DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

[LetTheRightLensIn]

But this thread is about low ISO DR.

Is it? Why? Is it because everyone shoots at ISO 100 all the time? Or because DxO bases their Score on ISO 100? :

Well it is 26 pages and 25.5 have so far been about ISO100 or close to that so.... :

And the relevant thing is someone was trying to directly compare ISO25k to ISO100 which doesn't make sense.

 

[rpt]

But this thread is about low ISO DR.

Is it? Why? Is it because everyone shoots at ISO 100 all the time? Or because DxO bases their Score on ISO 100? :

Well it is 26 pages and 25.5 have so far been about ISO100 or close to that so.... :

And the relevant thing is someone was trying to directly compare ISO25k to ISO100 which doesn't make sense.

Well, I did a ISO 200 shot because it went to 30 sec at f4 with EC at 0 and it came out better than the ones I posted. so I wont post it unless you think you must see it. Next stop 100 ISO... I dont see noise at 200! And I will post later to show you. But, I must be doing something different from you chaps not to see noise. What is it? Is it the exposure getting enough photons in the buckets? So I have an idea for the 100 iso. Let me get to that now.

 

[rpt]

OK, Here is the ISO 100 image. I is better than others so I think I am surely not doing something you guys are doing. Sorry but can you tell me the "exact" steps to repro the problem? Obviously shooting a decent exposure is not working... Here is the image:

img708.imageshack.us/i/budha100raw.jpg

The light was very low. No lighting switched on in the room where I shot. Some light coming in the room from two other rooms and none of it on the Buddha... Some light coming in from a window opposite but not enough for a human to figure the shape...

Look forward to your inputs.

Rustom

 

[Loswr]

OK, Here is the ISO 100 image. I is better than others so I think I am surely not doing something you guys are doing. Sorry but can you tell me the "exact" steps to repro the problem? Obviously shooting a decent exposure is not working...

You're shooting the metered exposure? If so, that's the problem... or rather that's why there is no problem. If you want to create the problem, you must underexpose by four stops or so (your image should be nearly all black), then push the exposure back up by those four stops in post. Oh, and be sure to take the absolute darkest part of that image, and view that at 100%. And that's all you have to do to see horrible noise and banding in your images. It's just that easy.

 

[rpt]

OK, Here is the ISO 100 image. I is better than others so I think I am surely not doing something you guys are doing. Sorry but can you tell me the "exact" steps to repro the problem? Obviously shooting a decent exposure is not working...

You're shooting the metered exposure? If so, that's the problem... or rather that's why there is no problem. If you want to create the problem, you must underexpose by four stops or so (your image should be nearly all black), then push the exposure back up by those four stops in post. Oh, and be sure to take the absolute darkest part of that image, and view that at 100%. And that's all you have to do to see horrible noise and banding in your images. It's just that easy.

So I should either create a situation where the DR in the scene exceeds the DR of the camera or deliberately underexpose?

Huh!

 

[RLPhoto]

OK, Here is the ISO 100 image. I is better than others so I think I am surely not doing something you guys are doing. Sorry but can you tell me the "exact" steps to repro the problem? Obviously shooting a decent exposure is not working... Here is the image:

The light was very low. No lighting switched on in the room where I shot. Some light coming in the room from two other rooms and none of it on the Buddha... Some light coming in from a window opposite but not enough for a human to figure the shape...

Look forward to your inputs.

Rustom

Thats because you got your exposure correct. ;D

 

[rpt]

OK, Here is the ISO 100 image. I is better than others so I think I am surely not doing something you guys are doing. Sorry but can you tell me the "exact" steps to repro the problem? Obviously shooting a decent exposure is not working... Here is the image:

The light was very low. No lighting switched on in the room where I shot. Some light coming in the room from two other rooms and none of it on the Buddha... Some light coming in from a window opposite but not enough for a human to figure the shape...

Look forward to your inputs.

Rustom

Thats because you got your exposure correct. ;D

Shoot! and I paid over $4200 for that! Bad me!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

But this thread is about low ISO DR.

Is it? Why? Is it because everyone shoots at ISO 100 all the time? Or because DxO bases their Score on ISO 100? :

Well it is 26 pages and 25.5 have so far been about ISO100 or close to that so.... :

And the relevant thing is someone was trying to directly compare ISO25k to ISO100 which doesn't make sense.

Well, I did a ISO 200 shot because it went to 30 sec at f4 with EC at 0 and it came out better than the ones I posted. so I wont post it unless you think you must see it. Next stop 100 ISO... I dont see noise at 200! And I will post later to show you. But, I must be doing something different from you chaps not to see noise. What is it? Is it the exposure getting enough photons in the buckets? So I have an idea for the 100 iso. Let me get to that now.

You must be shooting scenes where the DR more easily fits than the ones he was. For many scenes that will be the case, but he is talking about the ones with really large DR.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

That scene has low DR so it all fits well and there is no noise issue at all. Low light doesn't mean anything regarding the dynamic range of a scene, with flat lighting like that it will often be low.

You need something where you like sun shining brightly on a light object, then you expose so as to not blow that out and then if there are important details in really dark parts of the scene that is when you can get into trouble. It's when there are really bright and really dark parts in the same scene that the trouble occurs. You either expose it to get nice noise free detail in the darker parts and then the bright stuff gets blown out to nothing or you expose to save the bright parts and then the dark parts are a mess (if the range of brightness between the two is large enough).

OK, Here is the ISO 100 image. I is better than others so I think I am surely not doing something you guys are doing. Sorry but can you tell me the "exact" steps to repro the problem? Obviously shooting a decent exposure is not working... Here is the image:

img708.imageshack.us/i/budha100raw.jpg

The light was very low. No lighting switched on in the room where I shot. Some light coming in the room from two other rooms and none of it on the Buddha... Some light coming in from a window opposite but not enough for a human to figure the shape...

Look forward to your inputs.

Rustom

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

OK, Here is the ISO 100 image. I is better than others so I think I am surely not doing something you guys are doing. Sorry but can you tell me the "exact" steps to repro the problem? Obviously shooting a decent exposure is not working...

You're shooting the metered exposure? If so, that's the problem... or rather that's why there is no problem. If you want to create the problem, you must underexpose by four stops or so (your image should be nearly all black), then push the exposure back up by those four stops in post. Oh, and be sure to take the absolute darkest part of that image, and view that at 100%. And that's all you have to do to see horrible noise and banding in your images. It's just that easy.

Perhaps if you shot more landscapes and forest scenes or scenes with large DR you'd really that is really IS just that easy and maybe not be quite so flip about it all. Again you can shoot billions of types of shots without issue but you can also find millions where it would be a bit of trouble, some of them you can then save by using special filters or multiple shots or hours of post processing but there are many where that stuff won't work. So it's hardly the end of the world, but it's hardly something to just totally laugh off either and make seems the height of silliness and absurdity.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

OK, Here is the ISO 100 image. I is better than others so I think I am surely not doing something you guys are doing. Sorry but can you tell me the "exact" steps to repro the problem? Obviously shooting a decent exposure is not working...

You're shooting the metered exposure? If so, that's the problem... or rather that's why there is no problem. If you want to create the problem, you must underexpose by four stops or so (your image should be nearly all black), then push the exposure back up by those four stops in post. Oh, and be sure to take the absolute darkest part of that image, and view that at 100%. And that's all you have to do to see horrible noise and banding in your images. It's just that easy.

So I should either create a situation where the DR in the scene exceeds the DR of the camera or deliberately underexpose?

Huh!

Yes, case 1 is the one that most are going on about, when the DR is too much for the sensor, but case 2 certainly doesn't hurt, I mean everyone has had some one of shot they can't retake and for some reason the exposure got way underexposed by accident, who wouldn't want to be able to better rescue it? But the main point is for images that are exposed as you had wanted but still won't fit. Some people will hardly ever encounter that with the current Canon level of performance and it won't matter to them at all and then some will often and some only very here and there and some somewhat more often here and there and some a real lot, it depends.

I'd certainly prefer to be able to be open to all of the extra possibilities that shooting scenes with 3 more stops of DR allows for than not have those options.

 

[elflord]

I do dispute that you actually gain anything beneficial by downscaling a high megapixel image to a smaller size, in a real-world context

Actually, we agree here. When you downsample, you trade resolution for lower noise. You're not creating a higher quality image. Depending on the situation, it might or might not be a tradeoff you'd want to make.

Agreed. From the standpoint of normalizing noise to compare how noisy one sensor is vs. another (which is what I gather the DXO Print DR statistic is all about based on the arguments from you an LTRLI), then sure, you should be normalizing image size.

I'm glad we agree with this, because this is basically my whole point -- if you're comparing sensors, then you really should use the print measurement. If you're using the measurement for anything else, then the "screen" DR is as good (or better)

I can understand that from the perspective of having already picked the camera and wanting to measure its DR for purposes other than comparisons, parsimony rules, so I understand your preference for the per pixel score in this context.

But DxO are really in the business of publishing benchmarks that will be used for comparison purposes, which explains their emphasis.

 

[jrista]

I do dispute that you actually gain anything beneficial by downscaling a high megapixel image to a smaller size, in a real-world context

Actually, we agree here. When you downsample, you trade resolution for lower noise. You're not creating a higher quality image. Depending on the situation, it might or might not be a tradeoff you'd want to make.

Agreed. From the standpoint of normalizing noise to compare how noisy one sensor is vs. another (which is what I gather the DXO Print DR statistic is all about based on the arguments from you an LTRLI), then sure, you should be normalizing image size.

I'm glad we agree with this, because this is basically my whole point -- if you're comparing sensors, then you really should use the print measurement. If you're using the measurement for anything else, then the "screen" DR is as good (or better)

I can understand that from the perspective of having already picked the camera and wanting to measure its DR for purposes other than comparisons, parsimony rules, so I understand your preference for the per pixel score in this context.

But DxO are really in the business of publishing benchmarks that will be used for comparison purposes, which explains their emphasis.

Woot! We agree! We should party.

 

[tron]

What the above image has in common with an image like Mikael's which needs the shadows to be lifted?
The lighting was low but without heavy shadows and extreme highlights. It looks more like you deliberately avoided such a subject.

Why don't you shoot outside in the sun and include some harsh shadows and try to lift them so as to show details?

 

[Loswr]

neuroanatomist


how about to receive 4 raw files from me and 5dmk2 and d800, same parameters regarding time, f-stop and base iso and test for your self how it looks regarding DR, noise, or it to much work for you ?
And the same with 1dx and d800 regarding noise/banding in lower levels. ( I am calling your cards neuroanatomist and I will do that as long you are ridicules DXO or my findings regarding sensors DR, noise,QE and FWC. And the same to you Jrista) Im shore that this will be a new experience for you both here at CR.

You claim that you've been shooting professionally since 1984. Since he died in 1980, and Sweden is ~1200 km from Austria, I presume you've never met Dr. Hans Asperger. I wonder if you're familiar with the syndrome he described - the hallmarks are perseveration and poor social skills. Sorry, these non sequiturs slip out from time to time.

Clearly, you are failing to understand my point. Let me try one more time, despite the foreknowledge that it's almost certainly a futile effort. I don't want your RAW files. I don't need to be convinced that the D800 has broader DR than the 5DIII or 1D X - it does, no question. Whether its 1.5-stops or 3-stops isn't relevant to me - more is more, and I'm not ridiculing anything. My point is there is more to a good image than broad dynamic range. Does it help, for certain scenes? Yes. Is it necessary for every scene? No. Is it meaningless in some scenes? Yes. Would I like it if Canon sensors had more DR? Yes. Does that disadvantage outweigh all of the advantages that the Canon system has for me? No.

I believe that covers the salient points. Feel free to continue perseverating on this issue. I'm out.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

neuroanatomist


how about to receive 4 raw files from me and 5dmk2 and d800, same parameters regarding time, f-stop and base iso and test for your self how it looks regarding DR, noise, or it to much work for you ?
And the same with 1dx and d800 regarding noise/banding in lower levels. ( I am calling your cards neuroanatomist and I will do that as long you are ridicules DXO or my findings regarding sensors DR, noise,QE and FWC. And the same to you Jrista) Im shore that this will be a new experience for you both here at CR.

You claim that you've been shooting professionally since 1984. Since he died in 1980, and Sweden is ~1200 km from Austria, I presume you've never met Dr. Hans Asperger. I wonder if you're familiar with the syndrome he described - the hallmarks are perseveration and poor social skills. Sorry, these non sequiturs slip out from time to time.

Clearly, you are failing to understand my point. Let me try one more time, despite the foreknowledge that it's almost certainly a futile effort. I don't want your RAW files. I don't need to be convinced that the D800 has broader DR than the 5DIII or 1D X - it does, no question. Whether its 1.5-stops or 3-stops isn't relevant to me - more is more, and I'm not ridiculing anything. My point is there is more to a good image than broad dynamic range. Does it help, for certain scenes? Yes. Is it necessary for every scene? No. Is it meaningless in some scenes? Yes. Would I like it if Canon sensors had more DR? Yes. Does that disadvantage outweigh all of the advantages that the Canon system has for me? No.

I believe that covers the salient points. Feel free to continue perseverating on this issue. I'm out.

wow, you are one piece of work

(not that I disagree with the latter few technical parts of your msg there)

 

[Razor2012]

neuroanatomist


how about to receive 4 raw files from me and 5dmk2 and d800, same parameters regarding time, f-stop and base iso and test for your self how it looks regarding DR, noise, or it to much work for you ?
And the same with 1dx and d800 regarding noise/banding in lower levels. ( I am calling your cards neuroanatomist and I will do that as long you are ridicules DXO or my findings regarding sensors DR, noise,QE and FWC. And the same to you Jrista) Im shore that this will be a new experience for you both here at CR.

You claim that you've been shooting professionally since 1984. Since he died in 1980, and Sweden is ~1200 km from Austria, I presume you've never met Dr. Hans Asperger. I wonder if you're familiar with the syndrome he described - the hallmarks are perseveration and poor social skills. Sorry, these non sequiturs slip out from time to time.

Clearly, you are failing to understand my point. Let me try one more time, despite the foreknowledge that it's almost certainly a futile effort. I don't want your RAW files. I don't need to be convinced that the D800 has broader DR than the 5DIII or 1D X - it does, no question. Whether its 1.5-stops or 3-stops isn't relevant to me - more is more, and I'm not ridiculing anything. My point is there is more to a good image than broad dynamic range. Does it help, for certain scenes? Yes. Is it necessary for every scene? No. Is it meaningless in some scenes? Yes. Would I like it if Canon sensors had more DR? Yes. Does that disadvantage outweigh all of the advantages that the Canon system has for me? No.

I believe that covers the salient points. Feel free to continue perseverating on this issue. I'm out.

It's like saying that the only way to take good pictures is shooting high ISO.

 

[jrista]

neuroanatomist


how about to receive 4 raw files from me and 5dmk2 and d800, same parameters regarding time, f-stop and base iso and test for your self how it looks regarding DR, noise, or it to much work for you ?
And the same with 1dx and d800 regarding noise/banding in lower levels. ( I am calling your cards neuroanatomist and I will do that as long you are ridicules DXO or my findings regarding sensors DR, noise,QE and FWC. And the same to you Jrista) Im shore that this will be a new experience for you both here at CR.

Miakel, you've been a "new experience" from day one. Your atrocious spelling and grammar is always an entertaining moment. You can try to claim "language barrier", but for someone who hangs out on a forum riddled with good English spelling and grammar, you should have learned a few things by now.

Yes, I absolutely DO ridicule your findings. Your "findings" are nothing more special than vastly underexposing your photographs in order to purposely create the worst possible scenario for any camera. Been there, done that...and so has the entirety of DPReview, and everyone else who hates Canon. It's old news. Everyone knows Canon sensors have ugly read noise. The thing of it is...that noise only exists in the bottom 0.05% of the signal, so unless you stuff the entire exposure into that 0.05%, or avoid ETTR when it could resolve the issue...like you've purposely been doing...no one will EVER experience the kind of noise issues you are trying to "prove" exist to the degree you seem to think they do.

No one has disputed that Canon sensors are noisier than Exmor. For that matter, no would would dispute that Nikon sensors are noisier than Exmor, or that all MFD sensors are noiser than Exmore. Every bleeding sensor on the face of the planet except Exmor is worse than Exmor. There isn't any ground-breaking news there, Mikael. You seem to think you've "discovered" something astounding. You have not. Your just repeatedly regurgitating the same old junk, over and over, like a spewed on broken record.

You've also entirely missed the point of my arguments...again from day one. I'll admit I'm not one to be particularly eloquent most of the time, but I don't believe my arguments were particularly obscure. You seem to think I've been arguing that the D800 is not better than the 5D II, or 5D III, or 1D X, or any mashup of any number of new Nikon and Canon cameras released this year. I've never once argued that point. The point I've been arguing in general is that Canon cameras are not nearly as bad as the likes of you try to make them out to be. The point I've been arguing specifically in relation to DXOMark is that downscaling provides zero "benefit" in the grand scheme of things, thereby making an inflated "print dynamic range" or "landscape" score very misleading, and dangerously so (as it has and will continue to cause many gullible saps to dump their kit and jump ship when they have no need to.)

Neuro put it rather succinctly:

My point is there is more to a good image than broad dynamic range. Does it help, for certain scenes? Yes. Is it necessary for every scene? No. Is it meaningless in some scenes? Yes. Would I like it if Canon sensors had more DR? Yes.

That is the collective point of CR members. If you refuse to accept that is our point, that's your problem. Don't go demanding we accept your ridiculous test images and insane shadow lifting as anything remotely resembling realistic on the side, though.



If you want some more respect, Mikael, your going about getting it all wrong. For one, you don't simply demand it. Respect is earned. Second, learn how to write. You come off like a three year old, language barrier or no. Respectfully, if you are a reasonably intelligent person who truly is interested in being respected, it isn't that difficult to really READ other people's posts and learn from them. You should be able to correct your own grammar and spelling mistakes by now (especially given how many posts you make on DPReview.) Finally, if you want to be given respect, show some respect yourself. You've been a jackass from the day you showed up on this forum, hand-in-hand with another jackass, TheSuede, your bosom buddy. You two need to learn a little respect before you'll be given any respect. Stop dissing everyone, stop ridiculing everyone, stop belittling everyone, show some respect by being attentive to people's need to read proper grammar and spelling (bad spelling and grammar just require that readers work harder to figure out what the heck it is you are trying to say).

To be frank, I don't like you. You came off and continue to come off as a raging jerk, lacking even a shred of respect for anyone else around you (while concurrently demanding respect from everyone else...) I am a debater, I debate hard, but that doesn't mean I disrespect everyone around me. I just like to debate when I think a point merits it. You, and TheSuede, both come off as plain and simply mean at times. So to be clear...I don't really like you. You could change my opinion of you...but the ball is in your court. Oh, and don't simply respond to this with something inane, like "Only the facts! Give me facts!"...it wouldn't be a win for you if you did...

 

[jrista]

vem orkar läsa allt detta? vi kan ta det på svenska , god natt.

I love Chrome's "Translate to English" feature!

In English: who bothered to read all this? we can take it in Swedish, good night.

Nice evasion, Mikael. As I said, if you want respect, earn it. Evading that debate won't earn you anything. If you want to switch to Swedish, feel free...I have my trusty full-page translator at the ready. 8)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'd rather correct information presented in broken grammar than misleading information wonderfully presented with perfect grammar and spelling.... don't judge a book by its cover.