Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Josh-H on June 29, 2016, 06:50:10 pm
-
The Canon performs exceptionally well. Not only does it have a wider useful dynamic range at base and low ISOs than the Nikon, it’s not far behind the Sony, and that small difference won’t be noticed in use. The Canon sensor continues to offer a wide dynamic range at every ISO setting, improving on the Sony from ISO800 onwards, and falling only slightly behind the Nikon’s strong performance from ISO6400 onwards. Indeed, the difference at most is around +0.6EV. Canon cameras are known for high ISO noise performance, and the Mark II surpasses both the Nikon and Sony by nearly +0.5EV.
Read more:DXO Score (http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-X-Mark-II-sensor-review-New-class-leader)
-
Well done!
What's pretty hilarious is that, although this is by far the most significant advance among those included in Canon bodies in the past 10 years, they are not saying a word about it in their marketing materials. ;D
The reason is obvious, boasting about it would be admitting that their other cameras on the market (starting by the 5Ds) are not yet at the right level.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well done!
What's pretty hilarious is that, although this is by far the most significant advance among those included in Canon bodies in the past 10 years, they are not saying a word about it in their marketing materials. ;D
The reason is obvious, boasting about it would be admitting that their other cameras on the market (starting by the 5Ds) are not yet at the right level.
Cheers,
Bernard
Do you really believe that Bernard?
I find it far more likely that like many, Canon just place little importance on DXO's normalised rankings. *shrug* it doesn't matter though.. its irrelevant either way to the production of good photography.
-
Do you really believe that Bernard?
I find it far more likely that like many, Canon just place little importance on DXO's normalised rankings. *shrug* it doesn't matter though.. its irrelevant either way to the production of good photography.
I am not speaking about the DxO rating, I am speaking about the improvement of low ISO DR that resulted in a higher DxO score.
You brought up DxO, I am well aware that the relevance to good photography is limited.
But speaking about camera performance, it is very important.
Personnally I use my D5 most of the time between ISO1600 and 25,600, but if you use the 1DxII as a generic purpose camera, it is great to have better DR at base ISO.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
DxO's consolidated score covers so many things it's almost meaningless. I also don't know anyone who pays any attention to it.
But this score is derived from other numbers - direct measurements of sensor output, whose values DxO also publishes and which are repeatable by anyone who chooses to test the sensor themselves.
These values - SNR, ISO vs DR, colour depth, etc. - are the ones which matter, and the ones people actually pay attention to. How much each individual value matters depends on what and how you shoot; DxO's consolidated score is just one of many subjective interpretations.
DxO's interpretation may be subjective and not very meaningful, but the results and methods are both solid and objective, and freely available to browse. You can look at the data and draw your own conclusions, depending on what you value most in a sensor.
-
I think it is important for Canon that their flagship camera scores as well as Nikon's, or similarly at least. Market perception is important, and this score contributes to it. Being a sports and PJ camera, the 1DXII is used more at higher ISO's, and here Canon has been no slouch.
The improved DR at lower ISO's will be more important for the 5D series.
-
I think it is important for Canon that their flagship camera scores as well as Nikon's, or similarly at least. Market perception is important, and this score contributes to it. Being a sports and PJ camera, the 1DXII is used more at higher ISO's, and here Canon has been no slouch.
The improved DR at lower ISO's will be more important for the 5D series.
I wouldn't say that.
A lot of photojournalism is done with flash at base ISO.
Sports? A completely different story.
-
great work by Canon... hopefully new sensor tech makes it to the new versions if 5D, 5D(s/r), 6D, 7D for their target audiences... I only used any Canon when it was still film, but I am happy that competition gear-wise moves ahead.
-
The Canon performs exceptionally well. Not only does it have a wider useful dynamic range at base and low ISOs than the Nikon, it’s not far behind the Sony, and that small difference won’t be noticed in use. The Canon sensor continues to offer a wide dynamic range at every ISO setting, improving on the Sony from ISO800 onwards, and falling only slightly behind the Nikon’s strong performance from ISO6400 onwards. Indeed, the difference at most is around +0.6EV. Canon cameras are known for high ISO noise performance, and the Mark II surpasses both the Nikon and Sony by nearly +0.5EV.
Read more:DXO Score (http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-X-Mark-II-sensor-review-New-class-leader)
That's great news for Canon users. Perhaps DXO testing will be more accepted by Canon enthusiasts just as CMOS seems more acceptable to MF enthusiasts since it became available in MF. :)
Competition is great for eveyone except for those who can not compete.
Bill
-
That's great news for Canon users. Perhaps DXO testing will be more accepted by Canon enthusiasts just as CMOS seems more acceptable to MF enthusiasts since it became available in MF. :)
It has already started, it's the first time our friend Josh quotes DxO. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bill,
Well said!
On the other hand, when systems are good enough differences may matter little. My best friend uses Canon EOS 5D and I think he does pretty well with the limited DR of that camera.
Best regards
Erik
That's great news for Canon users. Perhaps DXO testing will be more accepted by Canon enthusiasts just as CMOS seems more acceptable to MF enthusiasts since it became available in MF. :)
Competition is great for eveyone except for those who can not compete.
Bill
-
Hi Bill,
Well said!
On the other hand, when systems are good enough differences may matter little. My best friend uses Canon EOS 5D and I think he does pretty well with the limited DR of that camera.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Good to hear from you, and I agree with your post. As you have pointed out many times on this forum, most images do not need extreme dynamic range.
Like many enthusiasts, I belong to a camera club where we display our work in competition. Many of our best photographers use Canon and they do not appear to be handicapped in any significant way.
Regards,
Bill
-
most images do not need extreme dynamic range.
if we are to believe DxOMark, 1Dx II has 1/2 EV advantage @ nominal ISO 1600 vs 1Dx (and more below) + one might assume less pattern noise in deep shadows that DxOMark not testing, right ? so this is not about extreme DR but also about better deep shadows (both S/N and pattern)
-
Like many enthusiasts, I belong to a camera club where we display our work in competition. Many of our best photographers use Canon and they do not appear to be handicapped in any significant way.
Of course not. You know the limitations of your gear, you only go for the shots you can capture and you only display the shots that succeed. The ones that succeed will be just as good as the successful shots on any other camera.
There's no way of knowing how many good shots were missed, that a more capable sensor would have captured. Just as, when fishing, you never know how many fish you missed, that you would have caught using different bait - you only know how many you caught.
-
There's no way of knowing how many good shots were missed
in addition - how many shots were made, but not make it to (you name it to where - sale, etc) because they were somewhat less good ;) ... it is like when somebody is posting a single shot here (and being a professional the poster will downsize it to 2x3 pixels) boasting how good was (the poster as a photographer, camera, lens, converters, etc, etc) - except we don't know how much was really not good...
-
There is something strange with the DXOmark sensor rating.
Both the D5 and the much older D3x have the same total score of 88.
The low light score of the D5 is (very low) 2434 and that of the D3x is 1992;
Everyone who has worked with the D3x knows that it was a low iso camera. Then it was very good.
I always avoided going over 400 asa for it became noisy and lost its color.
-
There is something strange with the DXOmark sensor rating.
as noted many times already - look @ the graphs and discuss the graphs ... this is supposed to be a forum serious enough not to pay attention to a single number
-
The Canon performs exceptionally well. Not only does it have a wider useful dynamic range at base and low ISOs than the Nikon........
This doesn't seem to accord with my interpretation of the DXO results. Are there two different models of the 1DX MkII? ;)
The 1DX MkII is a 20mp full-frame camera which produces noticeably higher noise at base ISO than even the older, cropped-format Nikon D7200. It's very unusual for a full-frame camera to be noisier than a cropped format at base ISO.
The DR of the 1DX MkII begins to exceed that of the Nikon D7200, as well as that of the Nikon D810, only above ISO 400, so that's where its advantage lies.
At base ISO, the DR of the Nikon D7200 is a whole stop better. That's very significant. The Color Sensitivity of the D7200 is very marginally better, to an insignificant degree, at base ISO. The tonal range and SNR at 18%, for the 1DX MkII at base ISO, is also only very marginally better than the D7200, to an insignificant degree.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D7200-versus-Nikon-D810___1071_1020_963
-
This doesn't seem to accord with my interpretation of the DXO results. Are there two different models of the 1DX MkII? ;)
The 1DX MkII is a 20mp full-frame camera which produces noticeably higher noise at base ISO than even the older, cropped-format Nikon D7200. It's very unusual for a full-frame camera to be noisier than a cropped format at base ISO.
The DR of the 1DX MkII begins to exceed that of the Nikon D7200, as well as that of the Nikon D810, only above ISO 400, so that's where its advantage lies.
At base ISO, the DR of the Nikon D7200 is a whole stop better. That's very significant. The Color Sensitivity of the D7200 is very marginally better, to an insignificant degree, at base ISO. The tonal range and SNR at 18%, for the 1DX MkII at base ISO, is also only very marginally better than the D7200, to an insignificant degree.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D7200-versus-Nikon-D810___1071_1020_963
The comparison is against the D5, not the D810 or D7200. It significantly outperforms the D5 at base ISO - by 1 1/3 stops.
The D7200 has an exceptional sensor. Also, on the chart, you can clearly see why the 1Dx2 is noisier than the D7200 at base ISO - its ISO to DR relationship isn't entirely linear, so there is still a significant read noise contribution. Not as nonlinear as the D5, but still not a straight line (more or less) as you see with the D7200, D810, A7r and A7r2. Canon's ADC still isn't as good as Sony's (after all, it's their first generation of on-chip ADC) but it's a huge step in the right direction.
-
Oh! I see. That wasn't clear in his post. My fault.
-
Oh! I see. That wasn't clear in his post. My fault.
Sorry, I just quoted DXO verbatim. Didn't mean to cause confusion....
-
I just read the Chasseur d'Image review of the 1DxII. Very positive overall, they praise the low ISO dynamic range and many other aspects as well.
On the other hand they give the D5 a one stop advantage at ISO 12,800-25,600 in jpg thanks to better detail retention. The 1DxII jpg engine appears to be performing more NR at those ISO which explains the lower noise level, but at the cost of more smearing. Raw high ISO performance is said to be very similar.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I just read the Chasseur d'Image review of the 1DxII. Very positive overall, they praise the low ISO dynamic range and many other aspects as well.
On the other hand they give the D5 a one stop advantage at ISO 12,800-25,600 in jpg thanks to better detail retention. The 1DxII jpg engine appears to be performing more NR at those ISO which explains the lower noise level, but at the cost of more smearing. Raw high ISO performance is said to be very similar.
Cheers,
Bernard
Similar review from another French magazine, "Réponses Photo", they mention that the sensor/imaging engine is really good. One of the few downsides is the not-so-comfortable grip of the camera, which they find a bit shallow.
-
On the other hand they give the D5 a one stop advantage at ISO 12,800-25,600 in jpg thanks to better detail retention. The 1DxII jpg engine appears to be performing more NR at those ISO which explains the lower noise level, but at the cost of more smearing. Raw high ISO performance is said to be very similar.
So.. comparing the D5 to the 1DX MKII all they could find better on the D5 was a one stop advantage in jpeg at ISO 12.800 - 25600?
Similar review from another French magazine, "Réponses Photo", they mention that the sensor/imaging engine is really good. One of the few downsides is the not-so-comfortable grip of the camera, which they find a bit shallow.
This review was down right odd.. I have very big hands and thats one of the great advantages of the Pro series Canons and Nikons for me, the grips are big enough. I cant imagine the size hands someone must have to find a 1DX MKII grip too small!
-
So.. comparing the D5 to the 1DX MKII all they could find better on the D5 was a one stop advantage in jpeg at ISO 12.800 - 25600?
Cute!
The only aspects of the performance of the 1DxII that were compared to the D5 in that review were low ISO DR and high ISO image quality.
They didn't compare AF, battery life, exposure accuracy,...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Cute!
The only aspects of the performance of the 1DxII that were compared to the D5 in that review were low ISO DR and high ISO image quality.
They didn't compare AF, battery life, exposure accuracy,...
Cheers,
Bernard
Wow... sounds like a really useful review.. :o :o :o
-
Wow... sounds like a really useful review.. :o :o :o
It is a 1DxII review, not a comparaison with the D5.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It is a 1DxII review, not a comparaison with the D5.
Cheers,
Bernard
But you managed to find and quote the only D5 reference. I should have guessed. ;D ;D ;D
-
But you managed to find and quote the only D5 reference. I should have guessed. ;D ;D ;D
The 2 references related to image quality, overall in favour of the 1DxII in case you see this as a contest.
- Significant DR gap at low ISO in favor of the Canon,
- Slightly better high ISO for the Nikon (both jpg and raw in fact having re-read their comments).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
My take is that what I have seen that it may be that Canon 1DXII and Nikon D5 may not offer the ultimate image quality. Looking at DxO-mark data the low ISO image quality champs are still champs at high ISO.
The 1DX II and D5 kind of cameras may have the frame rates, class leading AF and professional durability.
But, for image quality alone you would probably go with a sensor made by Sony, or with Canon's 5Ds/5DsR.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
My take is that what I have seen that it may be that Canon 1DXII and Nikon D5 may not offer the ultimate image quality. Looking at DxO-mark data the low ISO image quality champs are still champs at high ISO.
The 1DX II and D5 kind of cameras may have the frame rates, class leading AF and professional durability.
But, for image quality alone you would probably go with a sensor made by Sony, or with Canon's 5Ds/5DsR.
Exactly. For these cameas in their intended usage, AF is an order of magnitude more important than any other metric IMHO.
Now if you try to treat these bodies as all rounders, which they can do pretty well too, then my view is that the 1DxII is dong a slightly better job than the D5.
Companies make design choices and Nikon has positined the D5 a bit more as a specialized tool from what I see. And here again, the difference isn't huge.
What is interesting, from a sensor behavior point of view, I find is that the 1DxII is in a way closer to an improved D4 than to an improved 1DX while the D5 is closer to an improved 1Dx than to a D4. Nikon went for more specialization while Canon went for a more generalst tool.
I'd really like to be able to speak with the ladies who took these decisions and to understand what inputs they were based on.
Cheers,
Bernsrd
-
That's great news for Canon users. Perhaps DXO testing will be more accepted by Canon enthusiasts just as CMOS seems more acceptable to MF enthusiasts since it became available in MF. :)
Competition is great for eveyone except for those who can not compete.
Good points.
I am a Canon user, and I would object to any idea that all Canon users have stuck their head in the sand and their fingers in their ears while Canon have lagged behind in the DR departement.
-h
-
So.. comparing the D5 to the 1DX MKII all they could find better on the D5 was a one stop advantage in jpeg at ISO 12.800 - 25600?
This review was down right odd.. I have very big hands and thats one of the great advantages of the Pro series Canons and Nikons for me, the grips are big enough. I cant imagine the size hands someone must have to find a 1DX MKII grip too small!
They did not wrote the grip was too small, that it was just a bit too shallow, in the depth dimension.
-
Hi,
I am pretty sure that modern high resolution cameras like the D810 or the Sony A7rII performs as well as the Nikon D5 or the Canon 1DXII at moderately high ISOs. like 3200. If you need at camera that shoots > 10 FPS, has blindingly fast AF and takes some abuse, than you go for 1DXII or D5, else I would say you are better served by a camera having twice the resolution at half the price.
Best regards
Erik
They did not wrote the grip was too small, that it was just a bit too shallow, in the depth dimension.
-
I am pretty sure that modern high resolution cameras like the D810 or the Sony A7rII performs as well as the Nikon D5 or the Canon 1DXII at moderately high ISOs. like 3200. If you need at camera that shoots > 10 FPS, has blindingly fast AF and takes some abuse, than you go for 1DXII or D5, else I would say you are better served by a camera having twice the resolution at half the price.
Yes, very much so.
As far as AF goes, speed is key, but more important IMHO is the ability to track moving subjects. Pretty much everything you shoot with these bodies in the area where they excel moves fast/in complex patterns.
A young child in a dark living room at night with a single light at 2200K being perhaps the most challenging subject of all.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Companies make design choices and Nikon has positined the D5 a bit more as a specialized tool from what I see. And here again, the difference isn't huge.
I would have to agree that the Canon 1Dx II is the better all-around tool (especially with the 4K) than the D5, with the D5 being the better action/high-ISO tool.
What no one seems to mention, however, is how well the Nikon D500 stacks up, not just to the old 1Dx, but to the new Canon 1Dx2 as well.
If you check out the DxO Mark on the trio (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D500-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___1071_1061_753), the D500 compares impressively.
The D500 actually has better dynamic range than either version of the 1Dx up to ISO 1000 ... and comparable Dynamic Range to IS0 2000.
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/forumposts/2016/July/dr.jpg)
Therefore, if the Canon 1Dx II is being favored over the D5 for having "better Base ISO" ... then shouldn't the D500 be favored over the Canon Dx II if that's our yardstick?
Not only that, the D500 has better Tonal Range than *both* FF Pro DSLRs all throughout the ISO spectrum:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/forumposts/2016/July/tonal.jpg)
It is unprecedented that a crop camera can whip top pro FF DSLRs like this (albeit, the FF cameras have better SNR and color sensitivity).
Now, if you want to talk about image quality, here are some actual photos from the Nikon D500 + Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II, not just together, but with the Nikon 2x TC III (@ 900mm)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001514_large.jpg)
Nikon D500 + Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II (@ 450mm, no crop)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001517_large.jpg)
Nikon D500 + Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II + Nikon 2x TC III (@ 900mm, no crop)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001516_large.jpg)
Nikon D500 + Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II + Nikon 2x TC III (@ 900mm, no crop)
Now, the above are admittedly still subjects, so let's talk about action shots under challenging conditions. If you think following a full-sized human being on a giant horse (or following a human-sized soccer player out on the field) is tough to do ... try following a finger-sized Pepsis wasp ... furiously scurrying over flower tops ... on a windy day ... and yet this is what I was able to accomplish @ 900mm with 50% crops:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001512_large.jpg)
Nikon D500 + Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II + Nikon 2x TC III (@ 900mm, 50% crop)
Not only was there a challenge of capturing erratic-moving tiny critters, not just doubly-so due to a high-wind, but triply-so because of getting the exposure right due to their extreme-black on top of extreme white flowers.
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001518_large.jpg)
Nikon D500 + Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II + Nikon 2x TC III (@ 900mm, 50% crop)
For an APS-C camera, using a 2x extender (@ 900mm), and then cropping to boot, I am simply thrilled with the results here.
I realize this is slightly off-topic, as we're discussing the "pro" cameras of the Canon 1Dx II the Nikon D5, but make no mistake, the D500 is every bit as "pro" a camera as these two.
The D500 produces comparable image quality, it has both better AF coverage and better AF tracking than the new Canon 1Dx, on top of which don't forget about the 1.5x reach advantage as well.
If you want to see a Matrix Table as to the pros/cons of each, I have made This Matrix (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/showthread.php?84-NIKON-D500-The-First-True-Pro-Level-APS-C&p=146&viewfull=1#post146) as a comparison.
I won't discuss the D500 on here again, but I thought it was worthy of mention to include it here, because it while the D500 falls short to the Canon 1Dx II in certain categories, it actually eclipses the 1Dx II in as many categories as it falls short, and compares very favorably overall.
And don't forget it does all this for $2,000 as opposed to $6,500.
Jack
-
I have just re-read the DxO Mark test of the D5, and I would swear that they have re-done their test.
I don't have evidence of this, but I think I remember that their initial measure gave it a DR of 11.7 stops at base ISO while it now shows at 12.3, which is basically on par with a Canon 5Ds in print (and superior on screen) even at base ISO.
Am I the only one having noticed this?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Wether its 11.7 or 12.3 I don't think is all that important in the scheme of image making. What is of great importance though is 'if' they have re-done the test and then not provided a reason for doing so, or more importantly for the discrepancy between results then thats an integrity issue.
I have long harboured my doubts about DXO's impartiality, methodology and relevance to actual real world image making. Unfortunately though the wayback internet machine didn't crawl the page before the current page listing so Im not sure there is a way to know for sure...
-
Agreed Josh.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nitpicking aside, it's nice to see Canon sensors' revival.
This is what Michael wrote on Sony a900 (https://luminous-landscape.com/sony-a900-field-review/) some 7 years ago:
Unfortunately this excellence is not the case when it comes to sensor noise. This camera’s sensor appears to trade off resolution for noise at higher ISOs, and though ISO 200 is very clean indeed even it isn’t completely noiseless. At ISO 400, one stop higher than the cameras native sensitivity, there is some luminance noise visible in mid-tone areas. <...>
Using standards of 2–3 years ago noise performance at ISO 400 is fine, but not as compared with other lower resolution cameras of today. (The Canon 5D MKII is likely to significantly outperform it based on my evaluation of images from an early pre-production camera...
And who would have thought about what would follow...
-
Hi Josh,
I think that camera users are far more biased towards their systems than DxO is biased against them.
On the other hand I would agree on the relevance issue. Just to make it clear, I have never owned a Canon, except an Ixus and a long range zoom bridge camera. But I know a couple of Canon shooters and I don't think DR is that important. The way I see it Canon cameras have ample DR for most situations and you can pull a lot of shadow detail from a Canon 5DIII.
But, I am pretty sure the Sony sensors have a significant advantage in that regard. I know a landscape photographer, Hans Kruse, who shoots both Canon (D5Sr/D5III) and Nikon D810. He is very happy with Canon, but uses bracketing to find ETTR exposure and sometimes he resorts to HDR. With Nikon it seems that he can do without bracketing and HDR. Last time I talked to him he experimented with an exposure mode on Nikon that was giving near ETTR exposures.
Tim Parkin has also done an extensive comparison between Canon 5DsR and Sony A7rII. Very clearly, the Sony could pull more detail in the darks. But, in most cases Canon was quite ample.
Bill Claff uses a different methodology for measuring DR, you can see some of his results in these graphs:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%205DS%20R,Nikon%20D810,Sony%20ILCE-7RII
Bill's graph don't show "engineering dynamic range" but "photographic dynamic range", the difference is simply that engineering DR is based on a SNR (Signal Noise Ratio) of 1 while photographic DR is based on a higher SNR (around 10?). Photographic DR also uses a DxO type normalisation.
Some small observations:
Base ISO on the A7rII is 100ISO (nominal) while on the D810 it is 63 (nominal), the A7rII sensor is back side illuminated, that may explain part of the difference.
The A7rII curve has two bumps
- The first one at 640 ISO is the effect of the Aptina patent. Modern sensors expand full well capacity with a capacitor connected to the photodiode. Aptina added a gate to the sensel design that can isolate that capacitor from the photodiode, thus increasing voltage. It is a smart design, at 640 ISO the full well capacity cannot be fully used, so reducing increases voltage thus reducing readout noise. The addition of a gate may reduce DR somewhat. It is a compromise.
- The second one at 32000 ISO as simple spatial noise reduction, probably median type, down on the raw data.
The Nikon has somewhat higher DR at base ISO than the others. Sony A7rII is very good at high ISO-s, due to the Aptina trick.
I have seen every amount of evidence that any of those cameras can make great pictures. As say the A7rII and Nikon D810 have higher resolution without compromising high ISO quality, I would prefer them to the "Pro" bodies any time. But, if you need robustness, high frame rates and blindingly fast AF the "pro" bodies are probably the best choice.
Best regards
Erik
I have long harboured my doubts about DXO's impartiality, methodology and relevance to actual real world image making. Unfortunately though the wayback internet machine didn't crawl the page before the current page listing so Im not sure there is a way to know for sure...
-
On the other hand I would agree on the relevance issue. Just to make it clear, I have never owned a Canon, except an Ixus and a long range zoom bridge camera. But I know a couple of Canon shooters and I don't think DR is that important. The way I see it Canon cameras have ample DR for most situations and you can pull a lot of shadow detail from a Canon 5DIII.
It completely depends on the DR of the scene you're shooting.
There's no benefit gained from having more DR than what the scene has. If you have enough DR, you have enough DR. If the scene only has 8 stop between the darkest area and the brightest area, then an 11-stop sensor and a 14-stop sensor will give you the same result. If limited-DR scenes are all you shoot, then you don't gain any benefit from higher DR and may as compare camera systems based on their other aspects.
If you regularly shoot high-DR scenes, then DR is everything. It the scene has 13 stops of DR, then 11 vs 14 stops is the difference between being able to capture it as a single shot (allowing you to shoot action) and having to rely on HDR/blended exposures, or filters if the horizon allows. It the scene has 17 stops, then it is the difference between needing a single filter and absolutely needing HDR/blended exposures.
-
Hi,
I think that is to some extent discussed in my posting if you quote more than two lines.
What I would add is that in the majority of cases there is lens flare that limits luminance range as projected on the sensor. Some authors say that limit is about 11 stops. I have seen cases where luminance range (on sensor) exceeded 11 stops, but they have been rare.
My take is that you still need to do bracketing/HDR stuff if you work with very large luminance ratios.
Having large DR is obviously an advantage. On the other hand, it has been often stated that large DR would be an advantage of MFD although DR on the CCD based backs was probably no match for Sony Exmoors dating from 2008. Still, many great images were shot on MFD. True, MFD shooters also tend to shoot graduated ND…
Just to say, I am shooting both MFD (P45+) and Sony A7rII. No Nikon and no Canon.
Best regards
Erik
It completely depends on the DR of the scene you're shooting.
There's no benefit gained from having more DR than what the scene has. If you have enough DR, you have enough DR. If the scene only has 8 stop between the darkest area and the brightest area, then an 11-stop sensor and a 14-stop sensor will give you the same result. If limited-DR scenes are all you shoot, then you don't gain any benefit from higher DR and may as compare camera systems based on their other aspects.
If you regularly shoot high-DR scenes, then DR is everything. It the scene has 13 stops of DR, then 11 vs 14 stops is the difference between being able to capture it as a single shot (allowing you to shoot action) and having to rely on HDR/blended exposures, or filters if the horizon allows. It the scene has 17 stops, then it is the difference between needing a single filter and absolutely needing HDR/blended exposures.
-
Hi Josh,
...
I am pretty sure the Sony sensors have a significant advantage in that regard.
...
The truth is Canon sensors offer no advantage in any regard (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/embarrassed.gif)
At their best, Canon sensors are "almost" as good as Sony/Nikon sensors ... at their worst, Canon sensors are embarrassingly-outgunned by Sony/Nikon sensors (color, tone, DR).
That is the reality of Canon sensor performance, according to every measuring system available.
Canon only has an advantage in lens selection, in certain areas (zooms/tilt-shifts, the MP-E macro).
They do also make great telephoto lenses, but the fact is every telephoto prime lens (http://www.lenscore.org/) they make comes in second to Nikon (in every length): 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 800.
-
The truth is Canon sensors offer no advantage in any regard (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/embarrassed.gif)
At their best, Canon sensors are "almost" as good as Sony/Nikon sensors ... at their worst, Canon sensors are embarrassingly-outgunned by Sony/Nikon sensors (color, tone, DR).
That is the reality of Canon sensor performance, according to every measuring system available.
Canon only has an advantage in lens selection, in certain areas (zooms/tilt-shifts, the MP-E macro).
They do also make great telephoto lenses, but the fact is every telephoto prime lens (http://www.lenscore.org/) they make comes in second to Nikon (in every length): 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 800.
Ever since you converted to Nikon (after spending years extolling the virtues of Canon sensors at a time when they had neither a resolution nor a DR advantage), you've repeated this ad nauseam. Not only have you failed to show any actual data (measurements or comparison images) demonstrating this, you've also directly contradicted your previous assertions on the matter, compared to what you said when you were shooting/promoting Canon and when you first discovered Lenscore/Senscore. Apparently, Canon lenses were better when you were shooting Canon, but Nikon lenses have somehow suddenly become better since you switched sides. It's not like the lenses have changed. Or maybe recent earthquakes have upended the equipment on the production lines of both companies, Nikon for the better and Canon for the worse - I don't know. And, apparently, low-ISO DR didn't matter for wildlife and macro photography back then, but now does.
With regards to lenses, you haven't once produced any actual measurements - lp/mm measurements, measured MTF charts, measurements of CA, distortion or vignetting - nor any side-by-side comparison test shots that demonstrate and compare sharpness, CA, vignetting and other lens performance parameters in an unbiased, just-the-data way. All you've done is link repeatedly to a website which gives its own interpretation of these parameters (on a scale based around a value of 1000) without actually stating what is being measured for each parameter, how it is being measured, what the actual recorded measurement was, what the lens settings were when it was measured or how they converted the measured value(s) into their final score. It's not that this data doesn't exist. Photozone and other sites have plenty of data where they've measured lp/mm values, distortion, vignetting, CA and other lens characteristics on various sensors and at various lens settings, and have published what the actual measurements and settings were so the tests can (and have) been reproduced and verified. Digital Picture and many other sites have side-by-side comparison shots demonstrating comparative lens performance in a way that an arbitrarily-derived number never can. Yet you have ignored all of this evidence in favour of quoting a website which has published neither its measurements nor its methods, whose tests and results cannot be reproduced (because they haven't published them), but whose numbers, which are arbitrary and don't correspond to any actual measured value, happen to agree with your current preference of gear.
With regards to sensors, there's no doubt Canon sensors have underperformed in a number of key characteristics in recent years, in comparison to Sony, Nikon and other sensors. In terms of low-ISO dynamic range and SNR, they didn't catch up until the 1Dx2 - and only because the D5 demonstrates more read noise and lower low-ISO DR than its predecessor. Yet the data you've produced doesn't even demonstrate that. There's a perfectly good source out there for sensor data - DxO. It publishes performance characteristics - SNR, measured DR, tonal and colour range - as measured at various ISO values. Just the data, without any interpretation or other derivation that's subject to reviewer bias. Several other websites which have also performed these tests (albeit on a smaller range of cameras), using the same or different methods, and have managed to produce similar measurements, thus verifying DxO's methods (ignoring their 'overall' score, which is an arbitrarily-weighted derivation like Senscore's values, and, therefore, not actually indicative of anything). There are also other websites - DPR among them - which make available side-by-side, directly-comparable out-of-camera test shots at various ISO settings, allowing you to directly compare sensor output with your own eyes instead of via a set of numbers. Yet you have chosen to ignore all this solid data and, instead, repeatedly quote Senscore, which not only presents a set of arbitrary values rather than measured data (a score of 1020, for example, doesn't actually correlate to anything - there's no way of knowing whether this corresponds to 14 stops of DR at ISO 100 when resized to 12MP, 8 stops of DR at ISO 3200 or just the number that showed up on the reviewer's random number generator), but also doesn't publish what the actual measurement was, or even what exactly it was that they measured!
When dealing with data, an analysis by itself is meaningless without the raw data - the test results - to go with it, as well as an indication of how the data was analysed and any derivative values calculated. And raw data has limited value unless you know how the data was actually obtained - the method. Lenscore/Senscore fails on all these accounts. Analysis (derived values) must be based on experimental results via a documented analytical method (statistical analysis or otherwise), while experimental results must be based on a documented method in order to be reproducible and, therefore, verifiable. This is not the case here - if it were a scientific article, it would never get published anywhere because of this non sequitur. But, by repeatedly asserting their derived scores and taking them as fact, you're basically saying that the scores are right because you trust that they're right - all without any indication of what the results were, how the results were obtained and how the measured numbers were crunched to get their final, derivative figures which are the entire premise of your assertions. It's a case of you saying, 'These numbers are right because the website that published them says that they're right, even though they haven't said how they got them and no-one's been able to repeat the test and get the same numbers'. It may well be that their data is sound, according to their testing methods. But we'll never know, since they haven't even published their test results, much less their testing methodology, so no-one is able to confirm or refute either the results or the soundness of their method.
If you have numbers - actual measurements, not derived numbers or opinions masquerading as data - or comparison test images that incontrovertibly demonstrate the superiority of Nikon lenses over their competitors, then please produce the evidence. It would be very interesting, since it would contradict all the other test data out there. And if you have actual data or test images that demonstrate the D5 sensor's superiority over the 1Dx2 sensor, then please produce that as well, since that would contradict both the test images and the measured values already out there. And it would add some real weight to your case for Nikon's supremacy over everything else - something that rhetoric, repeated assertions without supporting data and arbitrarily-derived numbers never can.
-
yaddadda- yaddadda ... there's no doubt Canon sensors have underperformed in a number of key characteristics in recent years, in comparison to Sony, Nikon and other sensors ...yaddadda
You're in agreement, ultimately, making the 2+ hours it must have taken to type the rest of your post superfluous at best.
-
You're in agreement, ultimately, making the 2+ hours it must have taken to type the rest of your post superfluous at best.
I said in a number of areas, not every area. The data demonstrates exactly which areas, which gives an indication as to which applications are affected.It's mostly in the low-ISO settings, and the 1Dx2 mostly fixes this, although its low resolution makes it less-than-optimal for landscape, architecural and other high-detail work. Would have been a much more useful feature had it come out in time for the 5Ds, instead of in an action camera that will be used above ISO 100 99% of the time.
And I was arguing this - on the basis of the same data - back when you were extolling the virtues of all things Canon and insisting that the Canon lenses were better than Nikon ones (again, without presenting any data to back up the claim at the time). The team changes, the evidence - or lack thereof - remains the same.
-
I said in a number of areas, not every area. The data demonstrates exactly which areas, which gives an indication as to which applications are affected.It's mostly in the low-ISO settings, and the 1Dx2 mostly fixes this, although its low resolution makes it less-than-optimal for landscape, architecural and other high-detail work. Would have been a much more useful feature had it come out in time for the 5Ds, instead of in an action camera that will be used above ISO 100 99% of the time.
It's not required (or even likely) that we will agree in every area, but at least we agree in number.
The D500 has better low ISO sensitivity to 1000.
And I was arguing this - on the basis of the same data - back when you were extolling the virtues of all things Canon and insisting that the Canon lenses were better than Nikon ones (again, without presenting any data to back up the claim at the time). The team changes, the evidence - or lack thereof - remains the same.
Back then, my needs were different.
I was (and still am) really keen on the Canon MP-E 65mm for macro ... and I was seeking a telephoto zoom. I was very keen on the Canon 200-400 + 1.4x and still am.
However, when the 7D II came out, and I read the sensor scores, my desire for staying with Canon quickly flat-lined ...
Since that time, I have bridged the MP-E macro situation with reversible, all-manual AI-S Nikkor lenses, that get me up to 3.4x magnification.
(They also give me far more versatility, properly-oriented, whereas the MP-E 65mm is essentially a paperweight if you're not shooting macro.)
Since that time, I have cut the idea of a telephoto "zoom" out my concern, and decided to raise my sights to telephoto primes.
In the area of zooms, Canon has the edge (I said that then, I say that now); however, in the area of telephoto primes, Nikon has the edge.
Primes offer better quality than zooms.
Prime + converter = better quality than zoom + converter.
The best primes + the best sensor = the best possible results.
The best zooms + mid-level sensor = good (but not absolutely optimal) results.
JMO,
Jack
-
It's not required (or even likely) that we will agree in every area, but at least we agree in number.
The D500 has better low ISO sensitivity to 1000.
Back then, my needs were different.
I was (and still am) really keen on the Canon MP-E 65mm for macro ... and I was seeking a telephoto zoom. I was very keen on the Canon 200-400 + 1.4x and still am.
However, when the 7D II came out, and I read the sensor scores, my desire for staying with Canon quickly flat-lined ...
Since that time, I have bridged the MP-E macro situation with reversible, all-manual AI-S Nikkor lenses, that get me up to 3.4x magnification.
(They also give me far more versatility, properly-oriented, whereas the MP-E 65mm is essentially a paperweight if you're not shooting macro.)
Since that time, I have cut the idea of a telephoto "zoom" out my concern, and decided to raise my sights to telephoto primes.
In the area of zooms, Canon has the edge (I said that then, I say that now); however, in the area of telephoto primes, Nikon has the edge.
Primes offer better quality than zooms.
Prime + converter = better quality than zoom + converter.
The best primes + the best sensor = the best possible results.
The best zooms + mid-level sensor = good (but not absolutely optimal) results.
JMO,
Jack
Each to their own.. but I find the sterility of this thinking "that spurious numbers are the be all and end all" to be the exact antithesis of what I love about photography. You know.. we can talk about 'gear' without distilling it down to 'mine is better than yours because it goes to 11'. Rather than trying to prove this with irrelevant numbers.. show me imagery that would put real power behind your argument.
-
Each to their own.. but I find the sterility of this thinking "that spurious numbers are the be all and end all" to be the exact antithesis of what I love about photography. You know.. we can talk about 'gear' without distilling it down to 'mine is better than yours because it goes to 11'.
Really, because all systems are so capable now, what you said is the ultimate truth.
Rather than trying to prove this with irrelevant numbers.. show me imagery that would put real power behind your argument.
I agree with this, Josh.
I just said as much on another thread topic.
Certainly, the level you've achieved, and the images you have on your site, are something for me to aspire to.
Great images are achieved with 1) good gear, 2) good technique, and 3) by placing yourself in the position to utilize 1 and 2.
The best gear in the world is useless without 2 and 3.
I believe I have the gear necessary to get great shots, and enough technique by now to nab a good shot or two, so my goal at this point needs to be concentrating on traveling more to achieve #3 :)
Best regards,
Jack
-
Great images are achieved with 1) good gear, 2) good technique, and 3) by placing yourself in the position to utilize 1 and 2.
When you achieve #3 you will reverse your priorities.
1. Be there.
2. Technique.
3. Equipment.
;)
-
When you achieve #3 you will reverse your priorities.
1. Be there.
2. Technique.
3. Equipment.
Very true! I would just say "be there at the right time and with the right intent", but it was certainly implied.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Very true! I would just say "be there at the right time and with the right intent", but it was certainly implied.
Cheers,
Bernard
Absolutely. Many books on each item. I would also argue that the books are harder to write and there are fewer as you move from "equipment" to "be there". :)
-
When you achieve #3 you will reverse your priorities.
1. Be there.
2. Technique.
3. Equipment.
;)
Since there is no subject on earth where someone can't find something to quibble about, I will take issue with what you said.
I have "been there" in many instances ... without a camera ... but with the technique to use one ... and I couldn't take a single photograph because I didn't have the equipment ;)
Without equipment (i.e., camera/lens) "being there" doesn't get you a single image.
Conversely, with equipment, I can take interesting photos wherever I am, if I have the technique and eye to see a good shot.
Therefore, again, I reassert my order:
1. Equipment.
2. Technique.
3. Be there.
So, as a recap, with good equipment, and with good technique, you can find character/interesting subject matter anywhere ... and you only amplify this if you go to "special places" ... but special places are not as important to good photography as 1) having something to take a photo with, and 2) some basic technical skill as to how to use said equipment.
Hope this clarifies,
Jack
-
Since there is no subject on earth where someone can't find something to quibble about, I will take issue with what you said.
I have "been there" in many instances ...
It's just that you haven't yet mastered "3) by placing yourself in the position to utilize 1 and 2." When you do, you'll understand this is the most important. I assumed you're competent enough to come prepared... I think we all go through this progression in our photography. :)
-
It's just that you haven't yet mastered "3) by placing yourself in the position to utilize 1 and 2." When you do, you'll understand this is the most important. I assumed you're competent enough to come prepared... I think we all go through this progression in our photography. :)
When you come to understand that "being there" without equipment means nothing ... no photos ... you'll come to a progression in your comprehension of the point ;)
-
Can I short cuicut this please with Zen photography....
Day 1. Go out and photograph with your eyes. Take no camera.
Day 2. Go out and photograph with your camera without a memory card in it.
Day 3. Go out and photograph with your camera and then format the card before you look at the images when you get home.
Day 4. Go out and photograph with your camera and take only one image. You may look at it.
Day 5. You may only go out and photograph with your camera if you took a successful image on day 4. If you did not take a successful image on day 4 then see steps beginning from Day 1. ;D ;D ;D
-
It completely depends on the DR of the scene you're shooting.
There's no benefit gained from having more DR than what the scene has. If you have enough DR, you have enough DR. If the scene only has 8 stop between the darkest area and the brightest area, then an 11-stop sensor and a 14-stop sensor will give you the same result.
I don't believe this is true. It also depends on how much you want to raise the shadows so they appear as the eye saw them.
From my own tests conducted a few years ago, I got the impression if one compares two cameras, one with 14 EV of DR and the other with 11 EV of DR, you should find that the camera with 14 EV of DR will have cleaner and more detailed shadows at least up to the 8th stop of DR. At the 11th stop, the 14EV camera will produce very significantly cleaner shadows. At the 10th stop, certainly significantly cleaner shadows. At the 9th stop and even 8th stop, still noticeably cleaner shadows, but the difference will be less. There's a sliding scale. Perhaps at the 6th stop one would notice no difference at all.
-
Can I short cuicut this please with Zen photography....
Day 1. Go out and photograph with your eyes. Take no camera.
Day 2. Go out and photograph with your camera without a memory card in it.
Day 3. Go out and photograph with your camera and then format the card before you look at the images when you get home.
Day 4. Go out and photograph with your camera and take only one image. You may look at it.
Day 5. You may only go out and photograph with your camera if you took a successful image on day 4. If you did not take a successful image on day 4 then see steps beginning from Day 1. ;D ;D ;D
Wonderful!
This really made my day!
I just hope you don't make me stick to these rules on our next trip together ;)
(Finally my first post after years of just lurking ;))
-
At this point, I am finding that my priorities need to be learning photography and learning about subjects. A trip, a visit to a museum, a challenge to myself to learn something new, a photo monograph or anthology, a pertinent bit of ecosystem information - more useful to me than a tiny improvement in DR or other.
I admit that I am considering getting a fixed-collapsible-lens pocket camera on the lines of the Sony RX100 or upcoming Nikon DL (both with 3X zoom 24-75 or 85mm equivalent) that I can stick in my cargo pants pocket, just for fun and inconspicuous street shooting - and I will be perfectly willing to accept a 1" sensor's limitations. But swapping Canon for Nikon, or in a few years, Nikon for Canon (or Pentax or Sony or....) just isn't worth the money.
-
I don't believe this is true. It also depends on how much you want to raise the shadows so they appear as the eye saw them.
From my own tests conducted a few years ago, I got the impression if one compares two cameras, one with 14 EV of DR and the other with 11 EV of DR, you should find that the camera with 14 EV of DR will have cleaner and more detailed shadows at least up to the 8th stop of DR. At the 11th stop, the 14EV camera will produce very significantly cleaner shadows. At the 10th stop, certainly significantly cleaner shadows. At the 9th stop and even 8th stop, still noticeably cleaner shadows, but the difference will be less. There's a sliding scale. Perhaps at the 6th stop one would notice no difference at all.
Just so I don't get a hurt feelings report filed on me or violate the "safe discussion zone", I will preface this with:
1. No camera can capture the DR of every situation found in the world.
2. Every camera can capture the DR of the vast majority of situations found in the world.
DR Matters. True story. I'm on my way home from dinner and decide to shoot a night image of a really intricate 6 light street lamp in Spain. Rather than using my normal procedure, I try to speed things up by using Aperture Priority and just shooting a 5 shot sequence of the scene at 2 stop intervals. Both ends had about 2/3 stop clipping. And what I wanted to place at middle tone was way more underexposed. Still, I was able to salvage a reasonable image. A camera with 2 stops less DR at that ISO would have been a washout.
-
https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii
In short, Dpreview sees the 1DxII as an amazing allrounder (good DR at lower ISOs, AF,...), second best for low light action photography (AF and high ISO image quality).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A camera with 2 stops less DR at that ISO would have been a washout.
Maybe, maybe not. At base ISO at night (and for HDRI) you'd need a tripod to avoid camera shake, and at elevated ISOs the DR differences are smaller anyway (due to lack of photons). And then post-processing kicks in, and over-brightening the shadows, while cool to do, is not always the best creative option (remember that our eyes can see some 9 stops without accommodation, so tonemapping will be unavoidable anyway). Also, high quality noise reduction can do a great job of mitigating noise if that is distracting/visible in uniform areas. So, it depends on the particular scene, shooting conditions, and processing choices.
Cheers,
Bart
-
https://m.dpreview.com/news/3640026683/flagships-compared-canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-versus-nikon-d5
Pretty much the same conclusions. A bit clearer about the AF gap with the wording "left in the dust" that Dpreview doesn't use lightly. It may be a bit overdone, but anyone having shot action with the D5 in the real world will confirm that it is pure magic.
The reactions are pretty hilarious, talk about denial. The days of blind brand love are far from being over.;) Interestingly, nobody is disputing the superior low ISO image quality of the 1DxII, or its superior video performance but guys seem to have a real hard time imagining that the AF of the camera may not be best in class. Their loss.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Pretty much the same conclusions. A bit clearer about the AF gap with the wording "left in the dust" that Dpreview doesn't use lightly ... The reactions are pretty hilarious, talk about denial. The days of blind brand love are far from being over...
Obviously not! You must have missed the next page, ya know the one that says :
" In addition, the EOS-1D X Mark II’s Dual Pixel AF system works brilliantly well in video mode, both in terms of speed and accuracy of AF acquisition, and also tracking. The combination of DPAF and touch-to-focus makes for a very refined shooting experience, and even swift and accurate AF for static subjects in stills. The D5’s contrast-detection AF system in live view and video is primitive by comparison. "
Really, Bernard, you need to lose that Nikon bandana ...
-
No issue whatsoever to admit that Dpreview reports about the clear superiority of the 1DxII in all things video, including AF. How could I disagree with their findings?
Sorry if I wasn't clear, my comments were focused on still shooting which is what I use these cameras for.
Do we agree now?
I did buy the D5 for its AF performance shooting stills. I would probably have bought the 1Dx II had it been superior. I won't go in details here, but that would been very manageable considering my overall intent camera wise.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Canon doesn't get much love in these parts, but I've used them for so long, owning every 1ds, series, all but one 1d series that to me they are just intuitive and stable.
That's about 14 cameras and only have had three issues ever, which is pretty good considering.
In regards to the 1dxII, it's my next purchase after I rent and test, mostly due to the video functions and the high bit rate for video, 500mps at 30 fps and 800 at 60 fps. (I think).
Since we shoot a lot of projects with a motion component and have multiple professional 4k cameras, this may sound strange but until two weeks ago I had never turned on the video of my 1dx's.
I just used them for stills and moved to another camera for motion.
On our last project just to see and because I was in the exact spot where I wanted the motion from, I did shoot about 25 clips of motion, not expecting much because of the line skipping and since it was 1080 rather than uhd or 4k.
I was very surprised in the result and how well the footage looked in grading. They are not really a motion picture look like my REDs or an Arri, not video looking like a lot of dedicated 4k cameras, but just have the Canon look which is very pleasing out of camera.
I tried to rent a 1dxII for this project but they weren't available though I look forward to testing the 1dxII then probably purchasing.
IMO
BC