Are the Sony FFs better than the Canon 5DII at Low ISOs?

[Skip M]

DXO chart is just another way of looking at IQ and does not take into account MP size or camera/lens combo. If the 21MP 5DMk2 score the same DXO mark as a 12MP D700 Nikon should be very worried.

It doesn't. It is slightly lower ranked overall (80.5-79), and markedly lower in high ISO (2303-1815), as would be expected. Both cameras beat the Sony A900 in all the tested areas, with the Nikon beating the Canon, except the Sony outranks the Canon at sub-ISO200 DR and they're pretty equal in color sensitivity in that ISO range.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

 

[stevielee]

I know why Zeiss is expensive, it is the build quality and the brand. You are one of those that are sold by the brand name. Optically it is not leaps and bound over older L lens and certainly it struggles against newer L glass particularly vignitting performance. For me optics matters most not brand.

No, you would be incorrect with the assumption that I am "one of those that are sold by the brand name". I am sold by whoever delivers the best optical performance possible for lenses that I choose to use on my very unforgiving (optically) 21MP FF 5D II.

If anything, I think that it is you who is "sold by a brand name" which for you is the Canon L lenses. Much of Canon's L glass is superlative - as I mentioned before in another post. But for anything under 35mm's - Canon right now does NOT produce the best available wide angle lens option - especially on a 21MP FF DSLR.

My 10+ year old Zeiss 21mm f2.8 C/Y wide angle lens in truly "leaps and bounds over" all of Canon's wide angle lenses - even Canon's newer wide angle L lenses (both primes and zooms). The only other 35mm wide angle lenses that come close or match the Zeiss in overall performance is Leica's 19mm f2.8, and Nikon's amazing 14-24 f2.8 G lens. There is nothing in Canon's current wide angle arsenal that competes optically at the same level as these lenses - even considering their premier L wide primes: the 24mm f1.4 II ($1700US), or the 14mm f2.8 II($2400US) - which are both hugely "expensive" - costing as much, or more than any of the Zeiss ZE line. The ONLY possible exception to Canon's current wide angle deficiency is their newest T/S lens: the 17mm f4.0 L. But at around $2500 or so, the term "expensive" that you ascribed to the Zeiss lenses - is also (and even more so) the case when considering a purchase of most of Canon's top L lenses.

Having both cameras, I find myself carrying the sony 70% of the time.
It's has a faster af, and the ziess is pure swag.

I carry the canon to club gatherings due to the fact that everyone has one, just wish canon had a separate class of lens to separate from the red ring. Bragging is not the same when everyone has a red ring.

Zeiss lens are overrated and expensive. The ones they made for Canon arent much better and sometimes not as good as Canon L lens.

I can see that you have very little direct experience using Zeiss lenses on a Canon DSLR - because if you had, I don't think that you would be so disparaging of the Zeiss as compared to Canon's offering.

Yes, Zeiss is somewhat more expensive than their Canon equivalent lens counterparts. The Zeiss 50mm 1.4 ZE is the new 50mm normal lens standard for FF, 35mm DSLR's in overall performance - especially wide open - with the best bokeh I have seen thus far from any modern 50mm prime.

And in the wide angle end of things - the Zeiss easily trounces ALL of Canon's offerings in the prime and zoom range as well (below 35mm's).

The Zeiss 21mm f2.8 ZE (as well as it's legendary predecessor: the 21mm Contax f2.8)

stomps all over Canon's 24mm f1.4 II wide open, and also in CA and distortion. Same is true for Canon's very weak 20mm f2.8. The only prime lenses where Canon does have the definitive quality edge over the Zeiss is with their outstanding 35mm f1.4, and the 85mm f1.2 - which are the sharpest and best performing lenses that Canon currently makes under 100mm's.

The Zeiss MF lenses are not for everyone, or for every type of photography, but the new their ZE line-up is a very good option indeed on any Canon - especially on a FF DSLR. I happen to be lucky enough to own the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 in a C?Y mount with an EOS adapter. As primarily a landscape photographer, I have never been so impressed with a lens as I am with this gem. It's a 10+ year old 35mm film lens that can still deliver class leading wide-angle performance on a modern 21MP FF DSLR.

That's how good Zeiss lenses are and have always been - built to last - performing at the highest optical standards from decades past, and many more decades to come.

 

[julienA]

heavy handed in-camera noise reduction applied to even the RAW files which cannot be turned off by the user.

There is a RAW NR off option.

 

[julienA]

The 850/900 do not have pattern noise.

 

[julienA]

Just a question José, why did you choose ISO 3200 for your portrait, as there was obviously plenty of light and the subject was static?

 

[hle]

Taikonault said " For me optics matters most not brand " lol are u serious ? Not the brand ? you mean as long as it has Canon on it ? lol

 

[xenon2]

Also check color metamerism on DxO...
For low ISO work A900 is best (in that price segment).

--
My gallery -> http://kubica.deviantart.com/gallery/
A900/C5mk2/S 12-24:50:70-300APO/T28-75

 

[Shaun_Nyc]

José B wrote:
-------------------

Best
Shaun
http://shaun.zenfolio.com

 

[Skip M]

Also check color metamerism on DxO...
For low ISO work A900 is best (in that price segment).

What the heck does that have to do with anything? I can't even find a rating for metamerism on DxO, and it's only a small part of sensor performance:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-metamerism.htm

--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

 

[julienA]

Single camera analysis (it does not appear in comparisons), check the extra "full CS" tab.

 

[Skip M]

Single camera analysis (it does not appear in comparisons), check the extra "full CS" tab.

Yeah, found it. Not sure what Sony has done to bias their cameras, or at least the A900, toward this, since it's far higher than any of the cameras I compared it to, including the Nikon D3x (reputedly the same sensor) and the Hassy H3D 39.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

 

[xenon2]

Single camera analysis (it does not appear in comparisons), check the extra "full CS" tab.

Yeah, found it. Not sure what Sony has done to bias their cameras, or at least the A900, toward this, since it's far higher than any of the cameras I compared it to,

To improve color "resolution" over other products (at cost of higher noise). I prefer colors from A900 over 5Dmk2 (but then high iso from 5d is much cleaner).

including the Nikon D3x (reputedly the same sensor) and the Hassy H3D 39.

D3x has different CFA filter, so spectral response is different.

--
My gallery -> http://kubica.deviantart.com/gallery/
A900/C5mk2/S 12-24:50:70-300APO/T28-75

 

[GuyMcKie]

Stronger rgb color filters, leading to better color separation and color fidelity, and a little more noise at high iso's.

That's the reason why the a850/a900 and the Canon 1Ds3 are better at lower iso's
than the 5DII

The curves for the a850/a900 and the 1Ds3 on dxo are very close to each other.

Seems like Canon and Nikon have offered some low iso quality in the 5D2/D700 to obtain less noise at high iso.

With SSS iit's a wise choice from Sony to go for the best IQ at low iso.

 

[headofdestiny]

Correct. The A900 has better metamerism and hue resolution than any of Nikon's or Canon's current DSLRs. The old Nikon D2x was close, but still not quite as good, according to Iliah Borg and others.

Like Guy mentioned, the color filter of the A900 doesn't pass as much light as its competition, so, while it has the best color around, it requires more gain from the amps in lowlight, thus making it a bit noisier. This is a trade off that Nikon and Canon have gone the other way with. Sony often mentions that they tailored the A900 for low ISO performance, and Nikon recently stated they may start doing the same thing in their next round of cameras.

It's always laughable to me that so many assume that Sony makes noisy cameras, because they just don't have the technology and/or know how to make a low noise camera. For better of worse, they've made these trade offs purposefully. Now that high ISO has become so good in most cameras, I think we may see a shift back to wanting better low ISO performance (like Nikon is predicting.) It's kind of like going back to Velvia, I guess??

 

[Skip M]

Single camera analysis (it does not appear in comparisons), check the extra "full CS" tab.

Yeah, found it. Not sure what Sony has done to bias their cameras, or at least the A900, toward this, since it's far higher than any of the cameras I compared it to,

To improve color "resolution" over other products (at cost of higher noise). I prefer colors from A900 over 5Dmk2 (but then high iso from 5d is much cleaner).

I said "what" not why." A lot of people have said they prefer the colors of the Sony over the Canon, but I'm not one of them. By the way, resolution isn't metamerism, and DxO rates the 5D higher in color sensitivity over the A900 at all but ISO 100. Metamerism is the ability to consistently reproduce color in varying lighting conditions.

including the Nikon D3x (reputedly the same sensor) and the Hassy H3D 39.

D3x has different CFA filter, so spectral response is different.

There's a huge difference in rating, however, so I'm not sure the CFA is the entire explanation.

--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

 

[Skip M]

Now that high ISO has become so good in most cameras, I think we may see a shift back to wanting better low ISO performance (like Nikon is predicting.) It's kind of like going back to Velvia, I guess??

I sincerely hope so. High ISO is nice, and does come in handy for about 2 hours in an 8 hour wedding. The other six, I work at low ISOs.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

 

[zappa1976]

Correct. The A900 has better metamerism and hue resolution than any of Nikon's or Canon's current DSLRs. The old Nikon D2x was close, but still not quite as good, according to Iliah Borg and others.

No, the 1Ds3 has pratically the same result in term of metamerism as A900 (better than A850) but better color sensity.

 

[headofdestiny]

Correct. The A900 has better metamerism and hue resolution than any of Nikon's or Canon's current DSLRs. The old Nikon D2x was close, but still not quite as good, according to Iliah Borg and others.

No, the 1Ds3 has pratically the same result in term of metamerism as A900 (better than A850) but better color sensity.

Hue resolution is not the same as the DxO color sensitivity. My above statements are a result of a couple years of intense color discussions with the likes of Iliah Borg and "theSuede," not DxO Mark. Iliah (the guy that develops RPP) can better explain the issues with Dxo Mark, as well as the nuances to this subject, but, in a nutshell his conclusion is: The A900 has better hue resolution in greens than Nikon, and better hue resolution in blues than Canon, and that means things like foliage are less "mushy" compared to Nikon, and skin tones are less "mushy" than Canon. FWIW, DxO mark says that the D3x has better color sensitivity than either the A900 or the 1Dsiii. (granted, you are correct that older cameras like the 1Diii and original 5D are certainly better in this regard than the 5Dii.)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=31876329&q=iliah+borg+mushy&qf=m

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=31504090&q=iliah+borg+mushy&qf=m

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&message=31460404&q=iliah+borg+some+facts&qf=m

PM Iliah, because I'm certainly at the edge of my knowledge, and, as a relative beginner on this subject, I don't want to mislead.

Skip M, "liking or not liking" Sony colors is not what this is about. With proper profiling, you can make any camera have the same color palette. The issue is that some do a better job resolving colors in that palette. This isn't a matter of color preference.

 

[Skip M]

Skip M, "liking or not liking" Sony colors is not what this is about. With proper profiling, you can make any camera have the same color palette. The issue is that some do a better job resolving colors in that palette. This isn't a matter of color preference.

I didn't mean to imply that it was, I was only stating my opinion.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

 

[Skip M]

Skip M, "liking or not liking" Sony colors is not what this is about. With proper profiling, you can make any camera have the same color palette. The issue is that some do a better job resolving colors in that palette. This isn't a matter of color preference.

Let me rephrase that, I was replying to Jakub's statement that he preferred Sony's colors to that of the 5D mkII. I was only stating my opinion counter to his. I did not mean to imply that this part of the discussion was about preference, and I don't really see the inference.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart