DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
- Thread starter compupix
- Start date
- Status
RLPhoto said:
Wow, beautiful example of some Canon recovery.
I don't know how anyone can see one of those samples from either Sarangiman or Mikael are realistic. If Canon sensors were THAT noisy (and I'm not saying they don't have worse read noise than an Exmor, but read noise is only the lower 0.05% of the maximum possible signal level in a Canon), why is it that we don't see noisy photographs all over the net from Canon cameras? There are millions of people who use Canon DSLR's, and many tens of millions more (if not billions) of photographs uploaded onto the net yearly by those same people. If Canon noise was really as bad in the average case as Sarangiman and Mikael and all the rest of the D800 fanboy club insist, why don't we see evidence of that every time we look at a photo taken with a Canon camera?
Seriously. Underexposing a D800 by MANY STOPS for the purpose of demonstrating the Exmor sensor's improved DR in the shadows is one thing. Underexposing both a D800 and a 5D III or any other as a means of demonstrating how supposedly utterly terrible Canon cameras are in a supposed real-life situation is just a farce. A hoax. It's simply not the case. I have the same issue with that as I do with DXO claiming the D800 has a sensor capable of capturing 14.4 stops. It's misleading and false.
Upvote
0
DXO do not claim that the D800 sensor has 14.4 stops of dynamic range. They claim that the sensor has a range of 13.2 stops at full resolution. The 14.3 stop DR is the result of downsampling to 8 megapixels. You need to read the actual measurement graphs and understand them and the methodology that they use (and why they do this). No one has given any evidence to suggest that the DXO figures are substantially incorrect.jrista said:
I do not understand why this is such a big issue for some people here. I think it is good that cameras like the D800 exist and it is important that companies like DXO publish their findings as it helps put pressure on Canon to improve. You might not want a 5DIV with a significantly better sensor than the 5DII, but other people seemingly do and have clearly explained why more DR would be beneficial to them.
None of this is about whether or not a 5DII/III can take stunning pictures - it is about the range of conditions in which it can take them. Anything which expands that range - whether it be more pixels, more DR, higher-usable ISOs, or a usable AF system - can only be a good thing for anyone creatively pushing against the boundaries of what is possible today.
Upvote
0
MarkII said:
I have read it, and actually I couldn't agree more with what you said. The sensor is capable of 13.2 stops of dynamic range, which is an argument I repeatedly make, which is repeatedly me with photos like the ones above. The reason I have a problem with DXO is the 14.4 stop figure is repeated all over the net as an intrinsic ability of the D800, when its really a capability of software (and not necessarily the software most photographers use to scale their images.) As I said...misleading.
I also totally agree that more DR is GOOD. It's actually GREAT, and I can't wait until low read noise, high SNR, and wide ISO latitude are standard fanfare across all brands. But it's not grounds to post photos all over the net that make the cameras from other manufacturers such as Canon look like they came out of the 1990's, simply as a means of arguing up your favored brand. The difference, while important, isn't that big, and non-Exmor cameras are certainly capable of a hell of a lot more than these inane photos that show horrid read noise right up into the highlights from Canon cameras.
It makes the more foolish, unobservant and reactive on the net make rash decisions, such as sell their entire kit(usually at considerable loss) and jump brands (usually at greater cost), when their previous kit was perfectly fine, it just lacks a bit of extra latitude exposure latitude (and not nearly as much as some would have those poor fools think.) There ARE a few reasons to either switch, or add Nikon to your kit. The primary one would be for serious landscape photographers who regularly photograph scenes with extensive DR, and would prefer not to resort to HDR/Fusion techniques. I think many street photographers might find additional DR a handy thing as well.
But the majority of people need to understand that the sample comparisons between various Canon cameras and the D800 are EXPLICITLY performing unrealistic tests, aimed at underexposing photos (sometimes by many, many stops) in order to put Canon cameras in an exceptionally BAD light...the light of pushing shadows from the bottom two stops of DR...something we need rather infrequently in real life (as would be evidenced by the bazillion photos taken with Canon cameras that never exhibit any amount of noise anywhere remotely close to the likes of the photos posted by Sarangiman and Mikael).
To the argument that you *have* to underexpose to preserve highlights. While this is a bit of an extreme example, I think it demonstrates that the argument for underexposing considerably to preserve highlights, as in the examples posted by Sarangiman and Mikael, is a fallacy (or some kind of farce):
Intended Exposure: 1/800s f/7.1 @ ISO 100 | Actual Exposure: 1/100s f/5.6 @ ISO 100
When I first saw the photo above (taken with my Canon 7D), I thought it was a total goner. As far as I could tell, not only had I blown the highlights, but the entire shot except for a few parts of the dragonfly itself. To my own amazement, The entire photo was recoverable, and only a few bits of specular highlight were actually "blown". A fact that did not diminish the final results by any means. I was able to fully recover those pixels that appeared to be pure white (which, on closer inspection, are packed into the levels just below pure white). Since the image was so over-exposed (by nearly four stops), the shadows are nearly noiseless, lacking any amount of artifacts from read noise:
I can't speak much to Nikon cameras, as I don't use them much. However when it comes to Canon cameras, they offer quite a bit of exposure latitude in the highlights. While the example above is extreme (much like the examples of D800 shadow recovery), the point is you can use the exposure latitude available to you in a Canon camera to get FAR better results than indicated Sarangiman, Mikael and a whole host of other people producing similar types of comparisons around the net.
Upvote
0
Razor2012 said:jrista said:
So I guess the winner can be determined at this time. ;D
Thanks Razor, you just extended this thread for another 14 pages. ;D
Upvote
0
ThuiQuaDayNe said:Razor2012 said:jrista said:
So I guess the winner can be determined at this time. ;D
Thanks Razor, you just extended this thread for another 14 pages. ;D
Heh you're welcome. Btw, just mentioning the word Canon seems to create quite a stir.
Upvote
0
jthomson said:
I would actually rate the cameras (sensor included, so no Sony here) as such, myself:
| Nikon | Canon | * | |
| Sensor: | 1 | 0 | |
| Lens: | 0 | 1 | |
| Body: | 0 | 1 | |
| Flash: | 1 | 1 | (tie, Canon's just got a LOT better, but Nikon's was always good) |
| Metering: | 1.5 | 1 | (Generally a tie, but Nikon gets an extra half point because ALL of their cameras have good meetering) |
| Fans: | 0 | 0 | (I think we fans are all a little pathetic when you get right down to it. ;P) |
| Total: | 3.5 | 4 |
Upvote
0
Far better to use a 10 scale. And we can drop the 'fan' thing.
I'm only considering the top end stuff - FF plus 7D and D7000.
If we we to add lower-end DSLRs, the D3200 leapfrogs everything Canon does in APS-C, except for the 'Body' category. So let's leave them out of it.
And I think that however you look at it, both make bloody fantastic cameras.
I'm only considering the top end stuff - FF plus 7D and D7000.
If we we to add lower-end DSLRs, the D3200 leapfrogs everything Canon does in APS-C, except for the 'Body' category. So let's leave them out of it.
| Nikon | Canon | ||
| Sensor: | 9 | 7 | Not much to discuss here |
| Lens: | 8 | 9 | Canon make fantastic lenses, but so do Nikon |
| Body: | 8 | 9 | To a large extent this is a matter of taste, but the Canon grips are slightly better |
| Flash: | 7 | 8 | Canon's new radio control beats Nikon |
| Metering: | 9 | 8 | Nikon metering is bloody good |
| AF: | 9 | 8 | Nikon beats Canon, with the exception of the 1Dx |
| Total: | 50 | 49 |
Upvote
0
Razor2012 said:
I think AF is the biggest advantage canon has right now. That and lenses of course.
Upvote
0
I would disagree with AF currently being in favor of Nikon in general. In my playing around with Nikon DSLR bodies at the local camera place, I've noticed Nikon AF systems have very low frame spread. Particularly on the full-frame bodies. Most of their latest AF systems seem to be reticular, but the points are so tightly clustered around the center of the frame and so tightly spaced, I wonder if they are as broadly flexible as Canon AF systems.
In most, if not all (6D AF system yet to be seen, although I suspect it is the same) current Canon DSLR's, they support fairly broad AF point spread in a highly configurable setup, including the 7D, 5D III and 1D X (and even the 1D IV in a form). The new Canon 61pt AF system, used in both the 1D X and 5D III, has more total points as well as more cross-type points than any other AF system yet on the market. All of Canon's AF systems support a variety of selectable point modes, including Spot AF, Single Point AF, Expansion AF, and Zone AF (the 1D IV supports some of those, in a more tedious fashion with custom functions). This is in addition to the ubiquitous Full AF mode where all points are automatically selected. Canon AF precision is also improved for wide lenses, such as f/4 and f/2.8 aperture when used...which can be a huge bonus for f/4 L II supertelephoto or f/2.8 L II telephoto lens users. Canon was also the first to provide orientation-linked AF points.
I think some of these features found their way into the improved 51pt AF system used in the D4 and D800, however most of Nikon's AF systems only support dynamic AF areas around the center point (if they support a dynamic AF area at all). However, to my knowledge, Nikon AF points only have two levels of sensitivity...normal sensitivity for f/5.6 and lower sensitivity for f/8...so no bonus performance or precision to f/4 and f/2.8 telephoto lens users. I don't think there is any question that previously, when Nikon first introduced their 51 and 39 point AF systems in the previous generation of Cameras, they were generally better than Canon's (particularly the 1D III's botched AF system).
However at the current time, I think Canon definitely holds the AF crown...assuming were talking about who has the best of the latest and greatest technology (which is what I assumed before.)
In most, if not all (6D AF system yet to be seen, although I suspect it is the same) current Canon DSLR's, they support fairly broad AF point spread in a highly configurable setup, including the 7D, 5D III and 1D X (and even the 1D IV in a form). The new Canon 61pt AF system, used in both the 1D X and 5D III, has more total points as well as more cross-type points than any other AF system yet on the market. All of Canon's AF systems support a variety of selectable point modes, including Spot AF, Single Point AF, Expansion AF, and Zone AF (the 1D IV supports some of those, in a more tedious fashion with custom functions). This is in addition to the ubiquitous Full AF mode where all points are automatically selected. Canon AF precision is also improved for wide lenses, such as f/4 and f/2.8 aperture when used...which can be a huge bonus for f/4 L II supertelephoto or f/2.8 L II telephoto lens users. Canon was also the first to provide orientation-linked AF points.
I think some of these features found their way into the improved 51pt AF system used in the D4 and D800, however most of Nikon's AF systems only support dynamic AF areas around the center point (if they support a dynamic AF area at all). However, to my knowledge, Nikon AF points only have two levels of sensitivity...normal sensitivity for f/5.6 and lower sensitivity for f/8...so no bonus performance or precision to f/4 and f/2.8 telephoto lens users. I don't think there is any question that previously, when Nikon first introduced their 51 and 39 point AF systems in the previous generation of Cameras, they were generally better than Canon's (particularly the 1D III's botched AF system).
However at the current time, I think Canon definitely holds the AF crown...assuming were talking about who has the best of the latest and greatest technology (which is what I assumed before.)
Upvote
0
RLPhoto
Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
Mikael Risedal said:
Warning: Entering middle earth. Don't end up like this discussion.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9822.msg177361#msg177361
Upvote
0
RLPhoto
Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
Mikael Risedal said:
Canon 61 Point AF system - works @ F/5.6
61 points total
41 Cross type Points
5 Double-Crosstype point which currently no manuafauter makes.
Can work @ F/8 With Kenko Extenders. Not limited by hardware but software.
Nikon 51 Point 3500 Series AF - works @ F/8
51 points total
15 Crosstype points
0 Double crosstype points
Is that factual enough for you? Teh Canon is clearly superior on paper, can you prove that the nikon is superior in use? that is the question. 8)
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
