mttran wrote:
It takes more than measument of the pixel level to be A KING. Camera is an integration system and should be measured at the integration system level. DxO is an incomplete camera test. DxO provides only the sensor reading at the signal level but not the whole picture.
DxO doesn't factor in resolution or acuity - if they did, the rankings of the top 10 cameras would probably be reversed.
bobbytan wrote:
Canon had become very complacent and Nikon caught them napping. Nikon has been working very hard to improve their cameras and lens line. Now they have 3 fabulous FF bodies and truly deserve to occupy the top 3 positions in the DXO Rankings. And the resolution from their newer zoom lenses are prime-lens quality. Stunning progress. I am pretty sure they will occupy the top spot for at least another couple of years. Canon is now playing catch up.
and all the canonfanboys got on me when I got on canon for resting on their laurels, told me a was just being silly and that canon knew best....
that said until the D800 comes out the 5dmkii does make it an incomplete story however, as there is no reasonably priced nikon with decent reach for cropping or for high quality video. So canon still does have some advantage, but they could've had it all and more.
mttran wrote:
It takes more than measument of the pixel level to be A KING. Camera is an integration system and should be measured at the integration system level. DxO is an incomplete camera test. DxO provides only the sensor reading at the signal level but not the whole picture.
true but the D700 has better fps/mirror/shutter/viewfinder/ultra-wide zoom/normal zoom and camera features on many points, etc. although it does loose badly for MP (reach or details for large prints or ultra hi-res monitor viewing) and video and cost of super-teles, etc.
Correct me if i am wrong, I think what was meant by the 70-200 covering the full sensor was in reference to vignetting issues. Seems like I read that somewhere. I definitely could be mistaken.
chez wrote:
Maybe not, but it sure is nice to have the choice of which 6-8 stops you are going to print. If the original does not have the range...then you have no choice.
I'm curious about this, as it relates to my primary display method. I print very little, but for the most part display my photo's on an LCD TV (Sony) via my Apple TV. Will this enhanced DR make a difference for me?
george malamis wrote:
HDR is a completely different animal in that it is artificial rather than a traditional photograph and a completely different argument.
George,
Why do you say that? I've been shooting a lot of bracketed exposure shots, in anticipation of some 30 day trials of HDR software. In doing so it's clear that the eye (how I would define natural) sees more DR than the camera, making the merging of multiple exposures closer to what the eye sees than a single exposure shot. I'll agree, some of the artsy HDR processed exposures go over the top on DR, looking artificial, but wouldn't a wider DR or HDR process bracketed exposures be closer to "natural".
I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to learn.
What you're doing with HDR is similar to using neutral density filters to capture a scene which otherwise has too much DR, but more selective. In a landscape for example with filters, how do you expose for the setting sun while not getting the foreground to go black etc - you attempt with the filter to block the light from the horizon by a couple stops and expose for the foreground normally. So you're altering exposure in parts of the scene to get it all in one frame. So in HDR, by merging different exposures, you're actually trying to reduce the DR of the scene as it appears naturally so that everything is exposed properly on your monitor. The only problem is that when you look at many HDR images, as a photographer you know that there's no way to get that shot and things that should be in shadow are not. I'm not saying HDR is a gimmick, but it can be overdone, and is different than the DR that your camera can capture.
It doesn't have to be but 99% of HDR images are overdone. Likewise with normal images/exposures. More than 50% of digital photos are over-processed in Photoshop .... but that is mostly by design - as most of us want our pictures to look as good as possible i.e. looking even more saturated than Velvia film!
robsuh wrote:
I believe that the dxo test doesn't measure details captured since the test doesn't use a lens. In this case I believe nikon is trading detail for dr. I believe this because the 12mpix 5d shows much better detail than the 12mpix D3
For people that subscribe to diglloyds paid blog there is a resolution test between D3X and 1DsIII. It wouldn't be appropriate to disclose the results, but it is sufficient to say that potential buyers of either cam should consider reading his tests. I am very impressed by the high standard of his technical reviews.
Yes... but unfortunately it's not really usable on full frame beyond the 150mm setting, due to light falloff and rather severe degradation of image sharpness. It's a lens that was designed for DX, and the new batch of FX cameras from Nikon are showing just poor it really is.
DXO Mark is a joke. Its heavily Nikon biased (maybe its true, but I doubt it) and I don't see any proof their tests are sound. But maybe thats just me?
ichiro17 wrote:
DXO Mark is a joke. Its heavily Nikon biased (maybe its true, but I doubt it) and I don't see any proof their tests are sound. But maybe thats just me?
Seems like any site that shows Nikon ahead of Canon in some form is all of a sudden a joke and Nikon biased. Tell me one site that you think is not Nikon biased...wait, it is the site that gives great reviews for Canon cameras.
32067dlm wrote:
How will you know you have more DR? By the histogram? What's the DR of your monitor?
My paper can't show it. My monitor can't display it, but that sure is a pretty histogram!
Not this old chestnut again. Just because monitors and prints can't display 13 stops of DR it doesn't mean the extra DR is not valuable! It's all about the tone mapping choices made in processing. If the camera is not recording detail in the highlights and shadows, you can't pull it out in processing.
