DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

[jrista]

Canon is clearly superior on paper, can you prove that the nikon is superior in use? that is the question.

exact , so it is or vice versa

Since canon's system is better on paper, and you cannot prove the nikon is better in use. The obvious conclusion is

The Canon AF is better.

You use the same logic as Pentax did with a 22bit ADC some years ago, more is better
I say ,   when a proper test is  done we  can discusse  the AF issue, or wait  a year when all sports photographers have seen their keepers from different events, it was not so difficult to see the differences between the 1dmk3 and D3 regarding keepers  and that was one of the reasons why 1000 of sports photographer went over to Nikon from 1dmk3

I never said quote "more is better" infact, you did.

You still have not provided any evidence proving the Nikon system superior.

You fail on your sports argument because canon gained all the sports togs on the 90's due again, ironically, to canons better AF performance.

You fail fanboy.

read what i writes ,and  unlike several others I say nothing  about AF but I'd love to have proof that one or the other would be better.
And when it comes to AF in D3 and 1dmk3  you need  to study the subject  a little.

It is entirely possible to statistically analyze subjective results. In that respect, there is an overwhelming statistical aggregation from the very wide variety of reviews of Canon cameras with the 61pt AF system and Nikon's 51pt AF system. Even from reviewer strongholds in the Nikon camp, there is a strong indication that Canon currently has the better AF system...and not by a little. Terms along the lines of "extremely fast", "high keeper rate", "high quality keepers", "very accurate", etc. are used frequently in reference to Canon's 61pt AF system. In reference to Nikon's 51pt AF system, you hear about how its good...not as fast...has a high keeper rate, even slightly higher than Canon's....but its not as accurate, and definitely slower. With Canon's 1D X 2fps frame rate advantage over Nikon's D4, a low miss rate is completely absorbed, and the higher precision and accuracy definitely stands out...in every objective review I've read or watched.

[bdunbar79]

I am NOT disagreeing with dynamic range.  That is true, regarding what you say about DR.  I was on another point about 1DX vs. D4 only, in that I am able to distribute player photos in those extreme situations and they are not.  Bottom line is I got them, and they didn't, regardless of DR per se.  Maybe it is simply a noise argument and/or low light AF argument.

Tell me, why then  did they not got them? and please   keep apart AF and the  results  at 25000Iso

I'm telling you exactly why they didn't, and CAN'T get them.  The noise is way too much and the highlights are way too blown and the photos are blurry.  Mine aren't.  What is so hard to understand about this?  I don't care why this is, all I know is that I have to answer to the university and no one else.  Maybe I'm shooting differently, maybe not.  I don't care.

[RLPhoto]

Canon is clearly superior on paper, can you prove that the nikon is superior in use? that is the question.

exact , so it is or vice versa

Since canon's system is better on paper, and you cannot prove the nikon is better in use. The obvious conclusion is

The Canon AF is better.

You use the same logic as Pentax did with a 22bit ADC some years ago, more is better
I say ,   when a proper test is  done we  can discusse  the AF issue, or wait  a year when all sports photographers have seen their keepers from different events, it was not so difficult to see the differences between the 1dmk3 and D3 regarding keepers  and that was one of the reasons why 1000 of sports photographer went over to Nikon from 1dmk3

I never said quote "more is better" infact, you did.

You still have not provided any evidence proving the Nikon system superior.

You fail on your sports argument because canon gained all the sports togs on the 90's due again, ironically, to canons better AF performance.

You fail fanboy.

read what i writes ,and  unlike several others I say nothing  about AF but I'd love to have proof that one or the other would be better.
And when it comes to AF in D3 and 1dmk3  you need  to study the subject  a little.

Until you provide facts that Nikons 51 point system is a better field performer than the 61 pt system from canon, the canon system remains better on paper and remains better in first hand experience from me.

Also, where is your body of work? Or does it consist soley of test charts and color charts?  I could believe you more if you had a portfolio showing your work using the nikon system.

[neuroanatomist]

...second   "  I can also shoot at ISO 25,600 and print 8 x 10's with general NR and they cannot get those photos" ,   what you saying more points out  that you are looking at  noise reduction nothing else and speaks against measured data , DXO measurements will show the differences
these are from Claff

So, he's talking about ISO noise performance and some aspects of camera performance, in the real world, but you bring out the dead sensor DR horse to beat it some more. Good job.

[jrista]

Canon is clearly superior on paper, can you prove that the nikon is superior in use? that is the question.

exact , so it is or vice versa

Since canon's system is better on paper, and you cannot prove the nikon is better in use. The obvious conclusion is

The Canon AF is better.

You use the same logic as Pentax did with a 22bit ADC some years ago, more is better
I say ,   when a proper test is  done we  can discusse  the AF issue, or wait  a year when all sports photographers have seen their keepers from different events, it was not so difficult to see the differences between the 1dmk3 and D3 regarding keepers  and that was one of the reasons why 1000 of sports photographer went over to Nikon from 1dmk3

I never said quote "more is better" infact, you did.

You still have not provided any evidence proving the Nikon system superior.

You fail on your sports argument because canon gained all the sports togs on the 90's due again, ironically, to canons better AF performance.

You fail fanboy.

read what i writes ,and  unlike several others I say nothing  about AF but I'd love to have proof that one or the other would be better.
And when it comes to AF in D3 and 1dmk3  you need  to study the subject  a little.

It is entirely possible to statistically analyze subjective results. In that respect, there is an overwhelming statistical aggregation from the very wide variety of reviews of Canon cameras with the 61pt AF system and Nikon's 51pt AF system. Even from reviewer strongholds in the Nikon camp, there is a strong indication that Canon currently has the better AF system...and not by a little. Terms along the lines of "extremely fast", "high keeper rate", "high quality keepers", "very accurate", etc. are used frequently in reference to Canon's 61pt AF system. In reference to Nikon's 51pt AF system, you hear about how its good...not as fast...has a high keeper rate, even slightly higher than Canon's....but its not as accurate, and definitely slower. With Canon's 1D X 2fps frame rate advantage over Nikon's D4, a low miss rate is completely absorbed, and the higher precision and accuracy definitely stands out...in every objective review I've read or watched.

 where can I found these tests? and  done by whom?
Im eager to read this test tomorrow, and  good night .  0200 here in Sweden

LOL

It is a statistical aggregation, based on the conclusions of ALL the reviews done of the recent camera releases by both Canon and Nikon. There is no one test. I could probably put together my own analysis of each of the reviews and their conclusions re: the AF systems of both brands among different camera models. That would take a lot of time, time which I am most certainly not interested in doing solely for one such as yourself...who will inevitably find some way to discount or discredit the work in the first place. I might do it for the benefit of everyone else, though...

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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!

It's called a demonstration, a quick and easy way to show the difference which would still hold for scenes shot as you would wish.

[Fishnose]

Far better to use a 10 scale. And we can drop the 'fan' thing.
I'm only considering the top end stuff - FF plus 7D and D7000.
If we we to add lower-end DSLRs, the D3200 leapfrogs everything Canon does in APS-C, except for the 'Body' category. So let's leave them out of it.

	Nikon	Canon
Sensor:	9	7	Not much to discuss here
Lens:	8	9	Canon make fantastic lenses, but so do Nikon
Body:	8	9	To a large extent this is a matter of taste, but the Canon grips are slightly better
Flash:	7	8	Canon's new radio control beats Nikon
Metering:	9	8	Nikon metering is bloody good
AF:	9	8	Nikon beats Canon, with the exception of the 1Dx
Total:	50	49

And I think that however you look at it, both make bloody fantastic cameras.

I'm quoting myself here, just to make a point in light of the heated discussion that's been raging about 'Who has the better AF'.

When I gave Nikon 9 and Canon 8 for AF, it was NOT only about the D4 and the 1Dx. It was about all the upper end models from each make combined:

Canon: 1Dx, 5D3, 6D, 5D2, 1DS3, 1D4, 7D,
Nikon: D4, D800, D600, D700, D3x, D3s, D7000.

The 1Dx would certainly seem to be the superior allround sports and low light model. Even if Canon DR is not up to Nikon level. But that's a whole other ballgame 

[sanj]

I had not paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice.
And take notice is the only thing I can do as I have Mr. X, 3 and whole bunch or lenses already.
I was happily cruising along and then I see these photos...

[neuroanatomist]

I had NOT paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice.
And take notice is the only thing I can do as I have Mr. X, 3 and whole bunch or lenses already.
I was happily cruising along and then I see these photos...

So...one guy takes a few pictures with a specific agenda in mind, deliberately choosing an exposure that is not optimal (and not just a little off - several stops underexposed), and then processes them in ways which may be totally irrelevant to your images, and that makes you doubt your decision to shoot with Canon gear?

[rpt]

I had not paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice.
And take notice is the only thing I can do as I have Mr. X, 3 and whole bunch or lenses already.
I was happily cruising along and then I see these photos...

Sanj, you got it wrong! it is that game spot the 6 differences. I found just one! Been looking hard but cant find the other 5...

[MarkII]

If you will come with an conclusion instead to defame me  then  write...

I don't think that Neuro's post was trying to be insulting. The point is why should someone suddenly give up their equipment after seeing a posts about limitations in the extreme when they were previously perfectly happy. The images posted only show the transition point at which the image quality from the two cameras moves from being perfectly fine to marginal.

If you were to underexpose by another two or three stops, neither camera would deliver useful results - so following some of the logic in this thread everyone should just give up taking pictures period :-)

The only way to decrease read out noise in a Canos is to halve the exposure one or  twice and  (halve the electrons who has been read out, every stops =halve the amount of electrons ) then we end up at for example  400iso and where banding are not  so visible  but the DR has also reduced

Actually, I don't think that it is quite that simple. Several NR packages now do quite a good job now of removing pattern noise, and if you are really pushing the limits of what should be done you can use Photoshop with multiple exposures (on my camera at least, averaging several frames cleans up the horizontal banding and reduce the general noise floor, while vertical banding appears to be more a DC offset issue and can be reduced by subtracting an average of several dark-frames, which you can do in-camera if your exposures are more than 1s and you turn long-exposure NR on).

Of course, it would be easier if the sensors just performed better and Canon is obviously lagging Sony in absolute performance for now. But any sensor is going to run in to a noise floor eventually and there will always be a point where this is obviously visible and where you need to use unusual techniques if you want to shoot in that region.

[RLPhoto]

I had NOT paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice.
And take notice is the only thing I can do as I have Mr. X, 3 and whole bunch or lenses already.
I was happily cruising along and then I see these photos...

So...one guy takes a few pictures with a specific agenda in mind, deliberately choosing an exposure that is not optimal (and not just a little off - several stops underexposed), and then processes them in ways which may be totally irrelevant to your images, and that makes you doubt your decision to shoot with Canon gear?

I agree with neuro, Michael is definitely doing something wrong in his processing. Look at my 7D example of recovery and that's not even the best sensor around but easily recovered by NR and good enough for a full-res prints.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9570.180

[RLPhoto]

I had NOT paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice.
And take notice is the only thing I can do as I have Mr. X, 3 and whole bunch or lenses already.
I was happily cruising along and then I see these photos...

So...one guy takes a few pictures with a specific agenda in mind, deliberately choosing an exposure that is not optimal (and not just a little off - several stops underexposed), and then processes them in ways which may be totally irrelevant to your images, and that makes you doubt your decision to shoot with Canon gear?

I agree with neuro, Michael is definitely doing something wrong in his processing. Look at my 7D example of recovery and that's not even the best sensor around but easily recovered by NR and good enough for a full-res prints.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9570.180

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/36865463
10 stops underexposure from a Pentax with Sony inside

Only a clot would underexpose 10-stops.   

[jrista]

If you were to underexpose by another two or three stops, neither camera would deliver useful results - so following some of the logic in this thread everyone should just give up taking pictures period :-)

Here we  have another statement: If you were to underexpose by another two or three stops, neither camera would deliver useful results

then you have not seen my and others' demonstration of the D7000, D800
it works  very well to under expose these cameras in Raw and I have shown stepping from 100 iso to 1600iso = 4 stops and then do the  correction in CR. try to do that with a canon

You are still missing the point of argument here, though. Yes, it does work well to underexpose those cameras by four stops, then lift the shadows in post. But doing so is an unrealistic test from a real-world standpoint. All it tells you is that IF someone were to accidentally expose their scene incorrectly by a HUGE amount (some 16x incorrectly), then they would have a greater ability to recover. Purposely underexposing by four stops for the purpose of comparing cameras is also an unrealistic real-world comparison.

It does exhibit an issue with how Canon sensors produce read noise...probably thanks to their Bias Offset and the use of negative value readout...which inevitably results in useful image data having half negative values being mixed in with FPN and HVBN noise present in the electronics of the sensor itself.

But repeatedly trotting out -4EV photos lifted +4EV in post as an example of good IQ is just inane. It is entirely unrealistic, as the only time someone MIGHT actually need to do something along those lines would be when they *accidentally* underexposed. Assuming someone did...well, no question that having a D800 is the better camera to support nearly considerable restoration of exposure. No matter what you do, though, a -4EV underexposure on ANY camera is going to  cost you in other ways. It will cost you in contrast, final image dynamic range, color fidelity, etc. etc. If you only use the bottom 5% of the sensors hardware DR, you only have 5% of the total DR to work with in post. The only difference between Canon and Exmor sensors is that Exmor sensors are usable in such a scenario, where as Canon's are not. But its a scenario that MIGHT affect real-world photographers less than 1% of the time at most, when they screw something up...it shouldn't be a normal tactic for any photographer. As such, no photographers are going to experience the kinds of extreme pattern noise you guys cook up in your incredibly unrealistic "comparison" photos on a regular basis.

[RLPhoto]

I had NOT paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice.
And take notice is the only thing I can do as I have Mr. X, 3 and whole bunch or lenses already.
I was happily cruising along and then I see these photos...

So...one guy takes a few pictures with a specific agenda in mind, deliberately choosing an exposure that is not optimal (and not just a little off - several stops underexposed), and then processes them in ways which may be totally irrelevant to your images, and that makes you doubt your decision to shoot with Canon gear?

I agree with neuro, Michael is definitely doing something wrong in his processing. Look at my 7D example of recovery and that's not even the best sensor around but easily recovered by NR and good enough for a full-res prints.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9570.180

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/36865463
10 stops underexposure from a Pentax with Sony inside

Only a clot would underexpose 10-stops.   

But it works, and doesn't with a Canon

Then shoot pentax and underexpose all your picture's 10 stops if you like.

while real photog's will continue to get correct exposures, since the days of the wet plates to ansel adams to modern digital.

I don't know if anyone has informed you that in the end, the camera doesn't matter. The fleshy device behind the camera matters and how it will get the most of a camera. BTW, where's your portfolio?