rscheffler wrote:
As for Canon's sensors... I don't know... having just acquired a 1DX I can't say I'm disappointed in overall image quality. RAW files are sharp and I've pushed a few about two stops when I muffed the exposure. A touch of luminance NR was all that was needed. At least for my real world applications, I'm not disappointed.
This. While it is very disappointing that Canon hasn't made any progress regards shadow recovery for the last couple of years (D4 shows it can be done without an Exmor design), it is also important to remember that the issue is not a big deal for verybody.
For some, yes, and they know that they need it, but in these discussions the need of one is elevated to the need of everybody. Not so. Make your own mind up and then find out whether it is not the time to get a Sony/Nikon camera to full fill your needs.
I'm personally quite satisfied with the results when pushing the Shadows to +100 i Lr4 in landscapes where you need some more detail in the shadows in foliage etc.
Your right on the Dr's as per normal my point simply being the over use of DR ratings at ISO 100.
Why is it that it seems the majority of posters run down Canon sensors yet at only low Iso are they inferior in DR to Sony. Yet at all other settings they are superior in noise and DR yet there is a tsunami of opinion they are so far behind?
The over reliance on ISO 100 information and excluding all other ISOs is making for a distorted and incorrect picture of sensor tech.
Not denying it would I'm sure for most everyone it would be great to have more DR at low ISO's but only two years ago people where whining about hi ISO noise yet today Canon are better now than Sony.
To judge the performance by ISO 100 performance is to judge them by one tiny area in huge array that is more available today than ever before.
The exmor is the perfect example you can't have everything..great DR at low ISO but worse DR and noise at hi ISO that Canon.
Most it seem want to have there cake and eat it to..
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
2-3 years ago, it was all about noise in high ISO. Suddenly that's not important anymore. Today it's all about shadow recovery
Not at all. Both Canon and Nikon have done a wonderful job on high ISO noise control. It's just Nikon has also done a wonderful job at the other end and Canon is somewhat lagging. When I shoot events, I am really glad my 5d2 has very good high iso performance. When I shoot landscapes, I really would love to have the Nikon low ISO abilities in my 5d2.
I find it funny we measure the value of our equipment not in absolute terms (most everything we have is outstanding), but in relative terms (its 5.3% worse than Nikon, so the whole world is coming to an end).
Will Canon sensor EVER get to the same level as the Sony EXMOR sensor? Sigh... previously I was hoping the 5D3 and 1DX sensors will reveal something revolutionary from Canon. Alas, I was disappointed once again.
Sep 20, 2012 at 08:39 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
thw2 wrote:
Will Canon sensor EVER get to the same level as the Sony EXMOR sensor? Sigh... previously I was hoping the 5D3 and 1DX sensors will reveal something revolutionary from Canon. Alas, I was disappointed once again.
DR because if the shadows or highlights have no information then what good is a higher MTF... not that Nikon lenses are worse. The 14-28G kicks the 16-35LII in the pants. Also, third party lenses like the Sigma 70 macro are excellent and have a higher MTF than Canon macro... It comes down to what you shoot. Canon has done a very good job of focusing on the sports market with weight reduction in their super-teles, great high ISO, FPS, but not much for fashion/landscape shooters.
The detail of the D800 at ISO 100 paired with an excellent lens exceeds anything that Canon offers and comes close to MF cameras costing >$10,000 more. All in all, Nikon has offered an amazing value in the D800.
n0b0 wrote:
Nikon sensor DR vs Canon lens MTF. Which one would you pick?
dehowie wrote:
Even looking using DXOs data at ISO's above around 600 Canon has better DR than Sony unless I'm reading the comparative ISO DR chart totally wrong.
With better Hi ISO performance in noise plus better DR Canon is from where I sit the clear leader now for hi ISO work.
At ISO 100 they trail in DR but I will gladly trade that for the new hi ISO plus DR capabililty that is here..my 1Dx stuff at 6400 through 10000 is superb.
All the talk of poor DR is at base ISO..
Actually most test show that Nikon is as good at high ISOs as Canon.
For example, the Nikon D800 compares very favorably to the Canon 5D3, even though it sports a much higher MP.
If we go by the DXO charts the D800 at iso1600 is equivalent to the 5D3 at iso800.
At iso 3200 and 6400 they are about equal (with Nikon slightly better). At 12800 and 25600 the 5D3 nudges ahead.
In a comparison of equal MPs, the Nikon D4 equals the Canon 1Dx at all equivalent ISOs, which isn't surprising since Nikon decided not to use a Sony Exmor sensor for the D4. And it still beats the 1Dx in DR at low ISOs.
I'm interested where everyone is getting there info in regards to high ISO performance. I see no tests where Canon consistently beats Nikon.
In terms of color comparisons, well that is a whole other subject in the sensor wars.
Many Nikon D800 users/testers don't like the green cast.
For years, many Canon proponents have preferred the Canon colors, especially with flesh tones.
This is one category where Canon probably has a lead.
thw2 wrote:
Will Canon sensor EVER get to the same level as the Sony EXMOR sensor? Sigh... previously I was hoping the 5D3 and 1DX sensors will reveal something revolutionary from Canon. Alas, I was disappointed once again.
IMO it is not entirely unprobable that if Canon matched Nikon in sensor performance, the 5D3 as we know it today might never existed... You would get 6D labelled as "5D Mk3" and Canon would call it a day So perhaps Canon's lagging in sensor technology brought about something similar to EOS-3 digital twelve years since D30 introduction...
MintMar wrote:
IMO it is not entirely unprobable that if Canon matched Nikon in sensor performance, the 5D3 as we know it today might never existed... You would get 6D labelled as "5D Mk3" and Canon would call it a day So perhaps Canon's lagging in sensor technology brought about something similar to EOS-3 digital twelve years since D30 introduction...
I agree, they were forced to stop the crippling and finally deliver an AF system because they have nothing left in the sensor department. The 1DX and 5DIII sensors are average...
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
2-3 years ago, it was all about noise in high ISO. Suddenly that's not important anymore. Today it's all about shadow recovery
Its not that its not important but its the fact that Most DSLRs nowadays do an awesome job with noise at high iso's. The full frame cameras from Canon and Nikon match well in that regard. So its not a big discussion.
BUT, the high dynamic range at low iso's from the Nikon's (sony) are really a class apart and so far no other manufacturer has come close. They are also ahead slightly in color depth.
Had Nikon not put those sensors out there at such competitive price points we would not be having these discussions obviously and the current crop of Cameras would get praise (which they do anyway, its just that those topics dont get as many views )
it basically comes down to what and how you shoot, and what you do in post. some people require more flexibility and others require less. it can never hurt to have "more" in the sensor, even if you don't personally take advantage of it. in this regard canon is behind sony/nikon. whether or not it hinders enough photographers to *really* matter is questionable.
i run into the shadow "deficiencies" of canon's sensors in post, and do occasionally scrap a shot, or a planned processing of a shot, because the files can't handle it. but it's a small percentage of the time for me. so while i'd like to have more, it's not killing me that i don't have more. ymmv.
I chose the 5d3 for the overall flexibility. Alas, I have concluded there will never be a "perfect" camera for me, although it's getting close: put the D600 sensor in the 5D3 body and that would be close to perfection
Nothing to add. But only to say current Nikon dslrs are daft when it comes to ergonomics. I don't look at charts and numbers for photography. Usage based on reality is what matters. Most of the time I cannot even tell a web photo was taken with a Rebel or a D4.
The current raft of issues with Nikon D800 and D4 is troubling. It remains to be seen the QA on D600.
n0b0 wrote:
Nikon sensor DR vs Canon lens MTF. Which one would you pick?
Well the D800 has 36MP which means it pulls more detail than 22MP unless you are using coke bottles so actually it kind of erases a lot of the Canon lens advantage now that I think about it (obviously that is not the case with D4,D600, etc. though). Although the 24mm T&S II is still better and the 17 T&S is unique and Nikon still lacks some nice lighter stuff like 70-200 f/4 IS.
So perhaps Canon's lagging in sensor technology brought about something similar to EOS-3 digital twelve years since D30 introduction...