entire well range. Therefore, higher noise at low ISO is going to have a very real measurable impact on the lower limits of the sensors light gathering abilities. The upper limit of the sensor is always going to be limited the same, once a pixel is full it's full. The lower range is limited by what light you can gather before the output is buried in noise.
Indeed in terms of sensor performance, dynamic range could well be defined as low ISO noise.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17420027
That's because it's impossible to have better RAW highlights. Highlights represent sensor wells being 100% full, which equals white on every camera. The key is how far below a full well you can go and still register a signal above that of background noise - at the moment, Sony/Nikon/Samsung/Lei​ca can all register a well 1/4 to 1/8 the strength of Canon (i.e. 2-3 stops better).

Good point. Although one way in which cameras can differ in the highlights is how close together the R G B wells are. If your G is clipped before R is, you're going to get some unnatural looking colours if you pull down the highlights.

Thanks for the explanation Mornnb, really appreciate that.

Mornnb wrote in post #17420613
Indeed in terms of sensor performance, dynamic range could well be defined as low ISO noise.

Indeed - I think they refer to "maximum DR" and that is at the lowest ISO, and relates the signal to noise (where detail can first be seen i.e. where signal=noise) to the saturation

Mornnb wrote in post #17420638
Good point. Although one way in which cameras can differ in the highlights is how close together the R G B wells are. If your G is clipped before R is, you're going to get some unnatural looking colours if you pull down the highlights.

That's a good reason to use a "raw" histogram when shooting (available through ML), rather than the current Canon jpeg-based one, in which such clipping can go unnoticed.

AJSJones wrote in post #17420913
That's a good reason to use a "raw" histogram when shooting (available through ML), rather than the current Canon jpeg-based one, in which such clipping can go unnoticed.

Another very good reason (especially on a DR-limited Canon sensor) is to be able to make optimal use of the brightest stops, which appear clipped to white in the JPEG.

tvphotog wrote in post #17420113
The "S" is for "Super" and the "R" is for "Resolution".

Perhaps I missed something. To get the same exposure, I shoot on a tripod in manual and just align the meter to the same spot with successive shots, or shoot in A mode with a set ISO and let speed change if need be. I've gotten publishable stitched results every time that way. If you're talking cloud or traffic movement, I agree with you. Imagine the image you can stitch with three exposures in the 5DS or SR...billboard!

Regarding noise and DR, I've always been a pragmatist. I want to see some test shots in the field. The above comparison with the Sony, while very convincing, was with a 5D III.

To blend exposures in a panorama, you need to stitch a separate panorama from each exposure first, then overlay and blend them. Trouble is, the different exposures are rarely stitched in exactly the same way - often, one of the frames will be a few pixels off after stitching, leading to panoramas that don't line up exactly over the entire frame.

It's preferable to be able to capture the entire dynamic range in a single frame - that way, stitching has a much higher success rate (by which I mean not one pixel out of place).

AJSJones wrote in post #17420913
That's a good reason to use a "raw" histogram when shooting (available through ML), rather than the current Canon jpeg-based one, in which such clipping can go unnoticed.

How does ML's raw histogram compare to the UniWB method?

It doesn't give weird green previews

Well, if that's the only shortcoming, I'll stick with UniWB then.

Some might find interesting guy here on facebook https://www.facebook.c​om …893966526/?type​=1&theater