Canon is getting owned in sensor technology

[poias]

Okay, we can cry bias and be in complete denial, but Canon has inferior sensor from the early 2000! Their tech is a decade behind than Nikon. When will they start accepting the fact and invest a little more? It used to be Canon could at least claim "we have high megapixels", but now they can only claim "DXO is biased".

We need competition, otherwise Nikon will become stagnant, just like Canon has become. Sorry for the rant, not trying to rub salt on our collective Canon wounds.

 

[tasteofjace]

Okay, we can cry bias and be in complete denial, but Canon has inferior sensor from the early 2000! Their tech is a decade behind than Nikon. When will they start accepting the fact and invest a little more? It used to be Canon could at least claim "we have high megapixels", but now they can only claim "DXO is biased".

We need competition, otherwise Nikon will become stagnant, just like Canon has become. Sorry for the rant, not trying to rub salt on our collective Canon wounds.

So you're saying that decade old technology is still competing with Nikon's current technology? There's more to a camera system than the sensor believe it or not, and Canon is doing a better job at building a well rounded, system that works very well in many situations.

 

[poias]

Okay, we can cry bias and be in complete denial, but Canon has inferior sensor from the early 2000! Their tech is a decade behind than Nikon. When will they start accepting the fact and invest a little more? It used to be Canon could at least claim "we have high megapixels", but now they can only claim "DXO is biased".

We need competition, otherwise Nikon will become stagnant, just like Canon has become. Sorry for the rant, not trying to rub salt on our collective Canon wounds.

So you're saying that decade old technology is still competing with Nikon's current technology? There's more to a camera system than the sensor believe it or not, and Canon is doing a better job at building a well rounded, system that works very well in many situations.

You do have a point. There are other things beside a sensor, and Canon is certainly no slouch in FPS, AF, processing, video, and a lot of other qualities. And lenses! In fact, they are better in most of those areas, that is why they are competing. The fact still remains that their sensor is s##t and will only cause their cameras to produce not to their potential.

Imagine a D800-like sensor on the 5Diii body! *drools*

 

[awinphoto]

You do have a point. There are other things beside a sensor, and Canon is certainly no slouch in FPS, AF, processing, video, and a lot of other qualities. And lenses! In fact, they are better in most of those areas, that is why they are competing. The fact still remains that their sensor is s##t and will only cause their cameras to produce not to their potential.

Imagine a D800-like sensor on the 5Diii body! *drools*

Yep... and i imagine crappy ISO performance, I imagine the extra work and WB issues that is popping up with the D800 just to get the image in the same realm of the 5d3 in terms of overall color, pop and effect, and imagine all the extra HD's and card needed to support the files.... Uhhh no thanks... I can see where some styles and some forms of photography would benefit, but it is not the all to be all... Canon is to old slide film as nikon is the negative film... The slides just had better pop, better and vibrant colors, more "wow" factor... Negatives COULD have more latitude but in the end, a lot more work/care was needed to get negatives in print to get remotely close to the slide image. The same is being proven true with D800 files and the 5d3 files...

 

[poias]

You do have a point. There are other things beside a sensor, and Canon is certainly no slouch in FPS, AF, processing, video, and a lot of other qualities. And lenses! In fact, they are better in most of those areas, that is why they are competing. The fact still remains that their sensor is s##t and will only cause their cameras to produce not to their potential.

Imagine a D800-like sensor on the 5Diii body! *drools*

Yep... and i imagine crappy ISO performance, I imagine the extra work and WB issues that is popping up with the D800 just to get the image in the same realm of the 5d3 in terms of overall color, pop and effect, and imagine all the extra HD's and card needed to support the files.... Uhhh no thanks... I can see where some styles and some forms of photography would benefit, but it is not the all to be all... Canon is to old slide film as nikon is the negative film... The slides just had better pop, better and vibrant colors, more "wow" factor... Negatives COULD have more latitude but in the end, a lot more work/care was needed to get negatives in print to get remotely close to the slide image. The same is being proven true with D800 files and the 5d3 files...

That is just sour grapes talking. The "pop" you talk about with 5Diii is its lack of DR. High DR images have flatter look and you can post-process (the horror!) to make it fit your levels. D800 has better detail, better DR, and better color, all critical to a technical image quality.

Lets face it, 5Diii's sensor is no better than 5Dii's. 5Diii has improved on AF and processing, though. But the heart of the image is its sensor, which is sorely lacking.

May be Canon needs to stop listening to "everything is fine" crowd and innovate, perhaps?

 

[moreorless]

That is just sour grapes talking. The "pop" you talk about with 5Diii is its lack of DR. High DR images have flatter look and you can post-process (the horror!) to make it fit your levels. D800 has better detail, better DR, and better color, all critical to a technical image quality.

Lets face it, 5Diii's sensor is no better than 5Dii's. 5Diii has improved on AF and processing, though. But the heart of the image is its sensor, which is sorely lacking.

May be Canon needs to stop listening to "everything is fine" crowd and innovate, perhaps?

You look at the Nikon D4 though compaired to the D3s and what do you see? much the same kind of situation as the 5D mk3 compaired to the 5D mk2, some improvement in ISO range but nothing massive. The Nikon sensor cannot equal the extreme DR of the Sony's at ISO 100 either.

The impression I'm getting is that greater advances were seeing in sensor design are not improving ISO performance at a certain pixel density but rather offering similar ISO performance at higher densities.

The 1DX, the D4 and the 5D mk3 were all I'd guess limated in their MP count in order to achieve a certain FPS rate so really we havent seen anyone but Sony looking to push megapixels on FF/Crop bodies for the last few years. The big test is going to be when/if Canon release a new sensor that looks to push MP's further, either on FF or a new 650D/70D/7D one.

 

[Astro]

I wonder how many retards will pay $500 or so for the Mk III when it's just been destroyed by the D800.

Embarrassing really. I'd say Canon always have printers to fall back on, but the ones in my office seem to be broken most of the time.

any you nikon troll have registered here just for that?

 

[poias]

i wonder how many retards will buy a D800 for sports based on the DXO test.

They will have to be damn rich retards to buy a $3000 high mpx camera solely for sports.

DXOmark is not for common people.. it´s for engineers who know what DXO is testing.
the stupid naming of the categorys (SPORTS) don´t help either.

90% of all visitors of DXOmark have NO clue how DXO is measuring sensor performance.
and from the 10% who know, only half understand why they measure that way.

General public may not know about DxO techniques, but they don't have to. The DxO engineers certainly do and they have made it easier for the public by categorizing performances along the categories. Be in complete denial and attack the messenger (DxO).

Numbers don't lie:

Neither should you.

 

[Astro]

i don´t think they have made it easyer for average joe.

to fully understand the score you have to know what they are testing.

because DXO is based on resized images and noise threshold.
it´s a normalized test.

but then why buy a 36 MP camera if you normalize to a lower resolution?
because you can resample an image?
well yes you can resample to 8MP.... but that is not why i would buy a 36MP camera.

the DXO score is only a true representation if you resample/normalize the RAW image.

don´t get me wrong i think the DXO test IS usefull in some way.. just not in the way most interpret it.

Numbers don't lie

lol.. you are not that naive are you?
statistics lie all day.. it´s a matter how you test.

do you really think the D4 is only marginal better in low light? than i feel truly sorry for you.
but trust me not one experienced photographer, nikon or not, will be fooled by the numbers.


beside that... it´s a SONY sensor.
so if you want to praise a company.. praise the right one.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

Hang on a sec... if you look at the SNR and DR graphs together, it's clear that the Canon is the better high ISO camera... so how come the D800 gets a better sports / low light score?

 

[awinphoto]

That is just sour grapes talking. The "pop" you talk about with 5Diii is its lack of DR. High DR images have flatter look and you can post-process (the horror!) to make it fit your levels. D800 has better detail, better DR, and better color, all critical to a technical image quality.

Lets face it, 5Diii's sensor is no better than 5Dii's. 5Diii has improved on AF and processing, though. But the heart of the image is its sensor, which is sorely lacking.

May be Canon needs to stop listening to "everything is fine" crowd and innovate, perhaps?

Sour grapes? Really? I have no quams on post production and have been doing photoshop work before photoshop really became mainstream, BUT, to say that you have to do photoshop work JUST to get an image with pop, meh... and once you do get that pop, most the DR cancels out anyways. Both cameras have it's place... Then again to to go black and white with no shades of gray, with your conclusion of the sensor, high ISO, canon owns nikon, in FPS, canon owns nikon, in AF points (total and cross) canon owns nikon, in movie mode quality, canon owns nikon. Both cameras have their place in the market place.. It's not as black and white as you think my friend.

Numbers don't lie

lol.. you are not that naive are you?
statistics lie all day.. it´s a matter how you test.

Exactly

 

[poias]

i don´t think they have made it easyer for average joe.

to fully understand the score you have to know what they are testing.

because DXO is based on resized images and noise threshold.
it´s a normalized test.

but then why buy a 36 MP camera if you normalize to a lower resolution?
because you can resample an image?
well yes you can resample to 8MP.... but that is not why i would buy a 36MP camera.

Resize to 8mpx, upsize to 36mpx, D800 has clearly better sensor. I guess they resize to 8mpx for normalization, as you mentioned.

the DXO score is only a true representation if you resample/normalize the RAW image.

don´t get me wrong i think the DXO test IS usefull in some way.. just not in the way most interpret it.

True, DxO score is useful only if you shoot RAW. For exclusive JPG shooters and snapshot shooters, it is pretty much useless. The idea here is the sensor capability, i.e. RAW. Understood that many do not shoot RAW for various reasons.

 

[max]

Canon used to always say its because they have higher MP that the test giveout those numbers... Now Nikon has the bigger MP and Canon still loses...

i don´t think they have made it easyer for average joe.

to fully understand the score you have to know what they are testing.

because DXO is based on resized images and noise threshold.
it´s a normalized test.

but then why buy a 36 MP camera if you normalize to a lower resolution?
because you can resample an image?
well yes you can resample to 8MP.... but that is not why i would buy a 36MP camera.

the DXO score is only a true representation if you resample/normalize the RAW image.

don´t get me wrong i think the DXO test IS usefull in some way.. just not in the way most interpret it.

Numbers don't lie

lol.. you are not that naive are you?
statistics lie all day.. it´s a matter how you test.

do you really think the D4 is only marginal better in low light? than i feel truly sorry for you.
but trust me not one experienced photographer, nikon or not, will be fooled by the numbers.


beside that... it´s a SONY sensor.
so if you want to praise a company.. praise the right one.

 

[RuneL]

Okay, we can cry bias and be in complete denial, but Canon has inferior sensor from the early 2000! Their tech is a decade behind than Nikon. When will they start accepting the fact and invest a little more? It used to be Canon could at least claim "we have high megapixels", but now they can only claim "DXO is biased".

We need competition, otherwise Nikon will become stagnant, just like Canon has become. Sorry for the rant, not trying to rub salt on our collective Canon wounds.

YEs, you were around to see the horrible images nikons produced in 2000 and you were around to see why almost everyone chose Canon back then.

 

[poias]

Sour grapes? Really? I have no quams on post production and have been doing photoshop work before photoshop really became mainstream, BUT, to say that you have to do photoshop work JUST to get an image with pop, meh... and once you do get that pop, most the DR cancels out anyways. Both cameras have it's place... Then again to to go black and white with no shades of gray, with your conclusion of the sensor, high ISO, canon owns nikon, in FPS, canon owns nikon, in AF points (total and cross) canon owns nikon, in movie mode quality, canon owns nikon. Both cameras have their place in the market place.. It's not as black and white as you think my friend.

Lets just say that with D800 and its clearly SUPERIOR DR, you can process to get the pop, or whatever you like. With 5Diii, you are screwed if your exposure is not perfect. D800 gives you much more latitude. No doubt, based on empirical evidence.

statistics lie all day.. it´s a matter how you test.

So, are you saying that DxO is wrong? : You must know better than professional testers.

 

[typho]

Regardless of megapixels. What I actually found more interesting is the difference in IQ of 5d2 and 5d3 is rather small, and you can't really argue with megapixels here.

The dynamic range has practically stayed identical. Actually it went down by ~0.12 EV in the lower ISO range and improved only slightly in the high ISO range. The highest acceptable ISO performance how DxO defines it went from 1815 to 2293. That's certainly not 2 stops as canon has been touting. The 18% SNR is up by something like 1.5dB. Not a whole lot. Color depth has got something like a 1.3% improvement...

 

[preppyak]

General public may not know about DxO techniques, but they don't have to. The DxO engineers certainly do and they have made it easier for the public by categorizing performances along the categories. Be in complete denial and attack the messenger (DxO).

So, you are saying a camera with a lesser AF system and that shoots at 4fps is better for sports than one that shoots at 6fps, because DxO's score and label says so? Even though they admit the difference (25%) is equivalent to about 1/3EV, which in most cases won't even change your shutter speed?

I won't doubt that the sensor is better, but, if the camera isn't in focus, or its too slow to get the picture, the sensor means nothing.

 

[poias]

YEs, you were around to see the horrible images nikons produced in 2000 and you were around to see why almost everyone chose Canon back then.

Now, that may be reversing. Canon's engineering is getting a beating. May be they have some awesome secret technology ready to be unveiled. But their publicly available sensors are pretty much rehash of 2005.

 

[typho]

preppyak: DxO only measures image quality of the sensor. If they say sports they still mean in terms of image quality. They clearly say that they don't score the camera, they only score the sensor.

 

[poias]

Regardless of megapixels. What I actually found more interesting is the difference in IQ of 5d2 and 5d3 is rather small, and you can't really argue with megapixels here.

The dynamic range has practically stayed identical. Actually it went down by ~0.12 EV in the lower ISO range and improved only slightly in the high ISO range. The highest acceptable ISO performance how DxO defines it went from 1815 to 2293. That's certainly not 2 stops as canon has been touting. The 18% SNR is up by something like 1.5dB. Not a whole lot. Color depth has got something like a 1.3% improvement...

Ah, those statistics! You might upset some people around here with those facts.