December 09, 2016, 08:44:04 PM

Author Topic: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon  (Read 127226 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20045
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #240 on: October 16, 2012, 05:32:36 PM »
did you become a little more humble now, and the work you have done in neuroscience research
give me a link please to the paper.  I have worked with medical photography/ research since 1984.

Not really, no.  But you were the one clamoring for relevance, and posting my full CV (with dozens of peer-reviewed papers and a few book chapters) really isn't relevant. Not to mention that I have an aversion to posting my full name and contact into to a forum replete with trolls who seem willing to go to great lengths to argue their version of the truth. I do post a link to my photographs, in the signature of every post I make here.

Ok, I found this:



you show up as much knowledge in googling as you do here, facts please facts

So, it's not a fact that you posted the above image to DPR?  Perhaps someone is impersonating you?
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #240 on: October 16, 2012, 05:32:36 PM »

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #241 on: October 16, 2012, 05:34:52 PM »
And yes Im intresting to discuss why Canon are sleeping regarding DR , they have not improved that much since 2004

I've shot surfing...where you cannot blend multiple frames...on Canon DSLRs since 2004. Canon DR has improved by at least 2 stops over that time period.

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #242 on: October 16, 2012, 05:39:16 PM »
Honestley the pictures you have seen do not need a lot of DR when the purpose is press but Dynamic range may be needed for annual reports, glossy magazines, etc and you have  not a clue what the benfits of large DR and exposure latitude are -do you and I have now been showing that  a number of times

You haven't shown anything. Please post an example of a photograph that can be taken with an Exmor sensor but not a Canon sensor.

Better yet, check out the Galen Rowell archives (http://www.mountainlight.com/). He produced that body of work with films that had 3-5 stops lower DR then a modern Canon DSLR.

Looks like he got his exposure right  ;D

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #243 on: October 16, 2012, 05:44:40 PM »
Nope.
In JPG Canon claims a lot

Yes. My assertion is not based on Canon's claims, but on comparing literally hundreds of frames chosen for use out of thousands of frames fired. I see the same thing comparing single frame landscapes.

RAW saw a good 2 stop improvement. HTP brought a similar improvement to JPEG.

It has been claimed in this thread that Canon users are ignoring/denying that Exmor sensors have wider DR. Here you are denying that Canon has made any improvements in 8 years when they most certainly have.

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #244 on: October 16, 2012, 05:46:05 PM »
Respond to me with facts.

No, you respond with facts. That's how this works because you are the one touting huge advantages for Exmor sensors. Where's your evidence? Where are your examples?

tnargs

  • Rebel T6i
  • ****
  • Posts: 138
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #245 on: October 16, 2012, 05:51:30 PM »
....<<to neuroanatomist, repeatedly>>...a link please to your scientific papers

Mikael, that is inappropriate and I think you should stop it. Everyone here is entitled to (a) their opinion, and (b) their anonymity if they choose it.

Discussions here can develop on the weight of the information and argument presented; there is no need to rely on the weight of authority. To do so would be short-cut thinking, relying on circumstantial evidence rather than the evidence itself.

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #246 on: October 16, 2012, 05:52:17 PM »
go back and read

More DxO derived used dog food. The 20D was not an 11 stop camera.

Do you have those Exmor photos for us to review yet?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #246 on: October 16, 2012, 05:52:17 PM »

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #247 on: October 16, 2012, 05:57:08 PM »
....<<to neuroanatomist, repeatedly>>...a link please to your scientific papers

Mikael, that is inappropriate and I think you should stop it. Everyone here is entitled to (a) their opinion, and (b) their anonymity if they choose it.

Discussions here can develop on the weight of the information and argument presented; there is no need to rely on the weight of authority. To do so would be short-cut thinking, relying on circumstantial evidence rather than the evidence itself.

+9,001

Let's see comparison photos with correct exposures where the Exmor file produces the award winning print and the Canon file goes into the trash. Everything else is irrelevant.

Side note: why is everything in photography like this? Why are small differences magnified and argued endlessly? The same exact pattern occurs in FF vs. crop, lens A vs. lens B, brand A vs. brand B. In the film days it was film A vs. film B. I've even seen this nonsense in discussions of tripods!

If you think there's a huge, just huge difference between A and B, do yourself this favor: produce the same image with A and with B. Print them to 20". Ask 20 people to tell you which is better or if they are the same. Listen to the results.

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3789
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • My Portfolio
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #248 on: October 16, 2012, 06:30:33 PM »
Mikael Risedal...

Honestly, I didn't see anything there on that search that couldn't be done on a canon d30.
Honestley the pictures you have seen do not need a lot of DR when the purpose is press but Dynamic range may be needed for annual reports, glossy magazines, etc and you have  not a clue what the benfits of large DR and exposure latitude are -do you and I have now been showing that  a number of times
 

I print often on UV coated papers, Kodak papers, Fuji papers, canvas, etc. so I do know how to print on the mediums I need.

You still haven't shown me any of your work that the canon camera limit's you in.

While it's interesting to discuss the nikon vs canon argument, it becomes dis-tasteful to discuss with someonw like yourself.

Which claims to be a pro for over 20 years yet, has no body of work behind it.

Which of portfolio consists mostly of test charts and 100% crops of noise samples.

Which has no logic or reasoning behind they're arguments and who bash honest forum users from Dpreview to canonrumors with information we already know.

You are the pinnacle of what is declared as a measurabator in the camera world.

Congrats, you've earned it.

Once again, I'll post my 7D example of a properly exposed & processed file. On your file below mine, You should be able to pull the same recovery as my image.

« Last Edit: October 16, 2012, 06:44:00 PM by RLPhoto »

MarkII

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #249 on: October 16, 2012, 06:35:28 PM »
Discussions here can develop on the weight of the information and argument presented; there is no need to rely on the weight of authority. To do so would be short-cut thinking, relying on circumstantial evidence rather than the evidence itself.

Well, that would be nice, wouldn't it.

This should be an interesting subject, because quantifying and understanding the sensor performance is the starting point to getting the best from it. Unfortunately, too many people here are incapable of contributing unless any metric shows that their purchase/favourite company is shown to be the best.

And to the people persist in claiming that you can not increase bit depth above the RAW file encoding level by downsampling, I suggest that you go back and read some of the references posted here about signal processing. If you really think it is impossible then you should post the mathematical analysis that shows it to be so (particularly since this would stop half of the electronics that you regularly use from working - for example see the Wikipedia articles about sampling theory and the use of oversampling to increase resolution, including the examples that show how down-sampling data can be used to increase resolution/DR).

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #250 on: October 16, 2012, 06:59:51 PM »
and yes d20 was a 11 stops camera

Yes or no: did you ever own a 20D?

If so, show me some 11 stop photos. If not, then we're done discussing this point. I have way too much experience struggling to get the range I wanted with the early xxD bodies, then getting it with less or no effort with the 7D, to debate this with someone reading graphs.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20045
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #251 on: October 16, 2012, 07:01:24 PM »
neuroanatomist

I have shown a link to some of my photos at the web, now Im interesting in your science work - a link please

you seem to question my credibility and want to ridicule me with your comments  , now I ask you about yours  credibility

No.

Because:

1) It is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

2) I choose not to disclose personally identifying information.

and most importantly, to be blunt,

3) I really don't give a crap what you think about my credibility.

You can go on pushing your same agenda until everyone else grows as bored with it as I have become (which I admit is unlikely, since those who go trolling with inflammatory bait in the Internet waters invariably find many who will bite), or until the mods take additional steps. Personally, I'm done with you.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #252 on: October 16, 2012, 07:02:38 PM »
Once again, I'll post my 7D example of a properly exposed & processed file. On your file below mine, You should be able to pull the same recovery as my image.

OH NOES! U CANNOT DO TATZ WITH TEH CANONZ!  ;D

Nice sample and point well demonstrated.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #252 on: October 16, 2012, 07:02:38 PM »

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #253 on: October 16, 2012, 07:04:09 PM »
here you go, same exposure, time, f-stop and base iso ,  exposed  equally so no highlight are cut in the sky and clouds and then adjustes so we can see the landscape. My d800 to the left and one of mine 5dmk2

I don't see noise/banding that bad with a crop body and the slider pushed to 100%.

Please provide the RAW files for analysis.

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #254 on: October 16, 2012, 07:28:03 PM »
This should be an interesting subject, because quantifying and understanding the sensor performance is the starting point to getting the best from it. Unfortunately, too many people here are incapable of contributing unless any metric shows that their purchase/favourite company is shown to be the best.

Oh please. I don't see a single Canon user here denying that there's some DR advantage to Exmor sensors. The question is how much, and how much difference does it make in the real world.

Quote
If you really think it is impossible then you should post the mathematical analysis that shows it to be so

No. Theory bends to observation, never the other way around. I think I posted this in another thread, so I'll post it again here: try drum scanning a 4x5 frame of Velvia, a 6 stop film, and then down sampling it to 8 MP, which is the DxO normalization. Tell us if 3 more stops of shadow detail magically appear, which is what DxO's formula predicts.

My prediction from years of scanning film: you will end up with a 6 stop, 8 MP file.

The problem is in the definition of DR. You're using theories that are only concerned with white and black points. But photographers are interested in usable photographic detail. Down sampling may reduce noise and therefore make your blacks blacker. But it doesn't magically open up shadows and produce details that were never there.

I will concede that down sampling can reduce noise thereby making a print of already existing detail acceptable, where if the noise were still there you might clip levels to black and discard the noise and detail. But it doesn't produce detail where there is none. It doesn't magically allow a 14-bit pipeline to yield more than 14 stops of real photographic detail. It won't even get it to 14 stops because in the real world ADC pipelines are not perfectly efficient.

BTW - Imaging Resource measured the D800 to 13.3 stops vs the 5D3 at 12.5. I trust their methodology a whole heck of a lot more than DxO's.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #254 on: October 16, 2012, 07:28:03 PM »