Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88  (Read 15532 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #40 on: July 06, 2016, 01:40:38 am »

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...
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2700
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #41 on: July 07, 2016, 01:03:09 am »

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.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #42 on: July 07, 2016, 02:15:39 am »

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 NDů

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.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #43 on: July 08, 2016, 07:25:46 pm »

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

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 they make comes in second to Nikon (in every length): 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 800.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2700
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #44 on: July 09, 2016, 11:33:28 am »

The truth is Canon sensors offer no advantage in any regard

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 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.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2016, 11:54:11 am by shadowblade »
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #45 on: July 09, 2016, 01:53:35 pm »

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.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2700
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #46 on: July 09, 2016, 02:05:27 pm »

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.
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #47 on: July 09, 2016, 02:51:12 pm »

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
Logged

Josh-H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2054
    • Worldwide Photography Expeditions
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #48 on: July 13, 2016, 08:28:38 pm »

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.

Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #49 on: July 13, 2016, 09:12:11 pm »

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
Logged

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #50 on: July 14, 2016, 10:11:15 am »

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.

 ;)
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13542
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #51 on: July 14, 2016, 11:08:27 am »

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

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #52 on: July 14, 2016, 11:40:52 am »

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".  :)
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #53 on: July 14, 2016, 04:46:28 pm »

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
Logged

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #54 on: July 14, 2016, 04:54:48 pm »


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.  :)
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #55 on: July 15, 2016, 02:09:29 am »

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 ;)
Logged

Josh-H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2054
    • Worldwide Photography Expeditions
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #56 on: July 15, 2016, 03:06:10 am »

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
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10235
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #57 on: July 15, 2016, 09:26:35 am »

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.

Logged

diho

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
    • A fiew of my photos on 500 px
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #58 on: July 19, 2016, 06:06:49 pm »

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 ;))

Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: For the DXO aficionados..The 1DX MKII scored 88
« Reply #59 on: July 19, 2016, 07:02:48 pm »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up