# DXOMark tests the Canon EOS R image sensor, scores it at 89



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 20, 2019)

> DXOMark has released their review of the Canon EOS R image sensor. I’ve never really put much stock in the testing at DXOMark, but there are a lot of people that do. The EOS R, which has a nearly identical image sensor, but different DIGIC version (DIGIC 8 vs DIGIC 6+) to the EOS 5D Mark IV actually scored 2 points lower at 89. The EOS 5D Mark IV scored a 91.
> *From DXOMark:*
> Although we’ve not directly compared the two Canon 30MP full-frame CMOS sensors side-by-side in this review, it’s not surprising that the results for the EOS R are very close to that of the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV. Both appear to use a similar sensor, with some of the differences likely attributable to the increased number of AF points available in the EOS R.
> While not possessing the low noise levels of the Nikon Z 6 and...



Continue reading...


----------



## Karlbug (Mar 20, 2019)

DPReview: "EOS R scores only 89 points in DXOMark, Canon fires 60 employees in response"


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 20, 2019)

angrykarl said:


> DPReview tomorrow: "EOS R scores only 89 point in DXOMark, Canon fires 60 employees in response"



I nearly spit my coffee out.


----------



## SeanS (Mar 20, 2019)

angrykarl said:


> DPReview tomorrow: "EOS R scores only 89 point in DXOMark, Canon fires 60 employees in response"


Yeah, that was good.


----------



## Click (Mar 20, 2019)

angrykarl said:


> DPReview tomorrow: "EOS R scores only 89 point in DXOMark, Canon fires 60 employees in response"



LOL


----------



## LSXPhotog (Mar 20, 2019)

I thought DXO was a cell phone testing company now! haha These are the first camera sensor they've tested since June of 2018.

Personally, I have enjoyed the EOS R immensely.


----------



## digitalride (Mar 20, 2019)

The sony sensor has a much better "Sports ( low-light ISO)" score, not because it is noticeably better at low-light ISO, but because you can push shadows better at ISO 100-800 ?!?! So the Sports (low-ligh ISO) test is essentially "Landscape (dynamic range)" part 2:

"Sports (low-light ISO) ...
The difference in signal-to-noise ratios is more noticeable at low ISOs, though, and the values are so close at higher ISOs that it’s unlikely you’d be able to distinguish among them, at least for out-of-camera JPEGs. However, in testing for our low-light ISO score (see here for the protocol), both the Nikon Z 6 and Sony A7 III still have a noise advantage of 0.25 EV and 0.44 EV, respectively, which could prove beneficial when adjusting exposure levels post-capture."


----------



## Fran Decatta (Mar 20, 2019)

angrykarl said:


> DPReview: "EOS R scores only 89 points in DXOMark, Canon fires 60 employees in response"



HAHAHAHAHA nice one!!

Anyways, I'm enjoying the eos R since a couple a weeks and, after work since 2015 with 5Dmk3/6D/6Dmk2, this is a pure joy of sensor 

May be lacks behind the competitors in a few things, but it's a wonderful camera. Normally dont need to push to 3 EV or more and, in this case, the eos R works well, up to pro standards, at least for me.

EDIT: By the way, I purchase the eos R + 35 RF after sell my sigma 35 1.4 ART. I regret nothing. May be you lose some bokeh, but IQ, weight, size, close (and funny) focus distance, IS and control ring count a lot more over 2/3 stops of light. It have no problems to focus in lowlight.


----------



## HikeBike (Mar 20, 2019)

I'm no pro, but I do love my R. Wish it had IBIS...but I love it regardless.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 20, 2019)

Never held much stock in DXOMark testing and I will qualify that by saying I work for a major cinematography rental company where we test cameras & lenses in far more depth than DXOMark. We test cameras, lenses and then the two in combination unlike DXOMark. 
Im not for a minute assuming that the Nikon or Sony don't have better sensors (the Nikon housing a Sony sensor) but I would struggle to believe the EOS R would be inferior to the 5D MKIV given the next gen processor etc.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Mar 20, 2019)

jeffa4444 said:


> Never held much stock in DXOMark testing and I will qualify that by saying I work for a major cinematography rental company where we test cameras & lenses in far more depth than DXOMark. We test cameras, lenses and then the two in combination unlike DXOMark.
> Im not for a minute assuming that the Nikon or Sony don't have better sensors (the Nikon housing a Sony sensor) but I would struggle to believe the EOS R would be inferior to the 5D MKIV given the next gen processor etc.



I always take DXO results with a grain of salt but i imagine the R sensor to have a bit more noise because of the always-on sensor which runs hotter, compared to the 5D4. But this is only my guess.


----------



## melgross (Mar 20, 2019)

Commercially, there’s no real difference between the Canon, Nikon and Sony sensors. When pixel peeping, differences can be found, at times. But when printing on a pro level inkjet, not so much. With 4 color half tones, it would be very unusual to see any differences at all. These processes just can’t hold those dark tones. You lose a good 2 stops with 4 color. No matter how you process the file, it’s lost.

This is where the difference between theory and practice comes into play. In my lab, I would run hundreds of tests over time. I’d send out for Match prints. The ink spill just didn’t allow those dark details to show. In addition, there’s the problem with double absorption. That is, the light gets absorbed going into the print, and again coming out. Hold a print up to the light, and you’ll see detail in dark areas you can’t see by reflected light. There nothing that can be done about that.

So while your camera can have a max density of 3.5, maybe higher, the print can’t go beyond 2.5, or so, on a good day! Matte may be just 2.0.

So while I’d like to see another stop of density range for the reason that was already brought up - bringing up vignetting and shadows, since I rarely need that, it’s not the biggest issue.

It’s also why pros continue to favor Canon over Nikon and, particularly, Sony. There are too many other advantages in lenses in the Canon system, and service, to care about a bit more shadow detail, or higher resolution, particularly as resolution is almost immediately dropped to under 20MP for actual editing and publishing.


----------



## aceflibble (Mar 20, 2019)

jeffa4444 said:


> and then the two in combination unlike DXOMark.


That's literally how they test the lenses: on the bodies. I don't know how you think they test lenses otherwise.



> I would struggle to believe the EOS R would be inferior to the 5D MKIV given the next gen processor etc.


The R's processor is having to do a lot more than the 5D4 is and the battery isn't able to supply as much juice to the processor to begin with. That's one of the few areas where SLRs are still well ahead of mirrorless and will continue to be so for the next couple of generations. There's less demand on the processor and battery in an SLR so you can beef up the power going to the AF drive, clock up the processor, etc. The larger SLR bodies also typically feature bigger heatsinks, which further help how much the processor and battery can push out. On a mirrorless body the processor never gets a rest, heatsinks are typically smaller, and the battery is being drained constantly.

So it's not only unsurprising but completely _normal_ that the same—or even fractionally newer—tech in a mirrorless body would perform a little worse than the SLR equivalent.

Also bear in mind that the DIGIC 8 is _not_ outright better than the DIGIC 6+ found in the 5D4. As a general rule the '+' DIGIC processors are the equivalent of 'two and a half' generations ahead of the plain-numbered ones. Don't forget that the 5D4 has a second DIGIC 6 processor, too, to help share the load.
Note the 1DX2 uses two DIGIC 6+ processors and can do 4K60 with a 1.3x crop, while the 5D4 with a single DIGIC 6+ and one DIGIC 6 does 4K30 with a 1.74x crop and the R—with a single DIGIC 8—does 4K30 with a fractionally tighter 1.75x crop. Hence why the 1DX2 likely isn't going to be replaced until the DIGIC 8+ is ready; the DIGIC 8 isn't quite enough to replace the DIGIC 6+ yet.
It's a similar difference to regular PC CPUs, where something like a brand new 8th generation i3-8300 is worse than a discontinued 6th generation i7-6700K. Just because a processor is newer does not mean it's better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 20, 2019)

digitalride said:


> The sony sensor has a much better "Sports ( low-light ISO)" score, not because it is noticeably better at low-light ISO, but because you can push shadows better at ISO 100-800 ?!?! So the Sports (low-ligh ISO) test is essentially "Landscape (dynamic range)" part 2:
> 
> "Sports (low-light ISO) ...
> The difference in signal-to-noise ratios is more noticeable at low ISOs, though, and the values are so close at higher ISOs that it’s unlikely you’d be able to distinguish among them, at least for out-of-camera JPEGs. However, in testing for our low-light ISO score (see here for the protocol), both the Nikon Z 6 and Sony A7 III still have a noise advantage of 0.25 EV and 0.44 EV, respectively, which could prove beneficial when adjusting exposure levels post-capture."


LOL @ DxOMark. DxO Scores = BS, which at best is an abbreviation for Biased Scores, but Bovine Scat is closer to the truth.

Still, the silver lining here for me is that this means they’re close to EOS R support for DxO PhotoLab, which is my RAW converter of choice. I actually went to RAW+JPG for my first outing with the EOS R, since DxO support for .CR3 isn’t slated until April.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 20, 2019)

aceflibble said:


> That's literally how they test the lenses: on the bodies. I don't know how you think they test lenses otherwise.


Indeed, and that’s why Sony lenses score higher than Canon lenses - because DxO seems to think DR is an important characteristic of lens testing.


----------



## bryston (Mar 20, 2019)

Fran Decatta said:


> HAHAHAHAHA nice one!!
> 
> Anyways, I'm enjoying the eos R since a couple a weeks and, after work since 2015 with 5Dmk3/6D/6Dmk2, this is a pure joy of sensor
> 
> ...


I recently purchased the RP and 35RF and find the combo fantastic for street and close up photography.


----------



## JuanMa (Mar 20, 2019)

angrykarl said:


> DPReview: "EOS R scores only 89 points in DXOMark, Canon fires 60 employees in response"


And replaced them by 59 engineers taken from Nikon and another one from DXO...


----------



## AlanF (Mar 20, 2019)

There's life in the old 5DIV yet.


----------



## Ale_F (Mar 20, 2019)

I think DxO is useful for Within brand comparison and for Cameraphone


----------



## LSXPhotog (Mar 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Indeed, and that’s why Sony lenses score higher than Canon lenses - because DxO seems to think DR is an important characteristic of lens testing.


When I found this out I immediately wrote them off entirely.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Mar 20, 2019)

LSXPhotog said:


> When I found this out I immediately wrote them off entirely.


Same thing for me when I looked closer how they measure resolution. They invented some 'perceptual megapixels' but didn't disclose the exact measurement methods. That rings a queen of all bells. DxO measurements cannot be verified and reproduced so you can call them unscientific.


----------



## BrightTiger (Mar 20, 2019)

Join us next week when DXO publishes the scores for the Polaroid 600.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 20, 2019)

I think anybody with half a brain can reasonably discount DXO's conclusions, anybody who has spent time here knows I am no fan of theirs or their obvious bias. But where they are useful and generally accurate (with some glaring mistakes accepted in the normal magnanimous French way /end sarcasm) is if you look at specific comparisons, Compare the R to the 5D MkIV in real life and you'll see the newer camera is not quite as able in the shadows at lowest iso's. How useful and how often that minuscule difference is is entirely moot. However their findings align with other sites like Photonstophots http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 5D Mark IV,Canon EOS R

The truth is the R is not as capable at lowest ISO's, by a very small margin, as the 5D MkIV. Same with the 6D MkII and 6D. 


Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting


----------



## digitalride (Mar 20, 2019)

I made an earlier comment about shadow pushing being a component of the "Sports low-light ISO" score that wasn't quite accurate, after some further reading it seems that the "Sports low-light ISO" should actually be called:

Low light color depth OR low light dynamic range OR noise, whichever degrades past our threshold first.

The way this data is presented with the SNR 18% chart shown under the "Sports" section one might think at first glance the sports score is determined by noise, that's the way I always understood it ( incorrectly ). But " We have therefore defined low-light ISO as the highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve a SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits. "

In the case of the Canon R it seems the low-light ISO score is actually determined by the color depth score even though they talk about shadow pushing being the distinguishing factor in their analysis.

Here's my serious question: Has anyone ever noticed "wow the colors at ISO 3200 just look drab on X camera vs Y camera? "


----------



## AlanF (Mar 20, 2019)

In a totally unscientific way, they don’t give error bars on their measurements and so the minuscule differences between the 5DIV and the EOS R are meaningless.


----------



## krisbell (Mar 20, 2019)

I'm one of the rare few in this crowd that consider DXO scores to be very informative. Having owned many different Canon bodies and the current owner of a 70D, 5D3, A7r and a7r3 I think the broad scores provided by DXO are very accurate to my own experiences. I have found many quirks in the operation and useability of the Sonys that isnt published anywhere online and which makes the playing field much more level in reality than the scores suggest. However, simply in terms of IQ, the Sonys are well beyond the Canons in very much the levels and areas given by the DXO figures.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 20, 2019)

I trust all ratings from an organization that scores the 50F1.8 higher than the 600F4 II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 20, 2019)

AlanF said:


> In a totally unscientific way, they don’t give error bars on their measurements and so the minuscule differences between the 5DIV and the EOS R are meaningless.


Wait, you're suggesting that things should be measured more than once? Seems like a waste of effort to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 20, 2019)

aceflibble said:


> That's literally how they test the lenses: on the bodies. I don't know how you think they test lenses otherwise.


Incidentally, there's a perfectly good way to test a lens' performance that doesn't require a camera body. It's called an optical bench, and it's what is used to test lenses by LensRentals, Zeiss, and anyone else who wants to empirically determine a lens' MTF and a variety of other performance metrics. 









Introducing the Optical Bench


Note: This is a Geek article. If you aren't into geeky stuff, you won't be into this. "We take a step back so that we may leap further." African proverb I wrote a post a couple of weeks ago about our first copies of the Sigma 50mm Art lens, and promised to follow up when [...]



www.lensrentals.com












Is Your Camera Really The Best Optical Test?


"But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Genesis 2:17. I have enjoyed, for some years now, the process of learning about lenses and optics. This blog shares a lot of what I'm in the process of learning. A lot [...]



www.lensrentals.com


----------



## tmc784 (Mar 21, 2019)

DXOMark ? LOL..........


----------



## Jethro (Mar 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Still, the silver lining here for me is that this means they’re close to EOS R support for DxO PhotoLab, which is my RAW converter of choice. I actually went to RAW+JPG for my first outing with the EOS R, since DxO support for .CR3 isn’t slated until April.


EOS R is supported in the latest (as of a week or so ago) update to PhotoLab - it works fine now.


----------



## digitalride (Mar 21, 2019)

krisbell said:


> I'm one of the rare few in this crowd that consider DXO scores to be very informative. Having owned many different Canon bodies and the current owner of a 70D, 5D3, A7r and a7r3 I think the broad scores provided by DXO are very accurate to my own experiences
> ...
> simply in terms of IQ, the Sonys are well beyond the Canons in very much the levels and areas given by the DXO figures.



Sorry for the following barrage of questions, my intentions aren't hostile, given your experience I'm hoping you can give some real world feedback.

Do you notice the color depth difference between the A7R and the 5D iii in a blind test? ( you should be able to if the dxo mark score is useful, color depth seems weighted heavily in their tests)

Do you notice a high iso noise difference between the A7R and the 5D iii in a blind test ? ( A7r wins 2746 to. 2293 low-light scores, but they have virtually the same SNR measurements so you they should look the same in terms of noise)

The overall sensor score is 95 to 81 for the A7R over the 5D iii, would you say that is good indication of how much better the A7R is over the 5D iii in terms of image quality? Do you immediately pick out shots from the 5D iii and say "I wish I would have shot that with the A7R" ?

The R scored 2742 on the high iso test while the a7 iii scored 3730. At first glance based on those scores you'd assume the sony high iso performance trounces the canon. But then in their own writeup they state:
" the values are so close at higher ISOs that it’s unlikely you’d be able to distinguish among them"

I'm legitimately wondering how these scores translate to the real world.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 21, 2019)

Jethro said:


> EOS R is supported in the latest (as of a week or so ago) update to PhotoLab - it works fine now.


Thanks! I checked a couple of months ago, and their website said April.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 21, 2019)

digitalride said:


> I'm legitimately wondering how these scores translate to the real world.


Somewhere they state (or used to state) that a difference of 5 points was essentially meaningless. 

How applicable their scores to the real world depends on your world. That applies to their sensor scores, but it’s easiest to see with their lens scores. Their lens score tests are all done in 150 lux illumination with a shutter speed fixed at 1/60 s. So if your world is a dimly lit warehouse, the scores are useful. That explains why, even though the 600/4 II outperforms the 50/1.8 on every optical measurement, the 50/1.8 gets a higher score...if I was going to shoot portraits in dim warehouse lighting, I’d pick the 50/1.8, too.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 21, 2019)

DxO's dynamic range scores appear to be internally consistent. I don't think they perfectly match classic transmission step wedge tests, but they do give you a good idea of how cameras relate. That said, I think DR is way overhyped. Most people truly do not maximize the cameras they have, or understand what a stop difference means in practical use. Hearing it discussed over and over again is exhausting. Even the YouTube e-celebs who originally championed it, back when it was the 5D3 with banding vs. the D800, have started to say the differences don't matter now.

DxO's sports score is next to useless for the reasons digitalride pointed out.

The portrait or color depth score is absolutely worthless, as is the overall sensor score which ignores one of the most important aspects of IQ: resolution.

Their lens scores are observably wrong and are reported using pseudo-scientific terminology. (Megapixels is a statement of sensor sampling frequency, not resolved detail. "Perceptual megapixels" makes no sense and has no perfect reference point for any given MP rating.)

tl;dr - I ignore pretty much everything DxO claims.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 21, 2019)

Side note: even Tony Northrup has begun to question DxO. He just did a video where he points out some of the issues.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 21, 2019)

Here is something really interesting regarding DXO scores:


----------



## Viggo (Mar 21, 2019)

“Very close to 1dx 2 noise levels” yeah, no, not really and that’s perhaps the only thing I miss a bit with the R, a bit cleaner high iso. I don’t get why people want more mp’s all the time, for a slight increase in perceived resolution it’s a very visible degradation in IQ at slightly high iso...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 21, 2019)

When I got my R, I put it on my light table, and compared a series of photos using the same lens shot from the same place under as identical conditions as possible. That meant using a EF lens on the R, so the lenses would be the same.

I saw a very slightly poorer quality image from the R, but it was very slight and impossible to determine if it was due to Lightroom, or the sensor. For all practical purposes, they were identical. I'm not certain if I kept the images.


----------



## krisbell (Mar 21, 2019)

digitalride said:


> Sorry for the following barrage of questions, my intentions aren't hostile, given your experience I'm hoping you can give some real world feedback.
> 
> Do you notice the color depth difference between the A7R and the 5D iii in a blind test? ( you should be able to if the dxo mark score is useful, color depth seems weighted heavily in their tests)
> 
> ...



No worries, I'll try my best to answer them.

Color depth is a tough one for me for two reasons. Firstly I dont feel I shoot massive areas of similar colour sufficiently often in real world scenarios to have a full appreciation for the limitations of either system in this area (my photos tend to be fairly 'busy') and secondly because I dont have a clue what color depth actually refers to (reading up about it doesnt help either!). I will say I have encountered serious banding at base ISO with my Canon 5D3 (and even made a post about it many years ago) but have not had the same issue with the a7r but then maybe because my post processing workflow improved. In short I cant make a solid statement about color depth.

High ISO noise I would say is similar between the two systems but a7r wins out when downsized to 5D3 sizes. Having owned a 50D, 5D3, 7D and 70D I would say the ISO score DXO gives has been consistent in reflecting my own maximum tolerance ISO levels for each of those cameras. I'm also not sure if this is the right place to mention it but the processing latitude the a7r gave over the 5d3 was in a different league. The slightest adjustment to shadows in the 5d3, even at low ISOs, would introduce pretty horrible, patterned banding. The amount I could manipulate the a7r files was/is miles ahead.

I would say 95 to 81 is an accurate indication from my experience. The images are just so much crisper and more detailed from the a7r (of course the higher resolution has an impact on this). For every shot I have ever taken I wish I had taken it with the highest resolution medium format camera in existence so I'm not quite sure how to answer the second part of that question. Yes I wish I had taken every shot on the 5D3 on my a7r because the quality is better and the resolution higher, but as I mentioned in my post the a7r has usability quirks which the 5D3 doesnt have, plus at the time i was heavily invested in Canon lenses (and still am) so this also meant for anything other than landscapes I had to use my Canon as the a7r simply wouldnt have coped.

I cant comment on the R as I've never seen it nor taken photos with it. I would add that what I write above is purely based on a simple image quality comparison and doesnt go into the real world useability of the Sonys versus the Canons, for which the a7r was extremely limited (laggy, terrible battery etc). The a7r3 is massively improved and suitable for any type of photography but still has operational quirks (turning itself off at high temps, write lags, poor interface) that I've never had to deal with in Canon.

Hope this makes some sense of my position.


----------



## COBRASoft (Mar 21, 2019)

My brother owns a Nikon D800 with AA filter removed. I have a 5DIII with AA filter removed... If we take the same shot, with Nikkor and Canon glass (e.g. both latest 24-70 2.8). The 'quality' difference is very minimal. Once large printed, the extra MP of the Nikon show, but only minimal due to the extreme good glass quality of Canon.
We both agree that sensors, glass, bodies, menu system, ... make a system work for you or not.

When he saw the sharpness and quality of my 11-24, his jaw dropped to the floor.
When I saw the performance of D500 with 200-500 compared to my 7DII with 100-400 II, I almost started to cry, hehe.

Every system has pro's and con's. but all systems can take magnificent shots nowadays. Postprocessing is important and can really boost your image if done right.
Just my 2 cents.

And for DxO... their PhotoLab software is superb. Their scores... Don't care.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Mar 21, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Same thing for me when I looked closer how they measure resolution. They invented some 'perceptual megapixels' but didn't disclose the exact measurement methods. That rings a queen of all bells. DxO measurements cannot be verified and reproduced so you can call them unscientific.




Oh, and even better, if a sharper lens can stop down to f/32 and a softer lens only stops down to f/16, the softer lens can get a higher sharpness score because the lens that can go to f/32 suffers from more diffraction.....how bonkers is that mentality?! LOL


----------



## AlanF (Mar 21, 2019)

COBRASoft said:


> My brother owns a Nikon D800 with AA filter removed. I have a 5DIII with AA filter removed... If we take the same shot, with Nikkor and Canon glass (e.g. both latest 24-70 2.8). The 'quality' difference is very minimal. Once large printed, the extra MP of the Nikon show, but only minimal due to the extreme good glass quality of Canon.
> We both agree that sensors, glass, bodies, menu system, ... make a system work for you or not.
> 
> When he saw the sharpness and quality of my 11-24, his jaw dropped to the floor.
> ...


That's due to the sensor of the D500 not having an AA-filter and the 7DII a strong one. The 100-400mm II is a league above the Nikkor 200-500mm - see https://www.lenstip.com/544.4-Lens_...200–500_mm_f_5.6E_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html for a typical series of measurements on the Nikkor. You would cry if you saw the difference of the 100-400mm II on a 5DSR compared with your 7DII.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 21, 2019)

Viggo said:


> “Very close to 1dx 2 noise levels” yeah, no, not really and that’s perhaps the only thing I miss a bit with the R, a bit cleaner high iso. I don’t get why people want more mp’s all the time, for a slight increase in perceived resolution it’s a very visible degradation in IQ at slightly high iso...



Pixel peeping is the bane of the modern world of photography...

At the _same view size_ the R does have very similar noise levels to the 1DX II. If you sharpen the 1DX II to match the R then it will be the same or even worse on noise. And if you NR the R to match the 1DX II on noise it will probably be about as sharp (i.e. a bit softer than it was ooc).

At this point in time higher MPs do not observably degrade high ISO IQ. Quite the opposite. In Canon, Nikon, or Sony I would rather shoot high ISO with their high resolution bodies (5Ds, D850, A7r3) than their lower resolution bodies. Sharper, more detail, with more room to maneuver in post.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> That's due to the sensor of the D500 not having an AA-filter and the 7DII a strong one. The 100-400mm II is a league above the Nikkor 200-500mm - see https://www.lenstip.com/544.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_200–500_mm_f_5.6E_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html for a typical series of measurements on the Nikkor. You would cry if you saw the difference of the 100-400mm II on a 5DSR compared with your 7DII.



I'm a fan of the relatively weak AA filter on the 5Ds. I don't know why some of Canon's other AA filters are so strong. I can concur that the 100-400 II on Canon's 50mp sensors is simply awesome. It is sharp wide open across its focal length range.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 21, 2019)

Viggo said:


> “Very close to 1dx 2 noise levels” yeah, no, not really and that’s perhaps the only thing I miss a bit with the R, a bit cleaner high iso. I don’t get why people want more mp’s all the time, for a slight increase in perceived resolution it’s a very visible degradation in IQ at slightly high iso...


I have to agree. I have no real world issues with the IQ from the R-sensor, but I can say that it isn’t at 1DXII standards (which I used to own) when it comes to ISO. I haven’t done any side by side comparisons with my 5DIV, but my impression is that the 5DIV has an advantage over the R when it comes to higher ISOs.

Edit: Admittedly, I haven’t downsized R photos to 1DXII size, and I haven’t done side by side comparisons. I speak from my overall impression and experience with the two cameras.


----------



## COBRASoft (Mar 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> That's due to the sensor of the D500 not having an AA-filter and the 7DII a strong one. The 100-400mm II is a league above the Nikkor 200-500mm - see https://www.lenstip.com/544.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_200–500_mm_f_5.6E_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html for a typical series of measurements on the Nikkor. You would cry if you saw the difference of the 100-400mm II on a 5DSR compared with your 7DII.


Very interesting and good to know! Thanks!


----------



## AlanF (Mar 21, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> I'm a fan of the relatively weak AA filter on the 5Ds. I don't know why some of Canon's other AA filters are so strong. I can concur that the 100-400 II on Canon's 50mp sensors is simply awesome. It is sharp wide open across its focal length range.


I met a guy in a bird hide yesterday, with a new 5DSR on a 400/2.8, and a 1DXII in his bag. He had just tried out a 5DSR and a 7DII and rejected the 7DII because it was much softer. I sold my 7DII for the same reason. You can get great images from a 7DII, of course (and I think I did), but the 5DSR gets the same quality about 20% further away or 20% better resolution at the same distance.

The Polish mother site of lenstip measures the resolution of many bodies, https://www.optyczne.pl/293.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_7D_Mark_II_Rozdzielczość.html and https://www.optyczne.pl/312.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5Ds__R_Rozdzielczość.html have the data for the 7DII and 5DSR and you can see how much better the 5DSR is. (Open in the Chrome browser and it will translate to English).


----------



## Jethro (Mar 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks! I checked a couple of months ago, and their website said April.


Yep, they told me that late last year too - but it quietly came in. I suspect there was a lot of interest in it. I was a bit lost without access to DxO - the high ISO noise reduction capability is remarkable.


----------



## melgross (Mar 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Incidentally, there's a perfectly good way to test a lens' performance that doesn't require a camera body. It's called an optical bench, and it's what is used to test lenses by LensRentals, Zeiss, and anyone else who wants to empirically determine a lens' MTF and a variety of other performance metrics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly. I was going to post on this too.

Testing lenses on a body is a very inferior way to test them, because you aren’t really testing the lens. You’re testing the system. The system consists of many factors. The sensor alone consisted of several factors. The amplifier is another major factor. The processor is another. Are there any automatic compensations going on that the manufacturer isn’t talking about (yes, there are)?

All of this changes slightly over the life of the camera, and now with lens firmware upgrades, the lens as well.

How are they checking focus? What about flare? We know that moving a light just a fraction of a degree can change flare, and glare dramatically.

There’s just so much to this without the added burden of mounting it into the system, that taking that step makes a real test almost impossible.

I think that when they do tests, a difference of 10 points likely means something. I don’t know exactly what though. Anything less than 5 points is nothing more than normal variation in the testing process, and in the QC of the maker. In other words, meaningless.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Mar 22, 2019)

I met a gentleman photographing Kirkjufell in Iceland with the EOS R and the 24-105 RF lens. I couldn't help but to ask him what he thought of it. He called it.. I believe princess, because everything was so beautiful. haha! I really really dislike the touch bar but hey, things besides that seem to be hitting the nail, at least for that gentleman.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 22, 2019)

melgross said:


> Exactly. I was going to post on this too.
> 
> Testing lenses on a body is a very inferior way to test them, because you aren’t really testing the lens. You’re testing the system. The system consists of many factors. The sensor alone consisted of several factors. The amplifier is another major factor. The processor is another. Are there any automatic compensations going on that the manufacturer isn’t talking about (yes, there are)?
> 
> ...


All true, but it is important to keep in mind that at the end of the day, it is the system that takes pictures, not a bare lens. From that perspective, there is value in reporting results from camera + lens combinations. 

Having said that, part of DxO’s implied logic was that it didn’t really matter if the Canon 24-70/2.8 was better as a bare lens than the Nikon counterpart since each lens could only be used on the same brand of camera body. Thus, the higher-scoring sensor of the D850 makes the Nikon combo ‘better’. But mirror less cameras kick that argument to the curb, since in that case you can use a Canon lens on a Nikon MILC or vice versa, or either brand of lens on a Sony MILC. That means the highest possible scores (without getting into whether or not that really means “better“) should be obtained by combining the highest scoring mirrorless sensors with the lenses having the best optical measurements (not scores). Except that DxO only tests within-brand combinations.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 22, 2019)

You are right that testing lens-body combinations is important as well. Opticallimits now tests on both a 50mpx 5DSR and a 21mpx sensor through an aperture range, and the results are illuminating.


----------



## mariosk1gr (Mar 22, 2019)

These people are really hilarious! Since long time ago i saw 50mm comparison of 3 canon lenses. I was laughing all day. Guess what the canon 50 1.8 was sharper than 1.4 and 1.2 L version! I have used hundreds of times these lenses and I own both 1.8 and 1.4 version. First 1.4 is way sharper than 1.8 in both open and middle aperture settings. Second everytime I rent the 50 1.2 I was extremely blown up how much sharper was in comparison from the other two. Third in their tests they don't talk about color about bokeh quality, how the lens renders a scene and how much an image that comes out of these lenses is popped or you can call it in "3d space" or flat! Ofc their methology is in favor of some specific brands..!
I wonder what scores the RF line will take from this funny company...


----------



## justaCanonuser (Mar 22, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I always take DXO results with a grain of salt but i imagine the R sensor to have a bit more noise because of the always-on sensor which runs hotter, compared to the 5D4. But this is only my guess.


Good point, this may really make measurable effect that DXO guys did not notice. Let's call it the Mirrorless Heat-Gate


----------



## AlanF (Mar 22, 2019)

mariosk1gr said:


> These people are really hilarious! Since long time ago i saw 50mm comparison of 3 canon lenses. I was laughing all day. Guess what the canon 50 1.8 was sharper than 1.4 and 1.2 L version! I have used hundreds of times these lenses and I own both 1.8 and 1.4 version. First 1.4 is way sharper than 1.8 in both open and middle aperture settings. Second everytime I rent the 50 1.2 I was extremely blown up how much sharper was in comparison from the other two. Third in their tests they don't talk about color about bokeh quality, how the lens renders a scene and how much an image that comes out of these lenses is popped or you can call it in "3d space" or flat! Ofc their methology is in favor of some specific brands..!
> I wonder what scores the RF line will take from this funny company...


Opticallimits.com (aka photozone.de), a reliable and unbiased site, have the 50mm f1.4 and f1.8 neck and neck in their measurements. Copy variation?


----------



## Viggo (Mar 22, 2019)

Shooting wide open the f1.2 L is horrible, I wouldn’t at all be surprised if the new f1.8 stm is sharper wide open, although a full stop slower.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 22, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Shooting wide open the f1.2 L is horrible, I wouldn’t at all be surprised if the new f1.8 stm is sharper wide open, although a full stop slower.



Apologies for turning on pedantic mode, but 1.2 to 1.8 is more than a full stop. Not a lot, but it's like 1.2 stops.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 22, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Apologies for turning on pedantic mode, but 1.2 to 1.8 is more than a full stop. Not a lot, but it's like 1.2 stops.


No, it’s exactly one full stop.


----------



## padam (Mar 22, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I met a guy in a bird hide yesterday, with a new 5DSR on a 400/2.8, and a 1DXII in his bag. He had just tried out a 5DSR and a 7DII and rejected the 7DII because it was much softer. I sold my 7DII for the same reason. You can get great images from a 7DII, of course (and I think I did), but the 5DSR gets the same quality about 20% further away or 20% better resolution at the same distance.
> 
> The Polish mother site of lenstip measures the resolution of many bodies, https://www.optyczne.pl/293.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_7D_Mark_II_Rozdzielczość.html and https://www.optyczne.pl/312.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5Ds__R_Rozdzielczość.html have the data for the 7DII and 5DSR and you can see how much better the 5DSR is. (Open in the Chrome browser and it will translate to English).


It's kind of interesting that while the quality is probably better, in real-world where the speed (buffer) and AF (even cost) matters, it might not be worth it for everybody (I guess it also matters if we are talking about small birds or bigger ones).






He also said the same about the 7DII vs 5DIV and 1DXII cropped at high ISO(yes the latter is the best one, but it is not that noticeable in his view)


----------



## melgross (Mar 23, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> All true, but it is important to keep in mind that at the end of the day, it is the system that takes pictures, not a bare lens. From that perspective, there is value in reporting results from camera + lens combinations.
> 
> Having said that, part of DxO’s implied logic was that it didn’t really matter if the Canon 24-70/2.8 was better as a bare lens than the Nikon counterpart since each lens could only be used on the same brand of camera body. Thus, the higher-scoring sensor of the D850 makes the Nikon combo ‘better’. But mirror less cameras kick that argument to the curb, since in that case you can use a Canon lens on a Nikon MILC or vice versa, or either brand of lens on a Sony MILC. That means the highest possible scores (without getting into whether or not that really means “better“) should be obtained by combining the highest scoring mirrorless sensors with the lenses having the best optical measurements (not scores). Except that DxO only tests within-brand combinations.


The problem is that if you’re testing a component, you need to test that component. So whi,emthe resulting combo will tell you about that, it doesn’t tell you anything about how it will perform as part of another combo. When Canon comes out with a high resolution body, the combo will have to be tested. So the concept tells us nothing.a lens is often sued long after another body is acquired. While testing that lens with recognized methods will give us a good idea how it performed independently, and therefor how it will likely perform on another o]body, just testing it on one body, a lower resolution one doesn’t really help.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 23, 2019)

melgross said:


> The problem is that if you’re testing a component, you need to test that component. So whi,emthe resulting combo will tell you about that, it doesn’t tell you anything about how it will perform as part of another combo. When Canon comes out with a high resolution body, the combo will have to be tested. So the concept tells us nothing.a lens is often sued long after another body is acquired. While testing that lens with recognized methods will give us a good idea how it performed independently, and therefor how it will likely perform on another o]body, just testing it on one body, a lower resolution one doesn’t really help.


I disagree. Most aspects of a lens’ optical performance, including distortion, vignetting, transmission, coma, astigmatism, longitudinal CA, field curvature, etc., do not change from one sensor to another. But perhaps you’re someone for whom sharpness is the only important aspect of lens performance. In that case, if you don’t already know how, I’d recommend learning to interpret MTF curves – they give a good idea of lens sharpness with the caveat that, Zeiss notwithstanding, you’re seeing the ideal/best possible lens performance, which in practice is subject to the vagaries of production.


----------



## mariosk1gr (Mar 23, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Shooting wide open the f1.2 L is horrible, I wouldn’t at all be surprised if the new f1.8 stm is sharper wide open, although a full stop slower.


Yes it is horrible at 1.2 but if you close the aperture at 1.8 and compare with the 50 1.8 version, the difference is huge! Especially if you do the same at 2.8 in both lenses. there you can see tremendous difference in sharpness! But sharpness is not everything. For example the ef cinema lenses which will take soon an upgrade to pl mount they will be softer than ef versions to render better skin tones. So in cinema world sharpness is not everything. The 50 1.2 took the nickname of the "magic" lens because the bokeh quality and how it renders a scene is still amazing! SO many things that DXO do not talk about. Its not about the sharpness, its not about the sensor but its the overall experience for me.


----------



## Pape (Mar 23, 2019)

cinema 4k is just 12mpixel ,they dont need to be as sharp as EF or RF


----------



## mariosk1gr (Mar 23, 2019)

Pape said:


> cinema 4k is just 12mpixel ,they dont need to be as sharp as EF or RF


They don't need mainly so much sharpness in the cinema. They add it in post.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 23, 2019)

Viggo said:


> No, it’s exactly one full stop.


f/1.8 to f/1.2 is about two-thirds of a stop (f/1.8 to f/1.4) plus half a stop (f/1.4 to f/1.2), ie the difference is about one and one-sixth stops. The f-stop series is not linear so it's not exactly one and one-sixth stops, but it's in that ball park. It's definitely more than one stop.


----------



## dcm (Mar 23, 2019)

Depends on which scale you are using and what your camera supports. My film A-1 and FD lenses supported one-third stop ISO and exposure compensation values on the body, but one-half stop apertures in the lenses and Av values on the body. The exposure compensation was simply an adjustment to the ISO setting for the film. My 1DX2 lets me set 1/3 stop or 1 stop increments for ISO speeds, and 1/3 stop, 1/2 stop, or 1 stop increments for exposure and exposure compensation.

On the one-third stop scale, the difference between f/1.8 and f/1.2 is a full stop, f 1/8 to f1.4 is 2/3 stop and f1/4 to f1.2 is 1/3 stop. You would dial in a full stop of exposure compensation between the two values. This would be the same anywhere on the scale.

On the one-half stop scale you'll see different AVs for the same f/stops, f/1.2 is 0.5 versus 0.7. There is no 1.8 so you'd be forced to choose between 1.7 and 2.0.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number



Here's a table of the numbers from the computation with 2 decimal digits for both 1/2 and 1/3 stops with N representing the f-numbers. The actual numbers are somewhat different than what you see display with 1 decimal digit. This convention has been around a long time.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 24, 2019)

aceflibble said:


> That's literally how they test the lenses: on the bodies.



Testing a lens on every compatible body would be rather labor intensive, and also would require them to keep all those bodies on hand. 

I believe, though cannot prove, that they test lenses on a few bodies, and then model their performance on the other bodies in their dataset.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 24, 2019)

dcm said:


> Depends on which scale you are using and what your camera supports. My film A-1 and FD lenses supported one-third stop ISO and exposure compensation values on the body, but one-half stop apertures in the lenses and Av values on the body. The exposure compensation was simply an adjustment to the ISO setting for the film. My 1DX2 lets me set 1/3 stop or 1 stop increments for ISO speeds, and 1/3 stop, 1/2 stop, or 1 stop increments for exposure and exposure compensation.
> 
> On the one-third stop scale, the difference between f/1.8 and f/1.2 is a full stop, f 1/8 to f1.4 is 2/3 stop and f1/4 to f1.2 is 1/3 stop. You would dial in a full stop of exposure compensation between the two values. This would be the same anywhere on the scale.
> 
> ...



It doesn’t matter what scale you use. There are 1.25 stops between f/1.2 and f/1.8.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 24, 2019)

Shooting the same greycard with 1/3 or 1/2 setting gives one stop difference in any case between f1.2 and f1.8, so for all intended purposes, there is no more and no less than one stop betweeen them. If you’re going to use a lens on a camera, one stop is the difference.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I disagree. Most aspects of a lens’ optical performance, including distortion, vignetting, transmission, coma, astigmatism, longitudinal CA, field curvature, etc., do not change from one sensor to another. But perhaps you’re someone for whom sharpness is the only important aspect of lens performance. In that case, if you don’t already know how, I’d recommend learning to interpret MTF curves – they give a good idea of lens sharpness with the caveat that, Zeiss notwithstanding, you’re seeing the ideal/best possible lens performance, which in practice is subject to the vagaries of production.


Agreed about your MTF comments. I like lensrental's optical bench measurements because they are done on multiple production copies and the variation as well as mean values are plotted. And they go as high as 50-100 lp/mm rather than the 10 and 30 lp/mm standard ones from Canon that are in any case computer generated theoretical curves.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 24, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Shooting the same greycard with 1/3 or 1/2 setting gives one stop difference in any case between f1.2 and f1.8, so for all intended purposes, there is no more and no less than one stop betweeen them. If you’re going to use a lens on a camera, one stop is the difference.



That likely comes down to the resolution of the meter and how accurate the aperture settings are (probably not very), and how linearly transmission (t-stop) tracks geometry (f-stop).


All else being equal, f/1.2 will have 2.25 times the entrance pupil area as f/1.8.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 24, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> It doesn’t matter what scale you use. There are 1.25 stops between f/1.2 and f/1.8.


 It is more like 1.1699 stops. But given how things work in real life, it could function more like one stop than 1 1/3.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 24, 2019)

stevelee said:


> It is more like 1.1699 stops. But given how things work in real life, it could function more like one stop than 1 1/3.


And there in lies the heart of the debate..... round it up or round it down to the nearest 1/3 stop when it is almost in the middle


----------



## dcm (Mar 24, 2019)

Charts of Camera Nominal and Precise Goal Values of Shutter speed, f-stop and ISO


Understanding the camera's Numbers - computed charts and explanations of the numbers of third stops, tenth stops, precise goals and nominal markings. For Shutter Speed and f/stops and ISO stops



www.scantips.com





The markings displayed on the camera or lens are approximate to minimize the space they require and make it easier for us to communicate. The actual lens mechanism and metering uses the more precise increments that are equally spaced in 1/2 or 1/3 stop increments. When your camera is set to 1/3 stop exposure increments and you change the aperture in Av mode, it is 3 steps from 1.2 to 1.8 or 1 stop. This is true throughout the entire range.

You can use the formula f-stop-difference = log(f1/f2) / log(sqrt(2)) for any two f-stops f1 and f2. Using the approximate values gives log(1.8/1.2) / log(sqrt(2)) = 1.17 (1.1699) while the precise measures give log(1.78/1.26) = 1.00 (0.9969). 

But who would want to talk about f/1.78 and f/1.26?

Since you introduced entrance pupil, that is also approximate. Are any of Canon's lenses exactly the stated maximum aperture? A look at all of the patent applications suggests no.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 24, 2019)

stevelee said:


> It is more like 1.1699 stops. But given how things work in real life, it could function more like one stop than 1 1/3.



To rephrase, there is a 125% increase in the area of the entrance pupil from f/1.8 to f/1.2.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 24, 2019)

dcm said:


> Charts of Camera Nominal and Precise Goal Values of Shutter speed, f-stop and ISO
> 
> 
> Understanding the camera's Numbers - computed charts and explanations of the numbers of third stops, tenth stops, precise goals and nominal markings. For Shutter Speed and f/stops and ISO stops
> ...



The formula f-stop-difference = log(f1/f2) / log(sqrt(2)) for any two f-stops f1 and f2 is of course correct and has the virtue of being independent of the base of the logarithm. But, I think it is a hangover from the days when log to base 10 was the common one for slide rules and log tables (and Napierian). I prefer the formula f-stop-difference = 2xlog(base2)(f1/f2) since not only does it take one step less in the calculation but the physical reason behind it is clearer - area varies as the diameter of the exit pupil squared.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 24, 2019)

For full disclosure, I used natural logarithms on my calculator to get the irrelevantly accurate results.


----------



## dcm (Mar 24, 2019)

stevelee said:


> For full disclosure, I used natural logarithms on my calculator to get the irrelevantly accurate results.



log(x) in excel (and many other places) is natural logarithm which I used. log10 is often available, sometimes log2 (but not it excel).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2019)

I prefer rolling logarithms.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 24, 2019)

dcm said:


> log(x) in excel (and many other places) is natural logarithm which I used. log10 is often available, sometimes log2 (but not it excel).



Excel has a default of base 10, but you can specify otherwise. log(number,base)


----------



## stevelee (Mar 25, 2019)

I have an old calculator somewhere that can do hexadecimal math, but not with logs or trig functions.


----------



## melgross (Mar 25, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I disagree. Most aspects of a lens’ optical performance, including distortion, vignetting, transmission, coma, astigmatism, longitudinal CA, field curvature, etc., do not change from one sensor to another. But perhaps you’re someone for whom sharpness is the only important aspect of lens performance. In that case, if you don’t already know how, I’d recommend learning to interpret MTF curves – they give a good idea of lens sharpness with the caveat that, Zeiss notwithstanding, you’re seeing the ideal/best possible lens performance, which in practice is subject to the vagaries of production.


Oh, don’t be so condescending. I’ve been doing this, professionally, for decades.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2019)

melgross said:


> Oh, don’t be so condescending. I’ve been doing this, professionally, for decades.


Your statement that testing a lens on a particular body tells you nothing about how that lens wil perform on a different body is flat out wrong, meaning that despite decades of professional experience, you have some major gaps in your knowledge. Don’t feel bad, I’m sure there are electricians with decades of experience who don’t know Coulomb's law, and carpenters with decades of experience who don’t know about xylem and phloem, etc. Doing something, even doing it very well, does not automatically confer understanding of the tools of one’s trade.


----------



## melgross (Mar 25, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your statement that testing a lens on a particular body tells you nothing about how that lens wil perform on a different body is flat out wrong, meaning that despite decades of professional experience, you have some major gaps in your knowledge. Don’t feel bad, I’m sure there are electricians with decades of experience who don’t know Coulomb's law, and carpenters with decades of experience who don’t know about xylem and phloem, etc. Doing something, even doing it very well, does not automatically confer understanding of the tools of one’s trade.


I honestly don’t think you really understand this as well as you think you do.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2019)

melgross said:


> I honestly don’t think you really understand this as well as you think you do.


I see. In that case, please describe how the sensor behind the lens affects measurements of the lens’ distortion, vignetting, field curvature, etc. Feel free to leverage your decades of experience as you attempt an explanation.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 26, 2019)

aceflibble said:


> That's literally how they test the lenses: on the bodies. I don't know how you think they test lenses otherwise.
> 
> The R's processor is having to do a lot more than the 5D4 is and the battery isn't able to supply as much juice to the processor to begin with. That's one of the few areas where SLRs are still well ahead of mirrorless and will continue to be so for the next couple of generations. There's less demand on the processor and battery in an SLR so you can beef up the power going to the AF drive, clock up the processor, etc. The larger SLR bodies also typically feature bigger heatsinks, which further help how much the processor and battery can push out. On a mirrorless body the processor never gets a rest, heatsinks are typically smaller, and the battery is being drained constantly.
> 
> ...


There is a completely logical reason to test lenses and cameras separately because even in the digital world you have production tolerance variation which may manifest itself as lowering the performance of a given lens on a given camera body. Go over to the lens rentals article on MTF that's the true measure not on a camera body if testing the lenses and eliminating variances elsewhere. The same with the camera we test cameras independently on a "mule" lens where we are using a consistent & exacting testing regime in a controlled environment (we have a very precise light source with gratings to measure dynamic range against a manufacturers specification). Only then the two are tested together.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 26, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I see. In that case, please describe how the sensor behind the lens affects measurements of the lens’ distortion, vignetting, field curvature, etc. Feel free to leverage your decades of experience as you attempt an explanation.


Its why we have very expensive, precisely aligned lens projectors. The MTF bench only tells us part of the story.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 26, 2019)

jeffa4444 said:


> There is a completely logical reason to test lenses and cameras separately because even in the digital world you have production tolerance variation which may manifest itself as lowering the performance of a given lens on a given camera body. Go over to the lens rentals article on MTF that's the true measure not on a camera body if testing the lenses and eliminating variances elsewhere. The same with the camera we test cameras independently on a "mule" lens where we are using a consistent & exacting testing regime in a controlled environment (we have a very precise light source with gratings to measure dynamic range against a manufacturers specification). Only then the two are tested together.


Neuro made it absolutely clear that, quote: "_Most aspects of a lens’ optical performance, including distortion, vignetting, transmission, coma, astigmatism, longitudinal CA, field curvature, etc., do not change from one sensor to another_." And then he made it clear that resolution would be a variable between sensors, and if you were concerned only about resolution then read MTF charts.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 28, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Neuro made it absolutely clear that, quote: "_Most aspects of a lens’ optical performance, including distortion, vignetting, transmission, coma, astigmatism, longitudinal CA, field curvature, etc., do not change from one sensor to another_." And then he made it clear that resolution would be a variable between sensors, and if you were concerned only about resolution then read MTF charts.


My point was very specific so let me explain it again. Production tolerances means lens X on Camera A maybe soft but lens X on camera B maybe just fine. Or lens X is soft on both Camera A or camera B. Now the margin maybe very small but its why you can adjust the back-focus of each lens to the camera. This can be done in-camera or by shimming the lens or in rare cases both. We need to establish however whether the lens or the camera is at fault. 

The MTF machine measured on axis will not tell you if a lens has distortion, vignetting, transmission coma, astigmatism, longitudinal CAs, field curvature but a projector will show up most of the weaknesses. We test lens on the projector more than the MTF machine whilst in rental. The projector will identify lenses not hitting say 6ft, that have axial and transverse aberrations (Chromatic Aberrations), vignetting, field curvature and focus shift. We can see the differences between two types of lens or two of the same type of lens. 

Likewise we can test the camera sensor measured from the mount and see any variance. So whilst I agree with everything Neuro posted the testing by DXOMark is flawed because camera & lenses need to be tested independently and then together


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 28, 2019)

You’re optically measuring the position and orientation of the sensor from the mount? That’s cool. Do you have information about the mfr tolerances, or do you just compare actuals to the nominal flange distance?

While I understand the sensitivity, I wonder how much it really matters in the real world. I’d bet most rigidly mounted camera sensors are on average better controlled than a frame of flimsy film being pulled past the gate.


----------



## nemophoto (Mar 29, 2019)

"I’m one of those crazy people that doesn’t care about dynamic range though..."

I'm with you on that one. DPReview and others seem to salivate over that. In reality, in the past 8 years, I've yet to shoot a situation where I felt I didn't have enough dynamic range. For my normal commercial shoots, I've never said, "Gee, I wish I had a bit more dynamic range". For my personal landscapes etc., if I _really_ feel I want or need more DR, I'll bracket and combine with HDR software.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2019)

nemophoto said:


> In reality, in the past 8 years, I've yet to shoot a situation where I felt I didn't have enough dynamic range.


I've run into many situations where I didn't have enough DR. But in those situations, an extra stop or two would not have been enough.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I've run into many situations where I didn't have enough DR. But in those situations, an extra stop or two would not have been enough.


Generally that is my experience as well, and I have been roasted here for saying it! 

However I do like the control the newer sensors give you over the shadows without the hit in noise the older sensors gave you, case in point, I print a good amount and find to get accurate renditions on paper the darker shadows (zones I and II for those that still work the system) always need lightening. With my old 1Ds MkIII's I'd get noise instantly using the shadows slider and generally had to use the exposure slider and drop highlights and blacks instead, basically touching the shadows slider induced too much noise. With the newer sensors that isn't true, you can push and pull the shadows slider to get zones I and II exactly where you want them and don't have to think about any noise being amplified.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 29, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> You’re optically measuring the position and orientation of the sensor from the mount? That’s cool. Do you have information about the mfr tolerances, or do you just compare actuals to the nominal flange distance?
> 
> While I understand the sensitivity, I wonder how much it really matters in the real world. I’d bet most rigidly mounted camera sensors are on average better controlled than a frame of flimsy film being pulled past the gate.


Its an "in-house device" that we developed for digital movie cameras, and no we would not disclose how it works. We use another machine for measuring the DR again developed originally for digital movie cameras (not the sphere but the DR grating) so if more that one camera is being used on critical visual effects we can get cameras that are as closely matched as possible.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 1, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I've run into many situations where I didn't have enough DR. But in those situations, an extra stop or two would not have been enough.



I think I have given examples in other threads, such as cathedral interiors where I don't want the room too dark to see, but I still want the stained glass windows to show detail and rich colors. Another was when I was shooting in the Garden of the Gods in Colorado Springs late in the afternoon, taking shots of back-lighted rock formations. I also wanted detail and color in the back-lit clouds. Either would at best push Camera RAW's ability to recover highlights and lift shadows to their limits with one shot. Two shots combined and edited in ACR handled both situations with ease.


----------

