April 16, 2014, 12:52:56 AM

Author Topic: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon  (Read 69989 times)

Rienzphotoz

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3251
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #420 on: April 20, 2013, 02:54:33 AM »
The worshipers of "DxO scores are everything, low ISO performance of Nikon/Sony sensors are everything" are continuing to sing their sad old songs of worship & praise ... Hallelujah :D
Canon 5DMK3 70D G1X | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 24-70OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | Metabones EF adapter | GoPro Black 3+ | DJI Quadcopter | Manfrotto+Gorilap

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #420 on: April 20, 2013, 02:54:33 AM »

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1421
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #421 on: April 20, 2013, 03:06:43 AM »
An Intelligent Nikon Missionary,
May be an oxymoron,
But when missionaries start their trolling,
There's less Oxy and more Moron.

Skulker

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #422 on: April 20, 2013, 03:16:17 AM »

*Sigh* I don't really know why I continue to argue the point. I know its pointless...

If I know something is pointless I tend not to bother. But I have noticed that some people never know when to give up. Me, I'm just going to go on taking pictures that really please me with excellent quality that surpassed my expectations by quite a long way. If someone wants to tell me how rubbish my photos are without ever seeing them, well I'm not going to be very impressed with their reasoning or judgement.   ;D

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3196
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #423 on: April 20, 2013, 09:49:42 AM »
An Intelligent Nikon Missionary,
May be an oxymoron,
But when missionaries start their trolling,
There's less Oxy and more Moron.

+100000000

HAHA, That's GREAT!  ;D
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #424 on: April 20, 2013, 10:27:08 AM »
That is not true, here is 1dx and d800 lifted the same in the shadows and from a contrast rich motive


Can a D800 recover an eight-stop-underexposed image as well as a 1DX can recover a six-stop-underexposed image? Sure, but who gives a damn? Unless, of course, you can't properly expose an image to save your life....

Nikon: the camera for those who wouldn't know what to do with an exposure meter if it flew at them out of a pressure cooker.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10008.msg253382#msg253382

b&

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1421
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #425 on: April 20, 2013, 10:53:51 AM »
An Intelligent Nikon Missionary,
May be an oxymoron,
But when missionaries start their trolling,
There's less Oxy and more Moron.

+100000000

HAHA, That's GREAT!  ;D



I've concluded that the only way to deal with this whole 5d mk2 vs D800 'debate' is to answer with a little 'nonsense' rhyme  ;D

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3196
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #426 on: April 20, 2013, 11:18:38 AM »
An Intelligent Nikon Missionary,
May be an oxymoron,
But when missionaries start their trolling,
There's less Oxy and more Moron.

+100000000

HAHA, That's GREAT!  ;D



I've concluded that the only way to deal with this whole 5d mk2 vs D800 'debate' is to answer with a little 'nonsense' rhyme  ;D

Well, when you have radical, yet diametrically opposed totally blind fools on either side of the argument, like Trumpet and Mikael, it is difficult to make any argument that doesn't get twisted and destroyed by either a brazen lack of understanding or intentional misinterpretation. Poetry seems the only viable alternative. ;)
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #426 on: April 20, 2013, 11:18:38 AM »

skitron

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #427 on: April 20, 2013, 11:41:09 AM »
...here is 1dx and d800 lifted the same in the shadows and from a contrast rich motive
This is a strait comparison which shows two different sensors signal/noise in shadows and the cameras are exactly the same exposed...

Not taking sides here, but what software was used to do the lifts? Point being all softs are not all going to do it with the same quality. The Canon shot looks like a total mess compared to what I get from 5D3 shots doing similar lift.
5D3, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 100L, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, Canon TC 1.4x III

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3196
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #428 on: April 20, 2013, 11:48:27 AM »
...here is 1dx and d800 lifted the same in the shadows and from a contrast rich motive
This is a strait comparison which shows two different sensors signal/noise in shadows and the cameras are exactly the same exposed...

Not taking sides here, but what software was used to do the lifts? Point being all softs are not all going to do it with the same quality. The Canon shot looks like a total mess compared to what I get from 5D3 shots doing similar lift.

There has always been a question about the objectivity of that particular sample shot from Ankorwatt. It has been requested on several occasions that he produce the actual RAW images with metadata, and all we have ever received in return is obfuscation and avoidance.

There is no denying that the D800 has a DR advantage at low ISO, but as you've stated...it is rare to actually encounter that kind of noise in a normal lift. When you are DR limited, it can definitely happen, though. There is a key difference between the 5D III and 1D X that might cause the 1D X to experience worse noise, however: The 1D X uses dual DIGIC 5+ chips. When pixel data from the sensor is split and sent to two separate DSPs for processing, additional banding will usually be introduced. The 7D has the same problem. The 5D III, however, uses a single DIGIG 5 chip to process the whole image, so it is entirely possible it is capable of cleaner shadow lifting than the 1D X.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #429 on: April 20, 2013, 06:54:05 PM »
proper exposure what is that?

Took you long enough, but at least you've finally acknowledged your ignorance. Congratulations! It's the first step towards knowledge.

In the digital realm, a proper exposure is one in which an image of an 18% gray card results in values in the green channel of the raw file of 18% of the maximum value that can be recorded. With a 16-bit file, values range from 0 through 65,535; 18% of that is 11,796.

The red and blue values will be less than the green values in all but the weirdest light. Typically, red will be a bit more than a stop relatively underexposed and the blue will be about 2/3 stop underexposed. White balancing consists of multiplying the figures from the two underexposed channels so they equal the figures from the properly exposed channel.

Digital exposure compensation is the same basic idea, but applied equally to all three channels. One stop of digital push is accomplished by doubling all the figures in the raw file. One stop of digital pull is done by halving all the figures.

After white balancing and exposure adjustments, a gamma curve is generally applied (with 2.2 being typical of most working spaces). Next, if it's a colorimetric workflow, the ICC profile for that camera is applied. Much more common, however, is that this is where the "special sauce" gets applied. Canon calls them, "picture styles." At the very least, an S-curve is applied (on top of the gamma curve) to boost contrast in the midtones (at the expense of highlight and shadow contrast, of course) and different parts of the spectrum are selectively saturated by different amounts. (It's always added saturation because the camera's native color response is so much larger than any working space). After that, whatever other types of additional modifications (more or less contrast, shadow boost, whatever) are up to you.

In scenes with reflective highlights or the light sources themselves, you generally want to intentionally underexpose the image because otherwise those highlights will oversaturate the sensor and one or more of the channels will record the maximum value for those parts of the image. Underexposing allows those values to fall in a range that can be recorded by the sensor; digital push is then applied to most of the image to restore it, but a compressed push is applied to the highlights -- if you didn't compress the boost in the highlights, they'd wind up just as blown as if you had properly exposed the image in the first place.

Scenes like that are so common in typical shooting that manufacturers intentionally design their meters to underexpose by about a stop. The onboard raw development engine that produces JPEGs applies a corresponding amount of compressed digital exposure compensation, and the various popular raw development engines are smart enough to do the same. There are, however, many tools out there that will let you examine the raw data directly should you choose to play around.

(That scene of the shed in my back yard where I moved the camera's exposure bug six stops to the left, that resulted in an almost entirely black exposure with just hints of detail? The one which came out almost entirely free of noise except for a small amount in the deepest shadows after normalizing the exposure? Considering the meter's built-in underexposure, it was really about seven stops underexposed.)

And now you should understand what proper exposure is.

Cheers,

b&

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #430 on: April 20, 2013, 07:27:24 PM »
there are no proper exposure

Well, at least you've made clear why it is that you can't properly expose an image to save your life.

Sorry, if you're really happy wallowing in your own ignorance and incompetence like this, there's nothing I or anybody else can do to help you with your problems.

And, yes. That's exactly what you're doing. All those shots you keep posting of noisy images taken with a 1DX? That's a display of pure incompetence; no competent photographer ever has anywhere near as much trouble with noise on any modern camera -- let alone a flagship model -- as you keep demonstrating with your 1DX. And it's an incompetence born of ignorance -- ignorance of how to properly expose an image using a DSLR.

Why you're so happy with your ignorance and incompetence is beyond me...but chacun son goût.

Cheers,

b&

Skulker

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #431 on: April 21, 2013, 02:11:53 AM »

proper exposure what is that?


 :o

Just one of the basics of photography.

If you are not to sure about this there are many "photography for beginners " type articles on the Web. You could start by trying to understand them.  ;D

Your lack of understanding is probably why you can't take a decent photo. I never get the sort of noise in my photos that you get with your canons. Your last comparison showed crazy amount ts of noise and banding etc in the Canon shot and a hopeless soft nikon image. So may be you don't understand focus either and that's why you put up such rubbish shots from both you cameras.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 02:23:53 AM by Skulker »

Aglet

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • A2B Art
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #432 on: April 21, 2013, 05:00:14 AM »
I had a look at the pram photos again and frankly I like the pram on the left. The one on the right is a bit  - flat! No character. Just plain dowdy... ;)
Uhmmm.. I think it's an awning, not a pram. :)

It's also a reasonable choice of scene for such a comparison push-test, with sunlit areas of near-white masonry in the background contrasting with the darks shades of a (nearly) black awning in the shade with its upper side illuminated and the underside in yet deeper shadow.  Not a super-high DR scene, but one with enough DR to be able to demonstrate the difference in sensor system noise levels.

I think Ankorwatt is being generous by comparing a 1Dx to a D800.  Had he used a camera below Canon's current flagship, the difference would have been even more significant.  As it is, the Nikon was half the cost of the 1Dx.
It could have been an even bigger cost/performance difference if he'd have used a Nikon D5100 compared to a Canon 7D.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #432 on: April 21, 2013, 05:00:14 AM »

Aglet

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • A2B Art
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #433 on: April 21, 2013, 05:09:02 AM »

proper exposure what is that?


 :o

Just one of the basics of photography.

If you are not to sure about this there are many "photography for beginners " type articles on the Web. You could start by trying to understand them.  ;D

Your lack of understanding is probably why you can't take a decent photo. I never get the sort of noise in my photos that you get with your canons. Your last comparison showed crazy amount ts of noise and banding etc in the Canon shot and a hopeless soft nikon image. So may be you don't understand focus either and that's why you put up such rubbish shots from both you cameras.
Skulker, your attempt at humor is understandable, if only in a locker-room-banter sort of way.
If you have been around long enough to know the poster's true credentials you might realize that sort of comment is better kept to yourself, despite the cute emoticons.
Seriously.  There's far too much low-level insult thrown about in the guise of humor instead of intelligent discourse in these contentious topics. Frankly, IMO, I find far too much of a potentially good thread is often taken up by off-topic and unconstructive posts with an inflammatory tone, making it tedious for those who want to follow it without the playground antics and making it more difficult for those such remarks are directed at to remain civil and engaged.
I hope you won't join the ranks of the rancourous on a regular basis. :)

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1421
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #434 on: April 21, 2013, 05:50:22 AM »

proper exposure what is that?


 :o

Just one of the basics of photography.

If you are not to sure about this there are many "photography for beginners " type articles on the Web. You could start by trying to understand them.  ;D

Your lack of understanding is probably why you can't take a decent photo. I never get the sort of noise in my photos that you get with your canons. Your last comparison showed crazy amount ts of noise and banding etc in the Canon shot and a hopeless soft nikon image. So may be you don't understand focus either and that's why you put up such rubbish shots from both you cameras.
Skulker, your attempt at humor is understandable, if only in a locker-room-banter sort of way.
If you have been around long enough to know the poster's true credentials you might realize that sort of comment is better kept to yourself, despite the cute emoticons.
Seriously.  There's far too much low-level insult thrown about in the guise of humor instead of intelligent discourse in these contentious topics. Frankly, IMO, I find far too much of a potentially good thread is often taken up by off-topic and unconstructive posts with an inflammatory tone, making it tedious for those who want to follow it without the playground antics and making it more difficult for those such remarks are directed at to remain civil and engaged.
I hope you won't join the ranks of the rancourous on a regular basis. :)


I think you'll find 'the posters' true credentials in dispute here on CR.

I see he has acquired himself a 1Dx - lets see some pictures posted in the 'anything shot on a 1Dx' thread.

( And I'm puzzled by someone who repeatedly demonstrates pushing the 8 bit CR.2 file instead of converting it to a 16 bit TIFF first ).

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #434 on: April 21, 2013, 05:50:22 AM »