DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

[neuroanatomist]

Just compare their DxO Optics Pro software raw conversion results to those from Adobe software regarding detail extraction and image sharpness.
(At least with Canon raw files. I have never tried any Nikon files due to the lack of a Nikon camera...)

While the DxO software is pretty good for a quick conversion, they are miles behind in other aspects.
So how should they be able to judge about sensor quality if they do not know how to get the optimum results of them?

I have compared. I think DxO is a better RAW converter, particularly with better lens corrections and ISO noise with detail preserved.

But I still think their Scores are BS.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I do not believe in those DxO results.

Just compare their DxO Optics Pro software raw conversion results to those from Adobe software regarding detail extraction and image sharpness.
(At least with Canon raw files. I have never tried any Nikon files due to the lack of a Nikon camera...)

While the DxO software is pretty good for a quick conversion, they are miles behind in other aspects.
So how should they be able to judge about sensor quality if they do not know how to get the optimum results of them?

Measuring sensor performance and writing RAW decode software are pretty different things.
And BTW, when people do go and try to replicate their sensor findings themselves, surprise, surprise, the results come out close to what DxO reports.

Funny that if the new Canon sensors alluded to in the latest rumor suddenly perform much better then all the naysayers will be back to saying that one must trust in DxO results. 

[sarangiman]

Measuring sensor performance and writing RAW decode software are pretty different things.

+1

And BTW, when people do go and try to replicate their sensor findings themselves, surprise, surprise, the results come out close to what DxO reports.

Yes, when people know what they're doing & emulate the methodology that DXO outlines (lower base of SNR=1), results end up being extremely similar to DXO. DXO numbers are *not* just BS if you understand what they are comparing.

And controlled tests are typically the best (if not only) way of consistently comparing systems. Having side-by-side 'real world' examples does, however, really buttress your case. DXO not having the latter may hurt them in the sense that people who don't understand the numbers or their methodology may just call BS if results fly in the face of prior, and therefore expected, experience.

[sarangiman]

When I've compared their results to other sites, or to my own experience, they have not matched. One example: according to DxO the 7D (Canon's 18 MP sensor) has little DR gain over the 10D / 20D. I could tell you before formally testing them that it was large, 2 stops easily.

DXO's results show a ~1 stop improvement (normalized) for the 7D over the 10D, so I'm not sure why you consider that 'little DR gain':

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/619%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/281%7C0/(brand2)/Canon/(appareil3)/437%7C0/(brand3)/Canon

[sarangiman]

I honestly don't see why people keep beating this dead horse.  It's dead, and its been beaten, now your beating on it more ---  But I gess it needs to be said again---for this round of bodies canon seems to have chosen to leap ahead in high ISO performance

These dead horses are beaten over & over again in order to dispel myths like the one you yourself just attempted to propagate; namely, that Canon has jumped ahead in high ISO performance.

In fact, it has not. Look at SNR 18% between the 5D Mark III, the D800, & the D4 here:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/795%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/792%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/767%7C0/(brand3)/Nikon

You must look at normalized results, not pixel-level results. The only place D800 falls behind is at ISO 25,600, & even then it's by 0.5dB.

The Nikon D800 has higher DR & higher resolution than the 5DIII, and yet still has the same ISO performance as the 5DIII for images scaled down to 5DIII resolution all the way up to ISO 12,800. That's quite a feat.

[aj1575]

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

Forget those numbers, they don't mean very much. What does a score of 96 mean? Do you or we know how they calculated this score? DXOmark says 5 points means about 1/3 stop; but this still leaves the question 1/3 stop in what aspect, at which ISO and so on.

The measurments from DXO are well done, the give a synthetic result of how a sensor behaves. The problem comes when we need to translate these measurments into real world conditions. The DXOmark who mixes all the different data points into one number is not a very good way to do so.

If you like to see real world comparisons, you are much better of at dppreview, or at the-digital-picture (mainly Canon stuff). There you can see real pictures and compare which look you like better.

[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...