D3X vs 5D2 - myth and reality

Started Jan 26, 2009 | Discussions
GaborSch Veteran Member • Posts: 7,203
D3X vs 5D2 - myth and reality

The DxO results as well as the "professionally done" tests of Lloyd have been too suspicious for me to let them pass unchecked. Unfortunately, I can not make measurement on their raw images, for I don't have them. However, I have used the raw images published by Imaging Resources and made objective, documented measurements based on the non-demosaiced raw data.

The result proves, that the claim "two stops higher DR than the 5D2" is ridiculous , like some other claims. In fact, the DR of the D3X is max. 0.5 EV greater than that of the 5D2 at ISO 100, and at ISO 400 the 5D2 is already better.

Independently of the unseriosity of those claims, the D3X seems to be a great camera, according to what I see in the images (I am sure the other aspects do not negate this). Having a 0.5 EV advantage over Canon's best sensor of the moment is something Nikon can be proud of.

Anyway,

I challenge anyone to post raw files proving those claims.

Note:

1. I don't own nor do I plan to own a 5D2,

2. I own a Canon 40D but I am no fan of Canon by any measure.

Steve Bingham
Steve Bingham Forum Pro • Posts: 26,200
Nice to hear . . .

Nice to hear from you Canon folks from time to time. Thanks for visiting. I know, it's tough playing second fiddle. He he. :^) Uh, why on earth did you post this on the Nikon forum? You are going to convince us, right? Good luck.

And yes, the 5D II has it's place. Good bang for the buck.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com

 Steve Bingham's gear list:Steve Bingham's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-140mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR +20 more
Mel Veteran Member • Posts: 3,716
Re: D3X vs 5D2 - myth and reality

"The DxO results as well as the "professionally done" tests of Lloyd have been too suspicious for me to let them pass unchecked."

Too suspicious how? Please elaborate.

Then you say:

"I have used the raw images published by Imaging Resources and made objective, documented measurements based on the non-demosaiced raw data."

Please show us your objective, system vs the suspicious one of DxO.

In this "Canon" thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30756575

You wrote:

bionet wrote:

The question remains why higher ISOs are slightly lower exposed.

"If you think to have raw files proving this, then pls upload them."

Just asking for the same here. Please upload your findings and method for us.

And btw, most of your activity is in the Canon forum, so not sure what #2 is about? But no matter, if the Canon 5DII is getting a bad rap vs the D3X, then again, please explain and show.

Thanks,

Taikonaut Senior Member • Posts: 2,513
Re: D3X vs 5D2 - myth and reality

It is true D3x has about 2 stop DR advantage over 5DMk2 at low ISO but critically DR for both cameras at sub ISO 400 are already high enough not impede on IQ. The siginificant of DR advantage is most noticeable at higher ISO. D3x actually start to fall slightly behind round about ISO 600 and upward.

The original 5DMk1 when compared to D700 has an even greater DR difference not only in low ISO but also in high ISO in favour of D700 giving the Nikon a noticeable DR edge at high ISO but the 3.5 years old 5D retains IQ superiority in real world at anything below ISO 400 even though it lags D700 in DXO DR scores. This proves DR at low ISO is high enough not to impact on IQ. DR gap on 5DMk2 and D3x is closer than 5D vs D700. However it is still nice to have better DR at low ISO if you want detail gain in deep shadow for those poorly exposed shots but other than that there is little different. That said there is also a slight DR advantage in favour of the Canon at higher ISO in all the sample comparison so far, again proves that DR is most effective at high ISO.

Emeka U Senior Member • Posts: 2,884
this should be fun...

tagging the thread...as to not miss the fireworks!

-- hide signature --

I likes shootin' things with them new-fangled picture-takin' devices!
VISIT OFTEN: http://emeka.smugmug.com (comments welcomed)

 Emeka U's gear list:Emeka U's gear list
Nikon Df Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G +6 more
Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 25,779
Re: D3X vs 5D2 - myth and reality

I would not put too much trust into Imaging Resource either, at least for the following simple reasons:

1. they are trying (I would not dare to call those anecdotal evidences "tests") 1 sample
2. they do not publish flare, glare, white frame, and black frame references
3. they expose inconsistently.

4. they do not have decent resolution target, capable to show the effect noise has on the resolution of high pixel count dSLR

All those comparisons are pretty personal - like "To shoot this, I would better have this camera than that".

-- hide signature --
Artichoke
Artichoke Forum Pro • Posts: 12,458
we do not see eye to eye on every thing

but I agree whole heartedly with Iliah on this

Iliah Borg wrote:

I would not put too much trust into Imaging Resource either, at least
for the following simple reasons:

1. they are trying (I would not dare to call those anecdotal
evidences "tests") 1 sample
2. they do not publish flare, glare, white frame, and black frame
references
3. they expose inconsistently.
4. they do not have decent resolution target, capable to show the
effect noise has on the resolution of high pixel count dSLR

All those comparisons are pretty personal - like "To shoot this, I
would better have this camera than that".

after you have been around the block with reviews and reviewers, you learn to think more critically about them
this is true of just about anything
both high end cameras are worthy

the glass is ALWAYS more important than the body for cameras that have interchangeable lens systems

they are so many variables in a digital camera that no one can expect to review them absolutely well
IR, DPR, SDC are all decent reviewers and there are more out there
the new Nikon flagship is worthy of this great companies legacy

the F mount has many excellent options for shooters, including digital SLRs by Fujifilm & Kodak

Nikon has a new King of the Hill that does just about everything in an exemplary fashion & is nonpareil in the studio
don't take my word for it
read the reviews
as many as you like
--
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
DPR forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

 Artichoke's gear list:Artichoke's gear list
Agfa ePhoto 1680 Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro Leica M8 Nikon D3X Leica M9 +13 more
OP GaborSch Veteran Member • Posts: 7,203
Clarification

Iliah Borg wrote:

I would not put too much trust into Imaging Resource either

I don't find any mentioning in my post regarding Imaging Resource's reviews . I have been using their raw files in my measurements .

Actually, I have not read any of their reviews. Aside, I checked it now: they did not even publish a review of the D3X yet.

Some of the raw files are suitable for noise measurment, limited by

1. the too high exposure for this purpose,

2. the dirtiness of their charts (they should afford a new Gretag card as well). Methink some testers have been consuming their lunch on these charts repeatedly.

Raylaw Contributing Member • Posts: 696
Re: D3X vs 5D2 - myth and reality

GaborSch wrote:

Independently of the unseriosity of those claims,
--
Gabor

http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm

What in the world does that mean? "Unseriosity" is not an English word.

Ray

Mel Veteran Member • Posts: 3,716
The number one reason . .

that theCanon people come here "trying to find fault" is because Nikon has been ahead since the launch of the D3. Now let's also be clear that "fault" can be found in any and all of the Nikon models since and including the D3. But the botom line is that Nikon has taken the lead with a better product. Perhpas more appropriately put . . a more sought after product that just happens to be better in some significant ways.

The Canon 5DMKII and reguklar 5D, while lacking in build quality (as the main and noticeable difference), both perform quite well in a general sense compared to the Nikons and also excell at least in image quality. But make no mistake, these two models are not in the same league as the D3 and D3x. They are a great bargain for what they can provide and should be viewed this way. Far too many people still thinking or believing that they share equal ground. Canon's equal ground sharer's are the 1DsMKIII and the 1DMKIII. You really do get what you pay for at this level irregardless of what "we" might think about any particular models pricing. Neither manufacturer makes a flagship model and then a subflagship model with similar capabilities at less the cost but expects us to consider them equal. There are significant differences even if they are not significant to those that are willing to settle for the bargain model. Those that need more capability will pay for it, Those that don't, won't. But there is no mixing of these models as far as being on equal ground. This is being done out of jealousy and want, envy and gear lust, and a whole bunch of other things.
--
Mel
http://www.mellockhartphotography.zenfolio.com
http://www.mellockhartphotography.net

nikosR Forum Member • Posts: 82
Re: D3X vs 5D2 - myth and reality

It's hard for anyone interested to argue with you when you don't provide any supporting evidence for your claims or explain your methodology.

BTW DxO purport to have measured the following max DR values for the two cameras at their ISO 100 setting (measured before resolution normalisation):

5DII: Claimed ISO 100, Measured ISO 73, DR 11.16 EV
D3X: Claimed ISO 100, Measured ISO 78, DR 12.84 EV

At ISO 400 setting:

5DII: Claimed ISO 400, Measured ISO 285 (!!), DR 10.92EV
D3X: Claimed ISO 400, Measured ISO 337, DR 11.25EV

The 5DII is measured as having equal DR to the D3x near measured ISO 564 ( 5DII claimed ISO 800!!) with DR about 10.66EV. From then on (higher than measured ISO 564) the 5DII exhibits slightly better DR.

They say they measure DR from well saturation to S/N=1 (a noise floor which btw is probably useless from a photographic point of view but correct from an engineering point of view)

Any evidence you provide to counter DxO claims should counter the above DxO findings.

aimpic Contributing Member • Posts: 706
Conspiracy Theories & Stupidity

It is not savvy to just make statements that attack someone's scientific evidence and replicateable tests done in lab conditions.

It is also bad science and very foolish legally.

You can have your opinion, sure, but if you call scientifically done verifiable tests "lies" etc some large law firm could eat you for breakfast.

On the other hand - consumer - if a company makes false or misleading claims, they are generally liable to the law of the land.

So let's not push giant conspiracy theories and get on and make pictures.

On another note, model knockers and criticizers could attack what they cannot afford. If they could afford it they would not attack it.

-- hide signature --

Peter

Persuasive Marketing Systems -
inc Copywriting, Design & Photography

tissunique Veteran Member • Posts: 3,307
Re: D3X vs 5D2 - myth and reality

Can anybody please tell me the point in going over this ground again... does it really matter?
Tony

jeff thigpen Regular Member • Posts: 238
Re: D3X vs 5D2 - myth and reality
-- hide signature --

umm... so your so upset about this that you made a post with no proof, no pics, not even actually owning the cameras? sounds like you should relax a little. unless...you work for canon?

jeff thigpen Regular Member • Posts: 238
and..
-- hide signature --

dont you just HATE when people argue theory? i do. the answer to the entire post is ... who really gives a s* t. the 5D MkII is a great camera, so is the D3x. stop all the childish theory arguing.

Livio Spallone Regular Member • Posts: 355
Canon friends problem is

They are discovering that 5dII is a very good prosumer camera that values no more than Canon ask for and it is not the groundbreaking champion they dreamed of.

Consumer body , autofocus , battery and the famous creaking door.
General quality control issues and frequent problem on sensor hot pixel mapping.

It is still a camera I would buy if I had Canon lenses (should be also the perfect underwater cam :good photo , good movies , sound not a problem).

My unscientific opinion is that Canon "stretched" too much the sensor to compete with Nikon : declared iso far from real , pattern noise also at low iso, hot pixel coming up in long exposures.

That said I find Lloyd is also looking for the "scoop" and that his findings have a very small impact on I.Q. in 99% of the average shooting (yes I know : average shooting could not apply to YOU that are reading this my two cent reply).

Lisperit

 Livio Spallone's gear list:Livio Spallone's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR +10 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,165
Re: D3X vs 5D2 - myth and reality

nikosR wrote:

It's hard for anyone interested to argue with you when you don't
provide any supporting evidence for your claims or explain your
methodology.

Gabor's methodology is realised in RawNalyze. It would be nice, however, if he'd given his figures.

BTW DxO purport to have measured the following max DR values for the
two cameras at their ISO 100 setting (measured before resolution
normalisation):

5DII: Claimed ISO 100, Measured ISO 73, DR 11.16 EV
D3X: Claimed ISO 100, Measured ISO 78, DR 12.84 EV

As Iliah Borg pointed out some time ago, the 'claimed ISO' is the actual ISO, according to the ISO standard. The other one ('measured ISO') is an arbitrary measurement of relative sensor sensitivity, which I like to call 'Index of Sensor Output'.

At ISO 400 setting:

5DII: Claimed ISO 400, Measured ISO 285 (!!), DR 10.92EV
D3X: Claimed ISO 400, Measured ISO 337, DR 11.25EV

The 5DII is measured as having equal DR to the D3x near measured ISO
564 ( 5DII claimed ISO 800!!) with DR about 10.66EV. From then on
(higher than measured ISO 564) the 5DII exhibits slightly better DR.

They say they measure DR from well saturation to S/N=1 (a noise floor
which btw is probably useless from a photographic point of view but
correct from an engineering point of view)

This does kind of triangulate against at least some other evidence. Looking at Roger Clark's compilation of read noise on various cameras, and making the assumption that the D3x has the same read circuitry as the D300, but the sensor has been slowed a stop, the read noise at 100 ISO is 6.6 e- for the D3x and 23.5 e- for the 5DII. If they have around the same FWC, that would give nearly 2 stops DR advantage to the D3x, if the D3x FWC is a bit smaller (Iliah Borg has measured it, but not given the figure, so far as I know) that advantage may be a bit less.
By ISO 800, on the same figures, the 5DII has the advantage, by 3.7 to 4.6.

Any evidence you provide to counter DxO claims should counter the
above DxO findings.

In the end, it's about gathering as much data as possible and correlating the results. There is also the subjective issue which Iliah Borg referred to. Different noise distributions can have different subjective results, apparently obscuring fine detail or giving a 'smooth' result. In the end, if you want quantitative informatio on that, we'd need to have noise distribution graphs and do some perception experiments to see which are 'better'.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Greg_WT Forum Member • Posts: 94
12 and 14 bits

Gabor, did you take into account that Lloyd Chambers was writing about 14-bit NEFs?

"It translates into a breakthrough (for DSLRs) dynamic range of 13 stops at low ISO, where 14-bit lossless-compressed files are clearly mandatory to maintain the full image potential."

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/PushingTheBlacks/index.html

But the D3X NEF files from imaging-resource seem to be 12-bit files (at least the three or four I have downloaded).

-- hide signature --

Greg

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,165
Re: 12 and 14 bits

Greg_WT wrote:

Gabor, did you take into account that Lloyd Chambers was writing
about 14-bit NEFs?

"It translates into a breakthrough (for DSLRs) dynamic range of 13
stops at low ISO, where 14-bit lossless-compressed files are clearly
mandatory to maintain the full image potential."

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/PushingTheBlacks/index.html

But the D3X NEF files from imaging-resource seem to be 12-bit files
(at least the three or four I have downloaded).

Based on my (inferred) understanding of how the D3x works, I would agree that the difference between 12 and 14-bit mode might be critical at low ISO's, maybe less so at higher ISO's. Maybe Gabor's observations vs others are beginning to quantify the difference between 14-bit and 12-bit mode.
--
Bob

Artichoke
Artichoke Forum Pro • Posts: 12,458
happened before, Greg

DPR did the same thing with the Fujifilm S3 (a wonderful instrument, & the lowest rated ever DSLR in DPR's history)
Greg_WT wrote:
snip

But the D3X NEF files from imaging-resource seem to be 12-bit files
(at least the three or four I have downloaded).

but you cannot blame them

DSLRs are extremely complex & reviewers are pressed to get a review out in a timely fashion

still after all these years, I would like it if "Professional" reviewers would pay attention & RTFM prior to putting a camera through its paces

they must post something about how well the camera does in its optimized best photograph mode

shooting the D3X or S3 in 12 bit capture does not tell the whole story, though both are outstanding jpg cameras
--
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
DPR forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

 Artichoke's gear list:Artichoke's gear list
Agfa ePhoto 1680 Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro Leica M8 Nikon D3X Leica M9 +13 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads