DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

[poias]

A lot of denial in the forum about inferiority of Canon's sensors. The knee jerk argument is that Dxomark:
1) is biased, or
2) their tests are bad because "I" get superior results out of my Canon, unlike "my" Nikon friend who is struggling, or
3) is meaningless because I can bracket and get high DR, so low DR is not big deal

DXOMarks is simply giving empirical evidence to the inferiority of Canon's decade old tech versus modern tech of Sonikon. If we as Canon consumers (whether we like the brand or, more importantly, stuck to it due to sunk costs) live in denial, Canon has no incentive to improve. Result? we get shafted while competition has better cameras. Period!

 

[Fishnose]

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...)

1. Have you worked with Nikon RAW files from the latest generation - D800, D800E, D600, D4, D3200?
If you're talking about Nikons from 2008, forget it. Stone age, comparatively speaking.

2. "For the look I want" - ah, a personal opinion. Your taste. Well gee, that's important to us all :

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

1. their overall scores are weird, how do you combine so many different performance factors into one number that would work for everyone? you can't

2. their PRINT generally seem to be pretty good and quite useful to compare various aspects of one camera to another though

3. their lens tests, unlike their sensor tests, appear to be a mess, i don't trust them at all

4. I doubt the 6D will make a big leap, you do much better at high iso for SNR than the 1DX and I'd doubt, just a couple months later, they introduce a new sensor that has better DR at high iso than the 1DX or than both at low ISO, that would be hideous planning for the 5D3/1DX. Then again, it would be nice in that at least it would prove they can do it. It is odd they have a supposedly new 20MP sensor.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

(screen) isn't usually the best setting to compare sensor camera vs camera, it can tell you things that are useful, but using (print) to compare various sensors generally makes more sense and for a more fair comparison

 

[nightbreath]

A lot of denial in the forum about inferiority of Canon's sensors. The knee jerk argument is that Dxomark:
1) is biased, or
2) their tests are bad because "I" get superior results out of my Canon, unlike "my" Nikon friend who is struggling, or
...

We were referring to our observations and didn't say that DxO measurements are wrong, they just might not give full picture. If you know more than we, please share your own thoughts on the topic and add some image samples to back up your words.

P.S. If you don't know about the difference in 5D vs. 1D color, you might not understand what we're talking about

 

[bornshooter]

i ignore the stupid dxo tests they mean nothing to me seen a video with the nikon guy there on youtube almost masturbating to nikon being on top seriously he is just a gear head his photos are nothing special at all.

 

[dtaylor]

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.):

Canon is behind on DR and noise due to a Sony patent they apparently are having trouble working around. That said, DxO is a complete and total joke. This is a company that ranks consumer DSLRs above medium format digital backs in IQ.

Let that sink in for a moment. Their testing methodology actually results in higher scores for APS-C sensors than for MF sensors. (Queue the DxO fans claiming that their overall IQ scores don't report overall IQ, except of course when those same fans wish to prove that camera A has better overall IQ then camera B.)

I've personally tested DR for a number of cameras (the right way). My results match results from sites like DPReview. DxO is always off, and always quite obviously wrong. It's not by a set amount in each case such that you could say their test is too sensitive or not sensitive enough. It's all over the place, over in some cases and under in others. It's like the idiots never tried shooting the cameras they test.

Canon is not so far behind in sensors that I would avoid choosing them. They're behind a little bit, not a lot. But my problem with them is that they are charging more and/or skimping on features at a time when there's an IQ gap. When your competitors have a sensor edge, you pound them on features and price. The 6D should have a real AF system and be a bit cheaper. The 5D3 should be priced against the D600. And there should already be a 45 MP FF that is priced against the D800. Oh, and cut out this 20/21/22 MP nonsense. Just go to 24 MP on FF. That's not enough of a change in pixel density to affect anything. (Though I suppose they may be trying to increase wafer yields with redundant circuitry that might eat into the MP they put on FF. This may also be the reason why the 6D uses a different sensor.)

This is a recent issue with them. Throughout the 2000's they dominated sensor IQ, feature set, and price. They're also getting greedy with new lenses. Again, they're not terrible here. It's just annoying to seem them slip behind. I sincerely hope they improve in all respects because their lens library is the best out there.

 

[aznable]

someone would explain me what do is measuring dxo with the low light iso becuse looking at raws of dpreview, the high iso performance of d800 looks like the d7000 one

 

[Jose Ormazabal]

From my point of view it is evident that sony/nikon sensors are superior to canon's. I would love to have my 5d III with the D600 sensor.
It is hard to believe that the majority of canon users are not disappointed with the increasing gap in sensor technology between Nikon and Canon.

I'm not a fan of either brand. I'm just a Canon user with a lot of glass and therefore married for good or bad. Right now, things are going bad.

 

[dtaylor]

A lot of denial in the forum about inferiority of Canon's sensors. The knee jerk argument is that Dxomark:

How about DxOMark:
* Does not agree with the empirical results of any other major testing site. (They are always the odd ball out.)
* Produces absurd scores, such as scoring APS-C consumer sensors higher than MFDB sensors.

DXOMarks is simply giving empirical evidence to the inferiority of Canon's decade old tech versus modern tech of Sonikon.

I'll agree that Canon is behind on DR and noise because I see that in my own tests and in the tests of other reputable sites. I've even seen a lengthy discussion on DPReview about the specific patent related to sensor circuitry that is the cause of this. But scientific testing is about reproducibility, and nobody can reproduce the absurd numbers generated out of DxO. Sorry, they're a bad joke.

 

[aznable]

I'll agree that Canon is behind on DR and noise because I see that in my own tests and in the tests of other reputable sites. I've even seen a lengthy discussion on DPReview about the specific patent related to sensor circuitry that is the cause of this. But scientific testing is about reproducibility, and nobody can reproduce the absurd numbers generated out of DxO. Sorry, they're a bad joke.

agree...if you look at the scores of dxo on low light iso the 1d mark 3 is destroied by a d5100; but maybe i am blind

 

[sarangiman]

I've personally tested DR for a number of cameras (the right way). My results match results from sites like DPReview. DxO is always off, and always quite obviously wrong.

dtaylor: How do you test DR? When I use a 42 step transmissive wedge, my DR numbers, assuming a lowest acceptable SNR of 1 (which is what I believe DXO does), pretty much match DXO results for RAW capture within 0.2 EV. And to account for lens transmission variability & different ISO mappings between cameras, I take a number of shots at 1/3EV apart & select the shot of the wedge where the brightest patch is just short of clipping... I then use these shots to build an output vs. input curve, & quantitate the range from SNR 1 to brightest patch that isn't clipped.

Furthermore, your results match DPReview? DPReview doesn't test RAW dynamic range... so I'm confused: what are you testing?

Pretty sure Bill Claff's DR numbers also match DXO for the most part; also he uses a possibly more meaningful number: PDR (photographic dynamic range: lowest SNR of 20 adjusting for circle of confusion of sensor). His tests also show ~2.5EV better performance of the D800. Check out his stuff here: http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm

My own 'real-world' tests also show ~3EV better DR on the D800 when I do side-by-side shots of high DR sunsets with my 5DIII vs. D800; the D800 is able to maintain highlights that the 5DIII needs a 3 or 4-stop reverse graduated ND filter to reign in (while keeping shadow noise similar between the two). Put another way: I have to overexpose my 5DIII by 2 to 3 stops at the very least to get its shadows to match the cleanliness of lifted shadows of the D800 file that was underexposed to maintain highlights.

So, respectfully, I fail to see how DXOs DR & SNR, etc., numbers are the 'odd ball out'.

To clarify: I don't at all mean this to be a personal attack; just looking for clarification. Also, I'm tired of people harping on DXO when they're just trying to do good science (though, like others, I do not pay any attention to the 'overall' sensor score... jus the raw SNR, DR, etc. numbers).

 

[gilmorephoto]

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...)

1. Have you worked with Nikon RAW files from the latest generation - D800, D800E, D600, D4, D3200?
If you're talking about Nikons from 2008, forget it. Stone age, comparatively speaking.

2. "For the look I want" - ah, a personal opinion. Your taste. Well gee, that's important to us all :

1. I've worked with D700, D7000, D5100, D5000 & D3100, so not the most current, no. Has Nikon recently lost it's bluish/green cast? That would be exciting news indeed.

2. Yes, personal opinion and purposefully couched as such because, sometimes, "objectively" better isn't what you (or the client) actually want.

To everyone who found my post useless, please excuse the inclusion of subjectivity and proceed with the DXO/Canon bashing based on "objective" tests.

 

[kasperj]

Funny how these threads emerge on this forum with each new Nikon review on DxO. As an interesting comparison Tech Radar, who is apparantly using the same DxO Analyzer software, recently posted a comparison of SNR and Dynamic Range for the 1DX, 5DIII, 1D4, D4 and D800. http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-1dx-1091200/review/page:5#articleContent

While it does show an advantage for the Nikons on base ISO Dynamic Range, the Canons actually shows a better ability to retain it over the ISO range.

 

[Orangutan]

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.

Question for you: my understanding of Bayer pattern sensors is that a group of 4 monochrome {R|G|B} are de-mosaiced to form one color RGB pixel. If I combine two 14-bit wells I get (roughly) one 15-bit well. If I combine four 14-bit wells I should get (roughly) one 16-bit well. Certainly they wouldn't do a crude addition of wells, but it seems very plausible that you can get >14EV DR, even without re-normalizing. What's wrong with this interpretation?

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.

You keep repeating this, and it remains unsubstantiated, and likely wrong. Canon doesn't improve DR because there's no business need to do so, and it would cut into their profits to do so. They're making very nice money as things are. They will hold onto their high-DR tech until the market requires them to use it. Even Pentax has pro-sumer sensors with higher DR than Canon; you can't expect me to believe that a tech giant like Canon can't keep pace (in the lab) with Pentax. No, Canon DR will improve when it must. Right now they're trying to keep manufacturing costs down to increase profits, just like any for-profit entity would do.

 

[jaduffy007]

You keep repeating this, and it remains unsubstantiated, and likely wrong. Canon doesn't improve DR because there's no business need to do so, and it would cut into their profits to do so. They're making very nice money as things are. They will hold onto their high-DR tech until the market requires them to use it. Even Pentax has pro-sumer sensors with higher DR than Canon; you can't expect me to believe that a tech giant like Canon can't keep pace (in the lab) with Pentax. No, Canon DR will improve when it must. Right now they're trying to keep manufacturing costs down to increase profits, just like any for-profit entity would do.

Put another way...Canon is milking their loyal customer's wallets rather than focusing on producing the best product they're capable of producing. Case in point: Well, numerous options here but most recent, the 6D. Arguably the worst offender in this regard. DPreview put it perfectly:

"Overall, though, it's difficult to shake the feeling that the EOS 6D simply lacks the 'wow' factor of its main rival. Whereas Nikon seems to have taken the approach of taking away as little as possible from D800 when creating the D600, Canon appears almost to have gone the other way, removing as much as it thinks it can get away with at the price. The result is the kind of conservative, slightly unimaginative design that's become the company's hallmark."

Canon's "approach" does not inspire loyalty, rather it makes me question whether I want to support such a company at all. Why would I not choose to align my $$ with a company that pushes the edge of tech, etc in imaginative ways instead? Aren't those qualities appealing? As in the D800, D800E removing aliasing filter option, HDMI video out, D600. Sony is coming on strong too.

And look at Canon's pricing. I just have no idea what Canon is thinking any more. None.

 

[MarioMachado]

http://gearburn.com/2012/08/canon-eos-1dx-review/

DxOMark doesn't mean anything...

Canon still better, specially in HI ISO...

 

[sarangiman]

"Overall, though, it's difficult to shake the feeling that the EOS 6D simply lacks the 'wow' factor of its main rival. Whereas Nikon seems to have taken the approach of taking away as little as possible from D800 when creating the D600, Canon appears almost to have gone the other way, removing as much as it thinks it can get away with at the price. The result is the kind of conservative, slightly unimaginative design that's become the company's hallmark."

I'm glad dpreview just came out and said it like it is.

 

[sarangiman]

While it does show an advantage for the Nikons on base ISO Dynamic Range, the Canons actually shows a better ability to retain it over the ISO range.

So does DXOs results on their own site...

 

[sarangiman]

http://gearburn.com/2012/08/canon-eos-1dx-review/

DxOMark doesn't mean anything...

Canon still better, specially in HI ISO...

I see nothing there that disagrees with DXO. One must simply take into account what each measurement/chart means. Those charts you linked to show higher DR at base ISO for the Nikon D800, yet lower pixel-level SNR. DXOMark shows the same thing.