Canon 5Ds & 5Dr

twist said:
Not when you compare it against its rivals.
Click to expand...
Such as?

Only really the d750/800, which excel but really the difference won't realistically be noticeable.

I can pull crystal clear noise free detail out of some pretty dark shadow areas on 6d raws, so that's pretty good in my book!
 
odd jim said:
Such as?

Only really the d750/800, which excel but really the difference won't realistically be noticeable.

I can pull crystal clear noise free detail out of some pretty dark shadow areas on 6d raws, so that's pretty good in my book!
Click to expand...

I think you should read the links conclusion... as it also applies to the 6D. And my comment was its behind the competition not that its unusable. Its behind all of the Nikon and Sony FFs ...... which are ...... its rivals. According to DXO it also lags behind smaller APSC sensors like the Pentax K5IIs and other Nikons like the D7100/7200.

The 5DS R appears to hold up as as well as the 6D with respect to exposure latitude, when normalized to common viewing size. This is definitely a step in the right direction for Canon, as the 6D already showed some improvements over the 5D Mark III when it came to dynamic range. Furthermore, it's nice to see that the increased pixel count, which might have led to an increase in total read noise due to the extra pixels that have to be read, does not appear to adversely affect dynamic range.

The burning question here though, for some, is how the 5DS cameras hold up to the competition. In a nutshell, these cameras can't compete with the impressive dynamic range, and therefore exposure latitude, of cameras like the Nikon D750, which is tolerant of even 4 to 6 EV pushes of base ISO shots that tend to show unacceptable levels of noise with the 5DS R.
 
jonneymendoza said:
6d Dr is average compared to nikon/Sony
Click to expand...
Bit of a broad statement?

There are only a couple of Nikon or Sony models that can even compare to the DR on a 6d. Bare in mind the majority of Nikon / Sony are crops for a start :)

I wouldn't say average either compared to the only models that compete, you don't really notice TBH if you compare and process raws (which you can download online if you feel the need to experiment with them).
 
twist said:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings/Landscape

Choose 6D in the dropdown list and find out where it ranks.
Click to expand...
Yeah I've seen that, DXO is too lab based, look at actual photos and you'll see very little difference.

See this (real shooting tests as opposed to a lot of Middle aged German men in lab coats) -

http://caminatiphoto.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/sony-a7-vs-canon-6d-part-1-dynamic-range.html?m=1

While the Sony A7r does have better DR (I use the A7r as that's what I'd buy if I had to chose between the Sony / Nikon variants) it's really nothing in reality. You can look at and process the raws from the website.

Bit of a pointless argument when you realise how little it will affect your day to day photos, all cameras these days have great dynamic range.
 
odd jim said:
Bit of a broad statement?

There are only a couple of Nikon or Sony models that can even compare to the DR on a 6d. Bare in mind the majority of Nikon / Sony are crops for a start :)

I wouldn't say average either compared to the only models that compete, you don't really notice TBH if you compare and process raws (which you can download online if you feel the need to experiment with them).
Click to expand...
Have tried a 6d mate and the Dr is not as good as other models. The Dr is more or less identical to my 5d3 as well but the nikon and Sony blows it away.

Fact is. If the next gen cameras don't improve the Dr and nikon and Sony further improve their Dr. It will leave canon way behind in sensor tech.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Have tried a 6d mate and the Dr is not as good as other models. The Dr is more or less identical to my 5d3 as well but the nikon and Sony blows it away.

Fact is. If the next gen cameras don't improve the Dr and nikon and Sony further improve their Dr. It will leave canon way behind in sensor tech.
Click to expand...
I've used both Nikon d800 and Sony A7r, neither "blow it away". See above!

The only problem I've found with the 6d is it naturally underexposed in some conditions. You need to dial a bit of positive exposure a lot of the time to get it right.

I wonder if you've been under exposing if you've seen it under perform?
 
As a Canon user I do find it a bit worrying that Canons apparently lag so far behind the competition is some respects. But I have a bag full (well, a small bag full) of Canon lenses and that will keep me using Canons for the foreseeable future.

In addition to that using my equipment needs to be second nature as far as possible (I'm still learning.....). The thought of finding my way around Nikons or Sonys while still producing good results will also keep me with Canon for a good while longer. I suspect that's one of the above posters means by ergonomics. It's not necessarily that one make is better than another - it's whether can you still deliver the goods if you can't find your way around your equipment.

And I won't be buying a 5ds/r. Not a chance.!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Yeah I've seen that, DXO is too lab based, look at actual photos and you'll see very little difference.

See this -

http://caminatiphoto.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/sony-a7-vs-canon-6d-part-1-dynamic-range.html?m=1

While the Sony A7r does have better DR (I use the A7r as that's what I'd buy if I had to chose between the Sony / Nikon variants) it's really nothing in reality. You can look at and process the raws from the website.

Bit of a pointless argument when you realise how little it will affect your day to day photos, all cameras these days have great dynamic range.
Click to expand...

I am looking at actual photos, DPReviews studio scene, where I can see a huge difference between the sensors they use in the Nikonys and others vs the Canons. The Canons are as per DPReviews conclusion fine till around a 3 stop push, then they fall apart where the other sensors are still good. In the link you posted I can see the difference in the shadows and thats not even been pushed in post.

Actually, its not a pointless argument. As you can see from the poll. More DR gives more options. I never said Canons are unusable or crap because of their DR, I said they just lag behind the competition in that regard.
 
Last edited:
dkh said:
So the Nikon D4 is crap? anything on DXO needs to be taken with a huge pinch of salt with so many variables in real life not taken into account such as focus ability etc etc.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is why I've always flatly ignored DXO.
 
dkh said:
So the Nikon D4 is crap? anything on DXO needs to be taken with a huge pinch of salt with so many variables in real life not taken into account such as focus ability etc etc.
Click to expand...

But what does that have to do with what were talking about? Specifically dynamic range of a sensor.
 
twist said:
I am looking at actual photos, DPReviews studio scene, where I can see a huge difference between the sensors they use in the Nikonys and others vs the Canons. The Canons are as per DPReviews conclusion fine till around a 3 stop push, then they fall apart where the other sensors are still good. In the link you posted I can see the difference in the shadows and thats not even been pushed in post.

Actually, its not a pointless argument. As you can see from the poll. More DR gives more options.
Click to expand...
It does, but only when you re talking huge differentials.

Here, we aren't.

As I said, the 6d has great DR, as they all do. An a7r or Nikon d800 may have slightly more DR but it doesn't mean the 6d has crap DR does it?
 
twist said:
But what does that have to do with what were talking about? Specifically dynamic range of a sensor.
Click to expand...
It's about DXO using lab based testing rather than real world shooting, which I alluded to myself in a previous post. Forget about labs and numbers, just get out and shoot where you'll see sod all difference in (this and a lot of other) kit, but a lot of difference in photographers, where you'll see the biggest and most important difference.

I honestly think we photographers have lost the plot these days, making massive discussions about a tiny 1-2ev difference in DR!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
It does, but only when you re talking huge differentials.

Here, we aren't.

As I said, the 6d has great DR, as they all do. An a7r or Nikon d800 may have slightly more DR but it doesn't mean the 6d has crap DR does it?
Click to expand...

But a lot of people do push in post for more creative options or ETTL to avoid blown highlights in varying light (this is made possible with Sonys ISOless sensors).

As I said, the Canons lack behind the competition in terms of DR and most Canon shooters would be very happy if they could get a DR increase of a massive 2 stops. Thats the point I was making. Its a fact.
 
dkh said:
You can't link to something to show how 'bad' it is when the measurement is itself evidently bad. The list implies that the 6D is way down in sensor 'capability' but, it is one below the D4!
Click to expand...

I linked to something to show where it ranks and offers a factual sensor read of DR. You dragged the D4 into it and brought up AF for some unknown reason, I can only assume you use that camera.

One below the D4, do you mean 1 stop? Its 2.7 stops below the D810!
 
ST4 said:
Camera's don't take pictures, people do.

I'm sure if I didn't have a D800 but a 5dsomething I'd still be able to produce images I am happy with.
Click to expand...

And Im not arguing that point Steve and do agree, all Im saying is the Canon lags behind the competition in terms of DR and a lot of photographers use that extra DR to achieve what they want.

Its like saying, it doesnt really matter if X camera is 2 stops cleaner at hi ISO than Y camera, it can still take pictures. Of course it can, until you push the sensor any camera can take pictures, after all isnt that the reason you own a D800 instead of a compact?
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I don't think it's plain daft at all, certainly no more daft than accepting what some would see as inferior image quality for what you consider better ergonomics. Those two opposing views should reinforce your own assertion that there's more to it.
Click to expand...

We all have different ideas on what's important to us. What's inferior to you is acceptable to me. Ergonomics is important to me. It allows me to get images I might not get with other cameras simply due to the fact that I can customise the camera to my needs.

I would happily use a Nikon for landscapes and take advantage of the better sensor, something I've always said I would do if I took a lot of landscapes. Ergonomics doesn't play such a big part then as time is your ally in landscape photography. For wildlife Nikons don't fit me and I don't like them. Great cameras but not for me in this instance.
 
twist said:
But a lot of people do push in post for more creative options or ETTL to avoid blown highlights in varying light (this is made possible with Sonys ISOless sensors).

As I said, the Canons lack behind the competition in terms of DR and most Canon shooters would be very happy if they could get a DR increase of a massive 2 stops. Thats the point I was making. Its a fact.
Click to expand...
But there are probably only 2 or 3 cameras out there that can push a 2 stop advantage over the 6d, as the 6d is a great camera (have we lost the plot here, a camera is suddenly poo as DXO discover a couple of EV from a different camera?!).

Here's a real example of real shooting, 6d vs a7r - my dad has an a7 which he loves, he bought it on my recommendation (yes, I'm not a Canon fanboy and I like the a7r!) as it happens as is is the a7r I've played with. We were out shooti landscapes in Cornwall, some rolling hills with a fog bank rolling in. The light was patchy which made it interesting but the ambience was pretty low. Shooting handheld, my dad was shooting at 400iso whilst I was shooting at 100-200 ISO. We were getting similar shutter speeds at the same aperture but with me at 200 ISO and him at 400. I had a play, same with me.

Ok, the a7r is pretty damn good at 400 ISO so no big deal, and I put this down to the translucent mirror (though that's more drop off than I'd expect). But whatever DR he gained on me, he effectively lost having to up the ISO.

This is where I can't bear DXO - they sit in a lab throwing stuff at sensors, but forget about shooting conditions, other handling aspects and how this might affect the end result.

There are so many other variables at play, a (Max) advantage of 2 ev can easily be nullified due to something else.

I think we've lost sight of how lucky we are with kit these days, to the point where none of it really matters.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
I linked to something to show where it ranks and offers a factual sensor read of DR. You dragged the D4 into it and brought up AF for some unknown reason, I can only assume you use that camera.

One below the D4, do you mean 1 stop? Its 2.7 stops below the D810!
Click to expand...

You're either deliberately missing the point or there are other issues going on. You linked to the DXO site and specifically to a list which contains most cameras:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings/Landscape
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings/Landscape

"Choose 6D in the dropdown list and find out where it ranks."

In that list, the Nikon D4 is one place above a Canon 6D!

So, should I argue that Nikon's second flagship camera has a crap sensor?

Im loosing the plot - D4 is 30+ something. Apologies.
 
Last edited:
dkh said:
You're either deliberately missing the point or there are other issues going on. You linked to the DXO site and specifically to a list which contains most cameras:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings/Landscape

"Choose 6D in the dropdown list and find out where it ranks."

In that list, the Nikon D4 is one place above a Canon 6D!

So, should I argue that Nikon's second flagship camera has a crap sensor?
Click to expand...

The 6D is ranked 112th, the D4 is ranked 41st!!!!!!!!!! I think you are missing something. Im talking about DR rankings which is what I linked!!
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Its like saying, it doesnt really matter if X camera is 2 stops cleaner at hi ISO than Y camera, it can still take pictures. Of course it can, until you push the sensor any camera can take pictures, after all isnt that the reason you own a D800 instead of a compact?
Click to expand...

Yeah, and its epic, but I've taken images on old croppers and been happy with the result. I am more interested in lighting and subject.
 
odd jim said:
But there are probably only 2 or 3 cameras out there that can push a 2 stop advantage over the 6d, as the 6d is a great camera (have we lost the plot here, a camera is suddenly poo as DXO discover a couple of EV from a different camera?!).

Here's a real example of real shooting, 6d vs a7r - my dad has an a7 which he loves, he bought it on my recommendation (yes, I'm not a Canon fanboy and I like the a7r!) as it happens as is is the a7r I've played with. We were out shooti landscapes in Cornwall, some rolling hills with a fog bank rolling in. The light was patchy which made it interesting but the ambience was pretty low. Shooting handheld, my dad was shooting at 400iso whilst I was shooting at 100-200 ISO. We were getting similar shutter speeds at the same aperture but with me at 200 ISO and him at 400. I had a play, same with me.

Ok, the a7r is pretty damn good at 400 ISO so no big deal, and I put this down to the translucent mirror (though that's more drop off than I'd expect). But whatever DR he gained on me, he effectively lost having to up the ISO.

This is where I can't bear DXO - they sit in a lab throwing stuff at sensors, but forget about shooting conditions, other handling aspects and how this might affect the end result.

There are so many other variables at play, a (Max) advantage of 2 ev can easily be nullified due to something else.

I think we've lost sight of how lucky we are with kit these days, to the point where none of it really matters.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing my original comment you responded to that the competition has better DR? Or are you trying to say that Ive said all cameras are crap if they havent got the best sensor (please note, I NEVER said that.)

BTW an A7r isnt an SLT.
 
dkh said:
Your right twist. I don't know what Canon were thinking when they released all their recent cameras with p***-poor sensors. Because obviously, it's all about DR.
Click to expand...

Take my original post out of context, gold star for you.
 
ST4 said:
Yeah, and its epic, but I've taken images on old croppers and been happy with the result. I am more interested in lighting and subject.
Click to expand...

Of course, so have I, Ive had many different cameras from many different brands, the original point I made was that Canon lags behind in terms of DR. Nothing more and that is based on fact.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Fact is. If the next gen cameras don't improve the Dr and nikon and Sony further improve their Dr. It will leave canon way behind in sensor tech.
Click to expand...

I think as long as Canon continue to outsell Nikon, they'll do naff all about it, which isn't great news to us Canon shooters!
With every new camera announcement, we wait eagerly hoping Canon will be using a Sony sensor, and every time it's still the same old, same old!
One of Canons top bods recently stated they'll be continuing to use Canon sensors as they're the best!!!!!!!!:confused:
I do need to add (like many others have) that DR isn't the be all, and end all, but it is something i'd like improving!
 
twist said:
Are you arguing my original comment you responded to that the competition has better DR? Or are you trying to say that Ive said all cameras are crap if they havent got the best sensor (please note, I NEVER said that.)

BTW an A7r isnt an SLT.
Click to expand...
I've not argued once, this is a civil discussion :)

No, you said (in reply to my comment staying the 6d has great DR) "not when You compare it to the competition", hence my latter comment stating that just because a couple of bodies have a max 2ev broader DR, it doesn't mean the 6d DR has gone from great, to crap all of a sudden!

My point was, and is, that the 6d has great DR, which is why I use it for landscapes and weddings.

This doesn't change because the a7r and d750/800 has slightly better DR, or because DXO labs scored them higher.

As for the a7r not being an SLT, I haven't delved much into the specs. I wonder why there was such a difference in ISO handling then?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dkh
odd jim said:
I've not argued once, this is a civil discussion!

No, you said (in reply to my comment staying the 6d has great DR) "not when You compare it to the competition", hence my latter comment stating that just because a couple of bodies have a max 2ev broader DR, it doesn't mean the 6d DR has gone from great, to crap all of a sudden!

My point was, and is, that the 6d has great DR, which is why I use it for landscapes and weddings.

This doesn't change because the a7r and d750/800 has slightly better DR, or because DXO labs scored them higher.

As for the a7r not being an SLT, I haven't delved much into the specs. I wonder why there was such a difference in ISO handling then?
Click to expand...

I did say its not as good as the competition in terms of DR because thats a fact. 2EV is a lot. Im not questioning or arguing that the camera works for you and thousands of other people, its a good camera, Ive owned one!!
 
Carlo said:
I think as long as Canon continue to outsell Nikon, they'll do naff all about it, which isn't great news to us Canon shooters!
Click to expand...
Just to put the debate into context, as a Canon user you have a faster AF system than Nikon, and you have super-telephoto lenses that you can carry around without needing a porter. For some people those aspects are absolutely crucial. Do we think Nikon are doing naff all about those things? No, it stands to reason, of course not. All these companies invest their R&D money where they think they can make the biggest difference. In some cases they'll be ahead of the competition and they'll push to make that lead unassailable; in other cases they'll be behind and playing catch-up. It's all normal business practice. What's the fuss about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top