Why the DxO bashing?

[Loswr]

To give you an example of a scene I tried (and failed) to capture with Canon equipment, I had a setting sun behind a building that I could see through the door on the east, down a corridor and out the open door on the west side. As you can imagine, the detail outside the building on the west side was brightly lit (direct/diffuse sunlight), the side of the building I was on was maybe in the 50% grey area and the interior of the building was quite dark. There was very limited ability to expose to the right due to the outdoor area being lit by the sun but at the same time, if I didn't push it then the interior was lost to noise from Canon's sensor.

From your description, the scene would likely have had >15 stops of DR, supporting my earlier statement.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The key points are:

• DxO does not disclose their methods for deriving their scores, which renders their scores meaningless
• Some of DxO's measurements have errors, which makes all of their measurements suspect
• DxO does not acknowledge their mistakes and issue corrigenda, but rather silently modify the original data, rendering their scientific ethics questionable

On which I totally agree. In fact I have specifically addressed the difference between data themselves and their interpretation, as well as pointing out the need of accepting the limitation of any single test and understanding the useful information it provides without labeling the whole thing as pointless, biased or false.

Mostly your post used the word rant many times and was a general insult to many of us who post here. Just stick to your opinions about the tests and stop trying to insult members. That's the stuff of Trolls.

 

[tron]

I wonder too why the DXO bashing.

They are so reliable...

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-2.8-21mm-ZF2-Nikon-on-Nikon-D3X-versus-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II___334_485_326_483

 

[David Hull]

...
Many Canon Rumors trolls may experience great satisfaction from demonstrating that ~2 stop deficit in low ISO DR by shooting images with the lens cap on, then pushing those images 4-5 stops in post.
...
Many times in the DR debate, those bashing Canon sensors have been asked to provide examples of shots ruined by Canon's 'poor low ISO DR' that would have been saved by those extra two stops. Personally, I have almost no examples of that situation - in many scenes, the ~12 stops I get is sufficient, and when the scene DR is greater than 12 stops, it's almost always greater than 14 stops, too.

Dude, it's not just the extra DR but the rampant noise in the shadow details of Canon files. This all but makes the bottom stop or two useless.

To give you an example of a scene I tried (and failed) to capture with Canon equipment, I had a setting sun behind a building that I could see through the door on the east, down a corridor and out the open door on the west side. As you can imagine, the detail outside the building on the west side was brightly lit (direct/diffuse sunlight), the side of the building I was on was maybe in the 50% grey area and the interior of the building was quite dark. There was very limited ability to expose to the right due to the outdoor area being lit by the sun but at the same time, if I didn't push it then the interior was lost to noise from Canon's sensor.

So to mimic what has been said about the dynamic range of the 5D Mark II (and by extension at least that of the 5D Mark III) "usable DR of the camera is one or two stops lower than what is measured due to the inability to use the shadows."

So what. What I always find so interesting about these discussions is that at the end of the day, based on all the examples that people tend to put up (the photo you are referencing most likely no different) this superior "state of the art" sensor technology with all this extensive DR advantages has done very little to advance the state of "ART" with regard to photography. If it really produced the dramatic advances in Image Quality that the proponents always claim, it would have gained significant traction in the market place. If IQ were really a significant problem with Canon equipment as the Sony/Nikon proponents like to conclude, nobody would buy Canon product -- yet countless thousands of photographers have been able to use it with tremendous success despite this corner case limitation.

I think what really frustrates the Nikon/Sony fan-club is that despite what really is a significant difference in measurable performance between the system implementations chosen by the two manufacturers, it really is mostly a corner case issue and hasn't really proven to affect the bottom line enough to force Canon to address it.

The endless barrage of poorly executed example images just hasn't gained the traction they expected. The reaction to most of these (and there have been a boat load of them over the years) has been "yea... but why do I care". The best example of this is probably the oft quoted Fred Miranda review where the reviewer shot two pages of magnificent images in Yosemite and could not produce a shot where the DR of the camera was a limitation -- to do that he gad to shoot something way less compelling. Both sides seem to be reasonably satisfied with their choices. Do I wish I had the same low shadow noise that I could have with a Sony sensor probably yes, do I wish Canon would solve it -- probably yes. Has it ever gotten in my way, no not really.

 

[Loswr]

I think what really frustrates the Nikon/Sony fan-club is that despite what really is a significant difference in measurable performance between the system implementations chosen by the two manufacturers, it really is mostly a corner case issue and hasn't really proven to affect the bottom line enough to force Canon to address it.

Pretty much what I said 1.5 years ago, and nothing has changed since then.

So, DxOMark has said Nikon has had better sensors for years, and the sales data show that Canon has sold more dSLRs and lenses for those same years, and continues to do so, as of the most recent data available. The straightforward conclusion from the above is that while DxOMark's Scores have a huge impact on the number of inflammatory posts on Internet discussion boards, they have no meaningful impact on the real world aggregate buying decisions of consumers.

 

[jrista]

I think what really frustrates the Nikon/Sony fan-club is that despite what really is a significant difference in measurable performance between the system implementations chosen by the two manufacturers, it really is mostly a corner case issue and hasn't really proven to affect the bottom line enough to force Canon to address it.

Pretty much what I said 1.5 years ago, and nothing has changed since then.

And 1.5 years from now, you'll still be saying the same thing, because nothing ever changes. On these kinds of forums, people see the tech and which tech is better than other tech, and nothing else, and because everything ultimately boils down to one competitive battle or another with humanity, there will always be a competitive battle.

It really isn't about the IQ or the Art. It's just about the fact that Tech A has more DR than Tech B, therefor religiously speaking, Tech A must be better. All that matters to Tech A fanboys is that "they won". That's it. Even if their arguments are pure inanity, even if they come off as the worlds largest tools ever to walk the face of the planet, they really don't care...because "they won". Somewhere along the line, Tech B will have more DR or vastly more megapixels or somesuch, and the Tech B fanboys will go at it on the Tech A forums stoking the fire over there about how now "they won". It'll be just as disgraceful then for the Tech B boys as it is now for the Tech A boys.

Meh. Competition. I really hate competition, especially when it isn't necessary nor useful. We aren't in a competitive sport...were artists (or at least, were supposed to be.) We should all be sharing our art, helping each other improve our art, and enjoying art. That's the entire point of having a camera in the first place, damn the technical specifications. That's why I think the Bird Photography thread in the image sharing forums is probably my favorite thread on this site...its never been anything but people sharing their art, complimenting others work, sharing ideas and techniques to get better shots, etc.

 

[msm]

hahaha... it is funny to read.

I'll repeat what I said before but make it briefer:

If Canon's cameras had of been king of the hill on DxO and not Nikon/Sony then you can bet that people here would be saying DxO is right and how good they are and Nikon/Sony people would have been whinging like you see people here whinging.

What is funny to read are people who think their photography will improve by buying a camera with better technical specs.

If you are shooting static subjects, how hard is it to bracket and merge to 32bit in photoshop and get all the DR in the world with even the worst camera.

And if you shoot moving targets, how often do you actually use iso 100 which is where this advantage actually exists? I at least virtually always use much higher ISO to freeze motion and well at high ISO it is actually Canon that got the best DR according to DXO.

 

[Aglet]

If you are shooting static subjects, how hard is it to bracket and merge to 32bit in photoshop and get all the DR in the world with even the worst camera.

And if you shoot moving targets, how often do you actually use iso 100 which is where this advantage actually exists? I at least virtually always use much higher ISO to freeze motion and well at high ISO it is actually Canon that got the best DR according to DXO.

I find it funny when I hear this too.

Even a landscape can have dynamics that prevent working around DR limitations by bracketing and merging.
If it's small and static, then it can be lit to fix it... unless it's not practical, you know, like outdoors.
So these workarounds aren't always viable either.

 

[Sporgon]

If you are shooting static subjects, how hard is it to bracket and merge to 32bit in photoshop and get all the DR in the world with even the worst camera.

And if you shoot moving targets, how often do you actually use iso 100 which is where this advantage actually exists? I at least virtually always use much higher ISO to freeze motion and well at high ISO it is actually Canon that got the best DR according to DXO.

I find it funny when I hear this too.

Even a landscape can have dynamics that prevent working around DR limitations by bracketing and merging.
If it's small and static, then it can be lit to fix it... unless it's not practical, you know, like outdoors.
So these workarounds aren't always viable either.

As Neuro has pointed out, if a landscape is going to have more than 12 stops of DR it is likely to be well over 14 - because the only thing that is going to take it over about 10 or 11 is including the actual light source in the picture.

 

[David Hull]

I think what really frustrates the Nikon/Sony fan-club is that despite what really is a significant difference in measurable performance between the system implementations chosen by the two manufacturers, it really is mostly a corner case issue and hasn't really proven to affect the bottom line enough to force Canon to address it.

Pretty much what I said 1.5 years ago, and nothing has changed since then.

And 1.5 years from now, you'll still be saying the same thing, because nothing ever changes. On these kinds of forums, people see the tech and which tech is better than other tech, and nothing else, and because everything ultimately boils down to one competitive battle or another with humanity, there will always be a competitive battle.

It really isn't about the IQ or the Art. It's just about the fact that Tech A has more DR than Tech B, therefor religiously speaking, Tech A must be better. All that matters to Tech A fanboys is that "they won". That's it. Even if their arguments are pure inanity, even if they come off as the worlds largest tools ever to walk the face of the planet, they really don't care...because "they won". Somewhere along the line, Tech B will have more DR or vastly more megapixels or somesuch, and the Tech B fanboys will go at it on the Tech A forums stoking the fire over there about how now "they won". It'll be just as disgraceful then for the Tech B boys as it is now for the Tech A boys.

Meh. Competition. I really hate competition, especially when it isn't necessary nor useful. We aren't in a competitive sport...were artists (or at least, were supposed to be.) We should all be sharing our art, helping each other improve our art, and enjoying art. That's the entire point of having a camera in the first place, damn the technical specifications. That's why I think the Bird Photography thread in the image sharing forums is probably my favorite thread on this site...its never been anything but people sharing their art, complimenting others work, sharing ideas and techniques to get better shots, etc.

Yep... Apple/PC, Chevy/Ford, Canon/Nikon .....

 

[David Hull]

If you are shooting static subjects, how hard is it to bracket and merge to 32bit in photoshop and get all the DR in the world with even the worst camera.

And if you shoot moving targets, how often do you actually use iso 100 which is where this advantage actually exists? I at least virtually always use much higher ISO to freeze motion and well at high ISO it is actually Canon that got the best DR according to DXO.

I find it funny when I hear this too.

Even a landscape can have dynamics that prevent working around DR limitations by bracketing and merging.
If it's small and static, then it can be lit to fix it... unless it's not practical, you know, like outdoors.
So these workarounds aren't always viable either.

Then you shoot something else that you can shoot. For most of us, that's just not a huge disaster. The reality is that this whole DR argument is pretty much a non starter an any practical sense.

As I said earlier, if it were the huge issue that people like yourself seem to think it is, nobody would buy the equipment but that isn't really what we see in the real world, now is it?

 

[Aglet]

If you are shooting static subjects, how hard is it to bracket and merge to 32bit in photoshop and get all the DR in the world with even the worst camera.

And if you shoot moving targets, how often do you actually use iso 100 which is where this advantage actually exists? I at least virtually always use much higher ISO to freeze motion and well at high ISO it is actually Canon that got the best DR according to DXO.

I find it funny when I hear this too.

Even a landscape can have dynamics that prevent working around DR limitations by bracketing and merging.
If it's small and static, then it can be lit to fix it... unless it's not practical, you know, like outdoors.
So these workarounds aren't always viable either.

Then you shoot something else that you can shoot. For most of us, that's just not a huge disaster. The reality is that this whole DR argument is pretty much a non starter an any practical sense.

As I said earlier, if it were the huge issue that people like yourself seem to think it is, nobody would buy the equipment but that isn't really what we see in the real world, now is it?

altho I participate in, I'm not ON the DR bandwagon.
My peeve is FPN, which contributes to low DR; a different but directly related issue.
I have low DR cameras that don't have serious FPN problems, I still like and use them. (e.g. Oly E410, Pentax Q)
Too many here seem to conflate and confuse FPN and DR when those issues can, and often should, be considered separately for their effects on an image.

 

[Loswr]

As Neuro has pointed out, if a landscape is going to have more than 12 stops of DR it is likely to be well over 14 - because the only thing that is going to take it over about 10 or 11 is including the actual light source in the picture.

Exactly. The question isn't how often you have situations where 12 stops of DR isn't enough, it's how often that occurs when 14 stops would be enough. Examples including the sun and deep shade prove nothing in this debate.

As for FPN, in tens of thousands of shots with Canon sensors, I've not had even one ruined by FPN. But maybe my technique is flawed - I don't push my exposures 5 stops in post, and I don't shoot with the lens cap on. :

 

[philmoz]

There's obviously a lot of very knowledgeable people here so I'll pose a question that's been bugging me for a long time.

How is it possible for DxO to claim > 14 stops of dynamic range for cameras with a 14 bit ADC ???

Phil.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

There's obviously a lot of very knowledgeable people here so I'll pose a question that's been bugging me for a long time.
How is it possible for DxO to claim > 14 stops of dynamic range for cameras with a 14 bit ADC ???
Phil.

Noise determines what is considered "absolute black", and from this absolute black is counted how many points of DR to reach full white (highlights without texture). When DXO makes downsize to 8 megapixel, the noise is reduced, and this aspect of sensor 36 megapixel lead comparative advantage. If you do not apply to downsize 8 megapixel count DR will not reach 14 stops.

 

[philmoz]

There's obviously a lot of very knowledgeable people here so I'll pose a question that's been bugging me for a long time.
How is it possible for DxO to claim > 14 stops of dynamic range for cameras with a 14 bit ADC ???
Phil.

Noise determines what is considered "absolute black", and from this absolute black is counted how many points of DR to reach full white (highlights without texture). When DXO makes downsize to 8 megapixel, the noise is reduced, and this aspect of sensor 36 megapixel lead comparative advantage. If you do not apply to downsize 8 megapixel count DR will not reach 14 stops.

But how can you possibly get more than 14 stops from a 14 bit conversion?

Phil.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

There's obviously a lot of very knowledgeable people here so I'll pose a question that's been bugging me for a long time.
How is it possible for DxO to claim > 14 stops of dynamic range for cameras with a 14 bit ADC ???
Phil.

Noise determines what is considered "absolute black", and from this absolute black is counted how many points of DR to reach full white (highlights without texture). When DXO makes downsize to 8 megapixel, the noise is reduced, and this aspect of sensor 36 megapixel lead comparative advantage. If you do not apply to downsize 8 megapixel count DR will not reach 14 stops.

But how can you possibly get more than 14 stops from a 14 bit conversion?
Phil.

Becomes possible only where they downsize to "mask" the point of absolute black.

 

[philmoz]

There's obviously a lot of very knowledgeable people here so I'll pose a question that's been bugging me for a long time.
How is it possible for DxO to claim > 14 stops of dynamic range for cameras with a 14 bit ADC ???
Phil.

Noise determines what is considered "absolute black", and from this absolute black is counted how many points of DR to reach full white (highlights without texture). When DXO makes downsize to 8 megapixel, the noise is reduced, and this aspect of sensor 36 megapixel lead comparative advantage. If you do not apply to downsize 8 megapixel count DR will not reach 14 stops.

But how can you possibly get more than 14 stops from a 14 bit conversion?
Phil.

Becomes possible only where they downsize to "mask" the point of absolute black.

I may be wrong; but I thought current cameras (except perhaps Leica) used linear ADC from the sensor.

So if there were no noise introduced anywhere then the absolute maximum DR that could be captured from a 14 bit ADC is 14 stops.

So how can it be possible to have more than 14 stops from downsizing?

Apologies if I'm missing something obvious here.

Phil.

 

[Loswr]

There's obviously a lot of very knowledgeable people here so I'll pose a question that's been bugging me for a long time.
How is it possible for DxO to claim > 14 stops of dynamic range for cameras with a 14 bit ADC ???
Phil.

Noise determines what is considered "absolute black", and from this absolute black is counted how many points of DR to reach full white (highlights without texture). When DXO makes downsize to 8 megapixel, the noise is reduced, and this aspect of sensor 36 megapixel lead comparative advantage. If you do not apply to downsize 8 megapixel count DR will not reach 14 stops.

The 'screen DR' of the D800 is 13.2 stops. When an image with >13.2 stops of DR is captured at 36 MP, detail from the highlights, shadows, or both is irrevocably lost. If the 36 MP image is downsampled to 8 MP to yield 14.4 stops of mathematically calculated DR, how is the detail that should exist in the extra 1.2 stops of DR created? Do blacker blacks matter it they are completely devoid of detail?

 

[Loswr]

As Neuro has pointed out, if a landscape is going to have more than 12 stops of DR it is likely to be well over 14 - because the only thing that is going to take it over about 10 or 11 is including the actual light source in the picture.

If you're basing your comment on Neuro's then you've no personal experience to base this on. Similarly, in Neuro's comment he doesn't actually reference any personal experience either, just makes a grand statement. If he said the sun would rise at midnight, would that make it true?

Why don't you go out there and find out for yourself what the limitations are of the equipment? Yes, that would mean going outside and taking photographs but it won't hurt you.

In Sporgon's signature, there a link to his images. I recommend that you not click it, or else you might realize how asinine your statements are (assuming that would come as a surprise).

As for me, I've previously commented on my real world experience, which is entirely consistent with my statement. I frequently encounter scenes with >12 stops of DR...and those scenes almost never have <14 stops of DR.