# DXOMark review: D850 gets a *100* sensor score



## ahsanford (Oct 6, 2017)

I'll just put this here and see what happens:

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/06/nikon-d850-best-dslr-ever-gets-first-full-100-score-dxomark/

- A


----------



## BasXcanon (Oct 6, 2017)

Hooray for Nikon!
My baby album was made by Nikon gear.
I actually want a Nikon camera, but everytime I have gathered enough money I end up with a Canon product. :-\


----------



## unfocused (Oct 6, 2017)

I find it confusing that it scored a perfect 100, yet the review discusses several areas where it is less than perfect and the data indicates that other cameras either beat or matched its performance on particular criteria. 

Does this mean DXO will soon be turning the amplifier up to "11."


----------



## Jopa (Oct 6, 2017)

I just smashed all my Canon gear with a sledgehammer!!! It has no future.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I find it confusing that it scored a perfect 100, yet the review discusses several areas where it is less than perfect and the data indicates that other cameras either beat or matched its performance on particular criteria.
> 
> Does this mean DXO will soon be turning the amplifier up to "11."



DxO's Sensor Score is an open-ended metric (albeit one determined by a 'black box' algorithm, which IMO makes it a steaming pile of cow feces, aka BS = biased score). Thus, a score of '100' is not perfect, by their own description of the metric it can (and likely will) go higher as sensor technology improves.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 7, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I find it confusing that it scored a perfect 100, yet the review discusses several areas where it is less than perfect and the data indicates that other cameras either beat or matched its performance on particular criteria.
> 
> Does this mean DXO will soon be turning the amplifier up to "11."



100 isn't perfect. It's just a number. If memory serves, prior EPIC cameras and a medium format rig have scored over 100 before. This is just the first FF SLR to hit that mark.

- A


----------



## Talys (Oct 7, 2017)

I posted this on the other thread, but I think it's more appropriate here:

Why does the Low Light score suck?

2995 - Canon 5D Mark IV
2956 - Nikon D750
2862 - Canon 6D Mark II
2853 - Nikon D810
2660 - Nikon D850

After ISO 800 D850 has less DR, Tonal Range, and Color Sensitivity than 5DIV on the Screen measurements (it scores better on a bunch of Print measurements). 


So anyways, since it is not a perfect sensor, by DXO's evaluation... does a future sensor that is better than the D850 score > 100?


----------



## zim (Oct 7, 2017)

Jopa wins a doller ;D


----------



## AlanF (Oct 7, 2017)

Talys said:


> I posted this on the other thread, but I think it's more appropriate here:
> 
> Why does the Low Light score suck?
> 
> ...



"Why does the Low Light score suck?" The fair comparison with Low Light Score is with a sensor with the same pixel density, namely the 5DSR, which has 2308. The 850 doesn't "suck" against that. 

I use both the 5DIV and 5DSR, but I am not going to rubbish the D850 out of an irrational sense of tribal loyalty or to justify my purchases. I use the 5DIV when I want speed and for lower light, and the 5DSR when I want the best resolution. For most of the time I use the 5DSR at iso640 and above, where there is little to choose between the DR of the 5DSR and D850. I would love Canon to be spurred into action to produce an equivalent of the D850 because it is a magnificent piece of engineering. So come on Canon, make a 5DSR Mk II that regains the number 1 spot.


----------



## Talys (Oct 7, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > I posted this on the other thread, but I think it's more appropriate here:
> ...




I get that the traditional calculus is that more megapixels = worse low light performance, all things being equal -- but all things are not always equal. The Sony A7RII has an amazing low light performance score of 3434 at almost as many megapixels as the D850.

Both are more megapixels than I'd use, but frankly, I'd rather have 42.4 megapixels at 3434 low light score than 2660 at 45.7 megapixels.

The reason that the D850 has such high marks (its 100 score) is the 14.8EVs of dynamic range.

Comparing just the A7RII to the D850 sensors, and excluding everything else (not that I would buy a camera that way), if I had to choose between 1 extra EV of DR at ISO 100 (to 15) and proportionately better ISO performance at 800+, I would pick the better ISO performance every day of the week.

The chances of shooting photos that use the extra 1 EV are probably infinitely small for me compared to the chances I'd shoot a photo at ISO 1000.

Of course, what everyone is looking for is different, and if I had to choose between the Sony and the Nikon, there would be no contest, because one of them is crushingly uncomfortable to use and is missing an optical viewfinder. But still, looking at just sensor scores, and untangling the "why", I still don't understand why the Nikon sensor made by Sony so underperforms the older, but similar Sony sensor made by Sony in low light.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 7, 2017)

By that reasoning, the 26.2 mpx 6D II with its low light score of 2862 does "suck" compared with the Sony 42.4 mpx with its low light score of 3434. Mind you, I don't take DxOMark's scores seriously because, apart from everything else, noise in practice depends on the lenses available, degree of cropping etc.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 7, 2017)

Seems to be a very good camera providing very high IQ, good ergonomics including backlit dials etc.. Finally it seems they have good control of colors with that camera.

Otherwise: I have 4k invested in Canon glass (not es much as maybe most of you but enough) and enjoy the 200D / SL2 for "slow photography" with the excellent EF-S 60 Macro as a light and compact package with great IQ and flexibility. Good enough for 60 x 90 cm² prints - if I made everything right.


----------



## Talys (Oct 7, 2017)

AlanF said:


> By that reasoning, the 26.2 mpx 6D II with its low light score of 2862 does "suck" compared with the Sony 42.4 mpx with its low light score of 3434. Mind you, I don't take DxOMark's scores seriously because, apart from everything else, noise in practice depends on the lenses available, degree of cropping etc.



I have no problem conceding that the 6DII's sensor is significantly inferior to the Sony A7RII's sensor. Would I like an A7RII's sensor in a Canon body? Of course!

However, the Canon 6DII is superior in other ways, like: a much lower price, a viewfinder that I like 1000x more, ergonomics that don't kill me, and a vastly superior selection and quality of lenses. 

If I were willing to pay the price of a A7RII, there is no question that I would enjoy the D850 or the 5DMkIV more than the A7RII. However, on the basis of scoring sensors, I can't see how _nearly a thousand points_ in low light performance out of 2500-3500 is not a huge deficiency, at least as much as a couple of points of base ISO DR, because while most people rarely or never photograph 15EVs, most people will find a use for ISO 800+.

I would probably not have said anything if DXO gave the D850 an identical overall sensor score to the Sony A7RII. 

I did consider buying an A7RII, _solely on the basis of its excellent sensor_. But the other shortcomings killed it. I would consider switching back to Nikon, but it would really take Nikon being "on top" in a combination of lenses I need or am likely to buy and camera bodies for about 10 years. 

At the moment, there's no question that the D750 and D850 are really great bodies. But I still vastly prefer the Canon glass (I vastly prefer Canon's 70-200, 100-400, and dream of Canon's 600/4, while I do not lust for any Nikon Super Telephotos), and that's a much longer term investment, and I have gotten very used to Canon controls. Plus, in the past, Nikon has had QA issues and that's a little hard to get past. There's also the issue that Nikon doesn't service grey market equipment (they won't fix it even for a fee), whereas Canon will service it under warranty -- that makes a difference to me, because I have no problem buying grey market.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 7, 2017)

There is no Nikon glass I would like for bird photography. I don't go for the 500/4 and 600/4 even for Canon as they are too heavy for me. The Nikom 200-500mm is too heavy, and several reports prefer the Tamron 150-600mm (it zooms in the same rotation as Nikon) and the 80-400mm is not a good lens. I do not know first hand but I have read that Nikon's don't have C1, C2 and C3 on the mode dial that store settings faithfully. Please correct me if I am wrong. I do want a Canon with the D850 specs.


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 7, 2017)

AlanF said:


> There is no Nikon glass I would like for bird photography. I don't go for the 500/4 and 600/4 even for Canon as they are too heavy for me. The Nikom 200-500mm is too heavy, and several reports prefer the Tamron 150-600mm (it zooms in the same rotation as Nikon) and the 80-400mm is not a good lens. I do not know first hand but I have read that Nikon's don't have C1, C2 and C3 on the mode dial that store settings faithfully. Please correct me if I am wrong. I do want a Canon with the D850 specs.



Nikon also doesn't seem to have ''Recall shooting functions'' assignable to a dedicated button like canon and by the looks of it Sony as well. This has become an amazing feature that would make it difficult for me to live with out.


----------



## Talys (Oct 7, 2017)

AlanF said:


> There is no Nikon glass I would like for bird photography. I don't go for the 500/4 and 600/4 even for Canon as they are too heavy for me. The Nikom 200-500mm is too heavy, and several reports prefer the Tamron 150-600mm (it zooms in the same rotation as Nikon) and the 80-400mm is not a good lens. I do not know first hand but I have read that Nikon's don't have C1, C2 and C3 on the mode dial that store settings faithfully. Please correct me if I am wrong. I do want a Canon with the D850 specs.



Yes, you've described the logical conclusion that I've drawn as the "intellectual" reason to choose Canon. 

Even though I don't own a big f/4, I'd like to own one, one day, and even though I expect I will use a gimbal for that, it's okay; I'd much rather the canon 600 f/4 than the Nikon 600 f/4 (for weight reasons). On lens under $3,000 USD, the 200-500 appeals on paper, but is much less friendly to carry around and shoot stuff with than Canon's 100-400.

It doesn't really matter if the D850 is super duper awesome, if there aren't matching, intermediate telephoto friendly to carry around. At the moment, frankly, the third party 100-400's are the best choice for carry-around, and I far prefer Canon's because of ease of MF, consistent autofocus, and MFD.

And sure, I, too, would love to see D850 sensor specs in a Canon body, though to be frank, I probably wouldn't spring for it, as it may be over the price range I like to spend on bodies. I am much more willing to invest in lens, because of the lifespan where they stay in their "prime" (ie when they aren't superceded by a better lens choice).

The less intellectual reason that I choose Canon is just one of preference. I like Canon cameras. And by the way, I would never buy another camera that didn't have custom dial functions like C1. It's like buying a car without a cupholder.


----------



## Hflm (Oct 7, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I find it confusing that it scored a perfect 100, yet the review discusses several areas where it is less than perfect and the data indicates that other cameras either beat or matched its performance on particular criteria.
> ...


I can't understand, why people are so concerned with an arbitrary score, weighted to base iso DR.

If I look at the A7rii, for example and compare the measurement curves, apart from low iso dr, the A7rii is as good or better over the whole iso range in tonality, color sensitivity, S/N ratio (the D850 is 1db behind the A7rii or 5div). That alone shows how useless a single number is for a complex system, which many here know. But the human strive for simplifying and rating everything doesn't stop many from thinking such a score to be important.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 7, 2017)

Well done Nikon on getting a *100* Sensor Score.
They have created a great camera in the D850.
It ticks alot of boxes for users. They pushed the boat out quite a bit with it.
I think it ensures current Nikon users will stay with the brand and they needed a confidence boost.
It's a camera that gives them hope for the future that Nikon can continue to compete and even beat the opposition.
I'm heavily invested in Canon. Their lens are excellent and their cameras are good.
I think alot users like to feel they have the best brand even if they haven't the best version themselves.
It's why companies create flagship models.
They often don't expect to sell that many of them but it gives people something to aspire too and a confidence to stick with the brand as it shows what they are capable of. Canon need to remember this from time to time and not rest on their laurels. Other than the 1DX in recent years you don't feel they are making the best camera they could. The 5D IV made sure it wasn't too far behind anything else but Canon certainly didn't push the boat out. Still a fine camera but not a dream upgrade from a 5DIII.
The better Nikon and Sony cameras are the better Canon cameras will need to be to attract new users to the brand. This in the end is good for a user like me.
While people here feel DXO ratings are not valid they are at least a method to judge. It does influence buyers new to the market and its a great marketing tool for Nikon. So for me well done again Nikon.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 7, 2017)

Talys said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > There is no Nikon glass I would like for bird photography. I don't go for the 500/4 and 600/4 even for Canon as they are too heavy for me. The Nikom 200-500mm is too heavy, and several reports prefer the Tamron 150-600mm (it zooms in the same rotation as Nikon) and the 80-400mm is not a good lens. I do not know first hand but I have read that Nikon's don't have C1, C2 and C3 on the mode dial that store settings faithfully. Please correct me if I am wrong. I do want a Canon with the D850 specs.
> ...



The Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR is actually lighter than the Canon EF 600mm f/4 II; 3,810g vs 3,924g. You might have got the weight information from TDP, which has just the older Nikon 600mm f/4G AF-S VR and hasn't updated it.


----------



## Talys (Oct 7, 2017)

AlanF said:


> The Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR is actually lighter than the Canon EF 600mm f/4 II; 3,810g vs 3,924g. You might have got the weight information from TDP, which has just the older Nikon 600mm f/4G AF-S VR and hasn't updated it.



You're right -- I wasn't even aware that Nikon had refreshed their 600mm f/4. The last time I looked at reviews of Nikon 600mm f4's was around the time I switched (from Nikon) to Canon, a very long time ago, I guess, now that I think about it. I've only occasionally flirted with the idea of buying a $10,000 lens, so I don't exactly follow those.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 8, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> Other than the 1DX in recent years you don't feel they are making the best camera they could.



Why? The 5DsR was a better camera than the D810 (unless DR is the ultimate important thing in a camera). Canon will respond with the 5DsR II next year. 5Dm4 is a great walkarounder, but I guess Canon simply underestimated the competition this year, otherwise we would probably see a beefier camera. It's always a catch up game.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 8, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Why? The 5DsR was a better camera than the D810 (unless DR is the ultimate important thing in a camera). Canon will respond with the 5DsR II next year. 5Dm4 is a great walkarounder, but I guess Canon simply underestimated the competition this year, otherwise we would probably see a beefier camera. It's always a catch up game.



Sure, but tip your cap when your rivals actually raise the bar, though. The D810 sensor was arguably the best SLR sensor on the planet for a surprisingly long time, and now the D850 plausibly can go after 5DS customers *and* 5D4 customers. When you can push 45 x 9 data, you can honestly play to both fields with one product -- fast enough for the 5D4 crowd and detailed enough for the 5DS crowd.

Sony gets all the credit for these spec sheet phantoms that shouldn't exist, *do* exist, _yet we don't find that dream so compelling once we've tried it_. 

Nikon, on the other hand -- in light of recent product disappointments (CX, a high end P&S line they killed), poor sales and corporate restructuring -- is thought of this wounded giant on the decline. Yet the D500 and D850 are exactly the sort of spec sheet powerhouses we'd expect from Sony. Short of IBIS and something resembling DPAF, on paper those rigs have everything -- terrific sensors, huge throughput, solid AF, 4K, solid ergonomics and solid lenses. Critically, they get photography in a way I don't think Borg-like Sony does. 

So, yeah, the D850 would appear to be the 5D4 many were looking for.

But the chasm in enthusiasm for Nikon products vs. Sony products is telling. Am I to deduce that if everyone thinks Sony is Canon's biggest threat (and not Nikon), that's it's less about specs or sensors and more about FF mirrorless in general?

- A


----------



## dak723 (Oct 8, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> But the chasm in enthusiasm for Nikon products vs. Sony products is telling. Am I to deduce that if everyone thinks Sony is Canon's biggest threat (and not Nikon), that's it's less about specs or sensors and more about FF mirrorless in general?
> 
> - A



I think it is more about Sony's reputation for innovation and perceived greater tech. And I don't think it is real photographers that are on the Sony bandwagon, it is those more interested in tech - which seem to make up a large percentage of photo forum dwellers. Having used Olympus and Canon cameras for so long, I would never get a Nikon as it's zoom (and focus) dials go the "wrong" way, but otherwise I would never hesitate to get a Nikon. Sony...not so much. Tried it, didn't like it in any way.


----------



## snoke (Oct 8, 2017)

First two shipments D850 sold out in USA. Popular camera.

D850 tick many boxes - including price.

If Nikon mirrorless D850 but thin mount, buy with EF adapter. Killer combination.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 8, 2017)

snoke said:


> First two shipments D850 sold out in USA. Popular camera.
> 
> D850 tick many boxes - including price.
> 
> If Nikon mirrorless D850 but thin mount, buy with EF adapter. Killer combination.


D850 + EF mount = killer combination.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 8, 2017)

D850 + EF mount = 5DsR II 




AlanF said:


> D850 + EF mount = killer combination.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 8, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> D850 + EF mount = 5DsR II
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's hoping!


----------



## Jopa (Oct 8, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> D850 + EF mount = 5DsR II
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes that was the only (but very significant) downside of the d850 - it doesn't take EF lenses which render it useless. I hope too the 5dsr2 will fix this


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 8, 2017)

snoke said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > snoke said:
> ...



No, that part I get. The question is why you thought this was funny. Seems rather lame to me.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 8, 2017)

Jopa said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > D850 + EF mount = 5DsR II
> ...



Not the only downside, price is another one. I'm not saying it's not fairly priced, I'm just saying it's priced out of my budget, as well as not taking EF lenses.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 9, 2017)

there is another one that is not quite easy to fix:

skin tones coming out of Nikon bodies are quite different to Canon colours. Running and gunning with 2 cameras, one Canon and one Nikon side by side makes really uneasy to balance colours out in the end product. put photos in the same album and it feels mismatched... Your 5DsR produced colours are just perfect though. 
I am not saying that the difference is so dramatic that everyone sees this, but... It is noticeable to my eye...




Jopa said:


> Yes that was the only (but very significant) downside of the d850 - it doesn't take EF lenses which render it useless. I hope too the 5dsr2 will fix this


----------



## stevelee (Oct 9, 2017)

I'm surprised at how often when I open picture from one of my Canons in ACR that the "as shot" color balance looks just about right to me. I will often try the "auto" setting (and less often one of the others as seems appropriate) just to see what adjustments it suggests to me. And then I go back to "as shot" and maybe tweak a bit.

I don't know whether Canon just produces good color, or at least color to suit my tastes, or whether using Canons has trained me to see the world the way their cameras and lenses do.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 9, 2017)

you are correct, Sir!
Canon colour magic is superb. I personally could not care less about Nikon or Sony system no matter how "advanced" their tech is as each time I look at a Canon camera produced image I see exactly why I choose to shoot with Canon: colours.



stevelee said:


> I'm surprised at how often when I open picture from one of my Canons in ACR that the "as shot" color balance looks just about right to me. I will often try the "auto" setting (and less often one of the others as seems appropriate) just to see what adjustments it suggests to me. And then I go back to "as shot" and maybe tweak a bit.
> 
> I don't know whether Canon just produces good color, or at least color to suit my tastes, or whether using Canons have trained me to see the world the way their cameras and lenses do.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 9, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> there is another one that is not quite easy to fix:
> 
> skin tones coming out of Nikon bodies are quite different to Canon colours. Running and gunning with 2 cameras, one Canon and one Nikon side by side makes really uneasy to balance colours out in the end product. put photos in the same album and it feels mismatched... Your 5DsR produced colours are just perfect though.
> I am not saying that the difference is so dramatic that everyone sees this, but... It is noticeable to my eye...
> ...



Cannot agree more! I was shooting with Sony (A99/A7r/A7II/A7rII) since 2012 and the colors are really different. With Canon they are pretty much always spot on, except if I shoot in a bunch of grass / green surroundings. Still not as significant color cast compared to Sony, much easier to correct.


----------



## RGF (Oct 9, 2017)

AlanF said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > D850 + EF mount = 5DsR II
> ...



Probability is less than 0.00000000000001% (might add a few more zeros).

Would be great if Canon could come close to matching the sensor in the D850. Then again, the D850 may be Nikon's last hope to gain market share. Otherwise they company may be going out of business.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 9, 2017)

RGF said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > SecureGSM said:
> ...



You have misunderstood Securegsm: the 5DsR II may have the killer features of the D850, not that it would have an EF. I'll take you on given the probability of that being 0.00000000000001% - a 1 cent bet would return $100 trillion.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 9, 2017)

RGF,

Please enlighten me, apart from being higher resolution, how the D850 sensor is better than 5D IV sensor?
what criteria to look for?



RGF said:


> Would be great if Canon could come close to matching the sensor in the D850.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Oct 9, 2017)

RGF said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > SecureGSM said:
> ...



It's an odd one, Nikon make the best DSLR in the world (so some may say) but they struggle to survive, perhaps this is why DXO pity them  As for 5D4 close to the 850, my 5D4 don't seem half bad and my "low res" 1DX2 seems to kicks its arse at times.

Perhaps the answer is for Canon to buy out Nikon :


----------



## Admin US West (Oct 9, 2017)

I've removed posts referring to Na**'s, sorry if I missed any.

They are never funny, but since its a rare occurrence, I've issues warnings rather than a ban.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 9, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> RGF,
> 
> Please enlighten me, apart from being higher resolution, how the D850 sensor is better than 5D IV sensor?
> what criteria to look for?
> ...



If DXO data is accepted:


The D850 has more dynamic range (at base ISO) and greater color depth. The differences, in fairness, are not very large. For instance, 1.2 stops of base ISO DR will not let you leave the ND grads at home / abandon the practice of compositing multiple shots for tripod landscape work. Further, the gap between Canon and Nikon has been dramatically reduced here -- the D800/D800E/D810 models were a wowzer-like 2.5-3 stops better than the 5D3 on this front.


Though the D850's high ISO score isn't quite up to the 5D4's, it's not far off. I haven't seen a 45 MP file downsampled to the 30 MP of the 5D4 for comparison yet -- it's possible at downsampled D850 file might be cleaner than a 5D4 file.

So it's a little better depending on how you look at it:

Detail: Considerably better
Base ISO DR: Slightly better
General DR away from Base ISO: Similar
High ISO noise: Slightly worse (45 MP) to perhaps equivalent (30 MP downsample)

But there's nothing in the sensor data that I've seen thus far that the D850 will be _an overall better camera in real world use_. The D850 sensor captures more detail and conditionally outperforms the 5D4 in a few areas, but that drives right past AF, handling, LiveView/video use (where DPAF is a nontrivial consideration), etc. 

As I said before, the D850 (like the D500 before it) is a spec sheet juggernaut, but it needs to work well in real use and reviews are needed to get into that. That said, I have much more faith in Nikon than Sony to deliver the potential of that spec sheet.

- A


----------



## Talys (Oct 9, 2017)

arthurbikemad said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Canon is better at market research and pricing products. I will freely admit that when I went from Nikon to Canon, it wasn't because Canon had the best $5,000 camera. At the time, I was looking for a sub $1,000 body option, and Canon had not only had better options in that price range, but also visibly nicer colors. Plus, I really wanted the EFS17-55/2.8, which ended up putting me over budget anyways. But just like the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 100-400 II, these have been lenses that have made it so that I wouldn't consider switching away from Canon; when I bought them, and for a long time afterwards, they have just the best pieces of glass I've ever used, and they were priced at a level which was expensive, but acceptable for me at the time of purchase.

Who made the best camera that I couldn't afford and couldn't foresee buying did not impact my buying decision at all -- I didn't even investigate who had the best sensor.


----------



## snoke (Oct 9, 2017)

CR Backup Admin said:


> I've removed posts referring to Na**'s, sorry if I missed any.
> 
> They are never funny, but since its a rare occurrence, I've issues warnings rather than a ban.



Apologize for very bad joke in very poor taste.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 10, 2017)

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Nikon%20D850

bit less than 1.2 stops of DR difference at the base ISO. more like a 0.8 of a stop and only at ISO 65 

High ISO performance of 5D IV is noticeably better though.
In addition, DPAF performance of the Canon in comparison to Nikon is simply "off the chart" 
Aha!

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV	Maximum PDR: 10.83 EV	Low Light ISO: 5011	Low Light EV: 10.65
Nikon D850 Maximum PDR : 11.63 Low Light ISO: 4115 Low Light EV: 10.36


if


ahsanford said:


> If DXO data is accepted:
> 
> 
> The D850 has more dynamic range (at base ISO) and greater color depth. The differences, in fairness, are not very large. For instance, 1.2 stops of base ISO DR will not let you leave the ND grads at home / abandon the practice of compositing multiple shots for tripod landscape work. Further, the gap between Canon and Nikon has been dramatically reduced here -- the D800/D800E/D810 models were a wowzer-like 2.5-3 stops better than the 5D3 on this front.
> ...


----------



## Jopa (Oct 10, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Nikon%20D850
> 
> bit less than 1.2 stops of DR difference at the base ISO. more like a 0.8 of a stop and only at ISO 65
> 
> ...



Dude, those 0.8 is what makes your images stand out, it's a winning ticket to Pulitzer and every single photo contest, don't you know?  All images taken with the cameras having less DR are shame of photography, and must be consigned to oblivion. I'm pretty sure DpR would approve this message.


----------

