Nikon D850 - sensor no better than D810. EEEK!

[dak723]

I believe what irks them are what they perceive as unnecessary compromises; the current poster-case for this is the sensor of the 6D2. It's known that there was better sensor tech available (5D4 and 80D), and could have been used.

Not picking on you personally, but we do NOT know. People have made many assumptions about the sensor, but I don't believe we know anything except that the DR performance is lower. We don't know that they could have used the same sensor tech as the 5D4 without raising the price considerably. We don't know the comparative price of putting the same tech on a APS-C sensor, so comparisons with the 80D are not valid either.

What we do know based on user's comments is that the noise cleanup on the 6D II is vastly superior to the original 6D. We also have some comments that say the noise cleanup is actually better on the 6D II than the 5D IV.

Glad you are defending Aglet, but by his own admission, he has been lees than honest and putting a great deal of "spin" (otherwise known as BS) on his comments and interpretations. His anti-Canon bias is obvious to anyone who is objective, thus making all his comments questionable at best.

 

[Viggo]

I believe what irks them are what they perceive as unnecessary compromises; the current poster-case for this is the sensor of the 6D2. It's known that there was better sensor tech available (5D4 and 80D), and could have been used.

Not picking on you personally, but we do NOT know. People have made many assumptions about the sensor, but I don't believe we know anything except that the DR performance is lower. We don't know that they could have used the same sensor tech as the 5D4 without raising the price considerably. We don't know the comparative price of putting the same tech on a APS-C sensor, so comparisons with the 80D are not valid either.

What we do know based on user's comments is that the noise cleanup on the 6D II is vastly superior to the original 6D. We also have some comments that say the noise cleanup is actually better on the 6D II than the 5D IV.

Glad you are defending Aglet, but by his own admission, he has been lees than honest and putting a great deal of "spin" (otherwise known as BS) on his comments and interpretations. His anti-Canon bias is obvious to anyone who is objective, thus making all his comments questionable at best.

Is that true about the noise? I haven't paid very close attention to the 6d2, but I read something about it also performes worse than the original 6d when it comes noise handling.?

 

[Orangutan]

I believe what irks them are what they perceive as unnecessary compromises; the current poster-case for this is the sensor of the 6D2. It's known that there was better sensor tech available (5D4 and 80D), and could have been used.

Not picking on you personally, but we do NOT know. People have made many assumptions about the sensor, but I don't believe we know anything except that the DR performance is lower.

I agree, we don't know. What's important is that it's the perception of people like Aglet, who believe that every new advance in any feature creates the new minimum level for all future products.

Glad you are defending Aglet

Not exactly defending him, I usually disagree with him. I just don't like straw-man arguments, even if it's my side using them. There's plenty of legitimate reason to criticize Aglet and his posts, let's not fabricate.

 

[Orangutan]

I'm generally not a fan of Aglet's not-quite-trollish posts, but I think this may be a misrepresentation of his views.

Aglet's view is that any camera he doesn't personally like or doesn't meet his personal needs is handicapped

Aglet seems to have two themes, one I described in the previous post. The other is that his preferences are representative of the broad market. Both are false, but they are distinct.

 

[Talys]

I believe what irks them are what they perceive as unnecessary compromises; the current poster-case for this is the sensor of the 6D2. It's known that there was better sensor tech available (5D4 and 80D), and could have been used.

I don't know if you meant me

But to be clear, I was speaking specifically to bird feeder BIF shots, something I've spent quite a lot of time on because I hang out on the patio with my wife, where we have, well, you know, feeders. Really, I wasn't pushing the 6DII here. I was saying, Olympus, Nikon, Canon, 4 fps, 6 fps, 10fps, 18fps... It really doesn't really much matter.

My preference, rather than to essentially capture video and then look for a good frame, is to spend some time understanding that, for example, when a chickadee has a peanut in its beak and doesn't bite down, that's a pretty good indication that he's going to take off. They'll look the direction of travel, so while they're facing the feeder, there's no point in clicking away if you want to catch an in-lflight shot. Or, if I keep one eye on the surroundings, and see another songbird on an approach vector, at a certain point, I know that certain birds on the feeder will fly off (while others will be unintimidated and just go to the other side of the feeder). When you shoot it (time of day), and where you position yourself is critical, too.

They behave a little more differently when they show up for the last meals of the day, as opposed to when they're more social mid-day. There are also favored types of spots where songbirds land before they go to the feeder, or queue up. Get to know them, and you can have a more natural looking shot, and also plan better.

Take a waterbird, like a groebe, heron, duck, crane, or a bird of prey like an eagle or osprey and it's the same principle. You can either try to randomly catch everything and have memory cards full of content, and maybe still even miss the best shots, or you can learn the behavior of your subjects. Doing so is not a handicap, not an advantage. Of course, there are more tools needed when the subject is 200 feet away instead of twelve.

I'm sure a sports photographer would tell you the same thing. They don't go to an event and just hold down the shutter button wherever the ball is at the camera's max FPS.

Yes, I will happily concede that some technical features may be helpful, and in some cases, will give you more usable shots. I also think that if you rely overly on them, I think the end product will suffer. But that's just my opinion, and if anyone personally needs all one of those in order to enjoy photography... have at it, and don't bother with a Canon... though I think that you'll never be happy anyways, because someone else will come up with something that you've gotta have at some point.

 

[Orangutan]

I believe what irks them are what they perceive as unnecessary compromises; the current poster-case for this is the sensor of the 6D2. It's known that there was better sensor tech available (5D4 and 80D), and could have been used.

I don't know if you meant me

Nope. I was thinking particularly of Aglet, AvTvM, and a few others I can't recall by "name."

Cheers,

O

 

[Mikehit]

I'm generally not a fan of Aglet's not-quite-trollish posts, but I think this may be a misrepresentation of his views. I don't think Aglet (or others) have said there are never legitimate compromises

Aglet has quite clearly previously said that he prefers the image quality of the E-M1 because it is not handicapped in image quality like any Canon camera bar the 5DIV and 1Dx2. He then posted links to images that everyone but him thought had severe limitations (they were good images, but limited) and when pushed he admitted that for him the compromises were worth it. In other words, he admits they are inferior to the cameras he criticised.Interestingly he then disappeared from the boards for a few days.

I have absolutely no problems with technical comments Aglet makes, nor his critique of the shortfalls of camera design because he seems quite knowledgeable with experience of several brands. But his claims about never buying handicapped cameras comes across as nothing short of pompous self-righteousness.

 

[Aglet]

Former Canon FF shooter now Olympus fan.

http://aurelm.com/2017/07/10/olympus-e-m1-mark-2-english-review/

there are a few things about the Oly he wishes were improved.. a few I might agree with.

 

[Mikehit]

Former Canon FF shooter now Olympus fan.

http://aurelm.com/2017/07/10/olympus-e-m1-mark-2-english-review/

there are a few things about the Oly he wishes were improved.. a few I might agree with.

Why do you feel the need to repeat this? No-one doubts that the Olympus has its advantages, I know a few who have gone fro DSLR to Olympus (or Panasonic) and I have Olympus and Panasonic myself to complement (yes, complement) my DSLRs.

I started this thread to highlight the peculiar fascination this forum seems to have with DR/sensor tech and the hypocrisy of many of the critics, and yet you can't stop having a dig can you?

So inline with my OP

In pixel peeping tests the situation is not so bright but not so dark either. The olympus is about 1 stop, maybe a little more noisy than my 6d.

Shocking! The E-M1 you love so much is handicapped and crippled! I didn't think you bought crippled cameras?

 

[snoke]

I started this thread to highlight the peculiar fascination this forum seems to have with DR/sensor tech and the hypocrisy of many of the critics, and yet you can't stop having a dig can you?

You make wrong comparison. Same is good result here. Better compare D850 and Sony A7RII. Ask why Sony better? That right question.

 

[Loswr]

I started this thread to highlight the peculiar fascination this forum seems to have with DR/sensor tech and the hypocrisy of many of the critics, and yet you can't stop having a dig can you?

You make wrong comparison. Same is good result here. Better compare D850 and Sony A7RII. Ask why Sony better? That right question.

In the context of the CR bashing of the 6DII for having a sensor no better that the 6D, Mikehit made the exact right comparison.

 

[jeffa4444]

This entire thread is laughable. Did no one even read the notes?

"Notes:
(e) indcates estimated values that are not based on the normal test protocol. For example, the Nikon D850."

This is the same kind of garbage ppl complained about with the 6DMK2 tests, but apparently as long as it's used to blast Nikon it's ok. Seems like the fanboys/trolling on both sides has gotten out of hand recently.

Yes and how did that garbage turn out? It was truthful. The "estimated" moniker comes from the point that the files are normally from beta cameras without official release. This rarely seems to make any practical difference.

On the other hand I would point out that technical data, like the PDR constantly referred to, doesn't necessarily equate to noticeable differences in real world images. There is more than one 6D MkII owner put there pointing out they are getting 'better' results with their MkII's.

I used the Arri dynamic range test chart on my Canon 6D MKII and it was 1/2 stop better than the figures published by PDR / DXO yet was told to expect very little variance. I didn't buy the statement and still don't because batch testing is the only reliable result just as Lens Rentals conducts and averages the results. We have tested a large number of Sony F55 cameras and at that level see variances you cannot tell me a consumer product mass produced has no variance.

Does that mean Canon should have not done better with the 6D MKII dynamic range, yes it should when its charging £, 1,999 for a body only I like the Canon system but I'm not blind to Canon lagging when it comes to dynamic range against its peers. The positive of the 6D MKII is it does have better colour and better features especially the flippy screen which has been employed numerous times since my purchase.

 

[privatebydesign]

This entire thread is laughable. Did no one even read the notes?

"Notes:
(e) indcates estimated values that are not based on the normal test protocol. For example, the Nikon D850."

This is the same kind of garbage ppl complained about with the 6DMK2 tests, but apparently as long as it's used to blast Nikon it's ok. Seems like the fanboys/trolling on both sides has gotten out of hand recently.

Yes and how did that garbage turn out? It was truthful. The "estimated" moniker comes from the point that the files are normally from beta cameras without official release. This rarely seems to make any practical difference.

On the other hand I would point out that technical data, like the PDR constantly referred to, doesn't necessarily equate to noticeable differences in real world images. There is more than one 6D MkII owner put there pointing out they are getting 'better' results with their MkII's.

I used the Arri dynamic range test chart on my Canon 6D MKII and it was 1/2 stop better than the figures published by PDR / DXO yet was told to expect very little variance. I didn't buy the statement and still don't because batch testing is the only reliable result just as Lens Rentals conducts and averages the results. We have tested a large number of Sony F55 cameras and at that level see variances you cannot tell me a consumer product mass produced has no variance.

Does that mean Canon should have not done better with the 6D MKII dynamic range, yes it should when its charging £, 1,999 for a body only I like the Canon system but I'm not blind to Canon lagging when it comes to dynamic range against its peers. The positive of the 6D MKII is it does have better colour and better features especially the flippy screen which has been employed numerous times since my purchase.

And therein is hidden an important aspect of these multitudes of DR measurements that are bandied about. You used a visual image to make a subjective decision on DR, DxO, DPReview, Bill Cliff etc all all use digital data alone on which they run analyses to determine the theoretical range between arbitrarily numbers.

Which is why almost all camera manufacturers who publish DR data do so using an oscilloscope and zero out when the signal to noise ratio equals zero, not an arbitrary 'noise floor' value that might, or might not, actual contain usable image data. Which means everybody is measuring the same thing but the user experience is different!

Personally I shoot very wide dr subjects all the time and haven't had an issue with dr since moving from film. Most talk about DR and it's 'limitation' is stirred up by second rate websites just for the noise it creates, when they are put on the spot and asked to produce raw files of images they use to 'expose these limitations' they won't, because they know it is mostly irrelevant and they are being, at best, disingenuous.

 

[jeffa4444]

This entire thread is laughable. Did no one even read the notes?

"Notes:
(e) indcates estimated values that are not based on the normal test protocol. For example, the Nikon D850."

This is the same kind of garbage ppl complained about with the 6DMK2 tests, but apparently as long as it's used to blast Nikon it's ok. Seems like the fanboys/trolling on both sides has gotten out of hand recently.

Yes and how did that garbage turn out? It was truthful. The "estimated" moniker comes from the point that the files are normally from beta cameras without official release. This rarely seems to make any practical difference.

On the other hand I would point out that technical data, like the PDR constantly referred to, doesn't necessarily equate to noticeable differences in real world images. There is more than one 6D MkII owner put there pointing out they are getting 'better' results with their MkII's.

I used the Arri dynamic range test chart on my Canon 6D MKII and it was 1/2 stop better than the figures published by PDR / DXO yet was told to expect very little variance. I didn't buy the statement and still don't because batch testing is the only reliable result just as Lens Rentals conducts and averages the results. We have tested a large number of Sony F55 cameras and at that level see variances you cannot tell me a consumer product mass produced has no variance.

Does that mean Canon should have not done better with the 6D MKII dynamic range, yes it should when its charging £, 1,999 for a body only I like the Canon system but I'm not blind to Canon lagging when it comes to dynamic range against its peers. The positive of the 6D MKII is it does have better colour and better features especially the flippy screen which has been employed numerous times since my purchase.

And therein is hidden an important aspect of these multitudes of DR measurements that are bandied about. You used a visual image to make a subjective decision on DR, DxO, DPReview, Bill Cliff etc all all use digital data alone on which they run analyses to determine the theoretical range between arbitrarily numbers.

Which is why almost all camera manufacturers who publish DR data do so using an oscilloscope and zero out when the signal to noise ratio equals zero, not an arbitrary 'noise floor' value that might, or might not, actual contain usable image data. Which means everybody is measuring the same thing but the user experience is different!

Personally I shoot very wide dr subjects all the time and haven't had an issue with dr since moving from film. Most talk about DR and it's 'limitation' is stirred up by second rate websites just for the noise it creates, when they are put on the spot and asked to produce raw files of images they use to 'expose these limitations' they won't, because they know it is mostly irrelevant and they are being, at best, disingenuous.

Sorry but your analysis of what I did is WRONG. I did not make a visual analysis with a subjective reading the testing is automated using Aquamat universal software and provides an OECF-Graph (using a reference set of the individual test chart), Saturation, Noise Floor, S/N (dB) as well as other data fields (line average to determine clipping points for instance) all carried out in a specifically set-up room.
For the record using multiple HD cameras for visual effects were asked to match cameras as close as possible and these images end up on some of the largest screens in the world thus the need for accurate testing.

 

[privatebydesign]

This entire thread is laughable. Did no one even read the notes?

"Notes:
(e) indcates estimated values that are not based on the normal test protocol. For example, the Nikon D850."

This is the same kind of garbage ppl complained about with the 6DMK2 tests, but apparently as long as it's used to blast Nikon it's ok. Seems like the fanboys/trolling on both sides has gotten out of hand recently.

Yes and how did that garbage turn out? It was truthful. The "estimated" moniker comes from the point that the files are normally from beta cameras without official release. This rarely seems to make any practical difference.

On the other hand I would point out that technical data, like the PDR constantly referred to, doesn't necessarily equate to noticeable differences in real world images. There is more than one 6D MkII owner put there pointing out they are getting 'better' results with their MkII's.

I used the Arri dynamic range test chart on my Canon 6D MKII and it was 1/2 stop better than the figures published by PDR / DXO yet was told to expect very little variance. I didn't buy the statement and still don't because batch testing is the only reliable result just as Lens Rentals conducts and averages the results. We have tested a large number of Sony F55 cameras and at that level see variances you cannot tell me a consumer product mass produced has no variance.

Does that mean Canon should have not done better with the 6D MKII dynamic range, yes it should when its charging £, 1,999 for a body only I like the Canon system but I'm not blind to Canon lagging when it comes to dynamic range against its peers. The positive of the 6D MKII is it does have better colour and better features especially the flippy screen which has been employed numerous times since my purchase.

And therein is hidden an important aspect of these multitudes of DR measurements that are bandied about. You used a visual image to make a subjective decision on DR, DxO, DPReview, Bill Cliff etc all all use digital data alone on which they run analyses to determine the theoretical range between arbitrarily numbers.

Which is why almost all camera manufacturers who publish DR data do so using an oscilloscope and zero out when the signal to noise ratio equals zero, not an arbitrary 'noise floor' value that might, or might not, actual contain usable image data. Which means everybody is measuring the same thing but the user experience is different!

Personally I shoot very wide dr subjects all the time and haven't had an issue with dr since moving from film. Most talk about DR and it's 'limitation' is stirred up by second rate websites just for the noise it creates, when they are put on the spot and asked to produce raw files of images they use to 'expose these limitations' they won't, because they know it is mostly irrelevant and they are being, at best, disingenuous.

Sorry but your analysis of what I did is WRONG. I did not make a visual analysis with a subjective reading the testing is automated using Aquamat universal software and provides an OECF-Graph (using a reference set of the individual test chart), Saturation, Noise Floor, S/N (dB) as well as other data fields (line average to determine clipping points for instance) all carried out in a specifically set-up room.
For the record using multiple HD cameras for visual effects were asked to match cameras as close as possible and these images end up on some of the largest screens in the world thus the need for accurate testing.

I wasn't dismissing your testing, or belittling it, and if I got specifics wrong I apologize. But my point stands, different tests: different results, no surprise. Most of the time these different tests aren't even testing to the same parameters so it is even less surprising.

If you are testing multiple anything on the same apparatus via the same protocol in the same conditions you are testing sample variation alone, which was clearly the object of your testing. Now if only we could send you 100 of every camera we are interested in buying you could not only do a decent comparison but you could tell us which specific body had the 'best' insides of each model.

One persons (and cameras) 18dB S/N ratio is unusable noisy to some, others think it is perfectly usable.

 

[raptor3x]

This entire thread is laughable. Did no one even read the notes?

"Notes:
(e) indcates estimated values that are not based on the normal test protocol. For example, the Nikon D850."

This is the same kind of garbage ppl complained about with the 6DMK2 tests, but apparently as long as it's used to blast Nikon it's ok. Seems like the fanboys/trolling on both sides has gotten out of hand recently.

Yes and how did that garbage turn out? It was truthful. The "estimated" moniker comes from the point that the files are normally from beta cameras without official release. This rarely seems to make any practical difference.

On the other hand I would point out that technical data, like the PDR constantly referred to, doesn't necessarily equate to noticeable differences in real world images. There is more than one 6D MkII owner put there pointing out they are getting 'better' results with their MkII's.

I used the Arri dynamic range test chart on my Canon 6D MKII and it was 1/2 stop better than the figures published by PDR / DXO yet was told to expect very little variance. I didn't buy the statement and still don't because batch testing is the only reliable result just as Lens Rentals conducts and averages the results. We have tested a large number of Sony F55 cameras and at that level see variances you cannot tell me a consumer product mass produced has no variance.

Does that mean Canon should have not done better with the 6D MKII dynamic range, yes it should when its charging £, 1,999 for a body only I like the Canon system but I'm not blind to Canon lagging when it comes to dynamic range against its peers. The positive of the 6D MKII is it does have better colour and better features especially the flippy screen which has been employed numerous times since my purchase.

You used a completely difference testing protocol than what DxO and Bill Claff are doing with different definitions of dynamic range and you're complaining that the absolute values don't match up?

 

[jeffa4444]

This entire thread is laughable. Did no one even read the notes?

"Notes:
(e) indcates estimated values that are not based on the normal test protocol. For example, the Nikon D850."

This is the same kind of garbage ppl complained about with the 6DMK2 tests, but apparently as long as it's used to blast Nikon it's ok. Seems like the fanboys/trolling on both sides has gotten out of hand recently.

Yes and how did that garbage turn out? It was truthful. The "estimated" moniker comes from the point that the files are normally from beta cameras without official release. This rarely seems to make any practical difference.

On the other hand I would point out that technical data, like the PDR constantly referred to, doesn't necessarily equate to noticeable differences in real world images. There is more than one 6D MkII owner put there pointing out they are getting 'better' results with their MkII's.

I used the Arri dynamic range test chart on my Canon 6D MKII and it was 1/2 stop better than the figures published by PDR / DXO yet was told to expect very little variance. I didn't buy the statement and still don't because batch testing is the only reliable result just as Lens Rentals conducts and averages the results. We have tested a large number of Sony F55 cameras and at that level see variances you cannot tell me a consumer product mass produced has no variance.

Does that mean Canon should have not done better with the 6D MKII dynamic range, yes it should when its charging £, 1,999 for a body only I like the Canon system but I'm not blind to Canon lagging when it comes to dynamic range against its peers. The positive of the 6D MKII is it does have better colour and better features especially the flippy screen which has been employed numerous times since my purchase.

You used a completely difference testing protocol than what DxO and Bill Claff are doing with different definitions of dynamic range and you're complaining that the absolute values don't match up?

And your point is what? Have they the perfect testing system? Has anyone? I'm not sure what you mean by different definition of DR the system we use is exactly the same system Arri use and the Fraunhofer Institute and we specifically use it for two reasons a. to determine dynamic range ability b. sample variance to manufacturers claims.
The point I was making is various people including Bill Claff have stated they don't expect a variance between cameras of the same type. In our sample variance testing we have seen variances on high end cameras vastly more expensive than a 6D MKII so therefor batch testing is the only reliable measurement.

 

[SecureGSM]

Nikon D850 review by Nasim Mansurov of Photography Life.
Quite a few pages to go through if you were interested at all. Highly recommended though, highly...

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d850

 

[Jopa]

I bet a $1 it will hit a 100 @ DxO sensor score.

https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-d850-sensor-review-first-dslr-hit-100-points/

I told y'all!!! It was quite predictable knowing DxO love to Nikosony.
If anybody from this forum would pass me their $1 I could probably buy a lens or two.

 

[Loswr]

I bet a $1 it will hit a 100 @ DxO sensor score.

https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-d850-sensor-review-first-dslr-hit-100-points/

I told y'all!!! It was quite predictable knowing DxO love to Nikosony.
If anybody from this forum would pass me their $1 I could probably buy a lens or two.

Hopefully you won't be foolish enough to use that money on Canon Lenses, forcing yourself to handicap them with an inadequate sensor…