DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

[Loswr]

did you become a little more humble now, and the work you have done in neuroscience research
give me a link please to the paper. I have worked with medical photography/ research since 1984.

Not really, no. But you were the one clamoring for relevance, and posting my full CV (with dozens of peer-reviewed papers and a few book chapters) really isn't relevant. Not to mention that I have an aversion to posting my full name and contact into to a forum replete with trolls who seem willing to go to great lengths to argue their version of the truth. I do post a link to my photographs, in the signature of every post I make here.

Ok, I found this:

you show up as much knowledge in googling as you do here, facts please facts

So, it's not a fact that you posted the above image to DPR? Perhaps someone is impersonating you?

 

[dtaylor]

And yes Im intresting to discuss why Canon are sleeping regarding DR , they have not improved that much since 2004

I've shot surfing...where you cannot blend multiple frames...on Canon DSLRs since 2004. Canon DR has improved by at least 2 stops over that time period.

 

[dtaylor]

Honestley the pictures you have seen do not need a lot of DR when the purpose is press but Dynamic range may be needed for annual reports, glossy magazines, etc and you have not a clue what the benfits of large DR and exposure latitude are -do you and I have now been showing that a number of times

You haven't shown anything. Please post an example of a photograph that can be taken with an Exmor sensor but not a Canon sensor.

Better yet, check out the Galen Rowell archives (http://www.mountainlight.com/). He produced that body of work with films that had 3-5 stops lower DR then a modern Canon DSLR.

Looks like he got his exposure right ;D

 

[dtaylor]

Nope.
In JPG Canon claims a lot

Yes. My assertion is not based on Canon's claims, but on comparing literally hundreds of frames chosen for use out of thousands of frames fired. I see the same thing comparing single frame landscapes.

RAW saw a good 2 stop improvement. HTP brought a similar improvement to JPEG.

It has been claimed in this thread that Canon users are ignoring/denying that Exmor sensors have wider DR. Here you are denying that Canon has made any improvements in 8 years when they most certainly have.

 

[dtaylor]

Respond to me with facts.

No, you respond with facts. That's how this works because you are the one touting huge advantages for Exmor sensors. Where's your evidence? Where are your examples?

 

[tnargs]

....<<to neuroanatomist, repeatedly>>...a link please to your scientific papers

Mikael, that is inappropriate and I think you should stop it. Everyone here is entitled to (a) their opinion, and (b) their anonymity if they choose it.

Discussions here can develop on the weight of the information and argument presented; there is no need to rely on the weight of authority. To do so would be short-cut thinking, relying on circumstantial evidence rather than the evidence itself.

 

[dtaylor]

go back and read

More DxO derived used dog food. The 20D was not an 11 stop camera.

Do you have those Exmor photos for us to review yet?

 

[dtaylor]

....<<to neuroanatomist, repeatedly>>...a link please to your scientific papers

Mikael, that is inappropriate and I think you should stop it. Everyone here is entitled to (a) their opinion, and (b) their anonymity if they choose it.

Discussions here can develop on the weight of the information and argument presented; there is no need to rely on the weight of authority. To do so would be short-cut thinking, relying on circumstantial evidence rather than the evidence itself.

+9,001

Let's see comparison photos with correct exposures where the Exmor file produces the award winning print and the Canon file goes into the trash. Everything else is irrelevant.

Side note: why is everything in photography like this? Why are small differences magnified and argued endlessly? The same exact pattern occurs in FF vs. crop, lens A vs. lens B, brand A vs. brand B. In the film days it was film A vs. film B. I've even seen this nonsense in discussions of tripods!

If you think there's a huge, just huge difference between A and B, do yourself this favor: produce the same image with A and with B. Print them to 20". Ask 20 people to tell you which is better or if they are the same. Listen to the results.

 

[RLPhoto]

Mikael Risedal...

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

Honestley the pictures you have seen do not need a lot of DR when the purpose is press but Dynamic range may be needed for annual reports, glossy magazines, etc and you have not a clue what the benfits of large DR and exposure latitude are -do you and I have now been showing that a number of times

I print often on UV coated papers, Kodak papers, Fuji papers, canvas, etc. so I do know how to print on the mediums I need.

You still haven't shown me any of your work that the canon camera limit's you in.

While it's interesting to discuss the nikon vs canon argument, it becomes dis-tasteful to discuss with someonw like yourself.

Which claims to be a pro for over 20 years yet, has no body of work behind it.

Which of portfolio consists mostly of test charts and 100% crops of noise samples.

Which has no logic or reasoning behind they're arguments and who bash honest forum users from Dpreview to canonrumors with information we already know.

You are the pinnacle of what is declared as a measurabator in the camera world.

Congrats, you've earned it.

Once again, I'll post my 7D example of a properly exposed & processed file. On your file below mine, You should be able to pull the same recovery as my image.

 

[MarkII]

Discussions here can develop on the weight of the information and argument presented; there is no need to rely on the weight of authority. To do so would be short-cut thinking, relying on circumstantial evidence rather than the evidence itself.

Well, that would be nice, wouldn't it.

This should be an interesting subject, because quantifying and understanding the sensor performance is the starting point to getting the best from it. Unfortunately, too many people here are incapable of contributing unless any metric shows that their purchase/favourite company is shown to be the best.

And to the people persist in claiming that you can not increase bit depth above the RAW file encoding level by downsampling, I suggest that you go back and read some of the references posted here about signal processing. If you really think it is impossible then you should post the mathematical analysis that shows it to be so (particularly since this would stop half of the electronics that you regularly use from working - for example see the Wikipedia articles about sampling theory and the use of oversampling to increase resolution, including the examples that show how down-sampling data can be used to increase resolution/DR).

 

[dtaylor]

and yes d20 was a 11 stops camera

Yes or no: did you ever own a 20D?

If so, show me some 11 stop photos. If not, then we're done discussing this point. I have way too much experience struggling to get the range I wanted with the early xxD bodies, then getting it with less or no effort with the 7D, to debate this with someone reading graphs.

 

[Loswr]

neuroanatomist

[size=12pt]I have shown a link to some of my photos at the web, now Im interesting in your science work - a link please[/size]

you seem to question my credibility and want to ridicule me with your comments , now I ask you about yours credibility

No.

Because:

1) It is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

2) I choose not to disclose personally identifying information.

and most importantly, to be blunt,

3) I really don't give a crap what you think about my credibility.

You can go on pushing your same agenda until everyone else grows as bored with it as I have become (which I admit is unlikely, since those who go trolling with inflammatory bait in the Internet waters invariably find many who will bite), or until the mods take additional steps. Personally, I'm done with you.

 

[dtaylor]

Once again, I'll post my 7D example of a properly exposed & processed file. On your file below mine, You should be able to pull the same recovery as my image.

OH NOES! U CANNOT DO TATZ WITH TEH CANONZ! ;D

Nice sample and point well demonstrated.

 

[dtaylor]

here you go, same exposure, time, f-stop and base iso , exposed equally so no highlight are cut in the sky and clouds and then adjustes so we can see the landscape. My d800 to the left and one of mine 5dmk2

I don't see noise/banding that bad with a crop body and the slider pushed to 100%.

Please provide the RAW files for analysis.

 

[dtaylor]

This should be an interesting subject, because quantifying and understanding the sensor performance is the starting point to getting the best from it. Unfortunately, too many people here are incapable of contributing unless any metric shows that their purchase/favourite company is shown to be the best.

Oh please. I don't see a single Canon user here denying that there's some DR advantage to Exmor sensors. The question is how much, and how much difference does it make in the real world.

If you really think it is impossible then you should post the mathematical analysis that shows it to be so

No. Theory bends to observation, never the other way around. I think I posted this in another thread, so I'll post it again here: try drum scanning a 4x5 frame of Velvia, a 6 stop film, and then down sampling it to 8 MP, which is the DxO normalization. Tell us if 3 more stops of shadow detail magically appear, which is what DxO's formula predicts.

My prediction from years of scanning film: you will end up with a 6 stop, 8 MP file.

The problem is in the definition of DR. You're using theories that are only concerned with white and black points. But photographers are interested in usable photographic detail. Down sampling may reduce noise and therefore make your blacks blacker. But it doesn't magically open up shadows and produce details that were never there.

I will concede that down sampling can reduce noise thereby making a print of already existing detail acceptable, where if the noise were still there you might clip levels to black and discard the noise and detail. But it doesn't produce detail where there is none. It doesn't magically allow a 14-bit pipeline to yield more than 14 stops of real photographic detail. It won't even get it to 14 stops because in the real world ADC pipelines are not perfectly efficient.

BTW - Imaging Resource measured the D800 to 13.3 stops vs the 5D3 at 12.5. I trust their methodology a whole heck of a lot more than DxO's.

 

[dtaylor]

and yes d20 was a 11 stops camera

Yes or no: did you ever own a 20D?

If so, show me some 11 stop photos. If not, then we're done discussing this point.

Yes, I have owned most of Canon SLR cameras and it is well documented, search on my name and tests of various canon cameras.

So you have real world, 11 stop, 20D photographs to post here, yes?

 

[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....

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.

1. Do you understand the concept of what a demonstration is?
2. Do you understand that you can have the exact same problem when you expose something so that the bright parts are exposed as far to the right as can be?
3. Plenty of others have seen noise like that at times. If you don't trust him then what about the Fred Miranda tests???

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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. :

1. He would have if he was trying to show a quick, simple demonstration of the difference between two film stocks.
2. How many times does it have to be said that it's not even close to being all about fixing shots where something went wrong???

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

finally

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

false

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

They are not limited overall and can do great with many scenes, as almost all of us have said, but they are that much more limited at lower ISOs in higher DR scenes. For some that won't matter ever, for some only super rarely, for some from time to time, for some a fair amount, for some often. It hardly means you toss your Canon body into the swamp and then bash it with a sledgehammer but it sure would be nice if Canon paid attention to DR having not improved it for more than half a decade now.

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

Most of us have been saying it depends. YOu can take a nearly infinite # of photos were it won't matter at all or much. OTOH it's easy to find shots where it could help a lot too.
It's not the end of the world by any remote means but it is, real world, a lot nicer of a thing to have than many of the pure fanboys try to make it sound too.

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

Do note that most of the recent posts have been started by the DxO are liars, exmor is whatever crowd though.
Some of the same crowd goes on raves about how far behind Nikon was when Canon beats them by like just 1/2 stop SNR is a huge win that trashes Nikon and then says more than 3 stops difference at low ISO is very minor, too minor to even bother about at all.

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).

1. Most of us have said to ignore their overall scores and look at their charts and plenty try to pick apart and bash their charts.
2. There you go again, along with Jrista, and not having a clue about how normalization works and spreading misinformation.

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.

Did you know that another division of Canon sent a patent for better DR to the DSLR division and got told to get lost, DR, what?, why? bye. Apparently they didn't even let their engineers look at it! So maybe they do need to be woken up.

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.

really so I could have fit every high DR shot, that could not be done by fps or tripod work etc. if only I had freed my mind to possibilities and sang some songs?

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"?

[/quote]

Because some of you are totally wrong about some of the stuff you have been saying, especially when it gets to normalization and some other related topics.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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!

How many times do people have to say it's not about getting the exposure right! What if the scene, with bright parts not clipped off, does not fit above the noise floor? Then you get something exposed as ideally as possible that still won't work out so well unless various filters, multiple frames are possible and work out for the scene, sometimes that stuff works and sometimes not.