ggreene wrote:
DxO's own measurements in the low light sports category show the 1DX is equal or superior to the D800 beyond 1600 ISO. So why does the D800 outscore the 1DX for low light sports?
it will give you an idea of the current state of the sensor world and the major players in the arena
I am surprised at how old the process technology is for the current generation of image sensors. To put it into perspective, when I was working on CMOS image sensor technology more than 15 years ago we were using 0.35um design rules! The company I worked for abandoned that business because of the long term profit outlook.
They DXO have put in incorrect graphs which can been seen in print and screen mode, where the ratio would be the other way around, write to them and ask what they mean by the figures of low light iso and their graphs
ggreene wrote:
DxO's own measurements in the low light sports category show the 1DX is equal or superior to the D800 beyond 1600 ISO. So why does the D800 outscore the 1DX for low light sports?
Tareq wrote:
Yes, i understand, i also shoot everything so no way i can give up any of those 35mm DSLRs, but i was saying if you have the opportunity to own a digital medium format for dedicated and still photography or that kind of photography where you can take your time, will you choose MF or you still go with only 35mm DSLRs? For sports and actions i will never use MF, but what about landscapes, still life, fashion, some portraiture,...etc?
A few years ago I had this conversation with a friend who shoots (almost) exclusively digital MF landscapes. MF digital intrigues me, and there is no question of the quality of his photographs produced with this gear.
Since we shoot together occasionally and are somewhat familiar with one another's work, he perceptively pointed out to me that a good deal of my landscape photography would be difficult or impossible to do with MF equipment. I often am on foot, sometimes for many days in the backcountry. I frequently take advantage of ephemeral conditions that require me to work quickly. I often shoot in low light. Part of my style is to use long lenses for landscapes.
If you are at all familiar with MF shooting, you probably see the problem.
MF digital certainly can produce extremely high quality image files, leading to excellent and potentially very large prints. However, full frame DSLR gear can also produce very, very good quality images that can make fine prints at quite large sizes... and the gear permits greater flexibility in shooting.
As with almost all equipment questions (MF v. FF DSLR, D800 v. 5DMIII v Sony, etc.) things are often a lot more complex and nuanced than many want to understand... and it is very possible to produce truly first rate work with any of them.
Exactly, the whole scoring model is an arbitrary sham. Fortunately, you can at least see the actual measurements and get the truth. If I'm shooting in a cave like venue I know which sensor I want.
ggreene wrote:
Exactly, the whole scoring model is an arbitrary sham. Fortunately, you can at least see the actual measurements and get the truth. If I'm shooting in a cave like venue I know which sensor I want.
I did not (yet) read the link, but I have looked into the dxo rating system in the past. It is a complex and convoluted thing, and the simple numeric scores (which are the only thing that most people take from the "tests") can only make sense if you look at and understand the assumptions and variables that are involved.
One could argue that the tests are accurate if you know what they mean but they are almost never used that way. Instead - as in this forum - it is virtually always the case that someone sees that item A got a point or two higher than item B and presumes that this alone somehow translates in some meaningful way to their purchase decisions. It most certainly does not.
It is also a case of "it seems so sophisticated - since I can't understand it - that it must be scientific and valid."
I cannot totally fault the dxo people for this, though I don't think they are entirely blameless, but those who wield the raw "scores" as if they mean something clear and simple really ought to stop it.
well, a year back I took some pictures and there are d800 and 1dx included, I saw that at 25600iso the d800 and 1dx was very close regarding details/noise if the d800 was down sized to 1dx file size. The 1dx has the edge over d800 but D800 is not known as a high iso camera =25600iso.
The strength is large DR at base iso and resolution
I also loked at 6D, Canons best sensor regarding banding and noise, actual better than 1DX which I had compared earlier with D800. Here are d800 and 6D at base iso and both cameras exposing the same and so no high lights where clipped and also 1dx and D800 25600iso and a crop from the picture inside Lunds dome church https://picasaweb.google.com/106266083120070292876/NoiseInShadowsD800AndCanon6D
If I had to chose one sensor today it would be Sony 36Mp sensor, I have also Canon, Leica SLR and Hasselblad
NO sensor comes nearby Sony's CMOS.
This is 1dx and D800
A contrasty motive with half the street in shadows and half in sun shine, both D800 and 1dx at base iso and the same exposure, a crop from the the shadows and both cameras raw file equal handle, and the difference in lowest levels.
Some may cry out a lot of things, but this is this is the actual difference of what can be represented/ drag out from the shadows due the DR from the Sony sensor compared to Canon with high read out noise and banding .I have shown this at Dpreview and the Canon people are whining about exposure etc, sorry, both cameras are equally exposed and so the high lights are intact with full color resolution of the high lights ,and people who understand knows that the difference is shown from the two sensors at base iso = DR and banding or no banding. https://picasaweb.google.com/106266083120070292876/1dxOchD800?authkey=Gv1sRgCJTXhcv9-ffoMQ#5960001293156396034
I have 11 L lenses , paid since years back waiting for a Canon body with high resolution and great DR and no banding , Im not interested in a 18Mp sport camera , where are you Canon?
ggreene wrote:
Exactly, the whole scoring model is an arbitrary sham. Fortunately, you can at least see the actual measurements and get the truth. If I'm shooting in a cave like venue I know which sensor I want.
baloney, show me where you are comparing different sensors, Sony, Toshiba, Canon etc etc
Mikael Risedal wrote:
If I had to chose one sensor today it would be Sony 36Mp sensor, I have also Canon, Leica SLR and Hasselblad
NO sensor comes nearby Sony's CMOS.
This is 1dx and D800
A contrasty motive with half the street in shadows and half in sun shine, both D800 and 1dx at base iso and the same exposure, a crop from the the shadows and both cameras raw file equal handle, and the difference in lowest levels.
Some may cry out a lot of things, but this is this is the actual difference of what can be represented/ drag out from the shadows due the DR from the Sony sensor compared to Canon with high read out noise and banding . https://picasaweb.google.com/106266083120070292876/1dxOchD800?authkey=Gv1sRgCJTXhcv9-ffoMQ#5960001293156396034 ...Show more →
I don't know many who would argue that the Sony sensor with Nikon tweaks isn't the dogs. That's one part of the equation, there are many parts. These may be features on the same body, or related to the associated system as a whole. Only the individual can decide what features are important to them. I'm a good case for buying a D800, I'm pretty settled into keeping a body for a number of years. The D800 would certainly keep me going for a while! I'm not hugely invested in a system, so could make the move quite easily. I've also got over my 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L obsession (although I'd be lying if I said it was vanquished totally!), so have certainly been tempted by a move to Nikon and more lately Sony. The thing is I don't primarily shoot landscape, and whilst recovering shadows is definitely something I'd welcome. It's only a handful of shots from the last year where it would have been great to have. So I stay where I am with my 7 year old tech biding my time, either until a nicely priced 5D3 comes my way or some nice person offers to swap their D800 based kit for mine
I freely admit I'm just a happy snapper and not the more discerning individual that tends to frequent these boards, but I'm probably in the larger (more clueless! ) demographic. There is a lot a work out there taken with a 350D that I haven't been able to match, and I'm (nearly) smart enough to know that buying the latest and greatest isn't going to give me that on a plate. Although obviously better features surely make it easier
If Canon with the lazy ass could do something and not only talk BS, move to Sony, Toshiba , Panasonic or what ever, but they are so damn self-righteous and pompous, as I've written before, if we would believe in their marketing BS every time they release a new camera we would have a Canon camera today with 25-stops DR
Where are a high resolution 24x36mm camera with a DR as Sony?
Comparing crops of a 1DX with a D800 may be interesting but offers little real world meaning. So what? Do I bring the D800 instead of the 1DX to the pro sports shoot? The 1DX is made for pros who need a reliable and durable camera to shoot in a myriad of climates to please a client. How many pro sports shooters are turning in heavy crops of shadow regions to their clients?
and?
are all sport photographer? Got news for you , we are not, years ago they where bragging about their 1dsmk3 high resolution camera , but that was years ago, today they have no lines to make high resolution sensors, above 21Mp without large internal costs and no ideas of new read out to lower the noise.
And where is my new high resolution camera? Have YOU seen it
Mikael Risedal wrote:
If Canon with the lazy ass could do something and not only talk BS, move to Sony, Toshiba , Panasonic or what ever, but they are so damn self-righteous and pompous, as I've written before, if we would believe in their marketing BS every time they release a new camera we would have a Canon camera today with 25-stops DR
Where are a high resolution 24x36mm camera with a DR as Sony?
Interesting you label Canon as self righteous and pompous, as that is more how I feel towards Nikon. Their customer service in the UK at least isn't well regarded and I didn't like how they dealt with the D800 and D600 issues. Canon may have dropped the ball with the 5D3 light leak but they quickly acknowledged it and produced a fix. They have been great in my dealings with them so far.
B Landau wrote:
I am surprised at how old the process technology is for the current generation of image sensors. To put it into perspective, when I was working on CMOS image sensor technology more than 15 years ago we were using 0.35um design rules! The company I worked for abandoned that business because of the long term profit outlook.
