# Mother of God - D800 scores 95 DxOMark



## Wrathwilde (Mar 23, 2012)

Making it the Highest Rated Sensor they've tested. Impressive! Don't Let us down Canon.

Nikon D800 

Overall Score - 95 

Color Depth - 25.3 bits 

Dynamic Range - 14.4 

Low Light ISO - 2853

This is killing me, I think Canon's going to lose this round big. I'm not jumping ship though, I'll still get the 5D3 or 1D X... because I just can't stand how the Nikon Cameras feel in my hand, and I've got all my Canon Gear.


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 23, 2012)

I don't know how they calculate those scores, but here's my take:

Noise:
Screen: D800 just a bit worse than the 5D2, nothing fancy.
Print: pretty much same as the D3S (on the print score you can see the noise-reduction kick in above iso6k on both nikons).

DR:
Print: D800 just keeps going up past 14 bits at iso50, beats the 5D2 and D3S (but D3S wins above iso1600). D800 a half a bit above D3X the whole way.
Screen: D800 and 5D2 are the same above iso400, but below it just keeps going in a straight line, 5D2 plateus out. D3S still beats both above iso400. D800 about 1/4 stop above D3X the whole way.

Tonal range:
Print: D3S and D800 almost the same, D3X just a smidge below, 5D2 a smidge below that.
Screen: D3S a stop above the D3X, D800, 5D2 all the same.

Colours:
Print: D800 for the low iso, D3s for the high, otherwise neck and neck, D3X just a bit less. Nikons are a bit or two above 5D2.
Screen: D800 just just above 5D2, both tied with D3X (you can really see nikon's boost above iso6400). D3s beats them both easily.


So what's so good about this sensor? Personally, I don't see much groundbreaking about it besides the 36MP. Noise levels are near enough to the same as the previous generation. 5D3 should beat it easily and maybe get into D3S-beating territory.
DR is a half-step above D3X, at least it doesn't 'plateau' like the 5D2 and D3S. I hope the 5D3 doesn't plateau at low iso like the 5D2.
Tonal range, just a smidge improved on D3X again.
Ditto colours, only a minor incremental improvement on D3X.

So it's good for landscapes at low-iso, and no worse than the 5D2 at high-iso. If the 5D3 really does improve by as much as canon's marketing tells us, then it should easily beat the D800 for everything other than megapixels...


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 23, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> I don't know how they calculate those scores, but here's my take:
> 
> Noise:
> Screen: D800 just a bit worse than the 5D2, nothing fancy.
> ...



So the D800 is about the same as the 1ds3 then at low iso ...... big news item 'Nikon catches up with 4 year old Canon tehnology'


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 23, 2012)

i don´t know if i shall congratulate sony or nikon.

i had my doubts... i admit it.
but the sensor seems to be very good.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 24, 2012)

I congratulate Nikon on producing a stellar camera in the D800. Now can someone please post sample images taken with both a D800 and a 5DIII, where the D800 made them a better photographer? I have a feeling that I'll be waiting for a long time. 

The DxO tests are amusing, but I don't see what's so fun about fixating on such silly lab tests instead of using a camera for its intended purpose: creating art! I'd venture to say that most pro photographers - those creating beautiful images with their gear - have never even heard of this DxOMark nonsense. IMHO, trying to objectively quantify the value of a subjective medium (photography) is preposterous. 

I think Megan Fox is one hot momma, and I can fantasize all day about inappropriate things I'd like to do with her, but I can't tell you why I think she's hot. She's just hot, and it's as simple as that. Maybe someone can develop a biometric facial scanning device that attempts to objectively quantify which women are hot, and which aren't. The tech geeks will have a field day with that one, and remain virgins at the same time ;D

The same goes for image quality. Again, I applaud Nikon for developing a camera that scores so well on a silly lab test, but I don't need a silly lab test to distinguish a great image from a junk image. I find it sad that instead of people posting sample images of the D800 and saying "wow, that looks great" they can't get over some lab tests.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 24, 2012)

dilbert said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



The 1ds3 outruns the 5DII which is just behind the D800 .....


----------



## stve (Mar 24, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I congratulate Nikon on producing a stellar camera in the D800. Now can someone please post sample images taken with both a D800 and a 5DIII, where the D800 made them a better photographer? I have a feeling that I'll be waiting for a long time.


Easy to spot Canon images they are the ones with banding in the shadows & with burnt out highlights & very poor reds , I love the Canon red colour its a great red just like to see more shades of red sometimes.


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 24, 2012)

> So the D800 is about the same as the 1ds3 then at low iso ...... big news item 'Nikon catches up with 4 year old Canon tehnology'



Not exactly... if it performed equivalently at the pixel level, it'll perform much better when normalized to 1ds3 resolution. Which is impressive given the much smaller pixel pitch, but not surprising given the much better read/electronic noise of Nikon/Sony sensors.


----------



## sawsedge (Mar 24, 2012)

Wrathwilde said:


> Making it the Highest Rated Sensor they've tested. Impressive! Don't Let us down Canon.
> 
> Nikon D800
> 
> ...




Low Light ISO 2853... dunno how they compute that but when I look at the dpreview raw samples vs the 5D2 and their own D7000, I don't see better (is that scale linear?). Same on Imaging Resource. I'm not knocking the D800 by any means, it sounds like a fantastic camera, it has amazing resolution and great features, but the noise... sorry, can't buy the numbers. 

Kinda moot for me regardless, I like my Canon lenses and will not replace them. 

I also don't like the feel of the Nikon bodies, Canon fits me better. When I started looking into digital years ago, I tried Nikon first, just couldn't do it. 

For the most part, Nikon users will buy the D800 and Canon users will buy the 5D3, and both sides will produce great images.


----------



## sawsedge (Mar 24, 2012)

stve said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > I congratulate Nikon on producing a stellar camera in the D800. Now can someone please post sample images taken with both a D800 and a 5DIII, where the D800 made them a better photographer? I have a feeling that I'll be waiting for a long time.
> ...



Reds are poor with defaults from ACR in some Canon models, but I found I can tweak settings and get detail without too much trouble. For more troublesome color images, I use DPP, which usually nails the color. 

Banding... is much improved recently. I don't see any in any of the 5D3 samples until 25600.


----------



## Orion (Mar 24, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> . . . .Again, I applaud Nikon for developing a camera that scores so well on a silly lab test, but I don't need a silly lab test to distinguish a great image from a junk image.. . .



It's only "silly" if you use the tests to show what a great photographer you will be. . . . but it is not silly if you want to learn something about the actual sensor that is responsible for why your camera happens to be great . . pixel peeping notwithstanding.


----------



## unkbob (Mar 24, 2012)

It's like Mac vs Windows. I don't really care how good the latest Mac is, I'm never going to get one - not because I'm anti-Mac or anti-Nikon, I am just too invested in the UI / lenses / software / hardware to make the switch. Either brand will perform the tasks I need performed. If that ever changes, I'll have to reluctantly jump ship. It's great to have two competing companies (and maybe Sony sometime soon, when the A99 comes out?) pushing the boundaries of the technology. We all win.

One of my favourite Canon features is C1, C2, C3 on the dial. That alone would be impossible for me to sacrifice (and also why I wouldn't buy a 1 series Canon).

Also I no longer use a battery grip, but when I did, having 2 batteries in the grip make perfect sense to me. One battery in the grip and one in the camera seemed absolutely INSANE! The D700 used that system and I *think* the D800 does too. Removing the grip to change both batteries? What?!

Little annoyances like that would drive me round the bend. But Canon has its issues too. Whatever, I'm happy. And so much happier than when I was a Sony user.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 24, 2012)

Orion said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > . . . .Again, I applaud Nikon for developing a camera that scores so well on a silly lab test, but I don't need a silly lab test to distinguish a great image from a junk image.. . .
> ...



Sadly, this is precisely what a lot of people do.



> but it is not silly if you want to learn something about the actual sensor that is responsible for why your camera happens to be great . . pixel peeping notwithstanding.



I can live with that. However, what we're witnessing is Canon shooters saddened by how well the D800 performs in lab tests, not how much better the D800 actually performs in real-world shooting situations. If you don't pixel peep, it's hard to tell the difference between the 5DIII and D800. Even when you do pixel peep, people reach different conclusions based on their biases. If this is someone's idea of enjoying photography, I find it quite pathetic.


----------



## helpful (Mar 24, 2012)

stve said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > I congratulate Nikon on producing a stellar camera in the D800. Now can someone please post sample images taken with both a D800 and a 5DIII, where the D800 made them a better photographer? I have a feeling that I'll be waiting for a long time.
> ...



ROFL, I'm almost an old man, but I'm still literally almost rolling on the floor with gales of laughter. You have the greatest sense of humor, or should I say camera sensor for humor. When I got to the "love the Canon red" that really did me in. LOLOLOL.


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 24, 2012)

The biggest problem with most of the canon sensors is that the performance 'plateaus' at lower ISO, like iso100 isn't much better than iso200 or iso400. The D3X pretty much went in a straight line, and the D800 does too (just a bit better than the D3X).

Something tells me that they haven't fixed it though, because canon marketers would be all "4-stop improvement in image quality at low iso". They've told us high-iso is a stop or two better than 5D2, and i'd believe that. What i'd like to see is better DR etc at iso100. D800 can obviously do it, i hope the 5D3 can too...


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 24, 2012)

dilbert said:


> That is for in-camera produced JPEG files only, which means the software in the camera is better, not the hardware.



If that's referring to me saying 'stop or two better', i thought that RAW was a stop better, JPG was 2-stops better?

Or we'll just have to wait for the 5D3 DxO results...


----------



## sparda79 (Mar 24, 2012)

sawsedge said:


> stve said:
> 
> 
> > V8Beast said:
> ...



Totally agree. The ACR defaults handles Canon's red poorly. 
Used to be very frustrating...


----------



## Higs42 (Mar 24, 2012)

So in summary, when you compare the new Nikon that is just hitting the market, it outperforms a Canon 5d2 that was designed in 2008. Mother of god, who would have guessed?


----------



## psolberg (Mar 24, 2012)

Higs42 said:


> So in summary, when you compare the new Nikon that is just hitting the market, it outperforms a Canon 5d2 that was designed in 2008. Mother of god, who would have guessed?


No. It beats everything recent. And this is the terrible high mp sensor everybody dismissed as being noisy and bad


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 24, 2012)

psolberg said:


> Higs42 said:
> 
> 
> > So in summary, when you compare the new Nikon that is just hitting the market, it outperforms a Canon 5d2 that was designed in 2008. Mother of god, who would have guessed?
> ...



Yes, there were lots of Canon fan body in denial, but I think the D800 has proven itself as having a great sensor. To my eyes, however, the real-world benefits of its awesomeness are tough to spot in most of the images taken with it so far.


----------



## Higs42 (Mar 24, 2012)

The data presented here is for the old Canon cameras. We will see how the new Nikon compares to the new Canon cameras at some point, but not yet. So at least keep your comments to reality, not making things up that you hope or wish to be true. If you have the data for the 5D3 or 1DX, let's see it and we can discuss, but comparing a new camera to 4 year old designs was my point.


----------



## birtembuk (Mar 24, 2012)

Numbers are numbers, field is field and I would not buy a gear based on DxO reviews. Just remember the review of the 70-200/2.8II by them. It fares worse than the Sony 70-200/2.8 G...

We are talking here of pure academic assessment by guys in white coat in an immaculate lab. In absolute terms, for sure the D800 sensor will out-resolve the 5D3's. Period. No need whining. Now, just pixel-peep the Still-life 6400 at http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM and compare between D800 and 5D3. Not surprisingly, D800 will out-resolve the 5D3 in the fabrics area. This is to be expected as fabrics are sort of micro 3D textures that require lots of resolving power for extracting details. Good if you are in the garment industry. Now, move around anywhere else in the pictures and conclude by yourself. For me, there's a two stops difference in ISO. As far as I am concerned, that's what I am looking for. 

So, what's the big deal here ? ISO or resolution ? Just make you pick and be happy ever after.


----------



## SRHelicity (Mar 24, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > Higs42 said:
> ...



+1

The data are what they are. The results are not "biased" (I hear "DxO is biased against Canon" occasionally, which is false) -- they are designed to be objective. However, what is important is to remember what the numbers represent. They do not represent ease of use, speed and complexity of the AF system, and in-camera features. They don't represent the lens ecosystem, nor do they represent the accessories that are available for that particular camera. Altogether, they DO NOT represent which camera will be best for YOU. We all have different shooting characteristics (shooting sports vs. portraits vs. landscapes, etc.) and buying criteria (budget, lenses owned, etc.), so a camera with a higher DxO score doesn't mean that it'd be better for YOU or for ME. DxO results *are* effective at giving us some objective data, however, to allow us to judge sensor performance.


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 24, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Thus far, all the evidence points to the 5D3 being about the same as the 5D2 for ISO 100 through to 400.



And if that's the case, regardless of how well the 5D3 does in high-iso performance, if the iso 100-400 just plateaus again at 12-13 bits DR, then they're pretty much handing landscape photographers on a platter over to Nikon...


----------



## Astro (Mar 24, 2012)

FanBoyKillah said:


> And please no, "What if Canon makes a camera like this in a year with more MPs are you going to switch back?" Because the truth is I wouldn't switch back because Canon will never make a camera like this, not in a long time if ever.



if i had your gift to foresee the future i would not waste my time in a studio with a 35mm.... i would go to vegas!!


----------



## KeithR (Mar 24, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I congratulate Nikon on producing a stellar camera in the D800. Now can someone please post sample images taken with both a D800 and a 5DIII, where the D800 made them a better photographer? I have a feeling that I'll be waiting for a long time.





> Even when you do pixel peep, people reach different conclusions based on their biases. If this is someone's idea of enjoying photography, I find it quite pathetic.





> To my eyes, however, the real-world benefits of its awesomeness are tough to spot in most of the images taken with it so far.


And yet you'd already decided that the D800 was the way to go, purely on the basis of _spec sheets_.


----------



## KeithR (Mar 24, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Which is impressive given the much smaller pixel pitch


Pixel pitch has no relevance whatsoever to relative sensor performance.


----------



## smirkypants (Mar 24, 2012)

That sound.... that loud rumbling... it's the sound of a herd of Canon landscape photographers rushing to buy a D800 and a 14-24/2.8. It crushes on MP and it crushes on DR. It will happen, and all the defensive fanboy snottiness isn't going to change that.

I don't shoot landscape. The D800 is the wrong camera for me, but all the signs point to it being killer.


----------



## Astro (Mar 24, 2012)

i will ask david noton what he will do.....


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 24, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> That sound.... that loud rumbling... it's the sound of a herd of Canon landscape photographers rushing to buy a D800 and a 14-24/2.8. It crushes on MP and it crushes on DR. It will happen, and all the defensive fanboy snottiness isn't going to change that.
> 
> I don't shoot landscape. The D800 is the wrong camera for me, but all the signs point to it being killer.



+1 
agree 100% 

14.4 stops DR @ ISO 100 ... wow! Even if DXO-Marks intransparent testing was off by 2 stops, it would still best any Canon including 5D III by quite some margin.


----------



## Gothmoth (Mar 24, 2012)

sawsedge said:


> Reds are poor with defaults from ACR in some Canon models, but I found I can tweak settings and get detail without too much trouble. For more troublesome color images, I use DPP, which usually nails the color.



x-rite colorchecker passport....

you can´t expect accurate colors without such tools in LR.
not from the presets that come with LR.


----------



## smirkypants (Mar 24, 2012)

dilbert said:


> If I were you I'd settle for commenting on the area of photography that you do engage in.


You are correct. I don't shoot landscapes professionally, therefore I know nothing about composing or shooting one, and that I don't know anything about the tools that are best suited for the job. It also means since I don't shoot landscapes professionally, I don't have any friends that do and that they tell me nothing of their desires and observations. I'm just a monkey... with a 5D3... and a 1D4... oh, and a D4 on order.


----------



## KeithR (Mar 24, 2012)

dilbert said:


> That means the D800 at ISO 200 is generating images as good as the 5D2 at ISO 100.



Wow - huge!

I do not believe for a moment that this is a game-changing or deal-breaking difference for _anyone_ - it's just fodder for whiners.

Besides, at the risk of rolling out a hoary old cliché, it takes a damn' sight more a stop of DR more or less at low ISO to make the difference between a "good" and a "bad" image. I'd go as far as to bet that for 99.999% of users out there, it will make _no practical difference whatsoever_.

Seriously, it boils down to this: if an extra stop at base ISO _really is_ "everything" to a photographer, then maybe the 5D Mk III is not for them: but I _guarantee_ that the rest of the planet will be able to churn out spectacularly fine images in their millions with the 5D Mk III. 


*This forum is getting depressingly like DPR in terms of the obsession for measurebation over end results...*


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 24, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> smirkypants said:
> 
> 
> > That sound.... that loud rumbling... it's the sound of a herd of Canon landscape photographers rushing to buy a D800 and a 14-24/2.8. It crushes on MP and it crushes on DR. It will happen, and all the defensive fanboy snottiness isn't going to change that.
> ...



I have been through my 1ds3 photos using DPP (which shows dr). The 1ds3 is tested at 12+ at 100iso. Most of my pictures dont go past 10 - so a d800 would be of no benefit (for DR). I print no bigger than 20x16 so I am coming to the conclusion that, yes, the D800 measures up in the lab but in the field it has no benefit to me.

For those DR fixated Nikon fanboys - other Nikons give higher than 12DR but they didn't capture the market.

For the serious landscape takers I would suggest something like a Mamiya MF 80mps to capture the detail.

So here is a 10 stop DR picture for you taken at 100 iso, 25 seconds


----------



## bvukich (Mar 24, 2012)

dilbert said:


> The first thread on this topic has already been deleted by the site admins... wonder how long this one will survive.



It will last as long as people remain civil adults. When threads devolve to ad hominem attacks, that's when they go to the bit-bin.

You can attack the equipment all you want, cogent arguments are preferred, but the inane ones are tolerated. Don't attack the people.


----------



## elflord (Mar 24, 2012)

KeithR said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > That means the D800 at ISO 200 is generating images as good as the 5D2 at ISO 100.
> ...



It's about 2-2.5 stops of difference in dynamic range at base ISO. The difference between SNR is smaller (more like 1 stop).

Not everyone needs the best sensor performance at low ISO, but let's not kid ourselves here -- the D800 sensor is a performer.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 24, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> So here is a 10 stop DR picture for you taken at 100 iso, 25 seconds



Thanks, your picture proves my point very nicely. With a D800 and its 14.4 stops DR, there would be no clipped highlights on top of that broken wall bottom left. 

re. MF cameras ... give me a break! 
Nice thing about the D800 is: plenty resolution and plenty DR at ISO 100 ... and still excellent IQ at ISO 3200. Try this with a cludgy, expensive MF camera. And best of all: at a reasonable price of € 2600. I am not going to switch to FF any time soon, but if I had to today, I'd definitely get a D800. 

Now smite away fanboys ... oO .. no more smiting ... u'r out of luck now, hehe!


----------



## KeithR (Mar 24, 2012)

Here's the problem with DxOMark. They say about themselves:


> To design DxOMark Scores, we have made choices about our photographic use cases and their associated image quality requirements (such as resolution, distortion, noise, dynamic range, etc.). It is clear that other photography experts may see things differently. We are very open on this site about the choices we have made so that anyone interested in creating a different scoring system can do so based on their own analysis of our DxOMark Scores and Measurement Database.



They apply arbitrary - and by their own admission, _completely subjective_ - scores to a series of metrics to end up with one number. 

The issue is that if you don't give the same priority to the metrics that they do, the scores can be moved substantially.

*The simple fact is that DxOMark's conclusions are no more objective than simply looking at the images and picking the one you like best*.


----------



## Gothmoth (Mar 24, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Now smite away fanboys ... oO .. no more smiting ... u'r out of luck now, hehe!



yes we need an ignore button instead of smiting....


----------



## KeithR (Mar 24, 2012)

elflord said:


> It's about 2-2.5 stops of difference in dynamic range at base ISO. The difference between SNR is smaller (more like 1 stop).


Oh I know - I was just focusing on the specific 100 ISO/200 ISO reference in the earlier post for simplicity.



> Not everyone needs the best sensor performance at low ISO, but let's not kid ourselves here -- the D800 sensor is a performer.


No denying that - the issue here is whether DxOMark has "proved" that it's superior to the 5D Mk III to the extent that some folk on here seem to have bought into.


----------



## Ricku (Mar 24, 2012)

Amusing fanboys are amusing.

The D800 turns out to be a better camera than the 5D3. It gets an amazing score from DxO, and the Canon fanboys reacts like: _"Meh, who cares about DxO?! better camera does not make u better photographer! Canon power!!!1"_

But if the 5D3 had the same score or higher, they would all be cheering and shouting: _"OMG! Look at that fat DxO score! OUR CAMERA IS WINNER!! Take that, Nikon!"_ ;D


----------



## sawsedge (Mar 24, 2012)

KeithR said:


> Here's the problem with DxOMark. They say about themselves:
> 
> 
> > To design DxOMark Scores, we have made choices about our photographic use cases and their associated image quality requirements (such as resolution, distortion, noise, dynamic range, etc.). It is clear that other photography experts may see things differently. We are very open on this site about the choices we have made so that anyone interested in creating a different scoring system can do so based on their own analysis of our DxOMark Scores and Measurement Database.
> ...




Thank you for pointing this out.


----------



## sparda79 (Mar 24, 2012)

Ricku said:


> "OMG! Look at that fat DxO score! OUR CAMERA IS WINNER!! Take that, Nikon!"



Funny... because I actually saw several comments like this on Nikon Rumors ;D


----------



## EYEONE (Mar 24, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > So here is a 10 stop DR picture for you taken at 100 iso, 25 seconds
> ...



I really don't think that part of the picture is clipped. It's just bright.


----------



## sawsedge (Mar 24, 2012)

How many of you used slide film back in the day?


----------



## japhoto (Mar 24, 2012)

I'm still standing by a few points that I've said earlier in other threads:

1.) The D800 seems to be a great "all-rounder" camera, but I must admit that 5DIII with the improved AF-system comes much closer to being one too.

2.) I still think that D800 owners will have to adapt a medium format "workflow" to get the best results from it. Hand-holding is going to be tricky one here, at least to get sharp images at 1:1.


----------



## Gothmoth (Mar 24, 2012)

sawsedge said:


> How many of you used slide film back in the day?



i am .. but i won´t go back.....


----------



## sawsedge (Mar 24, 2012)

japhoto said:


> I'm still standing by a few points that I've said earlier in other threads:
> 
> 1.) The D800 seems to be a great "all-rounder" camera, but I must admit that 5DIII with the improved AF-system comes much closer to being one too.
> 
> 2.) I still think that D800 owners will have to adapt a medium format "workflow" to get the best results from it. Hand-holding is going to be tricky one here, at least to get sharp images at 1:1.




No argument. As I have gone to smaller pixels, I've had to be more careful about my technique to get good images. I won't be surprised to see a lot complaints about it from users who haven't dealt with it before.


----------



## markd61 (Mar 24, 2012)

The numbers are impressive. Fortunately (or unfortunately) no photos ever taken have been good or bad because of lab numbers. Moreover, no one has ever said "That must be a Canon/Nikon/Leica image." by viewing an image and inferring a DxO score.

I like Nikons and I like Canons and I like most cameras. What I really like is a fun camera.


----------



## sawsedge (Mar 24, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> sawsedge said:
> 
> 
> > How many of you used slide film back in the day?
> ...



Neither will I, digital has spoiled me. But, with the approximately 5 stops of DR in slide film, many photographers made great landscapes, wildlife, and every other type of photograph we enjoy.


----------



## EYEONE (Mar 24, 2012)

sawsedge said:


> japhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still standing by a few points that I've said earlier in other threads:
> ...



Hand holding won't a problem. It's 36mp but it still has bigger pixels than the 7D.


----------



## Gothmoth (Mar 24, 2012)

sawsedge said:


> Gothmoth said:
> 
> 
> > sawsedge said:
> ...



i know what you wanted to say. 
but honest my digital images look so much better them my images back from the 80-90s.

i see the benefit of more DR etc.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 24, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Thanks, your picture proves my point very nicely. With a D800 and its 14.4 stops DR, there would be no clipped highlights on top of that broken wall bottom left.



Well you haven't looked at the picture closely enough to spot that:

- exposure was 25 sec
- the highlights were caused by a full blown spotligh just a few feet away. The histogram does not show clippring
- I did nothing to the picture apart from sharpen, resize and convert to jpeg

So it didn't prove anything your point at all.


----------



## elflord (Mar 24, 2012)

KeithR said:


> They apply arbitrary - and by their own admission, _completely subjective_ - scores to a series of metrics to end up with one number.
> 
> The issue is that if you don't give the same priority to the metrics that they do, the scores can be moved substantially.
> 
> *The simple fact is that DxOMark's conclusions are no more objective than simply looking at the images and picking the one you like best*.



That's true of the aggregate use case scores. But we are discussing the graphs which do indicate unambiguously that the D800 sensor has better dynamic range at low ISO. Whether or not dynamic range at low ISO is important is subjective and depends on how you're using the camera. How to weight the three different use case scores to get the final number is also very subjective (to some users only one of those three measures might matter). Also, they made some somewhat arbitrary choices about the way they combined the different factors to get the high ISO score. 

To get a more accurate picture, you really need to look at the measurements to see where the differences really lie, and this is what was done in this thread. 

We won't know exactly how good the 5DIII is until we see the scores for that, but it's pretty clear that the D800 has a better performing sensor than the 5D2 (but hardly surprising -- previous Nikon models were already performing better. Even the Sony APS-C cameras were doing better for low ISO dynamic range)


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 24, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> re. MF cameras ... give me a break!



Yep I guess you are in denial that there is anything better than a D800


----------



## Astro (Mar 24, 2012)

this is coming from MF users.....



> A 36 Megapixel camera, with or without an AA filter is terra incognita for many photographers. Till now, unless one has been able to outlay $25,000 to $50,000 for an MF back, camera and lenses, this type of resolving power has not be accessible. Now, for about $3,000, is the D800 series able to match medium format other than in resolving power? We'll have to wait until photographers with MF systems have a chance to do some comparisons, but I wouldn't take bets either way at this point.
> 
> Keep in mind that a 36 Megapixel camera isn't for everyone. If you just shot for the web and electronic media; if you rarely make prints larger than Super-A3 (13X19"), if you don't own high-end glass and know how to get the most from it, then neither the D800 nor the D800e are going to make a visible difference to your photography – at least not in terms of their higher resolving power. But if you do make large prints, do have some top Nikon and third party lenses, and do understand and practice optimum shooting technique, then it's my guess that there is nothing for the price that will do as much for your output as one of these two new cameras.
> 
> I can tell you that I have placed my order for a Nikon D800e from my local dealer, and hope to take delivery in mid-April. This coincides with my return to Toronto from Mexico, and I expect to spend a good part of the summer shooting various projects (stills and video) with the new Nikon. You can therefore expect several reports on the D800e to appear here in the weeks and months ahead. Friends and colleagues with various MF gear, including the Leica S2, Pentax 645D and Phase, Leaf and Hasselblad backs have already volunteered to help with comparison shoots, and likely the web will be full of such from other sources as well before long.



http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_or_d800e.shtml


i stay with canon.. but fair is fair....

and i think there is no question that it will be more versatile then a MF camera.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 24, 2012)

Astro said:


> this is coming from MF users.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For me personally I dont output at larger than Super A3 (A3+) so the D800 has no benefits.

The MF is really a niche camera - I was saying that it would be better for landscapes than the D800. I have seen a wall sized landscape print from a 80mb Mamiya/Leaf and the IQ was stunning - the D800 cant compete with this type of camera.

If we are talking of all rounder between the D800 and the 5D3 well I dont think it is as clear cut as some are saying


----------



## Spriter (Mar 24, 2012)

I am mesmerized by this. What does that means.

Nikon is able to do a great sensor on FF 36mp but in comparison failed to benefit from all the light available to their smaller sensor on the D4? To me, this is rather choking. Can't be.

When looking to DXOMark sensor evaluation I can't help but think that there is something wrong about all this. They apparently are doing this on production unit and the D800 does not ship yet. Is this because Canon is now shipping and has a lot of success with their sales? 

I can't trust them. That's all.


----------



## Astro (Mar 24, 2012)

Spriter said:


> I am mesmerized by this. What does that means.
> 
> Nikon is able to do a great sensor on FF 36mp but in comparison failed to benefit from all the light available to their smaller sensor on the D4? To me, this is rather choking. Can't be.



question is.. nikon or sony?

but you are right i wondered about the D4 too.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 24, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Personally, I don't see much groundbreaking about it besides the 36MP.



Imho the groundbreaking fact about the D800 is that they have 36mp and *still* get better noise and dr results which contradicts everything ever said about the disadvantages of high mp sensors. If they'd put in a 22mp sensor too, the big leap forward would be much more obvious because dr/noise would make the Canon sensors look like a past generation.


----------



## Astro (Mar 24, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Imho the groundbreaking fact about the D800 is that they have 36mp and *still* get better noise and dr results which contradicts everything ever said about the disadvantages of high mp sensors. If they'd put in a 22mp sensor too, the big leap forward would be much more obvious because dr/noise would make the Canon sensors look like a past generation.



well no.. not if you believe those who say pixelsize has no influence on signal/noise ratio or DR.
which the D800 sensor seems to prove... in some way.

they had to make an actual D800 sensor with bigger pixel to see what is correct.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 24, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> which contradicts everything ever said about the disadvantages of high mp sensors. If they'd put in a 22mp sensor too, the big leap forward would be much more obvious because dr/noise would make the Canon sensors look like a past generation.



logic dictates it is either one or the other... but not both. 

if pixelsize has no influence then a 22mp sensor will not be better.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 24, 2012)

sony/nikon seem to backup those who say SNR is independent from pixelsize.

canon on the other side says 22mp are the optimum for SNR and MP with current technology.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 24, 2012)

KeithR said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > I congratulate Nikon on producing a stellar camera in the D800. Now can someone please post sample images taken with both a D800 and a 5DIII, where the D800 made them a better photographer? I have a feeling that I'll be waiting for a long time.
> ...



Thanks for digging that up for me, although you could have figured out that I ordered up a D800 (and a 5DIII for that matter) right here on Canon Rumors. I'm sorry you find how I choose to spend my own money so offensive.

It is interesting to read back to see how much my opinion has changed in the last couple of months. When I posted that, the rumor mill was swirling with a 5DIII with only a slightly improved AF and a 3-4 FPS burst rate. It didn't look like Canon would address my two biggest gripes with the 5DII, but they delivered big time. I never dreamed that Canon would put its flagship 61-point AF system and a 6 FPS burst rate in the 5DIII, but they did. 

For me, the D800 is a camera whose specs are very impressive, but my enthusiasm has fizzled now that sample images from the wild are coming in. The 5DIII, on the other hand, is a camera whose rumored specs seemed very underwhelming at a time, but that changed once Canon seriously upped the AF and FPS ante, and it has impressed me more by the day as real world sample images start rolling in. 

Hopefully that's OK with Mr. KeithR, but if not, I don't care. How someone chooses to spend their own money is none of my business.


----------



## japhoto (Mar 24, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> sawsedge said:
> 
> 
> > japhoto said:
> ...



I know it has (slightly) bigger pixels than the 7D, but since I'm shooting with the 7D now I can say that it requires those same techniques to get the most out of it. And yes, hand-holding to get sharp images at 1:1 is a PITA when the light isn't exceptionally good.

And adding a third point to my original list:

3.) Since the pixel pitch is similar to the 7D, it also means that the DLA is at around f/8 which is something people don't seem to think about with this camera.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 24, 2012)

japhoto said:


> 3.) Since the pixel pitch is similar to the 7D, it also means that the DLA is at around f/8 which is something people don't seem to think about with this camera.




what means you will have all the benefits below f8 and no real negative effects above f8.
it´s not as if the 36mp sensor will fall under the resolution of, lets say, a 21mp sensor at a given aperture.

it´s just that the sweetspot is at a more open aperture.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 24, 2012)

elflord said:


> That's true of the aggregate use case scores. But we are discussing the graphs which do indicate unambiguously that the D800 sensor has better dynamic range at low ISO.



I have personally checked DxO's dynamic range results for 3 bodies (10D, 20D, 7D) against a Stouffer transmission step wedge in essentially the same test that is performed at DPReview.com.

I was able to confirm DPReview's results. DxO wasn't even close to reality.

DxO does not know how to properly measure dynamic range. If you want accurate DR values, please view test results at DPReview.



> We won't know exactly how good the 5DIII is until we see the scores for that, but it's pretty clear that the D800 has a better performing sensor than the 5D2



Nothing of the sort is clear for dynamic range. Resolution, yes. You can discern that just from the MP counts, and initial studio test images from DPR and IR confirm it. But we won't know how they compare in terms of noise or DR until a *reputable* testing site publishes their review.



> (but hardly surprising -- previous Nikon models were already performing better. Even the Sony APS-C cameras were doing better for low ISO dynamic range)



What Sony APS-C camera would that be? It looks to me like they are no better than Canon's 18 MP bodies when DR optimization is on or when RAW is used under best possible settings. That would leave Sony's APS-C sensors a solid 1 stop behind the Canon 5D2. I doubt the 5D3 has less DR.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 24, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> I have personally checked DxO's dynamic range results for 3 bodies (10D, 20D, 7D) against a Stouffer transmission step wedge in essentially the same test that is performed at DPReview.com.



well it´s open to discussion if THAT is the right way to measure DR.

but there is enough pro and contra talk about it on the web already.


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras.shtml


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 24, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > I have personally checked DxO's dynamic range results for 3 bodies (10D, 20D, 7D) against a Stouffer transmission step wedge in essentially the same test that is performed at DPReview.com.
> ...



That's a short discussion. If I carefully spot meter a scene to know its full brightness range, shoot it, then come home and see how much my camera captured, will the result match the step wedge test or the DxO test? The answer is the step wedge test.

Step wedge test results matched up nicely with real world results and the zone system back in the days of film as well.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 24, 2012)

well you must understand the DXO scores and how to interpret them.. that is for sure.
unfortunately 90% who look at the scores have no clue at all at what they are looking. :

that is why i have posted the link.

but i guess the 90% are to lazy to read it.....




> Dynamic Range corresponds to the ratio between the highest brightness a camera can capture [..] and the lowest brightness [..] when noise is [as strong as the actual signal].
> 
> Photographers run out of Dynamic Range once in a while: usually in terms of "burnt" or "clipped" highlights. What DxOMark measures is more subtle: if you make an exposure series, what quality level will the best image have? In photographer-speak, what shadow noise do you get if you do an ideal "expose to the right" exposure. A high Dynamic Range sensor is good, but chances are that you can't print or even view this without special software. The Landscape/Sport/Portrait terms can easily confuse people who take this literally. I am tempted to interpret the 3 metrics as Dynamic Range (as DxO does), Luminance Noise (instead of Low-Light), and Chroma Noise (instead of Color Sensitivity). Those are quantities you find more often in reviews






> Here are the problems as I see them. First, DPReview does not consistently apply a noise threshold. So when a DR test hits the 2% luminance threshold before it hits the noise threshold, there is actually more DR available from the sensor and JPEG image and you can actually use it if you bring the in-camera JPEG into Photoshop. In these cases, the reader doesn't get a DR test from DPReview. The reader gets a nice accurate report on the camera's tone curve instead. If the test hits the noise threshold and that is used as the cuttoff point instead, you do have a somewhat reasonable standard of comparison. But that only seems to happen on the high ISO tests, and you have to look carefully at the graphs to determine which tests hit a noise threshold and which ones don't. The noise threshold is a "standard" that isn't always applied. Probably all of the DSLR based lower ISO tests are under-reporting the actual DR because they all hit a tone curve dictated luminance threshold before they hit the noise threshold.
> 
> If you want a good indication of DR, you should develop the camera's raw files using no sharpening, no noise reduction, and preferably no gamma correction. Then you can analyze the image using a program that will measure the response and measure the noise. There is no need to concern yourself with luminance levels as a threshold. Those values are completely manipulatable. Testing using a basic linear develope raw like this isn't a perfect solution. [8-13-2010 - A better test is to use the raw data without demosaicing it. In such a test you would simply test only red, blue or green pixels and they would have no processing at all.] Everybody doesn't have the same idea of what is or isn't an acceptable level of noise. Furthermore, noise that measures the same doesn't always look the same. But doing DR tests this way will be far better and have far fewer variables than anything being done by online review sites right now [8-13-2010 - with the possible exception of dxomark testing]. What we have now is a jumbled mess of sorta-sometimes-maybe-right test results.



in the end... i guess you have no clue at all at what noise level you have measured?
and i don´t mean this offensive.


----------



## Astro (Mar 24, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> I have personally checked DxO's dynamic range results for 3 bodies (10D, 20D, 7D) against a Stouffer transmission step wedge in essentially the same test that is performed at DPReview.com.



the problem with wedge test is, that most people measure what they SEE not what can be PROCESSED against a given noise threshold.
and processing does not mean cheating here, the info is in the files.

in the case of dpreview you will sure get the same results if you make the same mistakes.


----------



## Spriter (Mar 24, 2012)

The main problem with DXO metrics is that they interpret the results based on a 8 megapixels downsampling of the measurements they made. I find this inapropriate.

Most of us are cropping our pictures. 

I'd certainly prefered having an indicator about pixel quality. I know how many megapixel I need and how many megapixel there is on the body I am considering.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 24, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> that is why i have posted the link.
> 
> but i guess the 90% are to lazy to read it.....



I've read it, but it's little more than empty theorizing. Step wedge tests yield results that are consistent with the real world, _whatever amount of noise you're willing to accept,_ as long as you have the same noise standard for the wedge test and the real world. I can't find any combination of variables which cause real world results to match DxO's calculations.

According to DxO there's not much difference in DR between the 10D, 20D, and 7D (less than 1 stop). Before I even tested these bodies I could have told you, from real world experience shooting and processing thousands of frames, that their measurements were ridiculous. The amount by which DxO is off varies with each body, so it's not just a simple matter of DxO having a different noise floor. Their results are simply wrong.

But anyone who has compared a Nikon 5100 (DxO score: 80) with a Hasselblad H3DII 50 (DxO score: 78) could tell you that DxO is ridiculous.

BTW, every time someone points out how wrong DxO's test results are, someone else jumps in and claims "well, you have to understand the test. Read this link." No. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. DxO can't present a score which explicitly says A is better than B, then backtrack and say we don't understand the score if we think it means A is better than B. Same for individual tests with results stated using industry standard terms (i.e. DR in stops). If their scoring is confusing that's their fault, not the reader's. And if their test results fail to correspond to real world use, again that is their fault, not the reader's.


----------



## Spriter (Mar 24, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, every time someone points out how wrong DxO's test results are, someone else jumps in and claims "well, you have to understand the test. Read this link." No. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. DxO can't present a score which explicitly says A is better than B, then backtrack and say we don't understand the score if we think it means A is better than B. Same for individual tests with results stated using industry standard terms (i.e. DR in stops). If their scoring is confusing that's their fault, not the reader's. And if their test results fail to correspond to real world use, again that is their fault, not the reader's.
> ...


----------



## Astro (Mar 24, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> BTW, every time someone points out how wrong DxO's test results are, someone else jumps in and claims "well, you have to understand the test. Read this link." No. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. DxO can't present a score which explicitly says A is better than B, then backtrack and say we don't understand the score if we think it means A is better than B. Same for individual tests with results stated using industry standard terms (i.e. DR in stops). If their scoring is confusing that's their fault, not the reader's. And if their test results fail to correspond to real world use, again that is their fault, not the reader's.



i guess most of the guys are engineers like myself who see the logic behind it.


----------



## Astro (Mar 24, 2012)

Spriter said:


> The main problem with DXO metrics is that they interpret the results based on a 8 megapixels downsampling of the measurements they made. I find this inapropriate.



it´s a normalization.



> As discussed above, the DxOMark Sensor score is "normalized" to compensate for differences in sensor resolution. To summarize: the DxOMark Sensor benchmark doesn't "punish" high-resolution sensors for having lots of small pixels that are each individually noisier. And similarly, the benchmark doesn't favor using large pixels despite their lower per-pixel noise. This is not some kind of ideology: it is just estimating the resulting noise level when viewing the entire image



for a fixed print size that makes sense. as downsampling is applied anyway.
once you exceed the acceptable noise for the printsize we can discuss if it is usefull.


----------



## Gothmoth (Mar 24, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> BTW, every time someone points out how wrong DxO's test results are, someone else jumps in and claims "well, you have to understand the test. Read this link." No. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. DxO can't present a score which explicitly says A is better than B, then backtrack and say we don't understand the score if we think it means A is better than B. Same for individual tests with results stated using industry standard terms (i.e. DR in stops). If their scoring is confusing that's their fault, not the reader's. And if their test results fail to correspond to real world use, again that is their fault, not the reader's.



but you measure the combo: sensor + software demosaicing + your individual develop settings.

how will you get a objectiv (comparable) result about the sensor that way?
apply a different gamma curve and you will have more DR, but what about the noise level if you do so? it will raise into regions that are not acceptable. luminance can be pushed around easily. you need some fixation and that is the acceptable noise level.

DXO measures the RAW info and noise levels.


----------



## elflord (Mar 25, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> DxO does not know how to properly measure dynamic range. If you want accurate DR values, please view test results at DPReview.



What specifically is wrong with the way DxOMark test dynamic range ?

The DxOMark tests basically show Canon's sensors flattening out in dynamic range by ISO 400 (that is, dynamic range doesn't improve for low ISO) whereas the Sony sensors (also used in Nikon sensors) continue to improve at ISO 200-100. At higher ISOs it goes more or less as you'd expect -- the bigger sensor wins by about a stop.

Are you saying that this is due to some flaw in DxOMarks method ? If so, what is the flaw ? 



> What Sony APS-C camera would that be? It looks to me like they are no better than Canon's 18 MP bodies when DR optimization is on or when RAW is used under best possible settings. That would leave Sony's APS-C sensors a solid 1 stop behind the Canon 5D2. I doubt the 5D3 has less DR.



DxOMark has the NEX 5N and Sony Alpha 77 beating the 5D Mark II for dynamic range at low ISOs.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 25, 2012)

i would have read all of this thread but i've been out all weekend shooting with my 5Dmk3 
since i don't really follow the lab tests or particularly care about them for that matter, 95 is good is it?


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 25, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i would have read all of this thread but i've been out all weekend shooting with my 5Dmk3
> since i don't really follow the lab tests or particularly care about them for that matter, 95 is good is it?



Most good bodies score in the 80's

Personally I feel the score is so much higher that this cynical old man wonders about the accuracy


----------



## ssrdd (Mar 25, 2012)

finally 5dmark 3 has proved to be shit for the price point.
ha ha haaa...


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 25, 2012)

ssrdd said:


> finally 5dmark 3 has proved to be S___ for the price point.
> ha ha haaa...



I can tell you have done your research - you spotted the 'knock the 5DIII and praise the D800' bandwagon and jumped on.

DXOMark comparing the 5DIII and the D800

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/795|0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28appareil2%29/792|0/%28brand2%29/Nikon


----------



## psolberg (Mar 25, 2012)

Spriter said:


> The main problem with DXO metrics is that they interpret the results based on a 8 megapixels downsampling of the measurements they made. I find this inapropriate.
> 
> Most of us are cropping our pictures.
> 
> I'd certainly prefered having an indicator about pixel quality. I know how many megapixel I need and how many megapixel there is on the body I am considering.



I'd argue most of us crop the same regardless of mp count since we crop for composition an not resolution. Thus the advantages of low resolution sensors are nullified. Dxo's arguments is that pixel quality 100% crops are not representative of actual quality for most uses and thus they normalize the field by the downscale. If you're selling tiny 100% crops blown to 8x10, you should disregard their findings. But if you sell prints of 90% if your original , their method is more accurate than the side by side comparison of crops you see on the web.


----------



## thure1982 (Mar 25, 2012)

Have you guys matched it with the 5D2? 
Sure it got 95 "points" at he scoreboard but the aqual difference is not the obvois when you look at the diagrams.


----------



## elflord (Mar 25, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > i would have read all of this thread but i've been out all weekend shooting with my 5Dmk3
> ...



That would make it about 1.5 stops better than current APS-C bodies, which seems plausible. Full frame bodies aren't released very frequently, so there aren't that many comparable bodies that have been tested. However, Nikon do have a couple of other FF models that score close to 90.


----------



## D.Sim (Mar 27, 2012)

ssrdd said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > ssrdd said:
> ...




So sayeth the Nikon fanboy...


Gee I miss the karma system... some of the comments are just getting out of hand -_-


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 27, 2012)

ssrdd said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > ssrdd said:
> ...



What bandwagon is that?


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> ssrdd said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



As far as DxO's preliminary comparison, look at the specs... Canon 5d mark III = professional. Nikon D800 = Semi-Pro DSLR. Now let me duck out before the bullets/knives/forks come flying out from the left.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 27, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > ssrdd said:
> ...



DxO haven't done a review of the 5DIII therefore any comment against it must have been made by a Nikon fanboy. Personally I dont care less - I am not getting a 5DIII as I already have a camera that fills that requirement.


----------



## sarangiman (Mar 27, 2012)

> If Nikon/Sony were to make a 22MP sensor that used the same technology as the 36MP sensor in the D800 and that 22MP sensor were made to be a full-frame 35mm sensor, then I expect that you would have a sensor that blows the socks off of the one in the D800.



Um. Isn't that the D4 (well, 16MP instead of 22MP, so even more advantage)? And yet DXO rates the D4 as having less DR than the D800? Normalized or not, that makes me think: 



> sony/nikon seem to backup those who say SNR is independent from pixelsize.



On a per-pixel level, SNR is absolutely related to pixel size. Upon normalization, in this case downsampling (or pixel binning), the difference *might* become negligible between a higher resolution sensor & a lower resolution one. But, in my understanding, the DR or SNR can never be *better* for a downsized image from a higher resolution sensor vs. the image from the lower resolution sensor w/ bigger pixels. 

Why? 

Because the higher resolution sensor will have more read noise because it had to read many more pixels. Yes, the read noise will be averaged upon downsizing, but averaging the read noise of, say, 4 pixels, down to one can't possibly give you lower noise than reading just 1 pixel to begin with off a sensor of 1/4 the resolution.

Hardware-binning, on the other hand, was invented to combat this problem. Phase One's Sensor+ tech bins pixels at the sensor level so that you don't have as many read events when you shoot at a lower resolution (on the same sensor), thereby increasing your overall SNR.

Until the greater inter-pixel spacing of higher resolution cameras no longer affect QE, & read noise goes to 0 (not likely), high resolution sensors cannot have the same SNR performance of lower resolution sensors _of the same generation_, barring other factors that might make the higher resolution sensor better.



> The DxOMark tests basically show Canon's sensors flattening out in dynamic range by ISO 400 (that is, dynamic range doesn't improve for low ISO)



This is likely because of dirty downstream signal processing, which Nikon/Sony has less of. Therefore, the signal at which SNR = 1 for Nikon/Sony images is lower than for Canon; hence the higher DR at lower ISO. ISO 400 is unity gain for 5DII; below that ISO, >1 electron is used per 1 digital unit (DU) in the resulting image file. For example, at ISO 100, 4e- = 1DU (I believe), which means that lower signals are now more prone to noise injection from dirty electronics.

That's my understanding, anyway. Feel free to discuss.

Also, though't I'd point out that according to sensorgen.info, which basically pulls data from DXOMark, the D7000's read noise remains the same even at low ISO, something pretty much atypical of all other cameras:
http://sensorgen.info/NikonD7000.html

This also has the effect of making the DR on the D7000 literally _plummet_ as soon as you raise the ISO. By ISO 200, it's down to D4 levels of DR at ISO 100; The D4 DR drops rather slowly from ISO 100 to ISO 800 (http://sensorgen.info/NikonD4.html). 

But the D7000 having a lower read noise at ISO 100 than the D4 *and* higher DR than the D4 by 1.4 stops?

_*Really??*_


----------



## DZY (Jun 8, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I congratulate Nikon on producing a stellar camera in the D800. Now can someone please post sample images taken with both a D800 and a 5DIII, where the D800 made them a better photographer? I have a feeling that I'll be waiting for a long time.
> 
> The DxO tests are amusing, but I don't see what's so fun about fixating on such silly lab tests instead of using a camera for its intended purpose: creating art! I'd venture to say that most pro photographers - those creating beautiful images with their gear - have never even heard of this DxOMark nonsense. IMHO, trying to objectively quantify the value of a subjective medium (photography) is preposterous.
> 
> ...


if DXO wants to do a FAIR test on any sensor, they should use the SAME optics, SAME shutter, SAME aperture assembly, SAME wave length of light, and SAME all other things to rule out any other factors. From cnet review I see they use canon lens to test canon body, I'd like to think they use nikon lens to test nikon body, etc. That makes the result less legitimate.
The other way I see is the Full Sensor Apparent Image Quality (FSAIQ) is not the actual image quality, sharpness and contrast plays important roll here, which related to both sensor and lens. So again DXO does not tell the sensor itself, it does tell the appearance in a specific case (8MP).
Somewhere at clarkvision website says the optimal size of a pixel is 5um and the density of a FF is around 34MP as D800.
I just want to be a little less bias.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 8, 2012)

> From cnet review I see they use canon lens to test canon body, I'd like to think they use nikon lens to test nikon body, etc. That makes the result less legitimate.



Not necessarily. You can take multiple exposures at different exposures, &, for example, select the RAW file for each body that is just short of clipping the brightest patch of a wedge (in other words, 1/3EV more exposure clips, say, the green channel). You then find the darkest patch with SNR = 1 (or whatever your criterion is), & as long as you know how many stops are between that dark patch & the bright patch, you can calculate a dynamic range. Any differences in lens transmission & such are compensated for by you selecting the appropriate exposure RAW file for each body.

You can even do this 'in the real world', & if you do, you'll see that a Nikon D7000, D800, or any other of their bodies with the stellar Sony EXMOR sensors will have much cleaner shadows than any Canon 5D series body (or likely any Canon body, period... I'm speaking of the 5D series b/c that's what I own & have tested). Assuming, of course, that your scene has enough dynamic range to begin with (easily demonstrable with sunrise/sunset shots shooting toward the sun).



> I just want to be a little less bias.



If you're suggesting that DXO is biased, what evidence do you have of that?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 8, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> If you're suggesting that DXO is biased, what evidence do you have of that?



This is common knowledge! a) we all know the 5d3 has a great sensor, b) dxo failed to praise it and rated d800 higher, a+b) dxo is biased, really simple if you think about it :-o


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > If you're suggesting that DXO is biased, what evidence do you have of that?
> ...


I don't say that's biased. However, people should too focus on the score.
Many benchmark software for CPUs and GPUs and they all have the different results for the performances. Some like nVidia, some like AMD, and some lie Intel. You need to understand how they give the score to understand the meaning of the score.
I am not go that far yet, so the DXO score is not important for me. I guess some people do a lot of photo retouching might care about the DXO score. my 2cents.


----------



## peederj (Jun 8, 2012)

After working professionally now with my 5D3 I have come to believe the D800 probably is a better stills camera (though I haven't shot with it) because of that sensor. But the 5D3 is a better video camera (even though resolution crippled). Event video with the 5D3 is outstanding (ISO 5000 is awesome). The RAW stills on the 5D3 are excellent but can't be pushed as hard in post as I've seen done with the D800.

Still, it would cost me over $10K to transition to D800 now, and the video wouldn't be as good. And I imagine Canon will have to respond within a year or so with an EF camera that can compete for stills. For video, Canon is saying C300 or forget it at this time. Invest in lenses instead at this point (next on my wish list is the 17 TS-E of course).


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 8, 2012)

peederj said:


> After working professionally now with my 5D3 I have come to believe the D800 probably is a better stills camera (though I haven't shot with it) because of that sensor.


That's what many people argue here. Many people here are shooting for events which is usually in low light environment. D800 cannot bring much benefits for them even though it has more details and better DR.
I am just take photos for my family and for fun, so low ISO and high ISO is about 60/40. That's why D800 is very attractive for me. Hopefully Canon will have an FF camera similar to D800.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 8, 2012)

I'm also currently shooting with the 5D Mark III; its AF performance w/ my f/1.2 & f/1.4 primes is, so far, what I'd always wanted/expected in a high end camera.

But that doesn't mean I don't envy those game-changing sensors in the Nikons, especially for landscapes & environmental portraiture.



> Many people here are shooting for events which is usually in low light environment. D800 cannot bring much benefits for them even though it has more details and better DR.



But the D800 doesn't really hurt either. When the D800 image is downsized to 5D Mark III sizes, it's ISO 6400 images are virtually identical to the 5D Mark III image in terms of noise. I haven't compared higher ISOs myself. Video at higher ISOs do suffer on the D800 though.


----------



## Jotho (Jun 9, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i would have read all of this thread but i've been out all weekend shooting with my 5Dmk3
> since i don't really follow the lab tests or particularly care about them for that matter, 95 is good is it?



Second to that. There will always be something better out there. I can't say if D800 is better because I. don't care. I've had my MkIII a couple of weeks now and it's just great. Being just an ethusiast I have learnt tons already. Yesterday even my wife commented that the pics looks greater than with my old 60D. I'll continue shoot this weekend and not worry too much about what Nikon does, I hope all D800 owners are just as happy I am though.


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 9, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > Many people here are shooting for events which is usually in low light environment. D800 cannot bring much benefits for them even though it has more details and better DR.
> 
> 
> 
> But the D800 doesn't really hurt either. When the D800 image is downsized to 5D Mark III sizes, it's ISO 6400 images are virtually identical to the 5D Mark III image in terms of noise. I haven't compared higher ISOs myself. Video at higher ISOs do suffer on the D800 though.


Agree. However, that only works for people like me, not a PRO. I don't think people shoot 500+ photos for an wedding could spend time to downsize those photos and showing to their customers. That's too much effort.


----------



## DZY (Jun 9, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Not necessarily. You can take multiple exposures at different exposures, &, for example, select the RAW file for each body that is just short of clipping the brightest patch of a wedge (in other words, 1/3EV more exposure clips, say, the green channel). You then find the darkest patch with SNR = 1 (or whatever your criterion is), & as long as you know how many stops are between that dark patch & the bright patch, you can calculate a dynamic range. Any differences in lens transmission & such are compensated for by you selecting the appropriate exposure RAW file for each body.
> 
> You can even do this 'in the real world', & if you do, you'll see that a Nikon D7000, D800, or any other of their bodies with the stellar Sony EXMOR sensors will have much cleaner shadows than any Canon 5D series body (or likely any Canon body, period... I'm speaking of the 5D series b/c that's what I own & have tested). Assuming, of course, that your scene has enough dynamic range to begin with (easily demonstrable with sunrise/sunset shots shooting toward the sun).
> 
> If you're suggesting that DXO is biased, what evidence do you have of that?



OK, if, you select the "darkest patch with SNR = 1", that is the base noise (or white noise if in video), then, "as long as you know how many stops are between that dark patch & the bright patch" which I think is your "just short of clipping the brightest patch of a wedge", that is your complete white, the final result is the maximum stop you can get, not a problem.
The problem is, since the complete white is all the same in every sensor with same bit length of AtoD converter, you are actually compare the base noise here. You have to assume all the sensors have same overall gain (sensor QE, opamp gain, A/D depth, etc) in order to say this noise is sensor related ONLY, however, since there are many electronic components needed before the GPU(Graphical Process Unit), the result becomes a system overall performance.
The second problem is your "RAW" data is the one AFTER the GPU, which has been processed. It has been well known in the astrophotography that Nikon does NOT output real raw data, some degrees of NR is applied to their RAW. You need to use mode3 to get real RAW in early years, so that "RAW" is not reliable/trustable/usable/representable to the system/sensor.
The third problem, which you did not understand from my post, is the lens DOES affect the result. Think about putting a diffusion filter before an ideal lens, it will mess the very dark and very bright. Let's put another grey color filter, there is no maximum white to be represented by the sensor any more. In theory, the final result is the transfer function of the lens+sensor+converter+processing. I just don't see how you can say the DXO score IS the sensor only properties.
I think the best part of Nikon SYSTEM is the DR curve at low light, which in real life is how much you can pull out from shadow.
As I said, Nikon+Sony, picks a good MP size, have good low noise, processes the data in a optimal way. BUT, this does not mean Canon does not have any of these currently, and "far behind".
I just don't like Canon do not do it.


----------



## DZY (Jun 9, 2012)

> Many people here are shooting for events which is usually in low light environment. D800 cannot bring much benefits for them even though it has more details and better DR.
> 
> But the D800 doesn't really hurt either. When the D800 image is downsized to 5D Mark III sizes, it's ISO 6400 images are virtually identical to the 5D Mark III image in terms of noise. I haven't compared higher ISOs myself. Video at higher ISOs do suffer on the D800 though.



to downsize the picture? What a joke to these downsize from nikon, first, why not you downsize both 5D3 and D800 to 800x600, I bet they will be the same. To be extreme, we can downsize any photo to 1x1 size and all picture will be the same for the same scene and exposure. Second, are you buying a 36MP camera and use as a 22MP each every time?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 9, 2012)

Wrathwilde said:


> Making it the Highest Rated Sensor they've tested. Impressive! Don't Let us down Canon.
> 
> Nikon D800
> 
> ...



My 5D III scored 120pts in my lab ;D


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 9, 2012)

DZY said:


> > Many people here are shooting for events which is usually in low light environment. D800 cannot bring much benefits for them even though it has more details and better DR.
> >
> > But the D800 doesn't really hurt either. When the D800 image is downsized to 5D Mark III sizes, it's ISO 6400 images are virtually identical to the 5D Mark III image in terms of noise. I haven't compared higher ISOs myself. Video at higher ISOs do suffer on the D800 though.
> 
> ...


I believe that's not what the poster want to say. The poster want to say in low ISO, D800 has better IQ than 5D3. In high ISO, you would also get same IQ after downsizing the photos. You actually don't need to downsize the photos because when you print them on 11 inches paper or display on your monitor, they are already downsized automatically.
The argue part is high MP will slow down your camera performance and request more processor power on your computer. However, it bring more details. That's trade off. I take only about 8K to 10K photos a year. For me I would like Canon release a high MP camera like D800.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 9, 2012)

> the result becomes a system overall performance.



... which is exactly what we should care about.



> It has been well known in the astrophotography that Nikon does NOT output real raw data, some degrees of NR is applied to their RAW.



This is a good point, something I didn't want to get into earlier b/c of the complexity of the issue. But since you brought it up... what one can do is actually fit the quantitated data from the RAW file (of the wedge shot) to the theoretical luminosity curve of the wedge. You can then find the point at which the fit deviates significantly from the model, & set that as your lower end. To standardize results, maybe set a 'maximum deviance' criterion. From this fit vs. model you can also detect 'shadow crushing'... that is, if data is significantly clipped on the lower end (as some suspect is the case for Nikon RAWs), the quantitated data will deviate from the model quicker (instead of continuing to be linear on a log scale, the quantitated data will level out). I've done these measurements for a D7000 vs. my 5D II & 5D III; both cameras show this 'toe' on the darker end, & even if you pick the lower acceptable end based on this toe, the D7000 is still ~2 stops better than any of the 5D series bodies.



> Let's put another grey color filter, there is no maximum white to be represented by the sensor any more



[list type=decimal]
[*]First of all, that's an extreme case.
[*]Secondly, of course there's still maximum white... you adjust the exposure. Like I said, you take exposures right around the exposure that blows the brightest patch. An ND filter, e.g., simply does not trip up this methodology whatsoever.
[/list]



> I just don't see how you can say the DXO score IS the sensor only properties.



I never claimed anything of the sort.



> to downsize the picture? What a joke to these downsize from nikon, first, why not you downsize both 5D3 and D800 to 800x600, I bet they will be the same. To be extreme, we can downsize any photo to 1x1 size and all picture will be same for same the scene and exposure. Second, are you buying a 36MP camera and use as a 22MP each every time?



Since this has been covered extensively in other threads, I won't belabor the point... but, in a nutshell, the point is simply that the 36MP camera offers you the advantage of more resolution if you want it, while giving you just as clean images at the resolution of the 5D Mark III. 

I will say though that it would've been nice for Nikon to include mRAW functionality for lower resolution RAW images right off the camera to ease the workflow of photographers. But that has its own issues, since mRAWs require demosaicing prior to downsizing (and so you don't benefit from the freedom of choice of demosaicing algorithm, or the evolution of such algorithms in the future). So perhaps it behooves RAW converters (ACR, Aperture, etc.) to offer this option in their software as we get higher & higher megapixel cameras... but that raises other issues -- e.g. do you save the original RAW file or not?


----------



## EchoLocation (Jun 9, 2012)

Jotho said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > i would have read all of this thread but i've been out all weekend shooting with my 5Dmk3
> ...


If you don't care, that's fine. However, when i choose to spend over 3000 dollars on an item I usually want to know I'm getting the best that I possibly can for my money. From the tests, reviews, sample shots I've seen, the 5DIII is at best as good as the D800 and is often considered to get destroyed by the Nikon. Personally, I prefer the feel of the 5DIII more, but I think the 800 takes better pictures. I would love to have either, but I own Canon now, and there is no way that I would pay 500 dollars MORE for the III than the 800. I might pay 2700 for the Canon if the Nikon was 3000. As of now, It seems like Canon simply got killed this round, I am waiting for the D600 and Canon's mirrorless response/Photokina before making my next purchase.
I was really hoping for a D600ish Canon for around 2000 to upgrade to from my 5DC.


----------



## bkorcel (Jun 9, 2012)

Well tough to say that the D800 kills the 5dm3. Maybe it kills it for YOU! I am just happy enough to be able to use my canon gear instead of waiting for stock somewhere.

And for the record, I am a canon user simply because three associates have had Nikon failures during critical shoots and thus far I cannot say that about anyone I know that uses canon gear. So if 500 bucks more for the m3 buys me reliability then it's worth it indeed!


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2012)

All this macho fighting over the trees, without seeing the forest.

The significance here is the convergence of quality between APS-C and full frame. The objective differences get smaller and smaller with each new generation. It doesn't matter if Nikon or Canon has a slight edge this month, the long march is toward indistinguishable differences in quality between two different size sensors.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 9, 2012)

> It doesn't matter if Nikon or Canon has a slight edge this month



>2 stops more dynamic range is hardly a 'slight edge'. If you extrapolate the read noise performance of Sony's EXMOR sensor on the D800 to a lower resolution 16MP sensor, it could have 15.8 stops of dynamic range. I'm not saying that's a valid extrapolation, but it certainly might be possible if they can keep the read noise down to ~3 electrons while increasing the saturation point. 

16 stops of dynamic range would be absolutely game-changing/revolutionary for certain types of photography.

If that doesn't matter to you, sure it's absolutely valid for you to not care. My main point was that it's unfair to call DXO biased. They're reporting on *image quality*, after all.


----------



## sanj (Jun 9, 2012)

KeithR said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > That means the D800 at ISO 200 is generating images as good as the 5D2 at ISO 100.
> ...



Disagree that 1 stop improvement is not a big deal. It certainly is. I have the 5d3 and am very happy with it, but 1 stop improvement would have been super for me for all low light action photography I do with tele lenses in jungles.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 9, 2012)

> Disagree that 1 stop improvement is not a big deal. It certainly is. I have the 5d3 and am very happy with it, but 1 stop improvement would have been super for me for all low light action photography I do with tele lenses in jungles.



... and it's not just a *1 stop* improvement. According to DXO's numbers, you can underexpose your image *3 stops* at ISO 100 on the D800 & have it look like the properly exposed image at ISO 100 on the 5D3. If you wanted to use the same shutter speed/aperture on the 5D3 as the 3-stop underexposed exposure on the D800, you'd have to use ISO 800 on the 5D3, which of course then runs the risk of significantly blowing highlights that would be retained in the D800 exposure. Meanwhile, the shadows of the 5D3 ISO 800 image would not be any cleaner than the D800 ISO 100 image pushed 3 stops in post (and, in fact, might be worse). So the advantage goes to the D800.

And it's not just obsession over numbers. My real-world landscape comparisons (literally side-by-side using a dual camera mount on my tripod) show an incredible advantage to the Nikon D7000 over any of the 5D cameras. Haven't gotten my D800 yet (Advantage: Canon!) so can't comment on real-world comparisons in my own hands yet.

In my opinion, they should have allowed for an ISO-less option on the D800 w/ a 'floating' ISO that doesn't actually apply any amplification in the hardware but, instead, allows you to apply it in software during RAW development (much like white balance controls for RAW now).


----------



## lonebear (Jun 9, 2012)

unfocused said:


> All this macho fighting over the trees, without seeing the forest.
> 
> The significance here is the convergence of quality between APS-C and full frame. The objective differences get smaller and smaller with each new generation. It doesn't matter if Nikon or Canon has a slight edge this month, the long march is toward indistinguishable differences in quality between two different size sensors.



+1.

And that will eventually affect the lens selection, probably the lens design of the entire focal range.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jun 9, 2012)

Wrathwilde said:


> Dynamic Range - 14.4



The D800 has 14 bits A/D converters, so how could it have more than 14 bits of dynamic range?


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 9, 2012)

> The D800 has 14 bits A/D converters, so how could it have more than 14 bits of dynamic range?



Well, let me put it this way: a JPEG file is 8-bit, but that doesn't mean that the maximum scene dynamic range it can encode is only 8 stops, yes?

Similarly, though you want to typically match the bit-depth of the ADC to the dynamic range of the sensor (to decrease quantization errors & retain maximum tonality), it's not necessary.

In this case, DXO got 14.4 b/c of their normalization process. Any time you downsample an image, you decrease noise. Decreased noise means a lower acceptable signal at which SNR=1; hence the dynamic range increase.


----------



## loveboxer (Jun 9, 2012)

I have only read a few of the posts in this thread. This is what I have to share. My partner and I have a photo studio in L.A. and we have had working relations with both Nikon and Canon. I shot for almost 20 years exclusively on Nikon and my partner on a Canon for almost 10. We have been shooting for the last 3 years on a 5D2. When the D800 and 5D3 was announced a few months back, we scoured the net for every review and user feedback there is, almost nightly.

We literally spend a few hours every day talking about this subject because we know that the camera we choose will be what we live with for the next three years and perhaps longer because it is a pain to switch. The feedback from the net about a D800 including DXO had my partner switch his entire system to Nikon, to two D700's and Nikons top glass, to buy him time until he could get his hands on D800's.

I could not wait to switch, being a Nikon fan boy but i decided to be prudent and just wait until after I did a side by side test of both cameras, D800 to 5D3.

Finally, last week we found two places that had both cameras available for us to shoot with. My partner was so excited because he was well prepared with all his beautiful Nikon glass and I was so excited just because I was used to my Nikon ergonomics. I know it sounds funny but I just never settled into the way the Canon feels in my hand and I often have to ask him to remind me how to adjust settings because they are not yet intuitive to me with Canon. I can pick up a Nikon and dial it in with my eye's closed.

Well, if you are wondering why the hell I am telling the internet all this in a Canon forum??? Well, I thought you Canon folk would like to know this. My partner and I live and support our families from photography. We are good at what we do. We took a D800 and a 5D3, with their best equivalent glass and shot them side by side, with the same settings. We did this for three days at two separate locations that had different cameras, just to make sure, there was no problem with any of the cameras influencing the outcome or the ambiance of the space affecting the color balance.

Moral of the story..... My partner has already begun selling ALL his Nikon gear. I am not switching back to Nikon...

Let it be known that when virtually every comparative shot was put side by side, the Canon won in sharpness, color balance or just a feeling that would draw us to the Canon image. The Canon shot was picked over the Nikon almost every time even though it was the smaller image and that size seems to usually impress / influence, as it would when we would compare a D700 file to a 5D2.

Moral of the story, no internet review or forum told us what our tests revealed to us, not one... Or if they did, they got shuffled because our minds seem to selectively choose what we want to read / listen to.. 


All the best...

L.B.


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 9, 2012)

sanj said:


> KeithR said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Dynamic range would have virtually no relevance in a jungle, as in low light situations, dynamic range is very low, certainly well within the range that any Canon Camera can capture (unless there is directional light lighting up part of the scene, such as in clearings). Low noise at high ISO is more relevant. At higher ISOs, if you believe all the numbers, the 5D MkIII actually has the greater DR anyway.


----------



## sanj (Jun 9, 2012)

I meant 1 stop ISO helps me. Sorry was not clear, was not talking about DR.


----------



## SPL (Jun 9, 2012)

loveboxer said:


> I have only read a few of the posts in this thread. This is what I have to share. My partner and I have a photo studio in L.A. and we have had working relations with both Nikon and Canon. I shot for almost 20 years exclusively on Nikon and my partner on a Canon for almost 10. We have been shooting for the last 3 years on a 5D2. When the D800 and 5D3 was announced a few months back, we scoured the net for every review and user feedback there is, almost nightly.
> 
> We literally spend a few hours every day talking about this subject because we know that the camera we choose will be what we live with for the next three years and perhaps longer because it is a pain to switch. The feedback from the net about a D800 including DXO had my partner switch his entire system to Nikon, to two D700's and Nikons top glass, to buy him time until he could get his hands on D800's.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 9, 2012)

loveboxer said:


> Let it be known that when virtually every comparative shot was put side by side, the Canon won in sharpness, color balance or just a feeling that would draw us to the Canon image.



YEAH! In your face, Nikon! 

If the winner wouldn't have been the 5d3, someone anonymous with one (1) post giving a such a clear-cut message contrary by all known facts would be a damn Nikon troll! But now, I'm sure this post is very soothing to Canon folks' minds ... I hope the poster will deliver the good news all over the Internet.

But wait, after thinking again: Canon, stop spending the profit from my purchases for viral marketing, but start working on a really improved sensor already, will you !?


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Jun 9, 2012)

this 'who's got the best camera and if it's not my brand I'm gonna fall into despair' attitude still doesn't appeal to me. Is there anybody out there who believes seriously his or her poor Canon gear will prevent him or her from showing what his or her creativity is up to? And will we have to assume a future started by the D800 where people say, 'oh quite nice with your 5D3 but if you had taken your images with a Nikon body this would have made the essential difference and therefore stay in the realm of inferiority'?


----------



## lonebear (Jun 9, 2012)

Canon has been making small improvements here and there over years, which leads to systemwise advantage in quality and useability. I think it pays off in that side by side test. But, hey, Canon, in terms of sensors, you are lagging behind. How about another three years, show us some improvement in that department...

Expecting Photokina this September to see what "big splash" Canon is going to make.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jun 9, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > The D800 has 14 bits A/D converters, so how could it have more than 14 bits of dynamic range?
> 
> 
> 
> A JPEG file is 8-bit, but that doesn't mean that the maximum scene dynamic range it can encode is only 8 stops, correct?



I'm not so sure.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 9, 2012)

Neuro has effectively destroyed the credibility of the DxO sensor marks.

So there is no evidence that there is a difference between the Nikon and Canon sensors. Lets move on and look at the pictures.


----------



## peederj (Jun 9, 2012)

Yes the intangibles and subjectives win all at the end of the day, and will vary from individual to individual.

We can argue though about the tangibles and objectives, so we do.

What shouldn't happen is a sacrifice of better subjective intangibles for better objective tangibles.

I am fairly pleased with the 5D3 photos but I can't push shadows in post like I would be able to on the D800. That really is a game changing capability I envy. I don't know which I would prefer subjectively, I would have to do your kind of side by side test.

I think Canon may have the subjective edge in glass; the only lens I envy from the Nikon side is the 14-24. And glass is what lasts and retains value. There is so much EF glass out there the mount's future is secure. Canon will have a sensor I can push soon enough.



loveboxer said:


> I have only read a few of the posts in this thread. This is what I have to share. My partner and I have a photo studio in L.A. and we have had working relations with both Nikon and Canon. I shot for almost 20 years exclusively on Nikon and my partner on a Canon for almost 10. We have been shooting for the last 3 years on a 5D2. When the D800 and 5D3 was announced a few months back, we scoured the net for every review and user feedback there is, almost nightly.
> 
> We literally spend a few hours every day talking about this subject because we know that the camera we choose will be what we live with for the next three years and perhaps longer because it is a pain to switch. The feedback from the net about a D800 including DXO had my partner switch his entire system to Nikon, to two D700's and Nikons top glass, to buy him time until he could get his hands on D800's.
> 
> ...


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 9, 2012)

> A JPEG file is 8-bit, but that doesn't mean that the maximum scene dynamic range it can encode is only 8 stops, correct?



Hint: yes, the JPEG can show an image with scene DR greater than 8 stops 



> Is there anybody out there who believes seriously his or her poor Canon gear will prevent him or her from showing what his or her creativity is up to?



Shortcomings of systems are real problems for certain photographers/types of photography. There's no use in denying that (if we kept denying it, where would that leave _progress_?). Usually we try to work around it, but that doesn't mean that new technology isn't welcome. For example, shooting off-center compositions with f/1.4 or f/1.2 primes & a Canon 5D Mark II and praying that you get better than a 30% hit rate on focus for shallow DOF photography... boy was the new AF system on the 5D Mark III a breath of relief.



> Interesting post. Thanks for sharing. I was under the impression the Nikon would render a sharper scene, but one that required color correction in post.



It will. That was just the opinion of one poster. Maybe he was shooting JPEG & had the sharpness setting turned up higher than on the Nikon. Certainly not unheard of... this reviewer in the link below made such a mistake & concluded that the Canon image was sharper, but then also provided the full-size JPEGs for comparison which, if you compare closely, show significant more detail in the Nikon image:

http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/05/comparision-nikon-d800-vs-canon-5d-mark.html

It can be demonstrably shown that the Nikon D800 will always render more detail than the Canon 5D Mark III b/c of its higher pixel density, barring lens limitations.



> Low noise at high ISO is more relevant. At higher ISOs, if you believe all the numbers, the 5D MkIII actually has the greater DR anyway.



OK, at ISO 12,800 & above, sure. Which is why I mentioned that the D800 should've offered an 'ISO-less' operation mode. Or, for now, you could just use a different philosophy when shooting w/ the D800: Instead of ISO 12,800, use ISO 3200 & underexpose your image by 2 stops (i.e. use the same shutter speed/aperture as you would on your 5D Mark III at ISO 12,800, but just lower your ISO setting to 3200, or dial in -2 EC). Now your D800 image will have more DR & likely be cleaner than the 5D Mark III image at ISO 12,800.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 9, 2012)

> Neuro has effectively destroyed the credibility of the DxO sensor marks.



Do you mind pointing us to where he did this? And, in the face of all the evidence of the ability to push D800 shadows stops & stops above 5D Mark III shadows, are you really disinclined to believe DxO's numbers that quantify exactly what is being observed & reported all over the internets?

I understand it's less of an issue for you Brian, with your enviable lack-of-banding shadows from your 1DsIII  That really was a clean dark frame you sent me!



> the only lens I envy from the Nikon side is the 14-24



Oh absolutely. Which is why I gave up with Canon ultra-wide zooms & got myself the 14-24 & a Novoflex adapter (costly, but wonderful). I couldn't be happier with edge-to-edge sharpness by f/5.6. Even f/2.8 on the 14-24 has sharper edges than f/11 on any 16-35 or 17-40 I've used.


----------



## lonebear (Jun 9, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > > The D800 has 14 bits A/D converters, so how could it have more than 14 bits of dynamic range?
> ...




Think about printing greyscale images with only pure black ink. So you basically have only two colors pure white and pure black, one stop DR only? And it is possible to print a fine greyscale image if the resolution is fine enough. The technique is some kind old.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 9, 2012)

> Think about printing greyscale images with only pure black ink. So you basically have only two colors pure white and pure black, one stop DR only?



Sorry, but that is not at all a valid analogy. You have many shades of grey due to the ability to overlay black dots to get darker areas (when viewed from a distance). B&W film, for example, isn't binary in nature... the size & density of silver deposites within a given area of film determine the dynamic range & tonality for that area... this quickly becomes a very complicated analysis b/c those numbers change based on the size of the area you're sampling. But now we're way OT.

The point is that you can still encode 14 stops of scene data with, say, an 8-bit ADC. Your tonality may suffer though; whether or not that is of any practical importance is still debated. Ideally, though, you want a high enough bit depth ADC such that the read noise of the sensor is not smaller than the quantization step (1 ADU). This ensures an accurate representation of the original data off the sensor. It could be argued that Nikon's D7000 & D800 actually undersample noise (noise in ADU is less than 1 for a dark frame, compared to 6ADU for Canon's 5D Mark III which oversamples noise) & so may benefit from a higher bit depth ADC... whether that would make any real world difference... I can't say at this point.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 9, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > Neuro has effectively destroyed the credibility of the DxO sensor marks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am not debating the issue of the D800 merely pointing out that the DxO sensor scorings are dubious which were explained in a link from Dilbert and taken apart by Neuro. Whilst there is this confusion/debate going on I would suggest that quoting DxO sensor figures to prove a point is fairly meaningless as we cannot be certain of their validity

You are right in that my 1DS3 gives me far better IQ than my 5D2 and also the 1D4 for low ISO. As the 5D3 is not appreciably better than the 5D2 at low iso then I can only assume the 1DS3 is better than the 5D3. It may even be getting close to the D800 at low ISO. Using the histogram in DPP it is clear that I am usually have a DR of 8-10 - which is well within the capability of the 1DS3 (and probably all other modern DSLRs) so what is the benefit of buying a camera for even more DR potential when I am not using what I have at the moment.

I also shoot to the right which means that extracting shadow detail is, for me, fairly rare.

Here is an example which I took today 

1Ds3, [email protected]/2, 1/60 (yep, no IS needed), iso 100

DR = 7


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 9, 2012)

> Whilst there is this confusion/debate going on I would suggest that quoting DxO sensor figures to prove a point is fairly meaningless as we cannot be certain of their validity



I was curious enough to test DxO's numbers myself. My 13.2 stop wedge tests pretty much agreed with DxO's numbers for the 5D3 & D7000 within 0.5 stops if you use SNR of 1 as the lower boundary.

I then did side-by-side comparisons of a sunset which reflected my findings in the more controlled ('lab') environment above.

So as far as I'm concerned, DxO's dynamic range numbers are absolutely valid. But I understand that you have no reason to believe my tests until I actually put them up on a blog post & make the RAW files available, etc. I intend to do so I just keep getting swamped with work...


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 9, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > Whilst there is this confusion/debate going on I would suggest that quoting DxO sensor figures to prove a point is fairly meaningless as we cannot be certain of their validity
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think it is important to have definitive and undisputed measures for the baseline of a discussion.

However on the high DR front I wonder how many get close to DR 10 and therefore would benefit from, say, a DR of 14 body over a DR of 13 body? If it isn't many then there is little point focussing on what is for most a theoretical benefit.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 9, 2012)

> However on the high DR front I wonder how many get close to DR 10 and therefore would benefit from, say, a DR of 14 body over a DR of 13 body? If it isn't many then there is little point focussing on what is for most a theoretical benefit.



Well, photographers are creative people, so I, for one, am looking forward to what capable photographers might do with the expanded DR of the D800. For example landscapes/cityscapes not amenable to grad ND filters or multiple exposures (which become costly when you're doing 30s exposures and the sun is setting/lighting changing constantly). Moonscapes. Or environmental portraits shooting into the sun... even aided with a flash, these could benefit from increased DR.

And let's not forget that sometimes during live event shooting you just get the exposure wrong. Or a flash doesn't fire. Or someone walks in the path of your flash. The ability to rescue such shots should not be overlooked.


----------



## lonebear (Jun 9, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > Think about printing greyscale images with only pure black ink. So you basically have only two colors pure white and pure black, one stop DR only?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, it is valid (and it's not analogy but industry standard way to handle it). Beside printing industry, this technique had been used in the earliest raster displays as well. The original doubt was whether we can generate higher DR given a limited single pixel DR, and the answer is yes. The example I given is an extreme with only two colors. If given 8 bit pixel formats I should be easy to double the DR using 2X2 dithering.

When the resolution goes high beyond certain threshold, human eyes will do the blending automatically. That is how the current printing technique works. Ink printers will blend some droplets together to some degree (and thus more preferable in photo printing), but tuner printers have to rely on the remaining white spots among the black array to create different shades. Putting the print-outs under microscope (kind of pixel peeping), the uneven particles should be easy to see. Film is different as it is not only with much higher resolution (to the size of cluster of molecules) but also with various silver deposit density. However, if you can place the finest film photo under electronic microscope (that's the king of pixel peeping in current technology ;-) ), the most smooth tonal changes will reveal their uneven dithering instantly. Basically, I think you know what I mean.

Back to the original DXO DR score, I don't think DXO will take the dithering into consideration. No normal photographers will EVER sacrifice IQ that much for some occasionally needed extra DR. However, given a fixed formula of DR calculation, it may allow some unintended dithering scenario passing through, and generating a higher score. Of course, this is only one explanation among others.


----------



## DZY (Jun 9, 2012)

> > the result becomes a system overall performance.
> 
> 
> 
> ... which is exactly what we should care about.


So the overall performance should include the entire camera, ie. noise, ISO, FPS, AF, lens, etc., not represented by DXO only.



> > It has been well known in the astrophotography that Nikon does NOT output real raw data, some degrees of NR is applied to their RAW.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good point, something I didn't want to get into earlier b/c of the complexity of the issue. But since you brought it up... what one can do is actually fit the quantitated data from the RAW file (of the wedge shot) to the theoretical luminosity curve of the wedge. You can then find the point at which the fit deviates significantly from the model, & set that as your lower end. To standardize results, maybe set a 'maximum deviance' criterion. From this fit vs. model you can also detect 'shadow crushing'... that is, if data is significantly clipped on the lower end (as some suspect is the case for Nikon RAWs), the quantitated data will deviate from the model quicker (instead of continuing to be linear on a log scale, the quantitated data will level out). I've done these measurements for a D7000 vs. my 5D II & 5D III; both cameras show this 'toe' on the darker end, & even if you pick the lower acceptable end based on this toe, the D7000 is still ~2 stops better than any of the 5D series bodies.


This hokey stick type of curve looking like a check mark will tell you what the minimal DN vs Electron of the sensor is, it is again at least the overall of the QE+Opamp gain+ADC gain+processor algorithm. The processor can do a magic trick here to minimize the noise. I do agree, by inspecting Nikon vs Canon photo, that Nikon is better than Canon on the algorithm of this, they used another method. However, this does not mean the two sensor is of that much difference. DXO score does not indicate the sensor performance, as they claims, and this is my point. I think many of us are mislead by DXO score. Nikon, or Canon, or any one can design their camera targeting the DXO score if they want, but with bad actual picture, refer the following notes.



> > Let's put another grey color filter, there is no maximum white to be represented by the sensor any more
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What you do is to find the max and min of the electrons (photo) the sensor takes. You method can eliminate the effect of the optics, and I hope you did NOT use camera's shutter/aperture/ISO in this test. But, the problem is explain as my direct quote from another forum dvxuser.com:
"trez 04-25-2012, 04:06 AM
Speaking about DR, people often mix two things - the ratio of the brightness and the ratio of the coded values (digital numbers). These are not interchangeable terms.
Imagine 1-bit codec. The value can only be 1 or 0. Now, this doesn't mean much, unless we know which brightness levels that "1" corresponds to.
In general case, the camera has to squeeze its DR (or part of it) somehow into the available bits. There are various ways to achieve that and none is perfect - one of the reasons we have so many gamma curves. Assume 8-bit codec - even linear gamma curve can squeeze more than 8 f-stops into them - all it needs to do is to 'compress' the brightness range, so that, f.ex. digital 255 represents the brightness of 12 f-stops above what's represented by digital 0. It's just the mapping.
The problem is that the more we compress, the worse the tonal resolution becomes in the mids (and shadows), which is of great importance, f.ex. for skin tones - there's risk of severe banding, when there are not enough distinct (coded) levels to smoothly represent skin gradation. That's why non-linear gamma curves are used - they assign more coding space (distinct values representing various brightness levels) to where it makes more sense, taking into account things like logarithmic tonal perception of human vision, anticipated viewing conditions, noise, gradability, being able to use standard displays for monitoring etc. F.ex, LOG-based gammas sacrifices easy monitoring in order to improve on other areas.
So, while 8-bit codec doesn't necessarily limit the DR it can represent, there's no point in squeezing too much DR into it, as severe banding will occur in post, if we're trying to stretch it to get back to the original scene DR. Of course, some compression is fine - we don't need too much tonal resolution in highlights so we can squeeze them - this is similar to what film does, known as "shoulder".



> > I just don't see how you can say the DXO score IS the sensor only properties.
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed anything of the sort.


Good, we are on the same boat then.



> > to downsize the picture? What a joke to these downsize from nikon, first, why not you downsize both 5D3 and D800 to 800x600, I bet they will be the same. To be extreme, we can downsize any photo to 1x1 size and all picture will be same for same the scene and exposure. Second, are you buying a 36MP camera and use as a 22MP each every time?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't clip/reframe my photo too much, I don't need THAT much MP unless I am a spy. You finish your composition before the shutter, do you? if not, you are really not a photographer. BTW, any MP greater than 10MP is fine for me already. You may say my lens is not a tele so I have to shoot than enlarge. Well, if you can no see, you can not shoot, simple as this. Again, I am not a spy.
BUT, I do need higher ISO and FPS, such as D7000, 7D, 5D3, etc.


----------



## DZY (Jun 9, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > Whilst there is this confusion/debate going on I would suggest that quoting DxO sensor figures to prove a point is fairly meaningless as we cannot be certain of their validity
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for you good work to verify DXO numbers, I have no doubt about the numbers. That is science and mathematics, and they don't lie. What is wrong is that we, human beings, make wrong assumption and wrong judgment. As I said, DXO score does not indicates the D800 is the best . So do not worry and be serious, especially don't be mislead by DXO.
You can put a 4-cylinder or a 16-cylinder engine into a Lexus and tune up to as same as the 8-cylinder. Then it is the personal taste issue.
My personal taste: I think the Nikon DR curve at shadow is more usable than Canon in the real word, compare to Canon DR curve at high light, which is their tradition.
As you said on another post, more DR or better tonality, is still in debate.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 9, 2012)

> I hope you did NOT use camera's shutter/aperture/ISO in this test



I believe I mentioned in my initial posting re: this that I do NOT use the same shutter/aperture/ISO in my test. Instead, I take a variety of exposures & select the one that is just short of clipping. Which eliminates effects of optics (within reason, of course).



> So the overall performance should include the entire camera, ie. noise, ISO, FPS, AF, lens, etc., not represented by DXO only.



I agree. DXO is only addressing certain features of the camera. Important ones for some people. And they do it in a very objective manner. I was suspicious of their numbers as well until I did my own tests.



> This hokey stick type of curve looking like a check mark will tell you what the minimal DN vs Electron of the sensor is, it is again at least the overall of the QE+Opamp gain+ADC gain+processor algorithm. The processor can do a magic trick here to minimize the noise. I do agree, by inspecting Nikon vs Canon photo, that Nikon is better than Canon on the algorithm of this, they used another method. However, this does not mean the two sensor is of that much difference.



Yes, it's a measure of sensor + downstream electronics + DSP. And in the end, that's what matters to the photographer, not *sensor only* performance. The 'hockey stick type curve', even with DSP tricks to minimize noise, allows you to select a lower end that still manages to distinguish between the darkest patches of the wedge. So you, the evaluator, can select what you deem is acceptable in the face of shadow crushing due to tricky signal processing. And yet, still, the Nikon D7000 will distinguish many more dark patches than the 5D sensor will (while SNR>1)... and this translates to my real world tests as well. So I respectfully disagree that it's just a magic algorithm in the Nikon that allows for this. Their sensor+electronics are simply cleaner and, therefore, do not much with your lower signals much. 

Another way to evaluate this is to do the test of ISO-less capability. Take a proper exposure at ISO 6400, then, without changing shutter speed or aperture, shoot at ISO 3200, 1600, ... 100. Boost exposures properly in post to match ISO 6400 image (ISO 3200 + 1stop | ISO 1600 + 2stops | ISO 800 + 3stops | ISO 400 + 4stops, etc.). The 5D series shots fall apart by ISO 1600 + 2 stops compared to the ISO 6400 image. The D7000 ISO 200 + 5 stops looks virtually identical to the original ISO 6400 shot. That speaks volumes as to how clean the sensor & downstream electronics are.

And, as I said, this is easily reflected in real world shots of high dynamic range scenes.



> Again, I am not a spy. BUT, I do need higher ISO and FPS, such as D7000, 7D, 5D3, etc.



That is totally valid. In fact, the awesome AF & higher FPS of the 5D Mark III is what's making me hold on to it. Once I get my D800 (if ever, ha!), I'll compare the AF & if it's just as good as the 5D III (I doubt it, b/c it lacks side cross-type AF points... but only experience over a number of shoots will tell me how much this matters to me), I may take the hit of lower FPS for better image quality.

My only point was that it was unfair to call DXO biased. I see no evidence to support this hypothesis. My only gripe about them is that they don't fully publish their protocols/methodology.


----------



## DZY (Jun 9, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > Again, I am not a spy. BUT, I do need higher ISO and FPS, such as D7000, 7D, 5D3, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Yes! *I also want to know how DXO does their test. All scientific studies have to publish how and what, not just the result. Giving a number is just commercial ad and marketing.
When you compare the AF, please notice the AF lag time also.
BTW,
1. the shutter/Aperture/ISO meant not the setting on the body b/c they might be not reliable.
2. by bias I am saying the assumption/pre-condition DXO sets up might be biased. In other words, Nikon un-intentionally take advantage of it.
3. I agree with you on the D7000 low noise performance, although I don't know if it comes from the circuit or the DSP. I doubt Canon can not do this. They just don't do as Nikon. Canon's approach seems different and hurts the result at low light which is not appreciated by me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> So as far as I'm concerned, DxO's dynamic range numbers are absolutely valid.



I agree. Allow me to clarify. I see no issues with DxOMark's *measurements* - they are useful and accurate, and they disclose their methods to generate those measurements. (FWIW, I personally prefer and use DxO Optics Pro as a RAW converter.)

The problem is the DxOMark Sensor Score. Here's what Luminous Landscape states:

_Documentation about the way the final DxOMark Sensor score is computed from Dynamic Range, Color Sensitivity and Low-light ISO scores is not currently available._

That same article (linked in a thread started by dilbert) indicates there is some 'non-linearity' in the way the Score is calculated. So...a weighted average, but undisclosed weighting factors, no confirmation that those unknown factors are even consistently applied, non-linear calculations, etc., to me, that makes the DxOMark Sensor Score a meaningless and useless number (not measurement, just an irrelevant number).


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> to me, that makes the DxOMark Sensor Score a meaningless and useless number



While not transparent, the score isn't meaningless to me if it usually reflects the iq differences that a multitude of reviews express in words sooner or later. You can see it this way, too: Google's search engine algorithm is not transparent, too, but does that make Google useless?


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > to me, that makes the DxOMark Sensor Score a meaningless and useless number
> ...



IQ deduced from a sensor score that reflects numerous measurements not relating to IQ? 

Google's algorithm does not give a score that influences spending habits nor does it pretend to be 100% accurate.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 9, 2012)

Ok, I get you, Neuro. Yeah I pay no attention whatsoever to DXO's 'Sensor Score'.



> 2. by bias I am saying the assumption/pre-condition DXO sets up might be biased. In other words, Nikon un-intentionally take advantage of it.



That's an interesting conspiracy theory and one, I must admit, I didn't discount earlier on much like yourself. But, if this were true, then:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Nikon shadows raised in post would appear blurry due to noise reduction. They do not.
[*]Whatever processing you suspect Nikon DSP may be doing can be replicated on the RAW Canon file in post. Clipping, noise reduction, you name it. Varying the clipping point (e.g. 2047 for 5D3) doesn't change the point at which the response curve on a log scale 'toes' (bottom of hockey stick), so that irrelevant IMHO. It does 'clean up' the shadows by making the signal go to 0 (black) quicker and the noise drop (standard deviation goes from 5 to 1.4 for the darkest patch as you go from 2047 to 2057 for the black clipping point; I wrote some code to quickly analyze these types of questions so I've tried a number of things but cannot replicate the cleanliness of the D7000 dark patches)... but that doesn't magically increase the SNR or change the point at which the curve toes. Meanwhile, the darkest patch on the D7000 still has SNR>1. Maybe what we could do is apply noise reduction to shadows on the Canon file to see if we can better SNR in those dark patches; however, again, I don't think that's magically going to change the point at which the curve toes (i.e., the point at which the sensor no longer accurately record the scene luminance changes). But I'll try this in my analysis just to ease such concerns.
[/list]



> 3. I agree with you on the D7000 low noise performance, although I don't know if it comes from the circuit or the DSP. I doubt Canon can not do this. They just don't do as Nikon. Canon's approach seems different and hurts the result at low light which is not appreciated by me.



Like I said, I doubt this to be true b/c if it were then with enough image processing you'd be able to make the Canon shadows look like the Nikon shadows. Fred Miranda's, or any of a number of other reviewers', comparison demonstrate that there's just no way in heck you could clean up the Canon shadows to get the levels of detail/cleanliness present in the D800. You can't magically create detail. If the transitions from patches 35-42 on my 13.2 stop wedge are completely lost in noise in the Canon file, you can't magically get those transitions back with noise reduction (i.e. create detail).

But I guess to convince you I could try heavy noise reduction & then quantitation to see if it helps mitigates the deviation from the model (of what patches 35-42 should be). I can almost guarantee right now it won't.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 10, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> IQ deduced from a sensor score that reflects numerous measurements not relating to IQ?



Hugh? Even dxo's critics in this thread state that the measurements aren't the problem, just the non-transparent computation of the final score.



briansquibb said:


> Google's algorithm does not give a score that influences spending habits nor does it pretend to be 100% accurate.



You should think again about this statement: Google does give a score (rank 1, 2, 3, 4) and if you don't think the Google rank influences spending habits ... well, what can I possibly say?

Where does dxo state that their sensor score is 100% accurate and the ultimate judgement? Every smart person will know a overall score is a reduction of complexity and thus has to lose accuracy - so it's not wise to take it as a sole basis for a decision. And while it is regrettable dxo doesn't disclose their formula, this fact alone doesn't prove they're out to get Canon.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 10, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > IQ deduced from a sensor score that reflects numerous measurements not relating to IQ?
> ...



I have never said DxO are out to get Canon

My Google doesn't give a rank. just a long list of sites. Google doesn't influence spending habits - does Google say 'this product is better than that product'? 

Unlike DxO which gives comparisons based on unknown weighting and algorithms


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 10, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I have never said DxO are out to get Canon



And I have never said you said it.



briansquibb said:


> My Google doesn't give a rank. just a long list of sites. Google doesn't influence spending habits - does Google say 'this product is better than that product'?



Omg - please catch up with digital reality, will you? As my one, first and last hint on this: the product seo companies sell to their corporate clients is called a rank, and it's much more important than any test score because it *does* influence purchases like nothing else. If Joe Sixpack types "video dlsr" in Google, and the first page is filled with Nikon products, what will he think is best and what will he buy, hmmmmm?

Influencing people doesn't need a direct comparison like a numerical score, or advertising wouldn't have any sense at all. At least with an aggregated score, smart people will know it's subjective, unlike Google ranking ("long list of sites") which seems to be valued too low my many - obviously including you.


----------



## elflord (Jun 10, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> My Google doesn't give a rank. just a long list of sites. Google doesn't influence spending habits - does Google say 'this product is better than that product'?


They don't have to say anything. Where someone appears on that list will affect a websites hit count. 

If it were possible to simply "buy" a ranking on the google search engines, there would be a market for it and people would pay for it. 



> Unlike DxO which gives comparisons based on unknown weighting and algorithms



The aggregate score is clearly subjective, because the choice of how to weigh the factors is subjective. We should take the aggregate score for what it is -- DxO's _subjective_ take. 

However, there have not just been complaints about the aggregate sensor scores in these threads, but also largely unsubstantiated attacks on DxO, originating from those who don't like the numbers.

The measurements are what they are. It's not DxO's fault that the data are what they are.


----------



## loveboxer (Jun 10, 2012)

After my partner and I did our side by side tests, we realized that we could no longer refer to DXO's findings in making any final decisions, whether DXO is accurate or not.

The simple reason is that when we presented approximately 25 portraits shot side by side with the 5D3 and D800 using the exact same settings and positioning, the Canon shot was chosen 95% of the time.

I want to emphasize that I am simply sharing my findings, I do not idolize either company and because of habit am better acquainted to Nikons personally.

I love both companies and full heartedly believe that beautiful photography will never be the result of a camera, it is from the artist.


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 10, 2012)

> However, there have not just been complaints about the aggregate sensor scores in these threads, but also largely unsubstantiated attacks on DxO, originating from those who don't like the numbers.
> 
> The measurements are what they are. It's not DxO's fault that the data are what they are.



+1. Exactly.



> The simple reason is that when we presented approximately 25 portraits shot side by side with the 5D3 and D800 using the exact same settings and positioning, the Canon shot was chosen 95% of the time.



Did you shoot JPEG?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 10, 2012)

elflord said:


> ere possible to simply "buy" a ranking on the google search engines, there would be a market for it and people would pay for it.



This is off-topic, but fyi: There is a flourishing market for this, it's called seo ("s3arch engine optimization") and many many blogs are run for the sole reason to put client's links for money on them, boosting the Google rank of the linked site... a friend of mine is working full-time building these pseudo-sites, writing or letting write blog posts while then adding a paid article with a link. With this system, Google cannot tell a real blog site from a seo one, though they keep trying.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jun 10, 2012)

lonebear said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > sarangiman said:
> ...



OK, I'll try to be more explicit.

As far as I understand, the photosites measure the amount of light falling on them, and the A/D converter turns the analog energy measurement into a number, and *those two stage are linear*. Therefore, no matter how many shades of gray are there between 2^14 and 2^13, those two shades are one stop apart.

Do I misunderstand?


----------



## elflord (Jun 10, 2012)

dilbert said:


> (portrait color depth bits) + (landscape dynamic range) + sqrt(sports low light ISO)
> 24 11 47
> = 82



I don't think sqrt(low light ISO) makes sense -- you need to take the log of it. The other two scales are in stops, so the third score needs to be transformed to get it into stops. You might need to transform it to get it right after that (e.g. add an offset and a multiplier). 

The way you're doing it with sqrt instead of log, the function will grow too quickly (which is why you get lower scores for small sensor cameras)


----------



## elflord (Jun 10, 2012)

dilbert said:


> I tried log but then those three numbers alone did not work (the numbers were too small.)
> 
> But it could be that it is "portrait+landscape+log(lowlight)+something_else".



You need log_a( b*score) 

or equivalently, B+ log(score)*A.


----------



## lonebear (Jun 10, 2012)

To Ellen Schmidtee,

Your are correct, but that's the DR of a single pixel, not the whole picture. When pixels are fine enough and closing to each other enough, human eyes tend to blend them together. In that case, the DR is not based on a single pixel but a cluster of pixels.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 12, 2012)

nearly a month after having aquired a D800 and used it extensively, I can say DXO is right. I don't know about the score part, but about the part that it is indeed the best sensor on any 35mm DSLR to date. Nothing, and I mean nothing I've used from canon even comes remotely close. DR is as stunningly high as they claim and high ISO performance is surprisingly good rivaling the 5DIII on printed output.

It will be interesting to see how canon will respond with the 5Dmk4 in 3 years. I suspect they are done with 20MP and the next 5D body will go back to the original 5DII formula that proved so successful: push image quality, not frame rate.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 12, 2012)

Cant wait for more DR to shoot images like this

DR is only an issue for those that need it. 

Glad you are enjoying your new camera


----------



## Orion (Jun 21, 2012)

Mother of God part Deux!


Quick Sensor Summary: Nikon D800E is new king in sensor quality
The Nikon D800E received an overall DxOMark score of *96 points*, making it the best camera ever tested at DxOMark. It edged out the D800 – which was crowned king of camera quality back in March – by a single point.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D800E-nabs-top-ranking-from-D800


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 21, 2012)

Orion said:


> Mother of God part Deux!
> 
> 
> Quick Sensor Summary: Nikon D800E is new king in sensor quality
> ...



Pretty poor at wildlife/sports though.


----------



## pixelkiller (Jun 21, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Orion said:
> 
> 
> > Mother of God part Deux!
> ...



Simple. It was never meant for that.


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 21, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Orion said:
> 
> 
> > Mother of God part Deux!
> ...



Same as a fork is a pretty poor tool to eat a soup. Don't see a lot of people complaining about that.


----------



## traveller (Jun 21, 2012)

Anyone else wondering whether the differences between the D800 and D800e are statistically significant?


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 21, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Orion said:
> ...



Only those that get given a fork to eat soup

Probably means most 7D and 1Dx owners


----------



## zhap03 (Jun 21, 2012)

To summarize the progression of technology and research advancements pertaining to digital imaging sensors:

2012 Nikon/Sony = Win
2012 Canon = Lose

Can we not accept this to be fact and move on? I'm not switching to Nikon... however, I can still give Nikon it's due credit.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 21, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Probably means most 7D and 1Dx owners


And birders are using the 5dIII? Nikon users would get a D7000 or perhaps even a D4. Its not like Nikon only makes the D800 and has abandoned every market but it. By comparison, your 7D would be pretty poor for landscapes compared to a D800E; but, you don't see people ripping you for that, because nobody bought a 7D to go shoot tripod-mounted landscapes. You knew what utensil you were getting; D800 owners do too


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 21, 2012)

Congrats Canon, Your Failed us this generation.

Too bad Nikon has failed there fanboys for the past 10 Years. ;D

Nikon - 1

Canon - 10

Oh well. I just keep using my 5D. :


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 21, 2012)

preppyak said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Probably means most 7D and 1Dx owners
> ...



If you read the thread you would have seen that I said the d800 was no good for wildlife/sports as it was suggested that the D800 was the best camera

The 5DIII was not in the discussion - but I would guess most birders use the 7D or 1D series

Landscapes were not mentioned in the discussion either - but now you mention it I might take a 1DX for a landscape.

You have no idea what kit I have - so I will ignore the personal remarks at the end


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 21, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



D30 forever. 8)


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 21, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> D30 forever. 8)



I will post a photo of it


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 21, 2012)

traveller said:


> Anyone else wondering whether the differences between the D800 and D800e are statistically significant?


In a word, no. You would get the same degree of variation if you tested the identical equipment (not just the same model, but in this case if you retested the same camera). It's the same design of sensor in both cameras, so I would find it difficult to justify any differences if they had found them. So just to clarify, it is statistical variation, the problem is, they are making an issue out of the "differences" with their sensationalist style headline, not very scientific .


----------



## psolberg (Jun 21, 2012)

CRAP! I no longer have to top DXO mark camera :'(

CURRENT RANKINGS:

1) NIKON D800E
2) NIKON D800
3) PHASE 1 IQ180 MF
4) NIKON D4
5) PHASE 1 P64 MF
6) D3X
7) PHASE ONE P40 PLUS MF
8) PENTAX 645 D MF
9) NIKON D3S
10) PENTAX K-5
11) NIKON D3200
12) CANON 5DMK 3


----------



## idimoe (Jun 22, 2012)

traveller said:


> Anyone else wondering whether the differences between the D800 and D800e are statistically significant?



I would assume so. Most (all?) testing is not 100% accurate and I believe the standard accepted error% is +-0.05. Not sure if this falls within that range. 

I'm not a math graduate so IDK.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 22, 2012)

It still hillariously amusing seeing the D800 squad above the IQ180 kind of sums up the whole DxOhohohoh 
credibility right there


----------



## Kumakun (Jun 22, 2012)

I'm sick of Nikon and Canon failing to provide enough megapixels! When are these companies going to start providing us with the tools we need? The D800 and the 5DIII both fail to provide enough resolution for out purposes. Here is the technology that they should be offering in their baseline full frame DSLRs:

http://news.discovery.com/tech/gigapixel-camera-120620.html#mkcpgn=fbsci1



(Just in case it isn't clear--the above post is sarcastic. Kind of a lot of megapixels in the camera that article talks about though...)


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 22, 2012)

Kumakun said:


> I'm sick of Nikon and Canon failing to provide enough megapixels! When are these companies going to start providing us with the tools we need? The D800 and the 5DIII both fail to provide enough resolution for out purposes. Here is the technology that they should be offering in their baseline full frame DSLRs:
> 
> http://news.discovery.com/tech/gigapixel-camera-120620.html#mkcpgn=fbsci1
> 
> ...


yeah but according to DxO the D800 still wins


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 22, 2012)

> It still hillariously amusing seeing the D800 squad above the IQ180 kind of sums up the whole DxOhohohoh
> credibility right there



I wouldn't laugh before I did the test myself 

11.89EV pixel-level DR for the IQ180 is not so great, compared to 13.23EV pixel-level DR for the D800. So I'm assuming the IQ180 has considerably higher low ISO read noise... i.e. what plagues Canons. Not sure if the print DR numbers are fair b/c I'm not certain of the validity of their normalization process. Downsizing ~80MP to 36MP would of course lower the noise levels.

I'm sure that the IQ180 has incredible image quality; I'd just be cautious about mocking the actual measurement numbers DXO provide since my own dynamic range wedge tests with the 5D, 5D Mark II, 5D Mark III, & D7000 match DXO's numbers really well... which also match my real-world tests... which also pretty much match what people all over the interwebs are posting these days showing the incredible DR advantage of the D800 (heck even the D7000) over the 5D series.

I don't usually pay any attention to the overall score; I'm only interested in the specific measurements which allow you me to judge a sensor based on my needs.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 22, 2012)

As I keep saying maybe Nikon have made some better cameras this round woopdy dooo so what
doesnt make the canons bad...

"ok guys thats it pack up and go home its official you cant take good pictures anymore! and infact any good pictures you have taken with a canon in the past are no officially longer good. DxO said so"

the differences are marginal IRL congrats to nikon for making some great cameras

but to think that navel gazing DxO results actually mean much? thats delusional

Bad photos can be taken with an IQ180 great photos can be taken with a D800e and award winning photos can be taken with a rebel. As the saying in drag racing goes "Run what you Brung"

I am seriously over all the crap and hysteria about 1 or 2 stops of DR that are generated from pushing shadow regions anyway. :

why dont all the Noink DR fanboys take their D800s over to nikon rumours and have a nice circle jerk over them there instead of constantly plaguing a forum about canon

OK THE D800 IS THE BESTEST! WE GET IT ALREADY! :

Its getting like that south park episode where every one bought hybrids
smug levels are getting outta control


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 22, 2012)




----------



## Kumakun (Jun 22, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> As I keep saying maybe Nikon have made some better cameras this round woopdy dooo so what
> doesnt make the canons bad...
> 
> "ok guys thats it pack up and go home its official you cant take good pictures anymore! and infact any good pictures you have taken with a canon in the past are no officially longer good. DxO said so"
> ...



+1


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 22, 2012)

pixelkiller said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Orion said:
> ...



+1 ... but hey, this is a Canon enthusiast's forum, there have to be some domestic Canon trolls to counter the Nikon foreigners ;-)


----------



## psolberg (Jun 22, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> It still hillariously amusing seeing the D800 squad above the IQ180 kind of sums up the whole DxOhohohoh
> credibility right there



it's ok. denial eventually goes away.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 22, 2012)

> Its getting like that south park episode where every one bought hybrids. Smug levels are getting outta control.



Yes...Plus 1 or 2 or whatever. 

On the other hand, I admit I take a bit of pleasure seeing all the "I've-got-a-bigger-sensor-than-you" folks going ape-crap trying to tear down DXO simply because they don't like the results. After all, we 7D owners have to constantly listen to some pretty intense smug levels every day on this forum. 

Personally, I'm tired that every discussion of the 7D gets hijacked by:

1) Those who can't let go of APS-H even though it is so done you need to stick a fork in it;

2) Fools who think that full frame trumps everything; and perhaps most annoying of all

3) Single-digit fetishists who can't stand the thought that Canon would actually use a single digit to market an APS-C camera. 

Rant Over.

Yes. Depending on what your criteria is, Nikon made a better camera this cycle and they are selling it for $500 less. Frankly, I'm glad. Competition in the marketplace is the only thing that gives companies the discipline they need to excel.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 22, 2012)

unfocused said:


> ...
> Personally, I'm tired that every discussion of the 7D gets hijacked by:
> 1) Those who can't let go of APS-H even though it is so done you need to stick a fork in it;
> 2) Fools who think that full frame trumps everything; and perhaps most annoying of all
> ...



+1 re. 7D and

+1 re 5D3 vs D800 ... except that I would be even more glad, if it was the other way round and the 5D3 would trounce the D800 and be € 500 cheaper. ;D


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 22, 2012)

> Quote from: wickidwombat on June 21, 2012, 07:27:50 PM
> It still hillariously amusing seeing the D800 squad above the IQ180 kind of sums up the whole DxOhohohoh
> credibility right there
> 
> ...



+1 psolberg.

What perplexes me is how confidently some people make statements without doing controlled tests themselves.

But what particularly makes your statement 'denial eventually goes away' appropriate is the whole hoopla surrounding DXO's D800 DR rating & the initial backlash against DXO all over these threads (and other sites) because of those numbers... and the subsequent (final) acceptance of those DR numbers after numerous examples all over the internet of the stops upon stops of increased shadow performance on the D800 vs. the 5D series.

I admit I myself was dubious of DXO's numbers initially... until I did wedge & real-world tests that completely agreed with DXO's numbers. And I was glad I didn't initially respond to those numbers with outspoken incredulity.

Controlled testing & peer review was established for a reason


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 22, 2012)

sooooo you guys have actually got IQ180 phaseones and D800s that you are personally testing against?


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 22, 2012)

south park smug farts

there we go thats better than just an image


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 22, 2012)

> sooooo you guys have actually got IQ180 phaseones and D800s that you are personally testing against?



Nope, and therefore I'm choosing to reserve judgement.

I think you may have missed the entire point of my post


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 22, 2012)

unfocused said:


> 3) Single-digit fetishists who can't stand the thought that Canon would actually use a single digit to market an APS-C camera.



So where have you been since the 7D was introduced and was bought in big numbers to go alongside the 5Dx : : :


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 22, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> > sooooo you guys have actually got IQ180 phaseones and D800s that you are personally testing against?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not anti Nikon, I'm anti troll, I used to shoot Nikon but changed to canon, I find the dynamic range arguement laughable since the entire basis is in a range of HEAVILY Pushed shadows anyway
Yeah Nikon are really punching out some good cameras this time round perhaps if they had done that a couple of years ago I might not have switched.
My main point is that these differences are tiny but being presented as epic

for a good definition of a troll have a look here
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/career/five-online-behaviors-that-are-overused-and-misapplied/4411?tag=nl.e101
Specifically the example cited in the last sentence of item #1

I enjoy discussions where people disagree and present different view points its pretty fun 

but the whole dynamic range thing is getting pretty tired especially since its being beaten up as the single most important aspect of photography


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 22, 2012)

Not sure why you're pointing to the troll thing as I myself really dislike labeling anyone as anything; perhaps I missed something in the discussions above that you're referring to.



> I find the dynamic range arguement laughable since the entire basis is in a range of HEAVILY Pushed shadows anyway



Just to beat a dead horse again, this is absolutely untrue. The pushed shadows are for ease of comparisons on these types of platforms; in reality: (1) many scenes have enough dynamic range that some shadows need to be pushed so in those cases it's actually relevant; (2) in some of my photos with my 5D Mark III I can see banding even in midtones, as well as in shadows pushed even 1-2 stops in some images (I'm not saying all!).

I'm sticking w/ Canon for other reasons for now; primarily the stellar AF performance I've experienced thus far. In fact, as much as I'd like to praise the D800's sensor, the left AF point of my friend's D800 is completely messed up, heavily backfocusing in comparison to the center & right AF points. So they've got issues on their end as well. You, as the photographer, have to decide what is most important to you.



> My main point is that these differences are tiny but being presented as epic



That's because they absolutely _are_ epic for certain types of photography, & for the field of digital imaging in general. Low read-noise sensors/electronics approach ISO-less performance, which will again change photography just like WB adjustment in RAW did. ISO-less performance allows you to maintain the low ISO DR figures at _any_ ISO. That'll be nothing short of huge for many types of photography.

IMHO anyway


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 22, 2012)

Sorry I wasn't pointing to you as a troll, I was more trying to point out that I'm not anti Nikon

I understand the sensor read noise issues and agree more could be done to reduce this

I find exposing to the right and pulling down highlights works pretty well to be honest
I just feel it is not as big a deal as it is being made out to be which causes a follow on effect of 
misinformation being repeated as fact


----------



## kapanak (Jun 22, 2012)

*Goes out to shoot some photos of random crap with 5DII* Better than arguing over sensor technology ... 

Not like Nikon did anything special ... It is all thanks to the dark horse Sony ... and given I also have a NEX-5N, I agree that Sony is awesome. Let's see some Sony fanboyism here people! ... lol


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 22, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Sorry I wasn't pointing to you as a troll, I was more trying to point out that I'm not anti Nikon
> 
> I understand the sensor read noise issues and agree more could be done to reduce this
> 
> ...



I expose to the right and keep the iso down to 400 or less. Noise is not an issue to me (mostly because I dont get visible noise) - in fact I often add grain in pp


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 22, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry I wasn't pointing to you as a troll, I was more trying to point out that I'm not anti Nikon
> ...



looks like it was shot on a 5Dmk3 at iso 51200


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 22, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



Used Nik to make it look like an asa1600 film ;D


----------



## sarangiman (Jun 22, 2012)

> I find exposing to the right and pulling down highlights works pretty well to be honest I just feel it is not as big a deal as it is being made out to be which causes a follow on effect of misinformation being repeated as fact



Ok, fair enough. Totally valid for you if the current system works for you! But it _can be_ game-changing for others. After all, a 3-stop difference is the difference between having to use a 3-stop Grad ND filter or not... or the difference between having to use, say, a 4stop reverse + a 3stop grad ND filter or just one of those in a really high dynamic range scene... in combination, these filters give you horrid magenta casts (even Singh-Ray ones... stacking just doesn't work well). You can also rescue more improperly exposed shots (bound to happen in fast-paced shooting scenarios), etc. etc. All been covered before.

5D Mark III's shadows (mine anyway) actually starts looking poor even earlier due to pattern noise (banding). briansquibb's 1ds3, however, has a remarkable absence of banding (from the dark frame he sent me), so he may have more salvageable files.

BTW, you may already know this, but, the idea that there's some magical extra DR in highlight headroom is a bit of a fallacy. Proper DR testing methodologies (like DXO, I'm assuming) account for this. I myself account for it in my tests by shooting multiple exposures 1/3EV apart, then finding the shot that is 1/3EV short of having, say, G1 green channel blown for the brightest wedge. That ensures that any variability in highlight headroom due to the manner in which the luminosities are mapped in the RAW file does _not_ impact the DR calculation.


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 22, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I find exposing to the right and pulling down highlights works pretty well to be honest



It's a good trick that I also use a lot when the problem is the camera exposure metering. 
When an image hase great highlight/shadow contrasts you risk to clip highlights. 
Also, as this causes to halven the shutter speed, it's not an option when using a tele.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 22, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Also, as this causes to halven the shutter speed, it's not an option when using a tele.



Not sure why it isn't an option with a tele?


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 22, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, as this causes to halven the shutter speed, it's not an option when using a tele.
> ...



Eeerrr... in order to get sharp images?
Unless you're using a tripod or can arrange a very comfortable shot otherwise.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 22, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



Ah - you mean at low shutter speed?


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 22, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Depends on how low is low for you 
Honestly, when shooting at - let's say - 300mm, I consider 1/800s to be the threshold for APS-C and 1/500s for FF. 
Stabilization and individual steadyness can do a lot about it, but I never trust them too much.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 22, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



TBH I usually keep to the rule of 1/35mm focal length. This means I usually only handhold to about 300mm. All my long lens have the new IS which works well.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 22, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Honestly, when shooting at - let's say - 300mm, I consider 1/800s to be the threshold for APS-C and 1/500s for FF. Stabilization and individual steadyness can do a lot about it, but I never trust them too much.



It's all about statistics and the keeper rate - if I shoot something that I can shoot multiple times (or even shoot, look for motion blur, shoot again) I have the experience that IS does help a lot at 300mm and I can use lower iso. But I certainly wouldn't want to depend on IS if I have only one shot.


----------



## V8Beast (Jun 24, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> why dont all the Noink DR fanboys take their D800s over to nikon rumours and have a nice circle jerk over them there instead of constantly plaguing a forum about canon



Haven't had a good circle jerk since college  Ah, memories ;D


----------



## markd61 (Jun 25, 2012)

Oh dear, photography is over for me.
A camera I do not own has bested mine in a lab. :'(

I am headed to the river to throw myself in.


----------

