Canon is getting owned in sensor technology
- Thread starter poias
- Start date
- Status
awinphoto said:poias said:
So, are you saying that DxO is wrong? :You must know better than professional testers.
Hmmm... give me funding so I can run my tests and I will give you whatever scores you would like... just saying.
5 stages of grief. The first stage is denial.
Upvote
0
poias said:awinphoto said:poias said:
So, are you saying that DxO is wrong? :
Hmmm... give me funding so I can run my tests and I will give you whatever scores you would like... just saying.
5 stages of grief. The first stage is denial.
And you are doing well with your stages of grief knowing and realization that the 5d3 is a better camera system. =) As for DR, no ones arguing the fact but also really no one cares either...
Upvote
0
Same procedure as every year. I wonder how its possible that people take good photos since the invention of photography. Reading here always seems like last years cameras are producing bad images.
Im going so far to say that if u see some award winning photo on the internet somewhere u cant even tell if it was taken with a nikon or canon or probably something else unless u read the exif information...
Im going so far to say that if u see some award winning photo on the internet somewhere u cant even tell if it was taken with a nikon or canon or probably something else unless u read the exif information...
Upvote
0
typho said:
Equally though look at the D4 sensor which has actually regressed with the D3s slightly while only adding 4 MP. seems to hint to me that its not Canon specifically thats unable to get more out of the same pixel density.
Upvote
0
It's not just Canon that are (in your words) "getting owned" by the Sony sensors, evey other manufaturer out there is too. Even Nikon seems to have admitted defeat and put a Sony sensor in the D3200. To be fair, in most categories that DXO Mark test, there isn't that much difference in the various sensors' metrics with the exception of low(er) ISO dynamic range. The Sony sensors are miles ahead of the competition in DR terms, probably because of the superiority of their "Exmor" on-chip noise reduction system that helps reduce read noise.
Upvote
0
T
typho
Guest
sandymandy: While I agree that guys should probably go out and take stunning pictures rather than arguing here, I don't agree that you can't tell them apart if you had to.
If you look at the bokeh you can tell Nikon and Canon apart. Nikon usually has an odd number of blades, which gives quite a different look than Canon with even number of blades in the diaphragm. Yes that's not the sensor. However, it's pretty easy to tell a 5d and 5d2 apart. I bet you can't as easily tell an Mk2 and an Mk3 apart. The difference may be in handling and AF, but not necessarily as much in the IQ.
Regarding d800 and 5d3. They have different resolutions. If you look at a picture you can tell if one has been downsampled or has a bigger resolution. You may also be able to tell by the color cast. If you heavily edit the picture, you may be unable to tell the difference though.
With either camera, I'm sure you can tell exceptional photos. But I must say the d800 score really shocked me since they even beat some of the medium format cameras. Nikon made a big improvement. Perhaps Canon has been working more on their cinema products.
If you look at the bokeh you can tell Nikon and Canon apart. Nikon usually has an odd number of blades, which gives quite a different look than Canon with even number of blades in the diaphragm. Yes that's not the sensor. However, it's pretty easy to tell a 5d and 5d2 apart. I bet you can't as easily tell an Mk2 and an Mk3 apart. The difference may be in handling and AF, but not necessarily as much in the IQ.
Regarding d800 and 5d3. They have different resolutions. If you look at a picture you can tell if one has been downsampled or has a bigger resolution. You may also be able to tell by the color cast. If you heavily edit the picture, you may be unable to tell the difference though.
With either camera, I'm sure you can tell exceptional photos. But I must say the d800 score really shocked me since they even beat some of the medium format cameras. Nikon made a big improvement. Perhaps Canon has been working more on their cinema products.
Upvote
0
sandymandy said:
+1. I agree, this is all way too geeky for me by now. Portfolio is everything to me - I prefer seeing photography awards rather than test scores and shots of brick walls. Each to their own mind you... I knew someone who owned a Jaguar, but couldn't actually drive himself.
Upvote
0
I've also given up on the whole technical aspect. I know how to use my camera, but knowing all kinds of weird shit about it just doesn't interest me, I'm hard pressed to remember how many megapixels it has if someone asks, I know what my leses do, I know which to use and when and I know how to setup my camera and frame my shot, all of which not a score of 50.000 DxO-mark points can help anyone achieve. I've take some awesome pictures with a D30, 10D, some of my nicest ones are take with the 10D, I didn't magically get better because the 1D IV has better specs.
It is tiring, so tiring this shit, like the whole Apple / PC thing.
It is tiring, so tiring this shit, like the whole Apple / PC thing.
Upvote
0
T
typho
Guest
I must say, I was already disappointed by Canon's sample pictures and I was stunned by Nikon's sample pictures.
I know Canon posted pics that were converted raw-to-jpeg in-camera, while Nikon did a raw-to-jpeg conversion probably on a computer. And some people suggested Nikon simply hired a better photographer than Canon. But please, why on earth would Canon post bad samples leading to somewhat incomprehensible justifications?
Also, Canon used some really expensive $10000, and not-yet-released 24-70 II lens for some photos, while Nikon exclusively used regular 14-24, 24-70 or 70-200 lenses that everyone's got.
Why do I feel more comfortable with Nikon when it comes to those two cameras?
By the way, I own neither of the cameras. I have simply been doing my research to figure out which one of them are better for me. The 4 fps and the fact Nikon has no RAW-M or so is a real pity. Otherwise I would've already made a clear decision.
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample01.htm
I know Canon posted pics that were converted raw-to-jpeg in-camera, while Nikon did a raw-to-jpeg conversion probably on a computer. And some people suggested Nikon simply hired a better photographer than Canon. But please, why on earth would Canon post bad samples leading to somewhat incomprehensible justifications?
Also, Canon used some really expensive $10000, and not-yet-released 24-70 II lens for some photos, while Nikon exclusively used regular 14-24, 24-70 or 70-200 lenses that everyone's got.
Why do I feel more comfortable with Nikon when it comes to those two cameras?
By the way, I own neither of the cameras. I have simply been doing my research to figure out which one of them are better for me. The 4 fps and the fact Nikon has no RAW-M or so is a real pity. Otherwise I would've already made a clear decision.
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample01.htm
Upvote
0
typho said:
I wouldn't trust 90% of information you see on any one site on the internet... Then again, there are plenty of formal and informal reviews, lots of conclusive info, and even digivalrev, predominately nikon fans had to side slightly towards the 5d3... While the sample pics on canon's website wasn't earth-shattering, photos people are posting with the actual camera from real photographers are.
Upvote
0
N
nitsujwalker
Guest
I can honestly say I don't understand what DxO does except from what users here report. Numbers are numbers and if you don't feel like Canon provides sensor technology that is sufficient for your needs then you can switch. Personally, I've been down the Nikon road and came back to canon despite the D7000s DxO scores and am extremely happy that I did. I love my Canon cameras and LOVE shooting. Period. The scores and 'better' sensor technology produces by Sony and integrated into Nikon's don't even make me want to go back to Nikon a little. When shooting, I love the images produced by my 50d, 7d, and 5d mkii. It's about taking images, printing (maybe) and enjoying what we do... Just my 2 cents.
Upvote
0
I
ippikiokami
Guest
Alker said:
Did you look at any of the high iso samples of the d800? They start to fall apart really quick. I was actually convinced I would buy a D800 (before using the new AF and high iso of the 5d III). Cost to change would have been extremely minimal to none and I even went as far post on forums to get nikon lenses.
But then I saw the samples from some pretty well known photographers in even controlled studio situations....
I mean don't take my word for it. Look for them yourself.
This is just one of the ones I was looking at http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/7002918731/#in/photostream/
I can find more if you can't find them. It's Shinji Watanabe's Flickr
At 6400 what happened to the detail???
Upvote
0
- Status
