# DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon



## compupix (Sep 19, 2012)

Canon has some catching up to do with respect to sensor performance as measured by http://www.DxOMark.com. Canon doesn't even come close to the top performing Nikons. (High score is better.):

Pts Model
=======
96 Nikon D800E
95 Nikon D800
94 Nikon D600
81 Canon 5D III
79 Canon 5D II

(The Canon 1Dx is not yet rated.)
What are the chances that one of the reasons for the new sensor in the 6D is to catapult Canon's sensor performance into the mid 90's? I can't see Canon doing that considering the $3,500 EOS 5D III just came out and has a score of just 81. But Nikon's new $2,100 D600 kicks butt with a score of 94!

Sensor performance isn't everything... but, if I were to choose Nikon or Canon today, I wouldn't be choosing Canon.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Sep 19, 2012)

compupix said:


> What are the chances that one of the reasons for the new sensor in the 6D is to catapult Canon's sensor performance into the mid 90's?



near zero i guess... at least i would not place a bet.


----------



## Ricku (Sep 19, 2012)

I think the problem is that Canon simply can't improve their DR, not even if their life depended on it. They just don't know how to do it.. YET.

But I think that if we are lucky, they will catch up to Nikon's (Sony's) current sensor tech, by year 2015.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2012)

compupix said:


> Sensor performance isn't everything...



Not only not everything, but far less than even remotely close to everything. Consider all the glass the light must pass through before it even reaches the sensor.

Also consider that DxOMark is evaluating _only_ the sensor, and also that their "Overall Score" is composite of three arbitrarily chosen "Use Case Scores" that are combined in a 'weighted' manner, but the weighting is not disclosed. Furthermore, their use case scores are normalized to an 8 MP file size, which explains how a camera with 14 bits per pixel can, according to DxOMark, actually deliver a dynamic range _greater than_ 14 bits of EV. 

IMO, their Measurements (screen) are valid and quite useful. Their Scores are steaming pile of misleading cow excrement.

Just a little reality check...


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Their Scores are steaming pile of misleading cow excrement.



Which in the end just confirm the evident fact that Sony sensors are better than Canon's. Not that misleading or far from the truth.

The weight of this fact in the value or performance of a camera is surely disputable, but it remains a fact.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Their Scores are steaming pile of misleading cow excrement.
> ...



...and also, apparently, much better than Phase One and Pentax 645 medium format sensors. To me, that's misleading and far from the truth.


----------



## mirekti (Sep 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> compupix said:
> 
> 
> > Sensor performance isn't everything...
> ...



14 EV should be fine I guess. People get that with HDR, right? 
Canon has some 9EV @ISO 100 and than you go +/- 2EV. It would be great to get that from one shot though.


----------



## Invertalon (Sep 19, 2012)

Makes you wonder where Nikon sensors would perform if not for Sony...

My guess? Very similar to Canon.


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Bigger sensor doesn't mean better sensor, so it's easy to understand how MF could lose in such a test.
It usually mean better IQ, surely, but as long as you compare sensors of the same size you don't risk to be misleaded.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Sep 19, 2012)

DxOMark who? The guys (actually the only guys on earth) who state that EF 70-200 F4 IS L is better than EF 70-200 F2.8 IS L II?


----------



## RuneL (Sep 19, 2012)

All I'd like to know is how these test scores/difference in sensor performance impact you guys on a daily basis as photographers.


----------



## nightbreath (Sep 19, 2012)

I didn't have experience of Nikon files processing, but from what I see, people who have Nikon system (for example, D3S, D700 with top glass, or something else) are not able to get the color tones I and my wife are getting as result of our work.

I'd be glad to examine a RAW image from a complex shooting environment (e.g., portrait made in the middle of the day with lot of reflections from trees/leaves around) made with help of a Sony sensor to prove that dark areas noise isn't everything that affects IQ.


----------



## gilmorephoto (Sep 19, 2012)

Perhaps this has been stated before, but I tend to view the sensor as the "digital film" of the camera. Every film has a different grain structure and some will test "better/higher" than other film depending on how you structure the test. (Therefore, you can get different scores depending on how you weigh things). You can post-process just about anything to look just like just about anything these days, but in the end, you pick the "digital film" that you prefer. I've always preferred the look of Canon "film" for it's skin tones and visual pop. This is even when I used old Nikon prime lens with an adapter. No score can convince me otherwise.

In the high-end audio world, forums would blow up about tube vs. solid state amps and the argument always ended up being how cleanly an amp "measured" vs. how pleasing it actually sounds, and there was rarely a correlation between the two.


----------



## nightbreath (Sep 19, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> I didn't have experience of Nikon files processing, but from what I see, people who have Nikon system (for example, D3S, D700 with top glass, or something else) are not able to get the color tones I and my wife are getting as result of our work.
> 
> I'd be glad to examine a RAW image from a complex shooting environment (e.g., portrait made in the middle of the day with lot of reflections from trees/leaves around) made with help of a Sony sensor to prove that dark areas noise isn't everything that affects IQ.


P.S. Here's what I get from Canon:


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 19, 2012)

gilmorephoto said:


> Perhaps this has been stated before, but I tend to view the sensor as the "digital film" of the camera. Every film has a different grain structure and some will test "better/higher" than other film depending on how you structure the test. (Therefore, you can get different scores depending on how you weigh things). You can post-process just about anything to look just like just about anything these days, but in the end, you pick the "digital film" that you prefer. I've always preferred the look of Canon "film" for it's skin tones and visual pop. This is even when I used old Nikon prime lens with an adapter. No score can convince me otherwise.
> 
> In the high-end audio world, forums would blow up about tube vs. solid state amps and the argument always ended up being how cleanly an amp "measured" vs. how pleasing it actually sounds, and there was rarely a correlation between the two.



This is true because film is a hardware device, or can be true if you shoot JPG.

Shooting RAW you can work on whatever you want, the only limit being the quality of the RAW file and the amout of information stored. DXO score is useful in comparing this.

Shooting RAW it really doesn't make sense to say "Oh, the Canon colors!". That is today more a lens trait than a sensor's.


----------



## dstppy (Sep 19, 2012)

JohanCruyff said:


> DxOMark who? The guys (actually the only guys on earth) who state that EF 70-200 F4 IS L is better than EF 70-200 F2.8 IS L II?



Of course. IS makes it all bad, and stuff :


----------



## gilmorephoto (Sep 19, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> gilmorephoto said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps this has been stated before, but I tend to view the sensor as the "digital film" of the camera. Every film has a different grain structure and some will test "better/higher" than other film depending on how you structure the test. (Therefore, you can get different scores depending on how you weigh things). You can post-process just about anything to look just like just about anything these days, but in the end, you pick the "digital film" that you prefer. I've always preferred the look of Canon "film" for it's skin tones and visual pop. This is even when I used old Nikon prime lens with an adapter. No score can convince me otherwise.
> ...



Having worked with both Nikon and Canon RAW files, I respectfully disagree. The "quality of the RAW file" includes the quality of the color. Both RAW files have a certain color cast to them. As I stated originally, you can post-process quite a bit, but just as some prefer the shadow recovery of Nikon RAW files, I prefer how color is captured (and corrected if necessary) with Canon RAW. For me, I can get the right exposure most of the time so shadow recovery is less of a concern for me than getting the colors just right. Can I post-process Nikon files and make them look great? Sure. For the look I want, it's less work with Canon RAW.

(And, I agree the lens matters a tremendous amount...)


----------



## Imagination_landB (Sep 19, 2012)

Anyway, without being a fanboy at all. I know that nikon cameras recently are very very good , DXO over rates them, how can the d3200 be as good as the 5dmark III...


----------



## meli (Sep 19, 2012)

Imagination_landB said:


> Anyway, without being a fanboy at all. I know that nikon cameras recently are very very good , DXO over rates them, how can the d3200 be as good as the 5dmark III...



It cant and noone says it is. What Dxo says is that certain aspects of 3200 sensor are better than canon's. Thats reasonable since canon's sensor tech remained quasi-stagnant for a whole generation. Lets not overgeneralise just because we dont like it


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 19, 2012)

gilmorephoto said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > gilmorephoto said:
> ...



I understand what you mean but at the same time I don't fully agree. Softwares like LightRoom let you apply corrections in batch or even while importing. Or you can just calibrate your camera. So in the end you only have to do the work once when you set up the workflow. 

So again, I insist that lenses have much more impact in that  So maybe in the end you prefer Canon because of the Canon lenses signature more than because of how the sensor captures light and colors.


----------



## poias (Sep 19, 2012)

A lot of denial in the forum about inferiority of Canon's sensors. The knee jerk argument is that Dxomark:
1) is biased, or 
2) their tests are bad because "I" get superior results out of my Canon, unlike "my" Nikon friend who is struggling, or
3) is meaningless because I can bracket and get high DR, so low DR is not big deal

DXOMarks is simply giving empirical evidence to the inferiority of Canon's decade old tech versus modern tech of Sonikon. If we as Canon consumers (whether we like the brand or, more importantly, stuck to it due to sunk costs) live in denial, Canon has no incentive to improve. Result? we get shafted while competition has better cameras. Period!


----------



## Fishnose (Sep 19, 2012)

gilmorephoto said:


> *Having worked with both Nikon and Canon RAW files*, I respectfully disagree. The "quality of the RAW file" includes the quality of the color. Both RAW files have a certain color cast to them. As I stated originally, you can post-process quite a bit, but just as some prefer the shadow recovery of Nikon RAW files, I prefer how color is captured (and corrected if necessary) with Canon RAW. For me, I can get the right exposure most of the time so shadow recovery is less of a concern for me than getting the colors just right. Can I post-process Nikon files and make them look great? Sure. *For the look I want*, it's less work with Canon RAW.
> 
> (And, I agree the lens matters a tremendous amount...)



1. Have you worked with Nikon RAW files from the latest generation - D800, D800E, D600, D4, D3200?
If you're talking about Nikons from 2008, forget it. Stone age, comparatively speaking.

2. "For the look I want" - ah, a personal opinion. Your taste. Well gee, that's important to us all :


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 19, 2012)

compupix said:


> Canon has some catching up to do with respect to sensor performance as measured by http://www.DxOMark.com. Canon doesn't even come close to the top performing Nikons. (High score is better.):
> 
> Pts Model
> =======
> ...



1. their overall scores are weird, how do you combine so many different performance factors into one number that would work for everyone? you can't

2. their PRINT generally seem to be pretty good and quite useful to compare various aspects of one camera to another though

3. their lens tests, unlike their sensor tests, appear to be a mess, i don't trust them at all

4. I doubt the 6D will make a big leap, you do much better at high iso for SNR than the 1DX and I'd doubt, just a couple months later, they introduce a new sensor that has better DR at high iso than the 1DX or than both at low ISO, that would be hideous planning for the 5D3/1DX. Then again, it would be nice in that at least it would prove they can do it. It is odd they have a supposedly new 20MP sensor.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> IMO, their Measurements (screen) are valid and quite useful. Their Scores are steaming pile of misleading cow excrement.
> Just a little reality check...



(screen) isn't usually the best setting to compare sensor camera vs camera, it can tell you things that are useful, but using (print) to compare various sensors generally makes more sense and for a more fair comparison


----------



## nightbreath (Sep 19, 2012)

poias said:


> A lot of denial in the forum about inferiority of Canon's sensors. The knee jerk argument is that Dxomark:
> 1) is biased, or
> 2) their tests are bad because "I" get superior results out of my Canon, unlike "my" Nikon friend who is struggling, or
> ...


We were referring to our observations and didn't say that DxO measurements are wrong, they just might not give full picture. If you know more than we, please share your own thoughts on the topic and add some image samples to back up your words.

P.S. If you don't know about the difference in 5D vs. 1D color, you might not understand what we're talking about


----------



## bornshooter (Sep 19, 2012)

i ignore the stupid dxo tests they mean nothing to me seen a video with the nikon guy there on youtube almost masturbating to nikon being on top seriously he is just a gear head his photos are nothing special at all.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 19, 2012)

compupix said:


> Canon has some catching up to do with respect to sensor performance as measured by http://www.DxOMark.com. Canon doesn't even come close to the top performing Nikons. (High score is better.):



Canon is behind on DR and noise due to a Sony patent they apparently are having trouble working around. That said, DxO is a complete and total joke. This is a company that ranks consumer DSLRs above medium format digital backs in IQ.

Let that sink in for a moment. Their testing methodology actually results in higher scores for APS-C sensors than for MF sensors. (Queue the DxO fans claiming that their overall IQ scores don't report overall IQ, except of course when those same fans wish to prove that camera A has better overall IQ then camera B.)

I've personally tested DR for a number of cameras (the right way). My results match results from sites like DPReview. DxO is always off, and always quite obviously wrong. It's not by a set amount in each case such that you could say their test is too sensitive or not sensitive enough. It's all over the place, over in some cases and under in others. It's like the idiots never tried shooting the cameras they test.

Canon is not so far behind in sensors that I would avoid choosing them. They're behind a little bit, not a lot. But my problem with them is that they are charging more and/or skimping on features at a time when there's an IQ gap. When your competitors have a sensor edge, you pound them on features and price. The 6D should have a real AF system and be a bit cheaper. The 5D3 should be priced against the D600. And there should already be a 45 MP FF that is priced against the D800. Oh, and cut out this 20/21/22 MP nonsense. Just go to 24 MP on FF. That's not enough of a change in pixel density to affect anything. (Though I suppose they may be trying to increase wafer yields with redundant circuitry that might eat into the MP they put on FF. This may also be the reason why the 6D uses a different sensor.)

This is a recent issue with them. Throughout the 2000's they dominated sensor IQ, feature set, and price. They're also getting greedy with new lenses. Again, they're not terrible here. It's just annoying to seem them slip behind. I sincerely hope they improve in all respects because their lens library is the best out there.


----------



## aznable (Sep 19, 2012)

someone would explain me what do is measuring dxo with the low light iso becuse looking at raws of dpreview, the high iso performance of d800 looks like the d7000 one


----------



## Jose Ormazabal (Sep 19, 2012)

From my point of view it is evident that sony/nikon sensors are superior to canon's. I would love to have my 5d III with the D600 sensor.
It is hard to believe that the majority of canon users are not disappointed with the increasing gap in sensor technology between Nikon and Canon.

I'm not a fan of either brand. I'm just a Canon user with a lot of glass and therefore married for good or bad. Right now, things are going bad.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 19, 2012)

poias said:


> A lot of denial in the forum about inferiority of Canon's sensors. The knee jerk argument is that Dxomark:



How about DxOMark:
* Does not agree with the empirical results of any other major testing site. (They are always the odd ball out.)
* Produces absurd scores, such as scoring APS-C consumer sensors higher than MFDB sensors. 


> DXOMarks is simply giving empirical evidence to the inferiority of Canon's decade old tech versus modern tech of Sonikon.



I'll agree that Canon is behind on DR and noise because I see that in my own tests and in the tests of other reputable sites. I've even seen a lengthy discussion on DPReview about the specific patent related to sensor circuitry that is the cause of this. But scientific testing is about reproducibility, and nobody can reproduce the absurd numbers generated out of DxO. Sorry, they're a bad joke.


----------



## aznable (Sep 19, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> I'll agree that Canon is behind on DR and noise because I see that in my own tests and in the tests of other reputable sites. I've even seen a lengthy discussion on DPReview about the specific patent related to sensor circuitry that is the cause of this. But scientific testing is about reproducibility, and nobody can reproduce the absurd numbers generated out of DxO. Sorry, they're a bad joke.



agree...if you look at the scores of dxo on low light iso the 1d mark 3 is destroied by a d5100; but maybe i am blind


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 19, 2012)

> I've personally tested DR for a number of cameras (the right way). My results match results from sites like DPReview. DxO is always off, and always quite obviously wrong.



dtaylor: How do you test DR? When I use a 42 step transmissive wedge, my DR numbers, assuming a lowest acceptable SNR of 1 (which is what I believe DXO does), pretty much match DXO results for RAW capture within 0.2 EV. And to account for lens transmission variability & different ISO mappings between cameras, I take a number of shots at 1/3EV apart & select the shot of the wedge where the brightest patch is just short of clipping... I then use these shots to build an output vs. input curve, & quantitate the range from SNR 1 to brightest patch that isn't clipped.

Furthermore, your results match DPReview? DPReview doesn't test RAW dynamic range... so I'm confused: what are you testing?

Pretty sure Bill Claff's DR numbers also match DXO for the most part; also he uses a possibly more meaningful number: PDR (photographic dynamic range: lowest SNR of 20 adjusting for circle of confusion of sensor). His tests also show ~2.5EV better performance of the D800. Check out his stuff here: http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm

My own 'real-world' tests also show ~3EV better DR on the D800 when I do side-by-side shots of high DR sunsets with my 5DIII vs. D800; the D800 is able to maintain highlights that the 5DIII needs a 3 or 4-stop reverse graduated ND filter to reign in (while keeping shadow noise similar between the two). Put another way: I have to overexpose my 5DIII by 2 to 3 stops at the very least to get its shadows to match the cleanliness of lifted shadows of the D800 file that was underexposed to maintain highlights.

So, respectfully, I fail to see how DXOs DR & SNR, etc., numbers are the 'odd ball out'.

To clarify: I don't at all mean this to be a personal attack; just looking for clarification. Also, I'm tired of people harping on DXO when they're just trying to do good science (though, like others, I do *not* pay any attention to the 'overall' sensor score... jus the raw SNR, DR, etc. numbers).


----------



## gilmorephoto (Sep 19, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> gilmorephoto said:
> 
> 
> > *Having worked with both Nikon and Canon RAW files*, I respectfully disagree. The "quality of the RAW file" includes the quality of the color. Both RAW files have a certain color cast to them. As I stated originally, you can post-process quite a bit, but just as some prefer the shadow recovery of Nikon RAW files, I prefer how color is captured (and corrected if necessary) with Canon RAW. For me, I can get the right exposure most of the time so shadow recovery is less of a concern for me than getting the colors just right. Can I post-process Nikon files and make them look great? Sure. *For the look I want*, it's less work with Canon RAW.
> ...



1. I've worked with D700, D7000, D5100, D5000 & D3100, so not the most current, no. Has Nikon recently lost it's bluish/green cast? That would be exciting news indeed.

2. Yes, personal opinion and purposefully couched as such because, sometimes, "objectively" better isn't what you (or the client) actually want.

To everyone who found my post useless, please excuse the inclusion of subjectivity and proceed with the DXO/Canon bashing based on "objective" tests.


----------



## kasperj (Sep 19, 2012)

Funny how these threads emerge on this forum with each new Nikon review on DxO. As an interesting comparison Tech Radar, who is apparantly using the same DxO Analyzer software, recently posted a comparison of SNR and Dynamic Range for the 1DX, 5DIII, 1D4, D4 and D800. http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-1dx-1091200/review/page:5#articleContent

While it does show an advantage for the Nikons on base ISO Dynamic Range, the Canons actually shows a better ability to retain it over the ISO range.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> which explains how a camera with 14 bits per pixel can, according to DxOMark, actually deliver a dynamic range _greater than_ 14 bits of EV.



Question for you: my understanding of Bayer pattern sensors is that a group of 4 monochrome {R|G|B} are de-mosaiced to form one color RGB pixel. If I combine two 14-bit wells I get (roughly) one 15-bit well. If I combine four 14-bit wells I should get (roughly) one 16-bit well. Certainly they wouldn't do a crude addition of wells, but it seems very plausible that you can get >14EV DR, even without re-normalizing. What's wrong with this interpretation?



Ricku said:


> I think the problem is that Canon simply can't improve their DR, not even if their life depended on it. They just don't know how to do it.



You keep repeating this, and it remains unsubstantiated, and likely wrong. Canon doesn't improve DR because there's no business need to do so, and it would cut into their profits to do so. They're making very nice money as things are. They will hold onto their high-DR tech until the market requires them to use it. Even Pentax has pro-sumer sensors with higher DR than Canon; you can't expect me to believe that a tech giant like Canon can't keep pace (in the lab) with Pentax. No, Canon DR will improve when it must. Right now they're trying to keep manufacturing costs down to increase profits, just like any for-profit entity would do.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Sep 19, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> You keep repeating this, and it remains unsubstantiated, and likely wrong. Canon doesn't improve DR because there's no business need to do so, and it would cut into their profits to do so. They're making very nice money as things are. They will hold onto their high-DR tech until the market requires them to use it. Even Pentax has pro-sumer sensors with higher DR than Canon; you can't expect me to believe that a tech giant like Canon can't keep pace (in the lab) with Pentax. No, Canon DR will improve when it must. Right now they're trying to keep manufacturing costs down to increase profits, just like any for-profit entity would do.




Put another way...Canon is milking their loyal customer's wallets rather than focusing on producing the best product they're capable of producing. Case in point: Well, numerous options here but most recent, the 6D. Arguably the worst offender in this regard. DPreview put it perfectly:

"Overall, though, it's difficult to shake the feeling that the EOS 6D simply lacks the 'wow' factor of its main rival. Whereas Nikon seems to have taken the approach of taking away as little as possible from D800 when creating the D600, Canon appears almost to have gone the other way, removing as much as it thinks it can get away with at the price. The result is the kind of conservative, slightly unimaginative design that's become the company's hallmark."

Canon's "approach" does not inspire loyalty, rather it makes me question whether I want to support such a company at all. Why would I not choose to align my $$ with a company that pushes the edge of tech, etc in imaginative ways instead? Aren't those qualities appealing? As in the D800, D800E removing aliasing filter option, HDMI video out, D600. Sony is coming on strong too. 

And look at Canon's pricing. I just have no idea what Canon is thinking any more. None.


----------



## MarioMachado (Sep 19, 2012)

http://gearburn.com/2012/08/canon-eos-1dx-review/

DxOMark doesn't mean anything...

Canon still better, specially in HI ISO...


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 19, 2012)

> "Overall, though, it's difficult to shake the feeling that the EOS 6D simply lacks the 'wow' factor of its main rival. Whereas Nikon seems to have taken the approach of taking away as little as possible from D800 when creating the D600, Canon appears almost to have gone the other way, removing as much as it thinks it can get away with at the price. The result is the kind of conservative, slightly unimaginative design that's become the company's hallmark."



I'm glad dpreview just came out and said it like it is.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 19, 2012)

> While it does show an advantage for the Nikons on base ISO Dynamic Range, the Canons actually shows a better ability to retain it over the ISO range.



So does DXOs results on their own site...


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 19, 2012)

> http://gearburn.com/2012/08/canon-eos-1dx-review/
> 
> DxOMark doesn't mean anything...
> 
> Canon still better, specially in HI ISO...



I see nothing there that disagrees with DXO. One must simply take into account what each measurement/chart means. Those charts you linked to show higher DR at base ISO for the Nikon D800, yet lower pixel-level SNR. *DXOMark shows the same thing.*


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 19, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> Put another way...Canon is milking their loyal customer's wallets rather than focusing on producing the best product they're capable of producing.



Of course, that's how all for-profit companies work; why would Canon be any different? And why get emotional over it? If Nikon were financially stronger they'd do it too. My interpretation is that Nikon is "betting the farm" on a series of "wow" products, desperately hoping to claw back market share. Have you ever seen the movie "Big Night?" Fabulous meal, but bad for financial solvency. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115678/



> Why would I not choose to align my $$ with a company that pushes the edge of tech, etc in imaginative ways instead? Aren't those qualities appealing? As in the D800, D800E removing aliasing filter option, HDMI video out, D600. Sony is coming on strong too.



That's your choice, it's how "the market" works. There is no personal relationship between you and Canon; and if you start buying Nikon there will be no personal relationship there either. Both companies want your money, and are trying different tactics to get it. That's all. 




> And look at Canon's pricing. I just have no idea what Canon is thinking any more. None.



It seems to work for them.


----------



## Martin (Sep 19, 2012)

That's why I finally decided to switch in next months. I just do want to pay Canon any more. Overpriced , old tech and trust me-very faulty gear, also what is more important seems that they do want to develop any more. I don't wantwaste another two years to get 6D2 with 5 crosstypes and 10EV DR. No more. that's my experience. There nothing much to say. You do not have to agree. Everyone has choice.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Sep 19, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> It seems to work for them.



only because they have build a big userbase in the past. 

but if they go on like this... i would not be suprised if sony and nikon have gained market share over the last year.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 19, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> only because they have build a big userbase in the past. but if they go on like this... i would not be suprised if sony and nikon have gained market share over the last year.



That's how "the Market" works. If they lose market share Canon will take their profits from the last few years and build a more competitive product. Then Nikon and Sony users will complain about their brand lagging.

It's business, it's not personal. It's not an attempt to insult you. It's merely an attempt to make profit.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Sep 19, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> That's how "the Market" works. If they lose market share Canon will take their profits from the last few years and build a more competitive product. Then Nikon and Sony users will complain about their brand lagging.
> 
> It's business, it's not personal. It's not an attempt to insult you. It's merely an attempt to make profit.




that does not work very well sometimes.... have a look at sony (tv biz) or nokia for example.

it´s hard to get user to switch once they have invested into a system.
that works for canon today... but if you loose entirely new customers it´s hard to get them back.

today i would be much more tempted to buy a D800 then a 6D.

the price difference (as we know yet) is a mere 500 euro here.
2099 euro vs. 2599 euro


----------



## meli (Sep 19, 2012)

kasperj said:


> Funny how these threads emerge on this forum with each new Nikon review on DxO. As an interesting comparison Tech Radar, who is apparantly using the same DxO Analyzer software, recently posted a comparison of SNR and Dynamic Range for the 1DX, 5DIII, 1D4, D4 and D800. http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-1dx-1091200/review/page:5#articleContent
> 
> While it does show an advantage for the Nikons on base ISO Dynamic Range, the Canons actually shows a better ability to retain it over the ISO range.


Really?

actually what techradar results show is that they dont have a clue what they're doing. Just look at the progression of these lines, they dont even make sense!

According to the page you linked we can assume that:

Raw (after conversion to TIFF) dynamic range:

D4 has the same DR either @ 100 or 1600
1Dx has peak DR @ 3200 and at 6400 it falls to the same level as @ 100 (magic!)
1DIV has a variation of .5stop through the entire range of isos


JPEG dynamic range:

1Dx peak DR @ 12800 
1D4 solid DR from 100 through 4000

Its not the 1st time either that there is a discussion about techradar's silly results, just search around here or any other forum.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 19, 2012)

> Really?
> 
> actually what techradar results show is that they dont have a clue what they're doing. Just look at the progression of this lines, they dont even make sense!
> 
> ...



+1

Ah, yes, I forgot about those results. Pretty strange.

When I mentioned that the general trends between those results & DXO remain the same, I was just pointing to the general DR trends at base ISO (Nikon > Canon), and the general trend that DR for Nikon drops below 1Dx & 5DIII at high ISOs. As well as the trend that pixel-level SNR for D800 falls below that of the Canon sensors -- no surprise there as it has smaller pixels. Normalized SNR, however, is a different story-- with the D800 beating the 5DIII, & the D600 beating both the D800 & 5DIII.

I'm just surprised at how many people call foul at DXO without taking the effort to really analyze what the measurements/results show.


----------



## Skulker (Sep 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> .........
> Just a little reality check...



Thats not what we want, we want an emotional rant so we can convince ourselves we know it all and Canon are dum and daft.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Sep 19, 2012)

Skulker said:


> Thats not what we want, we want an emotional rant so we can convince ourselves we know it all and Canon are dum and daft.



and sometimes we are right.... kodak anyone?

or sonys TV business... nokia?

a lot of bad decisions can change things pretty fast.
that a company is a market leader today... does not mean it will be tomorrow.


----------



## Skulker (Sep 19, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Guaranteed we are right, especially with a bit of hindsight.


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (Sep 19, 2012)

Apologists and bashers. So few realists. Sigh.

The Nikon line using Sony sensors has a consistent, measurable, but modest advantage in DR, color depth and ISO sensitivity over the current crop of Canon sensors at all price points. That cannot be denied. DXOMark and several other sites have shown this.

I'm NOT entirely convinced that these factors alone will result in appreciable difference in image quality under most conditions.

However, when combined with the additional megapixels which DO make difference in cropping and enlargement for publication, the Nikon line has an advantage for now.

I am firmly convinced that if Canon could produce a comparable line of sensors - same DR, ISO color depth, at the same or higher MP - for the same price as their current line, they WOULD. They cannot. So this Canon line is the best they can do for right now. Hopefully in the next couple of years they will catch up.

In the meantime, they have been making significant strides in lens quality, so they are not sitting on their hands.


----------



## marekjoz (Sep 19, 2012)

boring...


----------



## Canon-F1 (Sep 19, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> boring...



football? i 100% agree.... try to take better pictures of a more interesting sport. ;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 19, 2012)

We'e to the 6D?? I thought we were still complaining the 1D X was only 18MP.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 19, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> that does not work very well sometimes.... have a look at sony (tv biz) or nokia for example.



I assume Canon's management and finance people are aware of this. They're making calculated plans to maximize profit. Their calculations may be right...or not. Still, though, it's not personal. Complaints don't matter, only sales numbers. Reviews from major photo news outlets have some effect since they probably affect sales numbers. Complaining on blogs probably does not have a measurable effect.

Besides, I'll bet there are many event/wedding photographers on Nikon sites complaining about the weak AF system in the D800 compared to the 5D3.

Everybody plays with the same laws of physics: I'd be very surprised if Canon does not have high-DR tech in their back pocket.


----------



## marekjoz (Sep 19, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > boring...
> ...



Looking for some better lenses to do so


----------



## meli (Sep 20, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> I'm just surprised at how many people call foul at DXO without taking the effort to really analyze what the measurements/results show.



+1

confirmation bias, thats why you didnt also get a response over your comment @ dtaylor and his "the right way" DR test.


----------



## RuneL (Sep 20, 2012)

Martin said:


> That's why I finally decided to switch in next months. I just do want to pay Canon any more. Overpriced , old tech and trust me-very faulty gear, also what is more important seems that they do want to develop any more. I don't wantwaste another two years to get 6D2 with 5 crosstypes and 10EV DR. No more. that's my experience. There nothing much to say. You do not have to agree. Everyone has choice.



Faulty is not my experience with canon cameras. I've never had a Canon camera fail. I've had ONE problem with the ETTL-circuit in my 1D IV, it was fixed at CPS in 2 hours by changing the top assembly, then only thing it meant was that it couldn't send ETTL info to the flash or shoot HSS, which isn't really a problem for me. I've had them act weird after 4 hours in heavy rain, but they still shot and worked after. My 1D II still works, it has cracks in it where I've dropped it and it's so worn you won't believe it, the batteries are more or less dead, but it still works, not that it ever sees use. I have 16 and 10 year old L lenses that still work fine and are used every week. My 10D and D30 were still alive when I gave them away a few years ago. (I regret getting rid of the D30 though).
The only lens I've ever broken was the 50 1.8 when it was about 4 years old. I treat my gear like shit, I'm not proud of it nor do I do it on purpose, but I'm not good at taking care of stuff I use so much (my cell phones die in 4-6 months) and in such a hurry sometimes. I never use lens caps, I never take care when changing lenses, the mount cap on the lenses may or may not be used, mostly never, because it hinders me as much as a lens cap does, I put my lenses on the ground etc etc etc. And I've never had it fail. I've broken 2 EX 580II's because they've fallen of stands so many times that they finally gave in, but not a manufacturing fault, to my knowledge. 

You can be unlucky and get a bad copy, but in my experience they work. Besides my amplifier and speakers, Canon cams and lenses are the bits of electronic gear with the most longevity in my life.


----------



## jthomson (Sep 20, 2012)

compupix said:


> =======
> 96 Nikon D800E
> 95 Nikon D800
> 94 Nikon D600
> ...



Strange that they can get the Nikon D600 out on the day that it is released but haven't yet got around to the 1DX.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, their Measurements (screen) are valid and quite useful. Their Scores are steaming pile of misleading cow excrement.
> ...



I suppose it depends on your goal. The screen data are the real measurements, print is normalized. Normalization is fine if you understand what it's doing, but suboptimal if it introduces bias. In this case, while normalizing to a fixed 8 MP purportedly allows comparison across sensors, it also introduces bias - the greater the delta between the sensor MP and the arbitrary 8 MP, the greater the skew - that's part of the reason behind the chart-topping D800 scores. When analyzing data, one should always be on the lookout for spurious or 'impossible' results - a DR greater that the bit depth of the ADC is an example of that, seen in Print results (which are not quite measurements), but not Screen measurements. 

Screen measurements are the raw data, and I always prefer to start with the raw data when doing an analysis. Black boxes are bad science. 



Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > which explains how a camera with 14 bits per pixel can, according to DxOMark, actually deliver a dynamic range _greater than_ 14 bits of EV.
> ...



DxO is measuring the RAW image data, prior to demosaicing, so the ADC is the limit. That's why the Screen measurements are below 14 EV; only the normalized Print values exceed the electronic limit. 



sarangiman said:


> I'm just surprised at how many people call foul at DXO without taking the effort to really analyze what the measurements/results show.



I agree, I trust their measurements and in fact, use their software for RAW conversion. It's their normalized/massaged/weighted-averaged Scores that I don't trust. I know from direct experience (in my day job) that a set of raw measurements can be reduced using different, internally consistent and seemingly logical methods, to support diametrically opposed conclusions. I'm very glad that DxO post their raw data, I just don't agree with what they do with those raw data. 



jthomson said:


> Strange that they can get the Nikon D600 out on the day that it is released but haven't yet got around to the 1DX.



That speaks to an entirely different potential bias, but without knowledge about the rationale for the discrepancy, no conclusions can be drawn. Maybe Nikon overnight shipped them the first D600 off the line, and they're still waiting on a retail back ordered 1D X. Heck, noted bird photographer and Canon Explorer of Light, Art Morris, just recently got his 1D X - I've had mine longer than him.


----------



## Meh (Sep 20, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> Everybody plays with the same laws of physics: I'd be very surprised if Canon does not have high-DR tech in their back pocket.



Those pesky laws of physics always getting in the way. Not sure if Canon would have some advancement that they're holding back but it could be the sensor engineers have not been given the mandate/budget to improve low-ISO DR or they find it sacrifices something else. Hard to say.


----------



## Meh (Sep 20, 2012)

meli said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just surprised at how many people call foul at DXO without taking the effort to really analyze what the measurements/results show.
> ...



+1 confirmation bias is detestable!


----------



## Meh (Sep 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> compupix said:
> 
> 
> > Sensor performance isn't everything...
> ...



That's about right ;D


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2012)

meli said:


> +1
> 
> confirmation bias, thats why you didnt also get a response over your comment @ dtaylor and his "the right way" DR test.


Well, let's give @dtaylor some more time to respond. If I remember correctly, he said he uses transmission wedges for his tests, so I'd be very surprised if he got different _comparative_ results between bodies. _Absolute_ results may vary based on what you set as your acceptable SNR on the low end. But even then, the D800 should consistently show ~2.5EV higher DR (pixel-level) than 5DIII. I've tested this numerous times, b/c I was also incredulous at first.

I even remember being incredulous about the D800 beating the D4 in DR, but the data is the data. The D800, despite having a lower saturation capacity per-pixel, simply has lower read noise on a per-pixel basis. Low enough that its DR even trumps the D4. That's also why it's not hard to imagine the D800 beating medium format in DR (though I agree with neuroanatomist that I'm not sure how fair the normalization formula is | e.g. D800 @36MP goes up 1.1EV from screen to print, Hasselblad @50MP goes up 1.35EV, D600 @24MP goes up 0.8EV... I really can't comment one way or the other if it's fair as I haven't delved into their normalization formula yet).

Interesting point about DXO getting the D600 scores out before the 1Dx. Then again, if I had a D600 vs. a 1Dx in my hands, I'd be more excited about testing the D600 b/c the 1Dx has already been shown to not have much more DR than the 5DIII (e.g. here: http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,EOS%201D%20X)


----------



## jthomson (Sep 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jthomson said:
> 
> 
> > Strange that they can get the Nikon D600 out on the day that it is released but haven't yet got around to the 1DX.
> ...



Good point about the availability of the 1DX but I was just at their site and they don't even have a rating for the T4i/ 650D.


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 20, 2012)

poias said:


> A lot of denial in the forum about inferiority of Canon's sensors. The knee jerk argument is that Dxomark:
> 1) is biased, or
> 2) their tests are bad because "I" get superior results out of my Canon, unlike "my" Nikon friend who is struggling, or
> 3) is meaningless because I can bracket and get high DR, so low DR is not big deal
> ...


The problem with DxO's scoring is that it doesn't match _what I can see with my own eyes_. Last year I shot two Canon 5D Mark II's and two Nikon D7000's. The Canon is in a higher price category, but DxO actually scores the D7000 higher:

Canon 5D Mark II score = 79
Nikon D7000 score = 80

So the D7000 sensor is better, right? Not at all. Just compare the color in portraits from each camera and judge which one shows humans _looking more like actual humans_. The 5D Mark II's won easily; the D7000's were actually worse in color and more prone to blowing highlights. Of course, that result is to be expected based on the rather big price difference, but DxO would have you believe the those cameras' sensors are a close match and that the D7000's is a tiny bit better. Well, they are very wrong.

So whatever DxO is measuring, they aren't measuring everything that's important to me or scoring in a way that matches my experience. I heard a similar experience from a wedding photographer who had moved to a higher end Nikon and missed the color of his 5D Mark II.


----------



## Meh (Sep 20, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> 1. their overall scores are weird, how do you combine so many different performance factors into one number that would work for everyone? you can't



Precisely. They have arbitrarily designed one of many possible algorithms to combine their various measurements into a "score".


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> The 5D Mark II's won easily; the D7000's were actually worse in color and more prone to blowing highlights.



A camera being prone to blowing highlights says more about its metering than its dynamic range. The dynamic range of the D7000 is demonstrably worlds above that of any of the 5D cameras. Yes, despite its price. It's all about saturation well capacity & read noise (& megapixel count of course, if we're talking about normalized results).


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 20, 2012)

aznable said:


> agree...if you look at the scores of dxo on low light iso the 1d mark 3 is destroied by a d5100; but maybe i am blind


There is something absurd about those scores. If the D5100 is anything like the D7000, then I would much prefer the sensor of the 1D Mark III.


----------



## Meh (Sep 20, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> Question for you: my understanding of Bayer pattern sensors is that a group of 4 monochrome {R|G|B} are de-mosaiced to form one color RGB pixel. If I combine two 14-bit wells I get (roughly) one 15-bit well. If I combine four 14-bit wells I should get (roughly) one 16-bit well. Certainly they wouldn't do a crude addition of wells, but it seems very plausible that you can get >14EV DR, even without re-normalizing. What's wrong with this interpretation?



I don't believe it's correct to say that 4 are combined into 1. The de-mosaicing is an interpolation algorithm that uses the values from adjacent pixels to estimate the intensity and color of each pixel. The demosaicing algorithm doesn't do any binning in the way you suggest. IIRC the Canon C300 does perform the binning that way to give better color accuracy for each pixel.


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 20, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D Mark II's won easily; the D7000's were actually worse in color and more prone to blowing highlights.
> ...


As I wrote, the problem was the color in portraits was distinctly worse. The blown highlights were an added problem. I'm talking about using the cameras for actual photography, not lab tests. So, yes, consistent with its price, the D7000 was distinctly worse in actual photography. The D7000 was a bit like a kid who scores great on a standardized test, but is lacking in essential people skills.


----------



## gilmorephoto (Sep 20, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > Zlatko said:
> ...


+1


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> As I wrote, the problem was the color in portraits was distinctly worse. The blown highlights were an added problem. I'm talking about using the cameras for actual photography, not lab tests. So, yes, consistent with its price, the D7000 was distinctly worse in actual photography. The D7000 was a bit like a kid who scores great on a standardized test, but is lacking in essential people skills.



I understand, but my point is simply that the 'blown highlights', in this case, is not indicative of anything wrong with DXOs sensor scores for the D7000. The (Sony) sensor in the D7000/D5100 really does have significantly more DR than any Canon sensor.

If you found that it blows highlights too often, then perhaps you disagree with Nikon's metering algorithms in those situations.

As for Nikon/Canon color, I'm inclined to agree with you & say my _personal taste_ is for Canon's default colors. But I bet if you really wanted to you could build a DNG profile that makes a Nikon camera match Canon's default colors. Whether or not you wish to do so is another matter altogether.


----------



## Martin (Sep 20, 2012)

Actually I think that canon makes everthing to postpone the 1dx scoring by dxo. It would be funny if d600 scored better than flagship canon. Unfortunately thats probably the reality.


----------



## weixing (Sep 20, 2012)

Hi,
IMHO, DxOMark is not testing the sensor, but the camera itself because they use the RAW file produce by the DSLR (they didn't remove the sensor from the body and test, right?) and if the RAW file produce by the camera is not the RAW data, then it's not testing the sensor and the sensor compare between brands is somehow not valid. I believe all RAW file is not RAW data and Nikon RAW file are well know for it.

Anyway, I was wondering how do Nikon D800 and D600 get a dynamic range of more than 14EV when there is only 14-bit of data? Compress the dynamic range or non-linear data?

Have a nice day.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 20, 2012)

Meh said:


> I don't believe it's correct to say that 4 are combined into 1. The de-mosaicing is an interpolation algorithm that uses the values from adjacent pixels to estimate the intensity and color of each pixel. The demosaicing algorithm doesn't do any binning in the way you suggest.



I didn't mean to suggest binning at all; demosaicing is (presumably) a complex algorithm. I was making a simple point: if you take data from 4 photosites, each having 14EV of DR, you can demosaic in a way that gets you more than 14EV DR in the resultant pixel. It's not guaranteed that you would, but it's possible.


----------



## Meh (Sep 20, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe it's correct to say that 4 are combined into 1. The de-mosaicing is an interpolation algorithm that uses the values from adjacent pixels to estimate the intensity and color of each pixel. The demosaicing algorithm doesn't do any binning in the way you suggest.
> ...



I was addressing only the first line of your statement where you said about demosaicing that 4 pixels are made into one RGB pixel which is not correct the way you wrote but fair enough if that's not what you meant.

Binning pixels still doesn't result in greater bit-depth though because that is limited by the ADC. Each pixel can only be assigned 14-bit luminosity regardless of how many electrons are in the well. For example some FF sensors have photosites with say 50,000 electron full-well capacity. 14-bit addressing only requires about 16,000 electrons so you have about 3 electrons per level. Binning 4 pixels gives you more pixels but you still only have 14-bit addressing in the ADC.

But I'll leave it there since it's been a long time since I've been involved with that kind of thing and may already not be explaining it quite right.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 20, 2012)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> IMHO, DxOMark is not testing the sensor, but the camera itself because they use the RAW file produce by the DSLR (they didn't remove the sensor from the body and test, right?) and if the RAW file produce by the camera is not the RAW data, then it's not testing the sensor and the sensor compare between brands is somehow not valid. I believe all RAW file is not RAW data and Nikon RAW file are well know for it.
> 
> Anyway, I was wondering how do Nikon D800 and D600 get a dynamic range of more than 14EV when there is only 14-bit of data? Compress the dynamic range or non-linear data?
> ...



1. Why would they test the sensor removed from the camera? Can you get a picture out of a bare sensor? It's the RAW file that the user gets to use. Most of DSLR RAWs are pretty RAW under standard conditions and settings (Nikon does cook books starting with longer, but not long enough IMO, exposures, etc.).

2. They get more than 14EV on the normalized comparison, it's normalized to 8MP so with 36MP to play with there is a lot of room to get the extra bits after normalization there.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> 2. They get more than 14EV on the normalized comparison, it's normalized to 8MP so with 36MP to play with there is a lot of room to get the extra bits after normalization there.



Exactly. Say you have 14EV DR at the pixel level; i.e. you've perfectly matched your ADC to the DR attainable at the pixel level (e.g. saturation capacity = 16,384 e- & read noise = 1 e-). But say this is for a 100MP sensor.

When you go to make a 4" x 6" print of that 100MP file, you'll be doing a lot of downsizing for a 300dpi printer. That process of downsizing will reduce noise. Therefore you will be able to lift shadows more while still producing an acceptable print. Therefore shadows with a pretty low SNR may suddenly become 'acceptable' the viewer of the 4x6 print.

Yada yada... that's how you get more dynamic range via normalization. 

Although I still have a hard time wrapping my head around it. 

Because if your SNR is ever <1, you're not going to magically recover the signal by resampling... resampling would only *bring you closer to the average of the noise* as SNR approaches 0.

But for more reasonable definitions of DR (e.g. Bill Claff's 'PDR' that defines the lowest acceptable SNR as 20), normalization expanding DR makes perfect sense.


----------



## messus (Sep 20, 2012)

compupix said:


> Canon has some catching up to do with respect to sensor performance as measured by http://www.DxOMark.com. Canon doesn't even come close to the top performing Nikons. (High score is better.):
> 
> Pts Model
> =======
> ...



I have said this many times. You CAN NOT compare dynamic range on ISO100, and assume everybody works in ISO100, and that this is the correct ISO to measure by, like DxO does. I RARELY go below ISO 1600 for my kind of work. 

BTW! Anyone find it strange DxO has the finished analysis/review of the D600 days after it is released? And they still haven't finished they analysis/review of the 1D-X !?

Well I don't find it strange at all, DxO is tight with Nikon, everybody should know that by now. I will not be surprised if they rate the 1D-X below the Nikon D3100, and neither should you! Do not expose your low intelligence by actually believing DxO is the standard for measuring camera low light and dynamic range performance. 

The 5D3 has a MUCH better dynamic range, not to mention the low light ISO performance, than the D800 above ISO600.

Who cares what the Nikonioans down at DxO says, not me!

Have a nice day everyone!


----------



## mystic_theory (Sep 20, 2012)

It's amazing how much distance in DxO scores there is between Nikon sensors and the corresponding Canon ones: I agree that the overall score gives just a rough estimate of the overall quality of the sensor, but what worries me are the differences in high ISO noise and DR, which are instead very precise and reliable measurements.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2012)

dilbert said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



+1

Thank you dilbert for stating what with common sense & logic should be apparent to everyone.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2012)

> I have said this many times. You CAN NOT compare dynamic range on ISO100, and assume everybody works in ISO100, and that this is the correct ISO to measure by, like DxO does. I RARELY go below ISO 1600 for my kind of work.



You do realize that at base ISO, the D800 has more than *2.5EV more DR* than the 5DIII, and at worse, i.e. at ISO 25,600, it has *0.26EV worse DR* than the 5DIII. So, compare at whatever ISO you'd like. The D800 is rarely going to do worse than the 5DIII, but _can_ do much better.

Furthermore, the future is likely 'ISO-less'. In other words, ISO becomes metadata written into the file, much like white balance. Amplification is done during RAW processing. That way, you actually retain the DR of base ISO even at high ISO (w/ low enough read noises).

We just need manufacturers (both hardware & software) to implement this. Personally, I would've already implemented this w/ the D800, given the low read noise of ~3 e-.

But maybe the industry is waiting for a read noise of 1 e-, or a 16-bit ADC.


----------



## Fishnose (Sep 20, 2012)

dilbert said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



+2


----------



## jthomson (Sep 20, 2012)

dilbert said:


> BTW! Anyone find it strange DxO has the finished analysis/review of the D600 days after it is released? And they still haven't finished they analysis/review of the 1D-X !?
> ...



Nope.

Nikon had the D600 on sale via the web/stores 5 days after it was announced, so it is likely that Nikon were able to ship a production matched D600 to DxO ahead of time.

How long did it take Canon to even get 1DX cameras out to folks that were going to need them for the Olympics? And how long did it take for the 1DX to show up in stores? Don't blame DxO for Canon's inability to delivery/perform.
[/quote]

DXO appears to have a Nikon bias. They haven't released scores for the 1DX, the T4i or the Olympus OMD EM-5, but they get the D600 out within days of its release.


----------



## Fishnose (Sep 20, 2012)

dilbert said:


> The rub here is that if you're Canon and you already know that your camera's sensor isn't going to score better than anything Nikon has published then you're not going to be in any sort of rush to have it tested by DxO. I don't know if DxO purchases the cameras for themselves or waits for vendors to send them freebies...



DxO being a rather small company, I would guess they are in the position of getting access to test subjects in a few ways:
1. Manufacturer or distributor sends them a copy to test (much like magazine/web reviewers are sent copies)
2. The company buys one, as the item in question is central to their lens testing
3. Someone on the staff buys one
4. They borrow one from someone else 

If none of the above fits, they don't test it.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Sep 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> compupix said:
> 
> 
> > Sensor performance isn't everything...
> ...



+1 (a bit late, I know). I wished any limitations referring to my photographic skills could be ascribed to dynamic range and what have you. ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2012)

dilbert said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



When did DxO start evaluating the ability of a camera to take pictures? That statement implies lots of performance characteristics that DxO doesn't measure. Their measurements are for specific aspects of sensor performance, as they define them (obviously, I'm referring to their sensor measurements, not their lens measurements).



dilbert said:


> DxO is also capable of telling you how lenses perform on various cameras, e.g. the 70-300L:
> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF70-300mm-f-4-5.6L-IS-USM/(camera)/436



Define _capable_, and in your definition please address their evaluation of the performance of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, which they score lower than the MkI version of that lens.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Define _capable_, and in your definition please address their evaluation of the performance of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, which they score lower than the MkI version of that lens.



Noooo? Are you kidding? Really, lower for the mk2? LOOOOL . That adds to the credibillity.... :


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Sep 20, 2012)

MarioMachado said:


> http://gearburn.com/2012/08/canon-eos-1dx-review/
> 
> DxOMark doesn't mean anything...
> 
> Canon still better, specially in HI ISO...



I have the D800 and the 5D3, and I would agree that the Canon does better at high ISO. For a predominantly landscpe shooter like myself, though the amount of banding at lower ISO in combination with not great DR renders the camera a handicap to me. I have some great lenses that are very sharp but they have one hand tied behind their back by the banding issue. I can push the shadows on a D800 shot and keep noise completely at bay and you have to push it way too far to get the chroma noise you get from the 5D3....I'm not a pixel peeper and I hate arbitrary resolution charts. I judge on the image as a whole. In some instances the banding on 5D3 is visible at 1024 px. Not Good Enough for a camera that cost me £3200. I can't live with that and whereas I had no alternative before, I do now. This is what will cost Canon money. I have 10 L lenses. Yet I still feel the need to move to the Nikon d800. Whether it is a permanent move depends on what Canon does next. I am going to be selling the glass where I have overlaps and 3 of these will be L lenses. I'll use the proceeds to get good zooms on Nikon.


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 20, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> I have the D800 and the 5D3, and I would agree that the Canon does better at high ISO. For a predominantly landscpe shooter like myself, though the amount of banding at lower ISO in combination with not great DR renders the camera a handicap to me.


I do weddings and portraits with the 5D3 and have never seen any banding issue.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2012)

messus said:


> I have said this many times. You CAN NOT compare dynamic range on ISO100, and assume everybody works in ISO100, and that this is the correct ISO to measure by, like DxO does. I RARELY go below ISO 1600 for my kind of work.



Just because this is brought up rather often, allow me to point out:


At *ISO 100*: D800 has >*2.5EV greater* DR than 5DIII.

At *ISO 12,800*, D800 has *0.09EV worse* DR than 5DIII, probably below the margin of error in measurement.


At *ISO 25,600*, D800 has *0.26EV worse* DR than 5DIII, probably still within the margin of error in measurement.


Full measurements here: http://bit.ly/OEUgZY

So now matter how you look at it, D800 is rarely going to perform worse in DR than the 5DIII, if at all, but _can_ perform much much better than the 5DIII.

When camera/software goes ISO-less, we'll see cameras maintaining base ISO DR even at high ISOs. Imagine >13EV DR at ISO 6400!


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> I do weddings and portraits with the 5D3 and have never seen any banding issue.



I see banding in my 5DIII images just from having Lightroom automatically correct the vignetting for my 24/1.4 & 35/1.4 lenses. I just try to ignore it. :'(


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > I do weddings and portraits with the 5D3 and have never seen any banding issue.
> ...



Have you tried DPP instead of LR?


----------



## mystic_theory (Sep 20, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> messus said:
> 
> 
> > I have said this many times. You CAN NOT compare dynamic range on ISO100, and assume everybody works in ISO100, and that this is the correct ISO to measure by, like DxO does. I RARELY go below ISO 1600 for my kind of work.
> ...


+1

I get tired of reading a pile of fuming BS to cover up the 5DIII shortcomings compared to the D800.


----------



## DB (Sep 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Define _capable_, and in your definition please address their evaluation of the performance of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, which they score lower than the MkI version of that lens.



DxO have actually responded to this anomaly on their website when questioned by Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS II users as to why the apparently superior mark II scores so much lower than its predecessor and their reply was that the older lens has better resolving power (@ 62 line pairs per millimeter vs 52 lp/mm for the new lens). But their website also states that there is enormous variation in resolution throughout the focal range, plus their Resolution Index scores are based on averages of multiple shots taken typically between f5 and f8 throughout the zoom range.

Clearly then, one can challenge the validity & reliability of this 'Resolution' test by conducting a similar test (they outline in graphic detail their testing procedure) using say multiple samples (half a dozen) of each of the 2 lenses in question (to also test if copy-to-copy variation exists).

Secondly, irrespective of the first answer, what the results suggest given that the Mark II surpasses the Mark I in each of the other sub-categories (especially CA), is that their arbitrary weighting (Black Box is an apt description as they do not divulge their weighting methodology) system is heavily skewed towards 'Resolution' when computing the _Overall Score_.

The very fact that they place more emphasis on one single category (more so than all other sub-categories combined) is evidence that their overall score is biased & subjective. According to DxO the most impressive Canon lens in the entire EF range is the 85mm f/1.8.

What they should do is post the summary stats of all the resolution test results in a table (freq dist along with standard deviation figures) - that way we can see if it is case of some outlier or skew (to wide or tele) that is causing them to conclude that the mark I is better. 

No academic journal would publish a DxO report without both Data (in an Appendix) and Methods (with a clearly defined algorithm stating the parameters for weighting each category). In the world of peer review, Black-Box methodology would simply have REJECTED stamped on it and returned.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2012)

mystic_theory said:


> I get tired of reading a pile of fuming BS to cover up the 5DIII shortcomings compared to the D800.



Honestly, I think the bottom line is that both produce excellent images - if testing to the nth degree is needed to see differences, you have to question the significance of those differences. 

Are there shortcomings? Yes. IMO, the biggest shortcoming of the 5DIII relative to the D800 is that the former doesn't work with the excellent 14-24/2.8 and an actually available 200-400/4. Likewise, the biggest shortcoming of the D800 relative to the 5DIII is that it doesn't work the MP-E 65mm, TS-E 17mm, and Canon's slightly better superteles. Of course, if you're willing to give up AF, Nikon lenses _can_ be mounted on Canon bodies, whereas the converse isn't true...



DB said:


> No academic journal would publish a DxO report without both Data (in an Appendix) and Methods (with a clearly defined algorithm stating the parameters for weighting each category). In the world of peer review, Black-Box methodology would simply have REJECTED stamped on it and returned.



+1, and that's my beef with DxOMark.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 20, 2012)

Show up to a fast-action soccer game with a D800 and then see which one, the 5D Mark III, or the D800, really has the shortcomings. Kick off is at 7pm under the lights.


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 20, 2012)

DB said:


> According to DxO the most impressive Canon lens in the entire EF range is the 85mm f/1.8.


... which is freaking *bizarre*. The 85 f/1.8 is very fine lens, but there is NO WAY that it is the most impressive lens in the entire EF range. That tells me a lot about DxO. When everyday experience informs you better than the DxO score, then the DxO score lacks credibility.


----------



## Fishnose (Sep 20, 2012)

DB said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Define _capable_, and in your definition please address their evaluation of the performance of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, which they score lower than the MkI version of that lens.
> ...



One very good reason that resolution should be weighted quite heavily is that resolution is pretty much impossible to 'fix in the mix'. Okay, a bit of sharpening, but that's not optimal as a solution for lower resolution.

Other issues such as CA, vignetting and distortion, on the other hand, can be fixed very well. And that is precisely the business DxO are in.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Other issues such as CA, vignetting and distortion, on the other hand, can be fixed very well. And that is precisely the business DxO are in.



Sure they can. But not for free...and the price you pay for many of those fixes is decreased resolution.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Have you tried DPP instead of LR?



Hi neuroanatomist,

Yes, I tried DPP, since threads quickly popped up (I think on dpreview) claiming that DPP fixed the issue. It most certainly did not, IMHO. To me, the default noise reduction settings is what helped cover up the banding. But once you turned all that off, the pattern noise was still there.

Furthermore, DPP allows less ability to lift shadows than Lightroom, making comparisons of more drastic edits impossible.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 20, 2012)

DB said:


> No academic journal would publish a DxO report without both Data (in an Appendix) and Methods (with a clearly defined algorithm stating the parameters for weighting each category). In the world of peer review, Black-Box methodology would simply have REJECTED stamped on it and returned.



Yes, it'd be wonderful if they published their full methodology & made their RAW files available. As you mention, that's what'd have to happen in a peer-reviewed journal. I think they might gain more credibility if they did these things.

As for the lens tests -- how many copies of the 70-200 f/2.8L II did they test? The II is most certainly sharper than I wide open on the few copies I've handled. Copy variability can definitely skew results, as has been mentioned before. Not so much the case with sensors, which is why I trust their sensor data.


----------



## mystic_theory (Sep 21, 2012)

DB said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Define _capable_, and in your definition please address their evaluation of the performance of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, which they score lower than the MkI version of that lens.
> ...



For a living I don't take pics, but I do publish papers in theoretical physics. Now, compared to the complete lack of rigor in photography testing (at least from my very limited experience of forum, blogs, and other online sources reader), the DxO tests seem outstanding, especially when compared to those of the various Ken Rockwell and company (including DPreview, which now roots for Canon like a cheerleader in the interpretation of their results). Are the DxO tests rigorous enough to be published in a serious scientific journal? Very likely, no. But for what they are meant to do (publicize a software), they are outstanding.


----------



## DBCdp (Sep 21, 2012)

My 3.2MP Pentax Optio S took wonderful pictures. My Canon 20D was soft over the entire 20K+ range I took with it. The 5D Classic I had was Superb. As is my 5DMkII. But I prefer the images from my old 1DsMkII. What does all the rhetoric actually mean without the burden of proof? Where are the PICTURES?!? 8 pages of hyperexented talk about this or that with zero pictures to back or explain any of the viewpoints! 

I like the way a Canon body fits my hand. I like the build of a Pro series 1D. I do not like the ergonomics of Nikon. Either one takes pictures. Neither one composes them. Not a single camera out there sets up the lighting for a perfect shot. Who's perfect shot? Well that would have to be the client. Not the guy who buys the camera, but the multiple clients that pay for it! My client last night was tickled to death with the shots of her business taken with Canon's 5DMkII. That's what counts. Does she know about DxO? Does it matter? Does she or any of my other clients know wether Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony or Olympus would give them the look they want? Or do they simply trust me to deliver? So in the end isn't it always a subjective issue based on the need and the delivery and NOT anything at all to do with test results in the lab?

I look at DxO. I look at SLR Gear. I also read DP Review's outlook as well as delve through the pages here. And the only thing I can say with absolute certainty is that I'm not getting my Client's wedding album built while doing any of this. 

Show Me The Pictures! 8)


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 21, 2012)

mystic_theory said:


> For a living I don't take pics, but I do publish papers in theoretical physics. Now, compared to the complete lack of rigor in photography testing (at least from my very limited experience of forum, blogs, and other online sources reader), the DxO tests seem outstanding, especially when compared to those of the various Ken Rockwell and company (including DPreview, which now roots for Canon like a cheerleader in the interpretation of their results). Are the DxO tests rigorous enough to be published in a serious scientific journal? Very likely, no. But for what they are meant to do (publicize a software), they are outstanding.



I agree.

I'm also in the sciences & therefore appreciate that DXO is significantly closer to rigorous testing (at least for their sensors) than most other tests out there. Roger Cicala is also doing a good job on his blog over at lensrentals. Bill Claff does excellent work as well. Emil Martinec has written outstanding treatises. I like that photography does, in many instances, attract science/engineering-minded folk! Incidentally I've been working on a methodology to rigorously quantify AF accuracy & precision (much like what Cicala has started to do, although he's using a different method) as I find a serious dearth of such information on any site (but lots of qualitative statements everywhere, like, 'I feel like this lens focuses 100% accurately!!'). I think problems like the D800 left AF issue should be easily identifiable by consumers; many other such problems go unnoticed, but actually do affect real-world shooting, surfacing as reduced hit-rates of focus. For example, D800s sent in for the left AF issue, as well as some newer D800 bodies probably going through the same calibration center, now exhibit large front focus of the center AF point in relation to the leftmost & rightmost AF points (which agree with each other). This is not something that microadjustment can fix, and is something that'd go unnoticed by most shooters who microadjust using only the center point. When buying new lenses/bodies, it'd be great to know what sort of AF accuracy & precision we can expect from the combo, and it's not unreasonable to expect wildly varying results given what a complicated process AF is (e.g. correcting for a lens' spherical aberration and how it affects the offset the AF system must apply to the phase data off the AF sensors which only evaluate light from the outer edges of the lens, etc.).

The thing is this stuff is quantifiable. And I'm glad someone (DXO) is doing it properly for sensors. I'd like to see it done for AF, & Cicala has made a great start with his tests.

As for dpreview, actually look at what they had to say about Canon & the 6D:

"Overall, though, it's difficult to shake the feeling that the EOS 6D simply lacks the 'wow' factor of its main rival. Whereas Nikon seems to have taken the approach of taking away as little as possible from D800 when creating the D600, Canon appears almost to have gone the other way, removing as much as it thinks it can get away with at the price. *The result is the kind of conservative, slightly unimaginative design that's become the company's hallmark.* It's still bound to be a very good camera, of course; just perhaps not quite as good as it could be."

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-6d/6

I think dpreview does a good job of trying to remain unbiased.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Sep 21, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > Zlatko said:
> ...



I use LR as that is what I have used for years now and it has a seamless route to CS5. I really want my 5D3 to work for me but in areas where it's dynamic range is challenged, it fails the test. There are many things it does very well. But I can't live with having to smudge all the details with Dfine just because Canon cannot get a grip on chroma noise banding at ISO 100 - 640. When it gets to 800 or above, the mkIII makes its mark. The only time as a landscape shooter I will need to use ISO 800 is when I have lost my tripod or am too lazy to get it out of my backpack. Both have happened before. I should be able to push a little detail out of the shadows without the whole shot being ruined. That I can do with the D800. I cannot with the mk III.


----------



## PVS (Sep 21, 2012)

If you folks are concerned with DR then just go back to film because film is still the king.
Dedicated 35mm scanners are quite cheap these days, you know?

Anyone who claims his gear limitations is what is holding him back from producing stunning images is a liar.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 21, 2012)

PVS said:


> If you folks are concerned with DR then just go back to film because film is still the king.



Not necessarily. For higher acceptable SNR on the low end, digital sensors trump negative film. 
http://www.dxo.com/var/dxo/storage/fckeditor/File/embedded/2012%20Film_vs_Digital_final_copyright.pdf

Of course, this also depends on size of film, since larger film formats will allow for more detail to be pulled out of shadows while maintaining acceptable SNR for reasonable sized prints.

P.S. Just for that paper alone, DXO rocks


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Sep 21, 2012)

PVS said:


> If you folks are concerned with DR then just go back to film because film is still the king.
> Dedicated 35mm scanners are quite cheap these days, you know?
> 
> Anyone who claims his gear limitations is what is holding him back from producing stunning images is a liar.



Depends on the film. Velvia 50 for example has very low DR. I use various film in Medium format bodies. Dynamic Range can be very important or not important at all. Images from mkIII often have blocked shadows. You end up with the choice of blowing highlights or using HDR or pushing detail from the shadows. I prefer the latter if I must because there is only so much detail that you can get from a blown out highlight and I always shoot RAW. HDR is hit and miss and you can lose too much contrast. 

banding chroma noise isn't acceptable to me, so I have t take action. The mkIII is capable of taking great images but if there are shadows you want to lift, forget it. If I had to pixel peep to see it, it wouldn't be an issue. But I have had had it visible at web size dimensions. For £3200 it isn't acceptable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2012)

mystic_theory said:


> ...Are the DxO tests rigorous enough to be published in a serious scientific journal? Very likely, no. But for what they are meant to do (publicize a software), they are outstanding.



As I stated, their _testing methodology_ is rigorous, and the data are of high quality. It's their data interpretation that's flawed.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Sep 21, 2012)

*Nice post sarangiman!*

Nice post sarangiman. It would be great to see a bit more scientific method in the testing and review of DSLRs.

I had to learn about the poor quality of Canon autofocus on my own, because I could find no really useful information on the net, back in the old days - say about 1-2 years ago.

I am currently awaiting the arrival of a 5D Mark 3 with great hopes for my future autofocus happiness. I've studied Roger Cicala's articles in great detail and I am prepared to buy Canon lenses that use the new autofocus method if I feel the need. I'm going to try the Mark 3 with my current lens collection first to see how it works after careful micro-adjust. I'll let folks on this forum know how it works out.

Mike


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 21, 2012)

I think you'll be happy with the Mark III, Mike. Actually Canon's AF as implemented in the Mark III in combo with its 24L, 35L, & 85L primes is the only reason I'm sticking with Canon right now. The DR & Auto ISO implementation on the D800 would otherwise be enough to make me want to switch. Well, and native use of the 14-24 

Note that for primes you'll want to microadjust based on your shooting habits. Since I tend to use the primes to shoot rather close subjects (that's more my style), I microadjust using a LensAlign at a distance of 25x focal length. I think manufacturers tend to suggest 50x focal length, as the best compromise. Certainly, using 25x focal length, infinity no longer focuses properly at wide apertures... it's a shame camera companies haven't implemented some sort of interpolation for microadjustment values based on subject distance (like they've done for focal length of zoom lenses). Maybe it's coming?

This does affect me in real-world shooting. For example, the other day I happened to be using my 85L in a non-standard way, shooting subjects more distance simply b/c of the way the event was set up. I noticed I got better results by resetting my microadjustment to 0 (which works best for distant subjects). 

And then there are days where the microadjustment just seems to be off... haven't quite figured that one out yet... but luckily, it's not too often.

The good thing about the Mark III is that its _precision_ is good enough that usually you can tell if the lens if front focusing or back focusing. Not so much with my Mark II, which had so low precision that I just couldn't tell b/c focus was all over the place.

Now, I realize I'm placing high demands on the system b/c I'm shooting below f/2.0... but why else buy a prime if not for that almost 3D look of having a subject pop out from a blurred background? That's generally what I'm interested in when I'm using primes... not always, but most of the time.

The Mark III brings me closer to achieving that, without having to take 100 shots just to get 15 or 20 in focus at f/1.4.

The Nikon D800 also has very good (similar to Mark III) precision. But there are other issues with lenses that I won't get into here, but will hopefully write an article about soon. Furthermore, their focus points being totally miscalibrated with respect to each other is just something I don't wish to deal with. Luckily, my 5DIII focus points are pretty consistent (the leftmost one slightly backfocuses compared to the others, but its acceptable and nowhere near as drastic as what I've seen testing 4 different D800 bodies).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 21, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> mystic_theory said:
> 
> 
> > ...Are the DxO tests rigorous enough to be published in a serious scientific journal? Very likely, no. But for what they are meant to do (publicize a software), they are outstanding.
> ...



Yes, this.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 22, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> dtaylor: How do you test DR?



Stouffer step wedge and visually inspect the results.



> Furthermore, your results match DPReview? DPReview doesn't test RAW dynamic range...



They used to report RAW and JPEG.



> My own 'real-world' tests also show ~3EV better DR on the D800 when I do side-by-side shots of high DR sunsets with my 5DIII vs. D800;



I have a hard time believing 3 stops, though I must admit I have not formally tested these bodies. 



> Put another way: I have to overexpose my 5DIII by 2 to 3 stops at the very least to get its shadows to match the cleanliness of lifted shadows of the D800 file that was underexposed to maintain highlights.



"Match the cleanliness" is a wide open question. Are you matching at 200% in PS or in a 20" print? And what constitutes a "match"? Does the 5D3 not "match" if there's a hint of noise that's irrelevant to 99% of uses? And to what degree does color play a role? (When you push RAW converters you can often recover detail that is correct in terms of tone, but incorrect in terms of color. How much of this you're willing to accept will alter the final judgement on DR.)



> So, respectfully, I fail to see how DXOs DR & SNR, etc., numbers are the 'odd ball out'.



When I've compared their results to other sites, or to my own experience, they have not matched. One example: according to DxO the 7D (Canon's 18 MP sensor) has little DR gain over the 10D / 20D. I could tell you before formally testing them that it was large, 2 stops easily. 

Now maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe their current tests are better, or maybe it just so happens that the cameras I compared were the odd balls, not the entire testing methodology. I'll take another look. But DxO seems easily thrown by small factors, or easily gamed. Michael Reichmann was a big fan when they first started, then dropped them later because really tiny things would shove one score well above another, and not just on DR.



> To clarify: I don't at all mean this to be a personal attack; just looking for clarification.



As was evident from the tone of your post, and I appreciate that. I'll look more carefully at DxO's latest results.


----------



## mystic_theory (Sep 22, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> As for dpreview, actually look at what they had to say about Canon & the 6D:
> 
> "Overall, though, it's difficult to shake the feeling that the EOS 6D simply lacks the 'wow' factor of its main rival. Whereas Nikon seems to have taken the approach of taking away as little as possible from D800 when creating the D600, Canon appears almost to have gone the other way, removing as much as it thinks it can get away with at the price. *The result is the kind of conservative, slightly unimaginative design that's become the company's hallmark.* It's still bound to be a very good camera, of course; just perhaps not quite as good as it could be."
> 
> ...



I see: well, I have to admit that I haven't read a dpreview review in a long while, since I read one on the 600D that I found very biased. One excerpt says:
"The Highlight Tone Priority option (Custom Function II.6) is a method for capturing more information in the brightest parts of the scene. It does this by applying ... Turn this on and the 600D captures an extra stop in the highlights, resulting in an overall range that at least matches that of Sony and Nikon models."
Notice that Nikon models have similar options, and the 5100D has about 3 stops more DR. But maybe things have changed at dpreview.

Notice also that I own a 550D, since I wanted to keep my awesome 10-22mm Canon but didn't want to spend extra bucks to have the same sensor for the 650D (or for a 60D, a 7D, an eos M, and the list goes on and on and on). I hope that within a few months there will be a new crop sensor from Canon with decent DR and low noise at high ISO: such a 70D would be perfect for me.


----------



## Fishnose (Sep 22, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > I love when idiots see some test, and then jump all over it.
> ...



*+1

Maui5150, before you call other people idiots (and you actually name them by quoting), make sure you know where you're treading - so you don't step in your own turds*


----------



## weixing (Sep 22, 2012)

Hi,

DxO said they test the sensor, but IMHO, they are actually testing the camera, because they test using the RAW file from the camera not the RAW data directly from the sensor. If the RAW file is not RAW data, then you are not testing the sensor, but how camera handle the image.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Fishnose (Sep 22, 2012)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> 
> DxO said they test the sensor, but IMHO, they are actually testing the camera, because they test using the RAW file from the camera not the RAW data from directly the sensor. If the RAW file is not RAW data, then you are not testing the sensor, but how camera handle the image.
> 
> Have a nice day.



Yes, they're testing the camer'a sensor and the part of the electronics that gets data off the sensor and turns it into a RAW image file. Nothing else is tested - not build quality, not sealing, not AF or metering, not any other functions, not anything except the sensor and the electronics directly involved in creating an image from it.
So what you say is only partly true.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 22, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mystic_theory said:
> ...


+1
How they arrive at their numbers is very questionable. However, if you look at their data rather than their sensor score, you can find out what you need to know.
Trying to give weight to numerous important parameters and put them into one score doesn't work, it does not tell you if a parameter you value highly is being given a low weighting.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 22, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Maui5150 said:
> ...



I agree. Now, I've gotten into some disagreements on here that I wish I hadn't and maybe emphasized my point a little too strongly, but it's never been personal and I look at it like a debate on one of those Sunday morning political shows. It's all in good fun and respect. I don't believe it is in good taste to quote someone and then put the word idiot in there. Afterall, Dx0Mark is only talking sensors, not the complete overall camera. Whether their sensor scores make sense or not, that's another issue.


----------



## nightbreath (Sep 23, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> As for Nikon/Canon color, I'm inclined to agree with you & say my _personal taste_ is for Canon's default colors. But I bet if you really wanted to you could build a DNG profile that makes a Nikon camera match Canon's default colors. Whether or not you wish to do so is another matter altogether.


I don't see possibility to do that. Just imagine two curves represented by diferent equations. There's no way you can easily come up with algorithm that makes transformation of one curve to another. It's easier to draw the required curve from the start


----------



## marekjoz (Sep 23, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > As for Nikon/Canon color, I'm inclined to agree with you & say my _personal taste_ is for Canon's default colors. But I bet if you really wanted to you could build a DNG profile that makes a Nikon camera match Canon's default colors. Whether or not you wish to do so is another matter altogether.
> ...



You only need three 14 bits long tables/matrixes/hashtables


----------



## nightbreath (Sep 23, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> nightbreath said:
> 
> 
> > sarangiman said:
> ...


It's not that simple 

Color of each individual pixel from my point of view can be result of evaluation of:
1. R-G-B channels of current pixel.
2. Colors of pixels-neighbors.
3. Overall picture color.
4. Exposure (?)

So if there's complex equation that is used to process specific pixel color, you won't be able to easily switch from one color evaluation scheme to another.


----------



## marekjoz (Sep 23, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > nightbreath said:
> ...



I always thought it's simple color shift. Is it not the way simple camera calibration like Color Checker works like?
Has anyone viewed calibration file?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 23, 2012)

Jose Ormazabal said:


> From my point of view it is evident that sony/nikon sensors are superior to canon's. I would love to have my 5d III with the D600 sensor.
> It is hard to believe that the majority of canon users are not disappointed with the increasing gap in sensor technology between Nikon and Canon.
> 
> I'm not a fan of either brand. I'm just a Canon user with a lot of glass and therefore married for good or bad. Right now, things are going bad.



I can see wanting the D800 sensor, but the d600? Actually, I can't even really see wanting that sensor. I've said it before and will say it again --- reading this makes one wonder whether I should do things like, present a wedding gallery to a client filled with images or have all the images sent to dxo, have them rated and send the test results to the client cause obviously that's what matters? 

I honestly don't see why people keep beating this dead horse. It's dead, and its been beaten, now your beating on it more --- But I gess it needs to be said again---for this round of bodies canon seems to have chosen to leap ahead in high ISO performance (while also putting a ton into lens dev, putting out a dedicated cinema line. And if the recent rumor is true, canon does have a 46.1 mp body in the final dev stages), AF and processor power. Nikon/sony went for MP's and DR. Like it or not, thats where we are NOW. Will it be that way forever, no, canon will catch up in DR and nikon will catch up in high ISO, then we'll wait for the next round of dev. Until then, go take some freaking pictures!!!!


----------



## elflord (Sep 23, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> When I've compared their results to other sites, or to my own experience, they have not matched. One example: according to DxO the 7D (Canon's 18 MP sensor) has little DR gain over the 10D / 20D. I could tell you before formally testing them that it was large, 2 stops easily.
> 
> Now maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe their current tests are better, or maybe it just so happens that the cameras I compared were the odd balls, not the entire testing methodology. I'll take another look.



You keep posting that DxO claim that the 10D has about the same dynamic range as the 7D but the graphs on DxO's website don't support this. 

The 7D appears to have about a 2 stop advantage over the 10D. For example, the 7D at ISO 400 beats the 10D at ISO 100. The same holds all the way through the ISO range -- ISO 800,1600,3200 and 6400 on 7D are better than 200, 400, 800, 1600 respectively on the 10D. 

So the 7D gives me about 2 more stops of ISO for any given dynamic range over the 10D. That's a pretty substantial difference in my book.


----------



## Sony (Sep 23, 2012)

To make it clear, there is no new Nikon sensor. They are Sony sensors in Nikon cameras. One of my friends cried with me last night that his Sony A900's mirror fell out so he has to let it sleep. Sony's technology !!!


----------



## naskatar (Sep 23, 2012)

I do not believe in those DxO results. 

Just compare their DxO Optics Pro software raw conversion results to those from Adobe software regarding detail extraction and image sharpness. 
(At least with Canon raw files. I have never tried any Nikon files due to the lack of a Nikon camera...)

While the DxO software is pretty good for a quick conversion, they are miles behind in other aspects.
So how should they be able to judge about sensor quality if they do not know how to get the optimum results of them?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2012)

naskatar said:


> Just compare their DxO Optics Pro software raw conversion results to those from Adobe software regarding detail extraction and image sharpness.
> (At least with Canon raw files. I have never tried any Nikon files due to the lack of a Nikon camera...)
> 
> While the DxO software is pretty good for a quick conversion, they are miles behind in other aspects.
> So how should they be able to judge about sensor quality if they do not know how to get the optimum results of them?



I have compared. I think DxO is a better RAW converter, particularly with better lens corrections and ISO noise with detail preserved. 

But I still think their Scores are BS.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2012)

naskatar said:


> I do not believe in those DxO results.
> 
> Just compare their DxO Optics Pro software raw conversion results to those from Adobe software regarding detail extraction and image sharpness.
> (At least with Canon raw files. I have never tried any Nikon files due to the lack of a Nikon camera...)
> ...



Measuring sensor performance and writing RAW decode software are pretty different things.
And BTW, when people do go and try to replicate their sensor findings themselves, surprise, surprise, the results come out close to what DxO reports.

Funny that if the new Canon sensors alluded to in the latest rumor suddenly perform much better then all the naysayers will be back to saying that one must trust in DxO results. ;D


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 24, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Measuring sensor performance and writing RAW decode software are pretty different things.


+1


LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And BTW, when people do go and try to replicate their sensor findings themselves, surprise, surprise, the results come out close to what DxO reports.


Yes, when people know what they're doing & emulate the methodology that DXO outlines (lower base of SNR=1), results end up being extremely similar to DXO. DXO numbers are *not* just BS if you understand what they are comparing.

And controlled tests are typically the best (if not *only*) way of consistently comparing systems. Having side-by-side 'real world' examples does, however, really buttress your case. DXO not having the latter may hurt them in the sense that people who don't understand the numbers or their methodology may just call BS if results fly in the face of prior, and therefore expected, experience.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 24, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> When I've compared their results to other sites, or to my own experience, they have not matched. One example: according to DxO the 7D (Canon's 18 MP sensor) has little DR gain over the 10D / 20D. I could tell you before formally testing them that it was large, 2 stops easily.



DXO's results show a ~1 stop improvement (normalized) for the 7D over the 10D, so I'm not sure why you consider that 'little DR gain':

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/619%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/281%7C0/(brand2)/Canon/(appareil3)/437%7C0/(brand3)/Canon


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 24, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I honestly don't see why people keep beating this dead horse. It's dead, and its been beaten, now your beating on it more --- But I gess it needs to be said again---for this round of bodies canon seems to have chosen to leap ahead in high ISO performance



These dead horses are beaten over & over again in order to dispel myths like the one you yourself just attempted to propagate; namely, that Canon has jumped ahead in high ISO performance.

In fact, it has not. Look at SNR 18% between the 5D Mark III, the D800, & the D4 here:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/795%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/792%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/767%7C0/(brand3)/Nikon

You must look at normalized results, not pixel-level results. The only place D800 falls behind is at ISO 25,600, & even then it's by 0.5dB.

The Nikon D800 has higher DR & higher resolution than the 5DIII, and yet still has the same ISO performance as the 5DIII for images scaled down to 5DIII resolution all the way up to ISO 12,800. That's quite a feat.


----------



## aj1575 (Sep 24, 2012)

compupix said:


> Canon has some catching up to do with respect to sensor performance as measured by http://www.DxOMark.com. Canon doesn't even come close to the top performing Nikons. (High score is better.):
> 
> Pts Model
> =======
> ...



Forget those numbers, they don't mean very much. What does a score of 96 mean? Do you or we know how they calculated this score? DXOmark says 5 points means about 1/3 stop; but this still leaves the question 1/3 stop in what aspect, at which ISO and so on.

The measurments from DXO are well done, the give a synthetic result of how a sensor behaves. The problem comes when we need to translate these measurments into real world conditions. The DXOmark who mixes all the different data points into one number is not a very good way to do so.

If you like to see real world comparisons, you are much better of at dppreview, or at the-digital-picture (mainly Canon stuff). There you can see real pictures and compare which look you like better.


----------



## philsv77 (Sep 25, 2012)

I could careless about DxO and pixel-peep thing . Got one yourself and be done with it.


----------



## nightbreath (Sep 25, 2012)

philsv77 said:


> I could careless about DxO and pixel-peep thing . Got one yourself and be done with it.


+1. Poor us, who don't have high DR cameras ???


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 25, 2012)

compupix said:


> Canon has some catching up to do with respect to sensor performance as measured by http://www.DxOMark.com. Canon doesn't even come close to the top performing Nikons. (High score is better.):
> 
> Pts Model
> =======
> ...



Meh, If you that serious about IQ, Large format is the way to go. All these 35mm DSLR's have pretty similar IQ at reasonable ISO's.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 25, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> All these 35mm DSLR's have pretty similar IQ at reasonable ISO's.



Nikon D800 | ISO 100 | 1/100s @f/11:





Canon 5D Mk III | ISO 100 | 1/100s @f/11:





... and that's at 800px _web size_.

Inevitably, someone's going to wonder why I severely underexposed the photo & then lifted the exposure; rather than getting into the logic of why I did that, I'll just post the following comparison, where each camera was exposed so as to not clip the red channel in the sky near the sun. Shadows were then lifted to reasonable levels for viewing:

First, the full-frame images:

Nikon D800:





Canon 5D Mark III:





Now, let's view them side-by-side at 100%, w/ the D800 downsized to 5DIII size for easy/fair comparison:





Please view it at 100% here; else you won't fully appreciate the difference: http://cl.ly/JipE/NikonD800_vs_Canon5DIII-SunsetDR.jpg

For certain types of photography, this matters. For others, it doesn't. Beautiful photographs from the previous posters, btw. Despite the results of these comparisons I've done above, *I stuck with the 5DIII* for various reasons since I find it suits my people photography better right now (AF accuracy/precision, wireless RF flash, love the joystick for AF point selection, cross-type AF points, higher FPS, etc.). But I wish it had a D800 sensor for when I shoot landscapes (using over $1k worth of Singh-Ray filters for now) or for those moments when my flash mis-fired or the meter completely underexposed an image b/c of a strong backlight, or what have you, & by the time I re-adjusted I'd missed the moment (and I can't salvage the underexposed photo because of noise).

In the end, we choose which limitations of a system to accept & work around, & which ones are unacceptable. I was still able to work around the limited DR of Canon & get these, for example:










But back to the topic at hand: it's great to know about advances in technology, & how they may help us achieve our vision. DXO's quantitation, to an extent, helps some of us do that.

Cheers.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 25, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > All these 35mm DSLR's have pretty similar IQ at reasonable ISO's.
> ...



Meh, Use your filters. I've seen plenty of good landscapes taken with crap cameras. I could use a D30 and get a good landscape.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 25, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Meh, Use your filters. I've seen plenty of good landscapes taken with crap cameras. I could use a D30 and get a good landscape.



Yup, updated my post above


----------



## arioch82 (Sep 25, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Meh, Use your filters. I've seen plenty of good landscapes taken with crap cameras. I could use a D30 and get a good landscape.



what does an answer like this even means? 
let's all go back to film then, i've seen plenty of good landscapes taken with film cameras.

He posted a comparison between the two sensor and the Nikon/Sony one is unarguably better.
Does this means that you cannot take beautiful pictures with a 5D Mk3? NO
Does this means that for a lower price Nikon is offering a camera with a better sensor that let you take beautiful pictures easily? YES

why can't people just admit that? customers should push their brand to do better, not settle down saying "nah i don't care if the competition is offering a better product for less money, I'm happy with what I have, please next time charge me more and remove some features, I will be willing to pay for it anyway".


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 25, 2012)

arioch82 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Meh, Use your filters. I've seen plenty of good landscapes taken with crap cameras. I could use a D30 and get a good landscape.
> ...



You would be right in going back to using film for landscapes. Especially Large format velvia... ahhh, Love those colors. Its a shame they don't make velvia anymore. :-[


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 25, 2012)

arioch82 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Meh, Use your filters. I've seen plenty of good landscapes taken with crap cameras. I could use a D30 and get a good landscape.
> ...



Heh, agreed. I was just trying to be as non-inflammatory & balanced in my post(s) as possible.

If the rumors about the new big megapixel Canon are true, I'd be pretty excited. It remains to be seen if the sensor has enough DR to even take advantage of a 16-bit ADC. Right now, Canon bodies are just oversampling noise with even their 14-bit ADC...


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 25, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> You would be right in going back to using film for landscapes. Especially Large format velvia... ahhh, Love those colors. Its a shame they don't make velvia anymore. :-[



What? I can still buy 120 Velvia 50 for my 645 system. It wasn't discontinued in 120, was it?

Velvia on a lightbox really is something to behold. But landscapes shot with the DR of a D800 & then displayed on an 'HDR' monitor capable of a high contrast ratio would also likely be something to behold.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 25, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > You would be right in going back to using film for landscapes. Especially Large format velvia... ahhh, Love those colors. Its a shame they don't make velvia anymore. :-[
> ...



Its a sad story but true. Buy it while you can.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/fujifilm-fujichrome-velvia-100f-35mm--120--4x5-and-50-4x5--8x10-discontinued-19729

I once viewed a 4x5 velvia slide from a collage prof. shot in yosemite 10 years ago, Its been the most stunning color I've ever seen and have yet to see anything close to it.. I could only imagine a 8x10 slide. 

35mm has nothing like it and depressing because some newer shooters may never actually see a brilliant large format color slide film in a lightbox.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 25, 2012)

Sad. But at least it appears that Velvia 100 is fine (I never liked 100F anyway), & I can still get 120 Velvia 50. 

But I'm sure even those will go in the near future.


----------



## Legio (Sep 25, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> But back to the topic at hand: it's great to know about advances in technology, & how they may help us achieve our vision. DXO's quantitation, to an extent, helps some of us do that.
> 
> Cheers.



Sorry if this has been discussed in the thread on previous posts...

We all know Nikons use of the Sony Exmor produce fantastic DR, even if I personally don't put so much weight into it (as many other seem to do). 

However as I understand it, the Canon sensors have the upper hand at long exposure times, perhaps if you have both Cameras, some nice Milky way pictures sure would be nice to see.
(Reasonable exposures would be like ISO 1600 f/1.4 8s at 35mm or with some star trails f/2.8 @ 32s)

I haven't seen if longer exposures actually gives better result in the Canon, but I've heard that was the Achilles heal on the Exmor sensors and that they would produce quite a bit of noise.

DR or not my Canon 5D Mark II is fantastic (at least on the center AF)


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 25, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Sad. But at least it appears that Velvia 100 is fine (I never liked 100F anyway), & I can still get 120 Velvia 50.
> 
> But I'm sure even those will go in the near future.



Indeed, a sad time. I liked Velvia 50 in my old yashica TLR.

You should post your portfolio. You've got some good stuff here, and forget about ze gear. It really doesn't matter as much as some posters make it out to be. 8) 

If I had the time, I'd re-purchase some of my old 4x5 gear again.


----------



## compupix (Sep 26, 2012)

DxO Film Pack has a Velvia setting. I can't speak to its look compared to actual Velvia.


----------



## nwardrip (Oct 10, 2012)

I encourage everyone to let Canon know of your disappointment with their recent sensor performance (compared to the competition). http://usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer


----------



## Woody (Oct 11, 2012)

nwardrip said:


> I encourage everyone to let Canon know of your disappointment with their recent sensor performance (compared to the competition). http://usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer



That is a link to the Canon US website. All major decisions are made in Canon Japan. Not sure if it'll have much of an impact.


----------



## tnargs (Oct 11, 2012)

nwardrip said:


> I encourage everyone to let Canon know of your disappointment with their recent sensor performance (compared to the competition). ...



No thank you, too busy making great shots with my 7D using its excellent sensor.


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 11, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Indeed, a sad time. I liked Velvia 50 in my old yashica TLR.
> 
> You should post your portfolio. You've got some good stuff here, and forget about ze gear. It really doesn't matter as much as some posters make it out to be. 8)
> 
> If I had the time, I'd re-purchase some of my old 4x5 gear again.



+1

I never sold my 4x5, going out for landscape with my Linhof is a pure refreshment, it's a kind of back to the roots, and the results are far from ridiculous...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2012)

nwardrip said:


> I encourage everyone to let Canon know of your disappointment with their recent sensor performance (compared to the competition). http://usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer



Thanks for the link. I let them know how *thrilled* I am with the 1D X sensor performance. Acceptable ISO 12800, and 25600 usable at need...simply awesome!!


----------



## EYEONE (Oct 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> nwardrip said:
> 
> 
> > I encourage everyone to let Canon know of your disappointment with their recent sensor performance (compared to the competition). http://usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer
> ...



And the 5D Mark III isn't far behind that honestly. I don't hesitate to use 6400 for a professional shoot. 12800 is very acceptable in most cases. I couldn't be happier with the performance of the 5D Mark III.


----------



## Sony (Oct 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> nwardrip said:
> 
> 
> > I encourage everyone to let Canon know of your disappointment with their recent sensor performance (compared to the competition). http://usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer
> ...


I have pics that taken in ambient light of a church with 5DMKiii @ around ISO 20000 (I used Auto ISO in M mode). They are usable in 4x6 format. My friend with D800 was there but couldnt do that. As far as DxOMark said, D800 is the top of FF camera. Can other Nikons do that? LOL.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 11, 2012)

Sony said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > nwardrip said:
> ...



That's going by what DxO says, in the real world it's alittle different. That's like saying my 5DIII is the best because of it's AF, FPS & high ISO. It all depends on what you're using it for. Wait, I guess it is the best for what I'm doing.


----------



## FunkyCamera (Oct 12, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > All these 35mm DSLR's have pretty similar IQ at reasonable ISO's.
> ...


What a terrible hoax. lol.


----------



## jrista (Oct 12, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > All these 35mm DSLR's have pretty similar IQ at reasonable ISO's.
> ...



That kind of bullsh*t is what really ticks me off about this whole debate. The exposure there (f/11 @ ISO 100!!!!!) is OBVIOUSLY botched to intentionally create a scenario where you have to lift the entire shot out of the shadows. Expose the damnable thing properly, and you won't HAVE to lift any shadows! NO ONE does what those photos demonstrate in the real world. It is entirely unrealistic, a bogus scenario to create a comparison that purposely puts Canon sensors in the worst light possible. It is entirely possible to create a photograph with a Canon camera at a wider aperture that looks every bit as good as the D800 photo...and in real life, THAT'S HOW IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE DONE...at a WIDER aperture.

*DON'T BUY INTO THIS LOAD OF BULL, PPL!*


----------



## IronChef (Oct 12, 2012)

jrista said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Why don't you quote the whole post? You left away the most important part.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Oct 12, 2012)

jrista said:


> That kind of bullsh*t is what really ticks me off about this whole debate. The exposure there (f/11 @ ISO 100!!!!!) is OBVIOUSLY botched to intentionally create a scenario where you have to lift the entire shot out of the shadows. Expose the damnable thing properly, and you won't HAVE to lift any shadows! NO ONE does what those photos demonstrate in the real world. It is entirely unrealistic, a bogus scenario to create a comparison that purposely puts Canon sensors in the worst light possible. It is entirely possible to create a photograph with a Canon camera at a wider aperture that looks every bit as good as the D800 photo...and in real life, THAT'S HOW IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE DONE...at a WIDER aperture.
> 
> *DON'T BUY INTO THIS LOAD OF BULL, PPL!*



yeah your posting is bullshit.. because you don´t get HIS posting. :

i don´t need a porsche that drives 290 km/h.
because in real life i never would drive 290 km/h and in america i would not even be allowed to drive 290 km/h.

still arguing that a VW Golf is a s good as a Porsche GT3, when driving at normal speeds.... is wrong.

even when i don´t use all resources of a porsche (or a camera) all the time... i still have them when i need them.


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 12, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> even when i don´t use all resources of a porsche (or a camera) all the time... i still have them when i need them.



This is exactly what I do when I keep all my fat with me - even when I don't use all those resources all the time, I still have them when I need them


----------



## nightbreath (Oct 12, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > even when i don´t use all resources of a porsche (or a camera) all the time... i still have them when i need them.
> ...


I should take this into my list of quotations, it's a really good one!


----------



## woytek (Oct 12, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Inevitably, someone's going to wonder why I severely underexposed the photo & then lifted the exposure; rather than getting into the logic of why I did that, I'll just post the following comparison, where each camera was exposed so as to not clip the red channel in the sky near the sun. Shadows were then lifted to reasonable levels for viewing:
> 
> First, the full-frame images:
> 
> ...



from http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/optimizing_exposure.shtml:



> For example, with a typical DSLR, when photographing a red flowers under natural daylight, the LCD histogram will typically show the red channel as blown out. This doesn't tell whether the native raw red channel is actually blown. So one doesn't know whether to increase the exposure for ETTR, or reduce it. The natural reaction of most users is to say, "Uh oh, I'm gonna blow the red channel in these flowers, so I better reduce the exposure till the red histogram doesn't look blown out anymore." Unfortunately, that's almost always the wrong thing to do. In fact, the red channel (in the raw data) rarely clips on a typical DSLR with a normal daylight exposure, because the red sensitivity is very low (about 1.5 stops darker than green). If one was to reduce exposure till the red histogram no longer showed clipping, then the actual raw red channel would be very underexposed with a poor SNR. Result: noisy red flowers!



I see the difference in noise and it sure is there! But, this example is flawed in my opinion since the exposure in these photo's was just wrong. I have seen that current Sony sensors offer better shadow recovery, no doubt about that. But in this particular situation it was not necessary to have such an underexposed image and the same photograph could be achieved by both Canon and Nikon camera when properly exposed.

Can you post a jpg of the unedited raw file?

Also from http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/on_safari.shtml#suckout :



> The bottom line is that the vast majority of the tonal information that a sensor can capture lies on the far right side. In fact, usually 75% of the total tonal information a sensor can capture lies in the small right hand area of the two top F/stops just below pure white. And yet, almost all cameras leave the factory calibrated to center the histogram instead of moving it as far to the right as possible. To make matters worse, the screens in the backs of cameras are also calibrated to show a good exposure with the histogram centered. This is nonsense!
> 
> So what are the consequences of Tonal Suckout? As the name implies, it is as if someone grabbed your image and sucked the tonality out of it, If there are millions of shades of green in a landscape, you may end up with a few dozen. If there is a terrific richness of tonalities in a face, you will end up with a small sub-set that makes the face look bland.



Maybe useful to keep in mind the next time you want to get an underexposed image!


----------



## jrista (Oct 12, 2012)

IronChef said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > sarangiman said:
> ...



I quoted a previous quote, so it didn't have the entire answer. It doesn't matter though. The other examples still have the exact same problem...underexposure. Neither the D800 nor 5D III in the examples below are properly exposed either. It's an unrealistically skewed sacenario, and BOTH cameras could have had at least a couple stops brighter exposure with some shadow pushing in post to improve contrast, and result in better detail overall:



woytek said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > Inevitably, someone's going to wonder why I severely underexposed the photo & then lifted the exposure; rather than getting into the logic of why I did that, I'll just post the following comparison, where each camera was exposed so as to not clip the red channel in the sky near the sun. Shadows were then lifted to reasonable levels for viewing:
> ...



None of the scenes in the examples from sarangiman have enough DR to require such a low exposure (no way your going to clip that red channel for at least a stop or more...its barely exposed at all!) Show me a few photos with a proper exposure that doesn't purposely *require* exorbitant amounts of shadow lifting, and we can have a more realistic discussion. Sony Exmor sensors ARE amazing, no question about that, but when I see improperly exposed photos like this that are designed to bring out the worst in Canon cameras, it's just annoying. 

I would love to see someone take a photo of a landscape scene with 14 real stops of DR, expose properly on *both* a Canon and a Nikon w/ Exmor camera (i.e. expose to maximize the potential of both sensors), and compare. The Nikon will be the better camera from a DR standpoint, but ONLY from a shadow pulling standpoint. The Canon will look just as good in most areas, it will just lack the shadow pulling ability of the Nikon, so it'll probably end up a bit more contrasty. You won't see exorbitant amounts of read noise in middle shadows though...you might see it in the deep shadows, but not in the middle shadows.


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 12, 2012)

I think everyone agrees, that Nikon's files look better, no matter what the process was behind it.

And I find it really really annoying, that this is the only thing Nikon is better in - there are not many more areas in which competition would force Canon to work harder.

Could you please present any other examples in other areas, where Nikon would be better than Canon?


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 12, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> 1dx to the left and d800 to the right, now I have lifted the shadows even more, 1dx S/N looks like 5dmk3 with pattern noise and loss of details



Yes. And something else without pulling shadows?


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 12, 2012)

The chart below shows that Canon's sensors are generally more cromulent than Nikon's. This tallies with my real-life findings.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 12, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> The chart below shows that Canon's sensors are generally more cromulent than Nikon's. This tallies with my real-life findings.



;D ;D ;D


----------



## FunkyCamera (Oct 12, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Take it easy Jrista
> 
> Depending on the subject's DR range , you get the option to either expose after the highlights, so they are properly estimated without clippning and color defects or you chose to expose after the midtones / shadows with risk of clippning of highlights, You have several choices if you have 14 stops compared to 11 stops
> 
> ...



More fakes!


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 12, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> I think everyone agrees, that Nikon's files look better, no matter what the process was behind it.
> 
> And I find it really really annoying, that this is the only thing Nikon is better in - there are not many more areas in which competition would force Canon to work harder.
> 
> Could you please present any other examples in other areas, where Nikon would be better than Canon?



I would say auto flash / daylight balance, and multizone light metering. IMO, this has always been Nikon strength, although Canon has progressed here. Their flash fill in system is simply unbeatable (no need to compensate the strobe output in most cases) same with the matrix metering that in most cases gives a better evaluation of the lighting, the system invented with the Nikon FA has constantly been refined and is more efficient than Canon's. I had a Nikon F4 back in 1992, and it was night and day with Canon's exposure system. Canon worked to catch up, and is much better nowadays, but still Nikon started 30years ago with the matrix metering and still has some advance in that domain. They were first to use matrix metering, to use the focusing distance to refine the flash balance, and to use a RVB matrix to refine metering even further.

Many will think it has less importance with digital, since you can still adjust the exposition with the curves, but in the good old times of E6 films, these features were a huge advantage over Canon's light metering system.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 12, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> FunkyCamera said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



More time wasted arguing with each other where as you could have spent on Taking actual Photographs... are you guys paid for this?


----------



## DrDeano (Oct 12, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> The chart below shows that Canon's sensors are generally more cromulent than Nikon's. This tallies with my real-life findings.



I agree AdamJ, though my experiences differ greatly when shooting in the rain or within 100ft. of a bridge or similar man-made structure. It's clear to me though based on the cromulence chart and fair-weathered, non-adjacent man-made structure photography, we can find parity.


----------



## ThuiQuaDayNe (Oct 12, 2012)

And the winner is.........


Nikon Canon
Sensor : 1 0
Lens : 0 1
Body : 0 1
Flash : 1 0
Metering: 1 1 (tie)
Fan : 0 0 (we argue so much none of us deserve any points)
Total : 3  3

Winner cannot be determined at this time.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 12, 2012)

ThuiQuaDayNe said:


> And the winner is.........
> 
> 
> Nikon Canon
> ...



I don't know, the 600EX-RT is a damn good flash.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 12, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > All these 35mm DSLR's have pretty similar IQ at reasonable ISO's.
> ...



I don't know what you do to your files but my 7D even when heavily processed, still has enough detail to make a full-res print.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 12, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



A person can do anything they want to a file to make it look anyway they like.


----------



## jrista (Oct 12, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > FunkyCamera said:
> ...



Actually, since my last reply I've been out photographing. I'm only back to import, charge batteries, and head out again. With my trusty 7D. ;P


----------



## jrista (Oct 12, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> ThuiQuaDayNe said:
> 
> 
> > And the winner is.........
> ...



Have to agree there. The latest round of flash tech from Canon is pretty mind bowing. I'd give that point to Canon myself.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 12, 2012)

jrista said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > ThuiQuaDayNe said:
> ...



So I guess the winner can be determined at this time. ;D


----------



## jrista (Oct 12, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I don't know what you do to your files but my 7D even when heavily processed, still has enough detail to make a full-res print.



Wow, beautiful example of some Canon recovery.

I don't know how anyone can see one of those samples from either Sarangiman or Mikael are *realistic*. If Canon sensors were THAT noisy (and I'm not saying they don't have worse read noise than an Exmor, but read noise is only the lower 0.05% of the maximum possible signal level in a Canon), why is it that we don't see noisy photographs all over the net from Canon cameras? There are millions of people who use Canon DSLR's, and many tens of millions more (if not billions) of photographs uploaded onto the net yearly by those same people. If Canon noise was really as bad in the average case as Sarangiman and Mikael and all the rest of the D800 fanboy club insist, why don't we see evidence of that every time we look at a photo taken with a Canon camera? 

Seriously. Underexposing a D800 by MANY STOPS for the purpose of demonstrating the Exmor sensor's improved DR in the shadows is one thing. Underexposing both a D800 and a 5D III or any other as a means of demonstrating how supposedly utterly terrible Canon cameras are in a supposed real-life situation is just a farce. A hoax. It's simply not the case. I have the same issue with that as I do with DXO claiming the D800 has a sensor capable of capturing 14.4 stops. It's misleading and false.


----------



## MarkII (Oct 13, 2012)

jrista said:


> I have the same issue with that as I do with DXO claiming the D800 has a sensor capable of capturing 14.4 stops. It's misleading and false.


DXO do not claim that the D800 sensor has 14.4 stops of dynamic range. They claim that the sensor has a range of 13.2 stops at full resolution. The 14.3 stop DR is the result of downsampling to 8 megapixels. You need to read the actual measurement graphs and understand them and the methodology that they use (and why they do this). No one has given any evidence to suggest that the DXO figures are substantially incorrect.

I do not understand why this is such a big issue for some people here. I think it is good that cameras like the D800 exist and it is important that companies like DXO publish their findings as it helps put pressure on Canon to improve. You might not want a 5DIV with a significantly better sensor than the 5DII, but other people seemingly do and have clearly explained why more DR would be beneficial to them.

None of this is about whether or not a 5DII/III can take stunning pictures - it is about the range of conditions in which it can take them. Anything which expands that range - whether it be more pixels, more DR, higher-usable ISOs, or a usable AF system - can only be a good thing for anyone creatively pushing against the boundaries of what is possible today.


----------



## jrista (Oct 13, 2012)

MarkII said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I have the same issue with that as I do with DXO claiming the D800 has a sensor capable of capturing 14.4 stops. It's misleading and false.
> ...



I have read it, and actually I couldn't agree more with what you said. The sensor is capable of *13.2 stops* of dynamic range, which is an argument I repeatedly make, which is repeatedly me with photos like the ones above. The reason I have a problem with DXO is the 14.4 stop figure is repeated all over the net as an intrinsic ability of the D800, when its really a capability of software (and not necessarily the software most photographers use to scale their images.) As I said...misleading.

I also totally agree that more DR is GOOD. It's actually GREAT, and I can't wait until low read noise, high SNR, and wide ISO latitude are standard fanfare across all brands. But it's not grounds to post photos all over the net that make the cameras from other manufacturers such as Canon look like they came out of the 1990's, simply as a means of arguing up your favored brand. The difference, while important, isn't that big, and non-Exmor cameras are certainly capable of a hell of a lot more than these inane photos that show horrid read noise right up into the highlights from Canon cameras. 

It makes the more foolish, unobservant and reactive on the net make rash decisions, such as sell their entire kit(usually at considerable loss) and jump brands (usually at greater cost), when their previous kit was _perfectly fine_, it just lacks a bit of extra latitude exposure latitude (and not _nearly_ as much as some would have those poor fools think.) There ARE a few reasons to either switch, or add Nikon to your kit. The primary one would be for serious landscape photographers who regularly photograph scenes with extensive DR, and would prefer not to resort to HDR/Fusion techniques. I think many street photographers might find additional DR a handy thing as well. 

But the majority of people need to understand that the sample comparisons between various Canon cameras and the D800 are EXPLICITLY performing unrealistic tests, aimed at underexposing photos (sometimes by many, many stops) in order to put Canon cameras in an exceptionally BAD light...the light of pushing shadows from the bottom two stops of DR...something we need rather infrequently in real life (as would be evidenced by the bazillion photos taken with Canon cameras that never exhibit any amount of noise anywhere remotely close to the likes of the photos posted by Sarangiman and Mikael).



To the argument that you *have* to underexpose to preserve highlights. While this is a bit of an extreme example, I think it demonstrates that the argument for underexposing considerably to preserve highlights, as in the examples posted by Sarangiman and Mikael, is a fallacy (or some kind of farce):






*Intended Exposure:* 1/800s f/7.1 @ ISO 100 | *Actual Exposure:* 1/100s f/5.6 @ ISO 100

When I first saw the photo above (taken with my Canon 7D), I thought it was a total goner. As far as I could tell, not only had I blown the highlights, but the entire shot except for a few parts of the dragonfly itself. To my own amazement, The entire photo was recoverable, and only a few bits of specular highlight were actually "blown". A fact that did not diminish the final results by any means. I was able to fully recover those pixels that appeared to be pure white (which, on closer inspection, are packed into the levels just below pure white). Since the image was so over-exposed (by nearly *four stops*), the shadows are nearly noiseless, lacking any amount of artifacts from read noise:






I can't speak much to Nikon cameras, as I don't use them much. However when it comes to Canon cameras, they offer quite a bit of exposure latitude in the highlights. While the example above is extreme (much like the examples of D800 shadow recovery), the point is you can use the exposure latitude available to you in a Canon camera to get FAR better results than indicated Sarangiman, Mikael and a whole host of other people producing similar types of comparisons around the net.


----------



## ThuiQuaDayNe (Oct 13, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Razor2012 said:
> ...



Thanks Razor, you just extended this thread for another 14 pages. ;D


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 13, 2012)

ThuiQuaDayNe said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Heh you're welcome. Btw, just mentioning the word Canon seems to create quite a stir.


----------



## wayno (Oct 13, 2012)

Or the words "DXOMark", it would seem..


----------



## jthomson (Oct 13, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> And the winner is.........
> 
> 
> Nikon Canon Sony Olympus
> ...



And the Winner is......


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 13, 2012)

This graph shows the forum members' satisfaction with Canon products. Interestingly, the graph shows that levels of satisfaction are consistent despite persistent messages about dynamic range relative to non-Canon products.


----------



## jrista (Oct 13, 2012)

jthomson said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > And the winner is.........
> ...



I would actually rate the cameras (sensor included, so no Sony here) as such, myself:



*Nikon**Canon*****Sensor: *10*Lens: *01*Body: *01*Flash: *11(tie, Canon's just got a LOT better, but Nikon's was always good)*Metering: *1.51(Generally a tie, but Nikon gets an extra half point because ALL of their cameras have good meetering)*Fans: *00(I think we fans are all a little pathetic when you get right down to it. ;P)*Total: *3.54 


----------



## Ivar (Oct 13, 2012)

Makes absolutely sense!



jrista said:


> I would actually rate the cameras (sensor included, so no Sony here) as such, myself:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nikon**Canon*****Sensor: *10*Lens: *01*Body: *01*Flash: *11(tie, Canon's just got a LOT better, but Nikon's was always good)*Metering: *1.51(Generally a tie, but Nikon gets an extra half point because ALL of their cameras have good meetering)*Fans: *00(I think we fans are all a little pathetic when you get right down to it. ;P)*Total: *3.54 


----------



## Fishnose (Oct 13, 2012)

Far better to use a 10 scale. And we can drop the 'fan' thing.
I'm only considering the top end stuff - FF plus 7D and D7000. 
If we we to add lower-end DSLRs, the D3200 leapfrogs everything Canon does in APS-C, except for the 'Body' category. So let's leave them out of it.

*Nikon**Canon**Sensor: *97Not much to discuss here*Lens: *89Canon make fantastic lenses, but so do Nikon*Body: *89To a large extent this is a matter of taste, but the Canon grips are slightly better*Flash: *78Canon's new radio control beats Nikon*Metering: *98Nikon metering is bloody good*AF: *98Nikon beats Canon, with the exception of the 1Dx*Total: *5049 
And I think that however you look at it, both make bloody fantastic cameras.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 13, 2012)

I would have to disagree with AF here, Canon beats Nikon.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 13, 2012)

Even the 5DIII beats the D800 when it comes to AF.


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 14, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> I would have to disagree with AF here, Canon beats Nikon.



I think AF is the biggest advantage canon has right now. That and lenses of course.


----------



## jrista (Oct 14, 2012)

I would disagree with AF currently being in favor of Nikon in general. In my playing around with Nikon DSLR bodies at the local camera place, I've noticed Nikon AF systems have very low frame spread. Particularly on the full-frame bodies. Most of their latest AF systems seem to be reticular, but the points are so tightly clustered around the center of the frame and so tightly spaced, I wonder if they are as broadly flexible as Canon AF systems. 

In most, if not all (6D AF system yet to be seen, although I suspect it is the same) current Canon DSLR's, they support fairly broad AF point spread in a highly configurable setup, including the 7D, 5D III and 1D X (and even the 1D IV in a form). The new Canon 61pt AF system, used in both the 1D X and 5D III, has more total points as well as more cross-type points than any other AF system yet on the market. All of Canon's AF systems support a variety of selectable point modes, including Spot AF, Single Point AF, Expansion AF, and Zone AF (the 1D IV supports some of those, in a more tedious fashion with custom functions). This is in addition to the ubiquitous Full AF mode where all points are automatically selected. Canon AF precision is also improved for wide lenses, such as f/4 and f/2.8 aperture when used...which can be a huge bonus for f/4 L II supertelephoto or f/2.8 L II telephoto lens users. Canon was also the first to provide orientation-linked AF points.

I think some of these features found their way into the improved 51pt AF system used in the D4 and D800, however most of Nikon's AF systems only support dynamic AF areas around the center point (if they support a dynamic AF area at all). However, to my knowledge, Nikon AF points only have two levels of sensitivity...normal sensitivity for f/5.6 and lower sensitivity for f/8...so no bonus performance or precision to f/4 and f/2.8 telephoto lens users. I don't think there is any question that previously, when Nikon first introduced their 51 and 39 point AF systems in the previous generation of Cameras, they were generally better than Canon's (particularly the 1D III's botched AF system). 

However at the current time, I think Canon definitely holds the AF crown...assuming were talking about who has the best of the latest and greatest technology (which is what I assumed before.)


----------



## skitron (Oct 14, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> 1dx to the left and d800 to the right, now I have lifted the shadows even more, 1dx S/N looks like 5dmk3 with pattern noise and loss of details



What soft did you use to lift the shadows?


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 15, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > Razor2012 said:
> ...



When the D800 first came out I played with it a while and wasn't that impressed with the AF. There are reviews that also state the 5DIII has a better AF system (just look at the 1DX).


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 15, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Warning: Entering middle earth. Don't end up like this discussion.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9822.msg177361#msg177361


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 15, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> If we are discussing facts , please Meet me with the facts, I am happy to listen to you
> 
> Nikon and Canon have two different visions of how an AF system should be and function, and with what parameters. There are differences in response, starting up , stopping down and loops to hit the target in different scenes. Canon have chosen for example up to f-5, 6, Nikon to F-8.
> It would take a very long time to test out which of the systems is generally best, it is probably not doable.



Canon 61 Point AF system - works @ F/5.6

61 points total
41 Cross type Points
5 Double-Crosstype point which currently no manuafauter makes.

Can work @ F/8 With Kenko Extenders. Not limited by hardware but software.

Nikon 51 Point 3500 Series AF - works @ F/8

51 points total
15 Crosstype points
0 Double crosstype points

Is that factual enough for you? Teh Canon is clearly superior on paper, can you prove that the nikon is superior in use? that is the question. 8)


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 15, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Canon is clearly superior on paper, can you prove that the nikon is superior in use? that is the question.
> 
> exact , so it is or vice versa



Since canon's system is better on paper, and you cannot prove the nikon is better in use. The obvious conclusion is

The Canon AF is better.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 15, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



I cannot comment on many sports photographers. But I shoot with two D4 users and I have a much higher hit rate with my 1DX than they do at night sports. It could be that I'm just that good, but I highly doubt that's the case . At any rate, both of them wish they had my 1DX. I can also shoot at ISO 25,600 and print 8 x 10's with general NR and they cannot get those photos. Keep in mind that this is just a test among 3 people.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 16, 2012)

I am NOT disagreeing with dynamic range. That is true, regarding what you say about DR. I was on another point about 1DX vs. D4 only, in that I am able to distribute player photos in those extreme situations and they are not. Bottom line is I got them, and they didn't, regardless of DR per se. Maybe it is simply a noise argument and/or low light AF argument.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



I never said quote "more is better" infact, you did. 

You still have not provided any evidence proving the Nikon system superior. 

You fail on your sports argument because canon gained all the sports togs on the 90's due again, ironically, to canons better AF performance. 

You fail fanboy.


----------



## jrista (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



It is entirely possible to statistically analyze subjective results. In that respect, there is an overwhelming statistical aggregation from the very wide variety of reviews of Canon cameras with the 61pt AF system and Nikon's 51pt AF system. Even from reviewer strongholds in the Nikon camp, there is a strong indication that Canon currently has the better AF system...and not by a little. Terms along the lines of "extremely fast", "high keeper rate", "high quality keepers", "very accurate", etc. are used frequently in reference to Canon's 61pt AF system. In reference to Nikon's 51pt AF system, you hear about how its good...not as fast...has a high keeper rate, even slightly higher than Canon's....but its not as accurate, and definitely slower. With Canon's 1D X 2fps frame rate advantage over Nikon's D4, a low miss rate is completely absorbed, and the higher precision and accuracy definitely stands out...in every objective review I've read or watched.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I am NOT disagreeing with dynamic range. That is true, regarding what you say about DR. I was on another point about 1DX vs. D4 only, in that I am able to distribute player photos in those extreme situations and they are not. Bottom line is I got them, and they didn't, regardless of DR per se. Maybe it is simply a noise argument and/or low light AF argument.
> ...



I'm telling you exactly why they didn't, and CAN'T get them. The noise is way too much and the highlights are way too blown and the photos are blurry. Mine aren't. What is so hard to understand about this? I don't care why this is, all I know is that I have to answer to the university and no one else. Maybe I'm shooting differently, maybe not. I don't care.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Until you provide facts that Nikons 51 point system is a better field performer than the 61 pt system from canon, the canon system remains better on paper and remains better in first hand experience from me.

Also, where is your body of work? Or does it consist soley of test charts and color charts? I could believe you more if you had a portfolio showing your work using the nikon system.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> ...second " I can also shoot at ISO 25,600 and print 8 x 10's with general NR and they cannot get those photos" , what you saying more points out that you are looking at noise reduction nothing else and speaks against measured data , DXO measurements will show the differences
> these are from Claff



So, he's talking about ISO noise performance and some aspects of _camera_ performance, in the real world, but you bring out the dead sensor DR horse to beat it some more. Good job.


----------



## jrista (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



LOL

It is a statistical aggregation, based on the conclusions of ALL the reviews done of the recent camera releases by both Canon and Nikon. There is no one test. I could probably put together my own analysis of each of the reviews and their conclusions re: the AF systems of both brands among different camera models. That would take a lot of time, time which I am most certainly not interested in doing solely for one such as yourself...who will inevitably find some way to discount or discredit the work in the first place. I might do it for the benefit of everyone else, though...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 16, 2012)

jrista said:


> That kind of bullsh*t is what really ticks me off about this whole debate. The exposure there (f/11 @ ISO 100!!!!!) is OBVIOUSLY botched to intentionally create a scenario where you have to lift the entire shot out of the shadows. Expose the damnable thing properly, and you won't HAVE to lift any shadows! NO ONE does what those photos demonstrate in the real world. It is entirely unrealistic, a bogus scenario to create a comparison that purposely puts Canon sensors in the worst light possible. It is entirely possible to create a photograph with a Canon camera at a wider aperture that looks every bit as good as the D800 photo...and in real life, THAT'S HOW IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE DONE...at a WIDER aperture.
> 
> *DON'T BUY INTO THIS LOAD OF BULL, PPL!*



It's called a demonstration, a quick and easy way to show the difference which would still hold for scenes shot as you would wish.


----------



## Fishnose (Oct 16, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Far better to use a 10 scale. And we can drop the 'fan' thing.
> I'm only considering the top end stuff - FF plus 7D and D7000.
> If we we to add lower-end DSLRs, the D3200 leapfrogs everything Canon does in APS-C, except for the 'Body' category. So let's leave them out of it.
> 
> ...



I'm quoting myself here, just to make a point in light of the heated discussion that's been raging about 'Who has the better AF'.

When I gave Nikon 9 and Canon 8 for AF, it was NOT only about the D4 and the 1Dx. It was about all the upper end models from each make combined: 

Canon: 1Dx, 5D3, 6D, 5D2, 1DS3, 1D4, 7D,
Nikon: D4, D800, D600, D700, D3x, D3s, D7000. 

The 1Dx would certainly seem to be the superior allround sports and low light model. Even if Canon DR is not up to Nikon level. But that's a whole other ballgame


----------



## sanj (Oct 16, 2012)

I had not paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice. 
And take notice is the only thing I can do as I have Mr. X, 3 and whole bunch or lenses already. 
I was happily cruising along and then I see these photos...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2012)

sanj said:


> I had NOT paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice.
> And take notice is the only thing I can do as I have Mr. X, 3 and whole bunch or lenses already.
> I was happily cruising along and then I see these photos...



So...one guy takes a few pictures with a specific agenda in mind, deliberately choosing an exposure that is not optimal (and not just a little off - several stops underexposed), and then processes them in ways which may be totally irrelevant to your images, and that makes you doubt your decision to shoot with Canon gear?


----------



## rpt (Oct 16, 2012)

sanj said:


> I had not paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice.
> And take notice is the only thing I can do as I have Mr. X, 3 and whole bunch or lenses already.
> I was happily cruising along and then I see these photos...


Sanj, you got it wrong! it is that game spot the 6 differences. I found just one! Been looking hard but cant find the other 5...


----------



## MarkII (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> If you will come with an conclusion instead to defame me then write...


I don't think that Neuro's post was trying to be insulting. The point is why should someone suddenly give up their equipment after seeing a posts about limitations in the extreme when they were previously perfectly happy. The images posted only show the transition point at which the image quality from the two cameras moves from being perfectly fine to marginal.

If you were to underexpose by another two or three stops, neither camera would deliver useful results - so following some of the logic in this thread everyone should just give up taking pictures period 



Mikael Risedal said:


> The only way to decrease read out noise in a Canos is to halve the exposure one or twice and (halve the electrons who has been read out, every stops =halve the amount of electrons ) then we end up at for example 400iso and where banding are not so visible but the DR has also reduced



Actually, I don't think that it is quite that simple. Several NR packages now do quite a good job now of removing pattern noise, and if you are really pushing the limits of what should be done you can use Photoshop with multiple exposures (on my camera at least, averaging several frames cleans up the horizontal banding and reduce the general noise floor, while vertical banding appears to be more a DC offset issue and can be reduced by subtracting an average of several dark-frames, which you can do in-camera if your exposures are more than 1s and you turn long-exposure NR on).

Of course, it would be easier if the sensors just performed better and Canon is obviously lagging Sony in absolute performance for now. But any sensor is going to run in to a noise floor eventually and there will always be a point where this is obviously visible and where you need to use unusual techniques if you want to shoot in that region.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I had NOT paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice.
> ...



I agree with neuro, Michael is definitely doing something wrong in his processing. Look at my 7D example of recovery and that's not even the best sensor around but easily recovered by NR and good enough for a full-res prints.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9570.180


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Only a clot would underexpose 10-stops. :


----------



## jrista (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> MarkII said:
> 
> 
> > If you were to underexpose by another two or three stops, neither camera would deliver useful results - so following some of the logic in this thread everyone should just give up taking pictures period
> ...



You are still missing the point of argument here, though. Yes, it does work well to underexpose those cameras by four stops, then lift the shadows in post. But doing so is an unrealistic test from a real-world standpoint. All it tells you is that IF someone were to accidentally expose their scene incorrectly by a HUGE amount (some 16x incorrectly), then they would have a greater ability to recover. Purposely underexposing by four stops for the purpose of comparing cameras is also an unrealistic real-world comparison. 

It does exhibit an issue with how Canon sensors produce read noise...probably thanks to their Bias Offset and the use of negative value readout...which inevitably results in useful image data having half negative values being mixed in with FPN and HVBN noise present in the electronics of the sensor itself.

But repeatedly trotting out -4EV photos lifted +4EV in post as an example of good IQ is just inane. It is entirely unrealistic, as the only time someone MIGHT actually need to do something along those lines would be when they *accidentally* underexposed. Assuming someone did...well, no question that having a D800 is the better camera to support nearly considerable restoration of exposure. No matter what you do, though, a -4EV underexposure on ANY camera is going to cost you in other ways. It will cost you in contrast, final image dynamic range, color fidelity, etc. etc. If you only use the bottom 5% of the sensors hardware DR, you only have 5% of the total DR to work with in post. The only difference between Canon and Exmor sensors is that Exmor sensors are usable in such a scenario, where as Canon's are not. But its a scenario that MIGHT affect real-world photographers less than 1% of the time at most, when they screw something up...it shouldn't be a normal tactic for any photographer. As such, no photographers are going to experience the kinds of extreme pattern noise you guys cook up in your incredibly unrealistic "comparison" photos on a regular basis.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Then shoot pentax and underexpose all your picture's 10 stops if you like. 

while real photog's will continue to get correct exposures, since the days of the wet plates to ansel adams to modern digital. 

I don't know if anyone has informed you that in the end, the camera doesn't matter. The fleshy device behind the camera matters and how it will get the most of a camera. BTW, where's your portfolio?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> But it works, and doesn't with a Canon, do you understand the difference?


Next, Mikael, you can explain to all of us how if Kobe Bryant had only been using a Nikon camera, with it's awesome ability to lift even completely dark shots to perfectly usable, noise-free images, he would not have had the problems he experienced here...

http://youtu.be/uu-gvSif-f4

We all know about TTL mode, but Nikon cameras, with their perfect sensors, can also shoot in TTLC mode (through the lens cap). :


----------



## K-amps (Oct 16, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> We all know about TTL mode, but Nikon cameras, with their perfect sensors, can also shoot in TTLC mode (through the lens cap). :



;D ;D ;D


----------



## lola (Oct 16, 2012)

It's very retarded to deny the difference between the two cameras. Even if I was a Canon shareholder and someone from Nikon's board of directors murdered my whole family, I wouldn't try to justify recent Canon sensors.

I've been shooting with Canon since '96. You too? Great, enjoy, but there's no need to do injustice to Nikon.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 16, 2012)

This is getting a bit boring now... a typical outdoors will have a DR of 18-21 stops... so Guess what... the Nikon won't be able to capture it either... so even if you can pee a bit farther, so what?


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

:|


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 16, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



:
You do realize that Ansel Adams was the guy who went to almost crazy lengths to get the right sort of film and would spend endless hours in the lab to extend and manipulate DR as best as he could and was not just an artist but about as interest in the tech side too as you could get and that he was interested in the tech side not just for tech alone but also because of the practical implications for his real world shooting.... 


And it actually is nice to be able to rescue a blown shot if need be no? But also keep in mind, that it is only a little bit about that, mostly people are talking about wanting more DR while at the same time exposing as they had hoped for the scene....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 16, 2012)

jrista said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > MarkII said:
> ...



You are missing the point that some scenes NATURALLY have enough DR that if you expose to not blow bright areas that you don't want blown out then the dark areas would be that dark.

What is the freaking big deal with just admitting Exmor sensors have more DR and that it can be useful both save one of messed up shots and, much more often, to allow you to expand your photographic possibilities, or even to simply save time in post processing at times and drop it all? Why do so many have to make up lies about DxO? I've shot nothing but Canon since I was a little kid and I can admit it. 

Would you rather we all deny it and praise Canon and tell Canon we don't care since it doesn't matter and then have Canon be like hey why bother? Or would you rather the 5D4 maybe has the better low ISO DR??? The people you are hurting most are CANON users and yourselves, us, not Nikon users.

Yeah it's not absolutely the end of the world, if it was I would have already switched to Nikon, but for now I am using a 5D3 and yeah there a tons of shots that it can do perfectly, an almost infinite number, so I focus on those for now and struggle to fix up some others. But it still isn't hard for me to hit situations where I am like man if it only it had exmor low ISO performance, man, man, man. Eventually, if Canon thinks we don't care, and never changes I will switch to Nikon, but I'd really rather not, for a number of reasons, but I will if I have to. I just hope I don't and you are not helping us any (or helping to educate anyone when you constantly give out mixed-up misleading information on normalization).


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Yes, but Ansel Adams would have gotten his exposure correct (Not 10 stops underexposed) and processed for DR. He also used filters to achieve the DR he wanted, and not solely on his film to capture all the range he needed.

Everyone knows the nikon sensor has more DR, but its not like the canon sensors are as bad as other make them to be. IE: the 7D file I posted earlier.

Michael tests show noise like I've never seen before in my canon cameras, which makes me question the validity of the said persons tests & creditials.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> your post is not even worth it to respond to, and Ansel Adams put a lot of work in the copying as it is mention earlier



Ansel Adams wouldn't have missed his exposure by 10 stop's. :


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 16, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> What is the freaking big deal with just admitting Exmor sensors have more DR and that it can be useful both save one of messed up shots and, much more often, to allow you to expand your photographic possibilities, or even to simply save time in post processing at times and drop it all?



Without sorting through this entire mess of a thread...

* Exmor sensors *do have* more DR, and it can be useful.

* Exmor sensors *do not have* the amount of excess DR being claimed by fans or DxO.

* Canon sensors *are not as limited* as they are claimed to be by Exmor fans.

* The impact on one's photography is simply *not as great* as claimed by Exmor fans.

* The number of posts on this topic have *far exceeded reason.*

Canon users underexpose and then lift shadows all the time. I've done this with countless Canon RAW files. In ACR (Photoshop CS4) I am not limited by noise until about 60-70 on the Fill Light slider. With an Exmor sensor I could take that slider to 100. It would be nice. But it's not worth 20 page threads.

In terms of DR and impact on my photography, getting an 8 fps camera (my first 7D) had a greater impact on my shooting than an Exmor sensor would. Before that I could not easily hand hold 3 AEB frames for exposure blending / HDR. Now I regularly do this and AEB is on my user menu. When I do this I obtain greater DR then you could hope to achieve with a single Exmor frame. Which is good, because the scenes I use it with have a greater DR then an Exmor sensor could achieve in one frame. I don't know where the exact cut off is in terms of shooting speed and ability to hand hold for 3 identical frames, but I could never do it consistently before the 7D.

Do you see any 20 page threads from me about this technique? Do you see me constantly telling people with slower cameras that their cameras are trash? Do you see me berating Nikon because they can't achieve 8 fps, outside of their super expensive pro sports body, without battery grips and compromised bit depth? Do I flood the forum with comments about how Nikon users should not tolerate their crummy drive motors, crummy 12-bit limitations in high speed shooting, or Nikon's laziness in allowing Canon to out fps them?

No. And do you know why you don't see page after page of this from me?

*Because it would be ridiculous.*

So is this Exmor nonsense. Right now Sony sensors have lower read noise and Sony has a patent on the technique. It results in a little bit more DR. The advantage will be there until Canon works around the patent or licenses it. Or possibly until other advances in sensor fabrication render the point moot. How much more needs to be said about it?



> Why do so many have to make up lies about DxO?



Nobody is "making up lies" about DxO. DxO's methodology is flawed. So is their presentation. They publish IQ scores all over the place, but tuck away the note that says you can't compare scores between sensors of different resolutions. Then they produced normalized scores with obviously flawed normalization (i.e. >14 stops DR from a 14-bit pipeline).



> Would you rather we all deny it and praise Canon and tell Canon we don't care since it doesn't matter and then have Canon be like hey why bother? Or would you rather the 5D4 maybe has the better low ISO DR???



Whether or not the 5D4 has better DR has nothing to do with these stupid threads, and everything to do with their engineers. I have little doubt they are working on it.



> But it still isn't hard for me to hit situations where I am like man if it only it had exmor low ISO performance, man, man, man.



Your imagination is always greater than the real difference. I see this all the time in photography. People are always saying "man if I only had X or Y", not realizing they can do whatever they want with what they already have.



> I just hope I don't and you are not helping us any (or helping to educate anyone when you constantly give out mixed-up misleading information on normalization).



What makes you think it's other people giving out "misleading information"?


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



You missed the point, don't miss your exposure. 

I already demonstrated from a measly 7D+10-22mm combo when properly exposed and processed, the photo is great and printable at full-res 300 DPI.

I could do the same on a 3 MP D30, I could do it on a 4X5 view camera, I could do it on my Yashica MAt-124G. Thats because

 I GET MY EXPOSURE RIGHT!


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> *read earlier answer, you must get your exposure" more right because of inferior DR and exposure latitude in Canon"
> try to understand the difference* and if you expose them "right" (same parameters) you have 14 stops DR in Nikon d800 and about 11,5 stops in Canon , not including pattern noise/banding



Yep. Nikon has perfect ADCs with perfect performance and efficiency that yield data right up to their rated bit depth, something not seen any where else in the industry, not even in components for NASA and the Defense Department :

Mikael - go to Nikon. Please.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> *read earlier answer, you must get your exposure" more right because of inferior DR and exposure latitude in Canon"
> try to understand the difference* and if you expose them "right" (same parameters) you have 14 stops DR in Nikon d800 and about 11,5 stops in Canon , including pattern noise/banding
> 
> PS some people was accusing me to use bold letters a week ago . luck above, what was that?



Do you have any real photos taken by yourself with your nikon cameras showing the vast superiority over canon cameras when properly exposed and processed?

Please show me some of your work which would be limited if you shot canon exclusively. Only then may you gain any of my respect lost for you and possibly give your words some weight to others here as well. (This doesn't include test charts and color test's)


----------



## nightbreath (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> *read earlier answer, you must get your exposure" more right because of inferior DR and exposure latitude in Canon"
> *


*
This might be true... unless someone with a Canon camera gets better images than those who are screaming about Canon sensors inability to capture good images. Or are you able to show real world example (an art-piece) created with an Exmor sensor that couldn't be done with other camera?

I shoot with a Canon camera, simply because I know how to use it *


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Funny, All I found was more test charts. Any real photos Michael? 

Please link us as I'm sure we're all very interested. ;D


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Test charts, Picassa and Dpreview <---- Which BTW your trolling as well.

Thats an interesting photo, but I believe the canon system would provide an Identical result. ;D


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Please show me some of your work which would be limited if you shot canon exclusively.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> a specialty that I am special proud of is my medical images .



As someone who taught Gross Anatomy and Neuroanatomy to medical students for 8 years, I appreciate the content - thanks for sharing!

What I don't see is anything that suggests your images have a wide dynamic range in the scene, such that a sensor with a broader DR would be of any meaningful benefit, whatsoever.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2012)

Ok, I found this:


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> can we discuss Canons sensors now?



Sure. But you seem far more interested in discussing Nikon's sensors.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal...

Honestly, I didn't see anything there on that search that couldn't be done on a canon d30.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> did you become a little more humble now, and the work you have done in neuroscience research
> give me a link please to the paper. I have worked with medical photography/ research since 1984.



Not really, no. But you were the one clamoring for relevance, and posting my full CV (with dozens of peer-reviewed papers and a few book chapters) really isn't relevant. Not to mention that I have an aversion to posting my full name and contact into to a forum replete with trolls who seem willing to go to great lengths to argue their version of the truth. I do post a link to my photographs, in the signature of every post I make here.



Mikael Risedal said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, I found this:
> ...



So, it's not a fact that you posted the above image to DPR? Perhaps someone is impersonating you?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> And yes Im intresting to discuss why Canon are sleeping regarding DR , they have not improved that much since 2004



I've shot surfing...where you cannot blend multiple frames...on Canon DSLRs since 2004. Canon DR has improved by at least 2 stops over that time period.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Honestley the pictures you have seen do not need a lot of DR when the purpose is press but Dynamic range may be needed for annual reports, glossy magazines, etc and you have not a clue what the benfits of large DR and exposure latitude are -do you and I have now been showing that a number of times



You haven't shown anything. Please post an example of a photograph that can be taken with an Exmor sensor but not a Canon sensor. 

Better yet, check out the Galen Rowell archives (http://www.mountainlight.com/). He produced that body of work with films that had 3-5 stops lower DR then a modern Canon DSLR.

Looks like he got his exposure right ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Nope.
> In JPG Canon claims a lot



*Yes.* My assertion is not based on Canon's claims, but on comparing literally hundreds of frames chosen for use out of thousands of frames fired. I see the same thing comparing single frame landscapes.

RAW saw a good 2 stop improvement. HTP brought a similar improvement to JPEG.

It has been claimed in this thread that Canon users are ignoring/denying that Exmor sensors have wider DR. Here you are denying that Canon has made any improvements in 8 years when they most certainly have.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> *Respond to me with facts.*



No, *you* respond with facts. That's how this works because *you* are the one touting huge advantages for Exmor sensors. Where's your evidence? Where are your examples?


----------



## tnargs (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> ....<<to neuroanatomist, repeatedly>>...*a link please to your scientific papers*



Mikael, that is inappropriate and I think you should stop it. Everyone here is entitled to (a) their opinion, and (b) their anonymity if they choose it.

Discussions here can develop on the weight of the information and argument presented; there is no need to rely on the weight of authority. To do so would be short-cut thinking, relying on circumstantial evidence rather than the evidence itself.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> go back and read



More DxO derived used dog food. The 20D was not an 11 stop camera.

Do you have those Exmor photos for us to review yet?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 16, 2012)

tnargs said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > ....<<to neuroanatomist, repeatedly>>...*a link please to your scientific papers*
> ...



+9,001

Let's see comparison photos with correct exposures where the Exmor file produces the award winning print and the Canon file goes into the trash. Everything else is irrelevant.

Side note: why is everything in photography like this? Why are small differences magnified and argued endlessly? The same exact pattern occurs in FF vs. crop, lens A vs. lens B, brand A vs. brand B. In the film days it was film A vs. film B. I've even seen this nonsense in discussions of tripods! 

If you think there's a huge, just huge difference between A and B, do yourself this favor: produce the same image with A and with B. Print them to 20". Ask 20 people to tell you which is better or if they are the same. Listen to the results.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal...
> ...



I print often on UV coated papers, Kodak papers, Fuji papers, canvas, etc. so I do know how to print on the mediums I need.

You still haven't shown me any of your work that the canon camera limit's you in. 

While it's interesting to discuss the nikon vs canon argument, it becomes dis-tasteful to discuss with someonw like yourself. 

Which claims to be a pro for over 20 years yet, has no body of work behind it.

Which of portfolio consists mostly of test charts and 100% crops of noise samples.

Which has no logic or reasoning behind they're arguments and who bash honest forum users from Dpreview to canonrumors with information we already know.

You are the pinnacle of what is declared as a measurabator in the camera world.

Congrats, you've earned it.

Once again, I'll post my 7D example of a properly exposed & processed file. On your file below mine, You should be able to pull the same recovery as my image.


----------



## MarkII (Oct 16, 2012)

tnargs said:


> Discussions here can develop on the weight of the information and argument presented; there is no need to rely on the weight of authority. To do so would be short-cut thinking, relying on circumstantial evidence rather than the evidence itself.



Well, that would be nice, wouldn't it.

This should be an interesting subject, because quantifying and understanding the sensor performance is the starting point to getting the best from it. Unfortunately, too many people here are incapable of contributing unless any metric shows that their purchase/favourite company is shown to be the best.

And to the people persist in claiming that you can not increase bit depth above the RAW file encoding level by downsampling, I suggest that you go back and read some of the references posted here about signal processing. If you really think it is impossible then you should post the mathematical analysis that shows it to be so (particularly since this would stop half of the electronics that you regularly use from working - for example see the Wikipedia articles about sampling theory and the use of oversampling to increase resolution, including the examples that show how down-sampling data can be used to increase resolution/DR).


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 16, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> and yes d20 was a 11 stops camera



Yes or no: did you ever own a 20D?

If so, show me some 11 stop photos. If not, then we're done discussing this point. I have way too much experience struggling to get the range I wanted with the early xxD bodies, then getting it with less or no effort with the 7D, to debate this with someone reading graphs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 17, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> neuroanatomist
> 
> [size=12pt]*I have shown a link to some of my photos at the web, now Im interesting in your science work - a link please*[/size]
> 
> you seem to question my credibility and want to ridicule me with your comments , now I ask you about yours credibility



*No.*

Because:

1) It is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

2) I choose not to disclose personally identifying information.

and most importantly, to be blunt, 

3) I really don't give a crap what you think about my credibility.

You can go on pushing your same agenda until everyone else grows as bored with it as I have become (which I admit is unlikely, since those who go trolling with inflammatory bait in the Internet waters invariably find many who will bite), or until the mods take additional steps. Personally, I'm done with you.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Once again, I'll post my 7D example of a properly exposed & processed file. On your file below mine, You should be able to pull the same recovery as my image.



OH NOES! U CANNOT DO TATZ WITH TEH CANONZ! ;D

Nice sample and point well demonstrated.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> here you go, same exposure, time, f-stop and base iso , exposed equally so no highlight are cut in the sky and clouds and then adjustes so we can see the landscape. My d800 to the left and one of mine 5dmk2



I don't see noise/banding that bad with a crop body and the slider pushed to 100%.

Please provide the RAW files for analysis.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2012)

MarkII said:


> This should be an interesting subject, because quantifying and understanding the sensor performance is the starting point to getting the best from it. Unfortunately, too many people here are incapable of contributing unless any metric shows that their purchase/favourite company is shown to be the best.



Oh please. I don't see a single Canon user here denying that there's some DR advantage to Exmor sensors. The question is how much, and how much difference does it make in the real world.



> If you really think it is impossible then you should post the mathematical analysis that shows it to be so



No. Theory bends to observation, never the other way around. I think I posted this in another thread, so I'll post it again here: try drum scanning a 4x5 frame of Velvia, a 6 stop film, and then down sampling it to 8 MP, which is the DxO normalization. Tell us if 3 more stops of shadow detail magically appear, which is what DxO's formula predicts.

My prediction from years of scanning film: you will end up with a 6 stop, 8 MP file.

The problem is in the definition of DR. You're using theories that are only concerned with white and black points. But photographers are interested in *usable photographic detail.* Down sampling may reduce noise and therefore make your blacks blacker. But it doesn't magically open up shadows and produce details that were never there.

I will concede that down sampling can reduce noise thereby making a print of *already existing detail* acceptable, where if the noise were still there you might clip levels to black and discard the noise and detail. But it doesn't produce detail where there is none. It doesn't magically allow a 14-bit pipeline to yield more than 14 stops of real photographic detail. It won't even get it to 14 stops because in the real world ADC pipelines are not perfectly efficient.

BTW - Imaging Resource measured the D800 to 13.3 stops vs the 5D3 at 12.5. I trust their methodology a whole heck of a lot more than DxO's.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



So you have real world, 11 stop, 20D photographs to post here, yes?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 17, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



1. Do you understand the concept of what a demonstration is?
2. Do you understand that you can have the exact same problem when you expose something so that the bright parts are exposed as far to the right as can be?
3. Plenty of others have seen noise like that at times. If you don't trust him then what about the Fred Miranda tests???


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 17, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > your post is not even worth it to respond to, and Ansel Adams put a lot of work in the copying as it is mention earlier
> ...



1. He would have if he was trying to show a quick, simple demonstration of the difference between two film stocks.
2. How many times does it have to be said that it's not even close to being all about fixing shots where something went wrong???


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 17, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > What is the freaking big deal with just admitting Exmor sensors have more DR and that it can be useful both save one of messed up shots and, much more often, to allow you to expand your photographic possibilities, or even to simply save time in post processing at times and drop it all?
> ...



finally



> * Exmor sensors *do not have* the amount of excess DR being claimed by fans or DxO.



false



> * Canon sensors *are not as limited* as they are claimed to be by Exmor fans.



They are not limited overall and can do great with many scenes, as almost all of us have said, but they are that much more limited at lower ISOs in higher DR scenes. For some that won't matter ever, for some only super rarely, for some from time to time, for some a fair amount, for some often. It hardly means you toss your Canon body into the swamp and then bash it with a sledgehammer but it sure would be nice if Canon paid attention to DR having not improved it for more than half a decade now.



> * The impact on one's photography is simply *not as great* as claimed by Exmor fans.



Most of us have been saying it depends. YOu can take a nearly infinite # of photos were it won't matter at all or much. OTOH it's easy to find shots where it could help a lot too.
It's not the end of the world by any remote means but it is, real world, a lot nicer of a thing to have than many of the pure fanboys try to make it sound too.



> * The number of posts on this topic have *far exceeded reason.*



Do note that most of the recent posts have been started by the DxO are liars, exmor is whatever crowd though.
Some of the same crowd goes on raves about how far behind Nikon was when Canon beats them by like just 1/2 stop SNR is a huge win that trashes Nikon and then says more than 3 stops difference at low ISO is very minor, too minor to even bother about at all.



> > Why do so many have to make up lies about DxO?
> 
> 
> Nobody is "making up lies" about DxO. DxO's methodology is flawed. So is their presentation. They publish IQ scores all over the place, but tuck away the note that says you can't compare scores between sensors of different resolutions. Then they produced normalized scores with obviously flawed normalization (i.e. >14 stops DR from a 14-bit pipeline).



1. Most of us have said to ignore their overall scores and look at their charts and plenty try to pick apart and bash their charts.
2. There you go again, along with Jrista, and not having a clue about how normalization works and spreading misinformation.



> > Would you rather we all deny it and praise Canon and tell Canon we don't care since it doesn't matter and then have Canon be like hey why bother? Or would you rather the 5D4 maybe has the better low ISO DR???
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not the 5D4 has better DR has nothing to do with these stupid threads, and everything to do with their engineers. I have little doubt they are working on it.



Did you know that another division of Canon sent a patent for better DR to the DSLR division and got told to get lost, DR, what?, why? bye. Apparently they didn't even let their engineers look at it! So maybe they do need to be woken up.




> > But it still isn't hard for me to hit situations where I am like man if it only it had exmor low ISO performance, man, man, man.
> 
> 
> 
> Your imagination is always greater than the real difference. I see this all the time in photography. People are always saying "man if I only had X or Y", not realizing they can do whatever they want with what they already have.



really so I could have fit every high DR shot, that could not be done by fps or tripod work etc. if only I had freed my mind to possibilities and sang some songs?



> > I just hope I don't and you are not helping us any (or helping to educate anyone when you constantly give out mixed-up misleading information on normalization).
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think it's other people giving out "misleading information"?


[/quote]

Because some of you are totally wrong about some of the stuff you have been saying, especially when it gets to normalization and some other related topics.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 17, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



How many times do people have to say it's not about getting the exposure right! What if the scene, with bright parts not clipped off, does not fit above the noise floor? Then you get something exposed as ideally as possible that still won't work out so well unless various filters, multiple frames are possible and work out for the scene, sometimes that stuff works and sometimes not.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 17, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> 2. How many times does it have to be said that it's not even close to being all about fixing shots where something went wrong???



Zactly!

Not to mention, there is body-to-body variability. Some 7Ds have very little banding, some, like mine, can show it in situations without even much of a nudge in post, let alone a 3 EV push. I've had shots where just using "Landscape" as the raw preset in DPP is enough to bring out low ISO shadow banding.

If someone has one of these contentious bodies that doesn't mar their raw files with excessive pattern noise then lucky for them. We can't all try 5 or 6 of something to find a good one, shopkeepers will show us the door and tell us to never darken it again.

I, for one, will not buy another Canon SLR until they fix this problem so their raw files have at least as low a FPN as the old Nikon D90, preferably better.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 17, 2012)

Aglet said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > 2. How many times does it have to be said that it's not even close to being all about fixing shots where something went wrong???
> ...



Yeah the 7D has a LOT of copy to copy variation, more than I've seen with any other model in it's vertical gain banding (that can show even in mid and light tones), most have a fair amount compared to other models but a god number have a real, real lot and a very few have very little.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Yes do that, especially when they (IR) use different parameters as shutter time in theirs test and use longer exposure together with Canon, go and take a look .



Too bad that's not the scene they use for the DR test :


----------



## Aglet (Oct 17, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I GET MY EXPOSURE RIGHT!



bollocks! ;D

you might be one of the lucky ones with a 7D that doesn't show as much FPN as others.
Wanna trade?


----------



## elflord (Oct 17, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> No. Theory bends to observation, never the other way around. I think I posted this in another thread, so I'll post it again here: try drum scanning a 4x5 frame of Velvia, a 6 stop film, and then down sampling it to 8 MP, which is the DxO normalization. Tell us if 3 more stops of shadow detail magically appear, which is what DxO's formula predicts.



You're wrong in that thread too. Typically of the DxO bashers, your MO seems to be repeating the same falsehoods and hoping noone calls you on it. If you think the images truly do have the same dynamic range before and after you downsample, you need to normalize. The downsampled image will have less noise, therefore a lower blackpoint, and therefore more dynamic range on a per pixel basis even though it doesn't have more of what you'd intuitively think of as dynamic range.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > * Exmor sensors *do have* more DR, and it can be useful.
> ...



*Nobody ever claimed otherwise.*



> > * Exmor sensors *do not have* the amount of excess DR being claimed by fans or DxO.
> 
> 
> 
> false



Oh, well, you used the word false, I guess the debate is over :



> It hardly means you toss your Canon body into the swamp and then bash it with a sledgehammer but it sure would be nice if Canon paid attention to DR having not improved it for more than half a decade now.



I've seen improvements over that time period. DPReview saw improvements.



> Do note that most of the recent posts have been started by the DxO are liars, exmor is whatever crowd though.
> Some of the same crowd goes on raves about how far behind Nikon was when Canon beats them by like just 1/2 stop SNR is a huge win that trashes Nikon and then says more than 3 stops difference at low ISO is very minor, too minor to even bother about at all.



DxO are not liars, just confused.

I don't recall people raving to this level when Canon had the lower noise/wider DR sensors. I suppose some did. There are Canon fanboys just like Nikon fanboys.

There is 1-2 stops difference at low ISO, not "more than 3."



> 2. There you go again, along with Jrista, and not having a clue about how normalization works and spreading misinformation.



Your side has offered its argument for the accuracy of normalization. Our side has shown the argument to be false. Your side's only response has been "uh...you don't know what you're talking about!"

When you repeat that without answering our critiques, you effectively tap out of the debate and concede the point.



> > Whether or not the 5D4 has better DR has nothing to do with these stupid threads, and everything to do with their engineers. I have little doubt they are working on it.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that another division of Canon sent a patent for better DR to the DSLR division and got told to get lost, DR, what?, why? bye. Apparently they didn't even let their engineers look at it! So maybe they do need to be woken up.



Source?



> Because some of you are totally wrong about some of the stuff you have been saying, especially when it gets to normalization and some other related topics.



Oh yeah? Well...you're totally wrong to infinity plus one, no changiees! So there! :


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> https://picasaweb.google.com/106266083120070292876/DR5dmk2VsD7000
> 
> 3 summers ago 5dm2 and d7000 , 7d , s-95 and Fuji , signal / noise in lower levels and banding



RAW files for analysis please.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2012)

Aglet said:


> Not to mention, there is body-to-body variability. Some 7Ds have very little banding, some, like mine, can show it in situations without even much of a nudge in post, let alone a 3 EV push. I've had shots where just using "Landscape" as the raw preset in DPP is enough to bring out low ISO shadow banding.



Product variability is a real issue in any production run. If you saw this within your year warranty, the camera should have been shipped to Canon along with documentation of the problem (i.e. sample shots).


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2012)

elflord said:


> You're wrong in that thread too. Typically of the DxO bashers, your MO seems to be repeating the same falsehoods and hoping noone calls you on it.



Typical of the DxO defenders, your MO is name calling and begging the question and hoping no one calls you on it.



> If you think the images truly do have the same dynamic range before and after you downsample, you need to normalize.



No, you need to perform the test and show us the results. That will put an end to this bickering.



> The downsampled image will have less noise, therefore a lower blackpoint, and therefore more dynamic range on a per pixel basis even though it doesn't have more of what you'd intuitively think of as dynamic range.



I don't give a pile of used dog food about your white point - black point definition of DR. I'm not trying to make my blacks blacker. I can do that with NR and levels adjustments. I care about real, usable photographic detail. Down sampling and 'normalization' does not magically create new detail.


----------



## Imagination_landB (Oct 17, 2012)

I'm sure that i'm a lot younger than most of you gentlemens but this discussion is becoming a real joke, some of you look like they are immatures 5 years olds arguing about who has the best quality tricycle. Come on. Do not go offtopic and try to be objective.


----------



## elflord (Oct 17, 2012)

> Typical of the DxO defenders, your MO is name calling and begging the question and hoping no one calls you on it.



Please do show me where I "name called". 



dtaylor said:


> I don't give a pile of used dog food about your white point - black point definition of DR. I'm not trying to make my blacks blacker. I can do that with NR and levels adjustments. I care about real, usable photographic detail. Down sampling and 'normalization' does not magically create new detail.



That's the part you don't seem to get though -- if you really do believe that the same image should have the same DR whether you sample it at 40mpx or 10mpx, then the normalized version of the dynamic range gives the correct result. 

Downsampling doesn't "create detail", but it moves the black point. 

If you're debating the merits of DxO's screen vs print numbers, this is important.


----------



## elflord (Oct 17, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> Your side has offered its argument for the accuracy of normalization. Our side has shown the argument to be false. Your side's only response has been "uh...you don't know what you're talking about!"



Please feel free to post any unanswered "critiques" 

Far from rebutting, it's not clear to me that you or jrista understand the implications of normalization, or the basic math behind benchmarking, so aren't in much of a position to criticize it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 17, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> > > * Exmor sensors *do not have* the amount of excess DR being claimed by fans or DxO.
> >
> >
> >
> ...



Where is your evidence or explanation? Look at the FM test. I tested the DR myself and got same results and so have others. Have you tested any of it yourself? Do you have an explanation for why DxO is wrong?



> > It hardly means you toss your Canon body into the swamp and then bash it with a sledgehammer but it sure would be nice if Canon paid attention to DR having not improved it for more than half a decade now.
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen improvements over that time period. DPReview saw improvements.



On what? 5D3 has actually worse DR than the 1Ds3.



> DxO are not liars, just confused.



explain



> There is 1-2 stops difference at low ISO, not "more than 3."



real world, accounting for banding, I'd say D800 does more than 3 better than 5D3 and even ignoring banding it's more than 2.



> > 2. There you go again, along with Jrista, and not having a clue about how normalization works and spreading misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> Your side has offered its argument for the accuracy of normalization. Our side has shown the argument to be false. Your side's only response has been "uh...you don't know what you're talking about!"



It has shown it to be false? Where? When?
And not that I want to go here, but you've finally gotten me partially to this point, and sure even the most brilliant are wrong at times, absolutely true, and I'm not saying who here and on the other forums is who, but there are not only engineers but theoretical physics PhDs and other such, including some who are world renowned, posting in some of these threads and on some other threads and.... not on your side on this.








> > > Whether or not the 5D4 has better DR has nothing to do with these stupid threads, and everything to do with their engineers. I have little doubt they are working on it.
> >
> >
> >
> ...



A Canon employee (non-DSLR division) on another forum.


----------



## rpt (Oct 17, 2012)

Imagination_landB said:


> I'm sure that i'm a lot younger than most of you gentlemens but this discussion is becoming a real joke, some of you look like they are immatures 5 years olds arguing about who has the best quality tricycle. Come on. Do not go offtopic and try to be objective.


 
Yeah! I know the feeling. I think deep down somewhere locked or suppressed is a human desire to "Fight. Fight. Fight. Fight. Fight...". Why do you think more than 25% of world money goes towards the Offence Department? Just breathe and let these guys slug it out. They will get bored in a few days and there will be silence - for a while until it starts again. It is cyclic. May be the moon or something has an effect on us...

Whenever I get bored, I read these boxing matches. Then when I get bored of them, I go off and see the fabulous pictures many members have posted. There are Gurus on this forum so the big deal is not to get involved in the crossfire and distill the information. Even on this thread with all the back and forth there are gems and I am *not* being sarcastic. Well enjoy! Be assured if it gets baser, CR will use muscle


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 17, 2012)

rpt said:


> Imagination_landB said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure that i'm a lot younger than most of you gentlemens but this discussion is becoming a real joke, some of you look like they are immatures 5 years olds arguing about who has the best quality tricycle. Come on. Do not go offtopic and try to be objective.
> ...



It's not about fighting. It's debating and getting things straight. And if someone says stuff that is wrong and is trying to educate people by feeding them incorrect info, it is not fighting to point it out.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 17, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



1. But, Not If he was planning to photograph anything worthwhile. He'd get his exposure right.

2. You yourself said it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 17, 2012)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I GET MY EXPOSURE RIGHT!
> ...



Malarky! :

My 7D has the same sensor that DXO claims as garbage. It's no-where near as bad as others make it out to be, even though its getting older now. 8)


----------



## MarkII (Oct 17, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> > If you really think it is impossible then you should post the mathematical analysis that shows it to be so
> 
> 
> No. Theory bends to observation, never the other way around.


Well, if I have a noisy image (ie with poor DR), it will be usable only at smaller print sizes than a less noisy one. That is a real world example of down-sampling, and if what you claim were true the small print would show exactly the same noise and DR than the larger one. Fortunately, this is not what we see in the real world!

As to the continued assertion that downsampling can not increase bit depth, consider a hypothetical one-bit sensor. I have two pixels, each of which can only take a value of 0 or 1. If I down sample by a factor of two, averaging pairs of pixels, I now have one pixel which can take values of 0, 1/2 or 1 and I now need more than one bit to store that pixel. I have traded-off resolution for improved dynamic range and I have more dynamic range than the original data (which you keep claiming is impossible).

It does not matter what the data is in this case - it just a basic property of the math.

If you do not think that this argument extends to a 14 bit file, I suggest writing out all the possible pixel values before and after downsampling from 22MP to 8MP and then work out how many bits of DR you have in the result...

So I say again, if you continue make the claim that DXO are "obviously wrong" because it is "impossible" to get pixel values with more than 14 bits of data after downsampling a 14 bit RAW file, explain why...

BTW, downsampling a 1 bit image is not an artificial example. Early monochrome printing relies on this technique. If you stand up close you see a noisy mess of dots. If you stand further away (making the image smaller - ie downsampling), you start to perceive the image as have graduated tones rather than just patches of plain white or plain black.


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 17, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I'm really not a fan of the 7d. I love its size, weight, feel, FPS, and AF, but the IQ is a little lacking at all ISOs. Just my 2 cents. It not _bad_ but after using my 5d3 I don't touch it.


----------



## tnargs (Oct 17, 2012)

MarkII said:


> ...As to the continued assertion that downsampling can not increase bit depth, ....



Is that the assertion? Or is the assertion that a 36 MP sensor with 13.2 bits of DR at 36 MP should be described as having 36 MP of resolution and 13.2 bits of DR?


----------



## MarkII (Oct 17, 2012)

tnargs said:


> MarkII said:
> 
> 
> > ...As to the continued assertion that downsampling can not increase bit depth, ....
> ...


No - the problem is people who assert that the DXO measurements are "obviously nonsense" because they (wrongly) believe that it is impossible for a down-sampled image to show more per-pixel DR than the original.

DXO use resolution normalised figures in their summaries partly because this is how most people tend to view their images (even the new 15" 'retina' MacBookPro screens are "only" 5MP at full-screen). And if they did not do this, some people would be screaming that they were biased because their numbers favour lower resolution cameras.

It is perfectly reasonable to describe a sensor as having ~13.2 bits at full resolution and ~14.3 bits at a normalised 8MP resolution. Anyone considering buying or using a device like this should be smart enough to understand what this means and take the time and effort to read beyond the headline summaries.

Do people really buy cameras because of one number in a test score? Do they only read the final summary table in a 20-page review before opening their wallets for thousands of dollars??? If so, they probably deserve what they get!


----------



## psolberg (Oct 17, 2012)

Wow, site admin flip flops in dxo after saying he would never publish dxo numbers even if canon came ahead. Now it happened and we start to see dxo numbers.....now dxo matters


----------



## elflord (Oct 17, 2012)

tnargs said:


> Is that the assertion? Or is the assertion that a 36 MP sensor with 13.2 bits of DR at 36 MP should be described as having 36 MP of resolution and 13.2 bits of DR?



Camera 1 has 36 megapixels and 11 stops of dynamic range per pixel, camera 2 has 20megapixels and 12 stops of dynamic range per pixel. 

Which camera has more dynamic range if I display or print their images at the same size ? If I downsample the 36mpx image to 20mpx, I will get more than 11 stops of dynamic range, but do i get more than 12 ?

I think this is a pretty valid question, provided you intend to view the whole image on print or screen, as opposed to just viewing 100% crops.


----------



## TheSuede (Oct 17, 2012)

I find it interesting that many would like to make it sound like an "underexposure" is the end of the world, and a photographical failure.

What that stance significates is failing to understand the implications. I spent quite a few years of my life fighting against this erroneous mindset when educating print and pre-press personnel starting out in their first stumbling steps of the "digital revolution". Back then, pre-press personnel was (if possible) an even more tradition-laden and anachronistic group of people than what photographers are today.

As someone mentioned Adams, I have to say that he is a person you really have to admire for the amount of energy and time he spent really getting to know his medium (film), and how you had to expose to get the most out of your envisioned image. He (as he worked with the physicists and chemists at Kodak) set up some really workable testing rules and also inspection criteria to be used when looking at image results.

*And he always tried to get the exposure "right".*

Now try to understand the implications the sentence in bold above sets. Getting an exposure "right" is NOT the same as trying to make 14-16% gray as you see the image conform to a certain photometric exposure at the film surface! And he never claimed that it was. If there is more pictorial detail that you want to emphasize in the end result (for him; film, development, print) in the shadows - you should really overexpose - _compared to the baseline scene average exposure_. And if there is "important detail" in the highlights, you need to underexpose [compared to the reference exposure]. He accepted that there was always a compromise between highlight, midtone and shadow local detail. I would recommend a visit to his old home, if his son still has the tours he used to. If you're nice, to him you might even get to see some "behind the scenes" notes and development plans - they're really impressive in attention to detail, and shows how much he mauled his negatives, using both over- and under-exposure, to get "what he wanted" out of them. Regional corrections of + or -3Ev was nothing out of the ordinary either.

In digital, the entire ramification of the process has changed.

Film has more *latitude*, but much less *usable DR* within a fixed scene
Film has an *bell-shaped* MTF modulus, digital is *linear*
Film clips and blocks *gracefully towards both highlight and shadow*; and
Digital clips *hard against highlights* and fades *gradually into noise in shadows*

This means that you can't treat digital like you did with film, and the most obvious differences are:
a) as long as the entire scene can be contained within the digital DR, you can put the raw-file related exposure (which is not the same as photometric exposure!) wherever you want - it does not effect internal detail contrast.
b) you have to mind the highlights (more) with digital - since when they're clipped, all internal detail contrast is GONE. Impossible to retrieve unless you let software guess what the clipped channel values should be from surrounding color information. This only works for about +0.5Ev from initial clipping.

To underexpose the raw file - again, this is not the same as the photometric exposure! - is the only practically available method to reign in the highlights in the scene. And this is also what Canon does with the "Highlight Tone Priority" or "HTP" option when you shoot jpg. The camera will underexpose the raw file, and then bring image midtone brightness up again - but with smother upper S-curve end of the brightness curve.

Underexposing an image that doesn't have any highlight areas (zones? maybe applicable) you want to protect though - that's only stupid. It hurts image quality.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 17, 2012)

tnargs said:


> MarkII said:
> 
> 
> > ...As to the continued assertion that downsampling can not increase bit depth, ....
> ...



It is described as that but when you want to do a relative comparison you can't compare cameras at different scales otherwise you are comparing noise power at two different frequencies as if they were the same.


----------



## TheSuede (Oct 17, 2012)

elflord said:


> tnargs said:
> 
> 
> > Is that the assertion? Or is the assertion that a 36 MP sensor with 13.2 bits of DR at 36 MP should be described as having 36 MP of resolution and 13.2 bits of DR?
> ...



This is a complex question, since what DxO basically fails to include in their DR vs resolution compensation (the "print" view option) is that no Bayer-based image ever contains equal noise energy all the way up to 1/f. The interpolation stage often called the "de-mosaic" stage necessary (remember, two out of the three channels in each pixel has had to be estimated after the capture...) is effectively filtering the higher noise frequencies out, and tends towards zero at 1/f.

In a layman's terms, you could describe this high-frequency filter as:
_-"The noise - or average pixel difference - is stronger in power when you compare two pixels a few pixels apart from each other than if you compare two pixels next to each other."_

The end result of this is that the first ~30% of downsampling - down to 70% original scale that is - does not lower image noise power [over the image width] by any significant degree. There wasn't much noise energy in the frequency band that we've filtered away, so what we've basically done is to condense the image information.

But then there's also a more subtle effect. The human eye does not react as strongly to fine-grained noise as it does to coarse-grained noise. This does mean that when you MEASURE the average pixel noise power, it might not have been lowered by any appreciable amount - but when you LOOK at the downsampled image you will perceive the image as less noisy anyway.

So - downsampling 36MP to 20MP would theoretically give you an added:
sqrt(36/20) = 1.34 linear scale
>> convert to log2 >>
log(1.34)/log(2) = *0.42Ev* or "bits" of DR

But you wouldn't get 0.42Ev in a real, converted image - you would get maybe 0.1Ev and a much tighter (less objectionable) noise pattern.

From this point on downwards however the noise spectrum could be said to be sufficiently close to a linear 1/f behavior, and you would get the full noise-power lowering effect in practice too. So, continuing down in size would yield the full theoretical gains of log(sqrt(linear scale))/log(2). Together with a lowered resolution per image frame of course...


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2012)

elflord said:


> Downsampling doesn't "create detail", but it moves the black point.



* Photographic dynamic range is the range of useful detail.

* *As you conceded above,* down sampling does not create detail. In fact, it throws detail away.

* Down sampling therefore cannot increase photographic dynamic range.

* DxO's normalized results are therefore false.

Can we move on now?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2012)

elflord said:


> Please feel free to post any unanswered "critiques"



All of them from what I can see.



> Far from rebutting, it's not clear to me that you or jrista understand the implications of normalization, or the basic math behind benchmarking, so aren't in much of a position to criticize it.



http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Where is your evidence or explanation?



For real, usable DR tests, look to IR and DPReview. (Unfortunately DPReview no longer posts RAW DR, but their tests are still valid for JPEG.)

The explanation has been posted repeatedly, and was posted again just a second ago.



> I tested the DR myself and got same results and so have others.



You're making the same mistake as the others. Noise inflates the black point. Down sampling reduces noise, lowering the black point. *But the black point is not actually the floor of dynamic range. The floor is the point where usable detail ceases to exist.* Down sampling actually throws away detail. It cannot extend DR.



> > I've seen improvements over that time period. DPReview saw improvements.
> 
> 
> 
> On what? 5D3 has actually worse DR than the 1Ds3.



In JPEG the 5D3 is better, as noted by DPReview. Unfortunately they did not post RAW values for the 5D3. 

Imaging Resource has Imatest RAW values for both, and the 5D3 is one stop better.



> real world, accounting for banding, I'd say D800 does more than 3 better than 5D3 and even ignoring banding it's more than 2.



"Real world"...that would be a switch. Please post real world shots that prove this. Include a transmission step wedge. Oh yes: downloadable RAW files for analysis are mandatory.



> And not that I want to go here, but you've finally gotten me partially to this point, and sure even the most brilliant are wrong at times, absolutely true, and I'm not saying who here and on the other forums is who, but there are not only engineers but theoretical physics PhDs and other such, including some who are world renowned, posting in some of these threads and on some other threads and.... not on your side on this.



What is this: an appeal to imaginary authorities? :

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/





> > > > Whether or not the 5D4 has better DR has nothing to do with these stupid threads, and everything to do with their engineers. I have little doubt they are working on it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ...



More imaginary friends = no source. Don't repeat the claim without a source.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2012)

MarkII said:


> Well, if I have a noisy image (ie with poor DR), it will be usable only at smaller print sizes than a less noisy one. That is a real world example of down-sampling, and if what you claim were true the small print would show exactly the same noise and DR than the larger one.



It does show exactly the same DR. You're making a subjective, aesthetic judgement as to acceptable print/view size due to noise. (And it's not down sampling unless you have a really crummy printer.)



> As to the continued assertion that downsampling can not increase bit depth,



*No. That's not the argument.* (This is like pulling teeth!) 

Pay careful attention: down sampling cannot increase **** photographic dynamic range **** 

In photography dynamic range is the range of usable detail, *not* the range between white and black points.

You have a RAW file. It has some noise. Black is not black, but a really dark gray because of the noise. You down sample and kill some of the noise. "Aha! My blacks are blacker! My bit depth is greater!" So what? You didn't gain one drop of detail. In fact you threw some of it away!



> BTW, downsampling a 1 bit image is not an artificial example. Early monochrome printing relies on this technique. If you stand up close you see a noisy mess of dots. If you stand further away (making the image smaller - ie downsampling), you start to perceive the image as have graduated tones rather than just patches of plain white or plain black.



Everyone knows this, but it's false analogy.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2012)

Their dynamic range is their dynamic range. Period. You can reduce it. You can shift tones around, lifting shadows and such. But you can't extend it.



elflord said:


> tnargs said:
> 
> 
> > Is that the assertion? Or is the assertion that a 36 MP sensor with 13.2 bits of DR at 36 MP should be described as having 36 MP of resolution and 13.2 bits of DR?
> ...


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> This is taken 15 min ago and shows the difference in shadows, low levels 5dmk2 and d800. I have lifted the motive exactly the same.



*RAW files please.*



> And regarding to ISO and "holding iso" Canon 1dx is exposed richer in tests like Imaging Resource, this means that 6400iso is more like if 1dx has been exposed after 4000Iso compared to Nikon D4 and therefore it is not a valid test



*Stop.* You have *already been told* this is not the test scene they use to compute DR, noise, etc. Don't make this mistake again!


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2012)

TheSuede said:


> I find it interesting that many would like to make it sound like an "underexposure" is the end of the world, and a photographical failure.



For the record: I believe that a "correct" exposure is the exposure that maximizes the qualities you desire for the scene. If you wish to capture the maximum possible dynamic range, your exposure may be over/under to take advantage of your particular sensor/film.



> Now try to understand the implications the sentence in bold above sets. Getting an exposure "right" is NOT the same as trying to make 14-16% gray as you see the image conform to a certain photometric exposure at the film surface!



Agreed 100%.



> Film has more *latitude*, but much less *usable DR* within a fixed scene



DR and latitude are simply two ways of looking at the same thing. They are not separate characteristics.

Latitude, or room for exposure "error", is basically sensor or film DR - scene DR.

The rest of your observations are spot on.


----------



## jrista (Oct 17, 2012)

It seems there are different interpretations of what dynamic range means, and I've been in line with dtaylor so far in that when I hear "dynamic range" I think of "photographic dynamic range", or this:



dtaylor said:


> *But the black point is not actually the floor of dynamic range. The floor is the point where usable detail ceases to exist.*



Usable detail ceases to exist almost as soon as you hit the noise floor on a Sony Exmor sensor, since it does not use a bias offset, and because there is so little noise to start with. I would dispute the notion that usable detail ceases to exist the moment you hit the "noise floor" in a Canon sensor. In a Canon sensor, you have to content with a variety of forms of noise, some of which (banding, for example) which might protrude through usable image detail in some areas while leaving other areas entirely untouched, thanks to the fact that Canon sensors DO use a bias offset, and usable detail can extend into negative value territory. Makes it difficult to compare two sensors of fundamentally different design in the same way. (Although it seems obvious that, despite the fact that usable detail exists below the highest amplitude of noise, the use of a bias offset seems to be a very strong detractor of Canon's sensor design.)

To be fair, if DXO defines their DR measurement simply as the ratio between white and black points, and according to their definition downscaling can improve DR beyond the hardware limits, then so be it. That's how DXO defines DR in the context of their tests, so that's what it is when discussing DR in the context of DXO. 

Conversely, I am not sure DXO's definition of DR is a particularly realistic one. It may be mathematically sound, but it doesn't address electronic noise (vs. gaussian noise) very well, particularly when useful detail can extend well beyond the upper amplitude of the electronic noise floor (which would indicate that if you could reverse the effect of the stronger forms of noise...FPN/HVBN...you could recover a lot of useful detail and TRULY extend your dynamic range.) I believe this could actually be demonstrated with some of the sample photos posted by sarangiman a while back, either in this thread or another. Shadows in those photos were lifted so many stops that bright red HVBN started to exhibit...however it only exhibited in certain rows and columns of pixels. Between the bands, useful detail extended right down to nearly black. It shouldn't be too difficult to figure out the ratio of the brightest pixels in the banding noise to the darkest pixels of useful image detail, and figure out how many stops of photographic DR might be recoverable if one could remove the banding noise.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 18, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> The read noise is much higher, the QE is much lower in a MF ccd , (so even if the surface is bigger in MF than a 24x36mm Sony sensor ) the score is what it is because of FWC , read noise.The same with d7000 and 5dmk3 there d7000 is a APS and has higher DR than 5dmk3 because of much lower read out noise at base iso
> In other words, nothing strange



i am not sure what you are trying to do, learn or even get what kinda information, but within one year, from 2011-2012, you have gone to number of sites to write your name on them, starting with nikon d7000 vs. canon 5d mark ii (how do i know this? it is pretty easy to me). however, if nikon is that good enough to you, then buy more nikon, sell all your canon gears and go to nikon site to learn more about that camera as well as technical things right? it makes more sense that way, at least to me. i learn from both sites since i do not favor one and hate the other. and i have learned quitely instead of making noise.

in conclusion, if dr. roger clark is loving nikon that much, why he is using canon?  this is what i think, have not verified the fact, but he have, at least and recently, used canon....

in short, get a life mr. mikael risedal and your images cannot draw my attention even though i am a newbie to dslr, but drooling to have images like joe buissink even though he is mr. p mode and probably know less about camera technical things....


----------



## CanonGirl (Oct 18, 2012)

I must say that all of this “my camera is better than your camera” talk gives me a headache, and I’m not sure I want to get in the middle of this, um, whatever contest. I have read in detail the DxO results, along with many other test results and feel this debate is “full of sound and fury signifying nothing!” Bottom line to me is whether or not the camera in question is the best match for my needs. If you’re priorities are different, you should select a camera accordingly. DxO has performed a series of tests showing the D800 to have a wider dynamic range than other cameras, provided that you are at iso 800 or below. Also their results show the 5D Mark III to have maybe 0.5 stops more headroom on the highlights than the D800, but the D800 has well over a stop more headroom in the shadows. I love the slightly greater headroom in the highlights, as I shoot white wedding dresses and want to ensure I retain detail at that end. I also see in their charts that the S/N of the 5D Mark III is better than the D800, which is important for low-light photography to me, but clearly the D800 has more resolution. C’t Digital Photography (Fall Issue, 9, 2012) just did a very quantitative review of the D800, Canon 5D Mark III, Olympus OM-D, Nikon D4, and Pentax K-01, and their results are similar to DxO, but add other interesting comparisons. The D800 wins for resolution & dynamic range at lower iso, but the Canon 5D Mark III has superior S/N (low noise). I shoot weddings, which often involve low-light shooting, so for my needs, the 5D is superior. Would I like greater dynamic range? Sure, but not at the expense of S/N. DxO results, in their raw form, just provide another piece of useful information to help camera buyers evaluate equipment against their needs. Looking at their scoring system, it’s clear to me that they consider resolution and dynamic range to be most important, and therefore, rate these two parameters much higher than others to achieve their ratings. Yes, I find it amusing that they quote dynamic range in their final model for the D800 (14.4 Evs) wider than the 14-bit converter, which tells me that their models are not quite 100% accurate. I also find this true in that they rate the Canon 5D Mark III and the Canon 7D as both 11.7 Evs, whereas, when I shoot a Sekonic target using both cameras & the same lens/lighting conditions, camera settings, I get about 1.5 stops more dynamic range with the 5D over my 7D, gaining both in the highlights and shadows over the 7D, using Sekonic’s light meter calibration software. So I see DxO testing results to be useful, but not the absolute determinate of overall camera performance.

In the end, I don’t see either camera as absolutely the best in all ways, as they each have their strengths and weaknesses. For me, the Canon 5D Mark III is a wonderful tool, meeting my present needs beautify, and I wouldn’t trade it for the D800 at this time, as the pros do not outweigh the cons for me. As for others, their needs, interests, concerns might be completely different—LOL, some are obviously drastically different, reading the comments on this blog, but that’s perfectly ok with me, and I hope you’ll share some of your beautiful work, but I will smile if I find the photo acclaimed to be the best was taken with a cell phone! ;-)


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 18, 2012)

CanonGirl said:


> I must say that all of this “my camera is better than your camera” talk gives me a headache, and I’m not sure I want to get in the middle of this, um, whatever contest. I have read in detail the DxO results, along with many other test results and feel this debate is “full of sound and fury signifying nothing!” Bottom line to me is whether or not the camera in question is the best match for my needs. If you’re priorities are different, you should select a camera accordingly. DxO has performed a series of tests showing the D800 to have a wider dynamic range than other cameras, provided that you are at iso 800 or below. Also their results show the 5D Mark III to have maybe 0.5 stops more headroom on the highlights than the D800, but the D800 has well over a stop more headroom in the shadows. I love the slightly greater headroom in the highlights, as I shoot white wedding dresses and want to ensure I retain detail at that end. I also see in their charts that the S/N of the 5D Mark III is better than the D800, which is important for low-light photography to me, but clearly the D800 has more resolution. C’t Digital Photography (Fall Issue, 9, 2012) just did a very quantitative review of the D800, Canon 5D Mark III, Olympus OM-D, Nikon D4, and Pentax K-01, and their results are similar to DxO, but add other interesting comparisons. The D800 wins for resolution & dynamic range at lower iso, but the Canon 5D Mark III has superior S/N (low noise). I shoot weddings, which often involve low-light shooting, so for my needs, the 5D is superior. Would I like greater dynamic range? Sure, but not at the expense of S/N. DxO results, in their raw form, just provide another piece of useful information to help camera buyers evaluate equipment against their needs. Looking at their scoring system, it’s clear to me that they consider resolution and dynamic range to be most important, and therefore, rate these two parameters much higher than others to achieve their ratings. Yes, I find it amusing that they quote dynamic range in their final model for the D800 (14.4 Evs) wider than the 14-bit converter, which tells me that their models are not quite 100% accurate. I also find this true in that they rate the Canon 5D Mark III and the Canon 7D as both 11.7 Evs, whereas, when I shoot a Sekonic target using both cameras & the same lens/lighting conditions, camera settings, I get about 1.5 stops more dynamic range with the 5D over my 7D, gaining both in the highlights and shadows over the 7D, using Sekonic’s light meter calibration software. So I see DxO testing results to be useful, but not the absolute determinate of overall camera performance.
> 
> In the end, I don’t see either camera as absolutely the best in all ways, as they each have their strengths and weaknesses. For me, the Canon 5D Mark III is a wonderful tool, meeting my present needs beautify, and I wouldn’t trade it for the D800 at this time, as the pros do not outweigh the cons for me. As for others, their needs, interests, concerns might be completely different—LOL, some are obviously drastically different, reading the comments on this blog, but that’s perfectly ok with me, and I hope you’ll share some of your beautiful work, but I will smile if I find the photo acclaimed to be the best was taken with a cell phone! ;-)



As much as people have tried to convey this reasoning, it falls to deaf ears. We have to concede that the only real way to take any kind of good pictures is to have DR. :


----------



## CanonGirl (Oct 18, 2012)

Razor2012, I'm sure slide film users would be delighted to hear that! :


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 18, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Where is your evidence or explanation?
> ...



1. It's pointless since you don't get it.
2. Suede added some nice finer details above due to the Bayer read-out already partly pre-averaged thing, which is a good point that almost everyone else has left out, so if you want to quibble with DxO quibble a tiny bit over that (but as he notes, real world, to the eye, it doesn't matter so much, since the changed character looks better over that regime anyway)
3. some of the posters in this thread alone, are engineers and/or have PhD in the hard sciences, myself included and the others have websites up that have been quoted in plenty of threads such as this one and have posted on these topics in other threads on other forums
4. I private msged you


----------



## tnargs (Oct 18, 2012)

Just want to post my thanks for posts #360-364, the additional perspective is useful to me.


----------



## elflord (Oct 18, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > Downsampling doesn't "create detail", but it moves the black point.
> ...



The last point does not follow. In fact the negation of it follows. 

Look, suppose my saturation point per pixel is 12EV above my blackpoint. 

Downsampling, as we agreed, lowers the blackpoint. 

After downsampling, because my blackpoint moved down 1EV, my saturation point per pixel is 13EV above my blackpoint. 

If I want my dynamic range scores to be the same for both images, I need to normalize, otherwise I will give a higher score to the downsampled image (13EV vs 12EV)


----------



## elflord (Oct 18, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > Please feel free to post any unanswered "critiques"
> ...



Be a little more specific perhaps ?


----------



## elflord (Oct 18, 2012)

CanonGirl said:


> I must say that all of this “my camera is better than your camera” talk gives me a headache, and I’m not sure I want to get in the middle of this, um, whatever contest. I have read in detail the DxO results, along with many other test results and feel this debate is “full of sound and fury signifying nothing!” Bottom line to me is whether or not the camera in question is the best match for my needs.



I'm not into the whole idea of being a "fan" of any particular camera, but I am a scientist, and I do take some offence at scientists (DxO) being attacked by camera "fans".

As far as my own gear is concerned, I use a 5DII and am quite happy with it. Dynamic range is not a key issue for what I do.


----------



## elflord (Oct 18, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> You're making the same mistake as the others. Noise inflates the black point. Down sampling reduces noise, lowering the black point. *But the black point is not actually the floor of dynamic range. The floor is the point where usable detail ceases to exist.* Down sampling actually throws away detail. It cannot extend DR.



I understand that a 0db floor may be too liberal a baseline for some, but you haven't made the case that this makes much difference to results. For benchmarking you can't use something as subjective as "usable detail". 

Regarding downsampling not extending true dynamic range, we do agree on this point. 

However, the logical conclusion is that you *should* normalize. If you normalize, dynamic range defined in terms of the black point will be invariant under downsampling.

It is when you do NOT normalize that downsampling will change your dynamic range.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 18, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> sorry for you, the pictures show the real pixel values and I present them in the same way, this is the difference in lower levels



you do not have to feel sorry for me since there is not a big gap between your understanding about dslr comparing to my understanding even though you have started photography since i was in elementary. what would you like to challenge here? most of technical things in dslr relate to physics and software, which part would you like to challenge? or want to challenge about getting correct exposure with out of camera jpeg... 

actually, i have to feel sorry for you mr. mikael ridsesal, having no guts about what you have said and not being able to show your real imges (have requested your raw files few time, remember?). if you want to learn more about pixels, buy your self mathlab, study and play with it.


----------



## MarkII (Oct 18, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> Pay careful attention: down sampling cannot increase*** photographic dynamic range ***
> In photography dynamic range is the range of usable detail, *not* the range between white and black points.


Actually, no. I think you misunderstand the concept of DR as expressed by the DXO measurements, and I suggest you read the definition of dynamic range on Wikipedia (they even have an entry for photography on the page):

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

DXO state quite carefully what their how they define dynamic range for the purpose of their measurements, and their figures - including the 14.3 bit value for the normalised images are not implausible. Note that the 14.3 figure refers to the DR of a single pixel *after* downsampling. Just like the newsprint and the simplified math examples I outlined this can have more DR (bits per pixel in any given pixel) than the original.

(And if you think my analogy with print is invalid, you need to *explain* why. I may be wrong, but simply repeating your assertion that this is so does not show it to be the case).

It is correct, however, to say that downsampling does not increase 'detail' in an image - you can not gain any information. What it does is to allow you to trade-off spatial resolution against luminous resolution (noise, and quantisation - which is itself really just another form of noise).



dtaylor said:


> (This is like pulling teeth!)


Quite.


----------



## rpt (Oct 18, 2012)

MarkII said:


> DXO state quite carefully what their how they define dynamic range for the purpose of their measurements, and their figures - including the 14.3 bit value for the normalised images are not implausible. Note that the 14.3 figure refers to the DR of a single pixel *after* downsampling. Just like the newsprint and the simplified math examples I outlined this can have more DR (bits per pixel in any given pixel) than the original.


So instead of calling it DR can we call it DxODR and bury the hatchet (or hatchets)?

I think DR is the unit of measure and its use should be consistent. That same link talks of it in bits (sorry not trying to be sarcastic or anything - please bear with me... Thanks) and I think of bits as indivisible. So fractional bits of DR make no sense to me specially when you can get a higher value than the ADC can generate. And I understand it is maths around the original image so let us call it what it is. It is not DR. It is something similar in spirit that somebody invented.

My 2c...

Rustom


----------



## MarkII (Oct 18, 2012)

rpt said:


> So instead of calling it DR can we call it DxODR and bury the hatchet (or hatchets)?


I hope that there is no hatchet to bury...



rpt said:


> I think DR is the unit of measure and its use should be consistent. That same link talks of it in bits (sorry not trying to be sarcastic or anything - please bear with me... Thanks) and I think of bits as indivisible. So fractional bits of DR make no sense to me specially when you can get a higher value than the ADC can generate. And I understand it is maths around the original image so let us call it what it is. It is not DR. It is something similar in spirit that somebody invented.



If it helps, call it something different...

Fractional bits represent the notional information content of the data rather than the storage size (which will be an integer number of bits).

For example, if I have a two bit number I can store { 0, 1, 2, 3 }. However, if my data for some reason are only able to take the values { 0, 1, 2 }, then I have more values that I can store in one bit, but fewer than I really need two bits for - in other words, a fractional number of bits.


----------



## rpt (Oct 18, 2012)

MarkII said:


> Fractional bits represent the notional information content of the data rather than the storage size (which will be an integer number of bits).
> 
> For example, if I have a two bit number I can store { 0, 1, 2, 3 }. However, if my data for some reason are only able to take the values { 0, 1, 2 }, then I have more values that I can store in one bit, but fewer than I really need two bits for - in other words, a fractional number of bits.


Can you point me to some reading material?


----------



## jrista (Oct 18, 2012)

MarkII said:


> (And if you think my analogy with print is invalid, you need to *explain* why. I may be wrong, but simply repeating your assertion that this is so does not show it to be the case).



I think this is a critical point, and possibly the root of the contention of the "DXO DR naysayers." As someone who prints a lot myself, perhaps I can offer some insight.

Assuming you print at *native* resolution, printing does not average the original amount of information into something less. A print at native resolution represents the same, original, fully detailed image information at a higher density. That higher density may be anywhere from three to six times greater than the 100ppi of my screen (or even more dense, for those who use a 72ppi screen). That is very different than downsampling, which is destructive to information. Generally speaking, I downscale my images for display online. I print at native size at home, or perhaps slightly enlarged, and I might upscale (at a lower PPI) for large canvas prints from a lab. Depending on the amount of cropping, I might print as low as 8x10 with a small amount of downscaling (no where near a two-fold reduction for proper averaging, though), although most of the time it is 11x17", 12x18", 13x19" (the latter being my most common print size, usually at 300ppi).

There are other problems with DXO calling their rated DR "Print DR", though. Assuming you are using a godly form of paper, such as Innova FibaPrint Gloss, which has a dMax of over 2.7, you might be able to get 7 stops or so from a print. Your average fine art print paper has a dMax randing from around 1.3 to 1.5 on average to 1.75 or so for some of the more recent higher-end fine art papers. That gets you maybe 5-6 stops of DR. Most papers also don't have particularly high white points. Again, Innova FibaPrint bleached or bright white glossy papers have a pretty high brightness, and the Moab Lasal papers might be some of the brightest papers available with the highest L* I've ever seen (although they achieve it via OBAs, which require proper lighting properly produce the papers full DR.) Despite that, none of those papers, even when printed with top of the line pigment inks like Lucia or UltraChrome, will offer much more than around 7 stops of DR.

So that takes us back to the definition of DR. I'm happy to accept that DXO has a purely mathematical interpretation of DR, the ratio between white point (maximum saturation) and black point (noise floor). Again, though, I am not sure it is a useful or realistic definition of what dynamic range is. When one thinks about the value of dynamic range in digital photography, the first thing that usually comes to mind is the ability to recover useful detail from deep shadows. I say from the shadows, as I think any photographer who uses digital knows that it is critical to preserve the highlights, as once they are clipped, detail is well and truly gone. Since detail generally "fades" into noise on the shadow end, an improvement in photographic dynamic range has the benefit of improving one's ability to "recover", or pull up, detail out of the deep shadows. 

Now, in this respect, I don't think anyone who has been involved in this debate will honestly dispute the fact that Sony Exmor sensors offer more dynamic range. That has never been in dispute...its a simple fact, clear as day for anyone who has seen or directly used a Nikon RAW image from any camera with an Exmor sensor. The dispute on record here, if I may define it according to my own views as well as that which I've read from other DXO DR naysayers, is this:

_What value does DXO PrintDR (the mathematically derived ratio between white point (maximum saturation, FWC) and black point (electronic noise floor)) have in a real-world context?_

From the standpoint of simply moving the black point in a downsampled image, the only thing that occurs is shadows become darker. One LOSES information during the process of downsampling, so the primary benefit of having additional DR in the hardware no longer applies. In the context of viewing images on a computer screen, primarily done via the web, having a deeper black point might be valuable. Computer screens generally support a much deeper black point than actual prints on paper (particularly prints on high quality fine art paper), although none actually support 14 stops of DR regardless, and the average consumer screen is only 6-bit, so roughly the same DR as a print.

When it comes to *real print*, assuming one is printing at native size, or an upsampled image, original detail is preserved or slightly softened, but none of it is _lost_ due to downsampling. Regardless, assuming one even does significantly downsample a D800 image so they can print at 8x10", even printed on the highest dMax papers on the market with the brightest L* rating, your going to get HALF the DR you should supposedly be getting from DXO's 14.4 stop Print DR rating. If we assume you tweak the white and black points, curves, and levels in Photoshop to manually and ideally compress all that extensive 14.4 stops of DR into the 5-7 stops of DR your paper is capable of, then the additional mathematical DXO DR (darker black point) offered by downsampling is still of no benefit. It might actually make it more difficult to compress a greater range of shadow tones into the limited dynamic range of your paper, resulting in some funky tonality.

These are the issues I have with DXO's "Print DR" statistic. It is an unrealistic number, purely mathematical in derivation, that does not seem to translate into any real-world improvement in "print". It MIGHT offer slightly better blacks when downsampled images are viewed on the web. Blacks might be just a bit richer, assuming someone actually has a properly calibrated screen with high enough bit depth to actually support it. The average home user still uses a 6-bit screen. Most serious photographers have an 8-bit screen, and some serious professionals might have thousand-dollar 10-bit screens. At best, an observer viewing a photo on the web will be able to observe about 8-10 stops of DR, although on average we are still back to 6 stops on average.

At best, DXO's downsampled DR rating should probably be called *Web DR*. It is not detail-preserving Photographic DR, as upon downsampling you lose detail. It is definitely not Print DR, since a print is inherently more about color richness and gamut than white-to-black point dynamic range. The depth of blacks sometimes matters in a print, however the deeper your black point in print, the harder it tends to be to actually discern fine shadow detail. Things look richer and more contrasty, but not necessarily more detailed. Papers with a higher white point AND slightly less dense blacks tend to look better, despite having far lower dynamic range than the original photo. 

_So, what is the value of DXO Print DR?_ Realistically, practically, physcally...what do I actually gain by downsampling my full-detail RAW into a smaller-sized TIFF? For that matter, what value does DXO Print DR have if I save as a compressed JPEG for viewing on the web? Are we really just talking about a DXO weighted *score*, and nothing more? If so, should it really be called Dynamic Range, or is there a better term DXO could use that wouldn't come off as some kind of sketchy maneuvering (real or simply perceived) of their results in favor of a major monetary contributor?


----------



## tnargs (Oct 18, 2012)

jrista, I think you have just shown that DxO should be completely ignored by every intelligent photographer.

Photographic hobbyists and professionals need test measurements that are highly relevant to their realistic needs in typical photographic situations. 

What they DON'T need is a scientific measurement and subsequent aggregation that is completely inconsistent with their needs as a photographer. Complete with company-specific definitions and randomly chosen normalisation points, that one has to read all the fine print to get a grasp of how on earth they came up with that number, score, or ranking. Hello DxO!

Can you imagine a food nutrition analysis website published by scientists, where they publish highest scores for palm oil and birthday cake, and lowest scores for raw fish and broccoli. After delving several levels further into their website you find other surprising and almost bizarre scores and numerics. Then after delving another 40 pages into explanatory papers and definitions, if you are sufficiently scientific in mindset, you will discover that there are no flaws in their logic or measurement methods and their system is completely consistent within itself. How useful is this website? How misleading is it?


----------



## jrista (Oct 18, 2012)

tnargs said:


> jrista, I think you have just shown that DxO should be completely ignored by every intelligent photographer.



Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say DXO in its entirety should be completely ignored. My only beef with DXO is quite specifically their Print DR "score", for all the reasons I stated above. DXO does provide valuable statistics and measurements. I just have a hard time with their scoring structure being so heavily weighted in favor of a statistic that...seems entirely meaningless, and utterly lacking in real-world value.


----------



## elflord (Oct 19, 2012)

jrista said:


> MarkII said:
> 
> 
> > (And if you think my analogy with print is invalid, you need to *explain* why. I may be wrong, but simply repeating your assertion that this is so does not show it to be the case).
> ...



If you're comparing two different cameras, it doesn't make sense to compare dynamic range at two different resolutions (and therefore different noise/resolution tradeoffs)

As long as your sampling to some known target resolution (whether it's 2400x3000 or 3300x5100 or 3900x5700), you need take into account that the higher resolution camera will benefit from either more downsampling or less upsampling. 

For any given print size, as long as dynamic range per pixel is equal, you always get either better dynamic range (lower black point) or more detail (resolution) from a higher megapixel camera.



> From the standpoint of simply moving the black point in a downsampled image, the only thing that occurs is shadows become darker.



No. The point at which the SNR is 0db moves down. So does the point where the SNR is 5db, 10db, etc. The shadows don't become _darker_, they become _less noisy_



> One LOSES information during the process of downsampling,



I'm not sure which information you're talking about "losing". A 40 megapixel camera sampled to 10 megapixels doesn't have less "information" than the image from a 10 megapixel camera. 

The point is to put everyone on the same playing field. 

If you're looking at a measure in isolation, perhaps the screen score is easier to understand. But if you're comparing sensors with different resolutions, you need to make some adjustment to account for the fact that the higher resolution sensor has more pixels and therefore more photographic detail.

I think the point about only 6 stops of dynamic range being available for paper is a bit of a digression -- if you don't need more than 6 or maybe 8 stops for some safety margin, why would you care about dynamic range ? Any modern DSLR has more than that.


----------



## jrista (Oct 19, 2012)

The only thing I can gather from the Pro-DXODR camp's arguments so far, is that we are not really comparing images on a dynamic range basis with DXO's Print DR statistic. We are comparing images on a noisiness basis. Black points and white points and noise may make for a neat and simple definition of DR, but as far as I can gather, DR is not what what is of interest here. The amount of noise, and how that noise presents...explicitly in relation to other images from other sensors...is what is of interest here. If the sole purpose of downscaling a large megapixel image to the size of a smaller megapixel image (or, for that matter, the inverse) is to see which camera is NOISIER, then I have no issue. I don't dispute the necessity of that, although I've never called the improvement in IQ when downsampling a large image to a small image an improvement in dynamic range. 

I do dispute that you _actually gain_ anything _beneficial_ by downscaling a high megapixel image to a smaller size, in a real-world context (as differentiated from a "clean-room" test and compare context, within which normalizing noise for the purposes of subjective IQ comparison DOES make sense). I dispute the simple notion of scaling at all to determine a _sensor's_ dynamic range, given that the point of having MORE dynamic range is to preserve detail under a wider range of tones, and in the case of digital photography allow that detail to be "recovered" via post-process exposure adjustments. Adjustments that will only really work properly when editing a RAW..._which intrinsically cannot be scaled_. 





elflord said:


> I'm not sure which information you're talking about "losing". A 40 megapixel camera sampled to 10 megapixels doesn't have less "information" than the image from a 10 megapixel camera.



Still assuming that one is perpetually _comparing_ camera sensors. Statistical knowledge about a sensor is not necessarily solely useful for the purpose of _comparing them_. If I buy a 40mp camera, I have no intention of comparing it to anything else. I have the intention of using it...as a 40mp camera. As such, I want the _full stinkin fourty megapixels_, not something less. I also want to know what my camera is capable of natively, unscaled, untainted. I want to know what my *40mp camera* _can do itself_, not how well it might do thing X in comparison to cameras A, B, and C! In other words, I want to know its intrinsic capabilities, not its relative capabilities.

In that context, scaling my 40mp image DOWN to any size below its native size means a LOSS of information...a true and realized reduction in real image detail that used to exist, and no longer does at 10mp. It also means I have to print at a smaller size, which could be counted as a different kind of loss...but I guess that is beside the point.




elflord said:


> The point is to put everyone on the same playing field.



Well, that is _one_ of the points. It is not the only point of having statistical information about a camera's sensor, as noted above.



elflord said:


> If you're looking at a measure in isolation, perhaps the screen score is easier to understand. But if you're comparing sensors with different resolutions, you need to make some adjustment to account for the fact that the higher resolution sensor has more pixels and therefore more photographic detail.



Agreed. From the standpoint of normalizing noise to compare how noisy one sensor is vs. another (which is what I gather the DXO Print DR statistic is all about based on the arguments from you an LTRLI), then sure, you should be normalizing image size. I've argued that myself in the past, although I've never called the change in noise an improvement in dynamic range before, but thats probably simply because I define dynamic range a bit differently than DXO (although admittedly in a different context as well...that of "real-world digital RAW post-processing" where most of us photographers actually live, so it is not necessarily to say DXO's definition is wrong...just meant for a different context.) I've simply called downscaling for the sake of comparing noise the normalization of noise. Something along the lines of "Normalized IQ Score" would be a much better term for this than "Print DR", though, as it really has *nothing whatsoever* to do with _print_. Print, paper, inks, ink density, lighting, etc. make actual print so far removed from what DXO is actually trying to demonstrate with this statistic that they should really rename "Print DR" to something less controversial, and something more meaningful. 

I believe Imatest, technically a competitor to some of DXO's other business I guess, named their score for roughly the same thing accordingly: SQF, or Subjective Quality Factor. I believe DXO "Print" statistics are really another form of Kodak's SQF. I believe Imatest got the name right for IQ _measurements_ as well...they simply call it MTF, rather than something more obscure like "Screen".



elflord said:


> I think the point about only 6 stops of dynamic range being available for paper is a bit of a digression -- if you don't need more than 6 or maybe 8 stops for some safety margin, why would you care about dynamic range ? Any modern DSLR has more than that.



Sorry, but it's been my entire point all along, as my complaint is with the fact that DXO sells "Print DR" as something it is not, by its very name, even. Or, at the very least, they explain their modeling system in a way that many people have incorrectly interpreted, as people are inevitably going to think "ink on paper" when they hear the word "print". I also believe the heavily weighted use of "Print DR", if it is weighted rather than purely a measured statistic (I can't find the page right now that describes how and where DXO adds "bonus points") in their scoring mechanism is extremely misleading. 

Additionally, the same statistics, assuming they are accurate enough in the broader context (which in the case of Print DR, it is not...it has a very narrow and specific usage solely in the context of comparing sensors scored by DXO), can be used to learn about what a sensor offers in and of itself outside of any context of comparison. Such as how much exposure latitude do I REALLY, ACTUALLY have when I am pushing shadows around *with my RAW images in a RAW editor*. Or, say, what the sensor offers when ACTUALLY PRINTING IT AT NATIVE SIZE (so no scaling or averaging of any kind)? DXO's Print DR statistic is insufficient to answer those questions, while Screen DR, effectively being hardware measurements as they are otherwise untainted by software, IS sufficient to answer those questions. Hence my reliance on Screen DR to describe intrinsic capabilities in contexts where relative capabilities are meaningless. 

Perhaps my complaint is simply with how DXO sells, names, uses, and refers to their statistics. If they had used the terms "MTF" or "Measurements" and "SQF" in place of "Screen" and "Print" respectively, I probably would have never had a problem. Labeling their overall dynamic range score as the "Landscape" score (immediately putting it in a context where actual camera USERS might literally try to photograph scenes with more than 14 stops of real-world dynamic range), then stuffing in a number that (potentially greatly) inflates the intrinsic hardware capabilities, is excessively misleading. At the very least, SQF is explicitly defined as a way to produce normalized comparisons for the purpose of accounting for "viewer experience"...a subjective factor, which sounds a lot like what DXO's "Print" scores are supposed to be. SQF has also been shown to be an ideal way to statistically measure image IQ produced by digital sensors (when, ironically, it wasn't so ideal for measuring IQ from film), one which has never risen so much ire as DXO's "Print DR" statistic.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 19, 2012)

jrista said:


> MarkII said:
> 
> 
> > (And if you think my analogy with print is invalid, you need to *explain* why. I may be wrong, but simply repeating your assertion that this is so does not show it to be the case).
> ...



The value of it is to compare cameras more fairly than not using it. If you print those files you'll notice that printed to the same size and viewed from the same distance the same thing happens 40MP source vs 12MP source. Or if you print both at 8MP and then put one print say 10' farther away from the other.

If you don't normalize then if you go by your screen DR all the time then you'd think that a 20x20" print from a 36MP source cam would have a lot, lot more nasty noise than one from an 18MP camera using the same generation of technology. It doesn't make sense to compare a 36MP source as if it were the same scale as 18MP since you could always filter noise to 18MP scale or filter and downsample to 18MP and trade away your extra detail information to make it look like the same 18MP pixel level performance of the other camera. You are trying to take an advantage that can be traded various ways into a singular resolution advantage but a disadvantage in all other ways which really isn't a fair way to compare.

If you want to take full advantage of the 36MP advantage over say the 22MP of the 5D3 you can't do that and at the same time also give the extra print version boost to DR, true enough, but if you don't want to take advantage of it then you can.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 19, 2012)

tnargs said:


> jrista, I think you have just shown that DxO should be completely ignored by every intelligent photographer.
> 
> Photographic hobbyists and professionals need test measurements that are highly relevant to their realistic needs in typical photographic situations.
> 
> ...



See this is precisely why jrista's 'explanations' are so damaging. He just totally left you less informed than you had been to start with judging by what you wrote above.

Sure he knows about many various things and he also takes the time to very carefully write out long posts filled with technical term while being careful to check his spelling and grammar and thus comes off as more authoritative than most of the people finding fault with some of his key points who quickly dash out sloppy posts riddled with spelling errors or poor grammar or less perfectly written posts because English is not their first language so everyone who doesn't know any better decides that jrista must be the one who knows what he is talking about (and the fact that he is also bashing down a site that scored the brand that most readers here use and spent a ton of money on for some scores also makes for a sneaky, and likely not at all insignificant, further bias in his favor in such a regard in minds of many readers). But for all of his knowledge he is making a number of major conceptual errors, conceptual understanding is different than spouting off this and that from various books and technical papers.

What you write may be somewhat true when it comes to their overall sensor scores and overall sub-scores to some extent but it doesn't apply to their normalization stuff or their plots.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 19, 2012)

jrista said:


> Still assuming that one is perpetually _comparing_ camera sensors. Statistical knowledge about a sensor is not necessarily solely useful for the purpose of _comparing them_. If I buy a 40mp camera, I have no intention of comparing it to anything else. I have the intention of using it...as a 40mp camera. As such, I want the _full stinkin fourty megapixels_, not something less. I also want to know what my camera is capable of natively, unscaled, untainted. I want to know what my *40mp camera* _can do itself_, not how well it might do thing X in comparison to cameras A, B, and C! In other words, I want to know its intrinsic capabilities, not its relative capabilities.



Sure you might want to know how it does at 40MP and what the sensor straight out delivers and then you have the screen plot and it's certainly valid to have some interest in that but most people also do want to know how it does relative to other options and to see whether they are maybe also giving up other things compared to other options at different MP counts or not, most people when they want to compare two cameras to each other want to use the print plots. I am gaining the ability to get a ton more res under good lighting but also giving up the ability to ever do as well for SNR or am I actually not giving up anything there compared to my old camera? etc.


----------



## MarkII (Oct 19, 2012)

rpt said:


> Can you point me to some reading material?


Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory

(The sections on Entropy as Information Content and Data Compression are the most relevant).


----------



## tnargs (Oct 19, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> tnargs said:
> 
> 
> > jrista, I think you have just shown that DxO should be completely ignored by every intelligent photographer.
> ...





LetTheRightLensIn said:


> .... it's been my entire point all along, as my complaint is with the fact that DXO sells "Print DR" as something it is not, by its very name, even. ...



You have a strange way of putting people down just before proceeding to agree with them ... but without ever admitting you agree with them.


----------



## jrista (Oct 19, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> tnargs said:
> 
> 
> > jrista, I think you have just shown that DxO should be completely ignored by every intelligent photographer.
> ...



Way to gloss over an insult man! You have some serious skill! Why not tell me what you REALLY think, huh?  BTW, resorting to personal attack as a means of argument demonstrates weakness in your own opinion. If you truly think people simply listen to me because I'm a dumb guy who just sounds smart, well, might not want to weaken your own position like that. I might dumly conjure up something intelligent in retaliation. Just a thought. 

I have no problem with the concepts. The concepts are not the issue. The problem is that we are on entirely different pages about what the issue is. Part of that is a misunderstanding of what DXO DR really refers to, what it is defined as...by MANY people...which in and of itself is WHY we are on different pages (because it is the ambiguity and ease by which readers are mislead by DXO because of the way they describe their results, the terms they choose to use to describe certain scores) that is the problem, and what I dislike. You think I don't understand the need to normalize to properly compare IQ. I DO understand that...if you search these forums, I've argued the normalization point myself many times (and many times well before the D800 came out.) 

I've been very clear about exactly what my complaint with DXO is, and very clear about the context within which I voice my complaint. Veiled insults not withstanding, I think it is you who misunderstands the argument we nay-sayers are trying to make. Either that, or you are conveniently ignoring the context, and attempting to use the notion that individuals such as myself "simply don't understand" as a means of trying to strengthen your argument. 

Well, ironically, you don't need to strengthen your argument. In the context within which you are arguing, the context of non-isolated results used purely for the purpose of comparisons, DXO's definition of DR is fine and dandy, if confusing based on the way they name their results and scores. Only the people who dig into the mathematical descriptions of their results (which is only the few hypergeeky of the millions who view DXO results and base their purchasing decisions on them) will have the option of gleaning a full understanding. I do not disagree that one needs to normalize image size to determine the difference in how noise levels of a sensor might affect perceived IQ (which, btw, is a subjective or observer-based comparison...SQF would be a better, and standardized, way to provide that information). So, in terms of arguing a narrow point in a narrow context, you guys win. You won a long time ago. People just don't fully understand it because DXO DR is not really how people think about DR in a real-world context...(thus the reason the debate exists in the first place.)

Most people don't understand dynamic range as the ratio between white and black points, or noise in terms of decibels. Neither is DXO's definition of dynamic range the sole valid, concrete definition of dynamic range in the context of a digital image produced by a digital sensor. There are a variety of ways to compute DR, including some offered by standards bodies like ISO (who's ISO 15739-2003 standard aims to provide a standardized way of computing digital image DR in a more "photographic" manner. It clearly defines the types of noise it accounts for, including random or "temporal" noise (photon shot noise) that changes from shot to shot and fixed forms of noise (electronic or read noise) that remain the same from shot to shot.) There are more useful ways to describe dynamic range, and differing contexts within which definitions of dynamic range has meaning (and potentially very different meanings.)

I don't believe there is anything wrong with stating my disdain for the way DXO uses their Print DR score. I don't believe there is anything "dangerous" about me wanting a frequently-quoted resource like DXO to produce more meaningful, more useful results, even if it simply means renaming some of the terms they use to describe their results, for the benefit of potential buyers who will base radical decisions on DXO's scores (such as the dumping of an expensive Canon kit in favor of another expensive Nikon replacement kit, when for their needs they neither need the dynamic range of the D800, nor would benefit from the other traits of the D800 camera body...such as huge image size or slower frame rate when they are an action photographer who needs smaller image size and faster frame rate. Or even for the photographer who does need more DR, but might incorrectly believe the D800 offers an extra 1.2 stops of DR at native, unscaled RAW size than it actually does.)

And for the record, my argument against DXO's "Print DR", even if Print DR is "valid within it's own context", is consistent across brands. From a pure statistical comparison standpoint, the use of the Print DR number is useful as a scalar, unitless *score* for comparing subjective image quality across sensors. However I do not believe, for any camera, Nikon, Canon, etc., that it actually provides any amount of meaningful information that would tell a potential buyer who HAS made a decision about what camera to purchase how much exposure latitude they might actually have when post-processing their RAW images (and it *is* exposure latitude...the ability to "recover", particularly shadows, that people think about when they read "dynamic range" in the context of digital cameras). Rename it to "Subjective IQ Score" for ALL cameras, eliminate the associations with "print" and "landscape" (which instantly puts it into context the majority of readers will see and incorrectly interpret), and my complaint will instantly disappear.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 19, 2012)

tnargs said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > tnargs said:
> ...



Nah I messed up the message and forgot to chop off the last parts and it made it look like his words were my words, my bad, totally messed the post up. I fixed it now.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 19, 2012)

jrista said:


> And for the record, my argument against DXO's "Print DR", even if Print DR is "valid within it's own context", is consistent across brands. From a pure statistical comparison standpoint, the use of the Print DR number is useful as a scalar, unitless *score* for comparing subjective image quality across sensors. However I do not believe, for any camera, Nikon, Canon, etc., that it actually provides any amount of meaningful information that would tell a potential buyer who HAS made a decision about what camera to purchase how much exposure latitude they might actually have when post-processing their RAW images (and it *is* exposure latitude...the ability to "recover", particularly shadows, that people think about when they read "dynamic range" in the context of digital cameras). Rename it to "Subjective IQ Score" for ALL cameras, eliminate the associations with "print" and "landscape" (which instantly puts it into context the majority of readers will see and incorrectly interpret), and my complaint will instantly disappear.



You seem to be slowly shifting your position, because you definitely didn't say that you thought it was valid or the best way to go about when comparing between different sensors before.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 19, 2012)

aside of the debate re. comparing pcitures downsized to 8MP and all aspects connected to this ... one more thign that really irks me about DXO 

they do NOT state anywhere on their webseite, what lens/es they use in their "sensor" tests, which in reality are not "sensor tests" but rather comparisons of downsized RAW images obtained by taking test pictures using a lens, a camera with sensor, hardware and firmware .. so comparisons of "lens-sensor-hardware-firmware"-combinations. They also state this here: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/DxOMark-Score

I doubt they are targeting a laser beam at a naked sensor and use their own electronics - hardware and standardized firmware - to measure "pure sensor performance". 

There must be a reason, why they are so clandestine about wht lesnes they use for their testeing. Until they fuly dislose all relevant information regarding their test-setup, i completely disregard their results. For all we know, they might be testing Canon cameras with the 50/1.8 and other cameras with a Zeiss 100 Macro.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 19, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Hard facts dynamic range



Do you have a link to those figures?


----------



## jrista (Oct 19, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > And for the record, my argument against DXO's "Print DR", even if Print DR is "valid within it's own context", is consistent across brands. From a pure statistical comparison standpoint, the use of the Print DR number is useful as a scalar, unitless *score* for comparing subjective image quality across sensors. However I do not believe, for any camera, Nikon, Canon, etc., that it actually provides any amount of meaningful information that would tell a potential buyer who HAS made a decision about what camera to purchase how much exposure latitude they might actually have when post-processing their RAW images (and it *is* exposure latitude...the ability to "recover", particularly shadows, that people think about when they read "dynamic range" in the context of digital cameras). Rename it to "Subjective IQ Score" for ALL cameras, eliminate the associations with "print" and "landscape" (which instantly puts it into context the majority of readers will see and incorrectly interpret), and my complaint will instantly disappear.
> ...



"It", being normaizing scale between images, to compare "the amount of noise" in a sensor, is something I do not have a problem with. I don't normally equate the amount of noise in an image with dynamic range, not the kind of dynamic range I think about when I hear the term. Based on elflord's comments so far, it seems based on DXO's definition of Print DR that normalizing images for comparison is just that, but nothing really any more than that. I do have a problem with referring to the difference between two normalized images a change in dynamic range, and I've already explained in extensive detail why. I won't be explaining it again.


----------



## MarkII (Oct 19, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> I doubt they are targeting a laser beam at a naked sensor and use their own electronics - hardware and standardized firmware - to measure "pure sensor performance".


Actually, it is quite possible that they perform the public sensor tests without any lens mounted at all. All you need is to be able to do is to illuminate the sensor in a consistent and calibrated manner, and the less that you put in the way the better.


----------



## rpt (Oct 19, 2012)

OK, so I took a few shots with my 5D3 (with the 24-105) in a darkish room. The mode was Av at f8 with ISO set at 12k8 and 25k6 and the noise level in the raw pics are nowhere near Mikael's picture noise. Mikael, may be you need to replace your copy of the 5D3. Either it does not like you one bit {notice no fractional reference here  } or you just need a good copy...


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 19, 2012)

rpt said:


> OK, so I took a few shots with my 5D3 (with the 24-105) in a darkish room. The mode was Av at f8 with ISO set at 12k8 and 25k6 and the noise level in the raw pics are nowhere near Mikael's picture noise. Mikael, may be you need to replace your copy of the 5D3. Either it does not like you one bit {notice no fractional reference here  } or you just need a good copy...



Or maybe, what's with the hard-on for Canon?


----------



## tron (Oct 19, 2012)

rpt said:


> OK, so I took a few shots with my 5D3 (with the 24-105) in a darkish room. The mode was Av at f8 with ISO set at 12k8 and 25k6 and the noise level in the raw pics are nowhere near Mikael's picture noise. Mikael, may be you need to replace your copy of the 5D3. Either it does not like you one bit {notice no fractional reference here  } or you just need a good copy...


In his pic Mikael lifted the shadows at a specific place ALOT! You will have to present a similar case to prove your point and not compare apples to oranges.


----------



## rpt (Oct 19, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so I took a few shots with my 5D3 (with the 24-105) in a darkish room. The mode was Av at f8 with ISO set at 12k8 and 25k6 and the noise level in the raw pics are nowhere near Mikael's picture noise. Mikael, may be you need to replace your copy of the 5D3. Either it does not like you one bit {notice no fractional reference here  } or you just need a good copy...
> ...


Oh dear! Are you saying that you also get the same noise levels as Mikael when you take pictures? Is your camera still under warranty? I hope so.


----------



## rpt (Oct 19, 2012)

tron said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so I took a few shots with my 5D3 (with the 24-105) in a darkish room. The mode was Av at f8 with ISO set at 12k8 and 25k6 and the noise level in the raw pics are nowhere near Mikael's picture noise. Mikael, may be you need to replace your copy of the 5D3. Either it does not like you one bit {notice no fractional reference here  } or you just need a good copy...
> ...


Sure, I will post my images. I took the pictures as described and looked at the RAW images in 100% view and it looked like Mikael's images were taken by my old Olympus P&S from 1999...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 19, 2012)

jrista said:


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



1. You just used the term PrintDR above.
2. if you are now going back on using to compare between different sensors then that is a shame
3. numerous people have pointed out to you a thousand times that are off-base on this (and recall back this past spring how you spent 15 pages trashing me to bits when I stated that the 5D3 didn't improve ISO100 DR one bit over the 5D2 and how my numbers were absurd and my methodology ridiculous and that there was no way DxO would ever report the number I got. And then.... weeks later DxO released there number and it was within one tenth of a stop of the number I reported!)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 19, 2012)

rpt said:


> OK, so I took a few shots with my 5D3 (with the 24-105) in a darkish room. The mode was Av at f8 with ISO set at 12k8 and 25k6 and the noise level in the raw pics are nowhere near Mikael's picture noise. Mikael, may be you need to replace your copy of the 5D3. Either it does not like you one bit {notice no fractional reference here  } or you just need a good copy...



why did you use iso 12k and 25k when he is talking 100? 5d3 does as well for DR at 25k as exmor


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 19, 2012)

rpt said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...



super high iso has the signal boosted past the noisy stage of the canon sensor read electronics, your tests have nothing to do with the discussion


----------



## rpt (Oct 19, 2012)

OK, don't mean to offend anybody but if a part time enthusiast's camera can shoot this I am sure most of you can do better...

Here are the screen shots of 100% view of my raw files.

The 25k6 iso image...






The 12k8 iso image...


----------



## rpt (Oct 19, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > Razor2012 said:
> ...


So there is a way to boost signal and not noise? Wow! You got me! Sorry, I am confused. Obviously I am not as knowledgeable as you chaps. I thought amps amped irrespective of signal or noise. Never mind... Lets move on.

What ISO should I be testing at? Where will I be doing the most damage to the signal while shooting in a dark room? And dont tell me to set EC to +3 or -3 unless the exposure requires it because I wont...

BTW, the EC in the images above is +2...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 19, 2012)

rpt said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...



There are two stages in the sensor read out, one stage is quite noisy for Canon, this stage dumps a lot of read noise on lower ISO shadows, when you shoot high iso, the first stage has already boosted the shadows above the level where much of this read noise gets dumped so it doesn't hurt things much thus Canon 5D3 can actually do as well or even a trace better at the super crazy high ISO you are testing in shadows and yet do much worse at super low ISO in the shadows than Exmor Nikon cameras.

You are posting things here that have nothing to do with what is under discussion. Nobody has ever said the Canon sensors have bad DR at very high ISO. The 5D3 does at least as well as the D600/D800 there and once you get to like 25k maybe even a tiny bit better and the 1DX seems like it probably can match the D4 and D3s for the cleanest super high iso shadows yet. So yeah you get comparably good results at those super high iso, but nobody ever said you wouldn't.  Canon is doing fine up there. The D4/D3s/1DX (and the D3s is so much lower res that the larger scale noise makes it not as good as the other two IMO) probably have the best super high ISO DR ever, by perhaps a stop over the next best, which is probably the 5D3, which has a small advantage over the next best ones whch might be D800 and such. So Canon is right there or maybe even with the lead for best high ISO DR at each price point. But this thread is about low ISO DR.


----------



## rpt (Oct 19, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


So what you are saying is I should shoot the same scenario at ISO 100?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> But this thread is about low ISO DR.



Is it? Why? Is it because everyone shoots at ISO 100 all the time? Or because DxO bases their Score on ISO 100? :


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 19, 2012)

rpt said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...



Lol, rpt the reference wasn't for you.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > But this thread is about low ISO DR.
> ...



Well it is 26 pages and 25.5 have so far been about ISO100 or close to that so.... :

And the relevant thing is someone was trying to directly compare ISO25k to ISO100 which doesn't make sense.


----------



## rpt (Oct 19, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


Well, I did a ISO 200 shot because it went to 30 sec at f4 with EC at 0 and it came out better than the ones I posted. so I wont post it unless you think you must see it. Next stop 100 ISO... I dont see noise at 200! And I will post later to show you. But, I *must* be doing something different from you chaps not to see noise. What is it? Is it the exposure getting enough photons in the buckets? So I have an idea for the 100 iso. Let me get to that now.


----------



## rpt (Oct 19, 2012)

OK, Here is the ISO 100 image. I is better than others so I think I am surely not doing something you guys are doing. Sorry but can you tell me the "exact" steps to repro the problem? Obviously shooting a decent exposure is not working... Here is the image:

img708.imageshack.us/i/budha100raw.jpg






The light was very low. No lighting switched on in the room where I shot. Some light coming in the room from two other rooms and none of it on the Buddha... Some light coming in from a window opposite but not enough for a human to figure the shape...

Look forward to your inputs.

Rustom


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2012)

rpt said:


> OK, Here is the ISO 100 image. I is better than others so I think I am surely not doing something you guys are doing. Sorry but can you tell me the "exact" steps to repro the problem? Obviously shooting a decent exposure is not working...



You're shooting the metered exposure? If so, that's the problem... or rather that's why there is no problem. If you want to _create_ the problem, you must underexpose by four stops or so (your image should be nearly all black), then push the exposure back up by those four stops in post. Oh, and be sure to take the absolute darkest part of that image, and view that at 100%. And that's all you have to do to see horrible noise and banding in your images. It's just that easy.


----------



## rpt (Oct 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Here is the ISO 100 image. I is better than others so I think I am surely not doing something you guys are doing. Sorry but can you tell me the "exact" steps to repro the problem? Obviously shooting a decent exposure is not working...
> ...


So I should either create a situation where the DR in the scene exceeds the DR of the camera or deliberately underexpose?

Huh!


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 19, 2012)

rpt said:


> OK, Here is the ISO 100 image. I is better than others so I think I am surely not doing something you guys are doing. Sorry but can you tell me the "exact" steps to repro the problem? Obviously shooting a decent exposure is not working... Here is the image:
> 
> The light was very low. No lighting switched on in the room where I shot. Some light coming in the room from two other rooms and none of it on the Buddha... Some light coming in from a window opposite but not enough for a human to figure the shape...
> 
> ...



Thats because you got your exposure correct. ;D


----------



## rpt (Oct 19, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Here is the ISO 100 image. I is better than others so I think I am surely not doing something you guys are doing. Sorry but can you tell me the "exact" steps to repro the problem? Obviously shooting a decent exposure is not working... Here is the image:
> ...


Shoot! and I paid over $4200 for that! Bad me!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 19, 2012)

rpt said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You must be shooting scenes where the DR more easily fits than the ones he was. For many scenes that will be the case, but he is talking about the ones with really large DR.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 19, 2012)

That scene has low DR so it all fits well and there is no noise issue at all. Low light doesn't mean anything regarding the dynamic range of a scene, with flat lighting like that it will often be low.

You need something where you like sun shining brightly on a light object, then you expose so as to not blow that out and then if there are important details in really dark parts of the scene that is when you can get into trouble. It's when there are really bright and really dark parts in the same scene that the trouble occurs. You either expose it to get nice noise free detail in the darker parts and then the bright stuff gets blown out to nothing or you expose to save the bright parts and then the dark parts are a mess (if the range of brightness between the two is large enough).



rpt said:


> OK, Here is the ISO 100 image. I is better than others so I think I am surely not doing something you guys are doing. Sorry but can you tell me the "exact" steps to repro the problem? Obviously shooting a decent exposure is not working... Here is the image:
> 
> img708.imageshack.us/i/budha100raw.jpg
> 
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Here is the ISO 100 image. I is better than others so I think I am surely not doing something you guys are doing. Sorry but can you tell me the "exact" steps to repro the problem? Obviously shooting a decent exposure is not working...
> ...



Perhaps if you shot more landscapes and forest scenes or scenes with large DR you'd really that is really IS just that easy and maybe not be quite so flip about it all. Again you can shoot billions of types of shots without issue but you can also find millions where it would be a bit of trouble, some of them you can then save by using special filters or multiple shots or hours of post processing but there are many where that stuff won't work. So it's hardly the end of the world, but it's hardly something to just totally laugh off either and make seems the height of silliness and absurdity.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 19, 2012)

rpt said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...



Yes, case 1 is the one that most are going on about, when the DR is too much for the sensor, but case 2 certainly doesn't hurt, I mean everyone has had some one of shot they can't retake and for some reason the exposure got way underexposed by accident, who wouldn't want to be able to better rescue it? But the main point is for images that are exposed as you had wanted but still won't fit. Some people will hardly ever encounter that with the current Canon level of performance and it won't matter to them at all and then some will often and some only very here and there and some somewhat more often here and there and some a real lot, it depends.

I'd certainly prefer to be able to be open to all of the extra possibilities that shooting scenes with 3 more stops of DR allows for than not have those options.


----------



## elflord (Oct 20, 2012)

jrista said:


> I do dispute that you _actually gain_ anything _beneficial_ by downscaling a high megapixel image to a smaller size, in a real-world context



Actually, we agree here. When you downsample, you trade resolution for lower noise. You're not creating a higher quality image. Depending on the situation, it might or might not be a tradeoff you'd want to make.


> Agreed. From the standpoint of normalizing noise to compare how noisy one sensor is vs. another (which is what I gather the DXO Print DR statistic is all about based on the arguments from you an LTRLI), then sure, you should be normalizing image size.



I'm glad we agree with this, because this is basically my whole point -- *if* you're comparing sensors, then you really should use the print measurement. If you're using the measurement for anything else, then the "screen" DR is as good (or better)

I can understand that from the perspective of having already picked the camera and wanting to measure its DR for purposes other than comparisons, parsimony rules, so I understand your preference for the per pixel score in this context. 

But DxO are really in the business of publishing benchmarks that will be used for comparison purposes, which explains their emphasis.


----------



## jrista (Oct 20, 2012)

elflord said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I do dispute that you _actually gain_ anything _beneficial_ by downscaling a high megapixel image to a smaller size, in a real-world context
> ...



Woot! We agree! We should party.


----------



## tron (Oct 20, 2012)

What the above image has in common with an image like Mikael's which needs the shadows to be lifted?
The lighting was low but without heavy shadows and extreme highlights. It looks more like you deliberately avoided such a subject.

Why don't you shoot outside in the sun and include some harsh shadows and try to lift them so as to show details?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> *neuroanatomist
> 
> 
> how about to receive 4 raw files from me and 5dmk2 and d800, same parameters regarding time, f-stop and base iso and test for your self how it looks regarding DR, noise, or it to much work for you ?
> And the same with 1dx and d800 regarding noise/banding in lower levels. ( I am calling your cards neuroanatomist and I will do that as long you are ridicules DXO or my findings regarding sensors DR, noise,QE and FWC. And the same to you Jrista) Im shore that this will be a new experience for you both here at CR. *



You claim that you've been shooting professionally since 1984. Since he died in 1980, and Sweden is ~1200 km from Austria, I presume you've never met Dr. Hans Asperger. I wonder if you're familiar with the syndrome he described - the hallmarks are perseveration and poor social skills. Sorry, these non sequiturs slip out from time to time. 

Clearly, you are failing to understand my point. Let me try one more time, despite the foreknowledge that it's almost certainly a futile effort. I don't want your RAW files. I don't need to be convinced that the D800 has broader DR than the 5DIII or 1D X - it does, no question. Whether its 1.5-stops or 3-stops isn't relevant _to me_ - more is more, and I'm not ridiculing anything. My point is *there is more to a good image than broad dynamic range*. Does it help, for certain scenes? Yes. Is it necessary for every scene? No. Is it meaningless in some scenes? Yes. Would I like it if Canon sensors had more DR? Yes. Does that disadvantage outweigh all of the advantages that the Canon system has _for me_? *No.*

I believe that covers the salient points. Feel free to continue perseverating on this issue. I'm out.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > *neuroanatomist
> ...



wow, you are one piece of work

(not that I disagree with the latter few technical parts of your msg there)


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > *neuroanatomist
> ...



It's like saying that the only way to take good pictures is shooting high ISO.


----------



## jrista (Oct 20, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> *neuroanatomist
> 
> 
> how about to receive 4 raw files from me and 5dmk2 and d800, same parameters regarding time, f-stop and base iso and test for your self how it looks regarding DR, noise, or it to much work for you ?
> And the same with 1dx and d800 regarding noise/banding in lower levels. ( I am calling your cards neuroanatomist and I will do that as long you are ridicules DXO or my findings regarding sensors DR, noise,QE and FWC. And the same to you Jrista) Im shore that this will be a new experience for you both here at CR. *



Miakel, you've been a "new experience" from day one. Your atrocious spelling and grammar is always an entertaining moment. You can try to claim "language barrier", but for someone who hangs out on a forum riddled with good English spelling and grammar, you should have learned a few things by now.

Yes, I absolutely DO ridicule your findings. Your "findings" are nothing more special than vastly underexposing your photographs in order to purposely create the worst possible scenario for any camera. Been there, done that...and so has the entirety of DPReview, and everyone else who hates Canon. It's old news. Everyone knows Canon sensors have ugly read noise. The thing of it is...that noise only exists in the bottom 0.05% of the signal, so unless you *stuff the entire exposure into that 0.05%*, or avoid ETTR when it could resolve the issue...like you've purposely been doing...no one will EVER experience the kind of noise issues you are trying to "prove" exist to the degree you seem to think they do. 

No one has disputed that Canon sensors are noisier than Exmor. For that matter, no would would dispute that Nikon sensors are noisier than Exmor, or that all MFD sensors are noiser than Exmore. *Every bleeding sensor on the face of the planet except Exmor is worse than Exmor.* There isn't any ground-breaking _news_ there, Mikael. You seem to think you've "discovered" something astounding. You have not. Your just repeatedly regurgitating the same old junk, over and over, like a spewed on broken record.

You've also entirely missed the point of my arguments...again from day one. I'll admit I'm not one to be particularly eloquent most of the time, but I don't believe my arguments were particularly obscure. You seem to think I've been arguing that the D800 is not better than the 5D II, or 5D III, or 1D X, or any mashup of any number of new Nikon and Canon cameras released this year. I've never once argued that point. The point I've been arguing in general is that Canon cameras are not nearly *as bad* as the likes of you try to make them out to be. The point I've been arguing specifically in relation to DXOMark is that downscaling provides zero "benefit" in the grand scheme of things, thereby making an inflated "print dynamic range" or "landscape" score very misleading, and dangerously so (as it has and will continue to cause many gullible saps to dump their kit and jump ship when they have no need to.)

Neuro put it rather succinctly:



neuroanatomist said:


> My point is *there is more to a good image than broad dynamic range*. Does it help, for certain scenes? Yes. Is it necessary for every scene? No. Is it meaningless in some scenes? Yes. Would I like it if Canon sensors had more DR? Yes.



That is the collective point of CR members. If you refuse to accept that is our point, that's your problem. Don't go demanding we accept your ridiculous test images and insane shadow lifting as anything remotely resembling realistic on the side, though. 



If you want some more respect, Mikael, your going about getting it all wrong. For one, you don't simply demand it. Respect is earned. Second, learn how to write. You come off like a three year old, language barrier or no. Respectfully, if you are a reasonably intelligent person who truly is interested in being respected, it isn't that difficult to really READ other people's posts and _learn from them._ You should be able to correct your own grammar and spelling mistakes by now (especially given how many posts you make on DPReview.) Finally, if you want to be given respect, show some respect yourself. You've been a jackass from the day you showed up on this forum, hand-in-hand with another jackass, TheSuede, your bosom buddy. You two need to learn a little respect before you'll be given any respect. Stop dissing everyone, stop ridiculing everyone, stop belittling everyone, show some respect by being attentive to people's need to read proper grammar and spelling (bad spelling and grammar just require that readers work harder to figure out what the heck it is you are trying to say).

To be frank, I don't like you. You came off and continue to come off as a raging jerk, lacking even a shred of respect for anyone else around you (while concurrently demanding respect from everyone else...) I am a debater, I debate hard, but that doesn't mean I disrespect everyone around me. I just like to debate when I think a point merits it. You, and TheSuede, both come off as plain and simply mean at times. So to be clear...I don't really like you. You could change my opinion of you...but the ball is in your court. Oh, and don't simply respond to this with something inane, like "Only the facts! Give me facts!"...it wouldn't be a win for you if you did...


----------



## jrista (Oct 20, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> vem orkar läsa allt detta? vi kan ta det på svenska , god natt.



I love Chrome's "Translate to English" feature! 



Mikael Risedal said:


> _In English:_ who bothered to read all this? we can take it in Swedish, good night.



Nice evasion, Mikael. As I said, if you want respect, earn it. Evading that debate won't earn you anything. If you want to switch to Swedish, feel free...I have my trusty full-page translator at the ready. 8)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 20, 2012)

I'd rather correct information presented in broken grammar than misleading information wonderfully presented with perfect grammar and spelling.... don't judge a book by its cover.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 20, 2012)

I'm just gonna repeat myself in this thread and say I went out last night to shoot night-city-skylines with a D5100 and D800 and used those lovely clean 100 ISO raw files to produce images that absolutely can not be done with the same single shot technique using a Canon body without the Canon produced image showing FPN that would completely wreck the shot.

Until DxO comes up with a way to publish Fixed Pattern Noise in a meaningfully comparable way this battle's likely to wrage on until Canon develops a better imaging system.

FPN is more the issue than absolute DR, is it not?
Yes, they're inter-related but I'll take a 10 stop DR camera with random noise over an 11 or 12 stop DR camera WITH FPN.

Since I happen to have a 13 stop DR camera WITHOUT FPN, and it's dark outside, I SHOULD go play with it!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 20, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I'd rather correct information presented in broken grammar than misleading information wonderfully presented with perfect grammar and spelling.... don't judge a book by its cover.



Uh, NEWS FLASH! We're way, way beyond the cover.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 20, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather correct information presented in broken grammar than misleading information wonderfully presented with perfect grammar and spelling.... don't judge a book by its cover.
> ...



30 pages may as well be the cover when the book has (by the time it will be all written and finished it seems) 30,000 pages


----------



## rpt (Oct 20, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> vem orkar läsa allt detta? vi kan ta det på svenska , god natt.


Bahai Bhai Mikael thanda dimaak thi vichaar kar. Asa raghla tar kasa chalel? Aapko Kya ham sub se itnee nafrat kyun hai? Tumi khoob beshee korcho.



Fyi, there are 4 languages there.

Kshama karen, mai ne galat likha tha. O aame theek korechi.


----------



## rpt (Oct 20, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


----------



## Imagination_landB (Oct 20, 2012)

Michael risedal is SOOO over us because he knows another language than english. Sérieusement tu tappe sur les nerfs de tout le monde tu devrais aller jouer avec ton kodak et arrêter de déblaterer , c'est un forum pas une bataille sur qui a raison ou tort. T'es vraiment n'importe quoi. I think everyone here is getting tired of you and your useless arguments.


----------



## rpt (Oct 20, 2012)

Imagination_landB said:


> Michael risedal is SOOO over us because he knows another language than english. Sérieusement tu tappe sur les nerfs de tout le monde tu devrais aller jouer avec ton kodak et arrêter de déblaterer , c'est un forum pas une bataille sur qui a raison ou tort. T'es vraiment n'importe quoi. I think everyone here is getting tired of you and your useless arguments.


And we're on! Yes, I gave a sample of 4. So we now shift fron DR to LR (language range)


----------



## Imagination_landB (Oct 20, 2012)

Aaaaaaand for the topic, I can't wait to see if they can overcome their canon ''hate'' for once. I think we all know Nikon new cameras are great! but their numbers are a little offroad


----------



## Imagination_landB (Oct 20, 2012)

Ha! looks like it's a game for him so why don't we all play to it ;D


----------



## rpt (Oct 20, 2012)

Imagination_landB said:


> And we're on! Yes, I gave a sample of 4. So we now shift fron DR to LR (language range)


Ha! looks like it's a game for him so why don't we all play to it ;D
[/quote]


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 20, 2012)

Imagination_landB said:


> Michael risedal is SOOO over us because he knows another language than english. Sérieusement tu tappe sur les nerfs de tout le monde tu devrais aller jouer avec ton kodak et arrêter de déblaterer , c'est un forum pas une bataille sur qui a raison ou tort. T'es vraiment n'importe quoi. I think everyone here is getting tired of you and your useless arguments.



ne visi


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 20, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



A 30,000 page thread would be amazing actually. That would be impressive!


----------



## TheSuede (Oct 20, 2012)

There's quite a lot in here, so I'll break it up and even .../cut/... some parts, and if you feel something has been cut inappropriately, just say so.


jrista said:


> I think this is a critical point, and possibly the root of the contention of the "DXO DR naysayers." As someone who prints a lot myself, perhaps I can offer some insight.
> Assuming you print at *native* resolution, printing does not average the original amount of information into something less. .../cut/...


Printing is NEVER a pixel > pixel matter, the screening of the print may be at 2400dpi even though you're printing at 300dpi. Otherwise you would need 16 million differently colored inks to get a full hue/tone presentation. Since you "only" have between four and twelve (we have 10-pigment printers, with two neutral densities) possible inks - and in some head models maybe two different ink spot sizes - you need a variation of [16x10^6 / 8] over area, dithered to get a full tone resolution. I set the divisor to eight, as an average of the amount of available individual inks in a modern printer here. How the screening process (dither or a complete image RIP) is done determines how good the printer handles detail per mm or in the equivalent measurement set: MTF per dpi.


jrista said:


> There are other problems with DXO calling their rated DR "Print DR", though. Assuming you are using a godly form of paper, such as Innova FibaPrint Gloss, which has a dMax of over 2.7, you might be able to get 7 stops or so from a print. Your average fine art print paper has a dMax randing from around 1.3 to 1.5 on average to 1.75 or so for some of the more recent higher-end fine art papers. That gets you maybe 5-6 stops of DR.


Don't make the mistake of mixing up tone resolution with DR. They are never the same in any practical application. Example:
A certain *measurement* has the DR of 10:1 (say a measurement range of 1 to 10), and a resolution of "1" in that range. Ten discrete steps can be clearly differentiated in the original.
A certain *presentation* type has the linear output range of 10-20. That gives a DR of only "2" since 20 is only two times as much as 10. But the presentation still has ten discrete levels very clearly distinguishable from each other, meaning that the tone resolution hasn't changed. On a visual inspection, you haven't limited the measurement DR, just shifted the base point (and lowered the detail MTF of course).


jrista said:


> So that takes us back to the definition of DR. I'm happy to accept that DXO has a purely mathematical interpretation of DR, the ratio between white point (maximum saturation) and black point (noise floor). Again, though, I am not sure it is a useful or realistic definition of what dynamic range is. When one thinks about the value of dynamic range in digital photography, the first thing that usually comes to mind is the ability to recover useful detail from deep shadows. I say from the shadows, as I think any photographer who uses digital knows that it is critical to preserve the highlights, as once they are clipped, detail is well and truly gone.


*Realistic;* who knows, at least I can tell a whole lot of things about a camera and the resulting images, and what you can DO with the camera - just by knowing the DR and some other base performance figures. You would get the same answer from any other competent machine vision specialist or optoelectrician.
*Practical;* Since a camera sensor signal is linear you can move around as you want in it, internal contrast will be constant. This means that I can expose (photometric exposure) maybe one full stop less with a camera with good DR, giving me more "practically usable latitude" in both highlight and shadow. This is not a very difficult PP operation - I put (in the raw converter) the exposure compensation at +0.5 and make the highlight tone curve a little less harsh in the cutoff knee.
If the DR is good, I can shorten my shutter speeds or get more DoF (stop down) at low ISOs - *without loosing any image quality* compared to a low-DR camera used at longer shutter speed or shorter DoF!
More DoF or/and shorter shutter speeds are in most situations something very practical, wouldn't you say?


jrista said:


> The dispute on record here, if I may define it according to my own views as well as that which I've read from other DXO DR naysayers, is this:
> 
> _What value does DXO PrintDR (the mathematically derived ratio between white point (maximum saturation, FWC) and black point (electronic noise floor)) have in a real-world context?_
> 
> From the standpoint of simply moving the black point in a downsampled image, the only thing that occurs is shadows become darker. One LOSES information during the process of downsampling, so the primary benefit of having additional DR in the hardware no longer applies. In the context of viewing images on a computer screen, primarily done via the web, having a deeper black point might be valuable. Computer screens generally support a much deeper black point than actual prints on paper (particularly prints on high quality fine art paper), although none actually support 14 stops of DR regardless, and the average consumer screen is only 6-bit, so roughly the same DR as a print.


Firstly - Most cheap laptop (and cheap TN) screens use 6-bit with 240Hz time scale (delta/sigma) dither to get 8 bits of tone resolution. None of my devices (except maybe my phone) use lower than 8 discrete bits, and both my TV and my computer screens are true 8-bit >> 10-bit time-dithered.
Secondly - This tone resolution is quantized in a *gamma-corrected* space, usually around gamma>>2.0. If you look at the sRGB gamma the step between the first 14 (of 256) bits is 1/13 of the bit value. This means the linear DR of 8-bit sRGB in the ideal application is 13x255 = 1:3315 or about 11.5 linear bits/Ev. A well calibrated HD-TV will follow ITU-R BT709, and present a step of 4.5 in the lower part of the gamma-curve - giving a linear DR of 4.5 x (235-16) = 1:985 - or slightly less than 10 bits/Ev
8-bit sRGB as a format standard has almost the same DR per pixel as a 1Dx. (!) -But in a nonlinear tone mapping - that's the difference.



jrista said:


> When it comes to *real print*, assuming one is printing at native size, or an upsampled image, original detail is preserved or slightly softened, but none of it is _lost_ due to downsampling. Regardless, assuming one even does significantly downsample a D800 image so they can print at 8x10", even printed on the highest dMax papers on the market with the brightest L* rating, your going to get HALF the DR you should supposedly be getting from DXO's 14.4 stop Print DR rating.
> .../LONG cut/...
> At best, DXO's downsampled DR rating should probably be called *Web DR*. It is not detail-preserving Photographic DR, as upon downsampling you lose detail. It is definitely not Print DR, since a print is inherently more about color richness and gamut than white-to-black point dynamic range. The depth of blacks sometimes matters in a print, however the deeper your black point in print, the harder it tends to be to actually discern fine shadow detail.
> .../cut/...


Again, you're comparing DR and tone resolution as if they were the same thing. And the comparison definitely does not seem coherent in how noise in different tone levels (brightness zones?) is perceived in a real print.

Photography is - when broken down to practical discrete steps - a series of [input DR + tone resolution] to [output DR + tone resolution] translations. As long as the tone resolution of the combined DR+TR of the receiving end is larger than the sending end the transformation can be lossless.
1) 3D object space (reality...  ) is projected on to a focal plane (sensor or film) through a lens, where you lose DR due to diffraction, haze and flare. Tone resolution is still infinite, limited only by quantum light physics.
2) the image space (the projection) is to be translated into electrical and then digital signals (the sensor and sensor electronics). DR is lost due to noise issues, TR is lost due to noise and quantization issues.
3) the linear readout has to be tone-mapped into a standardized color space, often a gamma corrected 8-bit RGB space. Here the tonemapping and tone curves determine how much DR you lose - if you lose any DR at all. In a camera phone or a cheap compact, sRGB actually has a much greater DR than what the input can provide! Tone resolution is (often) limited to 1:255 (8bits)
4) the standardized image format has to be rasterized to make it printable. DR is limited by the paper white and ink black densities, tone resolution is limited only by the rasterization scheme.

So, it's quite easy to make a 12bit DR deep shadow detail show up as an easily recognizable noise-free detail even in a 7bit (Ev) presentation DR.



jrista said:


> _So, what is the value of DXO Print DR?_ Realistically, practically, physcally...what do I actually gain by downsampling my full-detail RAW into a smaller-sized TIFF? For that matter, what value does DXO Print DR have if I save as a compressed JPEG for viewing on the web? Are we really just talking about a DXO weighted *score*, and nothing more? If so, should it really be called Dynamic Range, or is there a better term DXO could use that wouldn't come off as some kind of sketchy maneuvering (real or simply perceived) of their results in favor of a major monetary contributor?


Trying to redefine a metric that has been used practically, and for very many practical reasons in very many practical circumstances - by thousands upon thousands of signal processing engineers, sensor developers, imaging software developers (including the guys over at Canon DPP development center) and imaging process logic circuit developers is NOT in any way productive, I'd say it's very counterproductive. Especially since the connection between the measurement value and images in reality is so easy to show.

What would help a lot for most people is to understand what DR is, when used and put in the context that it is MEANT to be used. It plays ONE very important part in the most basic breakdown of the individual parameters that is universally used to measure or determine a signal quality - and a signal quality is the base for image quality assessment.

The camera total raw DR does in very large and noticeable amount have an effect on how the complete chain from object space (reality) to print can be realized. A camera with good DR has the (optional!) ability to show a lot more shadow detail (without adding noise!) in the final result, even if the paper/ink combination is pretty poor.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 20, 2012)

TheSuede said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > tnargs said:
> ...



OTOH, if one was trying to compare things for real one might use an advanced, adaptive NR algorithm and not a quick downsample so that might counterbalance some, or maybe even actually more than all, of the loss you mention where the first 30% of down sampling doesn't help to so much due to the debayer already having done some work, etc. So in the end, perhaps just imaging the full amount would apply would give a relatively realistic estimate, not quite sure how it all balances out.


----------



## Fishnose (Oct 20, 2012)

Suede, you nailed it. To the wall.


----------



## Fishnose (Oct 20, 2012)

Imagination_landB said:


> Aaaaaaand for the topic, I can't wait to see if they can overcome their canon ''hate'' for once. I think we all know Nikon new cameras are great! but their numbers are a little offroad



Do you SERIOUSLY mean to suggest that a software company like DxO that is entirely dependent on being completely unbiased in order to sell their software 'hates' Canon, when a large part of their customer base are Canon users?

No they're NOT reviewers, that's a byproduct of lab-testing sensors and lenses to add their data to the database - and a way to attract interest in their software.

For goodness sake. What would they achieve by giving Canon a raw deal? Nothing at all.
I bet the opposite is true - that they sincerely wish that Canon would produce better sensors so they (DxO) wouldn't have to hear this nonsense about being biased all the time. The last thing they want is to scare off a whole lot of potentrial customers for their software.

Believe me, your money smells just as good to them as Nikon owners' money does.

Jeez, I'm getting so TIRED of all the DxO/Nikon conspiracy theories.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 20, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Imagination_landB said:
> 
> 
> > Aaaaaaand for the topic, I can't wait to see if they can overcome their canon ''hate'' for once. I think we all know Nikon new cameras are great! but their numbers are a little offroad
> ...



Yes and I think a few of us are getting tired of DxO numbers.


----------



## jrista (Oct 20, 2012)

TheSuede said:


> There's quite a lot in here, so I'll break it up and even .../cut/... some parts, and if you feel something has been cut inappropriately, just say so.
> 
> 
> jrista said:
> ...



I fully understand how print works. I've been printing for many years, I calibrate my own papers, etc. Don't confuse PPI and DPI. Dots per inch (DPI) in a print is not necessarily the same as Pixels per inch (PPI). In your normal ink jet print, printers are usually 2400x1200 or 2880x1440, depending on the brand. That is the number of discrete ink droplets per inch, is usually a constant (some printers allow you to change DPI), and has little to do with the print resolution other than possibly having a ratio with the PPI. One can choose to print at a variety of "resolutions", or "print pixel densities". Technically speaking one could print at any PPI, although it is best to print at one that evenly divides the highest native. In the case of Epson, that would be anything that cleanly divide 720, and for the rest anything that cleanly divides 600. Thus we get 720/600ppi, 360/300ppi, 180/150ppi, and possibly 90/75ppi for those rare gargantuan prints at 60" plus.

Thanks to dithering or the RIP, the total number of dots per pixel printed, and the placement of dots of each color within each pixel, can amount to a HUGE volume of colors. "Dots" need not be placed purely side-by-side, they can overlap in different colors as necessary to create a tremendous range of color and tonality, largely limited only by the type of paper (which dictates ink/black density and white point). It should also be noted that the human eye cannot actually differentiate 16 million colors. Most scientific estimates bring the number of "colors" to around 2-3 million. Our eyes are much more sensitive to tonality, the grades of shades, which is also not necessarily the same thing as color. Tonality in print is more dependent on paper than on inks used or dots placed. Gamut, range of color (as well as maximum potential black density) is more dependent on inks used.

In terms of PPI, pixel size in print can indeed be translated to/from pixel size on screen. So long as you know the pixel densities of both, there is a clear translation factor. My screen is a 103ppi, which means I have to zoom images down to around 33% their original size to get a rough idea of how all that detail will look in print. Zooming will NEVER tell the whole picture, though, since zooming or scaling on a computer do so by averaging information. A print DOES NOT average, at least not the way I print. I can print one of my 7D photos without any scaling at all on a 13x19" page with a small border, at 300ppi, and the printed area itself covering 17.28x11.52". The print contains exactly the same information as my 100%, uncropped, native image strait out of camera. That print simply stores the information more densely. A 13x19" print is comfortably viewed (at full visual acuity) within a few feet. My point about print is that it is *not* _scaling_...it is the same original information that came out of the camera (plus any PP), just represented in a denser manner.



TheSuede said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There are other problems with DXO calling their rated DR "Print DR", though. Assuming you are using a godly form of paper, such as Innova FibaPrint Gloss, which has a dMax of over 2.7, you might be able to get 7 stops or so from a print. Your average fine art print paper has a dMax randing from around 1.3 to 1.5 on average to 1.75 or so for some of the more recent higher-end fine art papers. That gets you maybe 5-6 stops of DR.
> ...



I do not believe I have made the mistake of confusing resolution with DR. I've never made any such argument. The point I have been trying to make is that the DR gain indicated by Print DR is explicitly dependent upon a TRADE for something else, in this case detail. The net result is really nil, as your potentially gaining more DR (at least DR as DXO defines it), at the loss of potentially significant amounts of detail. My argument has been that DXO does not make this fact clear in the way they score cameras, which is rather misleading. 



*Damnable security block. Whatever the hell that thing is, I wish the mods would stop denying it exists and fix it.*


----------



## jrista (Oct 20, 2012)

TheSuede said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > So that takes us back to the definition of DR. I'm happy to accept that DXO has a purely mathematical interpretation of DR, the ratio between white point (maximum saturation) and black point (noise floor). Again, though, I am not sure it is a useful or realistic definition of what dynamic range is. When one thinks about the value of dynamic range in digital photography, the first thing that usually comes to mind is the ability to recover useful detail from deep shadows. I say from the shadows, as I think any photographer who uses digital knows that it is critical to preserve the highlights, as once they are clipped, detail is well and truly gone.
> ...



Here is where my argument comes in. There is too much conflation of what is possible with an analog signal on a sensor, and what is possible with a digital image in post. I FULLY AGREE that dynamic range in terms of a linear analog signal on a sensor is, for lack of a better word, "fluid". You can adjust exposure up or down, and shift the signal anywhere within the dynamic range of the sensor. That's WHY it is called dynamic range. With the finer gradation of discrete levels measured in electrons, potentially tens of thousands of electrons, per pixel, you effectively have fine grained, near-infinite control over that signal. If we didn't adjust everything in stops, you could fine tune an exposure quite precisely in-camera. 

I disagree that you have the same kind of unlimited, lossless control over the digital signal represented in an image, RAW or TIFF. For one, you are working with quantized, discrete data. Second, exposure latitude is not infinite, even with a RAW, when working in post. Even with an amazing camera like the D800, noise is going to eventually pose a problem since it is "baked" into the digital signal. Adjusting exposure in-camera, you don't have to contend with noise at all (for all practical intents.) Pushing or pulling exposure in post has its limits as well. If you severely under-expose, no matter how clean the results may be, you are going to have limited color fidelity as you continue to boost exposure digitally. A D800 can boost exposure by maybe six stops, but that is in no way an alternative approach to photography, as a severely under-exposed image lifted by +6EV will NEVER have the same kind of fine tonality, color fidelity, clarity, and sharpness as an image that was never underexposed by -6EV in the first place. It is certainly intriguing that you can lift shadows by 2-3 stops without any real problems with noise...that means you gain a lot of detail and some color fidelity in the deep shadows for applications like landscape photography. Push those shadows too much, though, and your amazing 13 stop landscape photo will quickly turn into a muddy something that looks like one of those poorly tone-mapped HDR images with stippled or muddy gray detail protruding into the lower midtones, which will have a disproportionately greater amount of detail and color fidelity. My point is...there are limits to what you can do with digital signal processing that don't exist when processing the signal in it's original analog form IN-CAMERA. 

Now, I've never complained about DXO's "Screen DR" figure. I believe that tells me the dynamic range I have to work with when doing what you described...fiddling with exposure in-camera. My dispute is with the notion of Print DR, and what it seems to stand for given how DXO labels those results and sells the information to the public. I do not believe you really gain anything _beneficial_, useful photographic DR that allow you to extract MORE DETAIL included, by downscaling a native RAW image to some smaller size in TIFF. I also dispute that assuming you did scale a 36.3mp image to an 8mp image and tried to utilize the supposed 1.2 stop gain in DR from downscaling, that you wouldn't have anywhere near the exposure latitude to actually do anything useful with that newfound DR even if it did contain more useful detail than the original RAW that had less DR.



TheSuede said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The dispute on record here, if I may define it according to my own views as well as that which I've read from other DXO DR naysayers, is this:
> ...



Thanks for the detailed description, although I am not sure your explanation of ITU-R BT709 is entirely accurate. That system supports bit-appending, which I wouldn't call dithering, to achieve higher bit depths. It also reserves black and white "space" within its numeric range as foot and head room for various purposes (only actually used in TV's, as far as I know, computer screens always utilize the full range of bits without headroom). That foot- and headroom reservation lowers the native DR by at least a stop or so...even if you append extra bits, the headroom requirement still exists, so you might only gain back what you had originally lost, and not much more.

The non-linear tone mapping IS the difference. Another way to put that is the gamma compresses a wider range of information into a smaller space (when indeed mapping from a larger space, which is not necessarily always the case, but is in the case of RAW PP). More information in a space that can only contain less information means we OBSERVE whatever the container renders. If we could observe a 14 stop image on a device capable of fully rendering all of the information contained within that image without the need to compress it (tone map it) in any way, it would be much closer to seeing the world the way we see it with our eyes, where the *contrast* of any given scene is lower but without actually appearing dull, drab, gray and lifeless. My point is that, _despite_ dithering and finely tuned gamma, there is no such device on the market today. We cannot truly observe the full beauty of a 13.2-stop landscape photograph in all of its linear, lively glory, without applying some kind of non-linear processing to make the information fit on even the best and most expensive of devices today.


----------



## jrista (Oct 20, 2012)

TheSuede said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to *real print*, assuming one is printing at native size, or an upsampled image, original detail is preserved or slightly softened, but none of it is _lost_ due to downsampling. Regardless, assuming one even does significantly downsample a D800 image so they can print at 8x10", even printed on the highest dMax papers on the market with the brightest L* rating, your going to get HALF the DR you should supposedly be getting from DXO's 14.4 stop Print DR rating.
> ...



To address the last sentence: Only with the LOSS of information in some way. Tone mapping is not a lossless endeavor. You map, and in the process OVERLAP, a more extensive set of information into the space of a smaller set of information. You LOSE something. Sure, you can preserve detail during the process of tone mapping...hence the point about manually tuning white and black points in a tool like Photoshop before printing. My point about that being difficult is you have to choose what to keep and what to discard. What range of shadows, midtones, and highlights you believe are most important to the final representation in that specific print on that specific paper. My point was not that you couldn't preserve the right tones to produce a great print. My point is that the print plain and simply does not and can not contain ALL of the original information. When you have more information to start with, compressing it into a smaller space, especially if you are as picky and meticulous as I am, can become a daunting task.



TheSuede said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > _So, what is the value of DXO Print DR?_ Realistically, practically, physcally...what do I actually gain by downsampling my full-detail RAW into a smaller-sized TIFF? For that matter, what value does DXO Print DR have if I save as a compressed JPEG for viewing on the web? Are we really just talking about a DXO weighted *score*, and nothing more? If so, should it really be called Dynamic Range, or is there a better term DXO could use that wouldn't come off as some kind of sketchy maneuvering (real or simply perceived) of their results in favor of a major monetary contributor?
> ...



I think you are demonstrating my point for me. You use the term DR so generically. DR can be, and is, defined in a variety of ways. It is also defined in many different contexts, and it's derivation in each context is not necessarily the same as any other context. Again, to be clear, my only dispute is with DXO's "Print DR". Based on your explanation earlier on about how you could _freely change exposure *in-camera*_ to shift tones around within the sensors DR is something I agree with 100%. I've never disputed that. You don't have quite the same fluidity with dynamic range in post, especially once you convert an image from RAW to an RGB TIFF image. I don't know why everyone thinks I have a dispute with the general notion of DR. I do not. I'm fully in alignment with everyone in regards to what dynamic range is and what it's benefits are in the context of an analog signal on a sensor. 

Hear my words: I specifically dispute the notion of "Print DR", and how it is labeled, used, weighted and sold, by DXO in their sensor scores.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 20, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Well I have understood that for a long time, it would have been a different situation if to DXO had confirmed that Canon's sensors are the best.



So that is the justification even though it didn't even happen and your're saying you want to be one of those people?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 21, 2012)

jrista said:


> I do not believe I have made the mistake of confusing resolution with DR. I've never made any such argument. The point I have been trying to make is that the DR gain indicated by Print DR is explicitly dependent upon a TRADE for something else, in this case detail. The net result is really nil, as your potentially gaining more DR (at least DR as DXO defines it), at the loss of potentially significant amounts of detail. My argument has been that DXO does not make this fact clear in the way they score cameras, which is rather misleading.



That seems like a sudden change in tune. For the last six months you were saying that the PrintDR plots were garbage and that the only true way to compare cameras relative to one another was using the ScreenDR numbers.... and that you didn't believe in the Print normalization whatsoever and it was others who pointed out the tradeoffs that you now claim you were claiming all along. But whatever, if you are finally on board, then about time. ;D


----------



## jrista (Oct 21, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I do not believe I have made the mistake of confusing resolution with DR. I've never made any such argument. The point I have been trying to make is that the DR gain indicated by Print DR is explicitly dependent upon a TRADE for something else, in this case detail. The net result is really nil, as your potentially gaining more DR (at least DR as DXO defines it), at the loss of potentially significant amounts of detail. My argument has been that DXO does not make this fact clear in the way they score cameras, which is rather misleading.
> ...



My argument has always been that you cannot realize a beneficial improvement in DR when you downscale, at least by the definition of DR that I was using. I freely admit I'm not generally very eloquent in my wording my arguments, and I am trying to be clearer and more specific. According to elflord's explanation, where black point (and this S/N zero) shift closer to pure black when you average noise. That description of DR, from a purely theoretical standpoint, while I'm willing to accept it as the math DXO uses to produce their specific numbers, does not actually describe the kind of dynamic range explained by TheSuede in his reply to me just a few posts above. Theoretically it's sound...in the pure, ideal environment it is described within. I believe there are extenuating circumstances that are not generally factored into that neat and tidy theory. I could reiterate them, but I've done that so much, if you want to know my stance on any particular argument, just reread my posts.

Just as I have always been arguing, Screen DR really actually tells you about THE HARDWARE. Print DR is more like SQF, a normative but otherwise subjective (as it needs to be) mechanism by which to compare IMAGES, or more specifically the amount of noise present in an image and the resultant S/N when noise frequencies are normalized, produced by cameras on a level playing field. I understand the purpose of normalizing images to put NOISE into the same frequency. I also understand the purpose of normalizing images for the sole, pure purpose of producing a workable model within which to score sensors on that same level playing field. But there are scores, and then there are realities...

I refuse to accept that any movement in the black point results in anything useful, as in, an increased ability to recover detail. The simple act of averaging _cost_ you a *significant* amount of detail (in the case of the D800, by a factor of 4.5). Additionally, the kind of leeway we are all familiar with when it comes to RAW exposure latitude is reduced by orders of magnitude once you convert to RGB (namely, the brightest highlights and deepest shadows are relatively rigid and do not have much leeway to be adjusted...they are essentially as "baked in" as noise; push them too far, and you either clip or block, and end up with muddy gray/brown lifted shadows or dull/grayish sorta-highlights.) So assuming you wanted to try and recover those deeper shadows with a TIFF, you might be able to recover a little, but nowhere near the four to six stops you might with an original, and thus unscaled, RAW. I consider the normalization of noise to be an entirely different concept for an entirely different purpose than dynamic range...always have. This whole argument hinges on what DXO is describing with the terms "Print DR" and "Landscape Score". Referring to the change as a useful improvement in dynamic range, that should thus give you the ability to recover _even more *detail*_ from shadows that would otherwise be even deeper into noise than you could recover before is simply not true. The information buried that deeply into the noise floor is well and truly gone, it cannot be recovered by any means. All you can do is make noise darker by averaging, but that further destroys USEFUL detail, and simply makes the detail that was already consumed by noise (as well as the noise itself) a deeper shade of black. It does not make it any more usable, useful, or "recoverable". 

If the mathematical definition of DXO's Print DR simply refers to the normalization of noise, which thereby concurrently reduces detail as it reduces the noise floor (black point, S/N 0db), so be it. But I do not believe that is how most people "grasp" the concept of dynamic range, hence the complaint about misleading scores, numbers, and terminology, hence the general confusion about what, exactly, DXO's "Landscape" score really actually means, frustration and anger that the "Landscape" score carries so much weight in DXO's model, etc. Now, I am happy to accept that it's DXO's to decide how they weight and distribute points among their own scoring model. It's just that there are reasons, valid reasons IMO, for why people have a hard time with DXO's scores. I've tried to put a logical voice to those reasons.

I *am* trying to be more clear about my position in this grand debate. I'm trying to refine my stance, based on a clearer understanding of the stance of opposing parties, so we all know where everyone stands.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 21, 2012)

jrista said:


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



1. I think you are trying to normalize your claims to match what the others had been telling you for a long time. 
2. What do you think the bottom end measurement for DR is? You measure the SNR about the black point. There is nothing more or less magical about their Print plots for DR compared to their Print plots for middle gray SNR. You compare the darkest level noise at the same noise scale to be fair. And yes, it is true that of course you can't both maintain the full MP count of detail and expect to get the Print screen DR at the same time, but yu might find out that your 40MP camera doesn't actually pale compared to your 8MP camera, and maybe even beats it, if you compared them at the same scale for DR and SNR even if at 100% and thus different scales the new 40MP might look noisier.

Anyway:
a. the fairer way to compare between sensors is the print plot and DxO is not doing anything horrendous there

b. yes, the actual numbers reported for the print plots as absolutes are basically whatever numbers in the sense that they are not anything to care about unless you happen to print at a very certain scale and view from a very certain distance and downscale in one particular way but they are the way to make relative comparisons between cameras and sensors that is a lot more fair than using the Screen plots (and for the longest time you had been insisting one must only use the Screen plots to compare cameras relative to one another, but whatever)

d. yes, it's generally better to compare the plots on DxO and pay less attention to overall scores since how do you possible sum up a sensor in one single number that would satisfy everyone at once or even a single person for all circumstances? you can't, it is just some chosen weighting and summation and that only gives you a very general and mushed together hint but again does a high score come because the cam is great at low ISO DR, at high ISO DR, at SNR, at color purity, etc. who knows, so it's better to look to the plots, at least the lower level overall scores (although even there the plots give a much clearer picture)

e. yeah, the lens tests at DxO DO seem to be pretty suspect, not sure what they are doing there, a diferent group tests them, I believe, and lens testing is MUCH trickier and copy variation more relevant but with all of the 300 primes worse than L zooms worse than non-L zooms and 2.8 IIs worse than the original version 70-200 and so on, it is kinda bizarre, I honestly don't bother even looking at their lens tests any more. The 300 2.8 IS II is trash? The 70-200 2.8 IS II worse than the 70-200 2.8 IS better than the 70-200 2.8 non-IS? The 70-300 non-L better than the 70-300L and 300 f/4?? not sure what to say


----------



## Woody (Oct 21, 2012)

Has anyone looked at the results posted at Senscore:

http://www.senscore.org/

Even though I am aware their dynamic range results are averaged over the entire available ISO range, I cannot see how the 5D3 can be that much better than the 5D2 and 1Ds3. Comments?


----------



## Aglet (Oct 21, 2012)

Woody said:


> Has anyone looked at the results posted at Senscore:
> 
> http://www.senscore.org/
> 
> Even though I am aware their dynamic range results are averaged over the entire available ISO range, I cannot see how the 5D3 can be that much better than the 5D2 and 1Ds3. Comments?



thanks for the link, never looked at them before

5d3 is significantly better than 5d2 at high ISO from what I've seen of it, possibly enough to cause this scoring because we don't really know what weighting they give to what areas of performance to come up with a vague final score like that. 
Like they also considered the 5D3's excellent AF system as worth more pts.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 21, 2012)

And the other take-away from that link is the rumors section mentioning the D4x at 54 MP, right where I'd expect it to be, 2.25x the D3200's sensor.

When that comes out we can start a whole new round of, uhm, _sophisticated deliberation_ when its merits are measured by DxO and published against whatever Canon will have to compare to it.


----------



## Tcapp (Oct 21, 2012)

Aglet said:


> And the other take-away from that link is the rumors section mentioning the D4x at 54 MP, right where I'd expect it to be, 2.25x the D3200's sensor.
> 
> When that comes out we can start a whole new round of, uhm, _sophisticated deliberation_ when its merits are measured by DxO and published against whatever Canon will have to compare to it.



Oh my God. I would hate to shoot 54mp. The difference from 22 to 36 in print is small, but the file size increase is huge. I would imagine the jump from 36 to 54 to be a nightmare to post process, with only a coupe inches gained in print size. So not worth it. Just my two cents.


----------



## rpt (Oct 21, 2012)

Aglet said:


> And the other take-away from that link is the rumors section mentioning the D4x at 54 MP, right where I'd expect it to be, 2.25x the D3200's sensor.
> 
> When that comes out we can start a whole new round of, uhm, _sophisticated deliberation_ when its merits are measured by DxO and published against whatever Canon will have to compare to it.


LOL! You are choosing your words beautifully! I love your description of a normal everyday C vs. N bar brawl


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 21, 2012)

Woody said:


> Has anyone looked at the results posted at Senscore:
> 
> http://www.senscore.org/
> 
> Even though I am aware their dynamic range results are averaged over the entire available ISO range, I cannot see how the 5D3 can be that much better than the 5D2 and 1Ds3. Comments?



Who knows. When you mish mash so many factors into a single score and nothing is explained....
It does have better DR than the 5D2 and 1Ds3 at higher ISO (although a trace worse than the 5D2 at lower ISO and worse than the 1Ds3 at lower ISO).


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 21, 2012)

compupix said:


> Canon has some catching up to do with respect to sensor performance as measured by http://www.DxOMark.com. Canon doesn't even come close to the top performing Nikons. (High score is better.):
> 
> Pts Model
> =======
> ...



Are thes numbers linear? 100 Points is two times better than 50 Points? 

I don't think so. My 40D has sth. around 60 points and makes very good image quality (cleanliness, plasticity, contrast). The 5Ds produce extremely good image quality with around 80 Points, Nikons have 90-95 Points and produce more extremely good image quality. But I am shure that the difference between 40D and (5Dii/iii + Nikons latest FF models) is obvious for each parameter while the 15 points difference between 5Dii/iii and Nikons models is less obvios and depends on the shooting scenario.

So in my opinion the dxo mark values lack in two terms:

What does a difference of e.g. 10 points mean in relation to it's starting point?
Are they measuring the all the parameters and the right parameters which defines image quality for the broad spectrum of applications?

I really like the 2 steps of additional DR which the Nikons have as real advantage. They are - now - the winner in that discipline. But throw away all the Canon glass if Canon will enhance their sensors in the next few years to reach similar DR (I am shure that will happen!)? - NO. it would be wasting of money for me.
Canon has one problem with the current situation: They can buy Sony sensors but perhaps they don't want to do that. Or they have to work around Sony's patents finding another way to increase DR - that's a guess of mine but that's the way things go. Someone has a patent which protects a widely defined technical measure so others have to invent essentially new ways to increase their performance.
That is a chance for us photographers, that Canon has to fight for an alternative sensor concept with increased DR but perhaps a new design that improves other parameters like color fidelity, read out speed etc.

Today the bodies behind the lenses change much more often than the lenses! So I stay calm and observe the market besides taking photographs.


----------



## sanj (Oct 21, 2012)

My head hurts.


----------



## sanj (Oct 21, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I had NOT paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice.
> ...



Neuro you are one of the most respected guy on this forum and I love your photos on flicker. But if the two photos which Risedal posts were are IDENTICAL settings, then to my eye the difference in IQ is significant. I do realize there is much more to photography and cameras but I guess here we discussing only IQ. I do not find anything lacking in my cameras but I would like to know if some other camera has better IQ than mine all else being equal. Just to be aware. Am trying to learn..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2012)

sanj said:


> I would like to know if some other camera has better IQ than mine all else being equal. Just to be aware. Am trying to learn..



Yes, some other camera has better IQ than yours. Several others, in fact. It does depend, of course, on how you define 'better'. DxOMark doesn't define it, for me.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 21, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to know if some other camera has better IQ than mine all else being equal. Just to be aware. Am trying to learn..
> ...



Well that settles it then, retail stores need to totally reorganize their stock. We need to see every camera in the store tagged with a index file card indicating the the DxO score in big bold numbers. That way we don't have to worry about brand or price.


----------



## TheSuede (Oct 21, 2012)

jrista said:


> I fully understand how print works. I've been printing for many years, I calibrate my own papers, etc. Don't confuse PPI and DPI. Dots per inch (DPI) in a print is not necessarily the same as Pixels per inch (PPI). In your normal ink jet print, printers are usually 2400x1200 or 2880x1440, depending on the brand. That is the number of discrete ink droplets per inch, is usually a constant (some printers allow you to change DPI), and has little to do with the print resolution other than possibly having a ratio with the PPI. One can choose to print at a variety of "resolutions", or "print pixel densities". Technically speaking one could print at any PPI, although it is best to print at one that evenly divides the highest native. In the case of Epson, that would be anything that cleanly divide 720, and for the rest anything that cleanly divides 600. Thus we get 720/600ppi, 360/300ppi, 180/150ppi, and possibly 90/75ppi for those rare gargantuan prints at 60" plus.



Thank you for correcting that (dpi vs ppi), one shouldn't write stuff like this while being still intoxicated...  Though I do think you understood what I meant. I've read the rest of your replies also, and think I see what you mean.

I'm not to sure I fully agree with your seemingly total dismissal of DxO's "print DR" validity. But I think I understand why you object to the word "print" used to signify the scaling operation. The "print DR" may be a semantically misleading label, what they really should have written is:
*"per pixel when scaled to the MP amount necessary to make an A4-size 300dpi print"*
-but that's a bit long-winded when your available space for labels in the graph/value boxes is about 5-15 characters long... 
.......

Other than this, my only criticism is that they they over-inflate the DR values in the "print" mode. By a constant error of about +0.3 to +0.35 Ev (or bits) - but since they do so equally for all cameras with more than 8/(0.7^2) = 16MP or more it hardly matters. It still shows a comparative difference correctly. It does not favor or handicap any camera.


jrista said:


> Thanks to dithering or the RIP, the total number of dots per pixel printed, and the placement of dots of each color within each pixel, can amount to a HUGE volume of colors. "Dots" need not be placed purely side-by-side, they can overlap in different colors as necessary to create a tremendous range of color and tonality, largely limited only by the type of paper (which dictates ink/black density and white point). It should also be noted that the human eye cannot actually differentiate 16 million colors. Most scientific estimates bring the number of "colors" to around 2-3 million. Our eyes are much more sensitive to tonality, the grades of shades, which is also not necessarily the same thing as color. Tonality in print is more dependent on paper than on inks used or dots placed. Gamut, range of color (as well as maximum potential black density) is more dependent on inks used.
> 
> In terms of PPI, pixel size in print can indeed be translated to/from pixel size on screen. So long as you know the pixel densities of both, there is a clear translation factor. My screen is a 103ppi, which means I have to zoom images down to around 33% their original size to get a rough idea of how all that detail will look in print. Zooming will NEVER tell the whole picture, though, since zooming or scaling on a computer do so by averaging information. A print DOES NOT average, at least not the way I print. I can print one of my 7D photos without any scaling at all on a 13x19" page with a small border, at 300ppi, and the printed area itself covering 17.28x11.52". The print contains exactly the same information as my 100%, uncropped, native image strait out of camera. That print simply stores the information more densely. A 13x19" print is comfortably viewed (at full visual acuity) within a few feet. My point about print is that it is *not* _scaling_...it is the same original information that came out of the camera (plus any PP), just represented in a denser manner.



Only a very incompetent rip engine will translate an image pixel to a certain, square piece of real estate on the paper. All modern rip engines that I know of actually upsample the base image by quite a lot to be able to extract the maximum amount of detail per print dot in the end result. A pixel in the image sent to the printer is NOT directly translated into ink dots on a square area of paper. Try viewing a print under microscope and see for yourself. Not an important point, but your argument about "no scaling" is still invalid in reality with all modern printers or commercial rip engines.

And your text later on does inherently mean that looking at the eye's behavior, you do actually understand exactly what I'm talking about (downsampling area average noise scaling) - just by backing away from the print! A very large print that looks slightly unsharp, and also noisy (when you inspect it up really close) will:
a) seem to be sharper
b) look less noisy
-when you take one or a few steps back.

This is the downsampling effect. As the linear resolution of the eye cannot resolve individual screen pixels or print dots when you take a step back, the eye in itself averages (downsamples!) the target area's actual information content into a lower total resolution, lower noise image. Just as the eye downsamples print dot formations in the rip to a constant tone interpretation.


----------



## tnargs (Oct 22, 2012)

TheSuede said:


> .... The "print DR" ....what they really should have written is:
> *"per pixel when scaled to the MP amount necessary to make an A4-size 300dpi print"*...



You forgot to add "...and as long as it is not transferred to paper". LOL


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 22, 2012)

TheSuede said:


> Other than this, my only criticism is that they they over-inflate the DR values in the "print" mode. By a constant error of about +0.3 to +0.35 Ev (or bits) - but since they do so equally for all cameras with more than 8/(0.7^2) = 16MP or more it hardly matters. It still shows a comparative difference correctly. It does not favor or handicap any camera.



In the real world you would likely use advanced NR anyway though which might bring those .3 Ev back too.


----------



## jrista (Oct 22, 2012)

TheSuede said:


> Other than this, my only criticism is that they they over-inflate the DR values in the "print" mode. By a constant error of about +0.3 to +0.35 Ev (or bits) - but since they do so equally for all cameras with more than 8/(0.7^2) = 16MP or more it hardly matters. It still shows a comparative difference correctly. It does not favor or handicap any camera.



Hmm, where does that additional inflation come from? You have me curious now...



TheSuede said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks to dithering or the RIP, the total number of dots per pixel printed, and the placement of dots of each color within each pixel, can amount to a HUGE volume of colors. "Dots" need not be placed purely side-by-side, they can overlap in different colors as necessary to create a tremendous range of color and tonality, largely limited only by the type of paper (which dictates ink/black density and white point). It should also be noted that the human eye cannot actually differentiate 16 million colors. Most scientific estimates bring the number of "colors" to around 2-3 million. Our eyes are much more sensitive to tonality, the grades of shades, which is also not necessarily the same thing as color. Tonality in print is more dependent on paper than on inks used or dots placed. Gamut, range of color (as well as maximum potential black density) is more dependent on inks used.
> ...



Is it that they "upsample" the image? Or is it more that they "transform" the image into an entirely different form...a form of layers of tiny dots of a specific color, selected from the range of ink colors available in the printer, arranged (dithered) in such a way as to produce an accurate color reproduction of the original source, which is ultimately exactly what gets laid down onto paper by the printer hardware itself? In a sense, the information streaming out of the RIP is almost always at a higher density, as DPI is usually at least two, and often many more, times greater than PPI. Depending on the printer, it may be an "image" representing ink droplets containing 8-11 color components in resolutions as high as 2400x1200, 4800x2400, 2880x1440, 5760x1440 dots per inch, which in the case of say a 13x19" print might be as high as 74,880x27,360 dots per page, or 2,048,716,800 (2 billion) dots total! 

I actually own a loupe that I used to use to examine the actual dots laid down by my printer when I first started printing. I was pretty fascinated with the whole thing back then (and were talking many years ago now.) I tend to examine my prints for other quality factors now...like white point and dmax, as well as the amount of detail as tones fall off into black, tonality across the board, color gamut, bronzing & metamerism (if I'm printing on a paper type that exhibits those), etc. None of that requires I look at the actual dots laid down on the paper surface. But I know what you are talking about.



TheSuede said:


> And your text later on does inherently mean that looking at the eye's behavior, you do actually understand exactly what I'm talking about (downsampling area average noise scaling) - just by backing away from the print! A very large print that looks slightly unsharp, and also noisy (when you inspect it up really close) will:
> a) seem to be sharper
> b) look less noisy
> -when you take one or a few steps back.
> ...



Well, I see what you are saying. I am not sure I would call what the brain (rather than the eye, since it is not really the eye doing the processing) does as you back farther and farther away from a print "downsampling". I tend to think of the brain more along the lines of a highly efficient super resolution processor. Our eye/brain vision center has a "refresh rate" of about 500 frames per second. However, due to the way our brain additively processes that information in a kind of "circular buffer", it is always adding more recent information to information it already has (while discarding the oldest information), to produce the crystal-clear, high resolution, ultra high dynamic range world we see. From what I understand, the cones (color sensitive cells) in our eyes don't have anywhere near the kind of density to support 1 arc second of color visual acuity, and the rods are barely close enough. A lot of our visual acuity is due to how our brains process the visual information received...and our acuity is a bit higher than the biological devices of our eyes would really attest to. 

There are other complexities with vision, as well...such as the way the brain maximizes perception in the central 2° foveal spot, while purposely diminishing perception and acuity in the outer 10° region. There are also our blind spots with kind of throw a wrench into the mix when trying to determine what "resolution" our eyes see at, or what the brain is actually doing with the constant stream of visual information it receives from the eyes. 

So, I'm not sure I would call anything that is done with a print downsampling in any manner. When it comes to vision, I consider what our brain does to be more along the lines of additive supersampling (super resolution). The output of which does diminish as distance increases, but I still wouldn't call it downsampling.


----------



## sanj (Oct 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to know if some other camera has better IQ than mine all else being equal. Just to be aware. Am trying to learn..
> ...



I have no clue about DxO. Never been to their site and do not know enough technical stuff to understand complex charts etc. I do know what 'better' IQ to me means: Lesser noise, crisper image BOTH at high and 100 ISO, Dynamic range (within reason, depending upon the current technology and the lighting) which helps me avoid clipped whites and dead blacks, sharpest results from sensors of the same size in production. 
Am I going to be shot for saying these things?


----------



## K-amps (Oct 22, 2012)

sanj said:


> Am I going to be shot for saying these things?



Depends, Do you lust after the D800 ?


----------



## well_dunno (Oct 22, 2012)

K-amps said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Am I going to be shot for saying these things?
> ...



LOL


----------



## PVS (Oct 23, 2012)

nice side by side (literally) comparison between D600 and 5Dmk3: http://youtu.be/Ot7aMeUmojY


----------



## sanj (Oct 24, 2012)

K-amps said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Am I going to be shot for saying these things?
> ...



Hahahahaha. No I dont lust D800 but if it does have 'better' IQ, then I want Canon to provide me that quality and more in their next 'release'...


----------



## tron (Oct 28, 2012)

sanj said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...


But then Nikon will probably produce something even better and then Canon people will remain dissatisfied.
It is a never ending game. We can count on this...


----------



## jrista (Oct 28, 2012)

tron said:


> But then Nikon will probably produce something even better and then Canon people will remain dissatisfied.
> It is a never ending game. We can count on this...



Well, Sony *might* produce a better sensor, but Exmor is already taking advantage of just about everything an 180nm process has to offer. If Canon moves to a 180nm process of their own, and starts using new tech like lightpipes and multi-layer microlenses and low-noise electronics, it could not only bring Canon up to Exmor quality, but it would level the playing field for the foreseeable future. The move to 180nm processes from 500nm is still relatively new, having only really first occurred a few years ago. It'll be some time before everyone moves to the next process shrink. 

The next major innovation from Sony is to combine the image processing logic with the sensor die using a "3D" layered die attachment process. That won't really revolutionize IQ, but it will create much smaller, integrated packages for small sensors that can be used in phones and the like, making it even more cost effective to manufacture such devices.


----------



## x-vision (Oct 28, 2012)

jrista said:


> The next major innovation from Sony is to combine the image processing logic with the sensor die using a "3D" layered die attachment process. _That won't really revolutionize IQ ... _



Maybe not revolutionize but will constitute the next major step in performance. 

The big thing about the stacked/3D design is that the circuitry layer can be made ... cheaply ... on a state-of-the-art chipmaking process (say 45nm).
This will allow the integration of sophisticated on-sensor signal processing (per-pixel ADCs, dual conversion gain, etc.) - and in turn better overall sensor performance, which might prove impossible to match by a 'standard' sensor.

So, the stacked/3D design has a lot of promise, actually.
And unlike current BSI techologies, it will be much more cost-effective to scale to DSLR sensors.


----------



## jrista (Apr 19, 2013)

x-vision said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The next major innovation from Sony is to combine the image processing logic with the sensor die using a "3D" layered die attachment process. _That won't really revolutionize IQ ... _
> ...



Sorry, but I highly doubt stacked IC design will allow per-pixel ADC. Per-pixel ADC, just like any other per-pixel circuitry, would need to be PART OF THE PIXEL. That would have to be done on the sensor die, right on the photodiode. That would consume diode space, reducing FWC, which would have an impact on IQ. That is assuming an ADC could even FIT...they are much more complex than something like per-pixel CDS or a basic amplifier, which is a very simple thing in comparison. 

I am not really sure what you would gain with per-pixel ADC over what Sony already achieved with per-column ADC anyway...Exmor's readout is about as clean as it is going to get without a more direct way of reducing dark current noise, which at this point is best done with very significant active cooling (i.e. peltier and a highly effective heat removal system, say copper heatsink and copper heat pipes, for freezing or sub-zero temperatures). Exmor already eliminated the downstream components that introduce noise, those being high frequency circuitry, such as a clock generator or PLL.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 19, 2013)

PVS said:


> nice side by side (literally) comparison between D600 and 5Dmk3: http://youtu.be/Ot7aMeUmojY



Eyes roll....wow a guy with a video camera, web access and a pair of DSLR's....claiming to make an informed review. 

Ok...here we go...he compares a 5DIII size against a D600....where the 5DIII has the optional grip...hullo?
Then makes a further eyes roll statement....the Nikon has dual SD card slots...which Canon doesn't have...when ever has an SD card been a cool thing compared to Compact Flash???
The Nikon has a pop up flash.....OH COME ON.....5 mins of my life wasted on this muppet.....


----------



## jrista (Apr 19, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > x-vision said:
> ...



I've read the papers. The layers are not linked directly to the pixels. The sensor layer still has the readout circuitry, which then pipes that information to an image processor via a bus...it is just that the bus is directly integrated into the package, rather than being off the die and requiring transfer across significantly greater distances to some other off-die processor. I've seen no patents or papers that describe directly linking pixels to the packaged processing layer. 



ankorwatt said:


> active cooling gives in long exposures a noticeable better result and it is exposures with several sec up to minutes .
> Nothing we common user have a big benefit from except astro photographer
> all sensors has a cooling with heatsink today



In a sensor that introduces no downstream noise, such as Exmor, the primary source of noise is dark current. A heat sink is a PASSIVE cooling device. I am talking about an ACTIVE cooling device...such as a small peltier. Even though Exmor introduces practically zero downstream noise (the ADC introduces practically none as all the high frequency components are located away from the CP-ADC circuitry), it still has about 3e- read noise. That noise contribution comes from dark current in the sensor itself, and is the remnant that CDS is not correcting for. The only way to eliminate that is to cool the sensor. CMOS efficiency seems to reach its peak at about -80°C, at which point noise from dark current is ~200x LOWER than at room temperature. Cool the sensor, and the 13.23 stops of DR the D800 has would likely approach the theoretical maximum...say 13.999 stops of DR. That is another 2/3rds of a stop, which is still significant enough to be useful. It may be *most *useful for astrophotographers, but I figure I could use 20 stops of DR at least for my landscape photography...I'd still happily take the extra 2/3rds of a stop that a supercooled sensor would give me. That would also make a higher bit depth that much more viable...a 16-bit ADC on a sensor with active cooling...I see no reason why you couldn't get 15.9 stops of DR.

I don't foresee a peltier being used in a consumer device any time soon...the power requirements are more in line with using a fuel cell than a battery. But, actively moving heat away from the sensor rather than just with a passive heatsink would still introduce efficiency gains, and reduce dark current noise that CDS cannot compensate for.


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> no, it is not Sony, it is from a 140 side pdf where the different future sensors are discussed by people in the sensor development lead by Eric Fossum and Alber Theuwissen , Im not with my main computer, try to find the link later.
> 
> dark current are not the major problem in the canon sensor and compared to others and if you use normal exposure times and not a serie of several seconds and minutes, then all sensors needs to cool down, the main problem is late stage electronic noise in Canon therefore the inferior DR in Canon and at base iso
> you have therefore misunderstood the situation with Canon sensors and base iso and the weakness.



You are misunderstanding my argument. I know exactly why Canon has poor low ISO DR. I am not talking about low ISO, I'm talking about _high ISO_. High ISO is greatly benefited by a high full well capacity and high quantum efficiency. Full well capacity is affected by two key things: total photodiode area and dark current leakage. The former can only be achieved with either a process shrink (this allowing all the circuitry for logic and readout to consume less diode space) or larger pixels. The latter is affected by temperature. Dark current leakage increases exponentially with temperature. Just lowering a sensor from 70°c to 50°c can cause a fairly significant improvement in quantum efficiency. 

The efficiency of a photodiode to convert incident photons into free electrons (charge) can be critical to improving high ISO SNR. High ISO images are noisy not because the ISO setting itself introduces noise, but simply because a signal with a lower SNR is being amplified, and the noise already present in the signal is being amplified. We throw away the vast majority of light that passes through the lens, and only keep a small percentage...less than 20% in all consumer and professional grade cameras today. Of the light that passes through the lens and actually reaches the sensor, only about 30-40% makes it through the CFA, and with the average Q.E. of a CIS being around 40-50%, we throw away at least half of that! Even small increases in quantum efficiency can improve the signal level at HIGHER ISO settings. Ironically, a very high Q.E. might be counter-intuitive for low ISO settings as it could allow the sensor to saturate too fast, so one might need variable cooling in a sensor designed for optimal high and low ISO performance. The point is, however, that cooling the sensor to improve its efficiency (i.e. reduce dark current leakage caused by thermal factors) is all about improving the maximum potential signal at higher ISO settings.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2013)

jrista said:


> You are misunderstanding my argument. I know exactly why Canon has poor low ISO DR. I am not talking about low ISO, I'm talking about _high ISO_.



I think we've pretty well established that there are some people (e.g., Mikael/ankorwatt) and organizations (e.g., DxO) who believe that DR at ISO 100 is the only thing that's relevant. In my case, it might even be relevant....for the *17%* of my shots that are at ISO 100. :


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You are misunderstanding my argument. I know exactly why Canon has poor low ISO DR. I am not talking about low ISO, I'm talking about _high ISO_.
> ...



I doubt it. You can digitally push 5DIII ISO 100 RAW files a half dozen stops and still get clean images with just a very modest amount of NR. I'm sure the 1DX fares even better.

You don't strike me as the type to accidentally underexpose your shots by a half dozen stops, or who wants to turn completely blocked below-Zone-I shadows into highlights....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You are misunderstanding my argument. I know exactly why Canon has poor low ISO DR. I am not talking about low ISO, I'm talking about _high ISO_.
> ...



*Sigh* I don't really know why I continue to argue the point. I know its pointless...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 20, 2013)

The worshipers of "_DxO scores are everything, low ISO performance of Nikon/Sony sensors are everything_" are continuing to sing their sad old songs of worship & praise ... Hallelujah


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 20, 2013)

An Intelligent Nikon Missionary,
May be an oxymoron,
But when missionaries start their trolling, 
There's less Oxy and more Moron.


----------



## Skulker (Apr 20, 2013)

jrista said:


> *Sigh* I don't really know why I continue to argue the point. I know its pointless...



If I know something is pointless I tend not to bother. But I have noticed that some people never know when to give up. Me, I'm just going to go on taking pictures that really please me with excellent quality that surpassed my expectations by quite a long way. If someone wants to tell me how rubbish my photos are without ever seeing them, well I'm not going to be very impressed with their reasoning or judgement. ;D


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> An Intelligent Nikon Missionary,
> May be an oxymoron,
> But when missionaries start their trolling,
> There's less Oxy and more Moron.



+100000000

HAHA, That's GREAT! ;D


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 20, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> That is not true, here is 1dx and d800 lifted the same in the shadows and from a contrast rich motive



Can a D800 recover an eight-stop-underexposed image as well as a 1DX can recover a six-stop-underexposed image? Sure, but who gives a damn? Unless, of course, you can't properly expose an image to save your life....

Nikon: the camera for those who wouldn't know what to do with an exposure meter if it flew at them out of a pressure cooker.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10008.msg253382#msg253382

b&


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 20, 2013)

jrista said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > An Intelligent Nikon Missionary,
> ...





I've concluded that the only way to deal with this whole 5d mk2 vs D800 'debate' is to answer with a little 'nonsense' rhyme ;D


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Well, when you have radical, yet diametrically opposed totally blind fools on either side of the argument, like Trumpet and Mikael, it is difficult to make any argument that doesn't get twisted and destroyed by either a brazen lack of understanding or intentional misinterpretation. Poetry seems the only viable alternative.


----------



## skitron (Apr 20, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> ...here is 1dx and d800 lifted the same in the shadows and from a contrast rich motive
> This is a strait comparison which shows two different sensors signal/noise in shadows and the cameras are exactly the same exposed...



Not taking sides here, but what software was used to do the lifts? Point being all softs are not all going to do it with the same quality. The Canon shot looks like a total mess compared to what I get from 5D3 shots doing similar lift.


----------



## jrista (Apr 20, 2013)

skitron said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > ...here is 1dx and d800 lifted the same in the shadows and from a contrast rich motive
> ...



There has always been a question about the objectivity of that particular sample shot from Ankorwatt. It has been requested on several occasions that he produce the actual RAW images with metadata, and all we have ever received in return is obfuscation and avoidance.

There is no denying that the D800 has a DR advantage at low ISO, but as you've stated...it is rare to actually encounter that kind of noise in a normal lift. When you are DR limited, it can definitely happen, though. There is a key difference between the 5D III and 1D X that might cause the 1D X to experience worse noise, however: The 1D X uses dual DIGIC 5+ chips. When pixel data from the sensor is split and sent to two separate DSPs for processing, additional banding will usually be introduced. The 7D has the same problem. The 5D III, however, uses a single DIGIG 5 chip to process the whole image, so it *is *entirely possible it is capable of cleaner shadow lifting than the 1D X.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 20, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> proper exposure what is that?



Took you long enough, but at least you've finally acknowledged your ignorance. Congratulations! It's the first step towards knowledge.

In the digital realm, a proper exposure is one in which an image of an 18% gray card results in values in the green channel of the raw file of 18% of the maximum value that can be recorded. With a 16-bit file, values range from 0 through 65,535; 18% of that is 11,796.

The red and blue values will be less than the green values in all but the weirdest light. Typically, red will be a bit more than a stop relatively underexposed and the blue will be about 2/3 stop underexposed. White balancing consists of multiplying the figures from the two underexposed channels so they equal the figures from the properly exposed channel.

Digital exposure compensation is the same basic idea, but applied equally to all three channels. One stop of digital push is accomplished by doubling all the figures in the raw file. One stop of digital pull is done by halving all the figures.

After white balancing and exposure adjustments, a gamma curve is generally applied (with 2.2 being typical of most working spaces). Next, if it's a colorimetric workflow, the ICC profile for that camera is applied. Much more common, however, is that this is where the "special sauce" gets applied. Canon calls them, "picture styles." At the very least, an S-curve is applied (on top of the gamma curve) to boost contrast in the midtones (at the expense of highlight and shadow contrast, of course) and different parts of the spectrum are selectively saturated by different amounts. (It's always added saturation because the camera's native color response is so much larger than any working space). After that, whatever other types of additional modifications (more or less contrast, shadow boost, whatever) are up to you.

In scenes with reflective highlights or the light sources themselves, you generally want to intentionally underexpose the image because otherwise those highlights will oversaturate the sensor and one or more of the channels will record the maximum value for those parts of the image. Underexposing allows those values to fall in a range that can be recorded by the sensor; digital push is then applied to most of the image to restore it, but a compressed push is applied to the highlights -- if you didn't compress the boost in the highlights, they'd wind up just as blown as if you had properly exposed the image in the first place.

Scenes like that are so common in typical shooting that manufacturers intentionally design their meters to underexpose by about a stop. The onboard raw development engine that produces JPEGs applies a corresponding amount of compressed digital exposure compensation, and the various popular raw development engines are smart enough to do the same. There are, however, many tools out there that will let you examine the raw data directly should you choose to play around.

(That scene of the shed in my back yard where I moved the camera's exposure bug six stops to the left, that resulted in an almost entirely black exposure with just hints of detail? The one which came out almost entirely free of noise except for a small amount in the deepest shadows after normalizing the exposure? Considering the meter's built-in underexposure, it was really about seven stops underexposed.)

And now you should understand what proper exposure is.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 21, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> there are no proper exposure



Well, at least you've made clear _why_ it is that you can't properly expose an image to save your life.

Sorry, if you're really happy wallowing in your own ignorance and incompetence like this, there's nothing I or anybody else can do to help you with your problems.

And, yes. That's exactly what you're doing. All those shots you keep posting of noisy images taken with a 1DX? That's a display of pure incompetence; no competent photographer ever has anywhere near as much trouble with noise on any modern camera -- let alone a flagship model -- as you keep demonstrating with your 1DX. And it's an incompetence born of ignorance -- ignorance of how to properly expose an image using a DSLR.

_Why_ you're so happy with your ignorance and incompetence is beyond me...but _chacun son goût._

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Skulker (Apr 21, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> proper exposure what is that?





Just one of the basics of photography.

If you are not to sure about this there are many "photography for beginners " type articles on the Web. You could start by trying to understand them. ;D

Your lack of understanding is probably why you can't take a decent photo. I never get the sort of noise in my photos that you get with your canons. Your last comparison showed crazy amount ts of noise and banding etc in the Canon shot and a hopeless soft nikon image. So may be you don't understand focus either and that's why you put up such rubbish shots from both you cameras.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 21, 2013)

rpt said:


> I had a look at the pram photos again and frankly I like the pram on the left. The one on the right is a bit - flat! No character. Just plain dowdy...


Uhmmm.. I think it's an awning, not a pram. 

It's also a reasonable choice of scene for such a comparison push-test, with sunlit areas of near-white masonry in the background contrasting with the darks shades of a (nearly) black awning in the shade with its upper side illuminated and the underside in yet deeper shadow. Not a super-high DR scene, but one with enough DR to be able to demonstrate the difference in sensor system noise levels.

I think Ankorwatt is being generous by comparing a 1Dx to a D800. Had he used a camera below Canon's current flagship, the difference would have been even more significant. As it is, the Nikon was half the cost of the 1Dx.
It could have been an even bigger cost/performance difference if he'd have used a Nikon D5100 compared to a Canon 7D.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 21, 2013)

Skulker said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > proper exposure what is that?
> ...


Skulker, your attempt at humor is understandable, if only in a locker-room-banter sort of way.
If you have been around long enough to know the poster's true credentials you might realize that sort of comment is better kept to yourself, despite the cute emoticons. 
Seriously. There's far too much low-level insult thrown about in the guise of humor instead of intelligent discourse in these contentious topics. Frankly, IMO, I find far too much of a potentially good thread is often taken up by off-topic and unconstructive posts with an inflammatory tone, making it tedious for those who want to follow it without the playground antics and making it more difficult for those such remarks are directed at to remain civil and engaged.
I hope you won't join the ranks of the rancourous on a regular basis.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 21, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...




I think you'll find 'the posters' true credentials in dispute here on CR.

I see he has acquired himself a 1Dx - lets see some pictures posted in the 'anything shot on a 1Dx' thread. 

( And I'm puzzled by someone who repeatedly demonstrates pushing the 8 bit CR.2 file instead of converting it to a 16 bit TIFF first ).


----------



## rpt (Apr 21, 2013)

As my posts were not constructive, I have removed them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 21, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Frankly, IMO, I find far too much of a potentially good thread is often taken up by off-topic and unconstructive posts with an inflammatory tone, making it tedious for those who want to follow it ...



Many potentially useful threads have been derailed by the very thing the that instigates the 'humor' or outright attacks that lead to thread moderation/locking. I'd say the inflammatory posts are those posts that are made knowing exactly what outcome will result. Before ankorwatt/Mikael had his Mikeal account and all his posts deleted, we'd seen that awning comparison in at least 10 threads, and countless QPcards on barbecues, sheds, and now pianos. 

Go to an astronomy forum, and in any thread which mentions the solar system, post a modern diagram of ours and state that Copernicus was right and Ptolemy was wrong. That's just stating a fact, but after a while its going to start pissing people off...and that's not even considering the fact that there aren't many devotees of the Ptolemaic model. 

Maybe there are people on Nikon forums who repeatedly post the same example images to show how certain of Canon's lenses are better than the Nikon equivalent. If so, that's just as inflammatory. Should Mikael be insulted for posting the 'truth' that the D800 has a wider DR? No. But repeated posting of the same contrived examples is the epitome of tedious, and downright annoying. Since he's repeatedly posting those examples in response to those he's argued with on many previous occasions, he knows exactly the response it will provoke. That he does it anyway, again and again, and indeed seems to have created new accounts just to do so, says a lot about his character.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 21, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> with what should I answer for example trumpet power when he declare that 5dmk3 and 1dx has the same exposure latitude that d800 ? = large DR?



Mikael, I have never, ever claimed any such thing.

My point is, and always has been, that, though the D800 offers marginally more dynamic range, the dynamic range of the 5DIII and 1DX is already most substantial. When you can take a 5DIII image that's been so grossly underexposed that it's mostly black on the preview window and easily rescue it into a clean file suitable for extreme enlargements, it's meaningless to bitch about how shitty its dynamic range is -- which is basically all you do here. It's as meaningless as bitching that minivan _x_ is crippled because it "only" has a top speed of 95 mph, and we know this to be true because minivan _y_ has a top speed of a whopping 105 mph.

So who cares that you can rescue even more grossly underexposed images with a D800?

If you can't get clean images in bright light -- and all you do here is post very noisy images taken in very bright light -- then the problem isn't even close to being with the equipment. The problem is the gross incompetence of the person operating the equipment.

Lots of people here have posted examples of very clean images taken with the 5DIII and 1DX in extreme situations. And those same people have tried to explain to you the basic, introductory-level photographic techniques they used to achieve those results. Yet you continue to insist that those people haven't a clue...while you go on to post yet more really bad snapshots plagued with all sorts of technical problems, all the while insisting that you know more about technique than those who don't have your problems.

Dude, the problem isn't your gear. Your gear is just fine. The problem is with the person who's operating your gear.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 21, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Neuro
> with what should I answer for example trumpet power when he declare that 5dmk3 and 1dx has the same exposure latitude that d800 ? = large DR? well, I show it with a comparison from 1dx and d800 ,



Do you think your comparison convinced him? Since he's seen it at least a dozen times and still responded the way he did, it's pretty obvious that showing him the same comparison a 13th, 20th, or 200th time won't convince him, either. Did you notice that I've given up responding to your comparison posts? It became pointless. 

There's a sign over the bar in The Squealing Pig, a pub near where I work, taken from a Robert Heinlein quote: "_Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig._" 

So, I'd suggest that you simply don't answer at all. I'd suggest the same to TrumpetPower. The issues are important to some people here, but the repeated arguing is really damn pointless. Neither of you will convince the other, just accept it and move on. 

</rant>


----------



## Aglet (Apr 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...
> ..
> So, I'd suggest that you simply don't answer at all. I'd suggest the same to TrumpetPower. The issues are important to some people here, but the repeated arguing is really damn pointless. Neither of you will convince the other, just accept it and move on. </rant>



That is good advice all around.
I think that too often people are compelled to post _something_ in response to a post, even if it's not contributing to the actual technical aspect.

If your momma never told you, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." .. 
Well, here it is.

Amending it for an internet based discussion forum would likely go something more like, 
"If you can't contribute something useful to the topic, please reconsider posting anything at all."

I have to commend all involved that, at least from what I've seen recently, the level of rancour amongst differing viewpoints has taken a more civil route, even on this topic which has been beaten to death since I joined up a year ago to discuss this very issue.

So thank-you, various posters, for doing your best to remain civil. It improves what is already one of the better places for photographic discourse.

Now for the tech contribution to the topic: I think we'll find that, as Canon moves into DiGiC 5 products, we'll see somewhat less of the general noise and banding issues which plagued a few of the DiGiC 4 equipped models and may have been less of a problem with earlier DiGiC 2 & 3 bodies.

A recent chat with a Canon rep, busy as ever manning a booth, solo in front of a large crowd of curious onlookers, who said that there are many* improvements in DiGiC 5 for high AND low ISO noise issues*... A point he was eager to make when I told him that I'd dumped all my DiGiC 4 bodies due to poor noise performance for my uses.
He then handed me a 6D and asked me to play with it a while and let him know what i thought of it compared to the 5D2 I had... I know he already knew the answer to that. 

Gotta say, other than the reduced overall noise and noticeably reduced FPN on the *6D, the thing I really like about it is the smoother quieter shutter*. The 5D2 had such a crude THWACK! along with significant body shake induced by that big mirror being let loose and poorly damped. The 6D feels more like a nicely balanced match-rifle than the shotgun-like 5D2. it's even nicer, i think, than the quick CRUNCH sound the D800's shutter makes.
I haven't had a chance to _really_ shoot with a 6D, likely won't unless I buy one. Likely won't do that either until I find a compelling enough reason to go back to Canon for FF. And about the only reason that will be is if my hankering for a tilt-shift 24mm is not satisfied by the upcoming Samyang for F-mount.
Plunking a 6D on the back of Canon's fabulous 24 and 17mm TS lenses will likely be the most practical solution for some of what I want those lenses for. This might have been speeded up, somewhat, if the darn resale value for D800s was better. All those factory refurbs have dropped my resale value to the point where I now will likely have to keep using both of them for at least a year to get more value from them.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 22, 2013)

See. Nobody cares.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 22, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> See. Nobody cares.



Yup, especially when no photography is in the posts.


----------



## sarangiman (May 10, 2014)

woytek said:


> I see the difference in noise and it sure is there! But, this example is flawed in my opinion since the exposure in these photo's was just wrong. I have seen that current Sony sensors offer better shadow recovery, no doubt about that. But in this particular situation it was not necessary to have such an underexposed image and the same photograph could be achieved by both Canon and Nikon camera when properly exposed.



But in another scenario, this exposure could have been needed to avoid clipped highlights. So what you're really complaining about is that I didn't - in my infinite free time during which I happen to have both a D800 & 5DIII on my hands - find a scene with enough DR. That's a fair point, sure, but also - as you can hopefully see - a bit unfair. Because the end result would be the same.

And, frankly, that's what I'd say to everyone here who, in all the comments that followed my original post, indicated that my shot was underexposed. Meanwhile, just a few minutes before this scene, the sun was high enough in the sky that the sky _would have_ blown. So are you complaining that I didn't shoot just a few minutes earlier when there _was_ more scene DR? Would that have changed the end result? Are you arguing that there _do not exist_ scenes that require more DR than what Canon sensors can provide? 

Furthermore, according to my histogram when I was shooting, my channels *were* clipped in the sky! Therefore, the camera led me to believe that I did accurately 'expose to the right and for highlights'. So this is the result an informed photographer would have gotten anyway. _Now, if you're going to complain that I didn't have a computer with me to actually check the RAW values as I was shooting, then..._ 

There are many valid suggestions you could make. *Perfectly* nailing exposure within 1/3 EV to get your highlights _just short of clipping_ is not one of them (though it is a noble effort). Not the least because most cameras don't accurately tell you when you're just short of clipping in RAW - in my experience, they tell you you're clipped well before you're actually clipped. 

Now, you could have told me to bracket, or bracket for HDR. Valid points - but sometimes that's not an option for certain types of photography. My point is: _the conclusion doesn't change_. D800/Sony sensor performance gives you much more DR and much more processing latitude. _That's useful to some people in certain scenarios_.



woytek said:


> Also from http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/on_safari.shtml#suckout :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just FYI, that's actually a fallacy. Read Emil Martinec's extremely informative treatise on noise: http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#bitdepth

Essentially, any extra 'tones' will oversample shot (statistical) noise. Consider a signal of 200 photons generated ~100 e- of signal (QE = 0.5). At ISO 100, say we bin 4 electrons 1 DN (digital number, or increment, in the digital file). So that signal is recorded as 25 in the RAW file - pretty darn low (dark). Now, b/c of shot noise, that signal already has a stdev of 10 e- (sqrt of 100), or 2.5 DN. So there you go, you have _enough bit depth to still sample the noise in the signal_. So it's not limited bit depth/tonality that's the problem - it's the amount of light itself. You expose to the right (ETTR) to minimize statistical/shot noise.

Or to avoid running into the noise floor of Canon sensors... make sense?


----------



## sarangiman (May 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> You are still missing the point of argument here, though. Yes, it does work well to underexpose those cameras by four stops, then lift the shadows in post. But doing so is an unrealistic test from a real-world standpoint. All it tells you is that IF someone were to accidentally expose their scene incorrectly by a HUGE amount (some 16x incorrectly), then they would have a greater ability to recover. Purposely underexposing by four stops for the purpose of comparing cameras is also an unrealistic real-world comparison.



Tell that to Sony, who in their A7S is introducing S-Log2 gamma curve application that raises shadows 3 stops and rolls off amplification in highlights. In other words, ISO 800 in shadows, but ISO 100 in highlights. All software-based, since actual ISO amplification off the sensor remains at ISO 100 levels.

If that's a reasonable push for videographers, why not for still photographers? Why is +4EV suddenly entirely outlandish, when a camera manufacturer is now allowing you a +3EV push as an option _in-camera_?

The levels to which my post was misconstrued was amazing, which is why I chose not to come back to this thread (until now). I mean, I even admitted I still shoot Canon and work around its limitations... but boy have I been so much happier with the Sony A7R sensor (barring shutter shock problems) over the past 6 months. On a boat ride in Cambodia at sunset I set my exposure for the sky and shot away without a care for my exposure - raising shadows 5 EV in post to balance out the shadows of detail & people's faces in the boat (all while holding back the exposure in the sky).

The point stands: +4 EV shifts are not unreasonable. It's the difference btwn ISO 100 and ISO 1600. If such pushes were unreasonable, why would Magic Lantern have implemented a dual ISO feature that people use to shoot ISO 100 and ISO 1600 simultaneously? 

_Oh, incidentally, Magic Lantern's dual ISO feature wouldn't even be needed on a Sony sensor - because you could perform the ISO 1600 push digitally! *Which was the whole point of my original post.*_

I do still shoot Canon professionally for weddings/engagements, but that doesn't mean I don't wish it had the Sony A7R sensor. It's common knowledge now that some aspects of Canon's sensor tech are severely outdated. ChipWorks stated:



> Of the Canon DSLRs analyzed, the imaging chip has remained analog, with Analog Devices’ analog front end (AFE) chips handling A/D conversion en route to the Digic-branded ISPs. Perhaps the column-parallel ADCs favored by others can’t be implemented using 0.5 µm design rules, but more likely Canon is satisfied with its system design and performance.



http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/?lang=en&Itemid=815

There are even other, far reaching implications of low base-ISO DR. It limits your ability to retain DR while shooting low light scenes (since you have to raise the ISO amplification in camera, as opposed to selectively raising it in post-processing from an underexposed, lower ISO file).

As for people who don't run into these problems much - YMMV based on the DR of the scenes you shoot. Posting an example of a scene you think has high DR, but where you didn't see offensive noise in shadows, is _not_ a way to prove a camera has just as much DR as another. It's just a way of showing that it had enough DR for that particular scene. Which is why we have controlled tests, like the ones DXO perform. 

By the way, thanks to those that stepped in to point out why the misinterpretations of my presentation were flawed. The truth is, low read noise sensor technology will enable new features for photographers only dreamt of in the past. To sit here complaining that some tests push (pun intended) technology too much to show unflattering limitations is, in my opinion, incredibly short-sighted. _Which is especially apparent when you begin to see manufacturers and software developers doing +3 and +4 EV pushes of shadows in firmware/software (Sony, Magic Lantern, respectively)._ That's pretty telling.


----------



## jrista (May 10, 2014)

Hey Sarangiman, welcome back. Way to dig up an OOOLD thread, man!  This was years ago...

Before I dive in...which "original post" of yours are you referring to? This is such a long thread, and it went through so many phases...



sarangiman said:


> The point stands: +4 EV shifts are not unreasonable. It's the difference btwn ISO 100 and ISO 1600. If such pushes were unreasonable, why would Magic Lantern have implemented a dual ISO feature that people use to shoot ISO 100 and ISO 1600 simultaneously?



Well, first...I wasn't so much arguing against the use of 4 EV shifts "period". It was more an argument against Mikael's persistent use of particularly extreme "examples" to push is consistently extreme ideas about how uncompetitively bad Canon cameras and sensors are and (at least in his mind) would always be. Now that Mikael is gone, I think we can have a far more reasonable discussion on this subject. I fully agree that more DR is not a bad thing, and in many circumstances (sunsets being an ideal one) potentially extremely useful.

I'd offer that more accurate terminology could be used here, though. The difference between ISO 100 and ISO 1600 is four stops of LOST dynamic range. When you set ISO 1600, you *lose *four stops of DR, or lose 16x the fineness of levels between your black point and white point, and end up with 16x more noise. I understand what your getting at, though, your thinking about what ML is doing with Dual ISO, however I still wouldn't say that's the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 1600. To be most accurate, it would really be the theoretical difference between ISO 100 and ISO 6.  (If you catch my drift). 

Sony Exmor sensors still use analog amplification, BTW. When you set a higher ISO, the same fundamental rules apply to Exmor pixels as apply to Canon pixels. You have some charge level in your pixels, you amplify them BEFORE readout, then read (which at that point introduces the read noise). If you don't amplify before reading, even with the D800, noise levels when lifting an ISO 100 shot by four stops are higher than if you just shot at ISO 1600...the difference just isn't as extreme as when you do the same thing with the 5D III. 




sarangiman said:


> As for people who don't run into these problems much - YMMV based on the DR of the scenes you shoot. Posting an example of a scene you think has high DR, but where you didn't see offensive noise in shadows, is not a way to prove a camera has just as much DR as another. It's just a way of showing that it had enough DR for that particular scene.



Totally agree. Anecdotal claims are no substitute for proper controlled testing.



sarangiman said:


> Which is why we have controlled tests, like the ones DXO perform.



TL;DR <RANT> 

There ARE problems with DXO's results, though. Their direct measures are fine, they are pretty much the only thing of value that DXO produces. The problem with DXO is that not all their "measures" are actually measured, many are derived and extrapolated from actual measures, and they are NOT entirely clear about their exact methodology or formulas. They HAVE been caught on a couple occasions changing their results after the fact when flaws in their methodology were found, without any explanation (at all, not even a blog post or article) of what was changed, how, or why, leaving those who identified or knew about the flaws left to wonder what kind of biased re-weighting or whatever was performed in the black box behind the scenes to "fix" the problems (assuming anything was actually fixed, and that data wasn't simply massaged). DXO has shown considerable bias with their lens reviews, on a very consietent basis, producing very arbitrary results and scores that show certain lenses to be equivalent when they are nothing of the sort, and conversely show other lenses to be inversely related to their actual status (i.e. the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens outscores the EF 600mm f/4 L II lens for the sole reason that it has a wider maximum aperture...results that COMPLETELY undermine the 600mm's vastly superior traits...that clearly indicates poorly balanced lens score weighting that heavily leans towards T-stops as being the most fundamentally important trait as far as DXO is concerned.)

The biggest single issue I think most of the people who complain about them (which does indeed include myself) have with DXO is their often outright and obvious bias, which is exhibited in their *scores*. If DXO would completely eliminate, drop entirely, the whole notion of linearly _scoring _ the complexity of cameras and camera traits via a single scalar number, I think that would go a very LONG way to improving their reputation among those who hold them in fault. I think that scoring should be eliminated entirely, as I think it is a generally fallacious approach to take when the goal is to produce "scientific" results. When you throw in the fact that many of DXO's scores are weighted, and that some of those same scores are based on "measures" that are *not *actually measured, they are extrapolated via simple and pure mathematical formulas (and therefor do not actually match reality, when compared with other REAL measures from other testers), DXO is quite simply not as scientific as they claim to be.

That's my core problem with DXO. I like some of their literal measures, ones taken directly from original data. An example would be their Screen DR measure...it's based directly on samples taken from RAW image files. That's a true, honest _measure_. Print DR, on the other hand, is a purely mathematical EXTRAPOLATION, _*derived *_from the Screen DR measure. They call Print DR a "measure", but it is nothing of the sort. Their simplistic and pure mathematic formulas are absolutely no substitute for actually measuring the change in noise levels after actually downsampling a full-sized RAW image to their standardized 8x12" "print" output. The only reason the D800 could possibly score some 14.4 stops of Print DR when downsampled is because the Print DR "measure" is a mathematically computed number, a computation that assumes 100% perfectly ideal circumstances. Reality cannot be ideal, so their formulas are missing aspects of real-world downsampling. If they did actually measure downsampled images, they would very likely produce a less significant difference between the 13.2 stops Screen DR and whatever Print DR ended up being if properly measured, and the differences would shrink as pixel size shrunk (fill factor in FSI sensor designs shrinks with an increase in pixel density, as a greater and greater percentage of sensor die area becomes dedicated to readout wiring and the like...even with reductions in fabrication process, fill factor still shrinks, and when you throw in extra logic onto the sensor die, which is usually the case with smaller processes, fill factor shrinks further).

Sorry to dive into the diatribe on DXO again, but the reasons why there are complaints about them are well-founded, and I think it's important to be clear that they aren't just "because DXO is biased against Canon". I don't really care what the brands are, that honestly doesn't matter to me. There are definable problems with the way DXO does things, because the way they do things allows bias, and bias is quite obvious in many of their scores. The day Canon comes out with a 16-bit ADC and scores 17.5 stops of Print DR on DXO, I guarantee you I'll be making the EXACT same argument AGAINST their Canon scores...because it will be the exact same deal as the D800 and it's 14.4 stops of DR with a 14-bit ADC.

_DXO's scores suck._ The way they score is very unscientific, regardless of whether it is self-consistent. They should just stick to the raw measurements, they should actually literally _measure _downsampled versions of each image instead of just running a simple mathematical extrapolation, publish clear and concise facts about ALL of their testing methodologies for EVERYTHING (i.e. be completely open, get rid of the black box), and ditch scoring entirely. 

They should rebuild their comparison engine to allow people to pick cameras, and let an openly defined algorithm compute comparative differences and highlight them in a meaningful manner. That would eliminate any option for bias, eliminate this whole inane notion of reducing complex products to single numbers, and potentially educate DXO viewers about the cameras they are comparing, without any DXO opinions sitting in the middle. Just share the raw facts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2014)

Speaking of TL;DR, let me explain...no, there is too much, let me sum up:

DxOMark Scores = Biased Scores = BS. 

'Nuff said.


----------



## jrista (May 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Speaking of TL;DR, let me explain...no, there is too much, let me sum up:
> 
> DxOMark Scores = Biased Scores = BS.
> 
> 'Nuff said.



;D ;D ;D SUPERB summary! My thoughts in a nutshell.


----------

