Subjectivity is different from having a benchmark. You need some sort of benchmark if you're going to make any measurements at all. It doesn't matter what that benchmark is, merely that it's clearly defined.
Can't disagree with that. A benchmark is a benchmark, and is a necessary standard. The subjectivity is not in the benchmark itself, but in the
reasons for selecting the benchmark, which in the case of the PDR system, is described as
'acceptable image quality'.DXO is not making any subjective claims that at its DR limit of a 1:1 SNR, the image quality will be acceptable.
It's the notion of acceptability that's the subjective aspect. I thought that was clear.
For example, if the DXO graph indicates that the DR of a particular model of camera is 14 stops, at base ISO, it means that some detail can still be discerned if you underexpose a shot by 13 stops. You can confirm that this is true by starting with an ETTR exposure of a test chart containing various sizes of letters and numbers. After underexposing by 13 stops, the image at lowest 14th stop in the range will still contain legible numbers and letters. Only the smaller numbers and letters will be obscured by noise.
Wrong.
You'll be able to recover more detail if you're using a camera with higher DR (at that particular ISO).
Of course. Where have I stated otherwise? I'm puzzled as to why you think my statement was wrong.
And they were ultimately proven incorrect.
The 'high ISO advantages' were all about people looking at the pixel level rather than the whole-image level, forgetting that the 1Ds3/5D2 had 75% more pixels than the D3/D700. Obviously, pixel-for-pixel, the 1Ds3 is going to be noisier. Almost in the same sentence, you'd have people saying that the D3/D700 images looked 'plasticky' in comparison, probably due to having less actual detail.
I'm sure you understand that DXOMark provides graphs for noise at both the pixel level, and the full image level. The 'screen' option, top left corner, represents noise at the pixel level, and the 'print' option represents noise for the full image, down-sampled to a standard size.
However, at the time the D3 was released, DXOmark data or graphs were not published. It was only later that their measurements were published.
According to the following news article dated November 2008:
https://www.cnet.com/news/dxo-sheds-light-on-camera-sensor-performance/"DxO Labs, a French company with deep experience measuring cameras' technical performance, has launched a Web site called DxOMark.com that features detailed information on the performance of the image sensor at the heart of many higher-end digital cameras."The D3 was available about a year earlier.
No doubt some people failed to make the distinction between pixel noise and over all image noise, but I'm sure Michael Reichmann wasn't confusing these two issues. My disagreement with him on this issue was in regard to the
extent of the superior performance of the D3 at high ISOs.
Because the D3 had higher ISO settings than any other camera at the time, up to 25,600, it was assumed by many folks, probably by people who only shot in jpeg mode using auto exposure, that the performance of the D3 must therefore be significantly better than those cameras that didn't have ISO settings higher than 3200.
I was merely trying to correct such misinformation and point out that at ISO 3200 and beyond, the DR advantage of the D3 was no more than 0.5 EV, compared with the older Canon 5D, and not nearly 1 to 2 stops better that many photography sites claimed at the time.
I've seen no reliable evidence that later proves the D3 was not the champion in the noise stakes, at the time it was released of course. Compared with later models, the situation changes.
It doesn't particularly matter who measured it - whether it was DxO or anyone else - or even if it was measured at all, merely that it does have the higher DR. There's nothing special about DxO's DR measurements over anyone else measuring the same thing.
Really! It doesn't matter who measures it. We're all equally competent. Right? C'mon now!
What is special about DXO is that they provide information on the full range of camera noise characteristics, whereas the PDR graphs represent only the noise characteristics at 20:1 SNR and above, which are subjectively considered to be acceptable.
The DXO graphs will also provide more reliable information on the ISO-invariant nature of a camera. For example, if the DR is shown as 14 EV at ISO 100, and 13 EV at ISO 200, and 12 EV at ISO 400, then one can reasonably deduce that an image underexposed by 2 stops at ISO 100 will be of equal quality to a one-stop underexposure at ISO 200, and a full exposure at ISO 400, after processing and raising shadows in Photoshop.
So you're saying that the PDR numbers are wrong? Yes or no?
Not wrong. Just less useful because they are arranged in a more subjective way, and the often higgledy-piggledy nature of the graphs are a bit off-putting and not particularly useful, in my very humble opinion of course.
The reason for discrepancies between the PDR values (after taking the different benchmark SNR into account) is that DxO's DR figures don't take into account all sources of noise (and thus all factors impacting SNR), even though they are part of DxO's measured data set. This primarily affects the bottom end of the photon transfer curve, i.e. deep shadows. This applies to both the results calculated from DxO data (which are probably the best ones for comparisons between the two systems, since they are derived from the same data set) and the independently-measured PDR ones.
You have a point there. My main current criticism of DXOMark is that they no longer provide the Full SNR plots across the entire range from the brightest highlights to the deepest shadows. They used to do that. I don't know why they no longer publish those graphs. Perhaps they realized that most practical photographers don't need or want to go into so much technical detail.
So you're admitting that you never actually did a valid comparison, then.
If you compared it in a store, you'r comparing processed JPEG output, not RAW output. That's no basis to make a
Absolutely not. Goodness gracious me! You think after all the time I've spent on this forum I'd be so dumb as to compare dynamic range characteristics by examining in-camera jpegs? Crikey!
I put my own SD card in the Nikon D3, took dozens of bracketed shots with each camera on a tripod, in RAW mode, photographing the dark and shady areas inside the store, then processed the RAW images in Photoshop, on my laptop, back in the hotel room in Bangkok.
The reason I was very interested in the claimed high-ISO performance of the D3 at the time, is because I was photographing cultural performances on stage where flash was not allowed because it disturbed the performers. Although the 5D had a reputation for relatively low noise at high ISO, even better than the 1Ds Mk3 at ISO 3200, the noise was still a concern. Refer attached 5D image shot at ISO 3200 without flash, taken in January 2008 which would probably have been the month I visited the Nikon store in Bangkok to do some comparisons.
If the reports of the exceptionally good performance of the D3 at high ISO were true, then that would have been a more ideal camera for my purposes, in those circumstances. There are also other circumstances where exceptionally good high-ISO performance could be of benefit, such as shooting in an Art Gallery where no flash nor tripods are allowed.
1Ds3 and 5D2 are essentially equivalent sensor-wise, as are D3 and D700.
Not according to the attached DXO graph. The yellow line represents the DR of the 1Ds3. As you can see, the DR of the 5D2 at ISO 1600 is almost a stop better than that of the 1Ds3.
Also, the DR of the Nikon D3, at ISO 800, is almost a stop better than the 1Ds3 at ISO 800.
Don't you think we're beginning to flog a dead horse? Perhaps we should let this topic rest. There should be no shame or embarrassment in admitting that I've completely debunked most of your points.
