December 22, 2014, 05:09:30 PM

Author Topic: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon  (Read 86311 times)

ishdakuteb

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #300 on: October 17, 2012, 07:00:38 PM »
The read noise is much higher, the QE is much lower in a MF ccd ,  (so even if the surface is bigger in MF than a 24x36mm Sony sensor ) the score is what it is because of FWC , read noise.The same with d7000 and 5dmk3 there d7000 is a APS and has higher DR than 5dmk3 because of  much lower read out noise at base iso
In other words, nothing strange

i am not sure what you are trying to do, learn or even get what kinda information, but within one year, from 2011-2012, you have gone to number of sites to write your name on them, starting with nikon d7000 vs. canon 5d mark ii (how do i know this?  it is pretty easy to me).  however, if nikon is that good enough to you, then buy more nikon, sell all your canon gears and go to nikon site to learn more about that camera as well as technical things right?  it makes more sense that way, at least to me.  i learn from both sites since i do not favor one and hate the other.  and i have learned quitely instead of making noise.

in conclusion, if dr. roger clark is loving nikon that much, why he is using canon? :)  this is what i think, have not verified the fact, but he have, at least and recently, used canon....

in short, get a life mr. mikael risedal and your images cannot draw my attention even though i am a newbie to dslr, but drooling to have images like joe buissink even though he is mr. p mode and probably know less about camera technical things....
« Last Edit: October 17, 2012, 07:16:36 PM by ishdakuteb »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #300 on: October 17, 2012, 07:00:38 PM »

CanonGirl

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
    • LeeAlaniPix
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #301 on: October 17, 2012, 07:00:53 PM »
I must say that all of this “my camera is better than your camera” talk gives me a headache, and I’m not sure I want to get in the middle of this, um, whatever contest.  I have read in detail the DxO results, along with many other test results and feel this debate is “full of sound and fury signifying nothing!”  Bottom line to me is whether or not the camera in question is the best match for my needs.  If you’re priorities are different, you should select a camera accordingly.  DxO has performed a series of tests showing the D800 to have a wider dynamic range than other cameras, provided that you are at iso 800 or below.  Also their results show the 5D Mark III to have maybe 0.5 stops more headroom on the highlights than the D800, but the D800 has well over a stop more headroom in the shadows.  I love the slightly greater headroom in the highlights, as I shoot white wedding dresses and want to ensure I retain detail at that end.  I also see in their charts that the S/N of the 5D Mark III is better than the D800, which is important for low-light photography to me, but clearly the D800 has more resolution.  C’t Digital Photography (Fall Issue, 9, 2012) just did a very quantitative review of the D800, Canon 5D Mark III, Olympus OM-D, Nikon D4, and Pentax K-01, and their results are similar to DxO, but add other interesting comparisons.  The D800 wins for resolution & dynamic range at lower iso, but the Canon 5D Mark III has superior S/N (low noise).  I shoot weddings, which often involve low-light shooting, so for my needs, the 5D is superior.  Would I like greater dynamic range?  Sure, but not at the expense of S/N.  DxO results, in their raw form, just provide another piece of useful information to help camera buyers evaluate equipment against their needs.  Looking at their scoring system, it’s clear to me that they consider resolution and dynamic range to be most important, and therefore, rate these two parameters much higher than others to achieve their ratings.  Yes, I find it amusing that they quote dynamic range in their final model for the D800 (14.4 Evs) wider than the 14-bit converter, which tells me that their models are not quite 100% accurate.  I also find this true in that they rate the Canon 5D Mark III and the Canon 7D as both 11.7 Evs, whereas, when I shoot a Sekonic target using both cameras & the same lens/lighting conditions, camera settings, I get about 1.5 stops more dynamic range with the 5D over my 7D, gaining both in the highlights and shadows over the 7D, using Sekonic’s light meter calibration software.  So I see DxO testing results to be useful, but not the absolute determinate of overall camera performance.

In the end, I don’t see either camera as absolutely the best in all ways, as they each have their strengths and weaknesses.  For me, the Canon 5D Mark III is a wonderful tool, meeting my present needs beautify, and I wouldn’t trade it for the D800 at this time, as the pros do not outweigh the cons for me.  As for others, their needs, interests, concerns might be completely different—LOL, some are obviously drastically different, reading the comments on this blog, but that’s perfectly ok with me, and I hope you’ll share some of your beautiful work, but I will smile if I find the photo acclaimed to be the best was taken with a cell phone!  ;-)
« Last Edit: October 17, 2012, 07:02:34 PM by CanonGirl »

Razor2012

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 635
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #302 on: October 17, 2012, 07:41:35 PM »
I must say that all of this “my camera is better than your camera” talk gives me a headache, and I’m not sure I want to get in the middle of this, um, whatever contest.  I have read in detail the DxO results, along with many other test results and feel this debate is “full of sound and fury signifying nothing!”  Bottom line to me is whether or not the camera in question is the best match for my needs.  If you’re priorities are different, you should select a camera accordingly.  DxO has performed a series of tests showing the D800 to have a wider dynamic range than other cameras, provided that you are at iso 800 or below.  Also their results show the 5D Mark III to have maybe 0.5 stops more headroom on the highlights than the D800, but the D800 has well over a stop more headroom in the shadows.  I love the slightly greater headroom in the highlights, as I shoot white wedding dresses and want to ensure I retain detail at that end.  I also see in their charts that the S/N of the 5D Mark III is better than the D800, which is important for low-light photography to me, but clearly the D800 has more resolution.  C’t Digital Photography (Fall Issue, 9, 2012) just did a very quantitative review of the D800, Canon 5D Mark III, Olympus OM-D, Nikon D4, and Pentax K-01, and their results are similar to DxO, but add other interesting comparisons.  The D800 wins for resolution & dynamic range at lower iso, but the Canon 5D Mark III has superior S/N (low noise).  I shoot weddings, which often involve low-light shooting, so for my needs, the 5D is superior.  Would I like greater dynamic range?  Sure, but not at the expense of S/N.  DxO results, in their raw form, just provide another piece of useful information to help camera buyers evaluate equipment against their needs.  Looking at their scoring system, it’s clear to me that they consider resolution and dynamic range to be most important, and therefore, rate these two parameters much higher than others to achieve their ratings.  Yes, I find it amusing that they quote dynamic range in their final model for the D800 (14.4 Evs) wider than the 14-bit converter, which tells me that their models are not quite 100% accurate.  I also find this true in that they rate the Canon 5D Mark III and the Canon 7D as both 11.7 Evs, whereas, when I shoot a Sekonic target using both cameras & the same lens/lighting conditions, camera settings, I get about 1.5 stops more dynamic range with the 5D over my 7D, gaining both in the highlights and shadows over the 7D, using Sekonic’s light meter calibration software.  So I see DxO testing results to be useful, but not the absolute determinate of overall camera performance.

In the end, I don’t see either camera as absolutely the best in all ways, as they each have their strengths and weaknesses.  For me, the Canon 5D Mark III is a wonderful tool, meeting my present needs beautify, and I wouldn’t trade it for the D800 at this time, as the pros do not outweigh the cons for me.  As for others, their needs, interests, concerns might be completely different—LOL, some are obviously drastically different, reading the comments on this blog, but that’s perfectly ok with me, and I hope you’ll share some of your beautiful work, but I will smile if I find the photo acclaimed to be the best was taken with a cell phone!  ;-)

As much as people have tried to convey this reasoning, it falls to deaf ears.  We have to concede that the only real way to take any kind of good pictures is to have DR.   ::)
5D MKIII w grip, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 2.8L II, 100 2.8L IS macro, 600EX-RT

CanonGirl

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
    • LeeAlaniPix
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #303 on: October 17, 2012, 07:54:32 PM »
Razor2012, I'm sure slide film users would be delighted to hear that!  ::)

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4069
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #304 on: October 17, 2012, 08:55:12 PM »
Where is your evidence or explanation?

For real, usable DR tests, look to IR and DPReview. (Unfortunately DPReview no longer posts RAW DR, but their tests are still valid for JPEG.)

The explanation has been posted repeatedly, and was posted again just a second ago.

Quote
I tested the DR myself and got same results and so have others.

You're making the same mistake as the others. Noise inflates the black point. Down sampling reduces noise, lowering the black point. But the black point is not actually the floor of dynamic range. The floor is the point where usable detail ceases to exist. Down sampling actually throws away detail. It cannot extend DR.

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

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

In JPEG the 5D3 is better, as noted by DPReview. Unfortunately they did not post RAW values for the 5D3.

Imaging Resource has Imatest RAW values for both, and the 5D3 is one stop better.

Quote
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.

"Real world"...that would be a switch. Please post real world shots that prove this. Include a transmission step wedge. Oh yes: downloadable RAW files for analysis are mandatory.

Quote
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.

What is this: an appeal to imaginary authorities?  ::)

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/



Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
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.

More imaginary friends = no source. Don't repeat the claim without a source.

1. It's pointless since you don't get it.
2. Suede added some nice finer details above due to the Bayer read-out already partly pre-averaged thing, which is a good point that almost everyone else has left out, so if you want to quibble with DxO quibble a tiny bit over that (but as he notes, real world, to the eye, it doesn't matter so much, since the changed character looks better over that regime anyway)
3. some of the posters in this thread alone, are engineers and/or have PhD in the hard sciences, myself included and the others have websites up that have been quoted in plenty of threads such as this one and have posted on these topics in other threads on other forums
4. I private msged you

tnargs

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #305 on: October 17, 2012, 08:59:56 PM »
Just want to post my thanks for posts #360-364, the additional perspective is useful to me.

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #306 on: October 17, 2012, 09:30:38 PM »
Downsampling doesn't "create detail", but it moves the black point.

* Photographic dynamic range is the range of useful detail.

* As you conceded above, down sampling does not create detail. In fact, it throws detail away.

* Down sampling therefore cannot increase photographic dynamic range.

* DxO's normalized results are therefore false.

The last point does not follow. In fact the negation of it follows.

Look, suppose my saturation point per pixel is 12EV above my blackpoint.

Downsampling, as we agreed, lowers the blackpoint.

After downsampling, because my blackpoint moved down 1EV, my saturation point per pixel is 13EV above my blackpoint.

If I want my dynamic range scores to be the same for both images, I need to normalize, otherwise I will give a higher score to the downsampled image (13EV vs 12EV)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #306 on: October 17, 2012, 09:30:38 PM »

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #307 on: October 17, 2012, 09:31:48 PM »
Please feel free to post any unanswered "critiques"

All of them from what I can see.

Be a little more specific perhaps ?

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #308 on: October 17, 2012, 09:35:48 PM »
I must say that all of this “my camera is better than your camera” talk gives me a headache, and I’m not sure I want to get in the middle of this, um, whatever contest.  I have read in detail the DxO results, along with many other test results and feel this debate is “full of sound and fury signifying nothing!”  Bottom line to me is whether or not the camera in question is the best match for my needs.

I'm not into the whole idea of being a "fan" of any particular camera, but I am a scientist, and I do take some offence at scientists (DxO) being attacked by camera "fans".

As far as my own gear is concerned, I use a 5DII and am quite happy with it. Dynamic range is not a key issue for what I do.

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #309 on: October 17, 2012, 09:44:18 PM »
You're making the same mistake as the others. Noise inflates the black point. Down sampling reduces noise, lowering the black point. But the black point is not actually the floor of dynamic range. The floor is the point where usable detail ceases to exist. Down sampling actually throws away detail. It cannot extend DR.

I understand that a 0db floor may be too liberal a baseline for some, but you haven't made the case that this makes much difference to results. For benchmarking you can't use something as subjective as "usable detail".

Regarding downsampling not extending true dynamic range, we do agree on this point.

However, the logical conclusion is that you should normalize. If you normalize, dynamic range defined in terms of the black point will be invariant under downsampling.

It is when you do NOT normalize that downsampling will change your dynamic range.

ishdakuteb

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #310 on: October 17, 2012, 10:19:14 PM »
sorry for you, the pictures show the real pixel values  and I present them in the same way, this is the difference in lower levels

you do not have to feel sorry for me since there is not a big gap between your understanding about dslr comparing to my understanding even though you have started photography since i was in elementary.  what would you like to challenge here?  most of technical things in dslr relate to physics and software, which part would you like to challenge? or want to challenge about getting correct exposure with out of camera jpeg... :)

actually, i have to feel sorry for you mr. mikael ridsesal, having no guts about what you have said and not being able to show your real imges (have requested your raw files few time, remember?).  if you want to learn more about pixels, buy your self mathlab, study and play with it.

MarkII

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #311 on: October 18, 2012, 08:24:30 AM »
Pay careful attention: down sampling cannot increase*** photographic dynamic range ***
In photography dynamic range is the range of usable detail, not the range between white and black points.
Actually, no. I think you misunderstand the concept of DR as expressed by the DXO measurements, and I suggest you read the definition of dynamic range on Wikipedia (they even have an entry for photography on the page):

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range

DXO state quite carefully what their how they define dynamic range for the purpose of their measurements, and their figures - including the 14.3 bit value for the normalised images are not implausible. Note that the 14.3 figure refers to the DR of a single pixel *after* downsampling. Just like the newsprint and the simplified math examples I outlined this can have more DR (bits per pixel in any given pixel) than the original.

(And if you think my analogy with print is invalid, you need to *explain* why.  I may be wrong, but simply repeating your assertion that this is so does not show it to be the case).

It is correct, however, to say that downsampling does not increase 'detail' in an image - you can not gain any information. What it does is to allow you to trade-off spatial resolution against luminous resolution (noise, and quantisation - which is itself really just another form of noise).

(This is like pulling teeth!)
Quite.

rpt

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2288
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #312 on: October 18, 2012, 10:12:31 AM »
DXO state quite carefully what their how they define dynamic range for the purpose of their measurements, and their figures - including the 14.3 bit value for the normalised images are not implausible. Note that the 14.3 figure refers to the DR of a single pixel *after* downsampling. Just like the newsprint and the simplified math examples I outlined this can have more DR (bits per pixel in any given pixel) than the original.
So instead of calling it DR can we call it DxODR and bury the hatchet (or hatchets)?

I think DR is the unit of measure and its use should be consistent. That same link talks of it in bits (sorry not trying to be sarcastic or anything - please bear with me... Thanks) and I think of bits as indivisible. So fractional bits of DR make no sense to me specially when you can get a higher value than the ADC can generate. And I understand it is maths around the original image so let us call it what it is. It is not DR. It is something similar in spirit that somebody invented.

My 2c...

Rustom

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #312 on: October 18, 2012, 10:12:31 AM »

MarkII

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #313 on: October 18, 2012, 12:20:29 PM »
So instead of calling it DR can we call it DxODR and bury the hatchet (or hatchets)?
I hope that there is no hatchet to bury...

I think DR is the unit of measure and its use should be consistent. That same link talks of it in bits (sorry not trying to be sarcastic or anything - please bear with me... Thanks) and I think of bits as indivisible. So fractional bits of DR make no sense to me specially when you can get a higher value than the ADC can generate. And I understand it is maths around the original image so let us call it what it is. It is not DR. It is something similar in spirit that somebody invented.

If it helps, call it something different...

Fractional bits represent the notional information content of the data rather than the storage size (which will be an integer number of bits).

For example, if I have a two bit number I can store { 0, 1, 2, 3 }. However, if my data for some reason are only able to take the values { 0, 1, 2 }, then I have more values that I can store in one bit, but fewer than I really need two bits for - in other words, a fractional number of bits.

rpt

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2288
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #314 on: October 18, 2012, 12:26:26 PM »
Fractional bits represent the notional information content of the data rather than the storage size (which will be an integer number of bits).

For example, if I have a two bit number I can store { 0, 1, 2, 3 }. However, if my data for some reason are only able to take the values { 0, 1, 2 }, then I have more values that I can store in one bit, but fewer than I really need two bits for - in other words, a fractional number of bits.
Can you point me to some reading material?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #314 on: October 18, 2012, 12:26:26 PM »