Who said Canon cameras suck?!?

[cliffwang]

This thread is getting funny. I use 5D3 and I am satisfied. I haven't tried D800, but I know D800 is a good camera as well especially its high MP & DR. We do see a lot of samples from many website how helpful the high MP & DR are. On the other hand, we also see how useful 5D3 is in low light environment. I thought that's common sense already. Is that necessary to discuss 5D3 vs D800 now?

 

[marekjoz]

I've read somewhere (can't remind the source but can search for it), that in fact Nikon's NEF RAWs manipulate with data from sensors in the shadows area. It could be their compressed NEF.
But, I want to point to you, that in fact it is "almost possible" to get more than 14 DR stops from 14 bits data file. Since most people are most focused on shadows and highlights, you can simply forget about some information in the center of the band. It's later all the matter in implementation of interpretation of these data. Sure you loose information in the center, but you can proove that you gain more than 14bits from darkest to highest if you pay attention only on these areas

 

[jrista]

I've read somewhere (can't remind the source but can search for it), that in fact Nikon's NEF RAWs manipulate with data from sensors in the shadows area. It could be their compressed NEF.
But, I want to point to you, that in fact it is "almost possible" to get more than 14 DR stops from 14 bits data file. Since most people are most focused on shadows and highlights, you can simply forget about some information in the center of the band. It's later all the matter in implementation of interpretation of these data. Sure you loose information in the center, but you can proove that you gain more than 14bits from darkest to highest if you pay attention only on these areas

Well, DR generally refers to a hardware capability... the maximum range of levels a sensor can record, from its darkest (average of noise) to brightest. Dynamic range doesn't change in post... it's a fixed hardware trait. So you can't really just "exclude some of the midtones" (remember, a stop is a doubling... you would have to lose 1.2 stops of midtones, which would be noticeable.) What changes in post is how you utilize those levels... the tone curves you apply that attenuate them.

 

[jrista]

This thread is getting funny. I use 5D3 and I am satisfied. I haven't tried D800, but I know D800 is a good camera as well especially its high MP & DR. We do see a lot of samples from many website how helpful the high MP & DR are. On the other hand, we also see how useful 5D3 is in low light environment. I thought that's common sense already. Is that necessary to discuss 5D3 vs D800 now?

Well there is always something to say when the facts are incorrect. I frequently hear about how people can push D800 (or, for that matter, D7000) shadows around "by an amazing 6 stops!!" Well, sure, you can...but that doesn't mean the D800 or D7000 are capable of a full 6 stops more exposure latitude than a Canon camera. At a hardware level, the D800 is about 2 stops better than current Canon cameras (some less, as in the case of the 1D IV, which gets about 11.5 stops of DR, and some more as in the case of the 5D III, which gets about 11 stops of DR.)

The point of my post was to show that Canon's cameras aren't "six full stops worse" than a D800 or D7000. In fact, Canon cameras have for a number of years had rather amazing highlight recovery, the kind of highlight recovery that used to be relegated to MFD cameras. The kind of highlight recovery that even the D800 doesn't quite seem to reach (http://www.photographybay.com/2012/04/21/nikon-d800-vs-hasselblad-h4d-40/). I wanted to show that you can push Canon exposure around by at least four full stops when you overexpose. That greatly diminishes the differences between Nikon cameras that use an Exmor sensor, and Canon cameras. Nikon cameras till have a 2-stop advantage, but its not a 6-stop advantage as some video reviews and commentary might have you believing.

 

[marekjoz]

I've read somewhere (can't remind the source but can search for it), that in fact Nikon's NEF RAWs manipulate with data from sensors in the shadows area. It could be their compressed NEF.
But, I want to point to you, that in fact it is "almost possible" to get more than 14 DR stops from 14 bits data file. Since most people are most focused on shadows and highlights, you can simply forget about some information in the center of the band. It's later all the matter in implementation of interpretation of these data. Sure you loose information in the center, but you can proove that you gain more than 14bits from darkest to highest if you pay attention only on these areas

Well, DR generally refers to a hardware capability... the maximum range of levels a sensor can record, from its darkest (average of noise) to brightest. Dynamic range doesn't change in post... it's a fixed hardware trait. So you can't really just "exclude some of the midtones" (remember, a stop is a doubling... you would have to lose 1.2 stops of midtones, which would be noticeable.) What changes in post is how you utilize those levels... the tone curves you apply that attenuate them.

Yes, I know what you mean - it was just about showing more than 14DR using 14bits of data.
How about making a sensor in which, let's say even pixels in the first row work at ie ISO 100, and odd works at ISO 400 (so base ISO +2)? In the second row otherwise of course and so on. Knowing that, you can easily interprete all the data properly and record more than now - sth like hdr directly from the sensor.

 

[NormanBates]

Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?

Why people mistake DR for exposure latitude?

I always thought they were the same. Care to explain the difference?

Exposure latitude is the extent to which a light-sensitive material can be overexposed or underexposed and still achieve an acceptable result. Since the acceptability of the result is dependent on both personal aesthetics and artistic intentions, the measurement of exposure latitude is, by definition, somewhat subjective. However, the relative differences between mediums are generally agreed upon: reversal film tends to have very little latitude, color negative film has considerably more, and digital sensors slot between the two.
It is not to be confused with dynamic range, the range of light intensities a medium can capture simultaneously. A recording medium with greater dynamic range will be able to record more details in the dark and light areas of a picture. Latitude depends on dynamic range. If the same scene can be recorded using less than the full brightness range available to the medium, the exposure can be shifted along the range without losing information in the shadows or highlights. Greater exposure latitude allows one to compensate for errors in exposure while retaining quality.
Professional critique of digital cine cameras often centers on the extent to which their dynamic range, and exposure latitude by extension, falls short of that of negative film.

This is from Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_latitude

Thanks for the explanation.

From reading that, it seems to me that the distinction was more useful in the old days of film than when you're working with digital sensors: now the only difference left would be that "exposure latitude" includes a subjective component (how much noise each individual is ready to accept), whereas dynamic range is an objective measure (how far into each side because you lose all detail)

 

[bbasiaga]

Technology is a race. You don't lead every lap.

of course .. but when you are second place you normaly don´t have the most expensive products... :

Well there is a fact. Canon's 5D is more expensive than Nikon's D800. And if sensor DR and resolution were the sum total of the equation, it wouldn't make sense. However, based on my own spec sheet review and reports from actual users of both, the 5DIII is more versatile. So does paying more for a camera that can perform well in more situations make sense? It at least starts to. At that point, you have to look at what you shoot and decide if the extra money is worth the extra functionality. All everyone wants to talk about is the sensor and the price. Everything else gets forgotten. Kudos to whoever posted the wedding camera discussion. Its refreshing to see that somewhere on the 'net there are people who can analyze the situation with a wider angle lens (pun intended).

-Brian

 

[Loswr]

...can push D800 (or, for that matter, D7000) shadows around "by an amazing 6 stops!!"

...can push Canon exposure around by at least four full stops when you overexpose.

OK, so to sum up:

• If you're the sort of photographer who routinely screws up by drastically underexposing your images, get a Nikon.
• If you're the sort of photographer who routinely screws up by drastically overexposing your images, get a Canon.
• If you're the sort of photographer who routinely screws up by drastically underexposing many of your images, and also by drastically overexposing the images which you didn't underexpose, get both a Nikon and Canon (ok, I suppose you could learn how to expose properly).
• If you're the sort of photographer who routinely doesn't screw up the exposure, you should be out taking pictures instead of reading this thread. So go.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Technology is a race. You don't lead every lap.

of course .. but when you are second place you normaly don´t have the most expensive products... :

Well there is a fact. Canon's 5D is more expensive than Nikon's D800. And if sensor DR and resolution were the sum total of the equation, it wouldn't make sense. However, based on my own spec sheet review and reports from actual users of both, the 5DIII is more versatile. So does paying more for a camera that can perform well in more situations make sense? It at least starts to. At that point, you have to look at what you shoot and decide if the extra money is worth the extra functionality. All everyone wants to talk about is the sensor and the price. Everything else gets forgotten. Kudos to whoever posted the wedding camera discussion. Its refreshing to see that somewhere on the 'net there are people who can analyze the situation with a wider angle lens (pun intended).

-Brian

TY man, with all the negativity and single minded DR discussions here, then seeing those posts go up on the other forums it seemed like info people here should see!

The 5d3 is designed to be a beast of a wedding/event camera. It can handle most other stuff well too, but it is designed first and foremost as a wedding camera. The D800 is designed to be a studio/landscape camera. Both are very good at what they are designed to do. Kind of just wish people would realize that and move on...lol

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

...can push D800 (or, for that matter, D7000) shadows around "by an amazing 6 stops!!"

...can push Canon exposure around by at least four full stops when you overexpose.

OK, so to sum up:

• If you're the sort of photographer who routinely screws up by drastically underexposing your images, get a Nikon.
• If you're the sort of photographer who routinely screws up by drastically overexposing your images, get a Canon.
• If you're the sort of photographer who routinely screws up by drastically underexposing many of your images, and also by drastically overexposing the images which you didn't underexpose, get both a Nikon and Canon (ok, I suppose you could learn how to expose properly).
• If you're the sort of photographer who routinely doesn't screw up the exposure, you should be out taking pictures instead of reading this thread. So go.

WOW!!@!!!!!! +1,000,000,000,000 ....

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It's the photographer that sucks and not the camera most of the time. Modern DSLRs are basically good enough to capture pictures almost all the time. I admit there are limitations but sometimes it's the skill that's limited and not the camera.

Yes, sometimes it is the skill that is limited, but it can certainly be the camera too.

Anyway, sure you can take awesome sports pics with say a 20D, but I guarantee you that if you suddenly put a 20D in someone's hands who was using a 1 series and vice-versa that the one getting the 1 series will suddenly get a lot more keepers and the one getting the 20D will suddenly get a lot less keepers. Heck, we actually did just such experiments on the sidelines once.

That said the best sport shooters still took better pics than the least experienced now suddenly using a 1 series. But again everyone had an instant and noticeable difference in how well they did depending upon which body they used.

 

[Zlatko]

The 5d3 is designed to be a beast of a wedding/event camera. It can handle most other stuff well too, but it is designed first and foremost as a wedding camera. The D800 is designed to be a studio/landscape camera. Both are very good at what they are designed to do. Kind of just wish people would realize that and move on...lol

Exactly right!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?

You're right, it does have 14.4 stops of DR, despite a 14-bit ADC. It's also powered by an internal perpetual motion machine, floats in the air when released, and basically defies many other laws of physics and thermodynamics.
:

at the pixel level, the D800 DR at ISO 100 is 13.23EV.
the 14.4 is because of the normalizing in the DXO print mark.

Yes, I know.

If a data analysis method includes a normalization step which forces data to fall outside of the range that's physically possible for the measurement, that data analysis method is flawed, and by extension, any conclusions based on that method are also flawed. If a hospital reported to parents that their newborn infant had a population-normalized length of -4", you'd say WTF, a negative height is impossible, right?

Same thing with a 14.4 DR from a 14-bit ADC. WTF, that's impossible. Change the method, becasue the method is flawed. If the analysis method is flawed, the resulting conclusions (i.e. DxOMark's Scores) are also flawed. Note that I think (and I've repeatedly stated) that their Measurements are valid and useful - it's the Scores, which are based on the flawed normalization step (and have other problems, like undisclosed 'black box' weighting of sub-components) that are meaningless.

In the normalization, they are trading resolution (in the D800 case where the MP are higher than the target, at least) for read noise at the bottom end and the top end is a fixed well capacity regardless.

You should know that it doesn't make sense to say one sensor is better than the other comparing without any normalization (not that one might not want to know at times what the 100% view measurements are). What if you have a 1MP FF sensor with 10D technology and a 40MP FF sensor with 1DX technology. Are you going to compare them say for middle gray SNR and then say wow that 1MP using the old tech performs so much better that awful new 40MP camera? Compared at the same scale the 40MP one would look cleaner. Comparing them directly you are comparing noise at two different power scales as if the scales were the same.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If the expected sensor improvements are similar to autofocus improvements between 5D Mark II and 5D Mark III all the whining may at least lead to something worthwhile.

For whom? For people who care more about technical part than about the photography itself? Are those who whining really able to use at least capabilities of previous generation bodies? For me it looks like:

You do realize people are whining about it because of things they noticed real world in the field don't you?
If nobody whines in this type of forum then canon sits still another few bodies and that's maybe another 5 years there are certain types of shots you can't take well (and yes sure there are an infinite number of other shots you can take well in the meantime but using that logic we may as well have stopped progressing with the D30).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Some of you Nikon D800 fanboys really make me sick.
You think the D800 is the be-all and end-all of all DSLR cameras, when in fact it has some glaring faults like poor autofocus (especially on the left side) and a rear screen that makes everything look green.

I do a lot of commercial shots where colour is very important, and if I had to go by the rear screen, a D800 would drive me bonkers!
I can and do go by the screen on my 5D3 and it is very accurate, unlike the Nikon screen.

Put properly exposed shots of the D800 beside shots from a 5D3 on a good quality computer screen and you would have trouble picking the differences, except the Canon's colours are more true to life.

Even if the D800 had a thousand megapickles, the 5D3 is still a better all-around camera and is certainly my tool of choice for the jobs I do.
In fact, with all the types of photography I do for a living, or for my own fun, it has always done a sterling job, even in very difficult and demanding situations.

You guys who carry on about how much better a D800 is than a 5D3 remind me of the immature little boys who say that their car is better than yours, because it can do 0-60 1/10th of a second quicker, yet it rides like a buckboard and handles like a limp rag.
There is far more to a good camera than a heap of megapickles, just as there is a lot more to a good car than a quick 0-60 time.

we are talking sensor only here nothing more

other than low ISO DR the 5D3 really is quite awesome, 6fps FF, 1 series AF, compact body size, now with ML the video is quite usable and soon it should offer better compression and be a really nice video solution, nice UI (more MP would be nice but you can't have it all yet perhaps so it's really just the low ISO DR that was the one unfortunate thing, other great)

I'm sorry, but no. I'm talking about the Canon SYSTEM. I used Sensor in my original title, but its not just sensor capabilities I'm talking about. I've corrected the title.

I'm sorry, but no, you, as stated, used SENSOR in your original title as well as ONLY talked or mentioned the sensor in your original post so.... yeah that was all that you were talking about.

If you want to talk about more and get into LCD tints, and AF and liveview implementation and what not then that is something else.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?

Lets stop talking about the D800 as it its simply and solely a trophy to be compared, and start talking about it from a real world context. No one cares how it compares if you upscale a 5D III image to 36.3mp size. Neither does anyone who uses a 5D III or any other Canon camera really care how it compares if you downscale a D800 image to 22.3mp size. They care whats possible in the real world, with real-world software...tone curves and all.

real world it's simply not fair to compare cameras on a non-normalized basis to one another,it doesn't make any sense

And yet...no one actually lives in the limited reality wherein technical comparisons between hardware actually create photography. Sorry...people live in THE REAL WORLD, and in the REAL WORLD, people don't "objectively" utilize their cameras with unmodified, linear import to "see" all the dynamic range their camera has available. In the REAL WORLD, people apply base tone curves to their photos, to compress the considerable dynamic range...from either a Nikon or a Canon camera...which tends to be far greater than the dynamic range of either our computer screens or anything in print, into the much smaller dynamic range of those devices so our photos actually look good.

Tone curves are a real-world thing, they actually exist, and they are utilized by the very, very vast majority of photographers. The differences in tone curves and the distribution of levels in those curves between manufacturers is a meaningful topic.

What does all that have to do with my statement that it does not make sense to compare sensors to one another without normalization? What does it even have to do with tone curves at all?

Just tossing out words that sound good are not a response. That is what politicians do. Ask them a question and they give you five minutes of talk, perhaps even true, about something only vaguely related while completely avoiding the real point.


(and btw you do know that you can rest a nikon tone curve to a canon and vice-vesa in raw software....)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?

Why people mistake DR for exposure latitude?

I always thought they were the same. Care to explain the difference?

Dynamic range refers to the total maximum physical range of tonal levels a camera sensor is capable of recording. Exposure latitude refers to the ability of an actual exposure taken with a camera to be tuned or adjusted. A true RAW photo strait off the sensor is very dull, flat, lifeless, lacking a significant amount of contrast. When we import our RAW photos, most RAW editors apply a tone curve. Usually one of the manufacturer defaults (such as Camera Standard or Camera Neutral, etc.) These tone curves adjust how levels are allocated in the final image you see on your screen.

In a linear image, levels are distributed equally (hence the dull, lifeless, low-contrast appearance). With a tone curve applied, more levels are allocated to the shadows and the highlights, effectively "compressing" the wide dynamic range into a narrower contrast range. That brightens and adds life and color to an otherwise dull original exposure. The side effect of that is you have a lot of levels "bunched up" in the shadows and in the highlights around the roughly linear growth of the midtones. It's thanks to these tone curves that we have the ability to "recover" highlights and "lift" shadows.

Technically speaking, LetTheRightLensIn is correct...there is no such thing as highlight recovery or for that matter shadow lifting. Not with a true RAW image that has not yet had tone curves applied. But we generally don't work with our RAW photos in their true form. When it comes to the shape of tone curves, Nikon tends to allocate a lot more levels to the "foot of shadows" than Canon (and, for that matter, most other manufacturers, including MFD manufacturers.) They have more freedom to for sure, thanks to their lower read noise. That doesn't account for the ability to push shadows around by as much as 6 stops though...Exmor sensors only offer about 2 stops of additional DR in the shadows. Examining Nikon's tone curves indicates they allocate more levels to the shadows than their low read noise offers alone with their curves.

Similarly, Canon allocates more levels to the "shoulder of highlights" in their tone curves. They don't allocate as many more levels to highlights as Nikon seems to do to the shadows, however in Canon's newer cameras their highlight shoulder tends to be a little longer and fall off more into the highlight range than Nikon cameras. This is part of the reason you can overexpose by four stops with a modern Canon camera and still be able to recover (although its doubtful you could overexpose by 6 stops and still recover...Nikon still has around a 2-stop DR edge in the end.)

Exposure latitude is benefited by these tone curves, and the ability to recover highlights and shadows from "beyond the foot and shoulder." Exposure latitude is enabled by DR, and the more DR you have, the more you can tune those curves to allow greater and greater latitude.

Even if they do suggest to the RAW programs to place things differently and use a different default tone curve. The thing is with RAW all you do is pull a few sliders and everything is totally different than the default anyway.
D800 sensor has 2.6 stops more DR regardless (and the actual usable difference is over 3 since it has so much less banding junk, so real world actually makes it even greater than the most simple lab measurement).

Anwyay I'm kind of tired about the DR talk. If Canon doesn't get the message by now, they never will. Hopefully that new CR rumor is true and they have gotten the message and hopefully they will carry it off in a way that is as practical and universal as Sony has.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

...can push D800 (or, for that matter, D7000) shadows around "by an amazing 6 stops!!"

...can push Canon exposure around by at least four full stops when you overexpose.

OK, so to sum up:

• If you're the sort of photographer who routinely screws up by drastically underexposing your images, get a Nikon.
• If you're the sort of photographer who routinely screws up by drastically overexposing your images, get a Canon.
• If you're the sort of photographer who routinely screws up by drastically underexposing many of your images, and also by drastically overexposing the images which you didn't underexpose, get both a Nikon and Canon (ok, I suppose you could learn how to expose properly).
• If you're the sort of photographer who routinely doesn't screw up the exposure, you should be out taking pictures instead of reading this thread. So go.

weak

you know better
and that the DR game is about a LOT more than just fixing up mistakes (even ignoring that, your summary is very misleading, which I suspect you also know)

really weak, I know you know better than that

 

[jrista]

Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?

Why people mistake DR for exposure latitude?

I always thought they were the same. Care to explain the difference?

Dynamic range refers to the total maximum physical range of tonal levels a camera sensor is capable of recording. Exposure latitude refers to the ability of an actual exposure taken with a camera to be tuned or adjusted. A true RAW photo strait off the sensor is very dull, flat, lifeless, lacking a significant amount of contrast. When we import our RAW photos, most RAW editors apply a tone curve. Usually one of the manufacturer defaults (such as Camera Standard or Camera Neutral, etc.) These tone curves adjust how levels are allocated in the final image you see on your screen.

In a linear image, levels are distributed equally (hence the dull, lifeless, low-contrast appearance). With a tone curve applied, more levels are allocated to the shadows and the highlights, effectively "compressing" the wide dynamic range into a narrower contrast range. That brightens and adds life and color to an otherwise dull original exposure. The side effect of that is you have a lot of levels "bunched up" in the shadows and in the highlights around the roughly linear growth of the midtones. It's thanks to these tone curves that we have the ability to "recover" highlights and "lift" shadows.

Technically speaking, LetTheRightLensIn is correct...there is no such thing as highlight recovery or for that matter shadow lifting. Not with a true RAW image that has not yet had tone curves applied. But we generally don't work with our RAW photos in their true form. When it comes to the shape of tone curves, Nikon tends to allocate a lot more levels to the "foot of shadows" than Canon (and, for that matter, most other manufacturers, including MFD manufacturers.) They have more freedom to for sure, thanks to their lower read noise. That doesn't account for the ability to push shadows around by as much as 6 stops though...Exmor sensors only offer about 2 stops of additional DR in the shadows. Examining Nikon's tone curves indicates they allocate more levels to the shadows than their low read noise offers alone with their curves.

Similarly, Canon allocates more levels to the "shoulder of highlights" in their tone curves. They don't allocate as many more levels to highlights as Nikon seems to do to the shadows, however in Canon's newer cameras their highlight shoulder tends to be a little longer and fall off more into the highlight range than Nikon cameras. This is part of the reason you can overexpose by four stops with a modern Canon camera and still be able to recover (although its doubtful you could overexpose by 6 stops and still recover...Nikon still has around a 2-stop DR edge in the end.)

Exposure latitude is benefited by these tone curves, and the ability to recover highlights and shadows from "beyond the foot and shoulder." Exposure latitude is enabled by DR, and the more DR you have, the more you can tune those curves to allow greater and greater latitude.

Even if they do suggest to the RAW programs to place things differently and use a different default tone curve. The thing is with RAW all you do is pull a few sliders and everything is totally different than the default anyway.
D800 sensor has 2.6 stops more DR regardless (and the actual usable difference is over 3 since it has so much less banding junk, so real world actually makes it even greater than the most simple lab measurement).

Anwyay I'm kind of tired about the DR talk. If Canon doesn't get the message by now, they never will. Hopefully that new CR rumor is true and they have gotten the message and hopefully they will carry it off in a way that is as practical and universal as Sony has.

In comparison to my 7D, the D800 is 2.3 stops better. Period. I don't downscale my photos...on the contrary, I tend to upscale them, so there is no benefit of any kind of the D800 above and beyond the hardware's native 2.3 stops. In comparison to the 1D IV, the difference is only 1.7 stops.

As for the banding argument, baloney. There are PLENTY of samples from both the D800 and D7000 that show horizontal banding. Exmor's CP-ADC eliminates vertical banding, but you still experience horizontal banding...and oddly enough, it actually seems to get worse as you increase ISO, whereas on Canon cameras banding reduces and disappears as you increase ISO. There is no magic bullet here that makes REAL-WORLD performance of the D800 some 4.4 stops better than a comparable Canon camera. That is the kind of baloney that will sink organizations like DXO that use shady comparison techniques in the long run.

When it comes to comparisons, of hardware-dependent capabilities like DR, I could give a flying rats ass what two cameras look like when their post-conversion images are scaled down to the same tiny size. What I really care about is what the hardware is actually capable of. In that respect, I have no problem applauding Nikon and Sony for the approximately 2 additional stops of DR and amazing shadow recovery abilities. But I greatly dislike how so many people, thanks to DXO, now honestly think the D800 is capable of 14.4 stops of DR in native output (unscaled, dropped strait into <editorofchoice>, ready for processing.) Its flat out incorrect, inaccurate, and is greatly misleading to potential buyers...many of whom certainly seem so roped in by DXO's "score" that they've literally dumped their Canon kits and jumped brands (at what has to be considerable cost...to some who had extensive kits with expensive lenses, a cost of thousands).

If Nikon actually had a 6-stop benefit over Canon, I'd jump ship in a heartbeat, but that isn't the case. Canon can (and probably will) do better in the future, but as things stand now, Canon cameras are far from the horrid worthless POS's they are increasingly made out to be...and I simply wanted to demonstrate that.

 

[Loswr]

Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?

What if you have a 1MP FF sensor with 10D technology and a 40MP FF sensor with 1DX technology. Comparing them directly you are comparing noise at two different power scales as if the scales were the same.

The problem isn't the what, it's the how. I'm not questioning the need for or the benefit of normalization. What I'm saying is the way DxOmark is doing the normalization is flawed, because it generates normalized data that are impossible.

DxOMark is generating impossible data with their analytical method. Either they don't know this, in which case their qualifications to analyze data must be questioned, or they do know this and have chosen not to change it, in which case their rationale for failing to adopt proper methodology must be questioned.

Personally, I suspect they are aware of the issue, and have chosen to do nothing about it because of 1) the cost and time to re-analyze all of their prior data with a new normalization procedure and 2) the ramifications (i.e. embarrassment) of having to explain why such a change is necessary.

OK, so to sum up:

• If you're the sort of photographer who routinely screws up by drastically underexposing your images, get a Nikon.
• If you're the sort of photographer who routinely screws up by drastically overexposing your images, get a Canon.
• If you're the sort of photographer who routinely screws up by drastically underexposing many of your images, and also by drastically overexposing the images which you didn't underexpose, get both a Nikon and Canon (ok, I suppose you could learn how to expose properly).
• If you're the sort of photographer who routinely doesn't screw up the exposure, you should be out taking pictures instead of reading this thread. So go.

weak

you know better
and that the DR game is about a LOT more than just fixing up mistakes (even ignoring that, your summary is very misleading, which I suspect you also know)

really weak, I know you know better than that

C'mon, do I really have to put <sarcasm> or <tongue-in-cheek> or <yuk it up, these are the jokes> tags all over my posts? Really?!?