'Dynamic Range' handling

[ketan]

Hi,

I have been reading on the net about Canon's dismal performance in 'Dynamic Range' handling versus Nikon.

What is this?

Ketan

 

[The_Traveler]

https://www.google.com/search?q=dyn...j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

 

[KmH]

Understanding Dynamic Range in Digital Photography

 

[Derrel]

It's mentioned and shown in this video. He tries to be objective, so he does not dwell on one camera's advantages or disadvantages. One needs to keep in mind that Canon has been using the same basic Canon-made sensor in its APS-C models since the 7D's 18-MP sensor premiered in 2009. Nikon has been using both Sony, and Toshiba-manufactured sensors since that time, and has not been re-usingf the same, exact 18-MP sensor in five different, sequential camera models.

 

[runnah]

It's mentioned and shown in this video.

Wow, the video maker and I certainly have different definitions of "epic".

 

[Juga]

It's mentioned and shown in this video. He tries to be objective, so he does not dwell on one camera's advantages or disadvantages. One needs to keep in mind that Canon has been using the same basic Canon-made sensor in its APS-C models since the 7D's 18-MP sensor premiered in 2009. Nikon has been using both Sony, and Toshiba-manufactured sensors since that time, and has not been re-usingf the same, exact 18-MP sensor in five different, sequential camera models.

At least they are consistent.

 

[enzodm]

Canon has been using the same basic Canon-made sensor in its APS-C models since the 7D's 18-MP sensor premiered in 2009.

70D sensor is not the same as 7D (might not be better, but indeed is not the same). Unfortunately Canon is optimizing more for video than for photography, although I discovered from the video that 70D is better at ISO6400 and over (somewhat unexpected).

 

[Derrel]

Here is another example showing Nikon's better handling of scene dynamic range, this time in video footage shot with the D600 on the left, and the Canon 6D on the right. Look at the segment beginning at the 25:35 mark.

You can see the Canon is totally plugging up the shadow areas, while the Nikon has enough dynamic range to show the highlights AND also to reveal some detail in the shadows. Based on DxO Mark testing, the Nikon has a dynamic range of 14.2 EV, while the Canon 6D has a dynamic range of 12.1 EV, as seen here: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-6D-versus-Nikon-D600___836_834

 

[ketan]

Thanks

Isn't this enough to prove superiority of Nikon technology over Canon..? Why we keep seeing endless arguments about Nikon vs Canon..

 

[robbins.photo]

Thanks

Isn't this enough to prove superiority of Nikon technology over Canon..? Why we keep seeing endless arguments about Nikon vs Canon..

Ok, well can't believe I'm weighing in on this one.. and for all of those Nikon folks out there who might be tempted to charge guns blazing keep in mind I'm a Nikon shooter myself - but here goes.

Ketan, imagine that you your going out on the river and your goal is to catch catfish. The river's depth varies, a lot - and especially in situations where your going after cat your likely to find yourself in some pretty shallow areas. As a result when you go to buy a boat the best value for your dollar is probably going to be a flat bottom river boat. You'll want what they call a "trolling" motor, a low speed very quiet motor that doesn't move the boat very fast but it will allow you to get up and down the river without scaring the living snot out of every fish in the area and making them leave.

Now imagine that your shopping for a boat and instead of fishing the river for catfish your goal is to take your family out to water ski on weekends. In that case a flat bottom river boat with a trolling motor is about the last thing in the world your going to need. Your going to want a speed boat. The speed boat wouldn't be your best choice for fishing, and your flat bottom river boat isn't your best choice for water skiing. That doesn't make one boat "better" or "superior" to the other.

That's pretty much how I see the Canon vrs Nikon debate. I prefer the Nikon because I prefer the higher still image quality in the cameras that were within my budget at the time I purchased. The Nikon was the better option.. for me. Someone else might have chosen a Canon because they were less concerned about image quality but more concerned about FPS - because that might be a better choice for them depending on the type of pictures they take most.

So me, I'm going to sit my happy keester down and enjoy a pepsi. And if some other guy out their grabs a coke instead, well I'll drink a toast to that and not try to convince him that Pepsi is better.

 

[ketan]

Thanks Robbins, I use Canon and thanks for making me feel that Canon is no less than Nikon. The video by Derrel is an eye opener. Esp in video at 25:38, there is no Pepsi vs Coke, it is good or bad, success or failure

 

[pgriz]

Well, the tests show the technical sides of the equipment. However, for most shooting situations, how much would such a difference matter? Those photographers who can wring every bit of performance out of their equipment (be it dynamic range, or resolution, or something else) have my admiration and respect, but I'm not sure I'd see the difference in most circumstances. Personally, I'm still trying to make images that push a little bit past "pretty" to hopefully involve at least a flicker of emotion. Which camera/lens combination do you think will help me with that?

 

[Overread14 2]

Camera bodies change year to year - A few years ago Nikon couldn't touch Canon for Canon's superior ISO handling - now the ball has changed sides. So much of the body debate is only short term and its foolish to try and always have "the best" because the best will change - heck if you want the best build quality and weathersealing you'd be likely to get a Pentax

Also some of these performance tests are not make or break - indeed they can often only be important at the extreme end of things.

Then there is the lens line up - whilst Canon and Nikon do have very complete and well rounded setups there are some lenses in each line that really shine over the others (Nikon for example has some really good wide angle lenses - whilst Canon has some unique options like the MPE 65mm macro). Then you've flash systems and other aspects.


In the end though both brands can do anything and most die hard brand fanatics would be fanatics no matter what brand they bought.

 

[Derrel]

The technical superiority of Nikon over Canon is largely because Canon continues to use old, outdated sensor fabrication technology which uses a .50 micron process, while Sony has updated its sensor fabrication to the simply, newer, BETTER .18 micron process. The sensors made on newer fabrication machinery are simply of a newer, better technology. It's a simple differenmce. Here, take a look at Fred Miranda's side-by-side testing of the Nikon D800 and the Canon 5D Mark III, using the same, exact Zeiss lens on both cameras, by way of a lens adapter. Part II - Controlled tests

This shows the difference between Sony's new sensor technology, and the older technology that Canon is using. The way I see it, a camera company can either procure better sensors, like Nikon has done, or continue to use older sensor technology in order to keep profits higher. A company can either make better cameras, or try to make higher profits by selling the same old stuff, generation after generation, and refusing to spend the money needed to update its sensor fab technology. It's a choice. It's a lot like a computer manufacture resisting the moves to newer, faster, better processor hardware architecture. At some point in time, the companies that DO MOVE to newer, better semiconductor industry manufacturing techniques start to pull ahead.

 

[robbins.photo]

The technical superiority of Nikon over Canon is largely because Canon continues to use old, outdated sensor fabrication technology which uses a .50 micron process, while Sony has updated its sensor fabrication to the simply, newer, BETTER .18 micron process. The sensors made on newer fabrication machinery are simply of a newer, better technology. It's a simple differenmce. Here, take a look at Fred Miranda's side-by-side testing of the Nikon D800 and the Canon 5D Mark III, using the same, exact Zeiss lens on both cameras, by way of a lens adapter. Part II - Controlled tests

This shows the difference between Sony's new sensor technology, and the older technology that Canon is using. The way I see it, a camera company can either procure better sensors, like Nikon has done, or continue to use older sensor technology in order to keep profits higher. A company can either make better cameras, or try to make higher profits by selling the same old stuff, generation after generation, and refusing to spend the money needed to update its sensor fab technology. It's a choice. It's a lot like a computer manufacture resisting the moves to newer, faster, better processor hardware architecture. At some point in time, the companies that DO MOVE to newer, better semiconductor industry manufacturing techniques start to pull ahead.

Ok, Devils Advocate time here - lol. I wonder if perhaps Canon's thought process on this isn't at least to a certain extent, "Our current sensor is good enough at least for now". It seems at least from an outsiders point of view that they are putting more emphasis on video and less on still images at least in most of their entry level to mid range offerings.