Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sensor dynamic range and native ISO
#11
It still is not true that Nikon and Sony are filtering noise from low ISO/base ISO RAW, and you are not correcting in that claim. And the high ISO long exposure example still really has no bearing on base ISO DR discussions.

Nikon filtered noise from JPEG back at that time in for instance the D300 and D40, which skewed reviews that were mostly looking at JPEG output at the time.
#12
(06-26-2020, 09:35 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: It still is not true that Nikon and Sony are filtering noise from low ISO/base ISO RAW, and you are not correcting in that claim. And the high ISO long exposure example still really has no bearing on base ISO DR discussions.

Nikon filtered noise from JPEG back at that time in for instance the D300 and D40, which skewed reviews that were mostly looking at JPEG output at the time.
There is proof for it, but I do not feel it is important enough to try and convince you otherwise. Someday you may find it yourself.

Regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 1 zoom, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#13
Sure, very convincing, wim.
#14
To update on this old thread:

I wrote about how DXO totally messed up the data, coming up with nonsense conclusions about the Canon 1D X mark III sensor.
I just now discovered for myself that DXO has since changed the review. Not sure when they did that, because the posting date reads "June 19, 2020", but that was the date of the original, totally nonsensical review.
https://www.dxomark.com/canon-eos-1d-x-m...or-review/

Now it is more in line with photonstophotos measurements.

Seems like a pattern with DXO, posting wrong results with a lot of fanfare of Canon stuff, and then either not correct, or correct later in silence, when the damage has been done. Oh well.
#15
(08-01-2020, 05:48 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: Seems like a pattern with DXO, posting wrong results with a lot of fanfare of Canon stuff, and then either not correct, or correct later in silence, when the damage has been done. Oh well.

Damage is more to DXO than Canon IMHO
#16
(08-01-2020, 06:54 PM)toni-a Wrote:
(08-01-2020, 05:48 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: Seems like a pattern with DXO, posting wrong results with a lot of fanfare of Canon stuff, and then either not correct, or correct later in silence, when the damage has been done. Oh well.

Damage is more to DXO than Canon IMHO

You know how many here really think the highest DR matters... It is the same on other forums. There are bound to be some who would have gotten the 1D X mk III without the DXO nonsense, and now have not. And just look at AP, who will make all their photographers shoot with the Sony A9 II instead of Canon 1D X mk III. Some managers make these decisions with Sony marketing and nonsense from sources like DXO.
Same with botched lens reviews by DXOmark...
#17
(08-01-2020, 06:48 AM)toni-a Wrote: Suddenly, overheating became the main issue of cameras while it has been there for a long time and nobody cared.... first it was megapixel race, nobody talked about dynamic range, then suddenly dynamic range became the main issue, now overheating at video resolutions very few need is the main trend....
We are discussing birds autofocus and animal eye autofocus, then overheating pops...
And still my main issue with mirrorless autofocus hasn't been assessed, locking on the subject is it as fast as in modern DSLRs ? locking on the subject not tracking after autofocus has bitten on the subject .
In a football match autofocus has locked on a player, mirrorless tracking will track him perfectly and all shots will be in sharp focus no doubt about that, however you need to switch to another player, will mirrorless autofocus locked instantly on the new player and start tracking as fast as a modern DSLR or I would lose a precious fraction of a second before it starts tracking ??

(08-01-2020, 08:01 PM)Brightcolours Wrote:
(08-01-2020, 06:54 PM)toni-a Wrote:
(08-01-2020, 05:48 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: Seems like a pattern with DXO, posting wrong results with a lot of fanfare of Canon stuff, and then either not correct, or correct later in silence, when the damage has been done. Oh well.

Damage is more to DXO than Canon IMHO

You know how many here really think the highest DR matters... It is the same on other forums. There are bound to be some who would have gotten the 1D X mk III without the DXO nonsense, and now have not. And just look at AP, who will make all their photographers shoot with the Sony A9 II instead of Canon 1D X mk III. Some managers make these decisions with Sony marketing and nonsense from sources like DXO.
Same with botched lens reviews by DXOmark...

I understand DXO is supported by Sony and Nikon, but not by Canon .....

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 1 zoom, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)