Canon is getting owned in sensor technology
- Thread starter poias
- Start date
- Status
RLPhoto
Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
Is it really a stretch to believe that DXO is being payed off by nikon? its nothing unusual to me and It IS be possible. It would have enough impact to make people switch systems right? Look at all this controversy on this forum. Why wouldn't nikon pay them a million bucks to say their camera is better.
Really now, are we so naive? Just go out and shoot. Its snake oil afterall, its the best thing since sliced bread! ;D
Really now, are we so naive? Just go out and shoot. Its snake oil afterall, its the best thing since sliced bread! ;D
Upvote
0
I suspect thats a little out there, ,and that DXO's reputation would preclude this from happening. It might not be trivial to accomplish, but some independant test or even a careful real-world evaluation could show evidence of error and DXO would be toast.
Upvote
0
RLPhoto said:
I suppose it is possible, but I'd rule it out since they have D800 gapping D4 by 6.
Their formula just doesn't reward high ISO as much as other things is all. And that is their right.
My formula does reward high ISO more. And the bottom line question for the prospective buyer is "does YOUR formula reward high ISO more"? If so buy a 5D3 or a D4. These are three fantastic cameras and each is a *little* better at certain things.
Upvote
0
E
esi32
Guest
I'm not convinced that Canon's DR is a result of worse sensor technology and not the result of a deliberate design objective to limit it. There's nothing, AFAIK, in CMOS or CCD sensors fundamentally that would produce the characteristic sloping curve you see from Canon's cameras. Moreover, virtually no other camera manufacturer shares the same kind of curve or the pervasiveness Canon has when you look at DXO's DR charts. In fact the only Nikon cameras that share that pattern that I'm aware of are the D3, and it's derivatives the D3s and D700.
So Far as I know, DXO, contrary to their claims, doesn't measure just the sensor, their measurements cover the whole signal processing chain from sensor though amps to ADCs, to whatever the processor does to the values before outputting it as a RAW file. While this is certainly is more for useful for the images you'll see but doesn't really provide a means to say anything about the sensor tech.
So why is Canon doing this? That's a darn good question.
So Far as I know, DXO, contrary to their claims, doesn't measure just the sensor, their measurements cover the whole signal processing chain from sensor though amps to ADCs, to whatever the processor does to the values before outputting it as a RAW file. While this is certainly is more for useful for the images you'll see but doesn't really provide a means to say anything about the sensor tech.
So why is Canon doing this? That's a darn good question.
Upvote
0
RLPhoto
Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
dlleno said:
D800 vs Medium Format with Roth and Ramberg
According to DXO, the Nikon should have won in dynamic range big time (14EV) but the hasselblad won. (12.5EV)
Stuff that in DXO's lens mount and smoke it.
Upvote
0
G
gene_can_sing
Guest
typho said:
Actually, Canon is getting OWNED in the cinema world by Sony because of their outrageous prices and under-spec'd video cameras. Canon is getting bashed to death on the video forums.
The upcoming Sony FS700 is going to destroy Canon video. I've have not seen this much excitement over a video camera since the 5D2. Video geeks are going nuts over this truly amazing camera for the price.
Meanwhile, Canon is charging 4x as much as Sony, for something that is remotely similar. I had $8K for a Canon video camera, but now that money is going to Sony.
I also find it strange that Canon has very few people testing their pre-production models. It's like, even for very high profile pros, they only use Canon video cameras after they come out. There are many Sony FS700s in the field and it's getting tested to death by many people before it's release in 2 months.
Canon should follow suit, and not hide all their footage until the release of the camera. It shows no confidence.
I also find it strange that the D800 has clean HDMI and a much sharper video image than the 5D3. Depressing.
Upvote
0
How is anyone over the age of 6 jealous, envious, or mad about a camera company (Nikon) that any consumer or professional could rightly switch over to? I just don't get it...
Do any of you guys know what pros spend on camera gear? And you're telling me that a professional photographer could not and would not sell their gear to go to another system if it was a justified decision?
BTW, I am ordering the D800 to see what it does for me. I have the 50/1.8 AF-D, 85/1.8 AF-D, and the Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8 to determine how good they are mated with the D800. I will also rent the 16-35 VR and an adapter and shoot side by side with both my 5d2 and D800. I am not expecting much of a determinable difference in my hands. A professional landscape photographer may come to a different conclusion. But my skills probably won't.
Do any of you guys know what pros spend on camera gear? And you're telling me that a professional photographer could not and would not sell their gear to go to another system if it was a justified decision?
BTW, I am ordering the D800 to see what it does for me. I have the 50/1.8 AF-D, 85/1.8 AF-D, and the Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8 to determine how good they are mated with the D800. I will also rent the 16-35 VR and an adapter and shoot side by side with both my 5d2 and D800. I am not expecting much of a determinable difference in my hands. A professional landscape photographer may come to a different conclusion. But my skills probably won't.
Upvote
0
Laughing at how ridiculous all this banter is. I'm sorry, I know its probably arrogant to make little of what others think is so important...I just can't imagine we were able to create art 10 yrs ago, even 5 yrs ago with these findings! Does this mean our images will finally make us more money???
Upvote
0
M
Mike Ca
Guest
esi32 said:
I think Canon and Sony/Nikon have made different trade offs in their sensor design.
The Sony Exmor technology has the analog to digital converters (ADC) on the sensor chip. The Canon sensors take the analog signals off the sensor chip to an ADC in another chip. Very weak analog signals can pick up noise from the circuit boards. This is why the readout noise of the Canon sensors is higher than the Sony Exmor sensors and why the Sony Exmor sensors have better DR and lower deep shadow noise at low ISO.
So why doesn't Canon put the ADC on the sensor chip? There may be some patent issues, but I suspect the real reason is that the Sony Exmor technology has problems with video. The ADC on the sensor chip generate a lot of heat when the sensor is being read quickly, as in high frame rate video. Some Sony DSLR-like cameras that used Exmor have had problems with sensor over heating. Sony has fixed those issues in it most recent cameras. The fix probably involved better cooling for the sensor chip.
All FF DSLR video cameras face the problem that they cannot read all the sensor pixels at 30 fps to do HD video. Nikon is using some kind of pixel skipping to reduce the amount of data that has to be read off the sensor. This means the D800 is not using the whole sensor area, even the whole area within the HD image, to generate its video signal.
Canon has developed on sensor circuits that allow the analog signals of multiple pixels to be mixed for downs sampling to HD video resolution, so they only need to put these down sampled HD video pixels through their off chip ADC at 30 fps. Canon uses analog signals from the whole sensor area, at least the part that is in the HD aspect image. This allows the Canon sensors to give better high ISO video.
Dan Chung from DPR said that up to ISO 1600 the D800 and 5DIII video noise was similar, but above 1600 the 5DIII clearly had lower noise.
Sony Exmor puts the ADC on the sensor for lower read noise and improved DR. Canon puts analog video down sampling circuits on the sensor for improved high ISO video.
I think Canon thinks that the DR they have now is good enough, and it is for most (but not all) photographic applications. They don't want to trade off the video performance, especially the high ISO video to get better DR.
Upvote
0
B
briansquibb
Guest
poias said:
I would love to see a 1D4 vs D4 comparison and a 7D vs D7000
The rant against Canon sensors is beginning to sound like the rant against the 5DII AF. Technology has nothing to do about the IQ of the image - if a sensor delivers that is good enough for me - the technology is irrelevant
I have no use for 36mp or only 6 fps or the limited function of the 5DIII - so a D800 sensor in a 5DII body has no appeal to me.
Upvote
0
poias said:
So, are you saying that DxO is wrong? :You must know better than professional testers.
For one, statistics in general are correct for the model within which they apply, the mechanism by which samples and numbers are evaluated. Same goes for DxO. The question is, is the model correct? When it comes to DxO, you also have to wonder about interpretation bias. Their ISO (low light) numbers for both cameras (D800 and 5D III) seem rather bogus to me...when you evaluate the SNR and high ISO DR graphs in correlation, the 5D III is the superior camera, not the D800...but somehow, DxO has given the D800 the win. Seems awfully fishy given their own data, and even more fishy given that Nikon is a financial supporter, while Canon is not.
So, within the given model, perhaps DxO numbers are entirely "correct", but is their model valid? Visually, examining a zillion photographs, the 5D III definitely seems to produce better, cleaner High ISO images with no pattern noise at all (which would be expected given the higher SNR), where as the D800 starts injecting some kind of horizontal FPN around ISO 6400 or 12800, and seems to have a tendency to overexpose highlights at most ISO's. That in and of itself is a factor of those two cameras that is not explored by DxO...the tonal range weighting. Canon sensors favor preserving highlights, obviously at the cost of shadows. Nikon cameras seem to favor shadows, quite often at the cost of blown (and therefor irrecoverable) highlights (many head-to-head comparisons between Canon and Nikon DR demonstrate this fact when extremely high DR scenes are used as sample photographs...highlights on Nikon cameras are usually more exposed, often slightly blown.)
I also wonder about whether DxO properly takes into account Canon's bias offset, which in their more recent cameras is 2048. The bias offset is intended to allow NEGATIVE pixel readings since it is subtracted from a given pixel value during processing. The calculation for DR at DxO involves applying the bias offset from the pixel before applying the rest of the formula...however that does not take into account the fact that the total valid numeric range is -2048 to maxSaturation, not 0 to maxSaturation. That would only matter at ISO settings where the bias offset mattered (lower ISO's), so is the fact that Canon DR levels out below ISO 400 a consequence of a slight misinterpretation of Canon's bias offset? Are Canon's DxO results missing a potential 2000 additional luminance levels that would positively affect its DR score? I can't say myself, I'm not entirely sure how a bias offset should be factored into a DR calculation, if it should be factored in at all, but not factoring it in properly seems like it could be leading to unreliable results.
The DxO model doesn't seem to take these factors into account (along with many others, that would positively and negatively affect many camera brands, not just Canon and Nikon...just look at their Medium Format numbers and final scores if you need any confirmation that DxO's model is clearly missing by a mile somewhere)...so I question the entire model, and therefor the statistical results as well.
Upvote
0
I'm ok with that.- Status
