DxOMark scores for 5DMkIII out - total score 81, 5DMkII had 79
- Thread starter Fishnose
- Start date
- Status
Re: DxO results out for 5D3
If Canon would believe d..o score is the main decision factor at buying a new camera, then should offer a free upgrade to the next version as it happens often with the software...
If Canon would believe d..o score is the main decision factor at buying a new camera, then should offer a free upgrade to the next version as it happens often with the software...
Upvote
0
Re: DxO results out for 5D3
This is where Karma would be useful...at the moment, we have no tool to combat trolls like this guy.
briansquibb said:
This is where Karma would be useful...at the moment, we have no tool to combat trolls like this guy.
Upvote
0
J
Jason Beiko
Guest
Re: DxO results out for 5D3
You know what is a big yawn? The abundant Canon fan boys on this forum....and yes I am a Canon user. The results rather clearly show that the newest model Nikons have major and measurable improvemts in many important aspects of camera performance. Just acknowledge this and move along. Too many comments try to ignore this by repeating inane statements such as:
1.It's not the camera that takes creative pictures but the photographer. Really? captain of the obvious.....
2. DXO is biased in favour of Nikon. Really? Well than how come so many other brands and formats are rated so highly?
For a forum that has a very technological viewpoint, I find it strange that so many people want to "defend" their brand in the face of objective evidence. Just evaluate and acknowledge the results without the fanboyism.
You know what is a big yawn? The abundant Canon fan boys on this forum....and yes I am a Canon user. The results rather clearly show that the newest model Nikons have major and measurable improvemts in many important aspects of camera performance. Just acknowledge this and move along. Too many comments try to ignore this by repeating inane statements such as:
1.It's not the camera that takes creative pictures but the photographer. Really? captain of the obvious.....
2. DXO is biased in favour of Nikon. Really? Well than how come so many other brands and formats are rated so highly?
For a forum that has a very technological viewpoint, I find it strange that so many people want to "defend" their brand in the face of objective evidence. Just evaluate and acknowledge the results without the fanboyism.
Upvote
0
Re: DxO results out for 5D3
Can I have your autograph? When there are people like you out there who can predict DxO's results before DxO even has a chance to test a camera, why don't they just hire you and save themselves a bunch of money
?
All kidding aside, I think most people that are unfortunate enough to be aware of DxO's existence very much expected the D800 to trounce the 5DIII. It is the king of lab tests. Case closed.
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Can I have your autograph? When there are people like you out there who can predict DxO's results before DxO even has a chance to test a camera, why don't they just hire you and save themselves a bunch of money
?All kidding aside, I think most people that are unfortunate enough to be aware of DxO's existence very much expected the D800 to trounce the 5DIII. It is the king of lab tests. Case closed.
Upvote
0
Re: DxO results out for 5D3
My images aren't about lab scores or fanboyism
Kudos to the D800, I'm really happy for those who will use it to its potential and who own Nikon, what do i care about their Dxo score? No one is saying the d800 isn't a great camera we are just saying we don't need the scores to prove to us our images look fantastic so theres no grounds for lament that the D800 scored higher. Or the obvious one, no grounds to switch to Nikon.
+1briansquibb said:
My images aren't about lab scores or fanboyism
Kudos to the D800, I'm really happy for those who will use it to its potential and who own Nikon, what do i care about their Dxo score? No one is saying the d800 isn't a great camera we are just saying we don't need the scores to prove to us our images look fantastic so theres no grounds for lament that the D800 scored higher. Or the obvious one, no grounds to switch to Nikon.
Upvote
0
Re: DxO results out for 5D3
Sure, there are improvements. I don't think anyone is denying that. I'd say DxO measures ONLY IQ performance, though. IQ is an aspect of camera performance overall, but most definitely not the only factor. DxO numbers do not take other aspects into account, and depending on what you shoot, many of those other factors may be more important than raw IQ numbers. Ergonomics, frame rate, AF performance, etc. are all still very important factors.
I think some people dispute the accuracy of DxO's results when they claim that the D800 is capable of more dynamic range than the hardware is rated for. I believe most of us here clearly acknowledge that the D800 is an amazing camera, and it does offer better DR and higher resolution. But there are things that many of us just can't accept. To claim a normalized image has 14.4 EV's, when the ADC's are 14 bit (which would limit the maximum physical DR the camera is capable of achieving to 14.0 EV's absolute) brings up questions about the validity and applicability of DxO's results. I am NOT denying they have a better sensor...Sony Exmor sensors are amazing pieces of technology and have certainly pushed full-frame DSLR's into new territory with a high DR 36.3mp sensor.
That said, DxO's screen DR numbers still show that the D800 wins on the low-ISO DR front. It still gets 13.2 EV of native hardware DR. I have no interest in disputing that. Sony and Nikon made some brilliant moves with better technology, and they deserve to take the win! I still have a problem with DxO claiming that the D800 achieves "14.4 EV" in their Landscape category, and I always will. Its bogus. Its misleading trickery, and it doesn't do anyone any benefit to let a potential D800 customer think they can actually shoot a scene with 14.4 EV of dynamic range in a single shot with the D800 and actually be able to use all of the data. Its simply not true. I have a real problem with people, particularly people like LTRLI, trying to shove what seems to be a *bogus* detail down my throat on a regular basis. I'm sorry, but downscaling is not a mystical tool that will magically fabricate additional DR. If you blow the highlights in-camera, no amount of downscaling or upscaling or scaling in any other form is going to RECOVER pixels that reached maximum saturation and then-some. I think such facts need to be disputed, not really for the good of Canon shooters (where generally all sticking with Canon gear)...but more for the good of potential camera buyers. I don't think it is physically possible for the D800 to capture more than 13.2 stops of DR when you account for physical hardware nuances, implementation details and overhead, however since DxO has claimed it is capable of 14.4 stops, they are misleading many potential Nikon users. Thats not a positive outcome, despite the fact that it has no effect on me whatsoever.
The real problem though, is if DxO is wrong about that, even if their method of deriving that number is consistent...what else could they be wrong about? If DxO can interpret "normalized DR" numbers such that they indicate a camera is supposedly capable of more than the hardware would allow, what else might they be wrong about? They certainly seemed to miss the ball on the 5D III low ISO performance...between DxO's own SNR and high ISO DR scores for the 5D III, I'd have figured it would win that category. What about their scores for medium format cameras, which are all pretty much LIMITED to lower ISO settings...some top out at ISO 800. I doubt anyone who has actually seen photographs, on screen or in print, from a medium format camera, would dispute that they are far superior to anything that comes out of a DSLR, yet many Nikon and even some Canon cameras beat digital MF camera scores from DxO. That indicates a problem with the model, even if the statistics are consistent relative to one another.
Certainly! I am evaluating them, however my evaluation results in discrepancies with DxO's final conclusions, and as such, I can't plain and simply "acknowledge" their results. I'm not a fanboy, I'm just a vested customer. Personally, I don't really care much about DxO numbers...they are a factor, but not the primary or most important factor, in the decisions I make. The fact that other people put so much weight on them, though, and seem to acknowledge them at face value WITHOUT any critical evaluation, is curious to me, and I simply can't help but harass when I see just as much fanboyism regarding DxO as you claim Canon photographers here exhibit regarding their gear (the latter of which is more understandable, since it IS the physical piece of gear that actually empowers ones photographic creativity...not a set of numbers from DxO.)
Jason Beiko said:
Sure, there are improvements. I don't think anyone is denying that. I'd say DxO measures ONLY IQ performance, though. IQ is an aspect of camera performance overall, but most definitely not the only factor. DxO numbers do not take other aspects into account, and depending on what you shoot, many of those other factors may be more important than raw IQ numbers. Ergonomics, frame rate, AF performance, etc. are all still very important factors.
Jason Beiko said:
I think some people dispute the accuracy of DxO's results when they claim that the D800 is capable of more dynamic range than the hardware is rated for. I believe most of us here clearly acknowledge that the D800 is an amazing camera, and it does offer better DR and higher resolution. But there are things that many of us just can't accept. To claim a normalized image has 14.4 EV's, when the ADC's are 14 bit (which would limit the maximum physical DR the camera is capable of achieving to 14.0 EV's absolute) brings up questions about the validity and applicability of DxO's results. I am NOT denying they have a better sensor...Sony Exmor sensors are amazing pieces of technology and have certainly pushed full-frame DSLR's into new territory with a high DR 36.3mp sensor.
That said, DxO's screen DR numbers still show that the D800 wins on the low-ISO DR front. It still gets 13.2 EV of native hardware DR. I have no interest in disputing that. Sony and Nikon made some brilliant moves with better technology, and they deserve to take the win! I still have a problem with DxO claiming that the D800 achieves "14.4 EV" in their Landscape category, and I always will. Its bogus. Its misleading trickery, and it doesn't do anyone any benefit to let a potential D800 customer think they can actually shoot a scene with 14.4 EV of dynamic range in a single shot with the D800 and actually be able to use all of the data. Its simply not true. I have a real problem with people, particularly people like LTRLI, trying to shove what seems to be a *bogus* detail down my throat on a regular basis. I'm sorry, but downscaling is not a mystical tool that will magically fabricate additional DR. If you blow the highlights in-camera, no amount of downscaling or upscaling or scaling in any other form is going to RECOVER pixels that reached maximum saturation and then-some. I think such facts need to be disputed, not really for the good of Canon shooters (where generally all sticking with Canon gear)...but more for the good of potential camera buyers. I don't think it is physically possible for the D800 to capture more than 13.2 stops of DR when you account for physical hardware nuances, implementation details and overhead, however since DxO has claimed it is capable of 14.4 stops, they are misleading many potential Nikon users. Thats not a positive outcome, despite the fact that it has no effect on me whatsoever.
The real problem though, is if DxO is wrong about that, even if their method of deriving that number is consistent...what else could they be wrong about? If DxO can interpret "normalized DR" numbers such that they indicate a camera is supposedly capable of more than the hardware would allow, what else might they be wrong about? They certainly seemed to miss the ball on the 5D III low ISO performance...between DxO's own SNR and high ISO DR scores for the 5D III, I'd have figured it would win that category. What about their scores for medium format cameras, which are all pretty much LIMITED to lower ISO settings...some top out at ISO 800. I doubt anyone who has actually seen photographs, on screen or in print, from a medium format camera, would dispute that they are far superior to anything that comes out of a DSLR, yet many Nikon and even some Canon cameras beat digital MF camera scores from DxO. That indicates a problem with the model, even if the statistics are consistent relative to one another.
Jason Beiko said:
Certainly! I am evaluating them, however my evaluation results in discrepancies with DxO's final conclusions, and as such, I can't plain and simply "acknowledge" their results. I'm not a fanboy, I'm just a vested customer. Personally, I don't really care much about DxO numbers...they are a factor, but not the primary or most important factor, in the decisions I make. The fact that other people put so much weight on them, though, and seem to acknowledge them at face value WITHOUT any critical evaluation, is curious to me, and I simply can't help but harass when I see just as much fanboyism regarding DxO as you claim Canon photographers here exhibit regarding their gear (the latter of which is more understandable, since it IS the physical piece of gear that actually empowers ones photographic creativity...not a set of numbers from DxO.)
Upvote
0
Re: DxO results out for 5D3
Your position is then still that my results will be way different from DxOs even though they are now shown to be the same?
jrista said:
Your position is then still that my results will be way different from DxOs even though they are now shown to be the same?
Upvote
0
Re: DxO results out for 5D3
Good points, only if all of you really believed that bottom line talk then why would you need to go crazy any time someone writes something implying some aspect of a Canon sensor is not class-leading? You should just be able to see the numbers as they are and not call people names over it and make up twisted truths and move on.
jrista said:
Good points, only if all of you really believed that bottom line talk then why would you need to go crazy any time someone writes something implying some aspect of a Canon sensor is not class-leading?
You should just be able to see the numbers as they are and not call people names over it and make up twisted truths and move on.
Upvote
0
Re: DxO results out for 5D3
But they do reflect the real world. Look at the threads where people shoot both and compare. That is the whole point.
For years Canon sensor were way better in almost every way, now they are complacent and lagging in some aspects, maximum dynamic range most of all. They did largely catch up in terms of SNR now (although they had to cheat the color filter array a bit to get there, which is why DxO gave them a lower than expected high iso score, although they overdid the penalty a bit IMO).
They fixed up the AF and fps and all a ton. But the DR is simply worse. What do I do, lie and say it's not? And if it really is about the photographer and not the camera then why all the hating on anyone who posts results that make Canon not best in every last single thing?
briansquibb said:
But they do reflect the real world. Look at the threads where people shoot both and compare. That is the whole point.
For years Canon sensor were way better in almost every way, now they are complacent and lagging in some aspects, maximum dynamic range most of all. They did largely catch up in terms of SNR now (although they had to cheat the color filter array a bit to get there, which is why DxO gave them a lower than expected high iso score, although they overdid the penalty a bit IMO).
They fixed up the AF and fps and all a ton. But the DR is simply worse. What do I do, lie and say it's not? And if it really is about the photographer and not the camera then why all the hating on anyone who posts results that make Canon not best in every last single thing?
Upvote
0
Re: DxO results out for 5D3
Yeah and nobody pointing out the DR stuff is denying that. I said in other threads i like the Canon UI way more, the fps is way better, the shutter response, mirror blackout, AF, etc. that is a different thread. Of course that stuff matter too. And Canon finally delivered that now. Which is awesome.
But you come in and trash anyone to pieces if they make a sensor thread and if they mention that any aspect of a sensor is not the best in the world.
that is only because you don't understand normalization
OK, well you sure bashed and insulted and trashed me (and indirectly some famous scientists) to pieces in that other thread when I said that would be the case.
you need to read up more on this....
maybe it is not they who are confused
They penalized the 5D3 for making the color filter array more color blind which helps improve SNR while making different colors harder to tell apart and worsening chroma noise, they may have over done it a bit, but that is where that came from and they have been consistent in their formula for that. I think it came out a little bit much in this case since the D800 slipped just above the bonus points zone and it perhaps overly penalizes the 5D3, but there is nothing technically wrong or confused about what they did measurement by measurement there although I think you can argue that their weightings are maybe not the most sensible for the overall score there. I do think it leads to some somewhat odd results at times. The overall sensor is even odder and even they say there is no way to make one number tell the story.
But their plots seem to be pretty legit.
[quote[ The fact that other people put so much weight on them, though, and seem to acknowledge them at face value WITHOUT any critical evaluation, is curious to me, and I simply can't help but harass when I see just as much fanboyism regarding DxO as you claim Canon photographers here exhibit regarding their gear (the latter of which is more understandable, since it IS the physical piece of gear that actually empowers ones photographic creativity...not a set of numbers from DxO.)
[/quote]
A bit rich since you seriously harassed me post after post for a while because DxO was so much better than me and that so much weight had to be given TO DXO.
jrista said:
Yeah and nobody pointing out the DR stuff is denying that. I said in other threads i like the Canon UI way more, the fps is way better, the shutter response, mirror blackout, AF, etc. that is a different thread. Of course that stuff matter too. And Canon finally delivered that now. Which is awesome.
But you come in and trash anyone to pieces if they make a sensor thread and if they mention that any aspect of a sensor is not the best in the world.
that is only because you don't understand normalization
OK, well you sure bashed and insulted and trashed me (and indirectly some famous scientists) to pieces in that other thread when I said that would be the case.
you need to read up more on this....
maybe it is not they who are confused
They penalized the 5D3 for making the color filter array more color blind which helps improve SNR while making different colors harder to tell apart and worsening chroma noise, they may have over done it a bit, but that is where that came from and they have been consistent in their formula for that. I think it came out a little bit much in this case since the D800 slipped just above the bonus points zone and it perhaps overly penalizes the 5D3, but there is nothing technically wrong or confused about what they did measurement by measurement there although I think you can argue that their weightings are maybe not the most sensible for the overall score there. I do think it leads to some somewhat odd results at times. The overall sensor is even odder and even they say there is no way to make one number tell the story.
But their plots seem to be pretty legit.
[quote[ The fact that other people put so much weight on them, though, and seem to acknowledge them at face value WITHOUT any critical evaluation, is curious to me, and I simply can't help but harass when I see just as much fanboyism regarding DxO as you claim Canon photographers here exhibit regarding their gear (the latter of which is more understandable, since it IS the physical piece of gear that actually empowers ones photographic creativity...not a set of numbers from DxO.)
[/quote]
A bit rich since you seriously harassed me post after post for a while because DxO was so much better than me and that so much weight had to be given TO DXO.
Upvote
0
Re: DxO results out for 5D3
Anyway this is tiresome. I will only respond to strict technical questions and not bother responding to the trolling again.
Anyway this is tiresome. I will only respond to strict technical questions and not bother responding to the trolling again.
Upvote
0
Re: DxO results out for 5D3
Well, you seem to have missed my past points entirely. I never claimed Canon sensors were not class-leading. They haven't been class-leading for years. My point is IT DOES NOT MATTER! I don't know how many times I'll have to use those words...it does not matter....it does not matter...it does not matter....but someday maybe it will sink in. YES, I know the Nikon sensor is better. I never disputed that!! I thought at first, before ACTUAL numbers started coming out derived from proper black frames and the like, that Canon sensors might catch up to Sony sensors. It was my hope, certainly. I'll admit I'm a little bummed they didn't come out with a 28mp sensor, and a little bummed they are still stuck at around 11-12 stops of theoretical DR, but I'm pretty ecstatic about everything else. My claim all along has been that it is not a critical factor that Canon doesn't have the best piece of technology in paper. Camera technology today in general is so vastly superior to what we had a decade ago, which itself was vastly superior to what we had decades prior to that. Numbers DO NOT MATTER! They never have, and they never will! Thats my point. The only reason I keep arguing, particularly with you, is you can't seem to actually GET THE POINT! :
I argue more just as a matter of curiosity and persistence at this point, at your own persistence (and elation at having DxO confirm what we knew they were going to confirm) that ISO 100 DR numbers from DxO are the most important aspects of photography in the world, than arguing because I want to defend my precious Canon camera (which, BTW, I don't actually own a 5D III nor do I have a 1D X on preorder...I made the decision to wait let Canon fix hardware and firmware issues first, and possibly buy a nice big SCT 11" telescope instead this year. ;P) It is an incredible curiosity to me that so many people (not just you) are so intent upon proving that Canon cameras are, in fact, inferior and therefor worthless and useless...based solely on DxO numbers and correlation thereof by DxO fanboys. If those things really did matter...if FPN was really truly such a serious problem as DxO numbers indicate...why doesn't it seem to exhibit in 99.9% of the photos taken with Canon cameras? If banding and FPN really was a massive work-destroying problem as indicated by DxO numbers...why are there hundreds of millions of photographs plastered all over the web, office spaces, and peoples homes, taken with Canon cameras, that exhibit the same nasty forms of noise? If those things really did matter...THEY WOULD MATTER!! They would AFFECT RESULTS!!
But the simple fact is........ they don't affect results..... THEY DO NOT MATTER. Thats my point. It really doesn't matter that SoNikon is technologically superior in some ways...people still produce unbelievable photographs with 5-8 year old digital cameras, even 20-50 year old film cameras and even some older than that...all of which are technologically inferior in every way to any camera released in the last year. Thats my point.
IT... DOES... NOT... MATTER. ;D
LetTheRightLensIn said:jrista said:
Good points, only if all of you really believed that bottom line talk then why would you need to go crazy any time someone writes something implying some aspect of a Canon sensor is not class-leading?
Well, you seem to have missed my past points entirely. I never claimed Canon sensors were not class-leading. They haven't been class-leading for years. My point is IT DOES NOT MATTER! I don't know how many times I'll have to use those words...it does not matter....it does not matter...it does not matter....but someday maybe it will sink in. YES, I know the Nikon sensor is better. I never disputed that!! I thought at first, before ACTUAL numbers started coming out derived from proper black frames and the like, that Canon sensors might catch up to Sony sensors. It was my hope, certainly. I'll admit I'm a little bummed they didn't come out with a 28mp sensor, and a little bummed they are still stuck at around 11-12 stops of theoretical DR, but I'm pretty ecstatic about everything else. My claim all along has been that it is not a critical factor that Canon doesn't have the best piece of technology in paper. Camera technology today in general is so vastly superior to what we had a decade ago, which itself was vastly superior to what we had decades prior to that. Numbers DO NOT MATTER! They never have, and they never will! Thats my point. The only reason I keep arguing, particularly with you, is you can't seem to actually GET THE POINT! :
I argue more just as a matter of curiosity and persistence at this point, at your own persistence (and elation at having DxO confirm what we knew they were going to confirm) that ISO 100 DR numbers from DxO are the most important aspects of photography in the world, than arguing because I want to defend my precious Canon camera (which, BTW, I don't actually own a 5D III nor do I have a 1D X on preorder...I made the decision to wait let Canon fix hardware and firmware issues first, and possibly buy a nice big SCT 11" telescope instead this year. ;P) It is an incredible curiosity to me that so many people (not just you) are so intent upon proving that Canon cameras are, in fact, inferior and therefor worthless and useless...based solely on DxO numbers and correlation thereof by DxO fanboys. If those things really did matter...if FPN was really truly such a serious problem as DxO numbers indicate...why doesn't it seem to exhibit in 99.9% of the photos taken with Canon cameras? If banding and FPN really was a massive work-destroying problem as indicated by DxO numbers...why are there hundreds of millions of photographs plastered all over the web, office spaces, and peoples homes, taken with Canon cameras, that exhibit the same nasty forms of noise? If those things really did matter...THEY WOULD MATTER!! They would AFFECT RESULTS!!
But the simple fact is........ they don't affect results..... THEY DO NOT MATTER. Thats my point. It really doesn't matter that SoNikon is technologically superior in some ways...people still produce unbelievable photographs with 5-8 year old digital cameras, even 20-50 year old film cameras and even some older than that...all of which are technologically inferior in every way to any camera released in the last year. Thats my point.
IT... DOES... NOT... MATTER. ;D
Upvote
0
Re: DxO results out for 5D3
Bit depth indicates a MAXIMUM LIMIT on DR...not actual DR. Every additional bit is a doubling of the numeric space of the previous...i.e. a stop, so 2^14 would indicate the maximum numeric range of 16384. Maximum saturation would be less than that as you have to account for inefficiencies and overhead. Of course there is overhead, which is why the DxO's screen DR number of 13.2 is more realistic.
SleeperSmith said:
Bit depth indicates a MAXIMUM LIMIT on DR...not actual DR. Every additional bit is a doubling of the numeric space of the previous...i.e. a stop, so 2^14 would indicate the maximum numeric range of 16384. Maximum saturation would be less than that as you have to account for inefficiencies and overhead. Of course there is overhead, which is why the DxO's screen DR number of 13.2 is more realistic.
Upvote
0
F
Former Nikonian
Guest
Thanks Fishnose.Fishnose said:Former Nikonian said:
Fascinating.
- The red stripe on the Nikon is VERY important to you....
- The popup flash on the D800 is NOT meant for use as a flash per se. It is meant to be used as master for controlling other flashes in the CLS (Creative Lighting System), which beats the hell out of Pocket Wizard and other primitive 'on or off' systems.
- You seem to think high MP is only for cropping, if you have 36MP one must crop, downsizing is impossible. Or maybe one gets sloppy and lazy from having SO many pixels.... what exactly is your point here?
The D4 doesn't have 36MP because it is impossible to have a ultra-fast camera with so much data to be shifted for every frame. Believe me, if it was possible, they would have 36MP in the D4. Maybe the D5 or D6 will get there. Depends on how successful R&D at Sony and Nikon are at resolving issues with shifting all that data in and out of buffers and onto cards.
- D800 handles low light as well as the MkIII. The difference is in fact so small that you have to pixel peep to see a difference.
- No, don't let online tests and reviews influence you. After all, the red stripe is the biggest issue, for sure.... :
Red stripe is just one of my issues. Photography relates to aesthetics; camera is a tool in photography. I just do not feel good when trying to use an ugly tool to creat aesthetic products. I miss my N90S and N8008S (all were sold years ago), they looked nice comparing to current Nikon's.
I only buy what I need, and 5D Mkiii gives me that while D800 does not.
My brother, who is an IT engineer and nikonian, has tons of Nikons since FMs (you know what they are?) and his latest is D700. He had a plan to upgrade to D700's successor; but after D800 release he gave up with huge frustration. He expected D700's successor would have something which 5D Mkiii has now. He choses sticking with his D700 and hoping for 4 years later.
When I called telling him about my oders, he said "Brother, you did the right job!"
Final words, Fishnose, we nikonian spend for what we need; so I spent for 5D Mkiii and my brother did not spend for D800. Period.
Upvote
0
Re: DxO results out for 5D3
No...I trash the idea that Canon not having the best sensor in the world matters.
I fully understand normalization. Normalization doesn't create anything that you didn't start out with, though. It REMOVES things...such as noise, but it does not create. One way or another, scaling down or scaling up, you are destroying original, pure information and diluting it. You cannot create dynamic range you did not start out with. The only thing that might potentially increase is perception...but thats a subjective matter that cannot be objectively evaluated in a scientific test like those DxO runs.
I trashed your use of potentially inaccurate source data...at the time that thread occurred, you guys were using images created under inconsistent lighting with inconsistent exposure from source cameras that were either potentially or explicitly declared pre-release...then claiming accurate results. I wasn't disputing the numbers...just the methodology and proclamations of total accuracy. You'll notice that once people started getting their hands on actual release versions of the 5D III and tests were done on dark frames from legit copies, I took the results as far more accurate.
Its just the normalization thing again, and its the same deal...you can't create what you don't have. If you didn't start out with dynamic range in-camera, you aren't going to correct blown highlights with some math and scaling.
Not saying they are confused...I am not sure their model is as relevant as I used to think it was though. I don't have a problem with their screen DR numbers (at the moment...if they claim the next Nikon 14-bit DSLR is capable of 14.4 stops of screen DR, I'll completely reverse my opinion of DxO in total!) Same issue...you don't create what you don't have with a bit of averaging, and you don't recover what you lost at a hardware level with software. It was gone long, long before it even reached the software. I don't think anyone is confused...I think there is probably some bias in interpretation, and potentially a flaw in the model. That wouldn't mean their numbers are incorrect within the definition of their model...just that they don't demonstrate the real-world capabilities of the actual camera hardware as well as I used to think.
I think that may demonstrate my issue with DxO superbly. When comparing 5D III photos to D800 photos, from a direct-from-camera standpoint, the 5D III seems to have FAR better color. The D800 in many of the video reviews I've seen seemed to exhibit rather flat color, often with a distinct green cast. It wasn't just an LCD screen problem regarding the color cast either...the same green cast showed up during post-processing as well. So even if Canon tweaked the CFA to improve SNR, it certainly doesn't seem to have affected color rendition in the real world enough to penalize them as much as DxO did.
I think the idea of "bonus points" in what is supposed to be an objective comparison is an odd thing at best, and an element of subjectivity in general. There shouldn't be "bonus points" for anything in an objective test...ISO is ISO, you don't give an ISO score bonus points because some dot on a plot fell just barely inside of a particular "zone" and call it a win, while another dot on a plot fell just barely outside of a particular "zone", and call it a loss. Its not objective.
A bit rich since you seriously harassed me post after post for a while because DxO was so much better than me and that so much weight had to be given TO DXO.
[/quote]
Same as my point above, I was disputing your use of inaccurate source data (inconsistent photos taken with pre-release cameras) and claiming total accuracy in your own results. The thing that really irked me at the time, though, was how you immediately started the doomsday reports about how Canon had failed all of their customers and failed to live up to untold years of expectation, yadda yadda...based on numbers derived from inconsistent pre-release source data...regardless of whether it was backed up by renown scientists or not. I'd slam you again for the same reasons if you made the same premature, sensationalist claims again.
Regardless of how accurate they may have been in the end, the claim was a bit bogus, and my point about DxO at the time was that they never used a random, inconsistent set of source data to produce their numbers...they used very carefully produced images and a consistent process to produce consistent results (which, despite my current misgivings about DxO's new results for the D800, I still adhere to.) Within their model, their results are consistent...but I have some problems with how they have rated the D800 and given it what I believe are some unrealistic ratings (not everything, but a couple things.) Its hard to trust results when trust has been broken with what seem to be bogus numbers like 14.4 stops DR from a 14-bit camera, or giving some "bonus points" and a win to an ISO score when the competition was only fractionally worse. Sketchy, and worth disputing and discussing, at the very least.
And, in the end...it doesn't matter. Its clear that, despite its technological inferiority, however major or minor any given individual may wish to construe those inferiorities, the 5D III takes awesome photographs. Its clear that both the D800 and 5D III take awesome photographs. So, in the end...real-world results trump technological inferiority.
LetTheRightLensIn said:
No...I trash the idea that Canon not having the best sensor in the world matters.
LetTheRightLensIn said:
I fully understand normalization. Normalization doesn't create anything that you didn't start out with, though. It REMOVES things...such as noise, but it does not create. One way or another, scaling down or scaling up, you are destroying original, pure information and diluting it. You cannot create dynamic range you did not start out with. The only thing that might potentially increase is perception...but thats a subjective matter that cannot be objectively evaluated in a scientific test like those DxO runs.
LetTheRightLensIn said:
I trashed your use of potentially inaccurate source data...at the time that thread occurred, you guys were using images created under inconsistent lighting with inconsistent exposure from source cameras that were either potentially or explicitly declared pre-release...then claiming accurate results. I wasn't disputing the numbers...just the methodology and proclamations of total accuracy. You'll notice that once people started getting their hands on actual release versions of the 5D III and tests were done on dark frames from legit copies, I took the results as far more accurate.
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Its just the normalization thing again, and its the same deal...you can't create what you don't have. If you didn't start out with dynamic range in-camera, you aren't going to correct blown highlights with some math and scaling.
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Not saying they are confused...I am not sure their model is as relevant as I used to think it was though. I don't have a problem with their screen DR numbers (at the moment...if they claim the next Nikon 14-bit DSLR is capable of 14.4 stops of screen DR, I'll completely reverse my opinion of DxO in total!) Same issue...you don't create what you don't have with a bit of averaging, and you don't recover what you lost at a hardware level with software. It was gone long, long before it even reached the software. I don't think anyone is confused...I think there is probably some bias in interpretation, and potentially a flaw in the model. That wouldn't mean their numbers are incorrect within the definition of their model...just that they don't demonstrate the real-world capabilities of the actual camera hardware as well as I used to think.
LetTheRightLensIn said:
I think that may demonstrate my issue with DxO superbly. When comparing 5D III photos to D800 photos, from a direct-from-camera standpoint, the 5D III seems to have FAR better color. The D800 in many of the video reviews I've seen seemed to exhibit rather flat color, often with a distinct green cast. It wasn't just an LCD screen problem regarding the color cast either...the same green cast showed up during post-processing as well. So even if Canon tweaked the CFA to improve SNR, it certainly doesn't seem to have affected color rendition in the real world enough to penalize them as much as DxO did.
LetTheRightLensIn said:
I think the idea of "bonus points" in what is supposed to be an objective comparison is an odd thing at best, and an element of subjectivity in general. There shouldn't be "bonus points" for anything in an objective test...ISO is ISO, you don't give an ISO score bonus points because some dot on a plot fell just barely inside of a particular "zone" and call it a win, while another dot on a plot fell just barely outside of a particular "zone", and call it a loss. Its not objective.
A bit rich since you seriously harassed me post after post for a while because DxO was so much better than me and that so much weight had to be given TO DXO.
[/quote]
Same as my point above, I was disputing your use of inaccurate source data (inconsistent photos taken with pre-release cameras) and claiming total accuracy in your own results. The thing that really irked me at the time, though, was how you immediately started the doomsday reports about how Canon had failed all of their customers and failed to live up to untold years of expectation, yadda yadda...based on numbers derived from inconsistent pre-release source data...regardless of whether it was backed up by renown scientists or not. I'd slam you again for the same reasons if you made the same premature, sensationalist claims again.
Regardless of how accurate they may have been in the end, the claim was a bit bogus, and my point about DxO at the time was that they never used a random, inconsistent set of source data to produce their numbers...they used very carefully produced images and a consistent process to produce consistent results (which, despite my current misgivings about DxO's new results for the D800, I still adhere to.) Within their model, their results are consistent...but I have some problems with how they have rated the D800 and given it what I believe are some unrealistic ratings (not everything, but a couple things.) Its hard to trust results when trust has been broken with what seem to be bogus numbers like 14.4 stops DR from a 14-bit camera, or giving some "bonus points" and a win to an ISO score when the competition was only fractionally worse. Sketchy, and worth disputing and discussing, at the very least.
And, in the end...it doesn't matter. Its clear that, despite its technological inferiority, however major or minor any given individual may wish to construe those inferiorities, the 5D III takes awesome photographs. Its clear that both the D800 and 5D III take awesome photographs. So, in the end...real-world results trump technological inferiority.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
