King of Low Light

M

Moab Man

Senior Member
It made me wonder if Canon has a you're not allowed to head-to-head compare our products with others? It's my best guess anyway.
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
Hhhmm. I'm starting to question their post since the D4 and even Canon 1Dx were not even included. D4 is supposed to have the same sensor as the Df.

Is Adorama bitter for not getting the sponsorship from Canon? ;)
 
W

WhiteLight

Senior Member
Ken Sult I find these tests impossible to believe. A Canon 5DMKIII not on the list and I know it smokes the D800 in about every aspect as I have used both several times. When it comes crunch time and you need that "one awesome shot" I reach for the Canon. I think lab tests are nice but take the cameras out on a location with low light (not artificial lab light) real light and see which one shines. Mason Resnick Hi Ken, thanks for your comments. The test results are specifically about how the camera sensors did in low light and high ISO conditions, not overall performance over all ISO settings and lighting conditions in the lab. I agree with you that lab results and field results may not always agree, but oftentimes personal taste plays a big role in interpreting results when not dealing with consistent settings and lighting. If you are pleased with your 5D MK III results, that's what counts. Dave Birch all one has to do is look at the camera well of any sporting event and see the ratio of photogs shooting canon v. nikon and you'll have your answer...(and i shoot sony, so i don't have "dog" in this fight)...canon is the winner by a light year Ken Sult Dave Birch yep I would even put my old faithful 7D up against them:p
Click to expand...
Never shot a Canon.. any truth in this?
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
WhiteLight said:
Never shot a Canon.. any truth in this?
Click to expand...

I'm not a technical expert or even close to being one but for us below average users, even if the D4s becomes the new king of low light will not even matter since the majority of us who are frequent posters cannot afford these high end cameras maybe less than 3% might be willing to upgrade.

So, it really boils down to use what you have but if you have a better camera, then it just makes it easier for us to accomplish what we intend to capture.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I have a lot of questions, including whether these guys did their own testing or just read through DxO Mark test results and made a blog about it. There is no list of cameras tested, and the first line of the second paragraph leads me to believe this is purely just the writer interpreting someone else's test results. Nothing new here.
 
D

dramtastic

Senior Member
King of the low light camera's? How is that even possible to quantify unless they are fitted with every low light lens in every low light condition(indoors/outdoors etc) before you submit the results? The newest, flashest feature pact camera body with a shit lens won't even beat a D3200(DX)/D3(FX) with a, insert whatever top end low light lens you want here, in low light conditions unless they have the same lens fitted IMO.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
dramtastic said:
King of the low light camera's? How is that even possible to quantify unless they are fitted with every low light lens in every low light condition(indoors/outdoors etc) before you submit the results? The newest, flashest feature pact camera body with a shit lens won't even beat a D3200(DX)/D3(FX) with a, insert whatever top end low light lens you want here, in low light conditions unless they have the same lens fitted IMO.
Click to expand...

It's very possible to quantify, and they specifically how they did in the second paragraph if you read the article - "Based on independent DxOMark lab test results, when looking at overall image quality when shooting at high ISOs". This is lens independent testing of sensor quality, which should yield an all other things being equal result. What credence you put in those results is up to the individual, but obviously there are combinations of glass and bodies that would change all of this.

Looking thru DxOMark's site it would seem that Adorama's results are based on the Sports-Low ISO numbers listed here, with the filtering off of discontinued cameras (D600) and anything considered a brand's "Professional" body, which is why the D3s, D4 and Canon 1Dx are not listed. It's a simple regurgitation of test results we've seen before meant to aid the high end consumer/enthusiast in making their choice.

Granted, it's all lab perfect results, and anyone can come up with real world cases that might show a different set of results, but it would take a lot of poking around and knowledge of optics to poke holes in their methodology, and given that no one has bothered I would have to assume that the science behind the measurements is solid. But, as they say in sports, it's not about how you look on paper, which is why they bother to play the game.
 
D

DraganDL

Senior Member
Something's fishy about this list - OK, for Df, but I am more than sure that ANY of the Fuji's models, starting with x100 (compact) and ending with XE... (mirrorless system), are by far superior to just ANY Sony's model, except, maybe, for A7R, in terms of noise handling at least... Hats off to Sony: no other camera producer is capable of designing cameras with such good sensors, yet with such low quality of picture details and stunningly stupid noise handling (filtering/compressing). And, thank GODs up above, no other producer is stupid enough to design "translucent mirror" alpha, beta, gamma, delta...omega...cameras...
 
Last edited:
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
DraganDL said:
Something's fishy about this list - OK, for Df, but I am more than sure that ANY of the Fuji's models, starting with x100 (compact) and ending with XE... (mirrorless system), are by far superior to just ANY Sony's model, except, maybe, for A7R, in terms of noise handling at least... Hats off to Sony: no other camera producer is capable of designing cameras with such good sensors, yet with such low quality of picture details and stunningly stupid noise handling (filtering/compressing).
Click to expand...

The High ISO numbers look awful for the Fujifilm stuff, but there's been complaints that the Fuji sensors don't respond well to DxOMark measurements. Again, it's lab results. Practical application is always a different kettle of fish.
 
D

DraganDL

Senior Member
BackdoorHippie said:
The High ISO numbers look awful for the Fujifilm stuff, but there's been complaints that the Fuji sensors don't respond well to DxOMark measurements. Again, it's lab results. Practical application is always a different kettle of fish.
Click to expand...

I've seen (on the Internet), portraits taken with X100S, at ISO 6400, under low & artificial light (kinda suppressed photoflood, I guess), jpgs straight out of camera. Under these conditions, Alpha99 (full frame, oops!) produces more noise at ISO 2000, and a human skin looks more like a mannequin doll's skin...
 
Last edited:
B

Brian

Senior Member
The Nikon Df performed better than the D4, even though both cameras have the same sensor. Some have attribute this to the slower read-out rate of the Df. Electronics emit RF, that gets translated to noise. Slowing down the electronics reduces noise. The other explanation could be that the Df has less packed into it than the D4. Less electronics, less noise to be picked up. Eliminating sources of noise is easier than isolating and shielding against it.


Reading the Adorama article, it looks like a re-hash.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
DraganDL said:
I've seen (on the Internet), portraits taken with X100S, at ISO 6400, under low & artificial light (kinda suppressed photoflood, I guess), jpgs straight out of camera. Under these conditions, Alpha99 (full frame, oops!) produces more noise at ISO 2000, and a human skin looks more like a mannequin doll's skin...
Click to expand...

Now I know I've heard that Fuji and Canon both have extremely good in-camera noise reduction software, which may be what you saw in the jpegs, while DxOMark is likely just looking at raw sensor data. While Nikon clearly has superior sensors to Canon currently, to a person I've heard that Canon matches or beats them with low light jpegs straight from the camera - at least with the pro level bodies.
 
Top