DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

[jrista]

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.

That kind of bullsh*t is what really ticks me off about this whole debate. The exposure there (f/11 @ ISO 100!!!!!) is OBVIOUSLY botched to intentionally create a scenario where you have to lift the entire shot out of the shadows. Expose the damnable thing properly, and you won't HAVE to lift any shadows! NO ONE does what those photos demonstrate in the real world. It is entirely unrealistic, a bogus scenario to create a comparison that purposely puts Canon sensors in the worst light possible. It is entirely possible to create a photograph with a Canon camera at a wider aperture that looks every bit as good as the D800 photo...and in real life, THAT'S HOW IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE DONE...at a WIDER aperture.

DON'T BUY INTO THIS LOAD OF BULL, PPL!

[IronChef]

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.

That kind of bullsh*t is what really ticks me off about this whole debate. The exposure there (f/11 @ ISO 100!!!!!) is OBVIOUSLY botched to intentionally create a scenario where you have to lift the entire shot out of the shadows. Expose the damnable thing properly, and you won't HAVE to lift any shadows! NO ONE does what those photos demonstrate in the real world. It is entirely unrealistic, a bogus scenario to create a comparison that purposely puts Canon sensors in the worst light possible. It is entirely possible to create a photograph with a Canon camera at a wider aperture that looks every bit as good as the D800 photo...and in real life, THAT'S HOW IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE DONE...at a WIDER aperture.

DON'T BUY INTO THIS LOAD OF BULL, PPL!

Why don't you quote the whole post? You left away the most important part.

[Canon-F1]

That kind of bullsh*t is what really ticks me off about this whole debate. The exposure there (f/11 @ ISO 100!!!!!) is OBVIOUSLY botched to intentionally create a scenario where you have to lift the entire shot out of the shadows. Expose the damnable thing properly, and you won't HAVE to lift any shadows! NO ONE does what those photos demonstrate in the real world. It is entirely unrealistic, a bogus scenario to create a comparison that purposely puts Canon sensors in the worst light possible. It is entirely possible to create a photograph with a Canon camera at a wider aperture that looks every bit as good as the D800 photo...and in real life, THAT'S HOW IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE DONE...at a WIDER aperture.

DON'T BUY INTO THIS LOAD OF BULL, PPL!

yeah your posting is bullshit.. because you don´t get HIS posting.   

i don´t need a porsche that drives 290 km/h.
because in real life i never would drive 290 km/h and in america i would not even be allowed to drive 290 km/h.

still arguing that a VW Golf is a s good as a Porsche GT3, when driving at normal speeds.... is wrong.

even when i don´t use all resources of a porsche (or a camera) all the time... i still have them when i need them.

[marekjoz]

even when i don´t use all resources of a porsche (or a camera) all the time... i still have them when i need them.

This is exactly what I do when I keep all my fat with me - even when I don't use all those resources all the time, I still have them when I need them

[nightbreath]

even when i don´t use all resources of a porsche (or a camera) all the time... i still have them when i need them.

This is exactly what I do when I keep all my fat with me - even when I don't use all those resources all the time, I still have them when I need them

I should take this into my list of quotations, it's a really good one! 

[woytek]

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:

from http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/optimizing_exposure.shtml:

For example, with a typical DSLR, when photographing a red flowers under natural daylight, the LCD histogram will typically show the red channel as blown out. This doesn't tell whether the native raw red channel is actually blown. So one doesn't know whether to increase the exposure for ETTR, or reduce it. The natural reaction of most users is to say, "Uh oh, I'm gonna blow the red channel in these flowers, so I better reduce the exposure till the red histogram doesn't look blown out anymore." Unfortunately, that's almost always the wrong thing to do. In fact, the red channel (in the raw data) rarely clips on a typical DSLR with a normal daylight exposure, because the red sensitivity is very low (about 1.5 stops darker than green). If one was to reduce exposure till the red histogram no longer showed clipping, then the actual raw red channel would be very underexposed with a poor SNR. Result: noisy red flowers!

I see the difference in noise and it sure is there! But, this example is flawed in my opinion since the exposure in these photo's was just wrong. I have seen that current Sony sensors offer better shadow recovery, no doubt about that. But in this particular situation it was not necessary to have such an underexposed image and the same photograph could be achieved by both Canon and Nikon camera when properly exposed.

Can you post a jpg of the unedited raw file?

Also from http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/on_safari.shtml#suckout :

The bottom line is that the vast majority of the tonal information that a sensor can capture lies on the far right side.  In fact, usually 75% of the total tonal information a sensor can capture lies in the small right hand area of the two top F/stops just below pure white.  And yet, almost all cameras leave the factory calibrated to center the histogram instead of moving it as far to the right as possible.  To make matters worse, the screens in the backs of cameras are also calibrated to show a good exposure with the histogram centered. This is nonsense!

So what are the consequences of Tonal Suckout?  As the name implies, it is as if someone grabbed your image and sucked the tonality out of it,  If there are millions of shades of green in a landscape, you may end up with a few dozen.  If there is a terrific richness of tonalities in a face, you will end up with a small sub-set that makes the face look bland.

Maybe useful to keep in mind the next time you want to get an underexposed image!

[jrista]

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.

That kind of bullsh*t is what really ticks me off about this whole debate. The exposure there (f/11 @ ISO 100!!!!!) is OBVIOUSLY botched to intentionally create a scenario where you have to lift the entire shot out of the shadows. Expose the damnable thing properly, and you won't HAVE to lift any shadows! NO ONE does what those photos demonstrate in the real world. It is entirely unrealistic, a bogus scenario to create a comparison that purposely puts Canon sensors in the worst light possible. It is entirely possible to create a photograph with a Canon camera at a wider aperture that looks every bit as good as the D800 photo...and in real life, THAT'S HOW IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE DONE...at a WIDER aperture.

DON'T BUY INTO THIS LOAD OF BULL, PPL!

Why don't you quote the whole post? You left away the most important part.

I quoted a previous quote, so it didn't have the entire answer. It doesn't matter though. The other examples still have the exact same problem...underexposure. Neither the D800 nor 5D III in the examples below are properly exposed either. It's an unrealistically skewed sacenario, and BOTH cameras could have had at least a couple stops brighter exposure with some shadow pushing in post to improve contrast, and result in better detail overall:

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:

None of the scenes in the examples from sarangiman have enough DR to require such a low exposure (no way your going to clip that red channel for at least a stop or more...its barely exposed at all!) Show me a few photos with a proper exposure that doesn't purposely *require* exorbitant amounts of shadow lifting, and we can have a more realistic discussion. Sony Exmor sensors ARE amazing, no question about that, but when I see improperly exposed photos like this that are designed to bring out the worst in Canon cameras, it's just annoying.

I would love to see someone take a photo of a landscape scene with 14 real stops of DR, expose properly on both a Canon and a Nikon w/ Exmor camera (i.e. expose to maximize the potential of both sensors), and compare. The Nikon will be the better camera from a DR standpoint, but ONLY from a shadow pulling standpoint. The Canon will look just as good in most areas, it will just lack the shadow pulling ability of the Nikon, so it'll probably end up a bit more contrasty. You won't see exorbitant amounts of read noise in middle shadows though...you might see it in the deep shadows, but not in the middle shadows.

[marekjoz]

I think everyone agrees, that Nikon's files look better, no matter what the process was behind it.

And I find it really really annoying, that this is the only thing Nikon is better in - there are not many more areas in which competition would force Canon to work harder.

Could you please present any other examples in other areas, where Nikon would be better than Canon?

[marekjoz]

1dx to the left and d800 to the right, now I have lifted the shadows even more, 1dx S/N looks like 5dmk3 with pattern noise and loss of details

Yes. And something else without pulling shadows?

[AdamJ]

The chart below shows that Canon's sensors are generally more cromulent than Nikon's. This tallies with my real-life findings.

[K-amps]

The chart below shows that Canon's sensors are generally more cromulent than Nikon's. This tallies with my real-life findings.

 

[FunkyCamera]

Take it easy Jrista

Depending on the subject's DR range , you get the option to either expose after the highlights, so they are properly estimated without clippning and color defects or you chose to expose after the midtones / shadows with risk of clippning of highlights, You have several choices  if you have 14 stops compared to 11 stops

This is 1dx and d800 ,  same exposure, time , f-stop and 100iso
Canon has still some work to do in the lowest levels compared to Nikon
Latest Camera Raw and the motive is lifted equal so we can se details in the lower levels
1dx to the left d800 to the right. I do not think 1dx has improved the DR so much compared to 5dmk3

More fakes!

[symmar22]

I think everyone agrees, that Nikon's files look better, no matter what the process was behind it.

And I find it really really annoying, that this is the only thing Nikon is better in - there are not many more areas in which competition would force Canon to work harder.

Could you please present any other examples in other areas, where Nikon would be better than Canon?

I would say auto flash / daylight balance, and multizone light metering. IMO, this has always been Nikon strength, although Canon has progressed here. Their flash fill in system is simply unbeatable (no need to compensate the strobe output in most cases) same with the matrix metering that in most cases gives a better evaluation of the lighting, the system invented with the Nikon FA has constantly been refined and is more efficient than Canon's. I had a Nikon F4 back in 1992, and it was night and day with Canon's exposure system. Canon worked to catch up, and is much better nowadays, but still Nikon started 30years ago with the matrix metering and still has some advance in that domain. They were first to use matrix metering, to use the focusing distance to refine the flash balance, and to use a RVB matrix to refine metering even further.

Many will think it has less importance with digital, since you can still adjust the exposition with the curves, but in the good old times of E6 films, these features were a huge advantage over Canon's light metering system.

[K-amps]

Take it easy Jrista

Depending on the subject's DR range , you get the option to either expose after the highlights, so they are properly estimated without clippning and color defects or you chose to expose after the midtones / shadows with risk of clippning of highlights, You have several choices  if you have 14 stops compared to 11 stops

This is 1dx and d800 ,  same exposure, time , f-stop and 100iso
Canon has still some work to do in the lowest levels compared to Nikon
Latest Camera Raw and the motive is lifted equal so we can se details in the lower levels
1dx to the left d800 to the right. I do not think 1dx has improved the DR so much compared to 5dmk3

More fakes!

more lack of knowledge

More time wasted arguing with each other where as you could have spent on Taking actual Photographs... are you guys paid for this?

[DrDeano]

The chart below shows that Canon's sensors are generally more cromulent than Nikon's. This tallies with my real-life findings.

I agree AdamJ, though my experiences differ greatly when shooting in the rain or within 100ft. of a bridge or similar man-made structure. It's clear to me though based on the cromulence chart and fair-weathered, non-adjacent man-made structure photography, we can find parity.