Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on January 15, 2009, 05:51:23 pm
-
For what it is worth:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image...abase/Nikon/D3X (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Nikon/D3X)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nice. There's still some things I don't understand about the rankings. For example, the D700 scores higher but ranks lower than the D3. Rounding?
The 5DII / 1DsIII / A900 is also confusing. They must heavily rate color depth compared to Low-light ISO.
Dave Chew
-
For what it is worth:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image...abase/Nikon/D3X (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Nikon/D3X)
Cheers,
Bernard
And they are worth a lot, Bernard, in my view, humble or not.
DXOmark results seem to conform very closely with my own tests in so far as I have made comparison with the same cameras.
An example would be, comparing the 5D with the D3. There was much hype surrounding the launch of the D3, that it was up to 2 stops better than any other DSLR on the market and that at last news photographers could take good quality shots at ISO 6400 without flash.
It now seems clear that, whilst the D3 does have substantially better S/N and greater DR than the 5D, it doesn't have much advantage at very high ISOs, according to the DXOmark results. The main advantage is from base ISO to around ISO 800 in which range the D3 has slightly more than one stop DR and S/N advantage (over the 5D). At ISOs higher than 800 the gap narrows and by ISO 3200, the DR and noise advantage is only 1/2 a stop.
It was at these high ISOs of 3200 and greater that I compared my 5D with the D3, at the Nikon agent in Bangkok about one year ago. I was surprised to find that the noise and DR advantage at ISO 3200 and above (underexposing the 5D at ISO 3200) was at best 1/2 a stop and sometimes appeared as little as 1/4 of a stop. DXOmark now confirms this result. Whilst the graphs for 5D noise and DR do not extend beyond ISO 3200 for the 5D, the slope of the graph implies that the gap would not widen at ISOs higher than 3200.
-
Hi!
DxO marks on the D700 on D3 are virtually identical, they only differ in the third digit. DxO suggest that it takes about 5 DxO-marks for a visible difference.
Actually the DxO-mark is pure nonsense IMHO but the underlying data is probably pretty good.
Best regards
Erik
Nice. There's still some things I don't understand about the rankings. For example, the D700 scores higher but ranks lower than the D3. Rounding?
The 5DII / 1DsIII / A900 is also confusing. They must heavily rate color depth compared to Low-light ISO.
Dave Chew
-
This is significant for several reasons. If the numbers/rating is accurate it should put pressure on other manufacturers to improve their products. I am not sure how you can make such an improvement with the same sensor as a A900 and just better processing of the signal and data?
Bernard, since it is such a large jump over the D3's ranking could you comment on the differences you are seeing between the 2 and if the numerical value correlated to the perceived improvement?
Thanks
Marc
-
How come the DXOMark dynamic ranges are so different from most other estimates. The D200 is said to have 11.5 stops DR, compared to estimates by others of 8 stops.
-
How come the DXOMark dynamic ranges are so different from most other estimates. The D200 is said to have 11.5 stops DR, compared to estimates by others of 8 stops.
DxO seems to list it as bits not ev?
Marc
-
Bernard, since it is such a large jump over the D3's ranking could you comment on the differences you are seeing between the 2 and if the numerical value correlated to the perceived improvement?
Marc,
One thing I do for sure for sure see that matches their findings is that the D3x is mostly outstanding at ISO100. It remains good at higher ISOs as well, but every day that passes by re-inforces by feeling that it is a camera whose value is to be found at base ISO. Luckily, I use base ISO most of the time.
I would personnally have said that the d3x at ISO 100 when processed with C1 4.6 is very close DRwise to the D3 at ISO200 (meaning excellent already). This is not based on any rigorous comparison, just a feeling after processing 50.000 images with a D3 vs 5000 with a D3x. Based on this feeling, I am a bit surprised to see the size of the gap DxOMark found between the D3x and its competitors. I would be interested in seeing what DR figure they measure with MDFB.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
They rate the D90 better for dynamic range than the A900.
Not used one myself, but it never got wow mega DR reviews from what I saw.
My 3 year old KM5d rates higher than the A900 for DR, just.
Hard to believe some of these figures
And there is no quality aspect to them..unlike the DR tests at imaging resource.
I am sceptical...
-
Hi,
DxO is not measuring the whole image chain, just the part from imager to raw file. Quality per pixel got slightly worse in the last five years according to DxO but signal processing got better.
In my view the KM5D was probably quite good on DR.
Best regards
Erik
They rate the D90 better for dynamic range than the A900.
Not used one myself, but it never got wow mega DR reviews from what I saw.
My 3 year old KM5d rates higher than the A900 for DR, just.
Hard to believe some of these figures
And there is no quality aspect to them..unlike the DR tests at imaging resource.
I am sceptical...
-
My mistake, they did rate it high (D90) at IR..
But not higher than the A900
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D90/D90IMATEST.HTM (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D90/D90IMATEST.HTM)
Dp rated is below it's rivals.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page22.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page22.asp)
Not for me to suggest which tests are of more use/accurate. But it invites some caution at least.
-
Not for me to suggest which tests are of more use/accurate. But it invites some caution at least.
For what it is worth, both leading French photo magazines, considered to be among the best in Europe, rate the D90 as being head and shoulder above its APS competition as far as dR and high ISO noise is concerned.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My mistake, they did rate it high (D90) at IR..
But not higher than the A900
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D90/D90IMATEST.HTM (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D90/D90IMATEST.HTM)
Dp rated is below it's rivals.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page22.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page22.asp)
Not for me to suggest which tests are of more use/accurate. But it invites some caution at least.
You should be careful when considering the dpr reviews regarding DR. They are clear to state that they judge DR by taking into consideration the DEFAULT JPEG rendition. They don't even attempt to compare using alternative jpeg in camera renditions, nor do they modify the standard renditions. Not to mention judging the raw (un-demosaiced) output. This is the key to understanding their reviews and compare it with others.
-
One thing is for sure, Nikon has made great progress in the processing end and/or Nikon management has let their engineers do their thing without marketing restrictions on image quality. I've always applauded Canon for taking risks (EOS electronic lenses, CMOS sensors, 5D pricing etc.) but I have to take my hat off to Nikon this time.
Marc
-
How come the DXOMark dynamic ranges are so different from most other estimates. The D200 is said to have 11.5 stops DR, compared to estimates by others of 8 stops.
To calculate the values in a resolution-independent manner, they average pixels in an area to do the calculations and this of course increases DR.
-
I am not sure how you can make such an improvement with the same sensor as a A900 and just better processing of the signal and data?
Again here is the assumption that the sensors are "the same". This is just an assumption and the results don't seem to in any way suggest that it would be true. If it is true then Nikon knows a heck of a lot more about how to record the data from the sensor than Sony. I suspect that the hardware are just different in general, and Sony is just doing the manufacture of the sensor itself (to a different design than the A900's).
-
What is remarkable about the high ISO results from the D700 and the D3 is that they maintain very high saturation up to ISO 3200. This is in contrast to e.g. the 5D (according to comparative images I've seen) where the saturation goes down quite a lot which reduces color noise (of course). Basically Nikon is able to retain very low noise _and_ high saturation. I am not sure how this is found in the dxomark scores.
-
It is important to notice that DxOMark provides in their Overview the max DR as derived when their measurements are normalised (resolution adjusted ) i.e. PRINT tab and not in the absolute measurements SCREEN tab.
This often confuses people. The DR of the D3X is given as 13.7 normalised for resolution (as can be seen in their PRINT curve) and not 12.84 as can be seen in their screen curve which is the absolute measurement.
Many people don't notice this and complain about discrepancies between the DxOMark number given and the curve.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMa...a-normalization (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Data-normalization)
-
Again here is the assumption that the sensors are "the same". This is just an assumption and the results don't seem to in any way suggest that it would be true. If it is true then Nikon knows a heck of a lot more about how to record the data from the sensor than Sony. I suspect that the hardware are just different in general, and Sony is just doing the manufacture of the sensor itself (to a different design than the A900's).
The sensors ARE "the same" - at least the portion that does not include the AA filter and also micro-lenses. In case of the AA filter and the micro-lenses, Nikon's engineers and Sony's (former Minolta) engineers obviously made different decisions - neither "better" nor "worser" than the other - as we know, the cost of the componentry of the AA filter or micro-lenses are a pittance when compared to the rest of the sensor and thus Sony has no reason to "sacrifice" this portion for cost reasons.
The 200+ engineers of the A900 development team (composed mainly of former Minolta Engineers who as we know, are second to none when it comes to the highest level of imaging expertise ), are currently hard at work in producing firmware tweaks that will eliminate these image differences for the most part, including a mode that will mimic the 14-bit mode on the D3X with a slower readout of the RAW data (at the expense of FPS).
So I would wait another 1.5 months (just before PMA or so) before shooting my mouth off about "Nikon knowing a heck of a lot more" than Minolta's former experts etc.
-
What is remarkable about the high ISO results from the D700 and the D3 is that they maintain very high saturation up to ISO 3200. This is in contrast to e.g. the 5D (according to comparative images I've seen) where the saturation goes down quite a lot which reduces color noise (of course). Basically Nikon is able to retain very low noise _and_ high saturation. I am not sure how this is found in the dxomark scores.
I guess this is not in dxomark scores, for there is no such thing. The color reproduction of the sensor is totally independent of the ISO.
Nikon changed the pigments with the D300 and D3, increasing the efficiency of the "red" pixels. This created lots of problems: highly saturated colors have been captured, which could not be reproduced in sRGB. I analyzed quite a few cases, when the photog was complaining about "early red pixel saturation"; in fact, no red pixel saturation occured in any of those cases. The problem was the color space.
Nikon must have noticed the mistake, because the D90's sensor has different spectral response: the reds went down.
Following captures show the average pixel values of the raw channels on the "pure red" patch of a Gretag color checker; 5D2 ISO 100 and 1600, D3 ISO 100 and 1600, D90 ISO 100 and D3X ISO 100. It is obvious, that there is a huge difference between the 5D2 and D3, and that this change has been reversed with the D90. The D3X followed the D90. Furthermore, it is obvious that ISO plays no role here.
(The proportion between the red, green and blue channels should be observed. The values are "normalized" at 100 on the red, for easy comparison.)
-
How come the DXOMark dynamic ranges are so different from most other estimates. The D200 is said to have 11.5 stops DR, compared to estimates by others of 8 stops.
One has to be careful about what measure of dynamic range is being discussed. DxO uses the most liberal definition, that of sensor saturation level devided by minimum recordable signal (signal level equal to the noise, S/N=1). Others use a higher standard of minimal acceptable S/N, or use converted jpegs, or some other measure. The DxO choice is the standard engineering definition of DR. Whether that is the most useful one for photography is a separate issue.
-
The sensors ARE "the same" - at least the portion that does not include the AA filter and also micro-lenses
The sensors ARE NOT the same (Nikon D3X and Sony A900). These sensors include the analog/digital conversion, and that is obviously very different: the D3X sensor creates between 14800 and 16384 different levels, in 14bit mode, while the A900 sensor creates about 4000 levels, supporting only 12bit.
Added: not even the pixel dimensions are the same.
-
Looks like we have another real world test for Michael to do
A900 v D3X v 5d MkII dynamic range..
-
I guess this is not in dxomark scores, for there is no such thing. The color reproduction of the sensor is totally independent of the ISO.
Of course you are right. But color separation during demosaicing is affected by noise.
-
Looks like we have another real world test for Michael to do
A900 v D3X v 5d MkII dynamic range..
For such a test to be really interesting:
- It would have to include a 22MP and 39MP MFDB digital back also, let's say a P25+ and P45+,
- It would have to be based on using a best in class lens for each mount (let's say a Zeiss ZF 100mm f2.0 or 60mm macro lens on FX bodies) at f5.6 - f8
- It would have to focus on ISO100 (or the best ISO for each camera),
- It would have to be based on conversions from C1, at least for the D3x and Phase backs, both with optimal capture sharpening (I can provide the best settings for the D3x at least),
- It would have to be made from the top of a sturdy tripod with MLU and cable release,
- It would have to use Live view for accurate focusing.
Based on what I have seen so far, I expect the result to be P45+ > D3x = P25+ > A900 > 5DII
The draw between the D3x and P25+ being based on:
- similar micro detail at any print size (A1 would be a good test size) even if the P25+ still shows a tiny bit more micro detail when viewed at 100% on screen
- Slightly more DR for the P25+
- A lot less artifacts for the D3x
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
Sorry, I don't think Michael is the DSLR/MFDB testing business
It's nice to hear that you are satisfied with your D3x, by the way!
Best regards
Erik
For such a test to be really interesting:
- It would have to include a 22MP and 39MP MFDB digital back also, let's say a P25+ and P45+,
- It would have to be based on using a best in class lens for each mount (let's say a Zeiss ZF 100mm f2.0 or 60mm macro lens on FX bodies) at f5.6 - f8
- It would have to focus on ISO100 (or the best ISO for each camera),
- It would have to be based on conversions from C1, at least for the D3x and Phase backs, both with optimal capture sharpening (I can provide the best settings for the D3x at least),
- It would have to be made from the top of a sturdy tripod with MLU and cable release,
- It would have to use Live view for accurate focusing.
Based on what I have seen so far, I expect the result to be P45+ > D3x = P25+ > A900 > 5DII
The draw between the D3x and P25+ being based on:
- similar micro detail at any print size (A1 would be a good test size) even if the P25+ still shows a tiny bit more micro detail when viewed at 100% on screen
- Slightly more DR for the P25+
- A lot less artifacts for the D3x
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
Sorry, I don't think Michael is the DSLR/MFDB testing business
Erik,
Well, if he doesn't do it, somebody else will...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For such a test to be really interesting:
- It would have to include a ...........
Bernard,
Keeps things simple. I understand you have both the D3 and D3X. You are in an ideal position to compare these two cameras and check your results with those from DXOmark.
According to DXOmark, at the pixel level the D3X produces almost one stop more DR than the D3 with 100% more light reaching the sensor. Sounds reasonable to me. The lowest ISO for the D3 is ISO 161 (camera's ISO 200). The lowest ISO for the D3X is ISO 78 (camera's ISO 100). On an 8x12 print, the D3X dynamic range is claimed to be almost 1.5 stops greater than the D3's. At the pixel level, or on screen at 100%, it's slightly less than one stop greater.
I'd have no problem finding a scene with a very high 'subject brightness range' in Australia, because the light is so bright over here. If you are having trouble finding such a scene in Japan, send the cameras over to me .
-
I'd have no problem finding a scene with a very high 'subject brightness range' in Australia, because the light is so bright over here. If you are having trouble finding such a scene in Japan, send the cameras over to me .
I assume that you would need a set of lenses also?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I assume that you would need a set of lenses also?
Cheers,
Bernard
I've already got one very fine Nikkor lens, the 14-24/2.8 .
-
I've already got one very fine Nikkor lens, the 14-24/2.8 .
That's only a pretty average lens in the Nikon world...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
One has to be careful about what measure of dynamic range is being discussed. DxO uses the most liberal definition, that of sensor saturation level devided by minimum recordable signal (signal level equal to the noise, S/N=1). Others use a higher standard of minimal acceptable S/N, or use converted jpegs, or some other measure. The DxO choice is the standard engineering definition of DR. Whether that is the most useful one for photography is a separate issue.
Thanis. I had a suspicion that DxO used a more theory based definition rather than a real world one. On that basis it is not even clear is we can compare differences, as even those may differ from real world measurements.
-
According to DXOmark, at the pixel level the D3X produces almost one stop more DR than the D3 with 100% more light reaching the sensor
They must have hired a drunkard to make the measurements.
-
I had a suspicion that DxO used a more theory based definition rather than a real world one. On that basis it is not even clear is we can compare differences, as even those may differ from real world measurements.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30703740 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30703740)
-
That's only a pretty average lens in the Nikon world...
LOL, then what is an "over the average" lens in the Nikon world, among the wide ones?
-
LOL, then what is an "over the average" lens in the Nikon world, among the wide ones?
I was thinking the same thing! I agree wide lenses are never as good as mid-to-tele lenses from a Strehl/CA... perspective, but it is hard to find any fault with this lens beyond weight and lack of filters...I love mine for when I need the focal lengths.
-Cecelia
-
Hi,
I didn't really get the stuff with 100% more light reaching the sensor. I'm eagerly awaiting your evaluation of the D3x using your "Stouffer edge" before discussing drunkards. Got the impression on what's written on these forums that Nikon did a good job on the D3x. I'd point out that under most conditions all cameras will produce good pictures. IMHO we have to much focus on how horrible pictures get at 3200 ISO? In my film days Velvia (at 50 ISO) was OK and not much else ;-).
Best regards
Erik
They must have hired a drunkard to make the measurements.
-
That's only a pretty average lens in the Nikon world...
Cheers,
Bernard
Please list your excellent lenses! I thought the 14-24 was outstanding? was thinking of getting one to replace my Canon 17-40L
Marc
-
I didn't really get the stuff with 100% more light reaching the sensor
I guess you are referring to Ray's post. Half the number of sensels on the same size of sensor means twice as large area for the light collection (roughly).
I'm eagerly awaiting your evaluation of the D3x using your "Stouffer edge" before discussing drunkards. Got the impression on what's written on these forums that Nikon did a good job on the D3x
If it is 0.5 EV better in noise than the 5D2, then they made a very good job. The 1.5 EV is in the sphere of hobby fishers.
-
That's only a pretty average lens in the Nikon world...
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
For a comparison of noise in the shadows, the sharpest lens available is not necessary. For a practical test in the sort of real-world conditions where most photographers would find the additional DR of the D3X useful, I had in mind something like a rainforest scene with bright sunlight streaming through the trees onto a waterfall surrounded by dark, impenetrable undergrowth. You would take a series of exposure bracketed shots of the waterfall with both cameras (1/3rd stop interval), not only to ensure that you get as close as possible to a full ETTR, but to ensure that you have a few overexposures in order to guage the difference in shadow noise between between the pairs of images being compared.
You would then compare any two images with equal ETTR exposure and examine the darkest shadows. According to DXOmark, the D3X would produce cleaner shadows in these circumstances. But how much cleaner is the question. This is where you would use the overexposed D3 shots to find out. If DXO is right, a 2/3rds stop overexposed D3 image should be almost as clean in the shadows as the D3X ETTR shot, and a 1 stop overexposed D3 image should be very marginally cleaner, in the deepest shadows.
You could then downsize each pair of images under comparison and use the same method to determine if the difference has increased to somewhere betwee 1 & 1/3rd and 1 & 2/3rd stops.
We could then all sleep peacefully.
-
Hi,
I didn't really get the stuff with 100% more light reaching the sensor.
Erik,
On the DXOmark dynamic range page, the highest DR rating for the D3 (11.92EV) is shown at the camera's lowest and actual ISO of 161. The highest DR rating for the D3X (12.84EV) is shown at the camera's lowest and actual ISO of 78. The difference in exposure between ISO 161 and ISO 78 is approximately one stop.
-
LOL, then what is an "over the average" lens in the Nikon world, among the wide ones?
I was just pulling Ray's leg, it is of course the best wide available, at least on the wider end.
Now on the 24mm end, I find the 24mm T/S to be a bit better, but I have not done any rigorous comparisons.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Please list your excellent lenses! I thought the 14-24 was outstanding? was thinking of getting one to replace my Canon 17-40L
Marc,
Sorry, I was just joking. The 14-24 is obviously the best wide in Nikon's line up.
Obviously though, normal lenses/short teles still feature a higher level of image quality. The lenses I consider to be the sharpest in my line up are:
- Nikkor AF-S 60mm macro at f7.1
- Nikkor AF-D 85 mm f1.4 at f5.6
- Zeiss ZF 100mm f2.0 at f5.6
In wides, I find the 24mm T/S to be a bit better than both the 14-24 f2.8 and 24-70 f2.8.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sorry, I was just joking. The 14-24 is obviously the best wide in Nikon's line up
Ok, this sounds better. On the other hand, your remaks about the usability of the focal length range is serious. I am a Canonite, but no fanboy by any means, and if I could justify it, I would think about a D700, instead of the 5D2, simple because of the better lenses (screw my six Canon lenses :-).
Re the T/S lens: how the flaring and CA? I am using very often Canon's best wide zoom, the 17-55mm IS (APS-C dedicated), but it's CA is atrocious. The vignetting too is very bad for panos, but that can be corrected generally, depending on the focal length and aperture. However, I have to try around with each frame with the CA correction parametes, and often I can correct it only partially (ACR sux, but otherwise it is better).
-
Thanks Ray,
I have missed that!
Erik
Erik,
On the DXOmark dynamic range page, the highest DR rating for the D3 (11.92EV) is shown at the camera's lowest and actual ISO of 161. The highest DR rating for the D3X (12.84EV) is shown at the camera's lowest and actual ISO of 78. The difference in exposure between ISO 161 and ISO 78 is approximately one stop.