DxOMark on D3x

[BernardLanguillier]

For what it is worth:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image...abase/Nikon/D3X

Cheers,
Bernard

[dchew]

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

[Ray]

For what it is worth:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image...abase/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.

[ErikKaffehr]

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

[marcmccalmont]

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

[Slough]

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.

[marcmccalmont]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[barryfitzgerald]

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...

[ErikKaffehr]

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...

[barryfitzgerald]

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


Dp rated is below it's rivals.

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[NikosR]

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


Dp rated is below it's rivals.

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.

[marcmccalmont]

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

[inissila]

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.

[inissila]

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).

[inissila]

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.

[NikosR]

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

[aaykay]

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.

[Panopeeper]

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.)