For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88

[Josh-H]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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. 

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

[Josh-H]

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. 

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[shadowblade]

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.

[Paulo Bizarro]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

[scyth]

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.

[bjanes]

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

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[ErikKaffehr]

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

[bjanes]

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

[scyth]

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)

[shadowblade]

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.

[scyth]

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...

[kers]

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.

[scyth]

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

[Ray]

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

[shadowblade]

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.

[Ray]

Oh! I see. That wasn't clear in his post. My fault.