DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

[elflord]

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.

You're wrong in that thread too. Typically of the DxO bashers, your MO seems to be repeating the same falsehoods and hoping noone calls you on it. If you think the images truly do have the same dynamic range before and after you downsample, you need to normalize. The downsampled image will have less noise, therefore a lower blackpoint, and therefore more dynamic range on a per pixel basis even though it doesn't have more of what you'd intuitively think of as dynamic range.

[dtaylor]

* Exmor sensors do have more DR, and it can be useful.

finally

Nobody ever claimed otherwise.

* Exmor sensors do not have the amount of excess DR being claimed by fans or DxO.

false

Oh, well, you used the word false, I guess the debate is over 

It hardly means you toss your Canon body into the swamp and then bash it with a sledgehammer but it sure would be nice if Canon paid attention to DR having not improved it for more than half a decade now.

I've seen improvements over that time period. DPReview saw improvements.

Do note that most of the recent posts have been started by the DxO are liars, exmor is whatever crowd though.
Some of the same crowd goes on raves about how far behind Nikon was when Canon beats them by like just 1/2 stop SNR is a huge win that trashes Nikon and then says more than 3 stops difference at low ISO is very minor, too minor to even bother about at all.

DxO are not liars, just confused.

I don't recall people raving to this level when Canon had the lower noise/wider DR sensors. I suppose some did. There are Canon fanboys just like Nikon fanboys.

There is 1-2 stops difference at low ISO, not "more than 3."

2. There you go again, along with Jrista, and not having a clue about how normalization works and spreading misinformation.

Your side has offered its argument for the accuracy of normalization. Our side has shown the argument to be false. Your side's only response has been "uh...you don't know what you're talking about!"

When you repeat that without answering our critiques, you effectively tap out of the debate and concede the point.

Whether or not the 5D4 has better DR has nothing to do with these stupid threads, and everything to do with their engineers. I have little doubt they are working on it.

Did you know that another division of Canon sent a patent for better DR to the DSLR division and got told to get lost, DR, what?, why? bye. Apparently they didn't even let their engineers look at it! So maybe they do need to be woken up.

Source?

Because some of you are totally wrong about some of the stuff you have been saying, especially when it gets to normalization and some other related topics.

Oh yeah? Well...you're totally wrong to infinity plus one, no changiees! So there! 

[dtaylor]

https://picasaweb.google.com/106266083120070292876/DR5dmk2VsD7000

3 summers ago 5dm2 and d7000  , 7d , s-95 and Fuji  , signal / noise in lower levels and banding

RAW files for analysis please.

[dtaylor]

Not to mention, there is body-to-body variability.  Some 7Ds have very little banding, some, like mine, can show it in situations without even much of a nudge in post, let alone a 3 EV push.  I've had shots where just using "Landscape" as the raw preset in DPP is enough to bring out low ISO shadow banding.

Product variability is a real issue in any production run. If you saw this within your year warranty, the camera should have been shipped to Canon along with documentation of the problem (i.e. sample shots).

[dtaylor]

You're wrong in that thread too. Typically of the DxO bashers, your MO seems to be repeating the same falsehoods and hoping noone calls you on it.

Typical of the DxO defenders, your MO is name calling and begging the question and hoping no one calls you on it.

If you think the images truly do have the same dynamic range before and after you downsample, you need to normalize.

No, you need to perform the test and show us the results. That will put an end to this bickering.

The downsampled image will have less noise, therefore a lower blackpoint, and therefore more dynamic range on a per pixel basis even though it doesn't have more of what you'd intuitively think of as dynamic range.

I don't give a pile of used dog food about your white point - black point definition of DR. I'm not trying to make my blacks blacker. I can do that with NR and levels adjustments. I care about real, usable photographic detail. Down sampling and 'normalization' does not magically create new detail.

[Imagination_landB]

I'm sure that i'm a lot younger than most of you gentlemens but this discussion is becoming a real joke, some of you look like they are immatures 5 years olds arguing about who has the best quality tricycle. Come on. Do not go offtopic and try to be objective.

[elflord]

Typical of the DxO defenders, your MO is name calling and begging the question and hoping no one calls you on it.

Please do show me where I "name called".

I don't give a pile of used dog food about your white point - black point definition of DR. I'm not trying to make my blacks blacker. I can do that with NR and levels adjustments. I care about real, usable photographic detail. Down sampling and 'normalization' does not magically create new detail.

That's the part you don't seem to get though -- if you really do believe that the same image should have the same DR whether you sample it at 40mpx or 10mpx, then the normalized version of the dynamic range gives the correct result.

Downsampling doesn't "create detail", but it moves the black point.

If you're debating the merits of DxO's screen vs print numbers, this is important.

[elflord]

Your side has offered its argument for the accuracy of normalization. Our side has shown the argument to be false. Your side's only response has been "uh...you don't know what you're talking about!"

Please feel free to post any unanswered "critiques"

Far from rebutting, it's not clear to me that you or jrista understand the implications of normalization, or the basic math behind benchmarking,  so aren't in much of a position to criticize it. 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

* Exmor sensors do not have the amount of excess DR being claimed by fans or DxO.

false

Oh, well, you used the word false, I guess the debate is over 

Where is your evidence or explanation? Look at the FM test. I tested the DR myself and got same results and so have others. Have you tested any of it yourself? Do you have an explanation for why DxO is wrong?

It hardly means you toss your Canon body into the swamp and then bash it with a sledgehammer but it sure would be nice if Canon paid attention to DR having not improved it for more than half a decade now.

I've seen improvements over that time period. DPReview saw improvements.

On what? 5D3 has actually worse DR than the 1Ds3.

DxO are not liars, just confused.

explain

There is 1-2 stops difference at low ISO, not "more than 3."

real world, accounting for banding, I'd say D800 does more than 3 better than 5D3 and even ignoring banding it's more than 2.

2. There you go again, along with Jrista, and not having a clue about how normalization works and spreading misinformation.

Your side has offered its argument for the accuracy of normalization. Our side has shown the argument to be false. Your side's only response has been "uh...you don't know what you're talking about!"

It has shown it to be false? Where? When?
And not that I want to go here, but you've finally gotten me partially to this point, and sure even the most brilliant are wrong at times, absolutely true, and I'm not saying who here and on the other forums is who, but there are not only engineers but theoretical physics PhDs and other such, including some who are world renowned, posting in some of these threads and on some other threads and.... not on your side on this.

Whether or not the 5D4 has better DR has nothing to do with these stupid threads, and everything to do with their engineers. I have little doubt they are working on it.

Did you know that another division of Canon sent a patent for better DR to the DSLR division and got told to get lost, DR, what?, why? bye. Apparently they didn't even let their engineers look at it! So maybe they do need to be woken up.

Source?

A Canon employee (non-DSLR division) on another forum.

[rpt]

I'm sure that i'm a lot younger than most of you gentlemens but this discussion is becoming a real joke, some of you look like they are immatures 5 years olds arguing about who has the best quality tricycle. Come on. Do not go offtopic and try to be objective.

Yeah! I know the feeling. I think deep down somewhere locked or suppressed is a human desire to "Fight. Fight. Fight. Fight. Fight...". Why do you think more than 25% of world money goes towards the Offence Department? Just breathe and let these guys slug it out. They will get bored in a few days and there will be silence - for a while until it starts again. It is cyclic. May be the moon or something has an effect on us...

Whenever I get bored, I read these boxing matches. Then when I get bored of them, I go off and see the fabulous pictures many members have posted. There are Gurus on this forum so the big deal is not to get involved in the crossfire and distill the information. Even on this thread with all the back and forth there are gems and I am not being sarcastic. Well enjoy! Be assured if it gets baser, CR will use muscle 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'm sure that i'm a lot younger than most of you gentlemens but this discussion is becoming a real joke, some of you look like they are immatures 5 years olds arguing about who has the best quality tricycle. Come on. Do not go offtopic and try to be objective.

Yeah! I know the feeling. I think deep down somewhere locked or suppressed is a human desire to "Fight. Fight. Fight. Fight. Fight...". Why do you think more than 25% of world money goes towards the Offence Department? Just breathe and let these guys slug it out. They will get bored in a few days and there will be silence - for a while until it starts again. It is cyclic. May be the moon or something has an effect on us...

It's not about fighting. It's debating and getting things straight. And if someone says stuff that is wrong and is trying to educate people by feeding them incorrect info, it is not fighting to point it out.

[RLPhoto]

your post is not even worth it to respond to, and Ansel Adams put a lot of work  in the copying as it is mention earlier

Ansel Adams wouldn't have missed his exposure by 10 stop's. 

1. He would have if he was trying to show a quick, simple demonstration of the difference between two film stocks.
2. How many times does it have to be said that it's not even close to being all about fixing shots where something went wrong???

1. But, Not If he was planning to photograph anything worthwhile. He'd get his exposure right.

2. You yourself said it.

[RLPhoto]

I GET MY EXPOSURE RIGHT!

bollocks!

you might be one of the lucky ones with a 7D that doesn't show as much FPN as others.
Wanna trade? 

Malarky! 

My 7D has the same sensor that DXO claims as garbage. It's no-where near as bad as others make it out to be, even though its getting older now.   

[MarkII]

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.

Well, if I have a noisy image (ie with poor DR), it will be usable only at smaller print sizes than a less noisy one. That is a real world example of down-sampling, and if what you claim were true the small print would show exactly the same noise and DR than the larger one. Fortunately, this is not what we see in the real world!

As to the continued assertion that downsampling can not increase bit depth, consider a hypothetical one-bit sensor. I have two pixels, each of which can only take a value of 0 or 1. If I down sample by a factor of two, averaging pairs of pixels, I now have one pixel which can take values of 0, 1/2 or 1 and I now need more than one bit to store that pixel. I have traded-off resolution for improved dynamic range and I have more dynamic range than the original data (which you keep claiming is impossible).

It does not matter what the data is in this case - it just a basic property of the math.

If you do not think that this argument extends to a 14 bit file, I suggest writing out all the possible pixel values before and after downsampling from 22MP to 8MP and then work out how many bits of DR you have in the result...

So I say again, if you continue make the claim that DXO are "obviously wrong" because it is "impossible" to get pixel values with more than 14 bits of data after downsampling a 14 bit RAW file, explain why...

BTW, downsampling a 1 bit image is not an artificial example. Early monochrome printing relies on this technique. If you stand up close you see a noisy mess of dots. If you stand further away (making the image smaller - ie downsampling), you start to perceive the image as have graduated tones rather than just patches of plain white or plain black.

[Tcapp]

I GET MY EXPOSURE RIGHT!

bollocks!

you might be one of the lucky ones with a 7D that doesn't show as much FPN as others.
Wanna trade? 

Malarky! 

My 7D has the same sensor that DXO claims as garbage. It's no-where near as bad as others make it out to be, even though its getting older now.   

I'm really not a fan of the 7d. I love its size, weight, feel, FPS, and AF, but the IQ is a little lacking at all ISOs. Just my 2 cents. It not bad but after using my 5d3 I don't touch it.