Nikon DX vs Canon APS-C: Dynamic Range

bobn2 · May 7, 2011

ultimitsu said:
the pair of photos bobn2 showed, if I understand correctly, is to demonstrate low iso pull up capacity of D7000. the iso6400 image is to show you the actual lighting condition of that scene, 60D would produce an iso6400 image more or less the same.

That is it. The DR of the D7000 and 60D at 6400 is almost exactly the same, so the shot exceeded the DR capacity of the D7000 at that setting and would have also exceeded the 60D

ultimitsu said:
but what 60D can not do, is to shoot that same scene at iso100 with those same parameters and pull it back to that same degree.

Taking that scene at 100 on the 60D and processing as Pierre did, the highlights would have been very similar but the dark bulk of the picture would have been much more noisy. This is something confirmed (in principle, obviously not this specific case) by another thread where a D7000 is compared with a 5D with respect to the shadow noise.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&message=38358356

ultimitsu said:
there is little point in judging their artistic merits.

Indeed
--
Bob

bobn2 · May 7, 2011

qianp2k said:
Why I said "stealing" because he keep doing so.

That is another libel. Please retract immediately, or present some evidence of the truth of what you say. I do not steal work and have never done so.

qianp2k said:
What the right way should provide a link but not directly post someone's else

providing a link is exactly what I did. In DPR, when you post a link to an image it displays that image directly. This saves the reader time of following the link, but the image is provided by Pierre (or PBase on his behalf), not me. I also credited it and I also had Pierre's OK.

qianp2k said:
that something I will never do.

well, we all have our foibles I suppose. You're unhappy linking someone's image with their OK but content to libel people. Funny set of standards.

qianp2k said:
Now I post the link that someone with 5D2 that in another forum with someone provoking D7000 better than 5D2, joke.

No-one has argued that the D7000 is in general 'better' than the 5D2. Your misrepresentation now comes close to lying, if it's deliberate rather than just an inability to comprehend.

--
Bob

Hendrik123 · May 7, 2011

any other tests done by independent company which would confirm DXO claims?

if it is correct that sony sensor have a slight advantage over canon sensors how will this impact the overall quality of an image especially in landscape images?

Horshack said:
Here's my video-based comparison of the dynamic range between the latest crop bodies from Nikon and Canon. I specifically compare the D5100 and T2i (550D), but the results are applicable for the D7000 vs 7D/60D/T3i, since these families of bodies share identical or near-identical sensors.

I discuss what dynamic range is, how it affects your photographs, and what exposure techniques and post-processing steps are necessary to take full advantage of it, all within the context a Nikon vs Canon dynamic range comparison, using actual photographs to show the differences in practice.

http://testcams.com/blog/2011/05/03/nikon-dx-vs-canon-aps-c-dynamic-range/

Robemo · May 7, 2011

Why so emotional and patronizing? You are of course entitled to your opinion as am I. Have you got superior knowledge then share it instead of being an ... .

If you are so happy with DxO then good for you. But there are lots of knowledgeable people like Michael Reichmann of The Luminous Landscape who put some serious question marks at the DxO scores. And rightly so.

What is the value of a scoring system that produces higher scores for a sensor of consumer grade DSLR than for a Leaf Aptus or a 50 mpixel Hasselblad? Have you ever worked with one and studied it's results. I do that for a living. So I base my opinion probably on other facts and experiences the you.

I have no need to convince you of anything, but I do think the matter is not that important to become inpolite or rude.

bobn2 · May 7, 2011

Robemo said:
Why so emotional and patronizing? You are of course entitled to your opinion as am I. Have you got superior knowledge then share it instead of being an ... .

Opinion are one thing, falsehoods another. The claim was made that DxO couild not detect NR in raw files. The truth is they can, and they say how they do it. The veracity of what they say is understandable by anyone with a modest grounding in statistics or signal processing. Frankly, on this issue, the opinion of people who don't have the basic knowledge needed carries less weight than those who do.

Member said:
If you are so happy with DxO then good for you. But there are lots of knowledgeable people like Michael Reichmann of The Luminous Landscape who put some serious question marks at the DxO scores. And rightly so.

What was that about emotional? This isn't a case of being emotional or otherwise, it is a matter of knowledge and understanding . DxO document their methods, which allows those with the background to understand what their data is good for and what it isn't. As for Michael Reichmann, I like his site, and he has interesting things to say, but the details of data processing and noise in digital image systems is not a subject for which he'd be my first port of call. The folks at DxO have much more knowledge of that, because it is their business. Not, of course, that they always get it right. An I have been a consistent critic of their scores which I think are almost meaningless. Their data, however is, in the main, good.

Member said:
What is the value of a scoring system that produces higher scores for a sensor of consumer grade DSLR than for a Leaf Aptus or a 50 mpixel Hasselblad? Have you ever worked with one and studied it's results. I do that for a living. So I base my opinion probably on other facts and experiences the you.

I analyse DxO data (as well as other sources) and draw my conclusions. I don't go to DxO scores, or anyone else's opinions for mine, and I try not to draw conclusions except on the basis of understanding and analysis of real data.

Member said:
I have no need to convince you of anything, but I do think the matter is not that important to become inpolite or rude.

Good, I have been neither. You, on the other hand, accusing me of being 'patronising' are getting close to it.

--
Bob

bobn2 · May 7, 2011

Hendrik123 said:
any other tests done by independent company which would confirm DXO claims?

DxO's figures are consistent with Marianne Oelund's own measurements to a margin of about 4%.
--
Bob

Robemo · May 7, 2011

Case closed as far as I am concernd. I am not into analyzing data, I am just a simple photographer (have been for 40 years) who likes to focus on real photographic output. And I am certainly not interested in a debating club.

So I am out of here to get some pictures on this beautiful day leaving you behind in the debating club, so you will have to share your wisdom with someone else ....

ultimitsu · May 7, 2011

Robemo said:
Case closed as far as I am concernd. I am not into analyzing data, I am just a simple photographer (have been for 40 years) who likes to focus on real photographic output. And I am certainly not interested in a debating club.

So I am out of here to get some pictures on this beautiful day leaving you behind in the debating club, so you will have to share your wisdom with someone else ....

With all due respect but I am totally sick of this kind of posts,

the very fact that you dont understand how something like extra DR is very important for better photography kind shows your skill level and possibly the quality of image that you can make, surely you would realise this too, then why board cast it with a post like this?

and what rights do you have to label people who discusses these issues "people who dont like to focus on real photographic outputs"?

so if you dont like this kind of discussion, be silent and dont even bother read it. your post is effectively "you guys suck and I am awesome", it is condescending and arrogant.

Peter 13 · May 7, 2011

Robemo said:
If you are so happy with DxO then good for you. But there are lots of knowledgeable people like Michael Reichmann of The Luminous Landscape who put some serious question marks at the DxO scores. And rightly so.

I would ignore the DXO scores . They are some weighted averages, I guess, of many factors. The DXO guys need to make money, and the public wants simple (and misleading) answers. Simple sells well.

We are talking here about their measurements, that are documented, and I have not seen evidence that they are doing it wrong.

Robemo · May 7, 2011

... the Great Ultimitsu talking? Reading your posts you know everything about 'condescending'. Better put your money where your mouth is ...

ejmartin · May 7, 2011

bobn2 said:
Hendrik123 said:

any other tests done by independent company which would confirm DXO claims?

Click to expand...

DxO's figures are consistent with Marianne Oelund's own measurements to a margin of about 4%.
--

and mine, and John Sheehy's, and Roger Clark's (again with respect to the data, not necessarily its interpretation or the dubious figures of merit). It's not that difficult if you know what you're doing.

--
emil
--

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/

ultimitsu · May 7, 2011

Robemo said:
... the Great Ultimitsu talking? Reading your posts you know everything about 'condescending'. Better put your money where your mouth is ...

I thought you were exiting this thread and off making awesome photos, didnt happen?

btw, the very first photo in your gallery is a prime example of how better DR could significantly improve image quality.

Faintandfuzzy · May 7, 2011

qianp2k said:
ultimitsu said:

qianp2k said:

Maybe just you cannot do.

Click to expand...

well, then who can?

Click to expand...

first of all, we don't know exactly how how those photos were taken. then you jump into a generic conclusion

Like you appear to do.

qianp2k said:
qianp2k said:

I am sure you are not that arrogant thinking that you are the best photographer in this 7D-60D forum, yet you appear to be the only one thinking that you can get your 60D to match these K5/D7000 photos.

Click to expand...

you compare Apple with Orange. I just said 60D IQ can match to D7K/K-5 in general not just my words but by most credited review sites such as DPR. Is that not convincing enough?

The thread was about dynamic range....not IQ. You are off topic.

qianp2k said:
I challenge D7K shooters to take similar scenes at the similar conditions then we compare between D7K and 60D. The one of the most credited test sites is the DPR lab test where it clearly show IQ pretty match from ISO 100-12800, from highlight to shadow.

In JPG....we are discussing raw. Guess you missed that.

qianp2k said:
What camera you shoot now, D7K? then why you don't show us something from you rather quote unknown someone else?

Do you own a D7000? If not, you're not in a position to question others on this.

qianp2k said:
qianp2k said:

it doesnt hurt to be a little modest, you know.

Click to expand...

Yes agreed. but not too generalized to claim something only D7K can do but 60D cannot. I don't know how many 60D owners world agree with you. I actually heard someone sold D7K and moved to 60D in this forum, you know it's two-way street.

It's not too generalized. Well respected sites support the claim of higher DR with the D7000. Knowing someone sold a camera is not evidence....it's just a ridiculous red herring in a debate.

qianp2k said:
qianp2k said:

qianp2k said:

why hiding EXIF? without those info, nobody knows exactly, on tripod?

Click to expand...

the posters are not hiding it (not for sure anyway), the photos are from flickr, and flickr removes exif.

qianp2k said:

any pulling is PP that requires skill that I agreed. Canon cameras also can do just more or less.

Click to expand...

pulling in PP isnt a skill of camera, it is a skill of the person. capability of canon camera has nothing to do with that. once this skill is acquired, then the potential DR recoverable is capability of the camera. in this case D7000 offers a lot more potential than 60D, 2~3 stops that is.

Click to expand...

Not sure how many stops as I don't see from a few credited review sites, I don't see a big difference in real world photos. D7K also is venerable in some areas, blow out highlight, fuzzy AF, soft photos...

qianp2k said:

qianp2k said:

qianp2k said:

A, you believe D7000 doesnt actually have 2~3 more ev of DR than 60D?

Click to expand...

Yes D7K is better but not sure how many stops. Need credit review sites to tell us.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

They do tell us....you're just too ignorant to read them and accept them.

qianp2k said:
qianp2k said:

you have got to be kidding me! plenty of creditable sites and posters have made various measurements and they all confirm 2~3 stops advantage. Why DPR refuses to evaluate RAW DR is a mystery.

qianp2k said:

qianp2k said:

B, you accept D7000 has 2~3 more ev of DR but dont accept it would improve the final image beyond what 60D can? in other words, D7000 can not generate better final image than 60D because of the extra DR?

Click to expand...

As I said D7K is better in this area but not sky and earth difference. I disagree D7K better than 60D IQ much in general as measure in entire IQ spectrum - DR, sharpness, noise, color rendition, contrast, saturation...Overall they are pretty at the same level, again as DPR reviews said. Who I should trust, your words or DPR reviews and my own eyes?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This thread is about DR....not anything else. And DPReview only test JPG. You do understand that don't you?

qianp2k said:
qianp2k said:

lets not go off tangent here, this thread, and everyone in this thread except you, are confining the discussion only to DR, nothing more nothing less.

Click to expand...

So you don't judge a photo as a whole entirely but just pulling 4 stops from shadow (why in most cases I'd need to do so if I metering correctly) and just check this area by ignoring other areas such as sharpness, color rendition, highlight...Is this the way people taking photos?

Yes, it is the way. You meter for the highlights with a DSLR. You then pull the shadows that are now down around Zone 2 or 3 up to Zone 4 or 5 for a natural looking image. This is basic exposure theory. If you can't comprehend ,something so simple, please go and learn your craft before posting as an authority. You made a complete fool of yourself in the thread.

qianp2k said:
qianp2k said:

is 2~3 stops sky and earth difference? well I dont think anyone is arguing that. to me it means roughly 20% better image, that means a lot to some people.

Click to expand...

Where the credited review sites suggest D7K has 20% better IQ than 60D, show me? Let's check 60D and D7K sample galleries from DPR or imaging-resource and see that much difference? I actually prefer Canon color and sharper photos.

This thread is about DR

Robemo · May 7, 2011

.. reading and responding to your very entertaining posts from a tablet I am carying with me. Hilarious ...

rwbaron · May 7, 2011

Thanks for a very well done and informative comparison. There is no doubt that Sony has landed a serious blow to Canon when it comes to sensor performance and it will be interesting to see how Canon responds.

It's the architecture of the Sony sensor that is cause for the improvement and as a life long Canon shooter I seriously hope Canon's answer isn't more processing with their DIGIC 5. My guess is that Canon is well aware of this issue and has been working on it for the past few years (I hope) . As someone who shoots only RAW this is important for me even though this has not been an issue to date with my style of shooting. I have to consider though that my style of shooting is based on years of working with the extremely limited DR of transparency film and consequently I address this through controlling light. Ultra clean shadows would be welcome for the situations they are needed.

Here's hoping that Canon has a big surprise for us dedicated Canon shooters with the release of their next 1/5/7D bodies. If not they will most likely fall even further behind which could bring substantial losses in market share and further defection in the pro ranks.

Are you listening Canon executive board? I sure hope so as I've invested tens of thousands of $'s in your system over the years and don't relish the thought of a change but don't tempt me.

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

qianp2k · May 7, 2011

Faintandfuzzy said:
Like you appear to do.

You're a typical idiot who claims tried 5D2 and cannot find better than XXD in IQ. We have not seen any photos from you but you're busy jumping in everywhere bashing this, bashing that. A typical troll behavior. You only need P&S and I am sure even with D7K you still only can generate crappy photos.

Faintandfuzzy said:
The thread was about dynamic range....not IQ. You are off topic.

DR is entire light spectrum. D7K is venerable blow highlight and I have seen enough. So they need to shoot up to -1EV that reserves highlight but make dark area even darker, therefore they need pull from dark badly. After 4 stops pull while I only need to pull 1~2 stops (as I did in many of my photos) from 60D. The photos between two cameras look pretty identical. I prefer Canon's color, sharpness and photos from Sony sensor in general look a bit of dull and flat to my eyes.

Faintandfuzzy said:
In JPG....we are discussing raw. Guess you missed that.

Check DPR lab test between two in RAW, 60D/600D compete D7000/D5100 head by head from ISO 100 and 12800. Neither one obviously better than another.

Faintandfuzzy said:
Do you own a D7000? If not, you're not in a position to question others on this.

No I don't. I even not argue which one taking better photo and believe with capable hands, either one can take decent photos. I am just arguing the troll and fanfoy's assertion. If you think D7K is for you and something only can do from D7K or K-5, move on, sell Canon and move to respective forum. Why wasting time here to bash Canon?

Faintandfuzzy said:
Faintandfuzzy said:

Faintandfuzzy said:

you have got to be kidding me! plenty of creditable sites and posters have made various measurements and they all confirm 2~3 stops advantage. Why DPR refuses to evaluate RAW DR is a mystery.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You kid yourself by discrediting DPR review. DPR is one of the best credited review sites with scientific controlled test lab. I will not trust those vicious self-claimed reviews.

Faintandfuzzy said:
This thread is about DR....not anything else. And DPReview only test JPG. You do understand that don't you?

I understand very well. However DR is part of entire IQ. You cannot separate and single out not looking other areas, exactly as you cannot evaluate noise without including details together. When you pull 4-stop in software there is a consequence that affecting other areas of IQ.

Faintandfuzzy said:
Faintandfuzzy said:

So you don't judge a photo as a whole entirely but just pulling 4 stops from shadow (why in most cases I'd need to do so if I metering correctly) and just check this area by ignoring other areas such as sharpness, color rendition, highlight...Is this the way people taking photos?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is the way. You meter for the highlights with a DSLR. You then pull the shadows that are now down around Zone 2 or 3 up to Zone 4 or 5 for a natural looking image. This is basic exposure theory. If you can't comprehend ,something so simple, please go and learn your craft before posting as an authority. You made a complete fool of yourself in the thread.

this is the weird the thing I ever heard. So sky/highlight will be exposures correctly but everything else in dark and then pull 4 stops from shadow. WOW, what kind of exposure tactic! That's reason why D7K users need to do that as by default it blowout highlight. So after -1EV, the entire DR shift that will sacrifice color rendition and causing photo look flat and dull. Fortunately our 60D/7D users don't need ever to do so as Canon 63-zone metering is so accurate.

qianp2k · May 7, 2011

bobn2 said:
No-one has argued that the D7000 is in general 'better' than the 5D2. Your misrepresentation now comes close to lying, if it's deliberate rather than just an inability to comprehend.

now you accusing me lying but that is exactly what I heard in that link who said that. And we heard another one in this forum said after tried 5D2 it doesn't have a better IQ than XXD. Joke. Even my 5D1 clearly demonstrate having a better IQ and very good DR. I pulled from shadow from some shots such as this one. original one is pretty dark of the building area in shadow during sunset. I pulled probably 3-4 stops. do you see noise? It still keep amazing details.

bobn2 said:
--
Bob

ohyva · May 7, 2011

Sosua said:
Here is a pretty good example of real world benefits in the dpreview (as you only trust their opinion):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/page17.asp

And their definative view on the D7000 vs 60D image quality:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/page22.asp

Could not find any word here of 60D.

Consistent with the problems reported in the Nikon forums in overexposure and AF problems.

Sosua said:
Using their metrics, they record it as having around 15% better raw image quality - pretty much in between where they rank the 60D and 5D Mark 2. Owning a D7000 and a 5D Mark 2 and having looked closely at a 60D, i'd agree with them.

If shadow recovery is not important to you, don't worry about it - enjoy your 60D's lovely flexible screen and bigger buffer.
--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz

qianp2k · May 7, 2011

bobn2 said:
You are being very silly. I haven't bashed the 60D at all . Only your fanboy perspective makes you see any statement that another camera might be better in one aspect as a 'bash'. As for me, I'm sticking with my Canon system, whatever you think I ought or ought not to do. I just wish Canon would make their superb cameras even better by adopting (you would probably say stealing) some of the things that Nikon does better.

Not sure who is fanboy. Everyone can check my posting records. I said honestly and not favor/against particular brand/model. I don't fanboy 60D because I owned and I said 5D1 still better in IQ. I don't bash D7K or K-5, check out where I ever said that but only report the problems D7K users experienced which are true, not I invented. I ONLY against the fanboy's assertion that something you only can do with D7K/K-5 that have 20% better IQ than 60D. How you draw this conclusion from a credited review sites such as DPR or invented in your own fanboy's mind? You behaved like a real fanboy, jumping everywhere and bashing something. If you cannot do something it's your skill not camera and I don't think you can do that either with D7K/K-5.

Sure everyone wish Canon and I also wish Nikon, Sony and Pentax to improve their products. More competitions only benefit consumers like me.

I have no problem with Nikon but only argue with fanbolism and trollnism. check my Nikon posts recently, not bashing something but show my old photos that re-processed from my old D50+kit lens. It's you not camera can do the good photos.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1034&message=38230477

bobn2 said:
--
Bob

ohyva · May 7, 2011

bobn2 said:
Ola Forsslund said:

bobn2 said:

Ola Forsslund said:

ohyva said:

AFAIK the "read noise" estimates has been calculated from the DxO measurements. Or is there any independent way to measure the read noise?

Click to expand...

I think Ejmartin has presented a methodology, and Marianne Oelund recently did some well founded measurements:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=37165492

Click to expand...

There is no evidence that they are any more 'well founded' than other measurements.

Click to expand...

But they are independet of the DXO measurements, and as such they validate your DXO based figures. I thought that should be enough, since I can't see the need for camera independent measurements.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but they're not 'well founded' enough for ohyva, who won't trust anything unless he's seen someone put a multimeter to the pixel output wire.

When you look a sensor through an unknown digital processing pipe and say this does nothing ...

My question was to know if there is some deifnite evident this digital processing pipe does nothing. None given I'm afraid.

bobn2 said:
Of course, he doesn't say what is the problem with Marianne or my measurements.

Just read my above statement. Geiven before a few times I'm sorry to say.

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

That's no disrespect to Marianne, just pointting out that your use of 'well founded' is somewhat irrelevent.

Click to expand...

My intention was not to imply that your figures were any LESS 'well founded'. But I'm writing in a complete foreign language here, so I apologize if I did.

Click to expand...

On reflection, you just hit a raw nerve, Marianne was somewhat dismissive (even, might I say, a bit arrogant) when she published hers. The real thing to draw is that they are in remarkably close agreement, even though themeasurements are made using completely different methods.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

The measurements don't in any case satisfy Ohyva's wish for measurements independent of the camera itself.

Click to expand...

No, but isn't that wish a bit far out?

Click to expand...

I would think so, not clear what the reasoning is, in any case.
--
Bob

Nikon DX vs Canon APS-C: Dynamic Range

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Robemo

Guest

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Robemo

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Robemo

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Robemo

Guest

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts