DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

[philsv77]

I could careless about DxO and pixel-peep thing .   Got one yourself and be done with it.

[nightbreath]

I could careless about DxO and pixel-peep thing .   Got one yourself and be done with it.

+1. Poor us, who don't have high DR cameras 

[RLPhoto]

Canon has some catching up to do with respect to sensor performance as measured by http://www.DxOMark.com. Canon doesn't even come close to the top performing Nikons.  (High score is better.):

Pts Model
=======
96 Nikon D800E
95 Nikon D800
94 Nikon D600
81 Canon 5D III
79 Canon 5D II

(The Canon 1Dx is not yet rated.)
What are the chances that one of the reasons for the new sensor in the 6D is to catapult Canon's sensor performance into the mid 90's? I can't see Canon doing that considering the $3,500 EOS 5D III just came out and has a score of just 81. But Nikon's new $2,100 D600 kicks butt with a score of 94!

Sensor performance isn't everything... but, if I were to choose Nikon or Canon today, I wouldn't be choosing Canon.

Meh, If you that serious about IQ, Large format is the way to go. All these 35mm DSLR's have pretty similar IQ at reasonable ISO's.

[sarangiman]

All these 35mm DSLR's have pretty similar IQ at reasonable ISO's.

Nikon D800 | ISO 100 | 1/100s @f/11:


Canon 5D Mk III | ISO 100 | 1/100s @f/11:


... and that's at 800px web size.

Inevitably, someone's going to wonder why I severely underexposed the photo & then lifted the exposure; rather than getting into the logic of why I did that, I'll just post the following comparison, where each camera was exposed so as to not clip the red channel in the sky near the sun. Shadows were then lifted to reasonable levels for viewing:

First, the full-frame images:

Nikon D800:


Canon 5D Mark III:


Now, let's view them side-by-side at 100%, w/ the D800 downsized to 5DIII size for easy/fair comparison:


Please view it at 100% here; else you won't fully appreciate the difference: http://cl.ly/JipE/NikonD800_vs_Canon5DIII-SunsetDR.jpg

For certain types of photography, this matters. For others, it doesn't. Beautiful photographs from the previous posters, btw. Despite the results of these comparisons I've done above, I stuck with the 5DIII for various reasons since I find it suits my people photography better right now (AF accuracy/precision, wireless RF flash, love the joystick for AF point selection, cross-type AF points, higher FPS, etc.). But I wish it had a D800 sensor for when I shoot landscapes (using over $1k worth of Singh-Ray filters for now) or for those moments when my flash mis-fired or the meter completely underexposed an image b/c of a strong backlight, or what have you, & by the time I re-adjusted I'd missed the moment (and I can't salvage the underexposed photo because of noise).

In the end, we choose which limitations of a system to accept & work around, & which ones are unacceptable. I was still able to work around the limited DR of Canon & get these, for example:




But back to the topic at hand: it's great to know about advances in technology, & how they may help us achieve our vision. DXO's quantitation, to an extent, helps some of us do that.

Cheers.

[RLPhoto]

All these 35mm DSLR's have pretty similar IQ at reasonable ISO's.

Nikon D800 | ISO 100 | 1/100s @f/11:


Canon 5D Mk III | ISO 100 | 1/100s @f/11:


... and that's at 800px web size.

Inevitably, someone's going to wonder why I severely underexposed the photo & then lifted the exposure; rather than getting into the logic of why I did that, I'll just post the following comparison, where each camera was exposed so as to not clip the red channel in the sky near the sun. Shadows were then lifted to reasonable levels for viewing:

First, the full-frame images:

Nikon D800:


Canon 5D Mark III:


Now, let's view them side-by-side at 100%, w/ the D800 downsized to 5DIII size for easy/fair comparison:


Please view it at 100% here; else you won't fully appreciate the difference: http://cl.ly/JipE/NikonD800_vs_Canon5DIII-SunsetDR.jpg

For certain types of photography, this matters. For others, it doesn't. Beautiful photographs from the previous posters, btw. Despite the results of these comparisons I've done above, I stuck with the 5DIII for various reasons since I find it suits my people photography better right now (AF accuracy/precision, wireless RF flash, love the joystick for AF point selection, cross-type AF points, higher FPS, etc.). But I wish it had a D800 sensor for when I shoot landscapes (using over $1k worth of Singh-Ray filters for now) or for those moments when my flash mis-fired or the meter completely underexposed an image b/c of a strong backlight, or what have you, & by the time I re-adjusted I'd missed the moment (and I can't salvage the underexposed photo because of noise).

Cheers.

Meh, Use your filters. I've seen plenty of good landscapes taken with crap cameras. I could use a D30 and get a good landscape.

[sarangiman]

Meh, Use your filters. I've seen plenty of good landscapes taken with crap cameras. I could use a D30 and get a good landscape.

Yup, updated my post above

[arioch82]

Meh, Use your filters. I've seen plenty of good landscapes taken with crap cameras. I could use a D30 and get a good landscape.

what does an answer like this even means?
let's all go back to film then, i've seen plenty of good landscapes taken with film cameras.

He posted a comparison between the two sensor and the Nikon/Sony one is unarguably better.
Does this means that you cannot take beautiful pictures with a 5D Mk3? NO
Does this means that for a lower price Nikon is offering a camera with a better sensor that let you take beautiful pictures easily? YES

why can't people just admit that? customers should push their brand to do better, not settle down saying "nah i don't care if the competition is offering a better product for less money, I'm happy with what I have, please next time charge me more and remove some features, I will be willing to pay for it anyway".

[RLPhoto]

Meh, Use your filters. I've seen plenty of good landscapes taken with crap cameras. I could use a D30 and get a good landscape.

what does an answer like this even means?
let's all go back to film then, i've seen plenty of good landscapes taken with film cameras.

He posted a comparison between the two sensor and the Nikon/Sony one is unarguably better.
Does this means that you cannot take beautiful pictures with a 5D Mk3? NO
Does this means that for a lower price Nikon is offering a camera with a better sensor that let you take beautiful pictures easily? YES

why can't people just admit that? customers should push their brand to do better, not settle down saying "nah i don't care if the competition is offering a better product for less money, I'm happy with what I have, please next time charge me more and remove some features, I will be willing to pay for it anyway".

You would be right in going back to using film for landscapes. Especially Large format velvia... ahhh, Love those colors. Its a shame they don't make velvia anymore. 

[sarangiman]

Meh, Use your filters. I've seen plenty of good landscapes taken with crap cameras. I could use a D30 and get a good landscape.

what does an answer like this even means?
let's all go back to film then, i've seen plenty of good landscapes taken with film cameras.

He posted a comparison between the two sensor and the Nikon/Sony one is unarguably better.
Does this means that you cannot take beautiful pictures with a 5D Mk3? NO
Does this means that for a lower price Nikon is offering a camera with a better sensor that let you take beautiful pictures easily? YES

why can't people just admit that? customers should push their brand to do better, not settle down saying "nah i don't care if the competition is offering a better product for less money, I'm happy with what I have, please next time charge me more and remove some features, I will be willing to pay for it anyway".

Heh, agreed. I was just trying to be as non-inflammatory & balanced in my post(s) as possible.

If the rumors about the new big megapixel Canon are true, I'd be pretty excited. It remains to be seen if the sensor has enough DR to even take advantage of a 16-bit ADC. Right now, Canon bodies are just oversampling noise with even their 14-bit ADC...

[sarangiman]

You would be right in going back to using film for landscapes. Especially Large format velvia... ahhh, Love those colors. Its a shame they don't make velvia anymore. 

What? I can still buy 120 Velvia 50 for my 645 system. It wasn't discontinued in 120, was it?

Velvia on a lightbox really is something to behold. But landscapes shot with the DR of a D800 & then displayed on an 'HDR' monitor capable of a high contrast ratio would also likely be something to behold.

[RLPhoto]

You would be right in going back to using film for landscapes. Especially Large format velvia... ahhh, Love those colors. Its a shame they don't make velvia anymore. 

What? I can still buy 120 Velvia 50 for my 645 system. It wasn't discontinued in 120, was it?

Velvia on a lightbox really is something to behold. But landscapes shot with the DR of a D800 & then displayed on an 'HDR' monitor capable of a high contrast ratio would also likely be something to behold.

Its a sad story but true. Buy it while you can.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/fujifilm-fujichrome-velvia-100f-35mm--120--4x5-and-50-4x5--8x10-discontinued-19729

I once viewed a 4x5 velvia slide from a collage prof. shot in yosemite 10 years ago, Its been the most stunning color I've ever seen and have yet to see anything close to it.. I could only imagine a 8x10 slide.

35mm has nothing like it and depressing because some newer shooters may never actually see a brilliant large format color slide film in a lightbox.

[sarangiman]

Sad. But at least it appears that Velvia 100 is fine (I never liked 100F anyway), & I can still get 120 Velvia 50.

But I'm sure even those will go in the near future.

[Legio]

But back to the topic at hand: it's great to know about advances in technology, & how they may help us achieve our vision. DXO's quantitation, to an extent, helps some of us do that.

Cheers.

Sorry if this has been discussed in the thread on previous posts...

We all know Nikons use of the Sony Exmor produce fantastic DR, even if I personally don't put so much weight into it (as many other seem to do).

However as I understand it, the Canon sensors have the upper hand at long exposure times, perhaps if you have both Cameras, some nice Milky way pictures sure would be nice to see.
(Reasonable exposures would be like ISO 1600 f/1.4 8s at 35mm or with some star trails f/2.8 @ 32s)

I haven't seen if longer exposures actually gives better result in the Canon, but I've heard that was the Achilles heal on the Exmor sensors and that they would produce quite a bit of noise.

DR or not my Canon 5D Mark II is fantastic (at least on the center AF)

[RLPhoto]

Sad. But at least it appears that Velvia 100 is fine (I never liked 100F anyway), & I can still get 120 Velvia 50.

But I'm sure even those will go in the near future.

Indeed, a sad time. I liked Velvia 50 in my old yashica TLR.

You should post your portfolio. You've got some good stuff here, and forget about ze gear. It really doesn't matter as much as some posters make it out to be. 

If I had the time, I'd re-purchase some of my old 4x5 gear again.

[compupix]

DxO Film Pack has a Velvia setting. I can't speak to its look compared to actual Velvia.