# Any thoughts on how the 5d3 will compare on dxo mark to the Nikon D800?



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 23, 2012)

I was going to get the canon but am unsure of how the 5d3 will fair out on dxomark. Any thoughts. Good noiseless images at iso 12800 are my goal.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 23, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I was going to get the canon but am unsure of how the 5d3 will fair out on dxomark. Any thoughts. Good noiseless images at iso 12800 are my goal.



Not interested in IQ or DR then?


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Mar 24, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I was going to get the canon but am unsure of how the 5d3 will fair out on dxomark. Any thoughts. Good noiseless images at iso 12800 are my goal.



your goal is unobtainable, even by Nikon. You won't get noiseless images at 12,800. Useable images? Depends what size you need to print. So what does that make the DxO review? Pretty pointless in my view. I'm more interested in results I can see on my paper rather than pixel peeping at levels noone sane and not a geek will ever look at.


----------



## Orion (Mar 24, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I was going to get the canon but am unsure of how the 5d3 will fair out on dxomark. Any thoughts. Good noiseless images at iso 12800 are my goal.



That's a NO GOAL!

if you wanted good iso performance, then you should've been looking at the D3s a LONG time ago, if serious and had/have some money to spare. The mkIII will not dissapoint, though. ISO performance is amazing from what I can tell. 

NEVERMIND DxO . . . . . . wait for dpreview and get a true worth of the camera, and save yourself the *asterisk style review of DxO. . . then go to your nearest PRO camera shop and bring a CF card . . try out the camera . . go home and study the results . . . then decide.


----------



## takoman46 (Mar 24, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > I was going to get the canon but am unsure of how the 5d3 will fair out on dxomark. Any thoughts. Good noiseless images at iso 12800 are my goal.
> ...



I agree that the statistical rating presented on DxO don't mean squat in terms of what kind of images you will produce between a 5DmkIII or D800. It would be more beneficial to rent a D800 and 5DmkIII before deciding on a purchase and use it for yourself. Shoot with it and post the photos according to your own workflow and needs, then decide on which one is the better camera for you. Not which one is the better camera.... but which one is the better camera for YOU. A tech-geek can read and absorb all the information in the world about camera gear and still not know how to produce nice photos.


----------



## XanuFoto (Mar 24, 2012)

What happened to "Capturing the moment". Is'nt capturing a great moment with noise better than getting just a snapshot with no noise? Has technology killed good photography?


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 24, 2012)

I guess I should have rephrased my question. Does anyone think the nikon d800 is a better all around sensor and camera than the canon 5d3 in terms of sharpness and detail at all iso's under 12,800? Basically is that a camera to consider for family photography?


----------



## poias (Mar 24, 2012)

If somebody asks, "how is a [fill in the blank] camera performing in DR, details, noise, etc?" and majority of the forum replies by saying something like: "who cares about the camera, it is about the photographer, just take good pictures, yada yada yada." as if having a better equipment makes one worse off. As if I am a better photographer for using a 11 DR 5D3 with low(er) detail capturing ability.

Well, having a high DR, high resolution, high noise control camera does NOT mean we are losing photography. This is not a zero sum game. A better technology means better images. No question about it.

Without a doubt, D800 with lab proven DR 14+, its ISO 2800+, and a 36mpx detail totally blows its competition away. Heck, it is a $10,000 camera for less than 1/3rd price! No, good photographers will not get worse by using it... on the contrary, bad photographers might gain advantage by its cropping ability and other unmatched features.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 24, 2012)

poias said:


> Without a doubt, D800 with lab proven DR 14+, its ISO 2800+, and a 36mpx detail totally blows its competition away. Heck, it is a $10,000 camera for less than 1/3rd price! No, good photographers will not get worse by using it... on the contrary, bad photographers might gain advantage by its cropping ability and other unmatched features.



Is it just the specs and lab tests of the D800 that you find so impressive, or do you find the D800's image quality equally as impressive?


----------



## poias (Mar 24, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Without a doubt, D800 with lab proven DR 14+, its ISO 2800+, and a 36mpx detail totally blows its competition away. Heck, it is a $10,000 camera for less than 1/3rd price! No, good photographers will not get worse by using it... on the contrary, bad photographers might gain advantage by its cropping ability and other unmatched features.
> ...



All of the above!

D800 has amazing samples and amazing lab results. What more can you ask for?


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 24, 2012)

Dude, I ditched my D7000 and all my lenses, including the 50 F/1.8 G that I could have used on the D800 and bought a 5D MK3 and a bunch of new glass.

Do I regret it now DxO is crowning the D800 the king?
Absolutely not.
Now both are out, follow the sound advice and try each one with the lenses you know you can get.

BTW, be aware that all the good glass for Nikon is currently out of stock from every major source.
This was another reason I switched.
I think the popularity of the D800 is going to make this even worse.

ET


----------



## takoman46 (Mar 24, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I guess I should have rephrased my question. Does anyone think the nikon d800 is a better all around sensor and camera than the canon 5d3 in terms of sharpness and detail at all iso's under 12,800? Basically is that a camera to consider for family photography?



Do you mean professional family portraits in a studio? Or casual family photos like you would take for fun at home or even on location professional candid shots at events?

If you're in a studio then I can see that the D800 may be the more logical choice. But if you're not in a controlled environment the 5DmkIII would be better.


----------



## poias (Mar 24, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> If you're in a studio then I can see that the D800 may be the more logical choice. But if you're not in a controlled environment the 5DmkIII would be better.



I think D800 will be better than 5D3 in every category except for high burst frames. Then, again, 5D3's metering is ancient, so those bursts might be off.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 24, 2012)

A non controlled environment. I am coming from a Canon 60d and the noise is terrible above 800 without a speedlite and even then way to noisy. I would hope such a leap to FF and better technology would yield much better results just unsure if the d800 is the way to go or the canon 5d3. So far I have not seen the tremendous noise free 25k iso images in reviews actually I think it drops off at 6400 and continues from there. That's not much of an increase considering they are talking native 25k iso. So I was wondering if nikon was doing the reverse and saying 6400 with a true ceiling of 12800 or at least some very detailed images below 800. I do shoot in all kinds of light so that is why iso is so important. I also need a larger DOF since usually there are more than one person in my shots.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 24, 2012)

poias said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



Some more contrast and color. The 5DIII's files look sharper to me as well. All the D800 images I've seen so far look flat and lifeless. The D800's spec sheet is very impressive, but its images just aren't doing it for me. I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm not one of those guys that gets a hard-on by blowing up an image up to 100% and oogling at the minute details that won't be reproduced in print anyways. 

My 5DIII shipped yesterday, and I'm wondering why I haven't cancelled by D800 pre-order yet. At this point, the only reason I haven't done so yet is because it's shabbat, and B&H is closed until Monday


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 24, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> A non controlled environment. I am coming from a Canon 60d and the noise is terrible above 800 without a speedlite and even then way to noisy. I would hope such a leap to FF and better technology would yield much better results just unsure if the d800 is the way to go or the canon 5d3. So far I have not seen the tremendous noise free 25k iso images in reviews actually I think it drops off at 6400 and continues from there. That's not much of an increase considering they are talking native 25k iso. So I was wondering if nikon was doing the reverse and saying 6400 with a true ceiling of 12800 or at least some very detailed images below 800. I do shoot in all kinds of light so that is why iso is so important. I also need a larger DOF since usually there are more than one person in my shots.



I'm not trying to sound like a [email protected], but would it be at all possible to match up your 60D with a tripod or a Speedlite? I just don't see why anyone needs to spend $3,000 to $3,500 to take family portraits. By "larger" DOF, do you mean shallow or deep DOF?


----------



## poias (Mar 24, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > V8Beast said:
> ...



OOC jpgs are really used as previews by us, so RAWs are really that count. Our shop does a lot of PP, so having high DR and high res that D800 has is advantage. Bring out all contrast and color from the RAWs. But for snapshots at low light, 5D3 jpgs are sufficient. Cheers.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I was going to get the canon but am unsure of how the 5d3 will fair out on dxomark. Any thoughts. Good noiseless images at iso 12800 are my goal.



It's going to get destroyed by the D800 at ISO 100, but, hopefully, will be close at high ISO, probably anywhere from slightly worse to slightly better (although a couple recent samples make me worried it might not be the 2/3rds stop better I expected, so I'm not quite sure now, at the super duper high ISOs the better noise character will be an improvement in that the images would at least have a usable look even if almost as noisy since the nicer noise won't make them look like ugly junk, so at worst, the super, super high ISO will be better than the 5D2).

ISO100-400 D800 all the way by a mile because of all of the extra MP and so much great dynamic range. ISO800-1600 D800 probably still better. ISO3200 and up perhaps pretty similar for both, maybe near the super top the 5D3 pulls ahead? The ISO800+ stuff I'm mostly guessing at though. Maybe the 5D3 will better compared to the D800 then I'm guessing.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> itsnotmeyouknow said:
> 
> 
> > KKCFamilyman said:
> ...



And someone who doesn't understand anything technical can sit in their backyard and take out of focus pics of cats all day long.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Without a doubt, D800 with lab proven DR 14+, its ISO 2800+, and a 36mpx detail totally blows its competition away. Heck, it is a $10,000 camera for less than 1/3rd price! No, good photographers will not get worse by using it... on the contrary, bad photographers might gain advantage by its cropping ability and other unmatched features.
> ...



yes, trying looking at a raw shot of a scene with huge DR you can keep the bright parts looking perfect and make the shadows look great too, 14.4 stops of DR, yes it can be seen with the right types of shots an dit can be a huge difference, of course if you shoot a scene that has 7 stops in it then no difference at all (well it does still have 50%more mP)

if you shoot mostly ISO3200-12,800 then the D800 probably won't do much for you that the 5D3 won;t, although this part remains to be well tested


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I should have rephrased my question. Does anyone think the nikon d800 is a better all around sensor and camera than the canon 5d3 in terms of sharpness and detail at all iso's under 12,800? Basically is that a camera to consider for family photography?
> ...



actually a controlled environment might mean you can make sure ot only shoot lower DR scenes while uncontrolled might get you into MORE trouble


----------



## takoman46 (Mar 24, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> A non controlled environment. I am coming from a Canon 60d and the noise is terrible above 800 without a speedlite and even then way to noisy. I would hope such a leap to FF and better technology would yield much better results just unsure if the d800 is the way to go or the canon 5d3. So far I have not seen the tremendous noise free 25k iso images in reviews actually I think it drops off at 6400 and continues from there. That's not much of an increase considering they are talking native 25k iso. So I was wondering if nikon was doing the reverse and saying 6400 with a true ceiling of 12800 or at least some very detailed images below 800. I do shoot in all kinds of light so that is why iso is so important. I also need a larger DOF since usually there are more than one person in my shots.



Comparing the 60D to the 5D is like comparing night and day. If the performance jump in all areas is tremendous. hence the reason for you spending $2400 more lol . A 60D is still however more than capable for attaining nice shots if you use a speedlite to compensate for not boosting higher ISO. The better ISO performance of the 5D will only make your job easier in one aspect by giving you more freedom to boost ISO and achieve faster shutter speeds at smaller apertures (thus giving you a deeper DOF or more in focus). In any case, it's still best to use flash if you are able to (i.e. not in a venue where flash is forbidden).


----------



## takoman46 (Mar 24, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> takoman46 said:
> 
> 
> > KKCFamilyman said:
> ...



Uncontrolled is the name of the game when shooting many on-location jobs. I agree that it definitely can cause you a ton of trouble but somebody's got to do the job right? So if you choose to take the job, then it will only help you to have a camera that makes accomplishing your job easier.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 24, 2012)

poias said:


> OOC jpgs are really used as previews by us, so RAWs are really that count. Our shop does a lot of PP, so having high DR and high res that D800 has is advantage. Bring out all contrast and color from the RAWs. But for snapshots at low light, 5D3 jpgs are sufficient. Cheers.



I'm referring to sample raw files between both bodies, not jpegs. Of course more DR is always an advantage, but for some reason the D800's files don't look that great to me.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Mar 24, 2012)

_*This is what I'm expecting, for the 5D3 vs D800*_

Overall Score - 84 (*95* - _D800_)

Color Depth - 24 bits (*25.3* - _D800_)

Dynamic Range - 12.4 Evs (*14.4* -_ D800_)

Low-Light ISO - *3200* (2853 - _D800_)


_*This is what I'm expecting, for the 1D X vs D4*_

Overall Score - 86 (*89* - _D4_)

Color Depth - 24 bits (*24.7* -_D4_)

Dynamic Range - 12.6 Evs (*13.1* -_ D4_)

Low-Light ISO - *3400* (2965 - _D4_)

_*Hope to hell I'm wrong about the Color Depth and DR.*_

_*Edited to bring in actual scores for the D800 and D4*_


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2012)

Wrathwilde said:


> _*This is what I'm expecting, realistically, for the 5D3...*_
> 
> Overall Score - 84
> 
> ...



I expect Dynamic Range - 11.8 - 5D3 (because quite a few of us have already measured it thus  before we measured it I had expected a solid 13-13.5 stops and was horrified by my measurements showing it a fraction worse than my 5D2)
12.5 - 1DX (because I'm foolishly trusting the Canon reps promising it's 1 stop better than the 5D3, so I"m giving it 0.7 stops better ;D we will see, this one is a total guess)

we have D800 - 14.4
D4 - 13.1 I think, something like that


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 24, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > A non controlled environment. I am coming from a Canon 60d and the noise is terrible above 800 without a speedlite and even then way to noisy. I would hope such a leap to FF and better technology would yield much better results just unsure if the d800 is the way to go or the canon 5d3. So far I have not seen the tremendous noise free 25k iso images in reviews actually I think it drops off at 6400 and continues from there. That's not much of an increase considering they are talking native 25k iso. So I was wondering if nikon was doing the reverse and saying 6400 with a true ceiling of 12800 or at least some very detailed images below 800. I do shoot in all kinds of light so that is why iso is so important. I also need a larger DOF since usually there are more than one person in my shots.
> ...



I want a deeper dof than my 60d can offer bringing multiple people in focus and be able to shoot with a faster shutter speed. For example i took a shot tonight indoors with poor lighting of the kids playing on the floor and my speedlite was not handy so i had to shoot 1/15 f4 iso3200 to get them and boy was it noisy you would have thought it was 12,800 and with such a slow speed they hands were blurred from motion. I want to be able to get those shots. So assuming i was using the 5d3 there i would hope to have shot it at 1/60 at least. With an increase in iso of course. I used the 17-55 efs. Yeah i could have used a lower fstop like 2.8 but then it would have been harder to get them in focus as they were not on the same focal distance. Any suggestions as to which camera is right is greatly appreciated.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 24, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> takoman46 said:
> 
> 
> > KKCFamilyman said:
> ...



it sounds like you will be shooting at ISO6400-12,800?
in that case the D800 probably wont do any better image wise and the images will take up more space and the 5D3 has more fps, then it comes down to whcih has better af under such conditions


----------



## takoman46 (Mar 24, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> takoman46 said:
> 
> 
> > KKCFamilyman said:
> ...



Your DOF is controlled by your aperture setting. You will need to shoot at a higher aperture in order to get a large group of people in focus. Think of it this way, the 61pt AF system will help you focus more accurately, not increasing DOF and bringing more subjects into focus at the same time. This is where composition comes into play. You need to set your aperture to allow the appropriate DOF in your shot and position the people in such a way that they all fit into the DOF. The ISO performance will definitely help you achieve faster shutter speeds in available light or for shooting over longer distances that flash won't reach.

Now that I understand what you are trying to do, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 5DmkIII will be your better option. BTW, I just received mine and played with it for a bit. I must say, regardless of specs in reviews and comparisons to the 5DmkII; I instantly realized first hand that the 5DmkIII is a beast of a camera! ;D It's a completely different animal from the mkII (which I also have). So instead of calling the 5DmkIII a merge between a 5DmkII and 7D, it's more like it took the ergonomics of a 7D and merged the 5DmkII and 1DX! ;D So from initial impressions, I am simply impressed! Canon FTW!


----------



## Ew (Mar 24, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> takoman46 said:
> 
> 
> > KKCFamilyman said:
> ...



FPS is definitely key when shooting kids going bonkers inside w/ poor lighting. This is why I went for the 7D vs the mk2. 7D w/ 28 1.8 @ 2.8, 1600 iOS has been the work horse. Looking forward to 5d3 for more ISP and cleaner images. 

If you have lots of unpredictable movement in frame, the 5d3 will give you better odds than the d800.


----------



## peederj (Mar 24, 2012)

I think the iPhone 4S is the best camera for family photography. Because everything else is going to either not be with you when your best moments happen, or distract you so much those moments can't get off the ground.

And I fear the day that objective considerations triumph completely over subjective ones.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 25, 2012)

I have the 4s and my wife has the ps 310hs but they just don't compare. Really not even close.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 25, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> Now that I understand what you are trying to do, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 5DmkIII will be your better option. BTW, I just received mine and played with it for a bit. I must say, regardless of specs in reviews and comparisons to the 5DmkII; I instantly realized first hand that the 5DmkIII is a beast of a camera! ;D It's a completely different animal from the mkII (which I also have). So instead of calling the 5DmkIII a merge between a 5DmkII and 7D, it's more like it took the ergonomics of a 7D and merged the 5DmkII and 1DX! ;D So from initial impressions, I am simply impressed! Canon FTW!



yeah, he seems to want fast, ultra-low light, close range indoor action, I think 5D3 gets the win for him


----------



## Aglet (Mar 25, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I want a deeper dof than my 60d..Any suggestions..



Too bad about the seriously low light action requirements cuz when I need more DoF than practical for an SLR I grab a good small-sensor compact like the G12. Lots of DoF at low f # compared to SLR and the thing can output a workable raw file to iso 800+.


----------



## Arun (Mar 27, 2012)

poias said:


> Without a doubt, D800 with lab proven DR 14+, its ISO 2800+, and a 36mpx detail totally blows its competition away. Heck, it is a $10,000 camera for less than 1/3rd price! No, good photographers will not get worse by using it... on the contrary, bad photographers might gain advantage by its cropping ability and other unmatched features.



Please remember that dxomark scores apply to a image scaled to 8 megapixels.
It is the 8 MP image that has DR 14+, ISO 2800+, etc., not the 36mpx.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 27, 2012)

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.


----------



## JR (Mar 27, 2012)

Arun said:


> Please remember that dxomark scores apply to a image scaled to 8 megapixels.
> It is the 8 MP image that has DR 14+, ISO 2800+, etc., not the 36mpx.



Really? If true then what is the point of that? No one will shoot and downsize to 8MP. If you are correct I would really like to see DR at its full resolution because this is not a 8MP camera it is a 36MP camera!

All these test are starting to sound like rubbish to me anyway!


----------



## straub (Mar 27, 2012)

I sincerely don't get the fuss about 12/13/14 stops of DR. From what I've read, both D800 and 5D3 use 14-bit ADCs.

With 14-bit ADCs, anything above ~10 stops is pretty much useless. An EV 10 stops from saturation (value 16383) registers as value 15 (without taking noise into account). That leaves a grand total of 15 luminance values to represent *all* the extra DR above that, and specifically 8 values for the next stop of DR. 

Now, if the cameras happen to use 16-bit ADCs, then they've got two extra stops of usable DR.

IMO SNR at 18% is far more important as far as IQ goes.


----------



## peederj (Mar 27, 2012)

straub said:


> I sincerely don't get the fuss about 12/13/14 stops of DR. From what I've read, both D800 and 5D3 use 14-bit ADCs.
> 
> With 14-bit ADCs, anything above ~10 stops is pretty much useless. An EV 10 stops from saturation (value 16383) registers as value 15 (without taking noise into account). That leaves a grand total of 15 luminance values to represent *all* the extra DR above that, and specifically 8 values for the next stop of DR.
> 
> ...



Your analysis does not jive with my understanding of DSP at all. I am not an expert at camera sensors so I won't provide an alternative explanation, but I do not believe your math is properly applied here practically.


----------



## Arun (Mar 27, 2012)

Well, the tests are not rubbish, you just have to know how to interpret them.

The problem is how to normalize measurements between sensors of different sizes and different pixel densities. DxOMark has a standard way of doing it.

The thing to remember is that one gains dynamic range, and noise performance as one downsamples. Further, since the DxO ISO score is based on the highest ISO at which 9 eV of dynamic range and a suitable signal-to-noise ratio both exist, and as you downsample you gain both dynamic range and signal-to-noise, the ISO score also grows correspondingly.

For instance, the D800 in the fullframe (FX) mode will have higher DxOMark scores (by a stop or so) than the very same D800 in the crop (DX) mode. 

DxOMark could have chosen some other single size, say 16 Megapixels, that changes all of the scores by a fixed amount. But in effect, DxOMark is trying to answer the question, how would cameras compare at a fixed print size.

I think the measure that pixel peepers want is, how would cameras compare if each pixel was printed at a fixed size (so that a high megapixel camera would have a larger printout than a low megapixel one). That is also a legitimate measure to ask for, but that is not what DxOMark provides.


----------



## stve (Mar 27, 2012)

For more depth of field use the wide end of your zoom range.
If you are someone who shoots jpeg then maybe the 5DMKIII it has very good jpeg at high iso straight out of the camera.
If you shoot raw the D800 is just as good as the 5DMKIII .
Frame rate is not going to make any difference.
Which camera can autofocus best is going to matter most my guess is the D800 will be better wait for the reviews to find out for sure.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 27, 2012)

Arun said:


> Well, the tests are not rubbish, you just have to know how to interpret them.
> 
> The problem is how to normalize measurements between sensors of different sizes and different pixel densities. DxOMark has a standard way of doing it.
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. I do value the dxo score because I print to a target size based on customer needs and not based on a fixed pixel size. If I did the later, I'd end up selling an 8x10 that won't fit on the 8x10 frame the customer has ;D For me, and I suspect for most people (which is why DXO does what they do), we target a size and want to know what different cameras can do at that size. The choice may be different each time, but as you say, the results are shifted by a similar amount and thus no cameras swap places.

There is a lot of talk about doing per-pixel comparisons, but I find those more entertaining than useful because I don't sell 100% crops of a jpg at PC monitor resolution, no customer has ever asked for a 100% crop before buying, and I know for a fact that whatever I see on the screen will never look the same printed since it depends on the printer quality, printing method, medium quality and type, final output size, viewing distance, viewing conditions, etc. So when I see people obsessing over the shadows under a rock at ISO12800, and not even think about if the image had to be taken like that, or what the final display medium will be, I can't help but to laugh in disbelief. ;D

I just hope my eyes survive the flood of bad pictures taken with bad light ISO51K just because they could. 8)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 27, 2012)

straub said:


> I sincerely don't get the fuss about 12/13/14 stops of DR. From what I've read, both D800 and 5D3 use 14-bit ADCs.
> 
> With 14-bit ADCs, anything above ~10 stops is pretty much useless. An EV 10 stops from saturation (value 16383) registers as value 15 (without taking noise into account). That leaves a grand total of 15 luminance values to represent *all* the extra DR above that, and specifically 8 values for the next stop of DR.
> 
> ...



The 14.4 stops numbers and such are from DxO normalizing to 8MP photos. So the 5D2 is listed for 8MP norm at say 11.8 but just measuring it, as is, off the camera, it is more like 11.2. Also you don't appear to be doing the number right.


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 27, 2012)

peederj said:


> Your analysis does not jive with my understanding of DSP at all. I am not an expert at camera sensors so I won't provide an alternative explanation, but I do not believe your math is properly applied here practically.



My understanding, and it's been nearly a decade since I did this stuff in school is that you've got 14 bits therefore 16,384 possible brightness levels.

Each stop of brightness has twice as much light as the previous.

So the top stop in your exposure will have 8192 levels in it, stop 2 will have 4096, then 2048, then 1024 then stop 5 will have 512 levels. You can see where this is going, but stop 10 will only have 8 levels in it - while there is value to those levels being smooth, there is a pretty fundamental problem when it comes to using them to extract detail.

Now if dxo are downsampling the image then that helps some. If you've got 4 pixels going into one, then I think (if I recall correctly) that gives you an extra 2 bits of usable range. 

This is where HDR shines. If you do a +2, 0, -2 HDR bracket - you have 8192 levels in stop 1, 4096 levels in stop 2, 10240 levels in stop 3, 5120 levels in stop 4, 10752 levels in stop 5, 5376 levels in stop 6, 2688 levels in stop 7, 1344 levels in stop 8, 672 levels in stop 9, 336 levels in stop 10, 168 levels in stop 11 and so on...

Search for ETTR for more discussion on this.


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 27, 2012)

grahamsz said:


> but stop 10 will only have 8 levels in it - while there is value to those levels being smooth, there is a pretty fundamental problem when it comes to using them to extract detail



This is also an area where I'm a little skeptical that we can trust raw's rawness.

For that 10th stop, the camera will be reading out lumience values like

0,2,2,6,2,7,7,4,7,3,7,4,5,5,4,3,2,0,6,0,4,2,5,3

Since people aren't really using that range to find detail, I can see it being really tempting for a camera designer to clip them or apply some kind of noise reduction or binning on the data coming off the camera. That would give nice clean blacks and people do like those.


----------



## peederj (Mar 27, 2012)

Again I am not an expert on how the Math applies to camera sensors specifically, but I suggest studying the concept of dither and how, because of it, a 14-bit ADC is completely adequate to fully represent a sensor photocell that has 14 stops of dynamic range. Making it a 16-bit ADC will recover no additional information whatsoever, but will just carry additional noise.

And the additional noise the 16-bit ADC will convey will neither harm, nor help, image quality. The conveyance of it may slow down readout and processing though.

HDR is better thought of as extending headroom. It doesn't lower the noise floor of a system. It raises the roof. It will not give more precision to values within the base dynamic range.

Digital blanking is another matter, and would be a NR strategy, with plenty of pitfalls.


----------



## stve (Mar 27, 2012)

straub said:


> I sincerely don't get the fuss about 12/13/14 stops of DR. From what I've read, both D800 and 5D3 use 14-bit ADCs.
> 
> With 14-bit ADCs, anything above ~10 stops is pretty much useless. An EV 10 stops from saturation (value 16383) registers as value 15 (without taking noise into account). That leaves a grand total of 15 luminance values to represent *all* the extra DR above that, and specifically 8 values for the next stop of DR.
> 
> ...


Not sure about the 5DMKIII but the D800 uses 16bit processing & outputs at 14 bits this is copied from the brochure.


> 14-bit A/D conversion and 16-bit image processing for
> rich tones and natural colors
> Tonal gradation is where an image transforms from simply
> representing life to taking on a life of its own. The D800 does
> ...


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Mar 27, 2012)

Ew said:


> FPS is definitely key when shooting kids going bonkers inside w/ poor lighting. This is why I went for the 7D vs the mk2. 7D w/ 28 1.8 @ 2.8, 1600 iOS has been the work horse. Looking forward to 5d3 for more ISP and cleaner images.



That or valium. Put it in their sugar cookies and you can shoot them with a pinhole camera if you want.


----------



## Arun (Mar 27, 2012)

grahamsz said:


> This is also an area where I'm a little skeptical that we can trust raw's rawness.
> 
> For that 10th stop, the camera will be reading out lumience values like
> 
> ...



Lens-cap-on black frame experiments with my 5d2 seem to show that the RAW file does contains that "10th stop junk", and it is the recoverable; but normally the software (at least the Adobe software that I use) does default the black level to a value like 5. You have to be a little perverse in order to see let that noise in.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 27, 2012)

What is the limit of sRgb then?


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 27, 2012)

peederj said:


> Again I am not an expert on how the Math applies to camera sensors specifically, but I suggest studying the concept of dither and how, because of it, a 14-bit ADC is completely adequate to fully represent a sensor photocell that has 14 stops of dynamic range. Making it a 16-bit ADC will recover no additional information whatsoever, but will just carry additional noise.



Do you have some sources I can read on that? An accurate 16 bit ADC will always be better than an accurate 14 bit one (assuming they can operate at the same sample rate) . Now I suspect we can't actually build one or can't get enough usable data from the sensor to render the last couple of bits useful. 

You pretty much get one stop of range for each bit in your ADC, but only if you consider 1 bit an adequate amount of depth for the last stop.


----------



## peederj (Mar 28, 2012)

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

So yes a 14 bit ADC can adequately represent a 14 stop photocell, and the accuracy is going to be limited by the photocell's noise floor (unless it is actually more than 14 stops, measured in dB from the noise floor to clipping. HDR raises the point of clipping but can't do anything about the noise floor which is often based on physical limits like Brownian motion etc.



Arun said:


> Lens-cap-on black frame experiments with my 5d2 seem to show that the RAW file does contains that "10th stop junk", and it is the recoverable; but normally the software (at least the Adobe software that I use) does default the black level to a value like 5. You have to be a little perverse in order to see let that noise in.



So reading that these systems use 14bit ADC but 16bit DSP, it's the DSP stage that is the likely culprit. The ADC will represent the state of the photocell very well, but doing DSP without introducing distortion and noise requires a deeper numerical space to work within. Otherwise you either have what's called lossy truncation, which you seem to indicate with your "default black level" report, or have to dither each calculation which brings up your noise level logarithmically. So the sensors and ADCs are likely not the rate limit on quality here, it's the fact that doing, say, 32 bit floating point DSP efficiently requires all the power and heat you see on your laptop. Though that is getting better with all the R&D being poured into cellphones and tablets.

I don't know much about the architecture of camera implementations but I just caution interpreting a quoted figure like "14 bit ADC vs 16 bit ADC". There are what's known as "marketing bits" that just hold noise but make people think they are getting something better. Effective dynamic range from sensor to memory card is a more useful statistic...I'm guessing the DSP stage is the opportunity for improvement given what I'm reading.


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 28, 2012)

peederj said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
> 
> So yes a 14 bit ADC can adequately represent a 14 stop photocell, and the accuracy is going to be limited by the photocell's noise floor (unless it is actually more than 14 stops, measured in dB from the noise floor to clipping. HDR raises the point of clipping but can't do anything about the noise floor which is often based on physical limits like Brownian motion etc.



I know what dithering is when it pertains to display. I've taken enough computer graphics courses to know the basics of dithering an image.

Where I'm drawing a complete blank is where you suggest that the sensor is somehow able to dither the incoming image. I haven't designed a semiconductor more complex than a single fet or npn, but I honestly can't imagine how you'd dither an image at capture time. Moreover I can't imagine why you'd do it at that point, it seems like the digic would be the place to do it.


----------



## peederj (Mar 28, 2012)

It's done at the stage of analog to digital conversion as a means of eliminating quantization distortion and representing the full dynamic range within the bitspace. At least, so I would guess. It may also be used elsewhere in the system, it's a generally good thing when dealing with any quantized DSP.

If they aren't using dithered ADCs, then you are right 14bits will not cut it for 14 stops...but if that were the case, we simply wouldn't have the dynamic range they are delivering. We would have more like 10 bits which you are claiming, but really, I think those bits are being lost at the DSP stage and not the ADC stage. All my posts on this subject have been addressed to the person that claimed the 5d3 and D800 were weak because they only had 14 bit ADCs, and I wanted to argue (though I am not an expert on photo sensors!) that that argument was likely false.


----------



## pdirestajr (Mar 28, 2012)

Why is everyone taking pictures In the dark?

Photography is about capturing the light. I think it's nuts that so many "camera testers" care so much about these insane ISO levels. What were you photographing a few years ago when high ISO was terrible? Or when you had 100 Speed film loaded in your camera?

I think it's all a bit out of hand. And I don't want to hear the line "pros need these better tools blah blah blah..."

Pros have been capturing images for generations! It's all marketing now. ALL of these cameras are capable of capturing amazing images. Enjoy the camera you choose, and learn it's strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## jrista (Mar 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> What is the limit of sRgb then?



In what context? (There weren't any quotes there, so I'm not sure where this conversation continues from.)

Generally speaking, sRGB is a color space, which doesn't so much as change the number of representable colors...rather it changes the saturation and luminosity extents and white & black point of colors when modeled within that color space. You'll always have 24bits (8-bit RGB) or 48bits (16-bit RGB) of integer precision for each pixel, however with say AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB, the appearance of those colors when rendered may differ in comparison to sRGB, despite, technically, being "the same" color. In larger color spaces, a fully saturated "red" may appear more red and more saturated than in sRGB (and whether you have the ability to actually observe that would depend on whether your viewing device supports a gamut larger than sRGB itself! ) 

Image Color Management (ICM) converts color information from one color space to another in L*a*b* (Lab) space, and colors are usually represented as high precision floating point numbers when doing so...so the number of mathematically representable colors is essentially "infinite". When converting back out of Lab to RGB, you may lose precision, and depending on the distribution of specific floating point color values in Lab, discrete color values in RGB may coalesce or end up clipped (sometimes depends on rendering intent, such as Absolute, Relative, or Perceptual.) Hence the reason why its useful to keep photos in the widest gamut (color space) possible until you actually have a reason to convert to sRGB (a smaller gamut.)


----------



## Orion (Mar 28, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> *Why is everyone taking pictures In the dark?
> 
> Photography is about capturing the light. I think it's nuts that so many "camera testers" care so much about these insane ISO levels. What were you photographing a few years ago when high ISO was terrible? Or when you had 100 Speed film loaded in your camera?
> 
> ...



I just gave somebody the highlight of the month, 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4936.msg97931;topicseen#new

and you get the post of the month.

I just got mine this very night!


----------



## Aglet (Mar 28, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Why is everyone taking pictures In the dark?
> 
> Photography is about capturing the light. I think it's nuts that so many "camera testers" care so much about these insane ISO levels. What were you photographing a few years ago when high ISO was terrible? Or when you had 100 Speed film loaded in your camera?
> 
> ...




It's not just those who need hi ISO abilities to shoot in low available light.

It's also important to capture a good quality "dark" along with light and to do it with fidelity. Much as you might compare the silences within a musical passage to a loud crescendo. Do you want to hear hiss instead of silence? Or worse yet, a quiet but distracting hum or high-pitched tone? (the latter being the equivalent of data from most Canon bodies)

A system that can capture the detail in the light areas and the detail in dark areas in one shot, without adding anything artificial (e.g. distracting pattern noise) will give the photographer/artist much more to work with.

Not all of us need or want that ability, some do. Especially those who may be printing poster-size and larger.


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 28, 2012)

peederj said:


> It's done at the stage of analog to digital conversion as a means of eliminating quantization distortion and representing the full dynamic range within the bitspace. At least, so I would guess. It may also be used elsewhere in the system, it's a generally good thing when dealing with any quantized DSP.
> 
> If they aren't using dithered ADCs, then you are right 14bits will not cut it for 14 stops...but if that were the case, we simply wouldn't have the dynamic range they are delivering. We would have more like 10 bits which you are claiming, but really, I think those bits are being lost at the DSP stage and not the ADC stage. All my posts on this subject have been addressed to the person that claimed the 5d3 and D800 were weak because they only had 14 bit ADCs, and I wanted to argue (though I am not an expert on photo sensors!) that that argument was likely false.



Found a decent summary here

http://www.analog.com/library/analogDialogue/archives/40-02/adc_noise.html

That's actually quite interesting stuff, although i'm not sure how applicable it is in a camera setting


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 28, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Why is everyone taking pictures In the dark?


https://rapidshare.com/files/3227854404/045C0461.CR2

Is that a good enough reason?


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 28, 2012)

It is a pity that there no comparisons are made at iso 100, say for 20 seconds, to see the comparative IQ

Both my 1D4 and 1Ds3 pass my eyeball test on a A2 print (about 20x16)


----------



## straub (Mar 28, 2012)

peederj said:


> If they aren't using dithered ADCs, then you are right 14bits will not cut it for 14 stops...but if that were the case, we simply wouldn't have the dynamic range they are delivering. We would have more like 10 bits which you are claiming, but really, I think those bits are being lost at the DSP stage and not the ADC stage. All my posts on this subject have been addressed to the person that claimed the 5d3 and D800 were weak because they only had 14 bit ADCs, and I wanted to argue (though I am not an expert on photo sensors!) that that argument was likely false.



My point wasn't that the 5D3 or D800 would be "weak" per se, I'm sure that on any sensible criteria, they are superior to pretty much anything. My point was more about the fact that after a point, any extra DR will be practically unusable, and thus, using the calculated (or even measured) maximum DR as a criteria in comparing sensors or cameras is misleading at best. Now, I'm not sure what the practical maximum usable DR with 14 bits is; I picked 10 stops since at that level the quantization isn't yet too harsh in the bottom end (IMO).

Example: Let's say D800 has 14 stops and 5D3 12 stops. Using mild simplification, the D800 can represent the entire 14-bit range of [0,16383] and 5D3 only the range of [4,16383]. I'd assume the D800 now gets a significantly higher score in "objective" rating for DR, since after all, it has those two extra stops. But those extra stops are represented by values 0, 1, 2 and 3. Hardly a significant advantage, I'd say. Nor is it reason to moan that Canon have done nothing in 3,5 years since the 5D2 also had 12 stops.

Sure, dithering in the ADC may help with the posterization effects of the bottom stops, but the resultant pixel data will still be linear 14-bit integers. The bottom stops will still only have only a few possible brightness levels to represent their data.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Mar 28, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > Why is everyone taking pictures In the dark?
> ...



People are taking pictures in the dark to increase the likelihood they'll get beat up by a jealous bf?


----------



## peederj (Mar 28, 2012)

Ah I see, your misunderstanding turns out to be extremely simple. What you must grasp, and I know this seems too simple to be true, but it's a fact...Each stop of dynamic range for each photocell contains one and only one bit of information!

Therefore for the 14th and dimmest stop, all we need to represent its complete state are the values 1 and 0. Any values beyond those are beyond the precision of the photocell and will just consist of random noise from brownian motion etc. There is no lost analog information whatsoever.

It's also true for every other stop, each bit will remain in base 2, either on or off, and the fact there are more bits to the right is no different than there being other bits to the left. The collection of all these bits that are significant and vary according to the signal being measured sums up to your precision, the number of those bits being your dynamic range. But each stop of that dynamic range is fully represented by its corresponding bit, and no more are needed or could be useful given the limitations of the sensor.

If you could somehow "see more" detail down at that dimness level 14EV below clipping, see more than simply a choice between pure black vs. infinitesimally lighter black, then...you'd have more than 14 stops of dynamic range in your photocell!

Obvious once you get it but hard to get there often!



straub said:


> My point wasn't that the 5D3 or D800 would be "weak" per se, I'm sure that on any sensible criteria, they are superior to pretty much anything. My point was more about the fact that after a point, any extra DR will be practically unusable, and thus, using the calculated (or even measured) maximum DR as a criteria in comparing sensors or cameras is misleading at best. Now, I'm not sure what the practical maximum usable DR with 14 bits is; I picked 10 stops since at that level the quantization isn't yet too harsh in the bottom end (IMO).
> 
> Example: Let's say D800 has 14 stops and 5D3 12 stops. Using mild simplification, the D800 can represent the entire 14-bit range of [0,16383] and 5D3 only the range of [4,16383]. I'd assume the D800 now gets a significantly higher score in "objective" rating for DR, since after all, it has those two extra stops. But those extra stops are represented by values 0, 1, 2 and 3. Hardly a significant advantage, I'd say. Nor is it reason to moan that Canon have done nothing in 3,5 years since the 5D2 also had 12 stops.
> 
> Sure, dithering in the ADC may help with the posterization effects of the bottom stops, but the resultant pixel data will still be linear 14-bit integers. The bottom stops will still only have only a few possible brightness levels to represent their data.



And no you wouldnt want to snip off any of those bits of dynamic range and the fact they use 14 bit ADCs for 14 bits of information is great. If you used 10bit ADCs your sensor would only have 10 usable stops of dynamic range no matter what you did subsequently. Dithering prevents quantization effects from harming the delivered quality at no loss of dynamic range. You will get all 14 bits and 14 EV's and they will all be equally useful and good.

And my main concern with the reported figures as I said isn't the dynamic range of the sensor or ADCs, it's the narrow 16 bit space the DSP is done within. If that is an accurate report.


----------



## straub (Mar 28, 2012)

peederj said:


> Ah I see, your misunderstanding turns out to be extremely simple. What you must grasp, and I know this seems too simple to be true, but it's a fact...Each stop of dynamic range for each photocell contains one and only one bit of information!
> 
> Therefore for the 14th and dimmest stop, all we need to represent its complete state are the values 1 and 0. Any values beyond those are beyond the precision of the photocell and will just consist of random noise from brownian motion etc. There is no lost analog information whatsoever.
> 
> ...



I understand that the DR is 14 stops. My point is that the bottom stops are not usable in any practical situation since the quantization destroys any detail at that level. You can dither so that the average quantization error over the whole frame is zero, but still the local pixels have little to do with the actual frame you were trying to capture. There is simply not enough resolution for the bottom stops, unless you performed everything in floating point math. And as such the DR is a poor metric for the sensor's quality in capturing shadow detail.


----------



## peederj (Mar 28, 2012)

straub said:


> I understand that the DR is 14 stops. My point is that the bottom stops are not usable in any practical situation since the quantization destroys any detail at that level. You can dither so that the average quantization error over the whole frame is zero, but still the local pixels have little to do with the actual frame you were trying to capture. There is simply not enough resolution for the bottom stops, unless you performed everything in floating point math. And as such the DR is a poor metric for the sensor's quality in capturing shadow detail.



That's the thing, there is no "resolution" for a given photocell, there is only dynamic range. And each stop and each bit of that is useful (assuming the ADC is good enough to measure all 14 stops and output them accordingly...you could have a 14 bit ADC that was faulty and only yielded 10 bits of information). If your ADC is up to spec it will faithfully report all 14 bits and they will not need floating point math or anything else to be useful and high quality.

Now taking that readout and performing DSP on it, that _would_ benefit from floating point math.

The "bottom stops" and shadow detail will have just as many possible gradations as those at all other light levels. Slightly lighter black or slightly darker white, how slightly you can vary is determined by your dynamic range, culminating in your least significant bit. Least significant, yes, but still significant and valuable.


----------



## straub (Mar 28, 2012)

peederj said:


> That's the thing, there is no "resolution" for a given photocell, there is only dynamic range. And each stop and each bit of that is useful (assuming the ADC is good enough to measure all 14 stops and output them accordingly...you could have a 14 bit ADC that was faulty and only yielded 10 bits of information). If your ADC is up to spec it will faithfully report all 14 bits and they will not need floating point math or anything else to be useful and high quality.
> 
> Now taking that readout and performing DSP on it, that _would_ benefit from floating point math.
> 
> The "bottom stops" and shadow detail will have just as many possible gradations as those at all other light levels. Slightly lighter black or slightly darker white, how slightly you can vary is determined by your dynamic range, culminating in your least significant bit. Least significant, yes, but still significant and valuable.



Perhaps resolution was the wrong word. What I meant was that 

-the lowest measured EV, mark it EV(0), will be a '1' in the output (as opposed to a '0' which is below the DR). 
-one stop brighter EV(1) is a '2'. Any brightness between EV(0) and EV(1) will be quantized to one of these. So *any* detail less than <1EV at this level is lost. 
-one stop brighter still, EV(2) is a '4'. We can resolve a half-stop difference between EV(1) and EV(2), but nothing more.
-one stop brighter still, EV(3) is a '8'. We can resolve quarter-stop differences between EV(2) and EV(3), but nothing more.
-etc.


----------



## Arkarch (Mar 28, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Why is everyone taking pictures In the dark?
> 
> Photography is about capturing the light. I think it's nuts that so many "camera testers" care so much about these insane ISO levels. What were you photographing a few years ago when high ISO was terrible? Or when you had 100 Speed film loaded in your camera?
> 
> ...



While I agree with the sentiment, I have to laugh about good enough ISO's a few years ago.

They were terrible.

Now the Canon Rebel XTi is by no means a Pro Camera, but it was pretty good when I purchased it a few years back. While waiting for the 5DmIII to be announced and delivered, my trusty 7D was in damage repair due to a tripod accident. So for the NASCAR Hauler Parade in Las Vegas, I had to pull out the XTi. I knew it was going to be bad, but I needed some shots for friends and their 4-year old. 

Wow - it was a raging blizzard of noise at *1600 ISO* - all I could use since slower was a motion blur...

We have come a long way! 

(whoops, its an adobeRGB image in sRGB space... oh well, its 2:45 am and the noise is the point of the image)

(oh, and even if I had the 5DmIII, Tony Stewart's hauler had the equivalent of three train locomotives worth of horns - so it was extremely noisy in a different way. Good Night!)


----------



## peederj (Mar 28, 2012)

Oh Ok I'm now interpreting you as criticizing the fact it's a linear 14 bit fixed point encoding scheme coming off the ADCs. Well there's absolutely nothing wrong with linear encoding if it encompasses the full dynamic range of the photocell. Using a floating point encoding scheme would usually be done to throw information away, i.e. compress the data that was less interesting. Since we are interested in every gradation of the visible light spectrum equally, using linear encoding is the high end way to do it, not a compromise. 



straub said:


> Perhaps resolution was the wrong word. What I meant was that
> 
> -the lowest measured EV, mark it EV(0), will be a '1' in the output (as opposed to a '0' which is below the DR).
> -one stop brighter EV(1) is a '2'. Any brightness between EV(0) and EV(1) will be quantized to one of these. So *any* detail less than <1EV at this level is lost.
> ...


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 28, 2012)

straub said:


> Example: Let's say D800 has 14 stops and 5D3 12 stops. Using mild simplification, the D800 can represent the entire 14-bit range of [0,16383] and 5D3 only the range of [4,16383]. I'd assume the D800 now gets a significantly higher score in "objective" rating for DR, since after all, it has those two extra stops. But those extra stops are represented by values 0, 1, 2 and 3. Hardly a significant advantage, I'd say. Nor is it reason to moan that Canon have done nothing in 3,5 years since the 5D2 also had 12 stops.



For those who aren't as technically inclined in things electronic, what does this mean in plain English ?



> I understand that the DR is 14 stops. My point is that the bottom stops are not usable in any practical situation since the quantization destroys any detail at that level. You can dither so that the average quantization error over the whole frame is zero, but still the local pixels have little to do with the actual frame you were trying to capture.



Same question as above. The reason I ask is that I see all these people crying or rejoicing that the D800 crushes the 5DII and III by 2.5 stops of DR. Perhaps I don't have discriminating eyes, but I'm having an awfully hard time distinguishing any substantial advantage of the Nikon's DR in high contrast sample images. I'd think that 2-3 stops of DR would be very obvious to the naked eye, even if it's untrained.


----------



## peederj (Mar 28, 2012)

The D800's photocells look to have very similar DR to the 5D3's, but the D800 has packed them more densely, and DR improves when reducing resolution, so the D800's advantage in MP will be felt in the noise performance of an uncropped but reduced resolution output. So if you are delivering 8MP JPEGs from RAW originals with the same per-pixel DR, the 36MP original will have better delivered performance than the 22MP one. At least that is how I understand the theory there.

So ask people making those claims if they are based on 100% crops/full-res or reduced resolution output. It was claimed DXO normalizes to 8MP in making their analysis which would be the latter case and favor the D800 enormously.

I don't believe the D800 has any per-pixel DR advantage over the 5D3, but it doesn't look like a disadvantage either. That they have packed the pixels that tightly and maintained DR is impressive, apparently they have built a degree of ADC out onto the sensor itself to help with that, or at least help pull all that data down efficiently.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 28, 2012)

peederj said:


> The D800's photocells look to have very similar DR to the 5D3's, but the D800 has packed them more densely, and DR improves when reducing resolution, so the D800's advantage in MP will be felt in the noise performance of an uncropped but reduced resolution output. So if you are delivering 8MP JPEGs from RAW originals with the same per-pixel DR, the 36MP original will have better delivered performance than the 22MP one. At least that is how I understand the theory there.



I know it's an apples to oranges comparison, but does this mean that the D800's DR advantage is most obvious when its resolution is reduced to the same level as the 5DIII? I can see why you'd downsize the resolution if you're DxO to level the playing field with sensors of different resolutions, but I can't see doing this in real life. A massive part of the D800's appeal is its resolution and DR, so I can't see why you'd pay for a 36 megapixel sensor only to throw those pixels away. 

I've tried to comprehend the DxOMark test standards the best I can, but apparently I'm not the smartest person out there. When I think about the practical advantages of greater DR, I envision that it would enable me to recover burned out highlights, or pull out more shadow detail, out of a high-contrast scene. 

For instance, I have no idea how many stops of DR is captured in this image. What I'd like to know is if having 14.4 stops of DR instead of 11.9 would allow me to pull more shadow detail out of the wheels, body panels, and asphalt on the shadow side of the car. I'd like to think so, since the highlights on the hood/grille compared to the wheels/asphalt seems to have maxed out the DR of the 5DC's sensor.


----------



## peederj (Mar 28, 2012)

Yes absolutely more DR means a greater amount of perceptible detail from the shadows (noise floor) to the highlights (clipping headroom). You won't crush your blacks (lose shadow detail and/or have perceptible sensor noise) or blow out your highlights (e.g. lose the clouds in the sky) when you have more DR. And shooting RAW with lots of DR, exposure settings aren't as critical as a result, you will retain detail even with relatively poor metering.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 28, 2012)

peederj said:


> Yes absolutely more DR means a greater amount of perceptible detail from the shadows (noise floor) to the highlights (clipping headroom). You won't crush your blacks (lose shadow detail and/or have perceptible sensor noise) or blow out your highlights (e.g. lose the clouds in the sky) when you have more DR. And shooting RAW with lots of DR, exposure settings aren't as critical as a result, you will retain detail even with relatively poor metering.



We have heard that the D800 has wonderful metering must take the shots in green square mode ;D ;D ;D


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 28, 2012)

peederj said:


> Yes absolutely more DR means a greater amount of perceptible detail from the shadows (noise floor) to the highlights (clipping headroom). You won't crush your blacks (lose shadow detail and/or have perceptible sensor noise) or blow out your highlights (e.g. lose the clouds in the sky) when you have more DR. And shooting RAW with lots of DR, exposure settings aren't as critical as a result, you will retain detail even with relatively poor metering.



That's what I figured. My next question is if the DR difference should be noticeable in out-of-camera raws, or do you have to manipulate the files in post production to maximize the DR? It's a dumb question in some respects, but I believe the 7D has better DR than a 5DC according to DxOMark, yet I've noticed that with dark subjects, the 5DC will capture detail in the clouds while they'll get blown out with the 7D. The highlights seem more difficult to recover with the 7D as well despite it's superior DR. Maybe I'm just doing something wrong


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> We have heard that the D800 has wonderful metering must take the shots in green square mode ;D ;D ;D



Who needs green square mode? I heard you can run a USB cable from the 5DIII into your ear, and it will compose, frame, and meter your shots telepathically


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 28, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> peederj said:
> 
> 
> > Yes absolutely more DR means a greater amount of perceptible detail from the shadows (noise floor) to the highlights (clipping headroom). You won't crush your blacks (lose shadow detail and/or have perceptible sensor noise) or blow out your highlights (e.g. lose the clouds in the sky) when you have more DR. And shooting RAW with lots of DR, exposure settings aren't as critical as a result, you will retain detail even with relatively poor metering.
> ...



Personally I am not convinced about the DxO measurements - they dont pass the common sense tests


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 28, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > We have heard that the D800 has wonderful metering must take the shots in green square mode ;D ;D ;D
> ...



I was using my old fashioned heads up spectacles with eye control for focus, direction and pupil size for metering.

I was a bit concerned that my images were soft, but now OK after the 7D cataract removal operation


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Personally I am not convinced about the DxO measurements - they dont pass the common sense tests



I'm of the same opinion, but I figure that if so many people think they're the holy grail of judging IQ, there must be something to it. I'd like to try to understand it better before making any further judgements concerning its usefulness.


----------



## Yasmin (Mar 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Personally I am not convinced about the DxO measurements - they dont pass the common sense tests



I tend to agree. Their website shows Nikon d700 rated at 80 and 5D Mark II at 79?


----------



## helpful (Mar 28, 2012)

I predict 85-90 for the 5D3.


----------



## jrista (Mar 28, 2012)

Yasmin said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I am not convinced about the DxO measurements - they dont pass the common sense tests
> ...



DXO's tests are very consistent in terms of the numbers they pump out. They should never really be taken as "real-world" results, as they are not. The only real value to DXO numbers is their consistency, which makes it easy to compare the raw, low-level capabilities of any camera, regardless of make or model. Thats handy...to a degree. Just make sure to salt generously in comparisons like the one above, and in general, DPR is probably a MUCH better measure of real-world performance than DXO.


----------



## skitron (Mar 28, 2012)

Concerning the DXO banter I will say I really like their lens tests. I don't much look at the overall "DXO mark" but the individual field maps at various f stops are very useful for me. Obviously a sample of one, but still reveals a good indication of what to expect. So props to them.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 28, 2012)

Here are two samples images of black cars, one shot with a 5DC and the other with a 7D. Both images were taken with the same 70-200 f/4L, on bright sunny days, within 45 minutes of sunset. So the variables in light quality and lens quality is next to zero. Both images are out-of-camera raws converted to jpegs with no post processing. 

According to DxOMark, the 7D has 11.7 stops of DR, while the 5DC has 11.1 stops. Call me crazy, but the the 5D seems to pull out substantially greater shadow detail, especially in the foliage. IMHO, the difference is so obvious I don't even have to label which image came from the 5D, and which came from the 7D. I very much prefer the color and contrast of the 5D's images, but again according to DxOMark, the overall sensor scores between both bodies is very similar (66 vs. 71).


----------



## AnselA (Mar 28, 2012)

My feeling is the combined DXO is not useful ( What should the individual weighting of each test be?) but that the individual tests, done consistently, give valuable technical info to add to field experience testing with the various bodies. Nikon has really made strides in that test and in real life with low light performance - we can safely accept that. Also relative to the the aggregate score, I don't know (and they don't know) what number of "points" difference are statistically meaningful.


----------



## dichiaras (Mar 28, 2012)

skitron said:


> Concerning the DXO banter I will say I really like their lens tests. I don't much look at the overall "DXO mark" but the individual field maps at various f stops are very useful for me. Obviously a sample of one, but still reveals a good indication of what to expect. So props to them.



I agree. Indeed I found out that the crop sensor lenses are much better from Canon than from Nikon. I didn't compare how the high end glass works for Canon and Nikon. So now I know that my APS-C sensor has much less DR, a little less color depth, and much more noise for a given ISO than the crop Nikon's sensor (which is actually manufactured by Sony), but at least the resolution given by corresponding lenses is much better for Canon than Nikon.


----------



## Arun (Mar 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Personally I am not convinced about the DxO measurements - they dont pass the common sense tests



DxOMark rates the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS version 1 better than the version 2, while I have yet to encounter a photographer who thinks version 1 is better. Therefore, I think photographic quality is only to a limited extent determined by these numbers and measurements.


----------



## jrista (Mar 29, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Here are two samples images of black cars, one shot with a 5DC and the other with a 7D. Both images were taken with the same 70-200 f/4L, on bright sunny days, within 45 minutes of sunset. So the variables in light quality and lens quality is next to zero. Both images are out-of-camera raws converted to jpegs with no post processing.
> 
> According to DxOMark, the 7D has 11.7 stops of DR, while the 5DC has 11.1 stops. Call me crazy, but the the 5D seems to pull out substantially greater shadow detail, especially in the foliage. IMHO, the difference is so obvious I don't even have to label which image came from the 5D, and which came from the 7D. I very much prefer the color and contrast of the 5D's images, but again according to DxOMark, the overall sensor scores between both bodies is very similar (66 vs. 71).



I think this is right here demonstrates exactly why DXO has something to offer. Your opinion here is simply that...your opinion. If you actually held a poll about those two photographs, I would be willing to bet that you would NOT get a 90%/10% ratio, where most people could tell just by looking at those photographs which was which. I would bet such a poll would end up closer to a 60%/40% ratio. That wouldn't be entirely because how each of us sees is subjective, but also due to the differences in computer screens, computer screen calibrations, etc. To me, those photos look relatively similar, however I have a calibrated screen tuned for post-processing photographs for final print. Because I print and judge my print qualities from how things look on-screen, the blacks in those photos look pretty even-keel. I'd be willing to bet, however, that one of them would indeed stand out as having "better" blacks if I viewed it with the screens I have at work, as they are calibrated for an entirely different purpose, and are a bit lower contrast (which would enhance shadow details.)

There is also the simple point that we don't know for sure how dark the deepest shadows are in the leaves of the trees of the 5DC shot. They may look "better" simply because they are not nearly as deep as the ones the 7D had to work with. That may be the case with all the 5DC shadows, where as the 7D may have had to deal with deeper shadows everywhere. You can't really make an objective comparison with two entirely different shots like that...you don't know for sure exactly how the shadows of each shot compare. You need a consistent, calibrated photographic source to properly measure the differences (even if they are "useless differences"), and that would be an area where DXO excels.

DXO mark publishes low-level measurements run through a standard set of mathematical formulas. While their numbers may seem odd, I find them valuable at times if for no other purpose than to demonstrate that physical hardware specifications make a picture not. The best example are DXO's MF camera ratings, which generally appear rather crummy compared to the latest and greatest from Sony, Nikon, and Canon. Empirically, modern-day digital MF sucks (regardless of niche.) Practically, they are still the best money can buy (by a long shot) for the niches they service.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 29, 2012)

If Nikon were a big customer of yours, and Canon was not, what would you do? 

I sure wouldn't give Canon better ratings. The DXO mark has weightings assigned to different sensor chacteristics, and is easy to rig. If one had something to gain by it, that is.

http://www.dxo.com/us/image_quality/customers2


----------



## jrista (Mar 29, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If Nikon were a big customer of yours, and Canon was not, what would you do?
> 
> I sure wouldn't give Canon better ratings. The DXO mark has weightings assigned to different sensor chacteristics, and is easy to rig. If one had something to gain by it, that is.
> 
> http://www.dxo.com/us/image_quality/customers2



Fair point. I actually think they DO unfairly weight their "print DR" numbers. I think that becomes blatantly obvious with the D800's 14.4 stops of DR, which is 0.4 stops beyond what is theoretically possible with a 14-bit sensor. (Since every bit is a doubling of the numerical space of the one before it, mathematically, it would be impossible to actually achieve 14.4 stops of DR, as it would require a 15th bit of numeric precision (something we know is not the case)...unless you are doing something rather unscrupulous.) 

(I have also often wondered why they call it "print DR"...when in reality, an *actual print* would be far more limited in terms of DR than a camera...to around 5-7 stops in most cases on all but the absolute BEST papers, supporting the highest dMax imaginable, with the most cutting edge of pigment ink technologies.)


----------



## JR (Mar 29, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If Nikon were a big customer of yours, and Canon was not, what would you do?
> 
> I sure wouldn't give Canon better ratings. The DXO mark has weightings assigned to different sensor chacteristics, and is easy to rig. If one had something to gain by it, that is.
> 
> http://www.dxo.com/us/image_quality/customers2



Good catch Mr Spokane!


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 29, 2012)

jrista said:


> I think this is right here demonstrates exactly why DXO has something to offer. Your opinion here is simply that...your opinion. If you actually held a poll about those two photographs, I would be willing to bet that you would NOT get a 90%/10% ratio, where most people could tell just by looking at those photographs which was which. I would bet such a poll would end up closer to a 60%/40% ratio.



It's interesting how different people see the same set of images differently. It's funny that you bring up a "poll," because I did just that after these shots were taken. I sent these two images out to a half-dozen colleagues of mine to see if they were able to determine which image came from each camera. Every single one of them correctly identified which shot came from which body, and unanimously agreed that the image shot with the 5D looked substantially better. Keep in mind theses are professional automotive photographers, each with decades of experience, that routinely scrutinize images like this. So you're right. The ratio wasn't 90/10. It was more like 100% of respondents that agreed with my assessment 

In fairness, viewing shrunk down images on a message board do hide some of the obvious differences. If you're really bored, I'd be happy to email you both jpegs, but I ain't sending the damn raws  

On a somewhat related note, clients generally have no idea what kind of equipment their contributors shoot with. All they know is the quality of the images you submit. That said, my editor immediately complained about how the images shot with the 7D lacked contrast and shadow detail with blown-out highlights. This despite my best efforts to address these issues in post. 



> That wouldn't be entirely because how each of us sees is subjective, but also due to the differences in computer screens, computer screen calibrations, etc. To me, those photos look relatively similar, however I have a calibrated screen tuned for post-processing photographs for final print. Because I print and judge my print qualities from how things look on-screen, the blacks in those photos look pretty even-keel. I'd be willing to bet, however, that one of them would indeed stand out as having "better" blacks if I viewed it with the screens I have at work, as they are calibrated for an entirely different purpose, and are a bit lower contrast (which would enhance shadow details.)



The difference is obvious on a $h!tty monitor as well 



> There is also the simple point that we don't know for sure how dark the deepest shadows are in the leaves of the trees of the 5DC shot. They may look "better" simply because they are not nearly as deep as the ones the 7D had to work with. That may be the case with all the 5DC shadows, where as the 7D may have had to deal with deeper shadows everywhere. You can't really make an objective comparison with two entirely different shots like that...you don't know for sure exactly how the shadows of each shot compare. You need a consistent, calibrated photographic source to properly measure the differences (even if they are "useless differences"), and that would be an area where DXO excels.



You make a good point. This is by no means a scientific test, and it would never stand up in a lab. However, it was never meant to be a scientific test. It just so turns out I had a a car to shoot, my 5D took a dump, so I busted out the 7D as a backup, using it in the same manner with the same technique in which I always shoot. You can question the difference in background lighting in the foliage between the two shots, but you weren't there  All I can tell you is that, in terms of the backgrounds, the image captured with the 5D looks MUCH more like what I saw through the viewfinder that the image captured with the 7D. There were all kinds of beautifully backlit green pine needles in the 7D's viewfinder, but none of that showed up in the captured image. 



> DXO mark publishes low-level measurements run through a standard set of mathematical formulas. While their numbers may seem odd, I find them valuable at times if for no other purpose than to demonstrate that physical hardware specifications make a picture not. The best example are DXO's MF camera ratings, which generally appear rather crummy compared to the latest and greatest from Sony, Nikon, and Canon. Empirically, modern-day digital MF sucks (regardless of niche.) Practically, they are still the best money can buy (by a long shot) for the niches they service.



I'm not saying this to be a [email protected], but have you shot with multiple bodies at length in order to asses how DxOMark's ratings stand up to your own personal observations? I find that sometimes their rankings seem legit, while at others they're completely off. For instance, I shot with a 20D for a long time before moving up to a 5D. The IQ of the 7D reminded me a lot of the 20D, and sure enough, both bodies rank similarly on DxOMark ratings. I'd say their rankings of the 5D, 1DII, 1DsII, and 1DsIII seem somewhat useful when compared to my personal experiences with those bodies as well. That said, according to DxO the 20D and 7D aren't that far off IQ wise compared to the 5D, but I'd beg to differ. Your results may vary


----------



## jrista (Mar 29, 2012)

@V8Beast: I guess my point got lost in all the rest. ??? To keep things simple:

* DXOMark-type results generally represent *empirical* tests that compare hardware in a statistically accurate manner.

* DPReview-type results generally represent *real-world* tests that compare hardware in a practical manner.

* Personal observation results generally represent *opinions* that may or may not jive with the opinions of others.

All three of the above forms of evaluation are valuable. Even personal observations are very valuable, as under close scrutiny most photographers can tell the minor differences between cameras. (How they interpret those differences, and whether they choose to see one camera or another as better, is where subjectivity comes into play.) Real-world tests provide value in that they allow us to perform practical comparisons of gear in situations that we can relate to. Empirical tests provide value in that they allow us to evaluate information well beyond what may be practical, real, or even meaningful.

Everyone has their opinions about DXOMark, DPR, and subjective opinion, and not everyone uses ALL of the sources of information available to formulate their own opinions. I'm just saying that while DXOMark's results may seem odd, may jive with each other at times and wildly contradict each other at other times, most of their data is still consistent and empirical in relation to themselves, and that has value. I wouldn't recommend using their numbers as a sole source of information, though...they DO tend to be rather odd at times.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 29, 2012)

jrista said:


> @V8Beast: I guess my point got lost in all the rest.



I wouldn't say that. I just found your assessment that 90 percent of observers wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two posted images to be quite bold  That said, my test subjects weren't exactly your typical observers. I'd say that their eyes are well trained  It's quite possible that if presented the two images in question, the general public would have a much more difficult time distinguishing any differences between them. 



> I wouldn't recommend using their numbers as a sole source of information, though...they DO tend to be rather odd at times.



That's the point that seems to get lost in all the e-hysteria. The DxO stuff is useful at times, but some people seem to think it' s the be all, end all authority for judging image quality. How can you possibly attempt to objectively judge a medium (photography) that's so inherently subjective? You don't need a lab test to determine whether or not you like the images a camera produces.


----------



## jrista (Mar 29, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> How can you possibly attempt to objectively judge a medium (photography) that's so inherently subjective?



HAHA! You nailed it!! 8)


----------



## straub (Mar 29, 2012)

peederj said:


> Oh Ok I'm now interpreting you as criticizing the fact it's a linear 14 bit fixed point encoding scheme coming off the ADCs. Well there's absolutely nothing wrong with linear encoding if it encompasses the full dynamic range of the photocell. Using a floating point encoding scheme would usually be done to throw information away, i.e. compress the data that was less interesting. Since we are interested in every gradation of the visible light spectrum equally, using linear encoding is the high end way to do it, not a compromise.



I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, I'm just saying that to make a big deal about a 2-stop advantage with this technology is wrong  The two stops don't help much with the most common use case for DR, which is to recover shadow detail.


----------



## straub (Mar 29, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> For those who aren't as technically inclined in things electronic, what does this mean in plain English ?



It simply means that for the supposed extra two stops of DR of the D800, the only brightness values that can actually be resolved are EV(-12 1/2), EV(-13) and EV(-14). Anything between EV(-12) and EV(-14) is quantized into one of these three EVs, so there is hardly any detail left, and certainly no gradations. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neighborhood_watch_bw.png, that is pretty much what is captured between EV(-13) and EV(-14).

From a use case perspective of using the extra DR to recover shadow detail, the 2-stop advantage in this context is nonexistant. And as such, using it as a metric for a sensor "score" is simply wrong IMO.


----------



## jrista (Mar 29, 2012)

straub said:


> peederj said:
> 
> 
> > Oh Ok I'm now interpreting you as criticizing the fact it's a linear 14 bit fixed point encoding scheme coming off the ADCs. Well there's absolutely nothing wrong with linear encoding if it encompasses the full dynamic range of the photocell. Using a floating point encoding scheme would usually be done to throw information away, i.e. compress the data that was less interesting. Since we are interested in every gradation of the visible light spectrum equally, using linear encoding is the high end way to do it, not a compromise.
> ...



I would STRONGY dispute that the most common use case for DR is to recover shadow detail. Canon purposely caters their DR to the highlights, as its only in the highlights where you can literally CLIP information and prevent any recovery at all (you literally can't "clip" at the black end such that detail is unrecoverable...you can only compress blacks together and possibly mash blacks into the noise floor, but even then, you usually can still recover something, and with dark frames, you have the potential to recover a lot.) Every additional bit of DR doubles the number of luminance steps you can achieve...and they are pro-actively allocated to HIGHLIGHTS FIRST, then to darker tones. Most of the blather that ensued on this forum shortly after the 5D III announcement was people complaining about the bottom 2-3 stops of DR, which generally account for maybe 20 or so distinct levels? Highlights have thousands of levels allocated to them, and the more the better from a raw theoretical standpoint. Dynamic range is NOT primarily allocated to the shadows, particularly in Canon cameras (the 5D line itself is a supreme example of why...as it's extremely popular with wedding photographers, who without question need highlight range more than shadow range for bright white wedding dresses, shiny brides maids and the like.)

The arguments for shadow DR primarily come from landscape photographers and a few more niche markets, who tend to shoot scenes with dynamic ranges that (sometimes far) exceed the range of a camera. Regardless of how much DR you have, unless you are lucky enough to find a sunrise or sunset at exactly the right time where you only need about two extra stops, your going to have to compromise on shadows vs. highlights, and the best way to compensate is with graduated neutral density filters (even if you have 14 total stops of usable DR.) Landscape photographers, however, do _not_ make up the _vast_ majority of actual or potential 5D III users.


----------



## gecko (Mar 29, 2012)

For the first time today, I've actually vaguely considered whether moving to the Nikon D800 might make more sense than upgrading from the MkII to the MkIII.


----------



## straub (Mar 29, 2012)

jrista said:


> Every additional bit of DR doubles the number of luminance steps you can achieve...and they are pro-actively allocated to HIGHLIGHTS FIRST, then to darker tones.



Yes, and because of this I assumed a 12-stop DR (i.e. 5D3) to have a brightness range of [4,16383] and 14-stop (i.e. D800) a range of [0,16383], in which case I considered the highlight range to be equal. My understanding is that the extra stops that the D800 offer are primarily in the bottom end of the DR due to lower read noise etc. 



jrista said:


> Most of the blather that ensued on this forum shortly after the 5D III announcement was people complaining about the bottom 2-3 stops of DR, which generally account for maybe 20 or so distinct levels?



This was my original point, people (and apparently DXO) are making a big deal of the extra 2 stops (4 levels in total, 3 stops bottom DR would be 8 levels), when in the real world it doesn't matter at all since the brightness data is quantized beyond repair. I'm not usually very good in making my point clearly


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 29, 2012)

straub said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Every additional bit of DR doubles the number of luminance steps you can achieve...and they are pro-actively allocated to HIGHLIGHTS FIRST, then to darker tones.
> ...



they are not either at the top or bottom, sensor are linear capture, not like film, the range is larger vs smaller, that is the difference and if you care more about highlights then you expose less and save more, if you care more about shadows you expose longer and lose more highlights

and don't forget that DxO "print" numbers are based on a normalization to 8MP so you can things like 14.5 stops on a 14bit camera


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 29, 2012)

I am not so sure how important that last bit (ok 2 bits) of DR is in absolute terms. I think it is lack of DR which is the issue. - as a rule I would say that DR should be about 10. Following this through it is the reduction of DR and increase of noise as the iso increases that grabs my attention. We have just had two cameras released where the high iso performance has improved both producing clean (not too noisy) pictures at 12800 (and maybe above), but look at the DR at those iso levels.

The point I am trying to make is to bump the iso levels up to gain shutter speed can have a detrimental effect of the picture IQ even though there is little noise


----------



## straub (Mar 29, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> that is the difference and if you care more about highlights then you expose less and save more, if you care more about shadows you expose longer and lose more highlights



Yes, but this hasn't got anything to do with the issue I'm talking about. Even in an optimally "exposed-to-the-right" capture, the very bottom end of DR will be quantized beyond repair. Which is why the "12-stop DR vs 14-stop DR on a 14-bit signal" path argument is pointless.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> and don't forget that DxO "print" numbers are based on a normalization to 8MP so you can things like 14.5 stops on a 14bit camera



Not really. Anything above 14 stops in 14-bit signal path is zero. *If* the ADCs use dithering, *some* light below EV(-14) might register into the output, but in the end you will never know if it's a EV(-14.4) or EV(-13.7).


----------



## straub (Mar 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I am not so sure how important that last bit (ok 2 bits) of DR is in absolute terms. I think it is lack of DR which is the issue. - as a rule I would say that DR should be about 10. Following this through it is the reduction of DR and increase of noise as the iso increases that grabs my attention. We have just had two cameras released where the high iso performance has improved both producing clean (not too noisy) pictures at 12800 (and maybe above), but look at the DR at those iso levels.



Precisely.


----------



## JR (Mar 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I am not so sure how important that last bit (ok 2 bits) of DR is in absolute terms. I think it is lack of DR which is the issue. - as a rule I would say that DR should be about 10. Following this through it is the reduction of DR and increase of noise as the iso increases that grabs my attention. We have just had two cameras released where the high iso performance has improved both producing clean (not too noisy) pictures at 12800 (and maybe above), but look at the DR at those iso levels.
> 
> The point I am trying to make is to bump the iso levels up to gain shutter speed can have a detrimental effect of the picture IQ even though there is little noise



Bang on. It's all about compromise and real life picture. Individually all the specs can be misleading as to your point when you actually use these camera and use them with higher ISO, these same specs mean less for the final picture outcome...


----------



## jrista (Mar 29, 2012)

straub said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Every additional bit of DR doubles the number of luminance steps you can achieve...and they are pro-actively allocated to HIGHLIGHTS FIRST, then to darker tones.
> ...



True, the 5D III would have twelve stops because it loses something on the shadow end. That wouldn't really mean that the _most common usage of DR_ is for shadows, though. It would simply mean that shadows are the greatest area of gain were Canon to improve their DR at all.



straub said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the blather that ensued on this forum shortly after the 5D III announcement was people complaining about the bottom 2-3 stops of DR, which generally account for maybe 20 or so distinct levels?
> ...



Yup, that would be entirely true as well. Its amazing what a few bits worth of least-significant data containing 0.001% of the grand total number of levels can do to people and markets.


----------



## jrista (Mar 29, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> they are not either at the top or bottom, sensor are linear capture, not like film, the range is larger vs smaller, that is the difference and if you care more about highlights then you expose less and save more, if you care more about shadows you expose longer and lose more highlights



If your talking strictly about discrete levels, yes, but technically speaking you could make the same argument about film. Were talking about dynamic range, though...successive stops of increased tonal range. Every additional bit IS a doubling of the total DR, so in that sense, no, its not linear. 



straub said:


> and don't forget that DxO "print" numbers are based on a normalization to 8MP so you can things like 14.5 stops on a 14bit camera



I'd like to know exactly how the simple act of downscaling magically fabricates additional DR you did not start out with. In the case of the D800, at least according to DXO, you *magically gain a full 2/3rds of a stop extra DR* simply by scaling all of your images down to an 8x12" print. Well, either you can gain what you don't have with a little bit of resizing-foo...and that would apply to ALL cameras, including Canons; or no amount of digital magic can fabricate DR, and Mount Spokane is absolutely correct that DXO is weighting their results in favor of Nikon. Seeing as the gains Nikon has made with the D800 surpass what seems plausible and reasonable, my commitment to DXO's print DR (which I previously trusted) is wavering. 

Personally, I'm of the camp that if you start out with 13.8 stops of native DR strait off the sensor, you have 13.8 stops of DR. If you muck around with a digital image in post to *fabricate additional data*, that is not true dynamic range, and technically speaking you should be able to do the same thing with images from ANY camera to magically increase DR. In this case, DXO claims about 1.6 times as many additional levels of luminance than you got strait out of the camera...around an additional 10000 levels!! For the math, 1 extra stop of DR is 2^15, or 32768 levels, where as 14 stops of DR is 2^14, or 16384 levels, so a gain of 2/3rds of a stop is 2^15 - 2^14 * 2/3. Sorry, but mathematically, you don't gain that much additional fidelity simply by scaling your image down. DXOMark is *"fiddling"*.


----------



## rpt (Mar 29, 2012)

jrista said:


> Personally, I'm of the camp that if you start out with 13.8 stops of native DR strait off the sensor, you have 13.8 stops of DR. If you muck around with a digital image in post to *fabricate additional data*, that is not true dynamic range, and technically speaking you should be able to do the same thing with images from ANY camera to magically increase DR. In this case, DXO claims about 1.6 times as many additional levels of luminance than you got strait out of the camera...around an additional 10000 levels!! For the math, 1 extra stop of DR is 2^15, or 32768 levels, where as 14 stops of DR is 2^14, or 16384 levels, so a gain of 2/3rds of a stop is 2^15 - 2^14 * 2/3. Sorry, but mathematically, you don't gain that much additional fidelity simply by scaling your image down. DXOMark is *"fiddling"*.



A few questions jrista:
a. 2^15 - I did not get where the 15 came from. Could you elaborate?

b. 2^14 - I presume it is a round off for 13.8. Is that correct? Or have I got it wrong? If wrong, could you explain?

c. 2^15 - 2^14 * 2/3. Sorry, but mathematically, you don't gain that much additional fidelity...
so your equation was (2^15 - 2^14) * 2/3 ??? Right?


----------



## jrista (Mar 29, 2012)

rpt said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I'm of the camp that if you start out with 13.8 stops of native DR strait off the sensor, you have 13.8 stops of DR. If you muck around with a digital image in post to *fabricate additional data*, that is not true dynamic range, and technically speaking you should be able to do the same thing with images from ANY camera to magically increase DR. In this case, DXO claims about 1.6 times as many additional levels of luminance than you got strait out of the camera...around an additional 10000 levels!! For the math, 1 extra stop of DR is 2^15, or 32768 levels, where as 14 stops of DR is 2^14, or 16384 levels, so a gain of 2/3rds of a stop is 2^15 - 2^14 * 2/3. Sorry, but mathematically, you don't gain that much additional fidelity simply by scaling your image down. DXOMark is *"fiddling"*.
> ...



Sorry, I was a bit sloppy. First, yes, C is correct: (2^15 - 2^14) * 2/3. Its rough, but basically, if you add ONE additional bit of precision to the sensor (one additional stop of DR), that takes you from 14 bits to 15 bits. The discrete numeric range of 14-bit data is 2^14 (16384), and the range of 15-bit data is 2^15 (32768). Since the D800, according to DXO-mark, has supposedly gained 2/3rds of a stop (14.4 - 13.8, or 0.6), I multiplied the difference between 15 and 14 stops by 2/3rds. Thats a bit aggressive, I guess. Since the raw sensor DR is actually 13.8, you actually probably gain a bit less than 10000 additional levels. 

So if we make our interpretation a bit more conservative, DXO is claiming the D800 somehow magically gains around some 7500-8000 discrete tonal levels (or luminance levels) by the simple act of DOWNSAMPLING (as they claim, anyway)? Fishy. And even if that WAS somehow possible, whatever you "gain" is artificial...the camera itself is still the limiting factor when you press the shutter button and capture a scene, in which case the D800, according to DXO's "screen DR" results, captures somewhere around 13.8 stops of DR.

I hope that is more clear.


----------



## rpt (Mar 29, 2012)

jrista said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



It is now. Thanks.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 29, 2012)

jrista said:


> So if we make our interpretation a bit more conservative, DXO is claiming the D800 somehow magically gains around some 7500-8000 discrete tonal levels (or luminance levels) by the simple act of DOWNSAMPLING (as they claim, anyway)? Fishy. And even if that WAS somehow possible, whatever you "gain" is artificial...the camera itself is still the limiting factor when you press the shutter button and capture a scene, in which case the D800, according to DXO's "screen DR" results, captures somewhere around 13.8 stops of DR.



If I understand correctly, DxO claims an increase in DR by the simple act of downsampling an image? This would seem to favor big MP cameras, and I question the legitimacy of the subsequent results. 

From a standardized testing procedure, I fully understand that they downsample to level the playing field between sensors of different resolutions. On the other hand, I can't possibly see how this scenario applies to actual shooting technique in real life. Obviously, if you buy a 36 megapixel camera, part of the appeal is the massive resolution. I can't see why you'd pay money for all those pixels, just to downsample an image and throw them away. However, this is precisely the scenario that DxO is simulating, is it not?


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 29, 2012)

straub said:


> It simply means that for the supposed extra two stops of DR of the D800, the only brightness values that can actually be resolved are EV(-12 1/2), EV(-13) and EV(-14). Anything between EV(-12) and EV(-14) is quantized into one of these three EVs, so there is hardly any detail left, and certainly no gradations. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neighborhood_watch_bw.png, that is pretty much what is captured between EV(-13) and EV(-14).
> 
> From a use case perspective of using the extra DR to recover shadow detail, the 2-stop advantage in this context is nonexistant. And as such, using it as a metric for a sensor "score" is simply wrong IMO.



From the bantering that ensued after you post this, if I understand correctly, the D800's 2-stop DR advantage over the 5DIII might show up in the highlights, but it is most easily measured in shadow detail that's difficult to see outside of a lab test? If so, this would explain why I'm having such a hard time distinguishing much difference in DR at all between the two bodies based on the sample images that are now trickling out. 

Some claim the Nikon's advantage is closer to three stops. That equates to 8x the volume of light. If you quote figures like that to most photographers, many of which aren't so technically inclined as far as things like DxO are concerned, they're going to expect a significant and obvious difference in perceived DR when looking at sample images. Just think about what happens to an image when to slap on a 3-stop ND grad filter in front of your lens. You go from not being able to see any clouds in the sky at all, to having the clouds pop out at you with very rich detail. 

Thus far, I am not seeing this type of difference in the samples from the D800 and 5DIII. Consequently, I'm not going to go poopoo on Canon sensors just because they perform better in real-world scenarios than some lab tests suggest


----------



## jrista (Mar 29, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > So if we make our interpretation a bit more conservative, DXO is claiming the D800 somehow magically gains around some 7500-8000 discrete tonal levels (or luminance levels) by the simple act of DOWNSAMPLING (as they claim, anyway)? Fishy. And even if that WAS somehow possible, whatever you "gain" is artificial...the camera itself is still the limiting factor when you press the shutter button and capture a scene, in which case the D800, according to DXO's "screen DR" results, captures somewhere around 13.8 stops of DR.
> ...



As far as I understand, thats what their "print DR" tests are. I have been digging around DXO's site trying to find more explicit details about what "print DR" actually means, and whether they do any additional processing or not. Their site seems really slow and sketchy these days, so I keep giving up the search. Either way, it just seems extremely fishy to me that you can GAIN DR by downsampling. I'm fully aware that downsampling a high MP image to a normalized image size is a legitimate way to compare IQ between different cameras, however that is normally because of the normalization of noise and resolution...I've never seen it used anywhere else to claim a legitimate increase in DR beyond what the sensor itself is physically capable of. If DXO had claimed 14.0 stops rather than 14.4 stops of DR for the D800, I would have assumed that downsampling simply helped you realize the full potential of the sensor. Now, I am extremely skeptical of their "Print DR" ratings...



V8Beast said:


> From a standardized testing procedure, I fully understand that they downsample to level the playing field between sensors of different resolutions. On the other hand, I can't possibly see how this scenario applies to actual shooting technique in real life. Obviously, if you buy a 36 megapixel camera, part of the appeal is the massive resolution. I can't see why you'd pay money for all those pixels, just to downsample an image and throw them away. However, this is precisely the scenario that DxO is simulating, is it not?



Yup, couldn't agree more.


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 29, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> If I understand correctly, DxO claims an increase in DR by the simple act of downsampling an image? This would seem to favor big MP cameras, and I question the legitimacy of the subsequent results.



I believe they are making some interpretation of "usable dynamic range". On some level, any 14 bit sensor produces 14 stops of dynamic range - if you look at the difference between the highest and lowest recorded bit.

I'm not intimately familiar with their process but I suspect that they must come up with some determination about when the noise in the shadows in unacceptable and they use that to assess the lower bound.

Downsampling will reduce the perceived noise in the shadows so that may well boost the usable dynamic range and may well drive it close to 14. The only way I can see that you could get over 14 stops would be if there was some kind of non-linearity in the adc response.


----------



## lightblood (Mar 30, 2012)

Perhaps the real measure is to consider the camera/lens combination. However, DxO's lens ratings are quite the eyebrow raisers? The new Canon EF70-200/2.8L II IS rates below both preceding models. The 24-70/2.8 L on the 5DII (22) rates below the older 28-70 on the original 5D (24). I have owned all of those devices and I KNOW for a fact that DxO is not quite right there. Does it make anyone else wonder whether considering DxO's test results require high sodium intake...or am I reading things incorrectly?
For small format work, I've been a Canon user since the EOS 1. Prior, I was exclusively Nikon (from F2AS to F4). I have a D800 on order. So not a "fanboy" of any type. But I really treasure truly useful information and I wonder if that's to be had from DxO.
Peace and great pictures to all.


----------



## lightblood (Mar 30, 2012)

Just came across this rough comparison test between the 5DIII & D800 on CNET Asia:
http://asia.cnet.com/shootout-canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-vs-the-nikon-d800-62214094.htm


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 30, 2012)

straub said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > that is the difference and if you care more about highlights then you expose less and save more, if you care more about shadows you expose longer and lose more highlights
> ...



yes, really, normalization means you can effectively get higher numbers at a certain scale 

and use the cams yourself and compare and tell me you don't see a large, noticeable, usable difference


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Mar 30, 2012)

All thats great but does anyone think the d800 sensor will be that much better than the 5d3?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 30, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > So if we make our interpretation a bit more conservative, DXO is claiming the D800 somehow magically gains around some 7500-8000 discrete tonal levels (or luminance levels) by the simple act of DOWNSAMPLING (as they claim, anyway)? Fishy. And even if that WAS somehow possible, whatever you "gain" is artificial...the camera itself is still the limiting factor when you press the shutter button and capture a scene, in which case the D800, according to DXO's "screen DR" results, captures somewhere around 13.8 stops of DR.
> ...



It doesn't favor any MP level, that is the point of normalization, to make things comparable on a fair basis.

It doesn't really matter they normalize to so long as you compare the cameras relative to one another. The absolute numbers they report won't match what you get out of it unless you view a print of a specific size from a specific distance matching their normalization criteria.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 30, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> All thats great but does anyone think the d800 sensor will be that much better than the 5d3?



I think that all the better digital cameras are first class nowadays. I believe that the majority of people would be struggle to hit the limits for example on the 1DX, 5DII, D800 etc on a regular basis. There are always of course exceptions to this rule usually where people are very specialised.

It is just a question of choosing the package that suits you most. With the body it is probably going to be the lens which impacts the choice, especially for specialists.


----------



## jrista (Mar 30, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> straub said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Your missing the point. Downscaling can only make more effective use what is already there or eliminate information, not create additional information. You can improve noise characteristics by averaging noise from multiple pixels (elimination of information), and you can improve the detail of each pixel relative to each other by multisampling (make more effective use.) 

To increase DR, you would have to fabricate information, since it does not exist to start with. You can certainly do that...you can reduce contrast, which will "stretch" tones across a greater range, however if you stretch too far, you'll get "holes" between bits of real information that have to be filled in with generated relative values. However, if you do that with Nikon images to produce a "print" that has 14.4 stops of DR, you could certainly do the same thing with Canon images to produce a "print" that has at least 12.5 stops of DR, and if you really wanted to push the envelope, you could easily massage a "print" image to have any level of contrast you want stretched across as great a dynamic range as you want. Fabricating information in post, however, won't prevent you from clipping highlights when you literally don't have enough DR to capture a scene with wide dynamic range...so even if you can somehow finagle 14.4 stops of print DR, it won't help you in-camera.

DXO has shown their colors, and I think Mt. Spokane is entirely correct in his assessment: Nikon is a paid member of DXO, where as Canon is not, so it's no surprise that Canon cameras fair so poorly against Nikon cameras, when a few simple side-by-side eyeballed comparisons indicate that outside of resolution and ISO differences, both cameras produce stellar IQ, and differ not in the context of real-world photography.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 30, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> All thats great but does anyone think the d800 sensor will be that much better than the 5d3?



for low ISO yes

for ISO3200+ no


----------



## Aglet (Mar 30, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > All thats great but does anyone think the d800 sensor will be that much better than the 5d3?
> ...



ditto, tho I might venture that crossover point will happen closer to 800 ISO


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 30, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > All thats great but does anyone think the d800 sensor will be that much better than the 5d3?
> ...



The D800 may be better at low iso - but is it going to be so much better that you could tell on a 36 x 24?

If not - is it relevant?


----------



## peederj (Mar 30, 2012)

jrista, you speak affirmatively, but your analysis isn't correct. Additive processes increase signal linearly but noise logarithmically, because noise exhibits destructive interference with itself while signal exhibits constructive interference. Thus the increase in DR from downscaling.

These are complex subjects, and I wish I knew enough about the specific domain to apply the math affirmatively, which I don't. But please don't mistake suspect math for absolute truth, any more than you might mistake a suspect photograph for it.


----------



## Woody (Mar 30, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > All thats great but does anyone think the d800 sensor will be that much better than the 5d3?
> ...



Doesn't matter. In terms of DXOmark ranking or sensor scores, they will still trail the D800 by a MASSIVE margin. ;D


----------



## zim (Mar 30, 2012)

DXO? Who cares, read this http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5082.msg99814;topicseen#new

The guy is actually a photographer


----------



## straub (Mar 30, 2012)

peederj said:


> jrista, you speak affirmatively, but your analysis isn't correct. Additive processes increase signal linearly but noise logarithmically, because noise exhibits destructive interference with itself while signal exhibits constructive interference. Thus the increase in DR from downscaling.



That is true if the DR is limited by noise. However, I don't believe additive, or any processing for that matter can increase the final DR beyond the initial measurement limitations (14 bits/stops)? i.e. if your measured original range is limited to [a,b], then any additive (linear) processing will result in range of [N*a, N*b] for some N, which is exacly as many stops as the original range.


----------



## straub (Mar 30, 2012)

Woody said:


> Doesn't matter. In terms of DXOmark ranking or sensor scores, they will still trail the D800 by a MASSIVE margin. ;D



It also doesn't matter since the DXO scoring system is pathologically inept. Check D800 vs D4 for example; D800 wins the Landscape category due to extra stop of DR at ISO 100. As mentioned previously, this amounts to one extra level of brightness information (on top of the 16382 which the D4 already offers). Past ISO 400, the D4 is consistently one stop better. Yet somehow D800 scores way more in this category.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 30, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The D800 may be better at low iso - but is it going to be so much better that you could tell on a 36 x 24?
> 
> If not - is it relevant?



resolution-wise, not so much at normal viewing distances altho would be nice to have more real captured pixels to print.
For most mainstream kind of images, there is no big advantage to using the D800 IMO, even at 36x24" prints. I'd honestly prefer to use my Canon's for familiarity sake and the glass I have access to.

BUT.. when it comes to some of the high DR range scenes I shoot - AB so freakin' LUTELY! 

The D800's lower noise low ISO files will allow me to push dark areas up to the levels I want without having to concern myself about the noise becoming a visual distraction. And I'd say that's an issue even with small prints like 18x12" or even down to 12x8" depending on camera (banding) and processing factors.

You can see some examples of the critical areas I'd run into as I described in this post last nite;

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,5101.0.html


And that's not even a high DR scene. I'm thinking more about the storm systems I like to shoot in fast changing lighting. I have to allow a stop or more at the top end to not blow out textural detail on a suddenly sunlit bit of cloud, leaving me less to work with at the dark end. Any body that can give me clean shadows under these conditions that I can process up later, without clipping the highlites to get it, is the tool I want to use for this kind of shot. My old 40D could do this, none of the semi-pro Canon bodies I've used since do it as nicely. A new little D5100 is going to get a workout this spring in this very kind of shooting. If it does well, it's big bro could get ordered.

If I'm takin' pictures of the old folks or some event, this kind of extreme post-processing is not required or wanted, thus minimizing the impact of a technically better (at low iso) sensor.

The technically better sensor is of value to those few of us who push the limits of said sensors, and post-processing.

And multi-exposure HDR is not always a viable option when you're in the middle of some fast weather, the scenery isn't sitting still.


----------



## randplaty (Mar 31, 2012)

Great discussion. Very interesting. Can somebody tell me in layman terms why 14 bits can only hold 14 stops of DR?


----------



## peederj (Mar 31, 2012)

randplaty said:


> Great discussion. Very interesting. Can somebody tell me in layman terms why 14 bits can only hold 14 stops of DR?



It's just they have chosen a linear encoding scheme. You could have a (partial) 14 stops range of light represented in 2 bits, but you'd be losing a lot of information doing so, or in 16 bits, but two of those bits would never be used (on the most significant end) or would just carry random noise (on the least significant end).

Now if enough customers don't understand dynamic range, but a few misguided opinion leaders start crowing about it, companies will be tempted to use those 16 bits even though two are just noise, as "marketing bits" to claim as if they have more dynamic range then they do. Others will argue you need 16 bits to represent 14 stops, because of quantization distortion. But dither solves that problem. The number of simultaneously capturable stops is the valuable number, and yes more is absolutely better there.

So 14 bits is all you need for 14 stops, and since both are logarithmic scales...each stop is a doubling of light, and each bit in base 2 (binary) doubles the potential size of the numerical representation, we have a 1:1 encoding scheme used.


----------



## nightbreath (Apr 2, 2012)

peederj said:


> randplaty said:
> 
> 
> > Great discussion. Very interesting. Can somebody tell me in layman terms why 14 bits can only hold 14 stops of DR?
> ...



I don't understand it either.

For example, you have a sensor capable to capture maximum 2 stops of light, but with variety of gradations (i.e. billions of intermediate light intensities). So if you use 2 bits per color channel conversion you'll be able to capture only 4 possible states for each color in the CMOS RGB pattern, which are:


*0%* of specific color intensity corresponding to *00*
*33%* of specific color intensity corresponding to *01*
*66%* of specific color intensity corresponding to *10*
*100%* of specific color intensity corresponding to *11*

Wouldn't it be better to use at least 65 536 possible states (16 bits) for color luminance conversion in this case?

_FYI. 14 bits correspond 16 384 possible states for each of three colors._

*P.S.* Please correct me if I'm wrong


----------



## KeithR (Apr 2, 2012)

jrista said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > How can you possibly attempt to objectively judge a medium (photography) that's so inherently subjective?
> ...


Heh!

I said the same thing on FredMiranda about two years ago (again, in a DxOMark context), and - to use the Americanism - was torn a new one...


----------



## psolberg (Apr 2, 2012)

straub said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't matter. In terms of DXOmark ranking or sensor scores, they will still trail the D800 by a MASSIVE margin. ;D
> ...



Err, it matters a lot if you shoot landscapes. Who da hell cares about high ISO since it clips your dr so much in all cameras.


----------



## straub (Apr 2, 2012)

psolberg said:


> Err, it matters a lot if you shoot landscapes. Who da hell cares about high ISO since it clips your dr so much in all cameras.



According to their DR data, D4 can deliver 16382 levels of brightness (~13 stops), and D800 16384. Do you think those two extra levels will make your landscape photo pop?


----------



## bycostello (Apr 2, 2012)

decent tripod might serve you better


----------



## nightbreath (Apr 2, 2012)

dilbert said:


> nightbreath said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand it either.
> ...



I understand this. But why 14 bits supposed to be enough for sensor capable to capture 14 stops of light? Is it limitation of the CMOS sensor that is not able to pass more accurate data and makes having more bits per channel redundant? Or is it limitation on each pixel size where amount of light gathered by each pixel is not enough to make reliable results across all ISOs for 16 bits? Or is it just a marketing move to limit ADC to 14-bit with purpose of enabling fast burst speeds?


----------



## peederj (Apr 2, 2012)

Let's remember that light is quantized, and brightness can be thought of as photons per second. Right? And so your potential precision goes down as your brightness level goes down, and an encoding scheme that mirrors that fact becomes the best overall trade off between precision and data complexity.

Floating point ADCs are certainly possible but people who know a whole lot more about these things than I have not seen the use of putting them into production. And I don't see it either.

Otherwise, adding bits to an encoding scheme that exceed the resolving ability of the photocell is wasteful and can only serve as a cheap marketing gimmick. Warning of which is my purpose writing in this thread.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 2, 2012)

jrista said:


> Your missing the point. Downscaling can only make more effective use what is already there or eliminate information, not create additional information. You can improve noise characteristics by averaging noise from multiple pixels (elimination of information), and you can improve the detail of each pixel relative to each other by multisampling (make more effective use.)
> 
> To increase DR, you would have to fabricate information, since it does not exist to start with. You can certainly do that...you can reduce contrast, which will "stretch" tones across a greater range, however if you stretch too far, you'll get "holes" between bits of real information that have to be filled in with generated relative values. However, if you do that with Nikon images to produce a "print" that has 14.4 stops of DR, you could certainly do the same thing with Canon images to produce a "print" that has at least 12.5 stops of DR, and if you really wanted to push the envelope, you could easily massage a "print" image to have any level of contrast you want stretched across as great a dynamic range as you want. Fabricating information in post, however, won't prevent you from clipping highlights when you literally don't have enough DR to capture a scene with wide dynamic range...so even if you can somehow finagle 14.4 stops of print DR, it won't help you in-camera.
> 
> DXO has shown their colors, and I think Mt. Spokane is entirely correct in his assessment: Nikon is a paid member of DXO, where as Canon is not, so it's no surprise that Canon cameras fair so poorly against Nikon cameras, when a few simple side-by-side eyeballed comparisons indicate that outside of resolution and ISO differences, both cameras produce stellar IQ, and differ not in the context of real-world photography.



They are getting the extra bits not by magic but by spatial averaging so they get fractional bit contributions from surrounding pixels. Of course as you filter that high frequency noise you also filter the high frequency detail. So, sure if you want to maximize the resolution advantage of the D800 over the 5D3 and then you wonder how the dynamic range or what not will compare between the two *when doing that*, then you compare using the 100% view numbers, but that is just for curiosities sake to see what you'd get when taking full advantage of the extra resolution.

But it isn't fair to then say that some higher MP camera or what not only has so much better than some lower resolution camera in terms of noise or DR since the 100% view is treating noise of different frequencies as if they were the same frequency, not fair to the larger MP camera, since the lower MP cam has already automatically filtered out that high frequency noise, you want to compare them at the same power. You need to do that otherwise you penalize the camera with more MP for having the potential to get a higher frequency look at things, completely not fair. You could otherwise get a 2MP camera using Canon D30 sensor technology appearing to perform much better than a 22MP 5D3.


----------



## jrista (Apr 2, 2012)

@LetTheRightLensIn:

Your still missing the point. So lets use an example to demonstrate. Say you shoot a scene with 14.4 stops of DR, and blow the highlights, since the camera is only capable of 13.23 and your trying to preserve as much shadow detail as possible. You THINK the camera is capable of capturing all of the DR in the scene, because you believe what DXO claims about the D800's DR. However, once you get to it, you realize no amount of *POST-PROCESS* SPATIAL AVERAGING is going to _RECOVER_ those *blown highlights.* They were blown well before it ever got to the point of averaging them down...they were blown in the photodiode, amplified in the sensor, converted at maximum level by the ADC. Those pixels hit their maximum saturation and then some...by 1.17 stops (2.25 times more than the sensor is capable of.) 

Do you agree or disagree with that point?



Lets agree that downsampling can produce a result that is a _*perceptual* improvement_ over a similar image from another camera at the same dimensions (because on that point, I do agree!) When you downsample, you average noise across pixels and therefor *lose noise*, you sample detail from multiple pixels into fewer pixels and *lose resolution and detail*, you collapse more information into less total area to produce an image of smaller width and/or height so you *lose pixel density* at a similar print size. Etc. etc. 

_Downsampling incurs a LOSS OF INFORMATION_, not a gain of information. The only improvement, the only gain, is on a perceptual basis, in comparison with other images that _started out_ at smaller sizes. Since a downsampled image is based on a similar image of larger size, every pixel in the output image has more information to work with than the source image...however the _grand total_ amount of information remains the same! There is no _increase of data_ in the output image, it simply makes more effective use of the information that was available. An increase in DR cannot actually occur, because if the original source information contains blown highlights, no amount of multisampling or averaging can change that.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 2, 2012)

1. If your highlights are blown it means you over-exposed, simple as that. No sensor will ever bring back details blown to nothing even if it has 100 stops. You always expose to not blow the brightest part of a scene that you care about and then the darkest parts fall where they do, either above or below a usable noise floor.

2. It's not important to think of the exact print DxO numbers in absolute terms, they will only be correct for viewing an image at once particular scale. The more generally meaningful part is their relative values between various camera bodies.

3. Canon potentially (assuming this is all true and there were no legit hidden technical reasons) does deserve to get blasted for this, because, from what I've heard whispered about, while they have gone around trumpeting how infinitely far ahead in sensor design they were and how they could just sit around and rule the roost doing nothing or react, if actually need ever be, the real story is that they have been doing things like brushing aside IN-HOUSE (although in the DSLR or camera division) developed patents that would have increased dynamic range by 2 stops because they didn't care to bother, they just want to milk their old designs and fabs and charge more for it, their goal for the 5D3 was to first, insure increased profit margin per copy.

And they probably could've had a true 1920x1080 res video, at least in 1.6x crop mode, out of the 5D3 as well, but either didn't think of it in time or chose to leave it out in the end to protect the C300 and cinema line, never mind that their revolution was with the 5 series for video.

Yes, word is they had the tech to make it 2 stops better dynamic range, developed by an internal, but outside of Japan, division of Canon, but Canon DSLR Japan division wanted nothing to do with it and blew off their other division and here we are with Nikon/Sony looking in their rear view mirror at Canon DSLR sensor tech. One group was willing to put in the effort to build a better sensor an done group couldn't have cared less apparently.

I don't know if they still have access to those patents, whether they will look into them again now that they are getting blasted for being left behind in DR or how long it would take to get them into a working sensor at this point or if something was lost in translation and there was some sneaky little techincal thing that made the thing infeasible and they actually turned it down because it wasn't realistically workable.

4. If they made use of the internal patents and given it the cropped true 1920x1080 I bet this thing would be getting nearly universal praise even at $3500 and been one of their most universally praised releases. A few might still gripe a bit about MP, but I think the better part of that crowd would've been made happy enough with the 2 extra stops of dynamic range.



jrista said:


> @LetTheRightLensIn:
> 
> Your still missing the point. So lets use an example to demonstrate. Say you shoot a scene with 14.4 stops of DR, and blow the highlights, since the camera is only capable of 13.23 and your trying to preserve as much shadow detail as possible. You THINK the camera is capable of capturing all of the DR in the scene, because you believe what DXO claims about the D800's DR. However, once you get to it, you realize no amount of *POST-PROCESS* SPATIAL AVERAGING is going to _RECOVER_ those *blown highlights.* They were blown well before it ever got to the point of averaging them down...they were blown in the photodiode, amplified in the sensor, converted at maximum level by the ADC. Those pixels hit their maximum saturation and then some...by 1.17 stops (2.25 times more than the sensor is capable of.)
> 
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 3, 2012)

Apparently the tech engineers at Canon DSLR were never even let look at it (some method to get 2 stops better DR), the marketing guys and lawyers saw it, more or less said they had no clue what it meant and it seemed dumb more DR and told their employee in the other division to not bother to file a patent on it! Apparently it would have not required any fancy new setups or anything to implement. Maybe it had some flaw, but the marketing droids just tossed it away not even letting the DSLR engineers get a look at it and didn't want to pay a token for a patent filing!


----------



## jrista (Apr 3, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Apparently the tech engineers at Canon DSLR were never even let look at it (some method to get 2 stops better DR), the marketing guys and lawyers saw it, more or less said they had no clue what it meant and it seemed dumb more DR and told their employee in the other division to not bother to file a patent on it! Apparently it would have not required any fancy new setups or anything to implement. Maybe it had some flaw, but the marketing droids just tossed it away not even letting the DSLR engineers get a look at it and didn't want to pay a token for a patent filing!



Where the hell do you get this shit, man? That sounds like the biggest bunch of crazy bull you've spouted yet, and there isn't a single reference to back a scrap of it up (Canon Marketing/Legal interfering with Canon Engineering, preventing them from doing their job? WTF kind of inane shit is that?). I keep trying to get you back to facts and science (your last two posts have completely skirted my direct questions). You just seem to want to rag on Canon, and your starting to really hit the deep end now. If you want to rag on Canon such that they will *hear you*..._call them_.



No, Canon's DR is NOT as good as Nikons...but Nikon's is not nearly as good as DXO makes it sound. There aren't 3 stops of difference between the two...at a hardware capability level (derived from native, unprocessed RAW data), there is a difference of 1.77 stops, or about _1 2/3rds_ of a stop, of DR between the 1D IV and the D800 (and I expect teh 5D III and 1D X to outperform the 1D IV at a hardware level). Ok, so Nikon wins by a third less than two stops...wow? At ISO 400 onward, its all neck and neck, and when you get to really high ISO's, the 5D III seems to be doing considerably better than any SoNikon in the area of SNR and noise quality.

You complain that many _Canon users_ in a _Canon form_ are _happy_ about the _improvements_ Canon _HAS MADE_, making exclamations about how its all pure fanboyism devoid of any meaningful data to back up their ilbegotten exuberance. You seem to think you have the high road here as well with your complaining about a single issue that exhibits at a single camera setting, and think its the only valid purpose from now until the day Canon finally declares you king of the squeaky wheels and oils the one issue you personally want to complain about.

Flip it all around for a moment dude, and try to see it from the other side. Despite the fact that the 5D III is not some revolutionary headliner in the annals of camera technology designed to _wow_ and _jerk tears_ from camera technotites the world round...despite the fact that they did not fix EVERY SINGLE TINY THING THAT EVERYONE ON EARTH WANTED FIXED...despite the fact that Canon most likely gimped its video to help sell more C300's....despite all that, it is probably the best camera Canon has ever produced. It's relatively reasonably priced (something the 1D X is not, which is why I don't proclaim that as the best), it has Canon's best AF system ever (and potentially the best AF system across brands period once people learn how to use it), it has what is potentially Canon's best sensor (yes, beyond even that of the 1D X, given that it is a very nice rounding of resolution AND high ISO performance), along with an army of ergonomic, functional, and software improvements to make this camera potentially the most well-rounded, well-balanced, broad-reaching camera money can buy. Its not the absolute best at any one thing...but it could very well be the best at just about everything. (Including answering many very long-term, major, and explicitly valid complaints from existing 5D II users...such as its AF system, the greater desire for better ISO and noise quality than continued increases in megapixels, and better metering.) 

_Nope, its not the DR king. Nope, its not the ISO king. Nope, its not the FPS king._ *But it'll DO EVERYTHING, SERVICE EVERY NEED, and do it all quite well.*


----------



## edknuff (Apr 3, 2012)

This is all very interesting, seriously, but y'all are making my brain hurt!
;-)


----------



## peederj (Apr 3, 2012)

Since brains can't feel pain, let's muse...

Let's say your lens and subject can throw 7.5 million photons on a 1mm x 1mm sensor area while your shutter is open. (The real numbers may be orders of magnitude off from these, just for sake of discussion.)

Let's also assume a photocell can count from 0 to 16,000 photons per the time period you have your shutter set for. At the 0 end, 0 photons won't be counted as zero every time, instead, there is a standard deviation of 10 photons of noise on all readings. Fine. Our dynamic range, per photocell, is established at 0-16,000 +/- 10.

Now we can't do much about the noise factor per photocell other than try to develop better photocells. But what if we can squeeze more of those photocells, without altering their dynamic range, in that 1 square mm area?

The noise per-native-pixel performance will remain constant at +/- 10 photons. But what about the headroom from clipping? Since we have now 500 photocells in that 1x1sqmm area instead of 300, the number of photons per photocell on our brightest subject areas will be smaller. What would have saturated out 16,000 photons per photocell is now divided into several other photocells, each of which is now able to count more photons prior to clipping. Yes? Follow me?

And afterward, as we have I hope established, downscaling from the higher resolution is no longer limited to the 16,000 photons per pixel. When we are downscaling, we can work in a deeper numerical space, allowing the equivalent of, say, 64,000 photons per pixel without incident. We can normalize the result of the downscaling to the noise floor of 10 photons.

And as a result, should this analysis apply (and please tell me how it doesn't): greater sensor photocell density, while maintaining a relatively constant dynamic range per photocell, will increase the dynamic range deliverable in a given lower-than-native resolution output simply by virtue of increasing the effective headroom by dividing the load onto more photocells.

No?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 3, 2012)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently the tech engineers at Canon DSLR were never even let look at it (some method to get 2 stops better DR), the marketing guys and lawyers saw it, more or less said they had no clue what it meant and it seemed dumb more DR and told their employee in the other division to not bother to file a patent on it! Apparently it would have not required any fancy new setups or anything to implement. Maybe it had some flaw, but the marketing droids just tossed it away not even letting the DSLR engineers get a look at it and didn't want to pay a token for a patent filing!
> ...



Where? from .
Check your PMs.




> No, Canon's DR is NOT as good as Nikons...but Nikon's is not nearly as good as DXO makes it sound. There aren't 3 stops of difference between the two...at a hardware capability level (derived from native, unprocessed RAW data), there is a difference of 1.77 stops, or about _1 2/3rds_ of a stop, of DR between the 1D IV and the D800 (and I expect teh 5D III and 1D X to outperform the 1D IV at a hardware level).



The 5D3 has so far tested same as the 5D2 and that is a good 2.5 stops less than D800. Whether you care or anyone else cares, who knows, but that doesn't mean it's only 0.5 stop of only 1-2/3rd stops of what not (and, BTW, 1.77 stops would be pretty huge difference actually).



> Ok, so Nikon wins by a third less than two stops...wow?



How did 2.5 become 1.77 become suddenly less than .666? 



> At ISO 400 onward, its all neck and neck, and when you get to really high ISO's,



More like ISO1600 and on, maybe more like ISO3200 and on due to the higher MP count allowing for better noise adjustment than simple resizing and/or more detail until, if you wanted to get really picky. Anyway above ISO1600 the difference should quickly become less and less.



> the 5D III seems to be doing considerably better than any SoNikon in the area of SNR and noise quality.



It does? From what I've seen so far, it looks equal, at best, at the mid high isos. The only place it might become considerably better, from what I've seen so far, is at the 50,000/100,000 type ISOs. I'm still waiting for DxO on the SNR stuff though. Hopefully it will more or less tie them for SNR and DR.



> You complain that many _Canon users_ in a _Canon form_ are _happy_ about the _improvements_ Canon _HAS MADE_, making exclamations about how its all pure fanboyism devoid of any meaningful data to back up their ilbegotten exuberance.



No I didn't. I praised them for putting the 1DX AF into it. And I've said it is too bad but the D800 video seems to be riddled with color moire still.



> Flip it all around for a moment dude, and try to see it from the other side. Despite the fact that the 5D III is not some revolutionary headliner in the annals of camera technology designed to _wow_ and _jerk tears_ from camera technotites the world round...despite the fact that they did not fix EVERY SINGLE TINY THING THAT EVERYONE ON EARTH WANTED FIXED...despite the fact that Canon most likely gimped its video to help sell more C300's....despite all that, it is probably the best camera Canon has ever produced. It's relatively reasonably priced (something the 1D X is not, which is why I don't proclaim that as the best), it has Canon's best AF system ever (and potentially the best AF system across brands period once people learn how to use it), it has what is potentially Canon's best sensor (yes, beyond even that of the 1D X, given that it is a very nice rounding of resolution AND high ISO performance), along with an army of ergonomic, functional, and software improvements to make this camera potentially the most well-rounded, well-balanced, broad-reaching camera money can buy. Its not the absolute best at any one thing...but it could very well be the best at just about everything. (Including answering many very long-term, major, and explicitly valid complaints from existing 5D II users...such as its AF system, the greater desire for better ISO and noise quality than continued increases in megapixels, and better metering.)
> 
> _Nope, its not the DR king. Nope, its not the ISO king. Nope, its not the FPS king._ *But it'll DO EVERYTHING, SERVICE EVERY NEED, and do it all quite well.*


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 3, 2012)

I wonder how many shots will deliver the full dr avalable at iso 100?

I have been deliberately trying to get max dr on my 1d4 and 1ds3 - and if DPP is to believed I seem to max out at about 10, whereas dxo say about 12.

How important is that extra from the D800 at iso100/200 - when in fact the main place it is needed is in low light when the iso is high and the dr is low.

I would love to acheive a DR of 10 (dpp measurement) at iso 3200 - so the important measure to me would be the dr at iso 1600-6400 which is where it seems the gap between the D800 and the 5DIII is almost negligable.


----------



## jrista (Apr 3, 2012)

peederj said:


> And afterward, as we have I hope established, downscaling from the higher resolution is no longer limited to the 16,000 photons per pixel. When we are downscaling, we can work in a deeper numerical space, allowing the equivalent of, say, 64,000 photons per pixel without incident. We can normalize the result of the downscaling to the noise floor of 10 photons.
> 
> And as a result, should this analysis apply (and please tell me how it doesn't): greater sensor photocell density, while maintaining a relatively constant dynamic range per photocell, will increase the dynamic range deliverable in a given lower-than-native resolution output simply by virtue of increasing the effective headroom by dividing the load onto more photocells.
> 
> No?



*NO.* Ignoring electron gain for the moment, your *hardware* is _still limited to 16,000 photons per well. _

Lets say we have an ideal monochrome 32x32 pixel sensor (1024 pixels), with a maximum saturation of 16,384 electrons per well, an electron gain of 1 (one photon = on electron) and a standard deviation of noise of +/-5. If you capture 17,384 photons in the center 16x16 pixels, those 256 wells are fully saturated, *registering 16,384 electrons* per well. The excess 1000 photons is waste. The diode cannot hold any more electrons, so any additional photon strikes are either reflected, or converted to heat (which, itself, could end up becoming an electron in a neighboring pixel or elsewhere in the electronics, contributing to noise). Now you digitize with a 14-bit ADC. Lets just assume you have a gain of 1, so you get 1024 pixels, the center 256 of which have a maximum value of 16,384 (pure white). The center white pixels are bordered by a basic grayscale gradient faloff, with the outer edge containing pixel values 0 +/-5 (which obviously leads to pixels with values between 0-5.) 

Now you want to downsample. Your digitized image has 256 pixels in the center with BAKED IN MAXIMUM VALUES. Lets say we downscale considerably, such that we have a 3x3 pixel image. We average the center 256 pixels into the single center pixel of our 3x3 pixel image. The center pixel is...still pure white. The border of pixels around it become...well, roughly an even gray (the average of pixel values between +/-5 to 15360 differentiated by 1024 levels), with the corner pixels possibly approaching a darker gray more so than the rest, but none actually reaching the +/-5 floor for noise.

Two key points here:

1. Averaging pixels cannot increase highlight range, so if highlights are blown, they are blown regardless of how big the image is. 
- Assuming you have a 9 pixel 3x3 area full of maximum saturation pixels, sampling them all to produce a single output pixel will always result in a pixel of maximum value.
- (16384 + 16384 + 16384 + 16384 + 16384 + 16384 + 16384 + 16384 + 16384) / 9 = 147456/9 = 16384
- The only thing that changes is the physical dimensions of the blown area...which would logically shrink in a downscaled image.
2. Averaging pixels also cannot increase shadow range, at best it can maintain it, and on average it will likely reduce shadow DR. 
- If you have a 9 pixel 3x3, ranging in value from 0 to 5, sampling them all to produce a single output pixel will rarely result in an output pixel that is zero unless the majority of source pixels are zero.
- (0 + 2 + 1 + 5 + 2 + 4 + 0 + 0 + 3) / 9 = 17/9 = 1.8889 = 2

Mathematically, once you start averaging pixels with baked-in representations of an analog signal, you cannot gain dynamic range by downsampling (averaging multiple source pixel values together into single output pixels), even with more complex algorithms like bilinear or bicubic filtering (which does more to smooth averaging out over a greater area than anything, incurring an additional cost in terms of detail.) Mathematically, when it comes to dynamic range, you are more likely to LOSE DR (as demonstrated in point 2 above, where you started out with a dynamic range of 0-5, and ended up with a range of 2-2), and at best, you might keep it the same. You will *never* be able to recover what you lost by not having a deep enough pixel well to start with.

Relating this to DXO:

1. Screen DR is representative of post-ACD baked-in RAW representations of the analog sensor signal (divided by a possible gain factor).
2. Print DR is representative of a downsampled RGB image generated from the RAW representation that is itself a representation of the analog sensor signal.

If you want to know what your *sensor* is capable of, the DXO "Screen DR" measurement is the closest you are going to get to a _hardware reading_. As for Print DR...mathematically with simple downscaling, *you can't gain DR.* I am not really sure what print dr represents (I used to think I did, however DXO showing that the D800 gains 1.17 stops of DR simply by downsampling, putting the "Print DR" ABOVE the physical limitation of 14 stops the hardware imposes...has me utterly baffled and finding the measurement rather useless as a result), however it is not actually indicative of what the actual camera HARDWARE is capable of. It is far more indicative of what digital computer algorithms can do with an image once its been converted from analog to digital and turned into a RAW or RGB file, and that really has _*nothing* to do with the *camera*_, and _*everything* to do with software and your desktop computer._


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 3, 2012)

edknuff said:


> This is all very interesting, seriously, but y'all are making my brain hurt!
> ;-)



My thoughts exactly! I don't care about numbers. I care about making art. Sure, image quality is important. If it looks good to my eyes, i'm happy. And if it looks good to my clients eyes, i'm even happier. Nuff said. 8)


----------



## psolberg (Apr 3, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I wonder how many shots will deliver the full dr avalable at iso 100?
> 
> I have been deliberately trying to get max dr on my 1d4 and 1ds3 - and if DPP is to believed I seem to max out at about 10, whereas dxo say about 12.
> 
> ...



why would dynamic range not matter any more than it does at other ISOs? You can't just make blanket statements like that and we still don't have the DXO results from the 5DIII to measure how much of a nosedive that camera takes as ISO increases. DR is important at all ISOs. Surely landscape and studio artists (the main audience of the D800 love the ISO100 performance). But even wedding photogs which are often asked to shoot at 1pm with blazing clear sky and big apertures will not be pushing the ISO often and will be more concerned about highlights. There are plenty more cases for the low ISO DR just as there are for the higher ISO DR. Neither is more important and both are very key.



> No, Canon's DR is NOT as good as Nikons...but Nikon's is not nearly as good as DXO makes it sound. There aren't 3 stops of difference between the two...at a hardware capability level (derived from native, unprocessed RAW data), there is a difference of 1.77 stops, or about 1 2/3rds of a stop, of DR between the 1D IV and the D800 (and I expect teh 5D III and 1D X to outperform the 1D IV at a hardware level). Ok, so Nikon wins by a third less than two stops...wow? At ISO 400 onward, its all neck and neck, and when you get to really high ISO's, the 5D III seems to be doing considerably better than any SoNikon in the area of SNR and noise quality



as "LetTheRightLensIn" points out, you're being very incosistent with your numbers and I have no idea where you got those numbers and how you're backing them up. regardless of you accepting the DXO results, the fact remains the DR difference is both noticeable and relevant even if it isn't exactly their quoted figures. Still the 5DmkIII and 1DX haven't been tested that much so I'm open to the possibility they may be better than the standard canon low scores, but as far as your argument to bring down the Nikon's obvious advantage, it simply holds no water. Let's just accept that fact and move on. 12 stops is still quite good even if it is behind everybody else.



> Nope, its not the DR king. Nope, its not the ISO king. Nope, its not the FPS king. But it'll DO EVERYTHING, SERVICE EVERY NEED, and do it all quite well.



I agree, and most cameras are like that so clearly it isn't all that fair to judge the 5DmkIII purely on the shortcomings it has. Nikon had the more exciting camera this time as illustrated by all the D800 madness and let them have the glory since they really hit it out of the park when everybody doubted it. There is always another year and newer models coming out better than the last one so it is pointless to focus on a single head to head comparison for too long.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 3, 2012)

I must be honest - I find it mildly sad that a d800 vs. 5diii sensor ratings thread makes it to 11 pages  It suggests that many people are looking in the wrong place for their photography. I know this is a gear forum, but still... photography is about capturing photographs, not drawing graphs.

As soon as a camera reaches a certain level, I think the body becomes vastly less relevant to photographers *on average*. The minute detail differences between the cameras will *for most photographers* make very little difference.

My view is that I could take my photographs (see links below) with pretty much any cameras from the last 5 years and it would be impossible for most people to tell the difference. I know there are always some who push the envelope in terms of dynamic range or ISO or AF, but the average photographer (pro, semi pro or amateur) won't notice a difference and their work will be the same as it was before.

It's all mildly interesting but it certainly won't make me change my mind about what I'm buying and why...

"Photographer > Lens > Body - for most photography"


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 3, 2012)

psolberg said:


> why would dynamic range not matter any more than it does at other ISOs? You can't just make blanket statements like that and we still don't have the DXO results from the 5DIII to measure how much of a nosedive that camera takes as ISO increases. DR is important at all ISOs. Surely landscape and studio artists (the main audience of the D800 love the ISO100 performance). But even wedding photogs which are often asked to shoot at 1pm with blazing clear sky and big apertures will not be pushing the ISO often and will be more concerned about highlights. There are plenty more cases for the low ISO DR just as there are for the higher ISO DR. Neither is more important and both are very key.



Whilst iso at 100/200 is important, the point I am trying to make is that improvements there are unlikely to be significant in terms of printed output - printed output is the most critical. No we dont know the DxO measurements for the 5D3 - however we do have the 5D2 figure, and my thoughts are that the 5D3 results will if anything be better.

The most important dr is when it drops off as this leave most headroom and flatter colour.

There are numerous effective techniques for handling blazing sun and high contrast - high contrast and strong shadow makes horrible photos so you will need to work on them rather than rely on high DR to avoid blowing the highlights. Numerous videos on youTube are available for the old fashioned but effective techniques.


----------



## Northstar (Apr 7, 2012)

Just my opinion, but something doesn't seem right regarding DXO:

1. They give the D800 a very high "all time record" score (that they knew would have the internet buzzing)
2. THEN....THE DON'T REVIEW/SCORE THE CANON 5D3(it's been two weeks since the d800 review) EVEN THOUGH BOTH CAMERAS WERE RELEASED AT THE SAME TIME. How long does it take to do a review? 

I find this interesting because they're partly responsible for creating a situation where the D800 is in extremely high demand and is getting very positive "word of mouth"....while the 5d3 plays second fiddle. It's almost as if they've INTENTIONALLY delayed their 5d3 review. 

At this point, even if they come out and give the 5d3 a very good score, they've already sold a bunch of D800's for Nikon(and therefore a bunch of lenses), and given them a clear boost during the very important initial launch period for both cameras.

makes me wonder.....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 7, 2012)

Northstar said:


> Just my opinion, but something doesn't seem right regarding DXO:
> 
> 1. They give the D800 a very high "all time record" score (that they knew would have the internet buzzing)
> 2. THEN....THE DON'T REVIEW/SCORE THE CANON 5D3(it's been two weeks since the d800 review) EVEN THOUGH BOTH CAMERAS WERE RELEASED AT THE SAME TIME. How long does it take to do a review?
> ...



On another forum, someone claimed that Canon France delayed getting them a release copy of the 5D3. Who knows. (and the thing is the 5D3 probably will test worse, so, if anything, they may be helping Canon  )


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 7, 2012)

Interesting stuff on DPR where they figured out how D800 video works. They read all pixels in a scanline, but only read every third scanline. They then downsample it from a bit over 1920x1080 down to 1920x1080. That explains why compared to 5D3 video:

D800 video is a bit sharper (not by much once 5D3 is sharpened in post)

D800 video has considerably worse SNR (5D3 appears to 3x3 bin the entire sensor while Nikon appears to skip 2/3rds of the lines and thus tosses away 2/3rds of the collected photons, it collects even a bit less light than an APS-C sensor of the same technology would collect) and yet the same is not true for stills (where both make use of the full sensor). The D800 tosses away 1.8 stops of SNR and dynamic range for video compared to what it can do for stills apparently (but having a large base ISO DR advantage the ISO100 video on the D800 still has better DR than the 5D3, I'd guess they are even for DR by ISO400 for video and by ISO800 it should already have worse DR than 5D3 video and by ISO1600+ it should have a lot worse DR than the 5D3 video probably like 2 stops worse). The worse SNR should hold across all ISOs.

So D800 video probably has something along the lines of 1.5 to 2 stops worse SNR across the ISO range and ranging from perhaps something like 2/3rd of a stop better DR at ISO 100 to even at ISO400, worse at ISO800 and probably 1.5-2 stops worse from ISO1250 or so and up.

Most importantly D800 video has more aliasing and a lot more color moire.


I think you have to give the video win to the 5D3, a little less sharp and maybe 2/3 stop less DR at ISO100 (but likely already even by ISO400) but none of the moire mess, little of the aliasing and 1.5-2 stops better SNR across the board and at ISO800 and up it has better DR, especially ISO1600+.

(that said they still BADLY need to update 5D3 firmware to add zebra stripes, video focus peaking and a 1.6x crop 2x2 sampled video mode with top clarity and better reach, then they will get the videographers singing its praises and they will fly off the shelf to movie guys)

5D3 also has better liveview sensor output since for some odd reason nikon uses some sort of video feed o the D800 liveview instead of scaled mode like on D7000 so their liview 100% look on the D800 has every other line skipped, apparently it makes it tricky to use to focus unless you try to look at vertical details only.

So it seems that 5D3 gets the win for video and liveview quality.


----------



## peederj (Apr 8, 2012)

Very interesting and potentially relevant. Link please.

Update: I found this:

http://falklumo.blogspot.de/2012/04/lumolabs-nikon-d800-video-function.html



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Interesting stuff on DPR where they figured out how D800 video works. They read all pixels in a scanline, but only read every third scanline. They then downsample it from a bit over 1920x1080 down to 1920x1080. That explains why compared to 5D3 video:
> 
> D800 video is a bit sharper
> 
> ...


----------

