D4 sensor scores available at DxO
- Thread starter well_dunno
- Start date
- Status
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Nikon/D4
DxOMark Sensor Scores for Nikon D4
DR - 13.1
Color Depth - 24.7
Low-Light ISO - 2965
DxOMark Sensor Scores for Nikon D4
DR - 13.1
Color Depth - 24.7
Low-Light ISO - 2965
Upvote
0
I think it's interesting that the Nikon D4 has a lower DR score than the D7000 (13.1 vs 13.9), and that the D4 has a Low-Light ISO score lower than the D3s (2965 vs 3253).
I hope Canon catches up to Nikon with the 5D3 and the 1DX, The 1Ds3 is the only Canon camera to break the top 40 (tied at position 39) in Dynamic Range, and barely misses the top 10 in Color Depth. At least Canon's 5D2 was able to break the top 10 for low light, #6 at ISO 1815. I can't wait to see the scores for Canon's new cameras.
I hope Canon catches up to Nikon with the 5D3 and the 1DX, The 1Ds3 is the only Canon camera to break the top 40 (tied at position 39) in Dynamic Range, and barely misses the top 10 in Color Depth. At least Canon's 5D2 was able to break the top 10 for low light, #6 at ISO 1815. I can't wait to see the scores for Canon's new cameras.
Upvote
0
dr croubie said:The 1DX is canon's first FF camera? Or they're comparing it to the 1Ds mk1?
Aren't they French? I suspect they mean something like "Canon's number one FF camera"
Upvote
0
I am personally less familiar with all the test DxO does on sensors, but when you look at their site, feels like its Nikon all the way and give the impression all the Canon sensors are crapy! Am I missing something? Is anyone familiar with DxO test? Why are Canon sensor rated so low compared to Nikon in DxO? Are the Canon sensor really that inferior to Nikon's? Apart from low ISO, I would have thought both campany would be on par, but it seems Nikon wins for dynamic range as well...
Hope the 1DX change the order of things a bit! Thoughts?
Jacques
Hope the 1DX change the order of things a bit! Thoughts?
Jacques
Upvote
0
DxO base their scores on RAW files out of the camera, not JPGs.
From what I've read (which could be true, could be nutter conspiracy-theory), is that Nikon de-noise the raw files (even if only slightly) before writing them to the card. So it's not really testing the 'sensor', it's testing the 'sensor and whatever happens to it before it gets written to the card as a raw file'. Call it cheating if you want (i'm sure some do), but at the end of the day we as photographers can only play with what the camera gives us.
As for site-bias, you'll find that everywhere on the net. Go and read Tomshardware.com reviews (and the user-comments) for the last 10 years. There were always allegations of bias towards AMD in the Athlon vs P4 era, then more allegations of Intel-bias in the years after of Athlon vs Core2. Never mind that the chips they were allegedly 'biased towards' were actually the best chips out there, you just can't argue with fanboys on the internet.
At the end of the day, make your own mind up, look at the graphs not the text. I'm not going to ditch my camera and lenses for an extra 0.5 bit depth or whatever, I don't think many people would. Those who would must have some really demanding customers, or have way too high standards imho...
From what I've read (which could be true, could be nutter conspiracy-theory), is that Nikon de-noise the raw files (even if only slightly) before writing them to the card. So it's not really testing the 'sensor', it's testing the 'sensor and whatever happens to it before it gets written to the card as a raw file'. Call it cheating if you want (i'm sure some do), but at the end of the day we as photographers can only play with what the camera gives us.
As for site-bias, you'll find that everywhere on the net. Go and read Tomshardware.com reviews (and the user-comments) for the last 10 years. There were always allegations of bias towards AMD in the Athlon vs P4 era, then more allegations of Intel-bias in the years after of Athlon vs Core2. Never mind that the chips they were allegedly 'biased towards' were actually the best chips out there, you just can't argue with fanboys on the internet.
At the end of the day, make your own mind up, look at the graphs not the text. I'm not going to ditch my camera and lenses for an extra 0.5 bit depth or whatever, I don't think many people would. Those who would must have some really demanding customers, or have way too high standards imho...
Upvote
0
Make sense dr croubie. Interesting theory about the RAW image being "de-noised" a bit out of the camera for Nikon! This may suggest that with say LR4, we can actually close part of the "ISO gap" by applying a bit of noise reduction of our own and level the field correct? Did I get it right?
If so then the delta in ISO between both companies might be a bit smaller then we think from a finished product RAW -> to LR4 or other de-noising software workflow perspective...
Wonder how much of this is conspiracy theory
If so then the delta in ISO between both companies might be a bit smaller then we think from a finished product RAW -> to LR4 or other de-noising software workflow perspective...
Wonder how much of this is conspiracy theory
Upvote
0
Does anyone actually really know how DXO gets their dynamic range numbers?
Their description under their methods of analysis is pretty vague...
I find it incredibly suspicious that I get the same numbers they get (within like 1 or 2 tenths of a decimal) when I take black (underexposed to the point of completely clipped) & white (overexposed to the point of completely clipped) files from a 5DII, a S100, or a Nikon D7000, & do the following calculation:
Dynamic Range = log[base 2] (max pixel value in white file/standard deviation of pixels in black file)
I have asked this in previous threads so, apologies in advance for that. Just not getting much feedback as to what people think of this calculations, which I've seen on this forum as well as on dpreview's fora.
Their description under their methods of analysis is pretty vague...
I find it incredibly suspicious that I get the same numbers they get (within like 1 or 2 tenths of a decimal) when I take black (underexposed to the point of completely clipped) & white (overexposed to the point of completely clipped) files from a 5DII, a S100, or a Nikon D7000, & do the following calculation:
Dynamic Range = log[base 2] (max pixel value in white file/standard deviation of pixels in black file)
I have asked this in previous threads so, apologies in advance for that. Just not getting much feedback as to what people think of this calculations, which I've seen on this forum as well as on dpreview's fora.
Upvote
0
- Status
