Dynamic Range-Can't they or Won't they?

i see posts all the time bad-mouthing Canon's dynamic range. I also see posts that imply that it can be fixed, even on current models if they just would.

Sensor thing or firmware thing? What's the deal? You would think they would not want to lose this war. Why are they or do they seem to be so nonchalant about the whole thing?

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #17709279
i see posts all the time bad-mouthing Canon's dynamic range. I also see posts that imply that it can be fixed, even on current models if they just would.

Sensor thing or firmware thing? What's the deal? You would think they would not want to lose this war. Why are they or do they seem to be so nonchalant about the whole thing?

I'm sure they would if they could but there are patent issues that prevent them putting the ADCs on the sesnsor chip, so they pick up extra noise getting the data off-sensor, compared to the Sony-Nikon style of sensor design. I'll let others get more specific

Heya,

There is a big chunk of a business like this that does market analysis daily, both psychological and bean-counters. They do a good job of predicting where to go with with release cycles based on current market. Each maker has their own thing they focus on to capture the market. It's very difficult to dominate ALL major aspects of the 35mm format (from sensor to lenses and everything in between it). Sony has it's strength in the sensor. I don't see any Sony cameras producing the big sporting events images. Dynamic range isn't the end-all-be-all. It's just the current flavor-of-the-month "argument" for something. Who's beating Canon's lenses right now? Or ever? Who's beating Canon's AF and top high ISO performance? Combine those? Competing is one thing, like Nikon is doing. But they're not beating Canon in that department. And sports photographers and wildlife photographers, who are the ones buying up the best lenses Canon has to offer (and no one else is matching really) are not concerned with overall dynamic range of a sensor. They're looking at autofocus abilities and the best longest fastest glass they can get to take advantage of the speed of AF. This is where 35mm format's strength lies honestly anyways, in the robust autofocus systems that exist here, coupled with access to fast telephoto lenses. Beyond that, 35mm format doesn't offer much over larger formats. It's that AF/Telephoto that really is 35mm's strength. And who is leading it? Canon seems to be doing a good job of keeping everyone else trying to either keep up, or attempt to get bits of market in other niches, like.... dynamic range, or resolution...

But that's just one perspective.

Very best,

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #17709279
...You would think they would not want to lose this war. Why are they or do they seem to be so nonchalant about the whole thing?

The war is as genuine as the allied war on Germany in 1939 https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/Phoney_War or the mega-pixel war.

What a camera does in a lab under test conditions is irrelevant. Show me the consistently and noticeably better image taken by real Nikon photographers, compared to Canon shooters and I will start to worry.

As was pointed out above canon lead the way is several areas of camera development and, as a whole their cameras are every bit as capable as other cameras.

The invisible lack of DR doesn't seem to bother 98% of Canon shooters... me included.

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #17709279
i see posts all the time bad-mouthing Canon's dynamic range. I also see posts that imply that it can be fixed, even on current models if they just would.

Sensor thing or firmware thing? What's the deal? You would think they would not want to lose this war. Why are they or do they seem to be so nonchalant about the whole thing?

It's a sensor thing. My suspicion is that if it were an easy fix they'd have done it; changing chip production processes is difficult, and they appear to have focussed efforts on other areas of their DSLR bodies.

For many shooters (especially those who mostly shoot over ISO 800, or studio shooters with control of their light) it's pretty much a non-issue. For some types of shooters (e.g. landscape guys) it's a massive inconvenience and a cause of great frustration (especially since many landscape guys bought into the Canon system with the introduction of the 5D2).

Whilst they've alleviated the problems over the years by making the shadow noise less objectionable (7D2 is better than 7D, 5D3 is better than 5D2, 6D is better than 5D3 etc.) there's not been the step change required to compete with Sony sensors (or indeed, many other makers) in the low ISO space.

However, they do now have a sensor in the C300 Mark II that claims 15 stops of DR (http://www.premiumbeat​.com …f-dynamic-range-and-more/). Rumours indicate they're reading out the whole sensor at two different ISO levels and blending the results - a bit like Magic Lantern's dual-ISO technique, except not losing any lines. This technique overcomes the noise that gets added on darker pixels during the readout stage (because they've already been amplified).

If they can get that technology into the next DSLR bodies then there's a real possibility of them cracking the problem. Whether they will though... your guess is as good as mine.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #17709376
The invisible lack of DR doesn't seem to bother 98% of Canon shooters... me included.

This.

And most of these cameras in the right hands can produce images of great enough quality that they can be printed huge and hung on a wall that can take your breath away.

And the problem is...........

sploo wrote in post #17709591
However, they do now have a sensor in the C300 Mark II that claims 15 stops of DR (http://www.premiumbeat​.com …f-dynamic-range-and-more/). Rumours indicate they're reading out the whole sensor at two different ISO levels and blending the results - a bit like Magic Lantern's dual-ISO technique, except not losing any lines. This technique overcomes the noise that gets added on darker pixels during the readout stage (because they've already been amplified).

If they can get that technology into the next DSLR bodies then there's a real possibility of them cracking the problem. Whether they will though... your guess is as good as mine.

Having used ML's DualISO feature on my 50D, although affecting vertical resolution to a degree it is a great answer to the need for a lot more DR. I find it really useful for my aviation shots of aircraft against the sky, where you have a need to balance the exposure of the top/bottom of the aircraft if you want detail in both. knowing what ML have achieved, if Canon can produce a full sensor readout DualISO system I think it will kill all the criticism of Canon DR stone dead. I would love it on a 20MP crop or 50MP FF sensor that could do >5fps with a decent sized RAW buffer.

Alan

saea501 wrote in post #17709596
This.

And most of these cameras in the right hands can produce images of great enough quality that they can be printed huge and hung on a wall that can take your breath away.

And the problem is...........

Not a problem by me. I'll never be able to shoot as well as Canon can capture now. I'm just asking for my own education since I constantly see pros switching and claiming this as one of the primary reasons. I do admit that even I can see the differences sometimes, especially when pointed out to me, and I'm a rank amateur.

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #17709279
i see posts all the time bad-mouthing Canon's dynamic range. I also see posts that imply that it can be fixed, even on current models if they just would.

Sensor thing or firmware thing? What's the deal? You would think they would not want to lose this war. Why are they or do they seem to be so nonchalant about the whole thing?

Because the VAST majority of camera buyers 1) don't understand DR and 2) most likely never tax the system enough to realize the current limitations. Resolution, ISO, and in-camera perks sell the cameras to the masses, DR sells to a subsection of professional shooters. If you had a marketing department that was supposed to improve sales year after year, where would you put your resources for year after year changes?

The DR issue would first be a long-term R&D project that would then be moved to a mass production project for future products. It sounds like the R&D part might be done, and they are just beginning to flesh out the mass production of this technology in one particular model before making it main-stream.

saea501 wrote in post #17709596
And the problem is...........

...the shots that you lose due to not having sufficient DR, and either not being able to bracket, or where filters are not practical. Such as...

BigAl007 wrote in post #17709598
...I find it really useful for my aviation shots of aircraft against the sky, where you have a need to balance the exposure of the top/bottom of the aircraft if you want detail in both.

I think there are only a small percentage of people out there who REALLY focus on DR as a top priority when choosing a camera. I myself am on of them as a real-estate photographer. I don't think DR could be any more applicable then in this field. With that being said I'm going to wait to see if we hear any rumors on a new Canon release sometime *hopefully* soon. If not, I'll be switching to a Sony setup for the DR and video abilities.

njstacker22 wrote in post #17709713
I think there are only a small percentage of people out there who REALLY focus on DR as a top priority when choosing a camera.

Maybe about the same number as those who post that "folks who push shadows and whine about wanting more DR should just expose properly in the first place" and "cameras can make good pictures without needing any more DR" combined??

If anyone could capture a wide dynaic range -- and no one produces a dSLR today which can exceed 9.9EV! -- then there is the issue that there is NO way to view or print that!!!

AJSJones wrote in post #17709743


Maybe about the same number as those who post that "folks who push shadows and whine about wanting more DR should just expose properly in the first place" and "cameras can make good pictures without needing any more DR" combined??

Indeed. My standard thought to the "learn to expose properly" crowd is "learn what exposure is and why your statement is fundamentally flawed".

Wilt wrote in post #17709749
If anyone could capture a wide dynaic range -- and no one produces a dSLR today which can exceed 9.9EV! -- then there is the issue that there is NO way to view or print that!!!

Not sure if you mean that no one produces a DSLR that exceeds 9.9EV? D810 etc. etc.

The crucial point about DR is capture - whenever you lift shadows, bring highlights down and mess about with the contrast you're manipulating the DR in the capture. Making the resulting image suitable for the output DR and gamut (print or screen) is then a secondary concern (I think of it like the difference between mixing an album and then mastering it for a particular distribution format).

If your capture does not include useful detail in the shadows then no amount of manipulation is going to make them appear - hence a system that's capable of recording a wide dynamic range gives you the latitude for manipulating the levels in the image (most likely, raising the brightness of shadow details to avoid areas being rendered as inky black).