5D3/5D2/D800 DR plotted

[dilbert]

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm

The graph is interactive and allows you to compare 5D2 (green under/close to orange) with 5D3 (orange).

The 5D2 and 5D3 are the same until roughly ISO 800. Both start at around 9...

I've included the D800 on this graph (purple line) starts at almost 11 and the D3X is directly under that (green line) starts at around 10.5.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I went to the site, but there was no image, it said there was no data for the D800(e) below ISO 200, so I'm wondering whe the chart shows a curve belowISO 200 attributed to the D800(e)

[3kramd5]

I went to the site, but there was no image, it said there was no data for the D800(e) below ISO 200, so I'm wondering whe the chart shows a curve belowISO 200 attributed to the D800(e)

(e) denotes estimated.

[dtaylor]

LOL! So now the 5D2 has less DR than my 7D??? 

I get so tired of faulty DR estimates. You do not estimate DR from any sensor characteristics you think you're accurately measuring by feeding a sample image to a black box computer program. You actually test DR with a transmission step wedge. If you do this properly you should get pretty much the same results that DPR gets using their transmission step wedge. (You can even buy the same one if you like.) I can replicate DPR's results. I can't replicate the results shown at this page, and intuitively know they are false just from day to day shooting.

The 5D2 yields 11 stops in RAW using ACR. The 7D yields 10 stops in RAW using ACR (and just about the same in JPEG via HTP). Since I don't see any transmission step wedge shots on that web page, I know I can safely ignore it, just like DxO's "estimates."

I'm very curious as to the DR of both the 5D3 and the D800. We'll know what they are when a site does a proper DR test. (DPR will probably be the first.)

[dilbert]

I went to the site, but there was no image, it said there was no data for the D800(e) below ISO 200, so I'm wondering whe the chart shows a curve belowISO 200 attributed to the D800(e)

The URL is an interactive graph.

You need to click on the cameras on the right for them to show up on the graph.

It is all Nikon except for the 5DII and 5DIII.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I went to the site, but there was no image, it said there was no data for the D800(e) below ISO 200, so I'm wondering whe the chart shows a curve belowISO 200 attributed to the D800(e)

(e) denotes estimated.

So we have a curve made up by a Nikon site that is faked?

Not something I'd want to spread around.

[dilbert]

I went to the site, but there was no image, it said there was no data for the D800(e) below ISO 200, so I'm wondering whe the chart shows a curve belowISO 200 attributed to the D800(e)

(e) denotes estimated.

So we have a curve made up by a Nikon site that is faked?

Not something I'd want to spread around.

It's not faked.

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR_65.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR_Shadow.htm

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I went to the site, but there was no image, it said there was no data for the D800(e) below ISO 200, so I'm wondering whe the chart shows a curve belowISO 200 attributed to the D800(e)

(e) denotes estimated.

So we have a curve made up by a Nikon site that is faked?

Not something I'd want to spread around.

It's not faked.

"There is no data yet for the D800E below ISO 200." From the page linked to.

Yet, they show a curve below 200.  I guess you would call that curve a creative estimate? 

[00Q]

I thought the 5DIII is 2 stops better than the 5DII??? Not the half stop indicated by the graph

[dilbert]

I went to the site, but there was no image, it said there was no data for the D800(e) below ISO 200, so I'm wondering whe the chart shows a curve belowISO 200 attributed to the D800(e)

(e) denotes estimated.

So we have a curve made up by a Nikon site that is faked?

Not something I'd want to spread around.

It's not faked.

"There is no data yet for the D800E below ISO 200." From the page linked to.

Yet, they show a curve below 200.  I guess you would call that curve a creative estimate?

The graph is correct. The sentence you quote refers to ISO values, not their presentation on the graph.

Thus "ISO 400" is not below "ISO 200", it is above it.

"ISO 100" is below "ISO 200" and indeed is not present on the graph.

[neuroanatomist]

"There is no data yet for the D800E below ISO 200." From the page linked to.

Yet, they show a curve below 200.  I guess you would call that curve a creative estimate?

The graph is correct. The sentence you quote refers to ISO values, not their presentation on the graph.

Thus "ISO 400" is not below "ISO 200", it is above it.

"ISO 100" is below "ISO 200" and indeed is not present on the graph.

The D800 (purple line as you describe it) has data points (inverted triangles) at ISO 50 and ISO 100, for which there is no data according to the quote.  Not sure how you can state ISO 100 is indeed not present on the graph?

[dilbert]

"There is no data yet for the D800E below ISO 200." From the page linked to.

Yet, they show a curve below 200.  I guess you would call that curve a creative estimate?

The graph is correct. The sentence you quote refers to ISO values, not their presentation on the graph.

Thus "ISO 400" is not below "ISO 200", it is above it.

"ISO 100" is below "ISO 200" and indeed is not present on the graph.

The D800 (purple line as you describe it) has data points (inverted triangles) at ISO 50 and ISO 100, for which there is no data according to the quote.  Not sure how you can state ISO 100 is indeed not present on the graph?

There are two entries for the D800 and two graphs.

One for the D800 and one for the D800E.

The D800E does not show anything for ISO values under 200.

[briansquibb]

Regardless of the numbers, what is quite apparent is the dramatic DR drop off at high iso.

From the graphs then we should be less concerned about the high ISO performance and focus our techniques on the low (800 or less) iso images

From my own experience the drop off is about right and I aim for 400 or less wherever possible By iso 3200 the DR seems to have dropped off by 1/3 to 6 to 7 stops.

I have ignored the D800 and 5DIII numbers as they are just estimates (and this site has a Noink bias). The D3X seems to do the business up to iso400 and falls away very quickly

[dilbert]

Regardless of the numbers, what is quite apparent is the dramatic DR drop off at high iso.

From the graphs then we should be less concerned about the high ISO performance and focus our techniques on the low (800 or less) iso images

From my own experience the drop off is about right and I aim for 400 or less wherever possible By iso 3200 the DR seems to have dropped off by 1/3 to 6 to 7 stops.

I have ignored the D800 and 5DIII numbers as they are just estimates (and this site has a Noink bias). The D3X seems to do the business up to iso400 and falls away very quickly

The numbers are estimates because pre-production models of the camera have been used by imaging-resource, not because the numbers have been made up.

I think it is wrong to say that the website has a Nikon bias - rather the cameras that are of interest to the person who maintains that website all happen to be Nikon.

[briansquibb]

Regardless of the numbers, what is quite apparent is the dramatic DR drop off at high iso.

From the graphs then we should be less concerned about the high ISO performance and focus our techniques on the low (800 or less) iso images

From my own experience the drop off is about right and I aim for 400 or less wherever possible By iso 3200 the DR seems to have dropped off by 1/3 to 6 to 7 stops.

I have ignored the D800 and 5DIII numbers as they are just estimates (and this site has a Noink bias). The D3X seems to do the business up to iso400 and falls away very quickly

The numbers are estimates because pre-production models of the camera have been used by imaging-resource, not because the numbers have been made up.

I think it is wrong to say that the website has a Nikon bias - rather the cameras that are of interest to the person who maintains that website all happen to be Nikon.

Didn't say they were made up - just estimates

Hard to compare a D3X against, say, a 1Ds3 or a 1DX  or even a 7D against the D700 - because as you say they are all Nikon