DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

[K-amps]

We all know about TTL mode, but Nikon cameras, with their perfect sensors, can also shoot in TTLC mode (through the lens cap). :

;D ;D ;D

 

[lola]

It's very retarded to deny the difference between the two cameras. Even if I was a Canon shareholder and someone from Nikon's board of directors murdered my whole family, I wouldn't try to justify recent Canon sensors.

I've been shooting with Canon since '96. You too? Great, enjoy, but there's no need to do injustice to Nikon.

 

[K-amps]

This is getting a bit boring now... a typical outdoors will have a DR of 18-21 stops... so Guess what... the Nikon won't be able to capture it either... so even if you can pee a bit farther, so what?

 

[RLPhoto]

:|

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I had NOT paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice.
And take notice is the only thing I can do as I have Mr. X, 3 and whole bunch or lenses already.
I was happily cruising along and then I see these photos...

So...one guy takes a few pictures with a specific agenda in mind, deliberately choosing an exposure that is not optimal (and not just a little off - several stops underexposed), and then processes them in ways which may be totally irrelevant to your images, and that makes you doubt your decision to shoot with Canon gear?

I agree with neuro, Michael is definitely doing something wrong in his processing. Look at my 7D example of recovery and that's not even the best sensor around but easily recovered by NR and good enough for a full-res prints.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9570.180

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/36865463
10 stops underexposure from a Pentax with Sony inside

Only a clot would underexpose 10-stops. :

But it works, and doesn't with a Canon

Then shoot pentax and underexpose all your picture's 10 stops if you like.

while real photog's will continue to get correct exposures, since the days of the wet plates to ansel adams to modern digital.

I don't know if anyone has informed you that in the end, the camera doesn't matter. The fleshy device behind the camera matters and how it will get the most of a camera. BTW, where's your portfolio?

:
You do realize that Ansel Adams was the guy who went to almost crazy lengths to get the right sort of film and would spend endless hours in the lab to extend and manipulate DR as best as he could and was not just an artist but about as interest in the tech side too as you could get and that he was interested in the tech side not just for tech alone but also because of the practical implications for his real world shooting....


And it actually is nice to be able to rescue a blown shot if need be no? But also keep in mind, that it is only a little bit about that, mostly people are talking about wanting more DR while at the same time exposing as they had hoped for the scene....

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If you were to underexpose by another two or three stops, neither camera would deliver useful results - so following some of the logic in this thread everyone should just give up taking pictures period



Here we have another statement: If you were to underexpose by another two or three stops, neither camera would deliver useful results

then you have not seen my and others' demonstration of the D7000, D800
it works very well to under expose these cameras in Raw and I have shown stepping from 100 iso to 1600iso = 4 stops and then do the correction in CR. try to do that with a canon

You are still missing the point of argument here, though. Yes, it does work well to underexpose those cameras by four stops, then lift the shadows in post. But doing so is an unrealistic test from a real-world standpoint. All it tells you is that IF someone were to accidentally expose their scene incorrectly by a HUGE amount (some 16x incorrectly), then they would have a greater ability to recover. Purposely underexposing by four stops for the purpose of comparing cameras is also an unrealistic real-world comparison.

It does exhibit an issue with how Canon sensors produce read noise...probably thanks to their Bias Offset and the use of negative value readout...which inevitably results in useful image data having half negative values being mixed in with FPN and HVBN noise present in the electronics of the sensor itself.

But repeatedly trotting out -4EV photos lifted +4EV in post as an example of good IQ is just inane. It is entirely unrealistic, as the only time someone MIGHT actually need to do something along those lines would be when they *accidentally* underexposed. Assuming someone did...well, no question that having a D800 is the better camera to support nearly considerable restoration of exposure. No matter what you do, though, a -4EV underexposure on ANY camera is going to cost you in other ways. It will cost you in contrast, final image dynamic range, color fidelity, etc. etc. If you only use the bottom 5% of the sensors hardware DR, you only have 5% of the total DR to work with in post. The only difference between Canon and Exmor sensors is that Exmor sensors are usable in such a scenario, where as Canon's are not. But its a scenario that MIGHT affect real-world photographers less than 1% of the time at most, when they screw something up...it shouldn't be a normal tactic for any photographer. As such, no photographers are going to experience the kinds of extreme pattern noise you guys cook up in your incredibly unrealistic "comparison" photos on a regular basis.

You are missing the point that some scenes NATURALLY have enough DR that if you expose to not blow bright areas that you don't want blown out then the dark areas would be that dark.

What is the freaking big deal with just admitting Exmor sensors have more DR and that it can be useful both save one of messed up shots and, much more often, to allow you to expand your photographic possibilities, or even to simply save time in post processing at times and drop it all? Why do so many have to make up lies about DxO? I've shot nothing but Canon since I was a little kid and I can admit it.

Would you rather we all deny it and praise Canon and tell Canon we don't care since it doesn't matter and then have Canon be like hey why bother? Or would you rather the 5D4 maybe has the better low ISO DR??? The people you are hurting most are CANON users and yourselves, us, not Nikon users.

Yeah it's not absolutely the end of the world, if it was I would have already switched to Nikon, but for now I am using a 5D3 and yeah there a tons of shots that it can do perfectly, an almost infinite number, so I focus on those for now and struggle to fix up some others. But it still isn't hard for me to hit situations where I am like man if it only it had exmor low ISO performance, man, man, man. Eventually, if Canon thinks we don't care, and never changes I will switch to Nikon, but I'd really rather not, for a number of reasons, but I will if I have to. I just hope I don't and you are not helping us any (or helping to educate anyone when you constantly give out mixed-up misleading information on normalization).

 

[RLPhoto]

I had NOT paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice.
And take notice is the only thing I can do as I have Mr. X, 3 and whole bunch or lenses already.
I was happily cruising along and then I see these photos...

So...one guy takes a few pictures with a specific agenda in mind, deliberately choosing an exposure that is not optimal (and not just a little off - several stops underexposed), and then processes them in ways which may be totally irrelevant to your images, and that makes you doubt your decision to shoot with Canon gear?

I agree with neuro, Michael is definitely doing something wrong in his processing. Look at my 7D example of recovery and that's not even the best sensor around but easily recovered by NR and good enough for a full-res prints.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9570.180

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/36865463
10 stops underexposure from a Pentax with Sony inside

Only a clot would underexpose 10-stops. :

But it works, and doesn't with a Canon

Then shoot pentax and underexpose all your picture's 10 stops if you like.

while real photog's will continue to get correct exposures, since the days of the wet plates to ansel adams to modern digital.

I don't know if anyone has informed you that in the end, the camera doesn't matter. The fleshy device behind the camera matters and how it will get the most of a camera. BTW, where's your portfolio?

:
You do realize that Ansel Adams was the guy who went to almost crazy lengths to get the right sort of film and would spend endless hours in the lab to extend and manipulate DR as best as he could and was not just an artist but about as interest in the tech side too as you could get and that he was interested in the tech side not just for tech alone but also because of the practical implications for his real world shooting....


And it actually is nice to be able to rescue a blown shot if need be no? But also keep in mind, that it is only a little bit about that, mostly people are talking about wanting more DR while at the same time exposing as they had hoped for the scene....

Yes, but Ansel Adams would have gotten his exposure correct (Not 10 stops underexposed) and processed for DR. He also used filters to achieve the DR he wanted, and not solely on his film to capture all the range he needed.

Everyone knows the nikon sensor has more DR, but its not like the canon sensors are as bad as other make them to be. IE: the 7D file I posted earlier.

Michael tests show noise like I've never seen before in my canon cameras, which makes me question the validity of the said persons tests & creditials.

 

[RLPhoto]

your post is not even worth it to respond to, and Ansel Adams put a lot of work in the copying as it is mention earlier

Ansel Adams wouldn't have missed his exposure by 10 stop's. :

 

[dtaylor]

What is the freaking big deal with just admitting Exmor sensors have more DR and that it can be useful both save one of messed up shots and, much more often, to allow you to expand your photographic possibilities, or even to simply save time in post processing at times and drop it all?

Without sorting through this entire mess of a thread...

* Exmor sensors do have more DR, and it can be useful.

* Exmor sensors do not have the amount of excess DR being claimed by fans or DxO.

* Canon sensors are not as limited as they are claimed to be by Exmor fans.

* The impact on one's photography is simply not as great as claimed by Exmor fans.

* The number of posts on this topic have far exceeded reason.

Canon users underexpose and then lift shadows all the time. I've done this with countless Canon RAW files. In ACR (Photoshop CS4) I am not limited by noise until about 60-70 on the Fill Light slider. With an Exmor sensor I could take that slider to 100. It would be nice. But it's not worth 20 page threads.

In terms of DR and impact on my photography, getting an 8 fps camera (my first 7D) had a greater impact on my shooting than an Exmor sensor would. Before that I could not easily hand hold 3 AEB frames for exposure blending / HDR. Now I regularly do this and AEB is on my user menu. When I do this I obtain greater DR then you could hope to achieve with a single Exmor frame. Which is good, because the scenes I use it with have a greater DR then an Exmor sensor could achieve in one frame. I don't know where the exact cut off is in terms of shooting speed and ability to hand hold for 3 identical frames, but I could never do it consistently before the 7D.

Do you see any 20 page threads from me about this technique? Do you see me constantly telling people with slower cameras that their cameras are trash? Do you see me berating Nikon because they can't achieve 8 fps, outside of their super expensive pro sports body, without battery grips and compromised bit depth? Do I flood the forum with comments about how Nikon users should not tolerate their crummy drive motors, crummy 12-bit limitations in high speed shooting, or Nikon's laziness in allowing Canon to out fps them?

No. And do you know why you don't see page after page of this from me?

Because it would be ridiculous.

So is this Exmor nonsense. Right now Sony sensors have lower read noise and Sony has a patent on the technique. It results in a little bit more DR. The advantage will be there until Canon works around the patent or licenses it. Or possibly until other advances in sensor fabrication render the point moot. How much more needs to be said about it?

Why do so many have to make up lies about DxO?

Nobody is "making up lies" about DxO. DxO's methodology is flawed. So is their presentation. They publish IQ scores all over the place, but tuck away the note that says you can't compare scores between sensors of different resolutions. Then they produced normalized scores with obviously flawed normalization (i.e. >14 stops DR from a 14-bit pipeline).

Would you rather we all deny it and praise Canon and tell Canon we don't care since it doesn't matter and then have Canon be like hey why bother? Or would you rather the 5D4 maybe has the better low ISO DR???

Whether or not the 5D4 has better DR has nothing to do with these stupid threads, and everything to do with their engineers. I have little doubt they are working on it.

But it still isn't hard for me to hit situations where I am like man if it only it had exmor low ISO performance, man, man, man.

Your imagination is always greater than the real difference. I see this all the time in photography. People are always saying "man if I only had X or Y", not realizing they can do whatever they want with what they already have.

I just hope I don't and you are not helping us any (or helping to educate anyone when you constantly give out mixed-up misleading information on normalization).

What makes you think it's other people giving out "misleading information"?

 

[RLPhoto]

your post is not even worth it to respond to, and Ansel Adams put a lot of work in the copying as it is mention earlier

Ansel Adams wouldn't have missed his exposure by 10 stop's. :

NOPE but a Pentax guy shows it is possible to do it with a Sony sensor and get a fair results by doing that

You missed the point, don't miss your exposure.

I already demonstrated from a measly 7D+10-22mm combo when properly exposed and processed, the photo is great and printable at full-res 300 DPI.

I could do the same on a 3 MP D30, I could do it on a 4X5 view camera, I could do it on my Yashica MAt-124G. Thats because

I GET MY EXPOSURE RIGHT!

 

[dtaylor]

read earlier answer, you must get your exposure" more right because of inferior DR and exposure latitude in Canon"
try to understand the difference and if you expose them "right" (same parameters) you have 14 stops DR in Nikon d800 and about 11,5 stops in Canon , not including pattern noise/banding

Yep. Nikon has perfect ADCs with perfect performance and efficiency that yield data right up to their rated bit depth, something not seen any where else in the industry, not even in components for NASA and the Defense Department :

Mikael - go to Nikon. Please.

 

[RLPhoto]

read earlier answer, you must get your exposure" more right because of inferior DR and exposure latitude in Canon"
try to understand the difference and if you expose them "right" (same parameters) you have 14 stops DR in Nikon d800 and about 11,5 stops in Canon , including pattern noise/banding

PS some people was accusing me to use bold letters a week ago . luck above, what was that?

Do you have any real photos taken by yourself with your nikon cameras showing the vast superiority over canon cameras when properly exposed and processed?

Please show me some of your work which would be limited if you shot canon exclusively. Only then may you gain any of my respect lost for you and possibly give your words some weight to others here as well. (This doesn't include test charts and color test's)

 

[nightbreath]

read earlier answer, you must get your exposure" more right because of inferior DR and exposure latitude in Canon"

This might be true... unless someone with a Canon camera gets better images than those who are screaming about Canon sensors inability to capture good images. Or are you able to show real world example (an art-piece) created with an Exmor sensor that couldn't be done with other camera?

I shoot with a Canon camera, simply because I know how to use it

 

[RLPhoto]

read earlier answer, you must get your exposure" more right because of inferior DR and exposure latitude in Canon"
try to understand the difference and if you expose them "right" (same parameters) you have 14 stops DR in Nikon d800 and about 11,5 stops in Canon , including pattern noise/banding

PS some people was accusing me to use bold letters a week ago . luck above, what was that?

Do you have any real photos taken by yourself with your nikon cameras showing the vast superiority over canon cameras when properly exposed and processed?

Please show me some of your work which would be limited if you shot canon exclusively. Only then may you gain any of my respect lost for you and possibly give your words some weight to others here as well. (This doesn't include test charts and color test's)

google at my name ,and a specialty that I am special proud of is my medical images .

Funny, All I found was more test charts. Any real photos Michael?

Please link us as I'm sure we're all very interested. ;D

 

[RLPhoto]

read earlier answer, you must get your exposure" more right because of inferior DR and exposure latitude in Canon"
try to understand the difference and if you expose them "right" (same parameters) you have 14 stops DR in Nikon d800 and about 11,5 stops in Canon , including pattern noise/banding

PS some people was accusing me to use bold letters a week ago . luck above, what was that?

Do you have any real photos taken by yourself with your nikon cameras showing the vast superiority over canon cameras when properly exposed and processed?

Please show me some of your work which would be limited if you shot canon exclusively. Only then may you gain any of my respect lost for you and possibly give your words some weight to others here as well. (This doesn't include test charts and color test's)

google at my name ,and a specialty that I am special proud of is my medical images .

Funny, All I found was more test charts. Any real photos Michael?

Please link us as I'm sure we're all very interested. ;D

Google again, there are many of them

Test charts, Picassa and Dpreview <---- Which BTW your trolling as well.

Thats an interesting photo, but I believe the canon system would provide an Identical result. ;D

 

[RLPhoto]

read earlier answer, you must get your exposure" more right because of inferior DR and exposure latitude in Canon"
try to understand the difference and if you expose them "right" (same parameters) you have 14 stops DR in Nikon d800 and about 11,5 stops in Canon , including pattern noise/banding

PS some people was accusing me to use bold letters a week ago . luck above, what was that?

Do you have any real photos taken by yourself with your nikon cameras showing the vast superiority over canon cameras when properly exposed and processed?

Please show me some of your work which would be limited if you shot canon exclusively. Only then may you gain any of my respect lost for you and possibly give your words some weight to others here as well. (This doesn't include test charts and color test's)

google at my name ,and a specialty that I am special proud of is my medical images .

Funny, All I found was more test charts. Any real photos Michael?

Please link us as I'm sure we're all very interested. ;D

Google again, there are many of them

Test charts, Picassa and Dpreview <---- Which BTW your trolling as well.

Thats an interesting photo, but I believe the canon system would provide an Identical result. ;D

who has sad otherwise? and be stringent with what we are discussing

Please show me some of your work which would be limited if you shot canon exclusively.

 

[Loswr]

a specialty that I am special proud of is my medical images .

As someone who taught Gross Anatomy and Neuroanatomy to medical students for 8 years, I appreciate the content - thanks for sharing!

What I don't see is anything that suggests your images have a wide dynamic range in the scene, such that a sensor with a broader DR would be of any meaningful benefit, whatsoever.

 

[Loswr]

Ok, I found this:

 

[Loswr]

can we discuss Canons sensors now?

Sure. But you seem far more interested in discussing Nikon's sensors.

 

[RLPhoto]

Mikael Risedal...

Honestly, I didn't see anything there on that search that couldn't be done on a canon d30.