DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

[compupix]

Canon has some catching up to do with respect to sensor performance as measured by http://www.DxOMark.com. Canon doesn't even come close to the top performing Nikons. (High score is better.):

Pts Model
=======
96 Nikon D800E
95 Nikon D800
94 Nikon D600
81 Canon 5D III
79 Canon 5D II

(The Canon 1Dx is not yet rated.)
What are the chances that one of the reasons for the new sensor in the 6D is to catapult Canon's sensor performance into the mid 90's? I can't see Canon doing that considering the $3,500 EOS 5D III just came out and has a score of just 81. But Nikon's new $2,100 D600 kicks butt with a score of 94!

Sensor performance isn't everything... but, if I were to choose Nikon or Canon today, I wouldn't be choosing Canon.

 

[Canon-F1]

What are the chances that one of the reasons for the new sensor in the 6D is to catapult Canon's sensor performance into the mid 90's?

near zero i guess... at least i would not place a bet.

 

[Ricku]

I think the problem is that Canon simply can't improve their DR, not even if their life depended on it. They just don't know how to do it.. YET.

But I think that if we are lucky, they will catch up to Nikon's (Sony's) current sensor tech, by year 2015.

 

[Loswr]

Sensor performance isn't everything...

Not only not everything, but far less than even remotely close to everything. Consider all the glass the light must pass through before it even reaches the sensor.

Also consider that DxOMark is evaluating only the sensor, and also that their "Overall Score" is composite of three arbitrarily chosen "Use Case Scores" that are combined in a 'weighted' manner, but the weighting is not disclosed. Furthermore, their use case scores are normalized to an 8 MP file size, which explains how a camera with 14 bits per pixel can, according to DxOMark, actually deliver a dynamic range greater than 14 bits of EV.

IMO, their Measurements (screen) are valid and quite useful. Their Scores are steaming pile of misleading cow excrement.

Just a little reality check...

 

[Albi86]

Their Scores are steaming pile of misleading cow excrement.

Which in the end just confirm the evident fact that Sony sensors are better than Canon's. Not that misleading or far from the truth.

The weight of this fact in the value or performance of a camera is surely disputable, but it remains a fact.

 

[Loswr]

Their Scores are steaming pile of misleading cow excrement.

Which in the end just confirm the evident fact that Sony sensors are better than Canon's. Not that misleading or far from the truth.

...and also, apparently, much better than Phase One and Pentax 645 medium format sensors. To me, that's misleading and far from the truth.

 

[mirekti]

Sensor performance isn't everything...

Furthermore, their use case scores are normalized to an 8 MP file size, which explains how a camera with 14 bits per pixel can, according to DxOMark, actually deliver a dynamic range greater than 14 bits of EV.

14 EV should be fine I guess. People get that with HDR, right?
Canon has some 9EV @ISO 100 and than you go +/- 2EV. It would be great to get that from one shot though.

 

[Invertalon]

Makes you wonder where Nikon sensors would perform if not for Sony...

My guess? Very similar to Canon.

 

[Albi86]

Their Scores are steaming pile of misleading cow excrement.

Which in the end just confirm the evident fact that Sony sensors are better than Canon's. Not that misleading or far from the truth.

...and also, apparently, much better than Phase One and Pentax 645 medium format sensors. To me, that's misleading and far from the truth.

Bigger sensor doesn't mean better sensor, so it's easy to understand how MF could lose in such a test.
It usually mean better IQ, surely, but as long as you compare sensors of the same size you don't risk to be misleaded.

 

[JohanCruyff]

DxOMark who? The guys (actually the only guys on earth) who state that EF 70-200 F4 IS L is better than EF 70-200 F2.8 IS L II?

 

[RuneL]

All I'd like to know is how these test scores/difference in sensor performance impact you guys on a daily basis as photographers.

 

[nightbreath]

I didn't have experience of Nikon files processing, but from what I see, people who have Nikon system (for example, D3S, D700 with top glass, or something else) are not able to get the color tones I and my wife are getting as result of our work.

I'd be glad to examine a RAW image from a complex shooting environment (e.g., portrait made in the middle of the day with lot of reflections from trees/leaves around) made with help of a Sony sensor to prove that dark areas noise isn't everything that affects IQ.

 

[gilmorephoto]

Perhaps this has been stated before, but I tend to view the sensor as the "digital film" of the camera. Every film has a different grain structure and some will test "better/higher" than other film depending on how you structure the test. (Therefore, you can get different scores depending on how you weigh things). You can post-process just about anything to look just like just about anything these days, but in the end, you pick the "digital film" that you prefer. I've always preferred the look of Canon "film" for it's skin tones and visual pop. This is even when I used old Nikon prime lens with an adapter. No score can convince me otherwise.

In the high-end audio world, forums would blow up about tube vs. solid state amps and the argument always ended up being how cleanly an amp "measured" vs. how pleasing it actually sounds, and there was rarely a correlation between the two.

 

[nightbreath]

I didn't have experience of Nikon files processing, but from what I see, people who have Nikon system (for example, D3S, D700 with top glass, or something else) are not able to get the color tones I and my wife are getting as result of our work.

I'd be glad to examine a RAW image from a complex shooting environment (e.g., portrait made in the middle of the day with lot of reflections from trees/leaves around) made with help of a Sony sensor to prove that dark areas noise isn't everything that affects IQ.

P.S. Here's what I get from Canon:

 

[Albi86]

Perhaps this has been stated before, but I tend to view the sensor as the "digital film" of the camera. Every film has a different grain structure and some will test "better/higher" than other film depending on how you structure the test. (Therefore, you can get different scores depending on how you weigh things). You can post-process just about anything to look just like just about anything these days, but in the end, you pick the "digital film" that you prefer. I've always preferred the look of Canon "film" for it's skin tones and visual pop. This is even when I used old Nikon prime lens with an adapter. No score can convince me otherwise.

In the high-end audio world, forums would blow up about tube vs. solid state amps and the argument always ended up being how cleanly an amp "measured" vs. how pleasing it actually sounds, and there was rarely a correlation between the two.

This is true because film is a hardware device, or can be true if you shoot JPG.

Shooting RAW you can work on whatever you want, the only limit being the quality of the RAW file and the amout of information stored. DXO score is useful in comparing this.

Shooting RAW it really doesn't make sense to say "Oh, the Canon colors!". That is today more a lens trait than a sensor's.

 

[dstppy]

DxOMark who? The guys (actually the only guys on earth) who state that EF 70-200 F4 IS L is better than EF 70-200 F2.8 IS L II?

Of course. IS makes it all bad, and stuff :

 

[gilmorephoto]

Perhaps this has been stated before, but I tend to view the sensor as the "digital film" of the camera. Every film has a different grain structure and some will test "better/higher" than other film depending on how you structure the test. (Therefore, you can get different scores depending on how you weigh things). You can post-process just about anything to look just like just about anything these days, but in the end, you pick the "digital film" that you prefer. I've always preferred the look of Canon "film" for it's skin tones and visual pop. This is even when I used old Nikon prime lens with an adapter. No score can convince me otherwise.

In the high-end audio world, forums would blow up about tube vs. solid state amps and the argument always ended up being how cleanly an amp "measured" vs. how pleasing it actually sounds, and there was rarely a correlation between the two.

This is true because film is a hardware device, or can be true if you shoot JPG.

Shooting RAW you can work on whatever you want, the only limit being the quality of the RAW file and the amout of information stored. DXO score is useful in comparing this.

Shooting RAW it really doesn't make sense to say "Oh, the Canon colors!". That is today more a lens trait than a sensor's.

Having worked with both Nikon and Canon RAW files, I respectfully disagree. The "quality of the RAW file" includes the quality of the color. Both RAW files have a certain color cast to them. As I stated originally, you can post-process quite a bit, but just as some prefer the shadow recovery of Nikon RAW files, I prefer how color is captured (and corrected if necessary) with Canon RAW. For me, I can get the right exposure most of the time so shadow recovery is less of a concern for me than getting the colors just right. Can I post-process Nikon files and make them look great? Sure. For the look I want, it's less work with Canon RAW.

(And, I agree the lens matters a tremendous amount...)

 

[Imagination_landB]

Anyway, without being a fanboy at all. I know that nikon cameras recently are very very good , DXO over rates them, how can the d3200 be as good as the 5dmark III...

 

[meli]

Anyway, without being a fanboy at all. I know that nikon cameras recently are very very good , DXO over rates them, how can the d3200 be as good as the 5dmark III...

It cant and noone says it is. What Dxo says is that certain aspects of 3200 sensor are better than canon's. Thats reasonable since canon's sensor tech remained quasi-stagnant for a whole generation. Lets not overgeneralise just because we dont like it

 

[Albi86]

Perhaps this has been stated before, but I tend to view the sensor as the "digital film" of the camera. Every film has a different grain structure and some will test "better/higher" than other film depending on how you structure the test. (Therefore, you can get different scores depending on how you weigh things). You can post-process just about anything to look just like just about anything these days, but in the end, you pick the "digital film" that you prefer. I've always preferred the look of Canon "film" for it's skin tones and visual pop. This is even when I used old Nikon prime lens with an adapter. No score can convince me otherwise.

In the high-end audio world, forums would blow up about tube vs. solid state amps and the argument always ended up being how cleanly an amp "measured" vs. how pleasing it actually sounds, and there was rarely a correlation between the two.

This is true because film is a hardware device, or can be true if you shoot JPG.

Shooting RAW you can work on whatever you want, the only limit being the quality of the RAW file and the amout of information stored. DXO score is useful in comparing this.

Shooting RAW it really doesn't make sense to say "Oh, the Canon colors!". That is today more a lens trait than a sensor's.

Having worked with both Nikon and Canon RAW files, I respectfully disagree. The "quality of the RAW file" includes the quality of the color. Both RAW files have a certain color cast to them. As I stated originally, you can post-process quite a bit, but just as some prefer the shadow recovery of Nikon RAW files, I prefer how color is captured (and corrected if necessary) with Canon RAW. For me, I can get the right exposure most of the time so shadow recovery is less of a concern for me than getting the colors just right. Can I post-process Nikon files and make them look great? Sure. For the look I want, it's less work with Canon RAW.

(And, I agree the lens matters a tremendous amount...)

I understand what you mean but at the same time I don't fully agree. Softwares like LightRoom let you apply corrections in batch or even while importing. Or you can just calibrate your camera. So in the end you only have to do the work once when you set up the workflow.

So again, I insist that lenses have much more impact in that So maybe in the end you prefer Canon because of the Canon lenses signature more than because of how the sensor captures light and colors.