# Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?



## Cgdillan (Jul 18, 2012)

They are different sensors. Similar yes. Same no. Please educate me. They both have read noise, possibly some banding, but they are not the same. 21.1MP vs 22.3MP alone means different =-)


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 18, 2012)

Perhaps because they offer similar performance and the excitement of 4 years of patience made some sour.


----------



## Cgdillan (Jul 18, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Perhaps because they offer similar performance and the excitement of 4 years of patience made some sour.



I understand that. But it is better than the mkii in MP, horizontal banding, High iso noise quality/structure. They obviously didn't focus on the sensor as much as they did the other features of the camera. Every other aspect of the camera is better and much improved over the mkii which made it worth the upgrade. Esp. for the ones who needed those upgrades.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 18, 2012)

Cgdillan said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps because they offer similar performance and the excitement of 4 years of patience made some sour.
> ...



Canon will do the minimum amount of R&D into a new camera that's needed for customers to buy it. No more, and some times alot less.

Its funny because nikon did the opposite, Don't change much on the d700 but add a new sensor. Bam, d800.


----------



## Cgdillan (Jul 18, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Cgdillan said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I will agree with all of that. Is there any company nowadays that will produce something great and give their all?

And the D700 to D800 = 5D to 5DmkII?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 18, 2012)

Cgdillan said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Cgdillan said:
> ...



I Suppose pentax is trying there best and give it all in there new APS-C bodies but no-one is paying attention. A real shame since they used to be such a big player in the SLR market.

d700 ----> d800 = 5Dc ------> 5D2 - Agreed. Very similar.

Its funny because I just ordered a MK3. I skipped over the mk2 series.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 18, 2012)

Cgdillan said:


> They are different sensors. Similar yes. Same no. Please educate me. They both have read noise, possibly some banding, but they are not the same. 21.1MP vs 22.3MP alone means different =-)


\
One word:
Trolls!


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 18, 2012)

Because DxOMark rated them basically the same.
If you believe, like I do, that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file and are probably just Nikon marketing shllls, then you can actually believe your own eyes.
Which according to a post I read today is a dangerous thing.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> Because DxOMark rated them basically the same.
> If you believe, like I do, that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file and are probably just Nikon marketing shllls, then you can actually believe your own eyes.
> Which according to a post I read today is a dangerous thing.



Even simpler. Digic IV vs. Digic V. Different.


----------



## jrista (Jul 18, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> Because DxOMark rated them basically the same.
> If you believe, like I do, that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file and are probably just Nikon marketing shllls, then you can actually believe your own eyes.
> Which according to a post I read today is a dangerous thing.



DXOMark is more than just a _Nikon marketing shill_. While I am not sure they are properly taking into account Canon's Bias Offset in their tests of Canon sensors (modern bias offsets in Canon DSLR's range from 1024-2048, which would mean their total DR potentially ranges from -1024/-2048 to MaxSaturation, which would affect DR calculations), DXOMark is indeed correct that Canon sensors have higher read noise levels at low ISO. Canon is still in the realm of 20-35 electrons worth of read noise at ISO 100. Sony Exmor sensors have a read noise lower than 4 electrons at ISO 100. That is a significant difference, and a very meaningful difference that ultimately results in the unsightly patterned forms of electronic noise to creep into photos (sometimes right up into the midtones...a travesty!)

The problem with DXOMark is their final results are ultimately based on their "Print DR" tests and a few other test cases wherein they grant "bonus points" if a camera beats certain thresholds in their per-test scores. The use of bonus points completely invalidates the objectivity of a test, regardless of whether bonus points are awarded the same across brands. Bonus points do not reflect actual hardware capabilities...they reflect the subjectivity of the reviewers who design the tests. The D800 is touted, by DXO, as being capable of 14.4 stops of DR, however those results are based on a non-objective test that assumes a very specific approach to downscaling that ignores the physical limitations of hardware and assumes the ability to dither in a manner that *might* improve DR, or the realities of the tools actual photographers use in the real world to process their photos. 

The D800 is actually capable of around 13.2 stops of DR at a hardware level (based on the "Screen DR" tests, which ARE objective measurements of the hardware itself, although there may still be "bonus points" awarded at certain thresholds.) Regardless of whether DXO is actually taking Canon's Bias Offset into account correctly or not, 2048 levels are not going to improve Canon's DR results from just under 11 stops to 13.2 stops given how bad their read noise is. Canon sensors do indeed have very high (unacceptably high, IMO) read noise relative to Sony Exmor sensors, and that deficit does indeed have a very real affect on Canon's sensors ability to perform at low ISO. So, while I don't really believe DXOMarks tests and final results are appropriately objective (bonus points are an unwarranted aspect of pure subjectivity that don't belong), I also do not believe it is fair to call them raging Nikon brown-nosers. Its simply that their tests are not as objective as they should be, and allow an undue skew to creep into their results that are making some sensors appear better than they really are, and possibly allow other sensors to appear unduly worse than they really are.


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 18, 2012)

jrista said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > Because DxOMark rated them basically the same.
> ...



As for your comments on the superior noise capabilities of Sony sensors and the D800. The 5D MkIII has more accurate ISO, better SNR 18% scores (screen), better Tonal Range (screen), and equal Color Sensitivity (screen). All of these are components of Dynamic Range, and the D800s Dynamic Range is a straight line just like all the other measurements. Yet, the 5D Mk IIIs Dynamic Range gently levels at around 11 EV (screen), just like every other Canon camera using the CR2 file format.

It is my contention that it is NOT that Canon has not improved the Dynamic Range performance since they implemented the CR2 file format, but, that DxOMark is unable to decode the portion of the CR2 file that contains that additional Dynamic Range information. It is further my contention that the ‘pattern noise / banding’ that began when Canon dSLRs started using the CR2 file format, is actually where that additional data is stored / encrypted.


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 18, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > TTMartin said:
> ...



Seriously!!! do you honestly believe that almost every single Canon digital camera using the CR2 file format has almost the exact same maximum Dynamic Range (as tested by DxOMark - screen).

Every single Canon camera that DxOMark has tested except the PowerShot G9 and G10 have the same maximum Dynamic Range (screen) of around 11 EV. Canon can produce a 1/1.7” sensor with 11 EV (PowerShot S90 and G11 and above), but, they can’t produce a full frame sensor with more Dynamic Range than that? 
That the Canon Digital Rebel (300D) and the Canon 5D Mk III have the same maximum Dynamic Range?
That it’s all related to sensor tech and has nothing to do with the CR2 file format?
So, Canon was able to increase the Dynamic Range of the 1/1.7” sensor used in the G9 and G10, but, they couldn’t increase the Dynamic Range of their APS-C or full frame sensors since 2003?
Give me a break!!

Seriously!!!, all these Canon cameras have basically the same maximum DxOMark Dynamic Range 'measurement' (screen 11.1 EV +/- .35 EV).
1000D
10D
1100D
1D Mk II
1D Mk IIN
1D Mk III
1D Mk IV
1D C
1D S
1D S Mk II
1D S Mk III
20D
300D
30D
350D
400D
40D
450D
500D
50D
550D
5D
5D Mk II
5D Mk III
600D
60D
650D
7D
PowerShot G11
PowerShot G12
PowerShot G1 X
PowerShot S90
PowerShot S95
PowerShot S100

Yeah, it has everything to do with Canon's sensor tech and nothing to do with the CR2 file format. NOT!


----------



## jrista (Jul 18, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> I too used to look for reasons to believe that DxOMark was doing honest, but, flawed testing. The more I delved into their site and their data the more I came to believe they are just Nikon Marketing Shills.
> 
> As for your comments on the superior noise capabilities of Sony sensors and the D800. The 5D MkIII has more accurate ISO, better SNR 18% scores (screen), better Tonal Range (screen), and equal Color Sensitivity (screen). All of these are components of Dynamic Range, and the D800s Dynamic Range is a straight line just like all the other measurements. Yet, the 5D Mk IIIs Dynamic Range gently levels at around 11 EV (screen), just like every other Canon camera using the CR2 file format.
> 
> It is my contention that it is NOT that Canon has not improved the Dynamic Range performance since they implemented the CR2 file format, but, that DxOMark is unable to decode the portion of the CR2 file that contains that additional Dynamic Range information. It is further my contention that the ‘pattern noise / banding’ that began when Canon dSLRs started using the CR2 file format, is actually where that additional data is stored / encrypted.



First off, I do not believe that banding and FPN is restricted to the CR2 format...look at some CRW's and you'll see similar problems in older sensors, just to a lesser degree (which is not surprising, given that older cameras had much larger pixel pitches and QE that is only marginally worse than what Canon offers today.) FPN and banding is not even relegated to Canon...its a problem inherent in most digital sensor designs _except Exmor!_

The reason Canon levels off at low ISO is because their read noise jumps! At ISO 800+, Canon read noise is about the same as Nikons...3 to 4 electrons worth or so per pixel. At ISO 100, Nikon's, thanks to its Sony Exmor sensors, is STILL around 3 to 4 electrons...but Canon's spikes. At ISO 400, Canon's read ISO on the 5D III is @10 e-, at ISO 200 it is @18 e-, and at ISO 100 it is @33 e-. Even if you factor in the bias offset properly, with 33 electrons worth of read noise, your bias adjustment is going to be very small or zero (so that extra 2048 levels worth that Canon reserves as a bias offset is REQUIRED to raise the black point above the noise floor...and even then, its obviously not enough as electronic noise, including pattern noise forms, still exhibit at ISO 100, 200, and 400.) The reason Canon sensors develop a "shoulder" at the low ISO end of the DR scale is because of that read noise curve. 

I'm not a Nikon fanboy, I don't care much for their ergonomics nor their menu system. I do not own any Nikon gear, my entire kit is Canon. I don't care much for DXO, to a certain degree they definitely do pander to Nikon, which isn't surprising as Nikon is one of their major sources of funding. The DR curves, though, are not fake or some scam perpetrated by DXO (although I do believe their Print DR results and anything based on them IS a scam). There are a variety of other, independent sources that produce roughly the same DR curves for Canon sensors as well. Read noise is not a joke, and it *is, most definitely, a DR killer at low ISO.* Once you start using higher ISO settings, the physical nature of light kicks in and produces noise on a level far beyond what the electronics themselves can produce, which is why pretty much all cameras, regardless of brand, perform about the same at ISO 800+. Its not that Canon has done anything particularly special there..._they don't have to_ to be competitive at high ISO.



TTMartin said:


> Seriously!!! do you honestly believe that almost every single Canon digital camera using the CR2 file format has almost the exact same maximum Dynamic Range (as tested by DxOMark - screen).
> 
> Every single Canon camera that DxOMark has tested except the PowerShot G9 and G10 have the same maximum Dynamic Range (screen) of around 11 EV. Canon can produce a 1/1.7” sensor with 11 EV (PowerShot S90 and G11 and above), but, they can’t produce a full frame sensor with more Dynamic Range than that?
> That the Canon Digital Rebel (D300) and the Canon 5D Mk III have the same maximum Dynamic Range?
> ...



So long as Canon does not address their low ISO read noise problems, every single Canon camera that uses sensors manufactured by Canon will have roughly the same low ISO DR problem as well. The problem scales across sensor sizes as well, as the smaller your pixel well is (barring any additional mitigating factors like a backlit design) the lower your SNR, and therefor even if you have a lower read noise, on a relative scale its about the same for every Canon sensor produced in the last 4-5 years. The 7D has lower read noise than the 5D II or III, however it has about the same DR curve. Its a denser sensor though, with a considerably lower pixel saturation point. The ratio of read noise between the 7D and 5D III is 8.6/33.1, or around 0.26. The ratio of pixel saturation point between the 7D and 5D III is 0.29. The read noise to saturation ratio for the 7D is 20178/8.6 or 2346, and for the 5D III is 67531/33.1, or 2040 (which partly explains why it edges out the 5D III DR at ISO 100). Similar ratios all around. Canon designs their sensors in a certain way, and they have not been particularly innovative over the last four years or so when it comes to their sensor design (perhaps too confident in their own superiority?? Now caught off guard by the innovation of their competitors??) The fact that the relative results between these two cameras are roughly the same despite being generations apart and different models is *not surprising!* 

And, frankly, Canon needs a kick in the ass to get their own engine of innovation back into gear so they can claw themselves into the modern era of digital camera design.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 18, 2012)

Cgdillan said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps because they offer similar performance and the excitement of 4 years of patience made some sour.
> ...



yep but

haterz gonna hate
and they are immune to logic too


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 19, 2012)

jrista said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > As for your comments on the superior noise capabilities of Sony sensors and the D800. The 5D MkIII has more accurate ISO, better SNR 18% scores (screen), better Tonal Range (screen), and equal Color Sensitivity (screen). All of these are components of Dynamic Range, and the D800s Dynamic Range is a straight line just like all the other measurements. Yet, the 5D Mk IIIs Dynamic Range gently levels at around 11 EV (screen), just like every other Canon camera using the CR2 file format.
> ...



I'm confused how the 'read noise' is different than the SNR 18% DxOMark measurement.

You say that Canon's 'read noise' is higher than the Nikon's yet the DxOMark SNR 18% measurement is better for the Canon 5D Mk III than for the Nikon D800.

ISO 100 - SNR 18% (screen) – 5D Mk III – 39.7dB
ISO 100 - SNR 18% (screen) – D800 – 38.4dB

ISO 200 - SNR 18% (screen) – 5D Mk III – 37.2dB
ISO 200 - SNR 18% (screen) – D800 – 35.8dB

ISO 400 - SNR 18% (screen) – 5D Mk III – 34.6dB
ISO 400 - SNR 18% (screen) – D800 – 33.3dB

So, if the 5D Mk III has a stronger signal to noise ratio than the Nikon how is it that it has more 'read noise'?

Also, how does your 'read noise' theory explain Canon's ability to increase the Dynamic Range of their 1/1.7 sensor, but, not their larger sensor, with larger photosites?


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 19, 2012)

Also, that the DxOMark maximum Dynamic Range (screen) is functionally the same on all Canon cameras seems to be too uniform to only be explained by 'read noise' levels.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 19, 2012)

have you done a side by side comparison of the pushed pattern noise in dpp and in lightroom?

I might have to try this and see if this is true


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> Because DxOMark rated them basically the same.
> If you believe, like I do, that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file



nonsense



> and are probably just Nikon marketing shllls, then you can actually believe your own eyes.
> Which according to a post I read today is a dangerous thing.



how come others who have tried to replicate their findings tend to get the same result then?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2012)

jrista said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > Because DxOMark rated them basically the same.
> ...



the bonus points thing was just to try to keep manufacturers honest and reduce the color filter array to zero hah
otherwise nikon could make a new D800 that was nearly color blind and suddenly have much better high iso score than 5D3


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> It is my contention that it is NOT that Canon has not improved the Dynamic Range performance since they implemented the CR2 file format, but, that DxOMark is unable to decode the portion of the CR2 file that contains that additional Dynamic Range information. It is further my contention that the ‘pattern noise / banding’ that began when Canon dSLRs started using the CR2 file format, is actually where that additional data is stored / encrypted.



absolutely ridiculous and it's not encrypted

and you even use Canon's own DPP to process and then compare to D800 and you see that is all total nonsense


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 19, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > Because DxOMark rated them basically the same.
> ...



Because they all use 3rd party RAW converters.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> I'm confused how the 'read noise' is different than the SNR 18% DxOMark measurement.
> 
> You say that Canon's 'read noise' is higher than the Nikon's yet the DxOMark SNR 18% measurement is better for the Canon 5D Mk III than for the Nikon D800.
> 
> ...



read noise doesn't matter that much once you are looking at tones as bright as what they test SNR at

there is read noise, late and early stage and random and fixed pattern

and then there is photon noise and some cameras are better at grabbing photons than others and some are more uniform photosite to photosite

and just look at say the fredmiranda comparison between 5D3 and D800 and you surely can see the same difference DxO and others report for low ISO DR


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > TTMartin said:
> ...



no they don't

you don't even use a raw converter at all to do these tests, raw converters can cook the books

you simply look at the raw file itself with a program that looks straight at the full raw data, for dynamic range the test is easy enough, if you do it you'll get the same answers for ISO100 as DxO pretty much (some minor sample to sample variation)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2012)

anyway back on topic 5D2 vs 5D3 sensor

they are a little bit different:
5d3 has a trace worse read noise at lower iso and slightly lower maximum dynamic range than the 5D2 although the differences are likely too small to matter in the real world and they are basically the same

5d3 has almost no horiz banding at low iso while 5D2 has a lot but since the 5d3 has a lot of vertical banding as low iso as does 5D2 in the end they both show banding and once it shows it doesnt really matter if it is one or both directions so it's kinda the same in the again

5d3 has at least 1/2 stop and maybe more like 2/3rds of a stop better SNR, not a huge difference, but it's a difference and considering how good the SNR was on the 5D2 it's not surprising there change was not much larger

5d3 has somewhat higher dynamic range, especially usable DR, at high iso than the 5D2, at times it's a minor difference, other times it make a real difference

5d3 has almost no banding at high iso while the 5d2 can get ugly in darker parts of high iso shots and when you get into super, super, super high iso this can start making a big difference in general and make the effective difference greater than the 1/2- 2/3rd stop SNR differece

5d3 is more color blind and can distinguish less colors than 5d2 (real world implications are very, very complex and i don't know anyone who has looked into the real world differences, all we know is the 5d3 measures the most color blind of any dslr made)

basically they are the same but 5D3 has modestly better SNR and far less uglies and banding and junk at high iso the higher you go the bigger the difference the quality of the high iso noise between the two

the don't rate iso the same, so if you compare both at same iso, then the 5D3 gets put at unfair disadvantage compared to the 5d2


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 19, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



If you are looking directly at the RAW data, and in fact there is additional data hidden in the RAW file how are you obtaining that data?

That's the whole point, you can't just look at the RAW data and see the data that Canon hid in it.

The RAW converter 'cooking' that you describe is Canon RAW converter accessing the hidden data.

Come on people, catch up, banding / pattern noise from every Canon camera, uniform 11 EV max from the unhidden RAW data across the board, and the CR2 file format can't have any hidden data?

Oh, and sensors that should have greater Dynamic Range like the 5D Mk III over the 5D Mk II have more read noise, and that read noise can't actually be data?


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 19, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > TTMartin said:
> ...


not that i'm disagreeing with you but can you demonstrate this?


----------



## jrista (Jul 19, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> I'm confused how the 'read noise' is different than the SNR 18% DxOMark measurement.
> 
> You say that Canon's 'read noise' is higher than the Nikon's yet the DxOMark SNR 18% measurement is better for the Canon 5D Mk III than for the Nikon D800.
> 
> ...



Check sensorgen.info. The information on that site is derived from DXO raw data. It represents things in electron charge rather than levels or decibels, so its a little easier to perform direct comparisons. 

As for DXO's SNR 18%, that is the signal ratio based on a fairly bright luminance level. At 18%, your well above the level where electronic noise is going to interfere with your image detail. You need to look at the "Full SNR (Logarithmic) chart to see why the D800 offers better DR when the signal is very low (i.e. a luminance level of 1% or less.) With the Full SNR (Logarithmic) chart, you can easily see where noise starts limiting 5D III SNR at the three highest ISO levels...they start to bunch up just under a 0.1% luminance level. The D800's signal exhibits a roughly linear pattern right down to ISO 100, allowing a minimum luminance level of around 0.01% to be recorded! That extra headroom down to 0.01% luminance is why Sony Exmor sensors offer unparalleled shadow lifting capability (i.e. low ISO DR). 



TTMartin said:


> Also, how does your 'read noise' theory explain Canon's ability to increase the Dynamic Range of their 1/1.7 sensor, but, not their larger sensor, with larger photosites?



I'm not sure what sensor you are referring to (I think the GX1 sensor is almost as large as an APS-C sensor, if that is what your are thinking about...quite a bit larger than 1/1.7). When it comes to smaller sensors, there are some things you can do to realize potentially huge gains. To name the most significant, moving to a backlit sensor design for tiny sensors, you move all the activate and read wiring to the back side of the sensor (relative to the light source), exposing the photodiode entirely to light without obstructions. Addition of a gapless microlens design, and your QE on a small sensor can get pretty high (for their size). These designs are rather costly, though. With large sensors, per-wafer yield is low, so R&D costs are very high and the benefits of backlit design isn't nearly as great as it is for small sensors. With small sensors, you can potentially get a hundred sensors or more from a single wafer, and you can often use smaller wafers to start with...so despite the more complex design of a backlit, microlensed design, its still more cost effective. 

To improve efficiency of a larger sensor, Canon would have to design similar, but patently different, technology to Sony's Exmor sensor design. A backlit design won't do it...pixel pitch is large enough in an APS-C and FF sensor that flipping the chip won't gain you that much more area in terms of percentage. The cost would outweigh the gains. Canon would have to design additional levels of dark current noise removal beyond just CDS, move to some kind of onboard CP-ADC (column-parallel analog-to-digital conversion) to help mitigate FPN, find a way of addressing transistor differentials which also contributes to FPN, figure out how to avoid or mitigate signal interference which is often the cause of non-fixed banding or other pattern noise, etc. etc. And they would have to do it in a way that did not infringe upon Sony's patents that address the same issues.


----------



## jrista (Jul 19, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> If you are looking directly at the RAW data, and in fact there is additional data hidden in the RAW file how are you obtaining that data?
> 
> That's the whole point, you can't just look at the RAW data and see the data that Canon hid in it.
> 
> The RAW converter 'cooking' that you describe is Canon RAW converter accessing the hidden data.



You seem to think that Canon's RAW file format, CR2, is some kind of super top secret, encrypted data format that contains the deepest, darkest secrets that would somehow unlock the full potential of Canon's theoretical Nikon-comparable DR...

That is not the case. The CR2 format is a public specification (Canon even offers free source code that demonstrates how to read, write, and process their CR2 format), which is essential to supporting third-party development of RAW conversion and processing tools...such as Lightroom, Aperture, etc. Additionally...its a "RAW" file...it doesn't contain anything particularly special or super-secret that would need to be "hidden" that didn't come strait off the hardware...it has the full sensor readout...both the unmasked light-sensing pixels as well as masked "calibration" or "baselining" pixels around the margins, camera settings from the firmware, etc. 

This isn't much different from any other manufacturers' RAW format, only its in a structure and form that allows Canon to achieve the things they need to...such as a high write out rate that supports the frame rates of their sports bodies. Canon, like many sensor manufacturers, also makes use of what is called a "bias offset" allowing a dynamic black level to be used when processing the RAW files. Nikon does not use a bias offset...their black level is fixed at zero, however with their low read noise, thats not an issue. The only real question regarding DXO's handling of CR2 files is whether they are properly factoring in the bias offset. Working in Adobe Lightroom, I wouldn't say that the 5D III is as bad off as it seems relative to the D800 based on DXO data...but there is *definitely* a difference, and the D800 certainly has the edge.




> Come on people, catch up, banding / pattern noise from every Canon camera, uniform 11 EV max from the unhidden RAW data across the board, and the CR2 file format can't have any hidden data?
> 
> Oh, and sensors that should have greater Dynamic Range like the 5D Mk III over the 5D Mk II have more read noise, and that read noise can't actually be data?



Read noise is an electrical byproduct in the sensor HARDWARE. A sensor is a signal receptor....it receives a two dimensional spatial waveform that must later be read out to produce a digital image. The process of reading that image signal introduces its own signal into the final product. There are a variety of forms of electronic noise that can interfere with an image signal, including dark current noise, sampling noise, differential noise, conversion noise, thermal noise, and noise generated by external fields interfering with the signal of the sensor itself. In the grand scheme of things, electronic noise, even in the 5D III which has very high read noise, is a small fraction of the maximum image signal (in the case of the 5D III, read noise at ISO 100 is 33.1 electrons, while maximum signal potential, or maximum saturation, is 67531 electrons...a ratio of 2040:1 at max. sat.!)

The problem with read noise is not when your image signal for a given pixel is high. If you have a nearly white pixel, read noise is 1/2040th the amount of the image signal...inconsequential. You are producing an output sample that is 99.9995% accurate. The problem with read noise occurs when the image signal for a given pixel is low. If you have a nearly black pixel, the read noise becomes a far more significant fraction of the image signal, possibly even overpowering the image signal. Again, with the 5D III, if the SNR of the shadows is say 1/2, then your signal is around 66e-, while read noise is 33e-. You are keeping a mere 50% of the image signal in the output sample the sensor originally registered...you've lost 50% accuracy. If your SNR in the shadows is 1/1, then your signal and your read noise are both 33e-. Now, you have nearly a 0% level of accuracy producing an output sample for that pixel. If your signal level is lower than the read noise level, it just becomes more useless noise. 

Now, contrast the same electron levels above, only with a D800. The D800 has a roughly constant read noise level at all ISO settings of 3e-. Its maximum saturation is 44972 at ISO 100, which means its signal to noise ratio is 14990:1 in terms of electron charge. If the signal charge in a pixel is 66e-, instead of having a 50% image signal loss you now only have a 4.5% image signal loss. If the signal charge is 33e-, you have a signal loss of 9%. You also have the ability to sample an image signal that is considerably lower than what the 5D III is even capable of. At 10e-, your still only losing 30% of your image signal to noise. Only by the time you reach an image signal level of 6e- do you reach that 50% level that the 5D III reached at a signal level of 66e-!

Read noise...probably better termed "electronic noise" as its due to the electric and thermal properties of sensor during readout...becomes a part of the output signal from the sensor. (Note: Read noise isn't independent...its not something that can be represented separately in a RAW file...its an intrinsic part of the signal!) That output signal is then passed through an ADC, or analog-to-digital converter, which produces a digital file that, as closely as possible, represents "the signal" the ADC processed. Since electronic noise is a part of "the signal", it effectively gets "baked in" to the RAW file. Once its baked, there ain't no unbaking it. You can scrape off the charred parts, smooth over other unsightly lines and edges, and frost the top...but your cake is still gonna smell burnt if its burnt. ;P


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 19, 2012)

jrista said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > If you are looking directly at the RAW data, and in fact there is additional data hidden in the RAW file how are you obtaining that data?
> ...


That must explain why my D800 has so much more noise than my 5D MK III at high ISO's, 12800 and higher. It is great as long as I stay under ISO 800, and DR is supurb at ISO 100. But it really struggles as ISO rises. Of yourse, I could reduce the image to 8mp like DXO and reduce noise as well. however, the point of having 36mp is lost. You can have it one way or the other. Reduce it to 8mp and have low noise, or keep it at 36mp with high noise. Its those that measure noise at 8mp but then read the resolution at 36mp who are cooking the books.


----------



## jrista (Jul 19, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> That must explain why my D800 has so much more noise than my 5D MK III at high ISO's, 12800 and higher. It is great as long as I stay under ISO 800, and DR is supurb at ISO 100. But it really struggles as ISO rises. Of yourse, I could reduce the image to 8mp like DXO and reduce noise as well. however, the point of having 36mp is lost. You can have it one way or the other. Reduce it to 8mp and have low noise, or keep it at 36mp with high noise.



At high ISO, it boils down to physics. The higher noise levels of the D800 at 12800 are probably due to the greater degree of photon shot noise per unit area than you get with the 5D III. (Not sure what the ratio is at the moment, maybe on the order of 3-4x.) Same reason why the 7D also experiences more noise at higher ISO.



> Its those that measure noise at 8mp but then read the resolution at 36mp who are cooking the books.



Indeed! DXO is double-cooking the books when they claim you can increase DR simply by downscaling. They are ignoring the fact that if parts of the signal on the sensor are blown when utilizing the full DR range of 13.2 stops (i.e. the "actual" real image signal requires a higher signal level than the sensor supports...greater than max saturation) then no amount of downscaling will correct that, nor will it allow DR to magically expand to 14.4 stops. Total fallacy.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> If you are looking directly at the RAW data, and in fact there is additional data hidden in the RAW file how are you obtaining that data?
> That's the whole point, you can't just look at the RAW data and see the data that Canon hid in it.



Because you can look through the whole file and not notice any areas with hidden data.

I also have to say why would canon magically hide away certain low order bits of information in some special block?? And why they then add fake noise at the low end and put fake data in the main section??? That would be so bizarre.

And why does Canon's own DPP not magically reveal more dynamic range than when using non-Canon converters? And why using say ACR for both a 5D2 and D800 do the files from D800 visibly show a lot more dynamic range if ACR is hooking into secret data for Canon?




> Oh, and sensors that should have greater Dynamic Range like the 5D Mk III over the 5D Mk II have more read noise, and that read noise can't actually be data?



They secretly overlay magic data in a random gaussian distribution and you are supposed to be able to read that? And again talk about bizarre.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2012)

jrista said:


> Indeed! DXO is double-cooking the books when they claim you can increase DR simply by downscaling. They are ignoring the fact that if parts of the signal on the sensor are blown when utilizing the full DR range of 13.2 stops (i.e. the "actual" real image signal requires a higher signal level than the sensor supports...greater than max saturation) then no amount of downscaling will correct that, nor will it allow DR to magically expand to 14.4 stops. Total fallacy.



it's not on the top end it gains its on the bottom end and it's not double cooking and it's not anti-canon, when canon had high mp 5D2 and nikon had low MP D700 it went the other way

NOT comparing them that way would be cooling the books actually


----------



## jrista (Jul 19, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed! DXO is double-cooking the books when they claim you can increase DR simply by downscaling. They are ignoring the fact that if parts of the signal on the sensor are blown when utilizing the full DR range of 13.2 stops (i.e. the "actual" real image signal requires a higher signal level than the sensor supports...greater than max saturation) then no amount of downscaling will correct that, nor will it allow DR to magically expand to 14.4 stops. Total fallacy.
> ...



Its the same problem with the 5D II and D700...I'm not brand biased in my assessment of DXO's Print DR...I don't believe it is possible to gain dynamic range by downscaling, despite the apparent reduction in noise. I've explained at great length in other answers, and you can search for them if you wish...so I won't go into it in detail again here.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> Meh, is Mark III's sensor is anywhere near as good as D800's (DR, noise) I would have got one in a heart beat.



it actually is for noise

but not nearly so for maximum dr


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2012)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...




I did look at that stuff you posted before but it's not fair to compare images at different scales. You need to normalize to the same scale. It's not fair to compare at 100% view which is what you want to do no matter what. You are comparing noise at different powers as if they had the same power. Filter away the high frequency/power noise the second camera doesn't have and then compare fairly.


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 19, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > If you are looking directly at the RAW data, and in fact there is additional data hidden in the RAW file how are you obtaining that data?
> ...



You don't notice the banding?

Consistent uniform 'noise' patterns point to data. 

When did I ever say that ADOBE Camera RAW was hooking into secret Canon data?


----------



## julescar (Jul 19, 2012)

I own a 5d Mkii, 2 x Mkiii and both the D800 & D800E... I prefer using the 5D mkiii's in most situations. I use the D800/E for product photography as well as some other studio work. I will sell the 5D mkii s as the mkiii are much more responsive, a bit better standard iSO image quality (and much better higher iso performance) and gives me a better success rates at capturing the correct focus, its a much faster responsive camera. The quality of the D800 is excellent especially if you use good technique and are very careful with lens/camera settings, the quality of the images from the 5D mkiii is also excellent but with little, if any care/setup required. The build quality/weather sealing is far better than the D800 and I prefer the default colour balance from the Canon's. The high ISO performance on the Canon is fantastic up to 12800 (above that there is too much noise for me).
Photography outside a studio is often about being quick and capturing the shot, you can't always stage it. So each camera has its use, yes the D800 has 36+ MP and great dynamic range at low ISO especially in shadows/black area but the sensor on the 5D is excellent as well and DXO's markings do not reflect the true "picture".
The programs used for conversion from raw has a dramatic impact on the overall quality of the image including noise.
LR, Aperture, Camera Raw 7.1 (I think it may use the same engine as LR), Phocus, DXO, ViewNX 2, Canon DPP. I would suggest comparing the difference and finding what suits you.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 20, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > TTMartin said:
> ...



how come dpp doesn't reveal more DR than ACR then?
why does banding sometimes show in DPP too?
who would ever store data in that fashion? and for the random banding where is the hidden key in the file and why has nobody ever found one?
etc.
etc.
it's like saying you don't believe man ever landed on the moon, almost


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 20, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



DPP does reveal more DR.

I've never seen banding in DPP.

Who would store data in this fashion? Evidently Canon. Why would they do that? Well, a couple years prior to the CR2 format being released, Nikon updated the NEF format and encrypted part of the data. Why would Nikon do that? When Nikon did there was outrage, and of course the encryption was quickly broken. So when Canon updated their CR2 format, they hid the data in more or less plain sight. No up roar over the data being encrypted, nobody hacking it a couple weeks after it was introduced. Where the key is I don't know. Why has nobody found one? Probably because they haven't looked.

etc.

etc.

etc.

As for the moon, thing watch the movie 'Contact' if you don't get the concept.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 20, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> DPP does reveal more DR.



really?
show us
and it makes the 5D3 reveal more than the 5D2?



> I've never seen banding in DPP.



I have, although later versions control it a bit more.



> Who would store data in this fashion? Evidently Canon. Why would they do that? Well, a couple years prior to the CR2 format being released, Nikon updated the NEF format and encrypted part of the data. Why would Nikon do that? When Nikon did there was outrage, and of course the encryption was quickly broken. So when Canon updated their CR2 format, they hid the data in more or less plain sight. No up roar over the data being encrypted, nobody hacking it a couple weeks after it was introduced.



And so then what about Nikon? SOme of their cams have banding to? SO have sensors from any digital camera ever made. All the banding was just secretly storing extra DR? There isn't even enough banding sections to cover the frame in a way to even propose what you propose. Total nonsense.



> Where the key is I don't know. Why has nobody found one? Probably because they haven't looked.



People have looked through CR2 through and through.



> As for the moon, thing watch the movie 'Contact' if you don't get the concept.



umm yeah 

(and for the record that movie shows nothing whatsoever ever the moon landing conspiracy type stuff, at all)


----------



## jrista (Jul 20, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > DPP does reveal more DR.
> ...



IIRC, someone on these very forums posted several examples comparing DPP to ACR when working 5D III shots, and DPP definitely extracted better shadow DR than ACR/LR did. It was a while back, and I don't remember the title of the post, so I'll have to do some digging to find it. The results weren't as good as what you get from an Exmor, but it demonstrated that ACR is definitely lacking something that is preventing it from fully realizing the potential of the CR2 raw format.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 20, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> Meh, is Mark III's sensor is anywhere near as good as D800's (DR, noise) I would have got one in a heart beat.



~At the same time someone is posting at Nikon Rumors..."Damn, if the D800 had the AF and high ISO or even was close to the 5D MKIII, I would have jumped at it."~


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 21, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > DPP does reveal more DR.
> ...



[quote author=LetTheRightLensIn]
I have, although later versions control it a bit more.
[/quote]

Guess I'll have to take your word on that.

[quote author=TTMartin]
Who would store data in this fashion? Evidently Canon. Why would they do that? Well, a couple years prior to the CR2 format being released, Nikon updated the NEF format and encrypted part of the data. Why would Nikon do that? When Nikon did there was outrage, and of course the encryption was quickly broken. So when Canon updated their CR2 format, they hid the data in more or less plain sight. No up roar over the data being encrypted, nobody hacking it a couple weeks after it was introduced. 
[/quote]

[quote author=LetTheRightLensIn]
And so then what about Nikon? SOme of their cams have banding to? SO have sensors from any digital camera ever made. All the banding was just secretly storing extra DR? There isn't even enough banding sections to cover the frame in a way to even propose what you propose. Total nonsense.
[/quote]

The banding is in one section of the file, doesn't cover the whole sensor, but, is a sensor issue and not additional data being stored in that section of the file? OK, if you say so. 

Exactly how much compressed data would it take to increase the dynamic range of an image file?

[quote author=TTMartin]
Where the key is I don't know. Why has nobody found one? Probably because they haven't looked.
[/quote]

[quote author=LetTheRightLensIn]
People have looked through CR2 through and through.
[/quote]

The whole idea is complete nonsense. But, someone has taken the time to look at the noise in the banding and made sure it wasn't encrypted data and/or compressed data? Either it's nonsense or it's been completely investigated, really can't be both.

[quote author=TTMartin]
As for the moon, thing watch the movie 'Contact' if you don't get the concept.
[/quote]

[quote author=LetTheRightLensIn]
umm yeah 

(and for the record that movie shows nothing whatsoever ever the moon landing conspiracy type stuff, at all)
[/quote]

No it wasn't about moon landing conspiracy type stuff, what was it about?


----------



## Cgdillan (Jul 21, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> anyway back on topic 5D2 vs 5D3 sensor
> 
> they are a little bit different:
> 5d3 has a trace worse read noise at lower iso and slightly lower maximum dynamic range than the 5D2 although the differences are likely too small to matter in the real world and they are basically the same
> ...



Well said


----------



## Cgdillan (Jul 21, 2012)

if you getting a camera just for the sensor then get the mk2 and save some money. Personally I my mkiii for all the other features. only issue i have is the dark focus point. but i still love the mkiii


----------



## Aglet (Jul 22, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> Consistent uniform 'noise' patterns point to data.



noise patterns = BAD ELECTRONICS, poor design, noisy power supply circuits casting their noise into the sensor signal. Pretty much every Canon DSLR suffers from this to varying degrees.
Horizontal banding especially seems to be a result of a dirty power supply design.
Vertical banding is an inherent sensor readout strategy flaw, one that Sony Exmor design has vastly improved upon.

As for when this all happened.. not with the D800, but back with the D90 .. Nikon started to really lose pattern noise and gain DR.


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 22, 2012)

Aglet said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > Consistent uniform 'noise' patterns point to data.
> ...



If it were poor electronics design that would show up in SNR tests, but, it doesn't. The 5D Mk III outscores the D800 in that and almost every area except DxOMark tested DR.

As for the D90 two things occured, the D90 just happened to be one of the first Nikon cameras introduced after the opening of the 'unbiased' <chuckle> third party testing website from DxOMark and it happened to exceeded the 11 EV (screen) DR in DxOMark testing. So while a Canon 40D which was introduced before it actually has as good of dynamic range as the D90, that doesn't show up in the DxOMark scores because of DxOMarks inability to fully decode the CR2 file format.


----------



## caruser (Jul 22, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> BozillaNZ said:
> 
> 
> > Meh, is Mark III's sensor is anywhere near as good as D800's (DR, noise) I would have got one in a heart beat.
> ...



It's not really surprising; let's ignore the image quality for a moment. People buying the D700 over a 5D2 were those who wanted a more well-rounded product, those like me who chose a 5D2 were prepared to sacrifice AF and speed for IQ (or at least pixels...).

Suddenly the roles are reversed, the 5D3 is a very well balanced camera more fit to replace the D700, while the D800 is a more specialised one that I see more in line with the 5D2 (high IQ but slow, even though the AF is much better on the D800 than on the 5D2).

So while threads like these tend to be much longer than makes sense, I can fully understand a bit of confusion due to this role reversal (and then there's the "other" role reversal that some people like to tout, the one that Nikon generally has overtaken Canon in the sensor department; which adds even more confusion when every thread about one of these aspects is immediately hijacked into a big mush of all possible comparison points-of-view).

Phew.


----------



## Cgdillan (Jul 22, 2012)

caruser said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > BozillaNZ said:
> ...



The 5D mkiii sensor was the best sensor EVER made... obviously ;-)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 22, 2012)

dilbert said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > anyway back on topic 5D2 vs 5D3 sensor
> ...



go to DxO select the camera and then look at the detailed charts for the camera and look at metamerism index


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 22, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > TTMartin said:
> ...



No it would not. SNR test is carried out at middle gray where the signal is not affected so much by read noise.



> As for the D90 two things occured, the D90 just happened to be one of the first Nikon cameras introduced after the opening of the 'unbiased' <chuckle> third party testing website from DxOMark and it happened to exceeded the 11 EV (screen) DR in DxOMark testing. So while a Canon 40D which was introduced before it actually has as good of dynamic range as the D90, that doesn't show up in the DxOMark scores because of DxOMarks inability to fully decode the CR2 file format.



Or maybe it just happened to be the first sensor using Exmor patents and column ADC architecture.... :

Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better. :-\


----------



## Aglet (Jul 23, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > If it were poor electronics design that would show up in SNR tests, but, it doesn't. The 5D Mk III outscores the D800 in that and almost every area except DxOMark tested DR.
> ...



LTRLI is correct
SNR can be measured at various levels and they're not using the dark end of the range or you'd REALLY see the results on a graph!

SNR of Canon's output is notoriously poor at the dark end where read-noise is a significant fraction of the signal level and that's where and why it only shows up in shadow areas.

That's also why total dynamic range results come out as they are.
Canon typically does a little better with highlight headroom but they lose considerable EV range at the dark end where SNR is the limiting factor to what constitutes allowable measurement range.
Because the Exmor sensor has a much lower read noise it can produce acceptable SNR at darker levels than the Canon system by a couple EV or more which adds to the total DR result.

You're free to believe other raw converters can't properly interpret the CR2 file but I believe you're quite wrong about that.

And if that doesn't convince you, just look at real world results of images shot with the latest Nikon sensors vs. Canons.

I have plenty of images from my 5D2 where noise is visible in shadow areas with only +1 EV of push applied, even using DPP. Add +2 EV push and you need to start using noise reduction to get rid of the mess.
You just do not have this low ISO shadow noise issue with the recent Nikons!

After buying and testing my first Nikon body, and comparing it to about 15 Canon DSLRs I've been using over the past 5 years, while using DPP, ACR(LR & PS) and DxO to process my raw files, I DID NOT discover that Canon's performed any better than Nikon in this one critical area. In fact, quite the opposite is true. A sub-$600 Nikon body totally blows away every Canon I've ever used in dark shadow detail retention and lack of noise. And that includes the otherwise well-regarded 5D2, 7D, 60D, 40D, etc. And I'll put it up against the new 5D3 at low ISO as well.

The D5100 performed so well I ordered a D800, a D800e and another D5100.
Now I'm sure you don't know my technical background but do you really think I'd spend $10k on new Nikon gear to get better DR performance by mistake?

For another angle on this, Canon's G11 and G12 use, AFAIK, SONY sensors in them. They also produce CR2 raw files.
Wanna have a look at their low ISO raw dark noise compared to Canon's EOS DSLRs using Canon's CMOS sensors?...

www.a2bart.com/tech/allcamdknz.htm

Try explain that one. ;D


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 23, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ... Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better. :-\



You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes. 

So you really believe that the full frame 5D Mk III has the same dynamic range as the original 2003 APS-C Digital Rebel (300D)?

Now that's silly, but, according to DxOMark they do:

5D Mk III - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.97
2003 Digital Rebel (300D) - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.93


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 23, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > ... Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better. :-\
> ...


----------



## Aglet (Jul 23, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > ... Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better. :-\
> ...



I'm looking at the graph and seeing 5D3 ISO 100 screen DR as 11.86 and 10.78 for the 300D

And when I compare my 5D2 to my EOS 350D, there's a similarly small difference in performance.

I HAVE had DxO's site serve up bad data on occasion, reason's unknown.
but it's otherwise pretty consistent, Canon's low ISO performance is handicapped compared to the competition. 

Have a look at Pentax K5 also, THE top spec APS-C performer according to DxOmark.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 23, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> You know what is really silly?
> 
> Not believing your own eyes.



this is the most accurate summary IMO and why i give DXO a bit fat care factor of 0


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 23, 2012)

Aglet said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



That's because you are looking at the (print) DR figure, which is where DxOMark really cooks it up. 

Press the screen button in the upper left below the ISO Sensitivity. That gives you a pixel for pixel score. Dynamic range doesn't change with megapixels, unless you're DxOMark, then you come up with some formula that does that.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 24, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > TTMartin said:
> ...



HAHA! That's hilarious, and exactly what I mean about bad data at times!

I reloaded the DR screen data numerous times earlier today to ensure I was getting the correct data because I don't like their print number nonsense either, even tho I profess to understand it. 

I also didn't think they'd be so close to identical numbers so I wanted to double-triple-quad-check _your_ posting. A few times I got a "no data available" message so I'd have to reselect just 2 cameras and reload their test data for screen. 
Sounds like I have some possible Flash misbehavior on that machine I have at work because now I select the cameras again from my home computer and I get the same numbers you quoted originally.

Turns out it was giving me the print DR data for 5D2 and 300D instead of the screen DR for 5D3 and 300D even tho the camera bodies I was expecting were displayed in the graph I got as screen data. I was looking at a bunch of different Canon bodies again before comparing 5D3 and 300D DR.

Hmmm - a cautionary there for anyone running an ancient G4 Mac with a very outdated version of Flash.
You might not be getting what you think you're getting. :-[


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 24, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > ... Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better. :-\
> ...



What is silly is comparing them at screen level when one camera has 22.3MP and the other has 6MP. Look at the print comparison and it puts it 1 stop better than the 300D. (It also puts it only 1/2 stop better than 40D, which also has a lot less banding, so they are perhaps about the same usably, which seems to match what I see)

(granted it's IS also silly and a bit shokcing that Canon made the 5D3 barely better per photosite for maximum DR than even some of their older DSLRs and a tiny worse than any recent one, but it's true)

Canon had world beating SNR and low ISO and high ISO DR once upon a time and then they sat doing nothing, bragging about how they were infinitely far ahead and could just sit around. Now they are still up there for SNR and high ISO DR but have fallen miles behind for maximum DR and yeah they are basically where they were over half a decade ago (and even more if you go by per photosite).

5D3 is pretty awesome in most ways, no doubt, generally a great cam but the DR has disappointed me and I have to say I was quite shocked it wasn't a big step up from the 5D2 in that regard and even more shocked that it was actually worse, even if to a meaningless degree (and it would've be super awesome it if it had 28-30MP and still had 6fps and if it had video focus peaking (Canon simply NEEDS to add the latter in firmware)). If it had that I bet the price would be easily maintaining $3500 (at worst). I just hope they are able and care to fix up DR for the 5D4.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 24, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > You know what is really silly?
> ...



Keep in mind he switched it to screen mode from print mode for some reason and that many users have independently measured ISO100 DR and gotten the same results. And that if you compare photos even using DPP and other maker's own custom software the DR differences in the numbers seem to be pretty apparent.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 24, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > You know what is really silly?
> ...



Keep in mind he switched it to screen mode from print mode for some reason and that many users have independently measured ISO100 DR and gotten the same results. And that if you compare photos even using DPP and other maker's own custom software the DR differences in the numbers seem to be pretty apparent.

Also keep in mind that when Canon had universally the better sensors almost every Nikon owner I talked to readily admitted it (even if pointing to their often better body specs at the same time). Why do like 50% of Canon users, seemingly, have to make stuff up? Canon has 6fps vs 4fps in FF (vs 5fps in 1.2x and 6fps in 1.6x), 1-2 stops better SNR in video, video without moire, top AF, but it doesn't have better or even close to as good DR at lower ISOs and maybe if half of Canon users didn't pretend it did Canon might have paid attention and maybe the 5D3 wouldn't have been so far behind.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 24, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> That's because you are looking at the (print) DR figure, which is where DxOMark really cooks it up.



It's called normalization. Would you compare the times of two cars one to go 0-60 miles per hour and one to go 0-60 kilometers per hour directly without conversion factor? 

You can't directly compare 22.3MP against 6MP as if the noise was all at the same power scale.
Or maybe you thought the D700 had much better SNR than the 5D2?


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 25, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > That's because you are looking at the (print) DR figure, which is where DxOMark really cooks it up.
> ...



DxOMark claims to be testing the sensor, yet they come up with Print results? 

The reason I changed to screen is Dynamic Range doesn't change with the number of megapixels. Normalizing for Dynamic Range simply hides the fact that DxOMark can't fully decode the CR2 files, by making it look like their Dynamic Range reading is changing when it isn't.

A more accurate analogy would be comparing the 0-60mph times of a two seat car and a four seat car, would I 'normalize the results' with some conversion factor because the four seat car can carry twice as many people to 60mph in the same time? You and DxOMark might, but, I wouldn’t.

Whether the D700 or 5D Mk II is better is an extraneous argument that has nothing to do with the fact that DxOMark cannot fully decode the CR2 file.

You keep talking about all the tests that have shown that the DxOMark dynamic range scores are accurate. The only tests I’ve seen that ‘prove’ DxOMark focus on the shadow end and show that using a 3rd party RAW decoder you can pull more shadow detail out of D800 or other Sony sensored cameras. Shadow recover is shadow recovery, and only addresses half of the Dynamic Range of the camera, which includes highlight retention too. I’ve seen no tests that compare the dynamic range of a 5D Mk III using DPP as the RAW converter. The closest thing is DPReview’s Dynamic Range Tests which use the cameras JPG engine for RAW conversion. Those tests show that without any electronic enhancements on that the 5D Mk III has more Dynamic Range than the D800, and with D800s ADL on that it has about a 1/3 of a stop more Dynamic Range than the 5D Mk III with HTP on. This is certainly not the 2.7 stop advantage indicated by DxOMark (D800 – DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) 13.23 vs .5D Mk III – DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) 10.97)


----------



## Aglet (Jul 26, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> The reason I changed to screen is Dynamic Range doesn't change with the number of megapixels.



I agree, this gives us the best, and IMO, proper way to test low level sensor performance. It is the closest to the original data
What happens after normalizing to some standard size print is a different result, not necessarily meaningless or irrelevant, but certainly of no use when comparing just sensor performance, an electronics and processing issue.



TTMartin said:


> Normalizing for Dynamic Range simply hides the fact that DxOMark can't fully decode the CR2 files, by making it look like their Dynamic Range reading is changing when it isn't...
> Whether the D700 or 5D Mk II is better is an extraneous argument that has nothing to do with the fact that DxOMark cannot fully decode the CR2 file..



I still don't understand why and how you conclude 3rd party raw converters are missing some ability to properly decode Canon's CR2 files. Please explain

The big difference I've found between them is more to do with de-Bayering and Noise Reduction. There, DxO and Lightroom used to do a slightly better job compared to DPP from my experience. Latest DPP actually seems to provide more image (color) detail than DxO but DPP still lags both in NR performance.

Also, the CR2 file produced by a Canon G11 or G12, which, AFAIK, is a SONY sensor equipped camera, exhibits a DR curve more like a Nikon than a Canon, complete with excellent *base* ISO DR about equal to any current Canon DSLR. Pretty good for tiny pixels!




TTMartin said:


> The only tests I’ve seen that ‘prove’ DxOMark focus on the shadow end and show that using a 3rd party RAW decoder you can pull more shadow detail out of D800 or other Sony sensored cameras. Shadow recover is shadow recovery, and only addresses half of the Dynamic Range of the camera, which includes highlight retention too.



I somewhat agree, highlite retention ability is part of the equation.
However, total DR is a ratio of the highest recordable EV (hilite) to the lowest recordable EV (deep shadow). Since the lowest recordable EV depends on the Signal to Noise Ratio being set at some arbitrary, but useful limit, below which noise obscures image data, this is the more important end of the DR range. SNR at hilites is very high so not a factor unless you're evaluating IQ of very small pixel sensors, which we're not.

These deep shadows are where Canon's sensors have trouble with read noise intruding on their signal. It's an electronics design issue. They chose a particular compromise which works very well except it loses at the shadow end.



TTMartin said:


> I’ve seen no tests that compare the dynamic range of a 5D Mk III using DPP as the RAW converter.



I see the same deep shadow pattern noise in my Canon raw files no matter what raw converter I use, and I normally use DPP for basic processing.

The next difference I find is that Canon's DPP doesn't provide the same tone-curve controls Lightroom or even DxO have, so it's not as simple to bring up the shadow areas in DPP to see the noise - but it's still there. DPP seems to process the shadow end a little darker than the other converters, which minimizes the appearance of the noise.
When I process for printing I like to bring the shadow areas up a bit more to retain some shadow detail in the final print, and that's when the patterned and banded noise structures of Canon's raw files show up and sometimes cause problems. The more you have to bring them up (sunlit landscapes = more DR) the more likely the problem with the shadow areas.

E.G. I recently used my 5D2 with a 580EX II flash for fill to do some outdoor family portraits, mix of sun and cloud day. 3 of 4 people in the group wore pants of varying shades of dark gray.

In DPP, I added +1 EV to correct for overall exposure on the subjects because a strongly backlit sky threw off my basic exposure more than I'd planned. (I don't normally shoot outdoor portraits in rapidly changing sky conditions) I still had to blow out the sky to get good exposure on the subjects.

That's only ONE stop of push, and even in DPP there's clearly banding noise visible on 2 of the darker pants, the noise exhibiting both vertical and horizontal banding and plenty of chroma noise. This isn't even processing the dark levels up to where I'd normally prefer them yet.

I export those files to 16-bit TIFF to continue to work in Photoshop to do the usual touchups.
When I try to lift the dark tones of those pants slightly more I cannot, the banding noise becomes objectionable. So that's a tiff file, exported by DPP, which is the de-facto decoder of Canon's raw file, still exhibiting strong noise in the shadows with only +1 EV of push.

Does this matter?
Well, i can make a shot like this work for a family portrait that the customer finds acceptable at the print sizes they want.
If I were to print it 30" wide then the pattern noise on the pants would be something I would see.

Compare this to sunlit landscape shots I recently took with my D800 where I want to retain ALL the scene detail, from textures in bright white clouds to textural detail in the charcoal of a burned tree, in the shade. I manually expose using the old Sunny 16 thumbrule. 1/500s @ f/8 & ISO 100. Considering the D800's ISO is about a half stop less than what it says, I could have exposed at least another 1/3 EV and still retained highlite details.
The resulting image from shooting such a scene has the remainder of the landscape very dark and the charred area pretty much black.
In Lightroom or Photoshop (ACR) I can then lift those shadow areas NUMEROUS EV, to the point where I can now see detail in the shaded area of the charcoal! And guess what?... NO noise. No banding of any kind, not even a spec of noise and that's with the usual 25/100 default chroma NR setting set to ZERO.
I didn't have to recover lost hilite detail because I already exposed to retain it near the camera's maximum.

This means this camera produces FAR cleaner shadows than a Canon. So I'm not surprised it's DR is rated a few stops better using the existing testing methodology. There's no way in Hades I could process an image like this if I shot it with my 5D2! 
Ergo, I have to agree with DxO that the D800 provides considerably more real world usable dynamic range than a 5D Mark II.

Anyone want to BUY a super clean, barely used 5D2?... I really don't know why I'm keeping it any longer.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 26, 2012)

LTRLI - I recall when you were examining early raw files from the 5D3, you had some sort of software that allowed you to view individual pixel data levels numerically?..

Any way some stats could be run on that kind of data if one were to make test shots of a white sheet or gray card at various exposures and the variance/mean could be analyzed for different tonal values and yet another way of determining total dynamic range with shadow values set to some level of SNR ?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 26, 2012)

Aglet said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > The reason I changed to screen is Dynamic Range doesn't change with the number of megapixels.
> ...



They are not literally making prints and comparing, they just decided to call it print results instead of normalized results since by print results they mean image shown at same scale. 



> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > The only tests I’ve seen that ‘prove’ DxOMark focus on the shadow end and show that using a 3rd party RAW decoder you can pull more shadow detail out of D800 or other Sony sensored cameras. Shadow recover is shadow recovery, and only addresses half of the Dynamic Range of the camera, which includes highlight retention too.
> ...



There really is no such thing as highlight recovery with a standard digital sensor. It's a hard cut-off and they have linear capture. You simply find the saturation point and then you measure the black point noise.

You can change what part along the linear sequence you declare to be middle gray and apply various tone curves but none of that comes into play measure the max engineering DR the sensor can deliver.




> These deep shadows are where Canon's sensors have trouble with read noise intruding on their signal. It's an electronics design issue. They chose a particular compromise which works very well except it loses at the shadow end.



It is. The Canon sensors themselves have a LOT more dynamic range captured than the result that gets collected after all the reading and converting of the sensor. I forget the details but I think the 5D2 sensor itself grabs well over 13 stops at the screen level, closer to 14 while the RAW file, after all the electronics damage the signal, has like only 11 stops left at the screen level.



> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > I’ve seen no tests that compare the dynamic range of a 5D Mk III using DPP as the RAW converter.
> ...



exactly


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 26, 2012)

Aglet said:


> LTRLI - I recall when you were examining early raw files from the 5D3, you had some sort of software that allowed you to view individual pixel data levels numerically?..
> 
> Any way some stats could be run on that kind of data if one were to make test shots of a white sheet or gray card at various exposures and the variance/mean could be analyzed for different tonal values and yet another way of determining total dynamic range with shadow values set to some level of SNR ?



Yeah but it's awfully tricky if you want exact measurements out of that since you need a super stable light and power source and high-end equipment to measure output or some high end device to regulate the light and a detailed table of how much it outputs per various fed currents I think. I don't think many people have the setup to be able to do that very well.

Maybe if you had stable power in your area (I sure don't, at least not in summer) or used batteries to run the light you could use a monitor calibration probe to measure the light. I don't know.

I think it's tricky and time consuming and I'd rather go out and take pics. 

EDIT: Actually I guess you could just use a high quality step wedge on a light table, that would be a lot easier and solve many of the problems anyway I don't own one. They probably don't cost too too much but who knows it maybe they do charge like $100-200 for a quality stpe wedge. Anyway I don't feel like wasting time with it. 

It might be interesting to do a rougher visual test at some dark but not black level and see at what point banding starts making the engineering DR look unusable. That might be the real deal. But in the end I don't feel like bothering with the time that would take and just simply note that with some bodies banding affects usable measure DR more (5D2,5D3,7D,1D4) than with others (40D, 1Ds3, D800, etc.) whether by 1/4 or 3/4 stop or 1/3 or 1 n each case I don't know. And that some cams like 5D3/1DX have banding affecting usable DR less than the 7D less than 5D2/50D/5D/etc. when talking high ISO.


----------



## Wilmark (Jul 26, 2012)

Because its basically almost indistinguishable.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 28, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Yeah but it's awfully tricky if you want exact measurements out of that since you need a super stable light and power source and high-end equipment to measure output or some high end device to regulate the light and a detailed table of how much it outputs per various fed currents I think. I don't think many people have the setup to be able to do that very well.



i was thinking of single shot analysis, step wedge would be good but not necessary, just some varying reflectance targets from black to a few EV above.

The kind of analysis I'm thinking of would be to analyze the noise (variance) and try to determine the banding effect that way rather than averaging it or however DxO does it. in fact, I'd be most interested in Peak-to-peak variance at those various levels because that's what becomes the visible distraction.

not that this is even necessary!
We can see from a typical shot that the raw files contains this to an annoying degree.
I don't need to measure HOW annoying it really is. ;D



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> .. I don't feel like bothering with the time that would take..



+3!

I barely have time to go shoot for fun, let alone monkey in the studio testing stuff beyond what I've already done to decide I needed to get a better body for some of my work.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 28, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> There really is no such thing as highlight recovery with a standard digital sensor. It's a hard cut-off and they have linear capture. You simply find the saturation point and then you measure the black point noise.



I suspect RGB channels will saturate at different levels tho, so that's about the only "recovery" available but then color accuracy is lost.
Some cameras tone curves vary a fair bit as they approach cutoff. Canon seems to take it a bit more gently than Nikon from what little I've checked but I'm careful not to clip any color channel when taking a shot and that can be really tricky with some subjects.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It is. The Canon sensors themselves have a LOT more dynamic range captured than the result that gets collected after all the reading and converting of the sensor. I forget the details but I think the 5D2 sensor itself grabs well over 13 stops at the screen level, closer to 14 while the RAW file, after all the electronics damage the signal, has like only 11 stops left at the screen level.



I'd be very interested to know how Canon's sensors would perform if they used the same type of on-sensor processing as SoNi-kon's.


----------

