NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Frank Fremerey on October 09, 2017, 07:31:09
-
OLD DATA as of 9 OCT: Here is the comparison D750 (green) vs D850 (blue) when it comes to PDR
NEW DATA on 15 OCT suggest this new graph d750 (black), d850 (blue):
-
Thanks Frank. Interesting stuff. Can you tell us the site so Mongo can look up other comparoisons.
-
http://www.photonstophotos.net
-
Here is the comparison D750 (green) vs D850 (blue) when it comes to PDR:
Frannk, how do you read that chart. To me it looks like the D850 is farther to the left (ISO 64), while the C750 is more to the right. What an I not seeing?
-
Thanks Frank! I've logged these charts. The real-world datapoints of the D850 at ISO 64 stand out. These dots cannot be finite points wrt each model. We are well acquainted where variance in quality shows up in a lens :-) So, I question :
1. What is the intra-populational variation across sensors for a camera, including between batches? If there's variation , how much do these differences matter between different copies of the same camera?
2. Is it mainly the differences in noise that stand out in what we actually see in images taken at ISOs above 3200? And there are software solutions to reduce noise in post processing.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D4,Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D500,Nikon%20D750,Nikon%20D850
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Nikon%20D4_14,Nikon%20D5_14,Nikon%20D500_14,Nikon%20D750_14,Nikon%20D810_14,Nikon%20D850_14
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Shadow.htm#Nikon%20D4,Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D750,Nikon%20D810,Nikon%20D850
I've been shooting my D850 since last Tuesday and am in awe at the results across all ISOs even 12800. Admittedly, I don't have a D750 or D5 for direct comparisons of the same scenes. Above and beyond any pedantic details in its inner workings, I'm utterly delighted with this new Nikon to compliment my D500 and Df. So far, I have been mainly shooting flying birds. I'm keen to see how the AF performs against the excellent D500.
I cannot yet pick up any significant differences between these 2 AF systems (as we know the D5 system). The brilliant viewfinder of the D850 stands out. But the full spread of focus-points across the D500 screen remains a definite advantage in action shooting. One also gets high continuous shooting (10fps) in a D500, without the tax paying for the Grip, MH18a battery (+charger) - pricey prerequisites for the D850 to shoot at 9fps
-
I guess these small differences are probably not very significant from the point of view of practical applications (compared to the large differences in feature sets, body size and handling etc.) and they show different emphasis in sensor design.
My favorite metric is DxOMark's color sensitivity measure.
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D850-versus-Nikon-D750___1177_975
Click measurements / Color sensitivity to get to those graphs.
Ultimately practical use and evaluation of the results in one's application reveals the value of the different tools.
-
Frank, how do you read that chart. To me it looks like the D850 is farther to the left (ISO 64), while the C750 is more to the right. What an I not seeing?
The higher the point, the more PDR is measured by the site owner who creates these charts (other sites deliver different results using different methods).
Here is the interesting part, zoomed in ( http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D750,Nikon%20D850 )
-
My intention posting these is to keep anyone from thinking it is necessary to get the D850 for better Dynamic Range.
There are millions of arguments to get a D850 like AF, 7/9 fps, color accuracy and differentiation, battery life....
-
Frank, your view is in conflict with everyone else on the planet.
You might want to note the actual language on the Photons to Photos site you reference(in red even): Preliminary data are actual measurements from raw files but not those taken under the usual controlled conditions.
In other words, you're citing unrefined data. Photons to Photos then recommends the reader "see DxOMark Photographic Dynamic Range Chart (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm#Nikon%20D750,Nikon%20D850)." I'll post the screen grab for you:
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2017/10-2017/d850.jpg)
Moving from Photons to Photos to DxO Mark, you might want to read their latest article (https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-d850-sensor-review-first-dslr-hit-100-points). To quote, they say:
- "The D850’s key strengths are its outstanding color (Portrait score) and dynamic range (Landscape score) at base ISO where it again ranks as the number one among all commercially available cameras we’ve tested for these attributes. Offering outstanding dynamic range of 14.8 EV and color depth of 26.4 bit at base ISO, combined with its massive 45.7Mp resolution, the D850 is a mouthwatering prospect for landscape, studio, portrait, as well as high-end editorial or advertising photographers who are seeking top-notch image quality for large-scale reproduction and display."
In DxO's comparision (https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D850-versus-Nikon-D750___1177_975), the D850 beats the D750 pretty much across the board. Here are some screen grabs from DxO Mark showing the differences (SNR and Tonal Range are near identical; however, Dynamic Range and Color Sensitivity favor the D850 throughout):
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2017/10-2017/d8501.jpg)
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2017/10-2017/d8502.jpg)
Granted, the D750 is a very good camera, arguably the better value.
However, when you factor in the AF, the sensor-size, the FPS, combined with the absolute best you can do in color/DR, the D850 earns its #1 spot among all cameras available today ... and the D750 its #11 spot.
-
Frank, your view is in conflict with everyone else on the planet.
You might want to note the actual language on the Photons to Photos site you reference(in red even): Preliminary data are actual measurements from raw files but not those taken under the usual controlled conditions.
In other words, you're citing unrefined data. Photons to Photos then recommends the reader "see DxOMark Photographic Dynamic Range Chart (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm#Nikon%20D750,Nikon%20D850)." I'll post the screen grab for you:
Moving from Photons to Photos to DxO Mark, you might want to read their latest article (https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-d850-sensor-review-first-dslr-hit-100-points). To quote, they say:
- "The D850’s key strengths are its outstanding color (Portrait score) and dynamic range (Landscape score) at base ISO where it again ranks as the number one among all commercially available cameras we’ve tested for these attributes. Offering outstanding dynamic range of 14.8 EV and color depth of 26.4 bit at base ISO, combined with its massive 45.7Mp resolution, the D850 is a mouthwatering prospect for landscape, studio, portrait, as well as high-end editorial or advertising photographers who are seeking top-notch image quality for large-scale reproduction and display."
In DxO's comparision (https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D850-versus-Nikon-D750___1177_975), the D850 beats the D750 pretty much across the board. Here are some screen grabs from DxO Mark showing the differences (SNR and Tonal Range are near identical; however, Dynamic Range and Color Sensitivity favor the D850 throughout):
Granted, the D750 is a very good camera, arguably the better value.
However, when you factor in the AF, the sensor-size, the FPS, combined with the absolute best you can do in color/DR, the D850 earns its #1 spot among all cameras available today ... and the D750 its #11 spot.
My view is the view of the Author of Photon to Photos William J. Claff.. He writes:
DxOMark Investigations and DxOMark Derived Data (Ball (magenta)interactive charts Ball (cyan) interactive tables Ball (blue)articles). Data is derived from data available at DxOMark. In general these results are less reliable than those actually measured and presented in the previous Investigations section.
In opposition to what you say, Bill's own investigation seems more trustworthy to him than the DXO-Data!
-
PS: I had my D850 preordered and after one month of heavy shooting I am still very happy with her. you can read my comments on the experience with my D850 all over the place.
-
In opposition to what you say, Bill's own investigation seems more trustworthy to him than the DXO-Data!
DXO give engineering DR and SNR for 18% gray. From these to get the "photographing DR" (using threshold SNR = 20) I believe some kind of modeling / interpolation may have to be used, so presenting PDR from DXO data is an approximation. That doesn't invalidate the data DXO presented by DxO themselves (they're just different measures).
I believe Bill Claff's site marks those cameras which are estimated from images that were not shot in a controlled way using a symbol such as (e) or (p). Initially the D850 had one of those letters behind it in the legend, but then those were replaced by new data which is apparently measured using a controlled procedure and that symbol indicating estimated or preliminary data was dropped. However, I don't know how controlled the procedure is; I would think a company such as DXO which do all the measurements and analysis in house can control the process to be more precisely the same for all cameras. But any measurement procedures over long term can be subject to human error and variability in conditions. I do believe each site make their best effort to provide valuable data.
Also it is good to remember that there are differences which are not measured by these procedures. For example the D800 strongly clips blacks at high ISO, leading to problems in its use for astrophotography (where averaging is commonly used to image faint objects). In the D810 this issue was greatly alleviated. This is discussed in Jim Kasson's blog in depth, it is worth reading. I remember also seeing comparisons that show that the D750 handles long exposures at high ISO really well, but I don't remember which web site it was. Some other cameras are reported to produce increased noise after being used for longer exposures.
I would not recommend using a single source of sensor data to make camera-buying decisions. Study multiple sources of information, and consider also the feature set, not just numerical data. For most people the feature set is probably more important than small differences in sensor image quality. And for those special applications where the differences in sensors do matter, one would be best off to test the cameras in the application itself to be sure.
-
Frannk, how do you read that chart. To me it looks like the D850 is farther to the left (ISO 64), while the C750 is more to the right. What an I not seeing?
dynamic range here is shadow to highlight detail measured in bits (powers of 2).. i personally don't put much stock in these curves and question the method of their construction as somewhat obscure and arbitrary.. however, i would read these as essentially the same.. since they are within 1/2 bit of each other if they were accurately calculated... fractions of a bit...
what i would like to see is more bits.. exceeding 14 bits.. like 20 bits.. i am waiting for this.
-
To get 20 bits of dynamic range you can estimate the ISO required by extrapolating from the graph; something like ISO 0.1 would get you started :) But you could just do series of exposures and average them in software.
-
To get 20 bits of dynamic range you can estimate the ISO required by extrapolating from the graph; something like ISO 0.1 would get you started :) But you could just do series of exposures and average them in software.
Yeah. there needs to be a technology innovation to adjust the slope. But you get my point.
-
Yeah. there needs to be a technology innovation to adjust the slope. But you get my point.
There can not be such an advancement. The number of photons detected dictates the maximum SNR that can be achieved and that in turns sets a cap on dynamic range as well. Bill Claff's site give the Ideal FX sensor curve which is the theoretical maximum that can be achieved.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Ideal%20FF/FX,Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D750,Nikon%20D850
I guess if the color filter array is removed and a monochrome sensor is made then there can be further improvement.
-
There can not be such an advancement. The number of photons detected dictates the maximum SNR that can be achieved and that in turns sets a cap on dynamic range as well. Bill Claff's site give the Ideal FX sensor curve which is the theoretical maximum that can be achieved.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Ideal%20FF/FX,Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D750,Nikon%20D850
I guess if the color filter array is removed and a monochrome sensor is made then there can be further improvement.
Hyvää iltaa, Ilkka!
Interesting chart you quote there ... meaning the D5 starts to be the ideal camera at ISO 2546 ... but the D750 still rules from ISO50 to ISO400 which was what I said from the beginning.
Or, in other words, Theory meets practice here: It is harder to meet the ideal in low ISO performance than it is to reach it in high ISO performance.
Näkemiin
Frank
-
My view is the view of the Author of Photon to Photos William J. Claff.. He writes:
DxOMark Investigations and DxOMark Derived Data (Ball (magenta)interactive charts Ball (cyan) interactive tables Ball (blue)articles). Data is derived from data available at DxOMark. In general these results are less reliable than those actually measured and presented in the previous Investigations section.
In opposition to what you say, Bill's own investigation seems more trustworthy to him than the DXO-Data!
Of course Bill trusts his own investigation more than DxO Mark; otherwise, why even have a website?
Trouble is, Bill's quote doesn't really square with his own disclaimer (which he himself puts in red): Preliminary data are actual measurements from raw files but not those taken under the usual controlled conditions.
One has to wonder why have an all-red disclaimer, and why the link to DxO, if he truly believes his results are better?
(I don't see DxO Mark presenting a similar red disclaimer or pointing to Bill's site as a better solution ... )
To me, that's the difference.
Point aside, at the end of the day, both graphs are fairly-close and both cameras are very nice.
But let's consider the rest of the world and every other website: I have never seen any site compare the D750 to "ultra-clean, medium format Base ISO DR" ... like I have seen every site compare the D810 and (now) the D850 to medium format.
If anything, the general consensus is the D750 only eclipsed the D810 at higher ISOs, which it does not do with the D850.
So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree as to which site is more conclusive.
-
but the D750 still rules from ISO50 to ISO400 which was what I said from the beginning.
Again, he's quoting the non-standardized chart (the page with the red disclaimer).
I know you prefer Bill Claff's unrefined data, but here's the link Bill's own site points to for more refined data: "see DxOMark Photographic Dynamic Range Chart (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D750,Nikon%20D850)."
I guess it boils down to "what you choose to believe," and in both cases they're very close.
-
The disclaimer only applies to the cameras marked with (p). Where final data is available he seems to prefer it to use instead of dxomark derived data.
-
Thank you Ilkka
-
I don't car (much) about the high ISO range. For my work, only the lower ISO range is important. Lloyd Chambers recently points out the with the D850, not only is the ISO 64 of the D850 equal to that on the D810, but that with the D850 (when used carefully), the ISO 31 is better than the the IS 64. I have yet to verify that, but I will check it out soon.
-
Michael: the Color rendition of the D850 is much better than anything we have seen before. That is especially true for low ISO. I am looking forward to using her in the field with my Sinar and the Schneider APO Digitar!!!
Our academic discussion here is about the Dynamic Range. In a controlled lighting environment like your Studio PDR is not so important
-
The disclaimer only applies to the cameras marked with (p). Where final data is available he seems to prefer it to use instead of dxomark derived data.
Okay, fair enough. But, while he may trust his own methods, it doesn't make them correct.
When two different results obtain, one has to then look at all the other evidence. Again, DxO Mark says (https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-d850-sensor-review-first-dslr-hit-100-points/), "(the D850's) outstanding color (Portrait score) and dynamic range (Landscape score) at base ISO where it again ranks as the number one among all commercially available cameras we’ve tested for these attributes."
Virtually every other reviewer on the planet agrees the D850 is the benchmark.
- I think this is the most detailed image of its kind (bristlecone) that I have ever made (as of Oct 2017). The detail that it includes in the wood grain is quite incredible considering the near foreground all the way to the end of the tree trunk at top left. I credit the Nikon D850 45-megapixel sensor with getting this image to a level I have not yet seen out of any DSLR, resolving extremely fine wood grain detail. Of course, the world class performande of the Zeiss Milvus 35/1.4 did its part. The extra resolution along with the pixel quality is stunning.
~ Diglloyd (https://diglloyd.com), publicly-posted
- "Instead of going for a Sony-developed sensor, Nikon decided to design the sensor for the D850 on its own and have it produced by a different manufacturer, as it has done a number of times in the past in cameras like Nikon D3 and D700.
"... the Nikon D850 shows yet again class-leading performance in sensor performance, which is exciting to see.
"... the D850 is the best Nikon DSLR we have tested to date."
Photography Life (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d850)
I have never seen any statements like this, regarding the D750, from any other reviewing site, ever.
In fact, Nikon Corporation itself chose the D850 as its celebrated 100 year iconic release, even making a video announcement of its capabilities ... before it was quite there ... while the release of the D750 carried no such fanfare.
If you look at the D850's product page (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/1585/d850.html), Nikon boasts, "The lowest base ISO (ISO 64) of any DSLR or mirrorless camera," while there is no such hyperbole on the D750's product page (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/1543/d750.html).
Nikon is comparing its own D850 to every DSLR or mirrorless camera on earth, yet makes no such comparison with the D750.
Does it really make sense to believe Nikon itself does not know which camera to push forward as its own "Champion" with respect to the lowest/best base ISO scores? :o
I guess the question thus becomes: is everyone in the parade out of step with Bill's graph, or is Bill's graph out of step with everyone else in the parade, including the manufacturer?
As before, we all are free to choose what to believe, and I choose to believe the latter.
-
Concerning the control set the D500 and D850 both would be very acceptable to me. The D750 while a very nice camera lacks one button I'd need for run and gun type shooting. I'll also note that I find the "game pad" multi-selector frustrating when I need to move the focus point quickly. I bird sit for a friend and while do this I photograph her large cockatoo. The bird is constantly moving it's head and focus must be on the eye. It's very difficult to keep the focus point where it's needed. DoF is to small and head movement to frequent to use focus and recompose. Anything thing that would cut a fraction of a second in placing the focus point would help. The D500 and D850 would seem ideal with the dedicated focus point joystick.
I'm quite sure the control set of the D500 and D850 would be a welcome relief.
The control set of the D800 is quite good for me.
The control set of the D750 would cause more frustrations.
In the end the D850 would probably be a great advancement for me. I can't afford one at this time.
Dave Hartman
-
How is the color moiré of the Nikon D850? If color moiré troubling with my D800.
Dave Hartman
-
In the bird case the D500 would give you more freedom to compose. She has focus points up to the borders
Concerning the control set the D500 and D850 both would be very acceptable to me. The D750 while a very nice camera lacks one button I'd need for run and gun type shooting. I'll also note that I find the "game pad" multi-selector frustrating when I need to move the focus point quickly. I bird sit for a friend and while do this I photograph her large cockatoo. The bird is constantly moving it's head and focus must be on the eye. It's very difficult to keep the focus point where it's needed. DoF is to small and head movement to frequent to use focus and recompose. Anything thing that would cut a fraction of a second in placing the focus point would help. The D500 and D850 would seem ideal with the dedicated focus point joystick.
I'm quite sure the control set of the D500 and D850 would be a welcome relief.
The control set of the D800 is quite good for me.
The control set of the D750 would cause more frustrations.
In the end the D850 would probably be a great advancement for me. I can't afford one at this time.
Dave Hartman
-
Concerning the control set the D500 and D850 both would be very acceptable to me. The D750 while a very nice camera lacks one button I'd need for run and gun type shooting. I'll also note that I find the "game pad" multi-selector frustrating when I need to move the focus point quickly. I bird sit for a friend and while do this I photograph her large cockatoo. The bird is constantly moving it's head and focus must be on the eye. It's very difficult to keep the focus point where it's needed. DoF is to small and head movement to frequent to use focus and recompose. Anything thing that would cut a fraction of a second in placing the focus point would help.
Surely 3-D tracking would be just about perfect in this situation?
-
I bird sit for a friend and while do this I photograph her large cockatoo. The bird is constantly moving it's head and focus must be on the eye. It's very difficult to keep the focus point where it's needed.
I actually use the multiselector instead of the joystick when shooting horizontals but obviously use the joystick for verticals. I guess it is a question of habit/familiarity but I also ... like the gamepad because with it is easier to avoid accidentally pressing the button in (which has a different function). But I don't know how other people find it, perhaps it is seen advantageous. If I switched the joystick press to no function then maybe I could use it more easily.
I would try D9 on the Multi-CAM 20k cameras for this kind of scenario that you describe and instead of moving the focus point around, and follow the bird's eye with the primary selected AF point by moving the lens. The camera should then use the assisting points to keep focusing on the bird for those short periods of time where the primary point is not on the eye. D9 is available on the D5 and D850.
I don't continuously move the focus point around when shooting; I prefer to set it for a desired composition and then shoot until the point has to be moved to continue shooting. Then I adjust the framing in post if necessary. I would not feel comfortable frequently trying to adjust the position of the selected point while shooting.
-
DXO give engineering DR and SNR for 18% gray. From these to get the "photographing DR" (using threshold SNR = 20) I believe some kind of modeling / interpolation may have to be used, so presenting PDR from DXO data is an approximation. That doesn't invalidate the data DXO presented by DxO themselves (they're just different measures).
I believe Bill Claff's site marks those cameras which are estimated from images that were not shot in a controlled way using a symbol such as (e) or (p). Initially the D850 had one of those letters behind it in the legend, but then those were replaced by new data which is apparently measured using a controlled procedure and that symbol indicating estimated or preliminary data was dropped. However, I don't know how controlled the procedure is; I would think a company such as DXO which do all the measurements and analysis in house can control the process to be more precisely the same for all cameras. But any measurement procedures over long term can be subject to human error and variability in conditions. I do believe each site make their best effort to provide valuable data.
Also it is good to remember that there are differences which are not measured by these procedures. For example the D800 strongly clips blacks at high ISO, leading to problems in its use for astrophotography (where averaging is commonly used to image faint objects). In the D810 this issue was greatly alleviated. This is discussed in Jim Kasson's blog in depth, it is worth reading. I remember also seeing comparisons that show that the D750 handles long exposures at high ISO really well, but I don't remember which web site it was. Some other cameras are reported to produce increased noise after being used for longer exposures.
I would not recommend using a single source of sensor data to make camera-buying decisions. Study multiple sources of information, and consider also the feature set, not just numerical data. For most people the feature set is probably more important than small differences in sensor image quality. And for those special applications where the differences in sensors do matter, one would be best off to test the cameras in the application itself to be sure.
Excellent response. You understand PhotonsToPhotos as well as DxOMark quite well.
-
Of course Bill trusts his own investigation more than DxO Mark; otherwise, why even have a website?
Trouble is, Bill's quote doesn't really square with his own disclaimer (which he himself puts in red): Preliminary data are actual measurements from raw files but not those taken under the usual controlled conditions.
One has to wonder why have an all-red disclaimer, and why the link to DxO, if he truly believes his results are better?
(I don't see DxO Mark presenting a similar red disclaimer or pointing to Bill's site as a better solution ... )
...
The red text only refers to data marked with a (p). I'll revise that wording to avoid confusion in the future.
Since DxOMark tests more cameras than PhotonsToPhotos the link to DxOMark derived data is there in case the camera(s) you seek aren't on the Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) page.
PDR, when available, is always preferred to the DxOMark measurements.
-
@Bill Claaf: We did see now that the D750 is still the low ISO champion in PDR. Now my question is: Why is that so?
-
@Bill Claff: We did see now that the D750 is still the low ISO champion in PDR. ...
Braindead ... removed
-
According to PhotonsToPhotos Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm) that would be the Nikon D5 not the Nikon D750:
That chart shows D5 is best at HIGH ISO, not low ISO.
-
That chart shows D5 is best at HIGH ISO, not low ISO.
Aha! I misread as low light !!! :o
-
That chart shows D5 is best at HIGH ISO, not low ISO.
I see nine and a half stops PDR with the D5 at low ISO and next to twelve stops with the D750. A little less only with the D850 or D810. I am still impressed by the old Sony 24 MP Sensor!
-
@Bill Claff: We did see now that the D750 is still the low ISO champion in PDR. Now my question is: Why is that so?
I could ask you why would it not be so?
Perhaps improvements have gone into other areas such as increased resolution.
Not every new camera is going to have better low ISO PDR than every earlier camera.
-
According to PhotonsToPhotos Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D750,Nikon%20D850) that would be the Nikon D5 not the Nikon D750:
"According to PhotosToPhotons" ...
That's the key point, right there.
And, yes, as Jack points out, the thread topic is base ISO, not high ISO. (Everyone agrees the D5 is tops @ high ISO.)
My point I suppose is, according to everyone else (including the manufacturer), the D850 is the low ISO champ ... yet PhotosToPhotons appears to indicate otherwise.
Why do you suppose the PTP graph is in conflict with the findings of every other resource, including Nikon's own specs/advertising?
It is more difficult for me to accept that DxO, and Nikon itself, are mistaken .... than it is to believe 'your graph' showing the D750 (a mid-level camera, introduced in 2014) to be correct that this old camera offers the finest base ISO offering today.
IMO, because no one else sees it that way, including the designers (who know more than anyone), there has to be some flaw in your method, or in the graph display reflecting it.
Believing 'everyone else' (including Nikon) to be mistaken is not reasonable IMO.
-
Braindead ... removed
Aha! I misread as low light !!! :o
My respectful suggestion is there is some other 'miss' going on ... to have the original thread topic ("the D750 is the low light champ") be correct in the PTP graph.
I don't think everyone else has been wrong all these years about the D810 holding that distinction, or of the D850 holding it now.
Nikon itself would not have missed this fact, that the D750 was 'the champ,' as the creator and designer of both ... if indeed it was a fact ... rather than a mistake on a graph.
-
We are in fact approaching an interesting point here: the validity of testing methods against other testing methods.
I am not expert enmough to judge the one or the other,
@JKoerner, as an investigator you might want to share your "all other sources" quoting links to these other sources.
I have seen DXO, who claim a significant lead and see the measured D850 performance as the best they have ever seen in their lab...
Who else is there with open spec testing?
-
"According to PhotosToPhotons" ...
That's the key point, right there.
...
My point I suppose is, according to everyone else (including the manufacturer), the D850 is the low ISO champ ... yet PhotosToPhotons appears to indicate otherwise.
Why do you suppose the PTP graph is in conflict with the findings of every other resource, including Nikon's own specs/advertising?
It is more difficult for me to accept that DxO, and Nikon itself, are mistaken .... than it is to believe 'your graph' showing the D750 (a mid-level camera, introduced in 2014) to be correct that this old camera offers the finest base ISO offering today.
IMO, because no one else sees it that way, including the designers (who know more than anyone), there has to be some flaw in your method, or in the graph display reflecting it.
Believing 'everyone else' (including Nikon) to be mistaken is not reasonable IMO.
Regarding Nikon's claim. I think you'll find it vague regarding dynamic range.
Most people I know interpret their claim to be for out of the camera JPEgs which is believable given improvements in the JPEG engine.
Regarding DxOMark. I have always contended that their Landscape score is flawed and that Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) is a better measure.
It's clear that you don't agree.
The underlying reason is that their score is entirely based on read noise whereas PDR incorporates Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR).
I'm going to attach a zoomed in portion of the PhotonsToPhotos Photographic Dynamic Range versus DxOMark Landscape Dynamic Range (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Landscape_scatter.htm) scatter chart.
(You need to follow the link to hover over points to see actual values.)
Note that along the y-axis, DxOMark, the highest values are the D810 and D850 (at 14.8 )
Note also that the next highest according to DxOMark is the D7200 (at 14.6) ahead of the other 5 FX cameras shown.
This seems obviously wrong and is because of their reliance solely on read noise.
Note that on the x-axis, PhotonsToPhotos, the highest value is the D750 (at 11.82) followed by the D850 (at 11.63).
The D7200 trails behind all 7 of the FX cameras; as you would expect.
There's no "shame" in the D850 coming in 2nd in maximum PDR.
The D850 is awesome technology at a higher resolution and frame rate than the D750.
FWIW, I'd be happy to hear from someone with a D750 to gather an additional set of PDR data to eliminate sample variation or measurement error.
-
What kind of a target is used for PDR determination? DXO use ND filters in their noise measurements to ensure homogeneity.
https://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/DxOMark-testing-protocols/Noise-dynamic-range
They define the dynamic range to be the difference between maximum luminosity and the luminosity that gives SNR = 1. I would think it's exceedingly difficult to achieve accurate characterisation of noise in the darkest shadows without a highly controlled measurement setup.
Targets and measurement conditions could easily result in different results.
D810 and D850 don't quite match the expected DR at ISO 64 (coming down from high ISO the DR improvement slows down at the lowest ISO); my guess is that the 14-bit ADC might not be good enough to get the expected improvement at such low ISO setting. The D7200 could be simply a better implementation as its dynamic range follows a more linear curve as a function of ISO. Maybe the larger sensor generates more heat?
-
Regarding Nikon's claim. I think you'll find it vague regarding dynamic range.
Most people I know interpret their claim to be for out of the camera JPEgs which is believable given improvements in the JPEG engine.
Regarding DxOMark. I have always contended that their Landscape score is flawed and that Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) is a better measure.
It's clear that you don't agree.
The underlying reason is that their score is entirely based on read noise whereas PDR incorporates Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR).
I'm going to attach a zoomed in portion of the PhotonsToPhotos Photographic Dynamic Range versus DxOMark Landscape Dynamic Range (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Landscape_scatter.htm) scatter chart.
(You need to follow the link to hover over points to see actual values.)
Note that along the y-axis, DxOMark, the highest values are the D810 and D850 (at 14.8 )
Note also that the next highest according to DxOMark is the D7200 (at 14.6) ahead of the other 5 FX cameras shown.
This seems obviously wrong and is because of their reliance solely on read noise.
Note that on the x-axis, PhotonsToPhotos, the highest value is the D750 (at 11.82) followed by the D850 (at 11.63).
The D7200 trails behind all 7 of the FX cameras; as you would expect.
There's no "shame" in the D850 coming in 2nd in maximum PDR.
The D850 is awesome technology at a higher resolution and frame rate than the D750.
FWIW, I'd be happy to hear from someone with a D750 to gather an additional set of PDR data to eliminate sample variation or measurement error.
I very much appreciate your time and explanation.
Unfortunately, my own knowledge is too limited say, "I agree," or to point out errors in the thought process.
I do agree there is no "shame" in any of these cameras (they're all excellent), but I just can't shake the feeling that 1) no one else seems to agree that the D750 is tops, 2) Nikon would know this, if it were true, and 3) they would position/advertise the D750 differently if in fact this were the truth.
I sure would like the last sentence of your post to happen, with both cameras being tested/evaluated under identical conditions. Might help clarify the confusion.
Cheers.
-
Thank you Bill, very illuminating.
I did never own a D750, only had her as a loan. Did not like her sound and I am a very acoustically sensitive person. It was so "snappy". I did also not like the ergonomics, it felt "plasticky".
So I kept my D600 until I replaced her with the D850. I can help you with more of the controlled shots to your specs from the D850 if you want though.
On the other hand we have lots of people with D750 here, someone might be interested to help you.
-
We are in fact approaching an interesting point here: the validity of testing methods against other testing methods.
Absolutely agree.
There is a difference between 'claims' and facts.
One method-user 'claims' his methods are better than others doesn't necessarily make this a fact.
I am not expert enmough to judge the one or the other,
Unfortunately, me either.
@JKoerner, as an investigator you might want to share your "all other sources" quoting links to these other sources.
I have seen DXO, who claim a significant lead and see the measured D850 performance as the best they have ever seen in their lab...
Who else is there with open spec testing?
Well, there aren't a lot of sources about the D850 right now, but it was almost universal that the D810 offered the best Base ISO performance ... from DxO, to DPReview, to SenScore, etc.
As far as I know, only DxO and PTP offer graphs, which are similar, with the extreme figures at Base ISO being a bit different.
Eventually, SenScore will chime-in.
Lloyd Chambers gave "an impression" in favor of the D850, but "his impression" isn't measured testing.
However, most compelling to me is the fact Nikon pushed its own D810 (and, now, D850) forward as Nikon's own champion.
This cannot be overlooked IMO. It's one thing to have some skills in trying to "measure the results of others"; it's quite another to have the skills to design, and the means to produce the best sensors in the world (at both Base ISO and high ISO).
The fact Nikon can do both ... and positions its own D810 and (now) D850 as the uttermost of its own Base ISO technology, basing its 100 year celebration on the latter ... I just refuse to believe Nikon itself doesn't know "which end it up" with regard to its own cutting-edge technology in both directions.
For example, Nikon advertises/prices the D500 has having great AF tech, significant fps, and very good high-iso ability ... but not as good as the D5 (in anything).
Nikon also positions its own D750 (which, by every other measure, besides PTP) ranks second, behind the D5 in high ISO, behind the D810 in base ISO, but is a good "middle ground" between the two (better high ISO than the D810, better base ISO than the D5) but beating none of them in the extremes. The D750 is priced/positioned/spec'd as a very good mid-FX Nikon.
These facts, prices, and commercial placement by Nikon are not 'by accident'; they are by design.
With everyone else echoing this sentiment, and with Nikon itself (in both its price and placement of the D750), I just find it difficult to accept "the one" guy standing alone, offering a graph which shows the D750 offers better base ISO performance than Nikon's own flagship, Centennial champion.
My own experience, as an investigator for both civil and criminal litigation (but, admittedly, not an engineer) defaults back on what the proverbial "reasonable man" would conclude.
IMO, it is not reasonable to believe everyone else's conclusion is incorrect, except Bill's, including the multi-billion dollar Nikon Corporation, who makes all of these items ... and markets/positions each product according to their capabilities.
In the end, I do not believe Nikon 'accidentally' made the D750 with a better base ISO rank than the D810/D850, nor did they do so on purpose.
Based on all other evidence, I believe Bill's graph/placement is somehow flawed.
-
@JKoerner: Look at the astonishing career of Jim Lovelock in the atmosphere science department. He stood alone, he held his ground and he proved text books wrong. The Montreal protocol of 1984 reflected his success. Similar things seem to happen today in the gravitational science community. Only time will tell if the granting of the Nobel price was one big mistake or spot on.
So: I understand your train of thought on common wisdom and plausibility, but proof that is not.
-
@JKoerner: Look at the astonishing career of Jim Lovelock in the atmosphere science department. He stood alone, he held his ground and he proved text books wrong. The Montreal protocol of 1984 reflected his success. Similar things seem to happen today in the gravitational science community. Only time will tell if the granting of the Nobel price was one big mistake or spot on.
So: I understand your train of thought on common wisdom and plausibility, but proof that is not.
There are always exciting exceptions, true.
But Nikon itself having the power to both design, and produce, all the cameras in question ... ranking/placing/pricing them accordingly ... is a lot more powerful evidence than the ability to design a data site.
As I mentioned in the first page, it all boils down what we choose to believe: the mountain of evidence or the molehill.
In civil law, all one needs to prove his case is "a preponderance of evidence" (51%).
In criminal law, all one needs to prove his case is, "beyond a reasonable doubt."
While "it is possible" everyone else is wrong, and PTP is correct, in no evidentiary system is there a requirement to prove "beyond a possible doubt."
The "preponderance of evidence" and the "reasonable conclusion" both suggest that Nikon designed/placed the D750 to be a solid, middle-ground FX camera, but not the Champion of either base or high ISO capability.
Every other testing site seems to concur, except Bill's.
-
What kind of a target is used for PDR determination? DXO use ND filters in their noise measurements to ensure homogeneity.
https://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/DxOMark-testing-protocols/Noise-dynamic-range
They define the dynamic range to be the difference between maximum luminosity and the luminosity that gives SNR = 1. I would think it's exceedingly difficult to achieve accurate characterisation of noise in the darkest shadows without a highly controlled measurement setup.
Targets and measurement conditions could easily result in different results.
Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) uses a 77-step wedge.
The densities are not calibrated but this is not relevant because we're only taking Signal to Noise Ratios (SNRs) where SIgnal is measured in Digital Numbers (DNs).
FWIW, DxOMark uses read noise which is not SNR = 1 but actually SNR = 0; the Noise when Signal is zero.
There are multiple ways to determine read noise and DxOMark doesn't actually disclose their method.
However, DxOMark Landscape scores cross-check quite well with independent read noise measurements (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm) like those at PhotonsToPhotos.
D810 and D850 don't quite match the expected DR at ISO 64 (coming down from high ISO the DR improvement slows down at the lowest ISO); my guess is that the 14-bit ADC might not be good enough to get the expected improvement at such low ISO setting.
No, 14-bits is sufficient for those cameras.
Note in the attached Read Noise chart (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Nikon%20D810_14,Nikon%20D850_14) that the y-axis is logarithmic. Read noise for both cameras is about 1.2 14-bit DN.
You don't need additional bits until this drops below about 0.7DN or so.
(Note dual conversion gain kicking in at ISO 400 for the D850.)
The D7200 could be simply a better implementation as its dynamic range follows a more linear curve as a function of ISO. Maybe the larger sensor generates more heat?
No. No reasonable normalized measure would put a camera with a significantly smaller sensor (DX) ahead of so many cameras with larger sensors (FX).
Ultimately the area of the sensor is the most significant factor.
The underlying problem is that DxOMark made a poor definition for the Landscape score.
-
Absolutely agree.
There is a difference between 'claims' and facts.
One method-user 'claims' his methods are better than others doesn't necessarily make this a fact.
There are good reasons, which I could detail (and have elsewhere); but I suspect you would ignore them because you can't rationalize the results.
...
As far as I know, only DxO and PTP offer graphs, which are similar, with the extreme figures at Base ISO being a bit different.
...
However, most compelling to me is the fact Nikon pushed its own D810 (and, now, D850) forward as Nikon's own champion.
...
Nikon also positions its own D750 (which, by every other measure, besides PTP) ranks second, behind the D5 in high ISO, behind the D810 in base ISO, but is a good "middle ground" between the two (better high ISO than the D810, better base ISO than the D5) but beating none of them in the extremes. The D750 is priced/positioned/spec'd as a very good mid-FX Nikon.
These facts, prices, and commercial placement by Nikon are not 'by accident'; they are by design.
With everyone else echoing this sentiment, and with Nikon itself (in both its price and placement of the D750), I just find it difficult to accept "the one" guy standing alone, offering a graph which shows the D750 offers better base ISO performance than Nikon's own flagship, Centennial champion.
My own experience, as an investigator for both civil and criminal litigation (but, admittedly, not an engineer) defaults back on what the proverbial "reasonable man" would conclude.
IMO, it is not reasonable to believe everyone else's conclusion is incorrect, except Bill's, including the multi-billion dollar Nikon Corporation, who makes all of these items ... and markets/positions each product according to their capabilities.
In the end, I do not believe Nikon 'accidentally' made the D750 with a better base ISO rank than the D810/D850, nor did they do so on purpose.
Based on all other evidence, I believe Bill's graph/placement is somehow flawed.
I have not seen any claim by Nikon that the dynamic range of the D850 is the best that it has to offer.
So the way I see it we're simply debating whether the DxOMark Landscape score of the PhotonsToPhotos Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) tells the "true" story.
I claim PDR is the superior measurement.
As I mention above there are sound technical reasons that PDR is a better measure.
They may be beyond the scope of a simple NikonGear post (and have been discussed at length at places like dpreview).
However, if this interests you then you must at least have a good grasp of the Photon Transfer Curve (PTC).
The inability to rationalize the results ("common man") does not invalidate them.
-
There are good reasons, which I could detail (and have elsewhere); but I suspect you would ignore them because you can't rationalize the results.
I don't necessarily ignore what you say ... I merely remain unconvinced by 'one guy' in the face of many saying the opposite.
I very much respect your time, effort, expertise, and passion for categorizing and attempting to 'make sense' out of all the different offerings ... I am just skeptical when your results differ from "everyone else's," including the manufacturer.
I have not seen any claim by Nikon that the dynamic range of the D850 is the best that it has to offer.
Then perhaps you should take a closer look. On the D810's product page (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/d810.html), Nikon directly says,
- "The D810 truly raises the bar for image quality and dynamic range. An all-new FX-format full-frame image sensor design—36.3-megapixels with no optical low-pass filter—is paired with Nikon's innovative EXPEED 4 image processing for flawless detail retention from snow white to pitch black, beautiful noise-free images from ISO 64 to ISO 12,800, an extremely wide dynamic range, flattering well-saturated skin tones and much more."
There is not a single mention of 'dynamic range' on the D750's product page (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/1543/d750.html) (which is odd, if your graph is correct, and it holds the highest spot).
This flagrant omission by Nikon of any DR reference on the D750 page only makes sense if your graph is in err ... and everyone else is correct ... namely that the D750 is not the DR champ.
Meanwhile, the D850's page (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/1585/d850.html) references the D810, as the previous benchmark, and indicates the D850 moves beyond in dynamic range (and other attributes):
- When Nikon introduced the D800 and D800E, it set a new benchmark for DSLR image quality and super high resolution photography that approached medium format. Now, five years later, Nikon proudly introduces the next evolution in high resolution DSLRs, a camera that allows photographers to capture fast action in 45.7 megapixels of brilliant resolution. With remarkable advancements across the board—sensor design, autofocus, dynamic range, sensitivity,
lower noise, wider dynamic range, subtle tonal and textural details, high-speed continuous shooting at approx. 9 fps
So the way I see it we're simply debating whether the DxOMark Landscape score of the PhotonsToPhotos Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) tells the "true" story.
I claim PDR is the superior measurement.
We're debating a lot more than you versus DxO; we're debating you versus DxO ... Nikon Corporation ... and virtually every other expert.
Your 'claim' of PDR being the superior measurement is not necessarily a fact.
Further, Nikon engineers have more resources and means with which to avail themselves (and ascertain/develop their own sensors) than any one man ... 'common' ... or with a degree. Nikon Corporation is filled with cutting edge scientists who have access to data and measuring devises you likely have never seen.
I simply don't believe Nikon has been missing a key fact about its own camera; rather, I simply believe your graph does not represent any fact, but is merely a mistake.
As I mention above there are sound technical reasons that PDR is a better measure.
They may be beyond the scope of a simple NikonGear post (and have been discussed at length at places like dpreview).
However, if this interests you then you must at least have a good grasp of the Photon Transfer Curve (PTC).
I humbly concede my technical expertise does not match your own (at least with respect to photons). However, one of the aspects of my own profession (of ~30 years) is to hire and vet "technical experts" for courtroom appearances. Accident recon experts, who measure everything from coefficients of friction, to velocity/impact, the integrity of steel/concrete, you name it. Degreed experts are hireable commodities ... and there is much disagreement, even among 'experts' ... and not all of them are going to be correct.
Celebrated PhDs have made mistakes, decorated surgeons have amputated the wrong legs, and anesthesiologists have killed patients with mis-calculated dosages. One thing I have learned is no one is above error.
Even the most distinguished experts are subject to cross-examination, can be 'bought,' sometimes don't have all the facts, and (in short) all have the potential to suffer the same 'room for doubt' as any other witness called upon to be put under the microscope of scrutiny.
Essentially, the sum and substance from your divergence from DxO, Nikon, and everyone else is, "(You) claim PDR (your method) is the superior measurement."
While it's true I don't have the technical expertise, in your particular field, to debate with you ... I do have a mountain of expertise in assessing evidence, vetting credibility, and determining witness strength (or weakness), including 'expert' witness testimony, by looking at all the evidence.
In this thread alone, we've witnessed several mistakes already (misreading, not really checking Nikon's statements, etc.)
Hey, we all make mistakes, it's not a big deal. (Although sometimes it can be ...)
IMO, ignoring a mountain of evidence in support of 'one man's position' isn't the way to bet.
The inability to rationalize the results ("common man") does not invalidate them.
It's not my inability to rationalize; it's my unwillingness to accept 'you' as the authority over all others, including the multi-billion dollar corporation who makes all the cameras in question.
I find the statistical probability of there being some mistake in your calculations as being higher, and more likely, than every other entity being in err in their collective findings.
My last $0.02
-
Please, this approach to discussion is counter-productive.
-
Please, this approach to discussion is counter-productive.
If I may ask; to whom is this addressed?
-
Sorry, should have made that point clearer: I responded to JKoerner.
Disagreement is welcome, personal attacks are not.
-
Dxomark define dynamic range like this:
”3. Dynamic Range
Dynamic range is defined as the ratio between the highest and lowest gray luminance a sensor can capture. However, the lowest gray luminance makes sense only if it is not drowned by noise, thus this lower boundary is defined as the gray luminance for which the SNR is larger than 1. The dynamic range is a ratio of gray luminance; it has no defined unit per se, but it can be expressed in Ev, or f-stops.”
-
Dxomark define dynamic range like this:
”3. Dynamic Range
Dynamic range is defined as the ratio between the highest and lowest gray luminance a sensor can capture. However, the lowest gray luminance makes sense only if it is not drowned by noise, thus this lower boundary is defined as the gray luminance for which the SNR is larger than 1. The dynamic range is a ratio of gray luminance; it has no defined unit per se, but it can be expressed in Ev, or f-stops.”
Sure, that's a common way of putting it.
But at SNR = 1 noise is very slightly higher than read noise because of the photon noise contributed by the signal.
So strictly speaking noise at SNR = 1 is not read noise; read noise is noise at SNR = 0.
I admit I'm being picky and we shouldn't labor the point. In practice the difference is not measurable.
BTW, the DxOMark reasoning (very common) also implies that we can't measure a signal that is lower than read noise; but we can.
-
So strictly speaking noise at SNR = 1 is not read noise; read noise is noise at SNR = 0.
In "common man's language" a signal-to-noise-ratio is lowest if signal cannot be distinguished from noise. Because SNR it is a "ratio" and both signal and noise are the same at the non distiction point, my mathematical reasoning would be:
same divided by same equals one
So SNR=1 is the point where signal is undistinguishable from noise.
*
@JKoerner: Right or Wrong is not opinion for people in Science.
Law is about one Opinion prevailing over another, be it by the better argument or any other force like managing formalities and external conditions... Right, Wrong or Justice are only of rhethoric interest.
If we talk about measuring methods we talk about science, not opinion.
-
If we talk about measuring methods we talk about science, not opinion.
@Frank;
Wrong: law is about the sum total of factual evidence of one side prevailing over that which can be vetted/produced by another.
"Right" or "wrong" are moral considerations ... while "correct" or "incorrect" factual ones.
In science, if we are considering the veracity of "measurements," then we also need to scrutinize the tools used to measure ... the samples measured with the tools ... and the expertise of those running the test.
A peripheral expert, with so-so tools, and one sample, will not necessarily derive the same conclusions as a lifetime expert, with the best possible funding/tools available, multiple samplings measured ... to speak nothing of the engineering expertise to design all samples considered.
@Bill;
Thanks for reaching out by PM ... and smiling at your "expert witness" appearance in court :D
Please don't take anything I have said as a personal attack. I have only expressed healthy skepticism/scrutiny.
I do have your site bookmarked, and I very much appreciate your contributions, as I have tried to preface my agnosticism in certain instances :)
Cheers,
-
In "common man's language" a signal-to-noise-ratio is lowest if signal cannot be distinguished from noise. Because SNR it is a "ratio" and both signal and noise are the same at the non distinction point, my mathematical reasoning would be:
same divided by same equals one
So SNR=1 is the point where signal is indistinguishable from noise.
...
I understand your reasoning and it's a very common misconception ("common man" language versus technical distinction).
The fact is you can measure a signal that is below read noise; so it is distinguishable.
In any case, any non-zero signal will have photon noise in addition to read noise therefore noise at SNR = 1 is greater than read noise.
However, as I said, in practice it is of no consequence.
-
@Bill;
Thanks for reaching out by PM ... and smiling at your "expert witness" appearance in court :D
Please don't take anything I have said as a personal attack. I have only expressed healthy skepticism/scrutiny.
I do have your site bookmarked, and I very much appreciate your contributions, as I have tried to preface my agnosticism in certain instances :)
Cheers,
I don't feel attacked but do understand the desire for decorum which is why I took our conversation offline.
I would like to risk adding (not intending to cause a new disagreement) that the preponderance of evidence may apply in legal matters but it's not compelling in a scientific discussion.
-
Hoo boy. This is really getting down to some pretty fine details. In reviewing the differences between the D850 and D750 at DxO.com the differences seem pretty minute. DxO displays the data two ways: screen (100% zoom analysis) and print (8mp 300 dpi 8x12 print analysis). The screen results very slightly favor the D750, and the print results very slightly favor the D850. Honestly, when looking at these results it seems to me that not much has changed by way of sensor performance since 2012 when the D600 and D800 were released, and when selecting the D600 and D800 on DxO they perform similar to the D750 and D810 in relation to the D850. All these sensors make great images, and the small differences on these line charts seem unlikely to manifest as any noticeable difference probably 99% of the time. But hey, I understand if that 1% matters to you, that might be the zone you really need. In an infinitesimal way the D850 is the best sensor built to date, heck...it's the newest. The D750 in my estimation "competes well" because it has larger pixels, although I have no clue why the D5 does not have similar dynamic range results at the lower ISO's. At this point we're pretty fortunate as we can choose the camera that has the features and handling we enjoy since we don't really need to worry about the sensor quality anymore. In my estimation, the advantages of the D850 reside in all the features it is loaded with more than anything else, but sure, that 46mp sensor is nothing to sneeze at.
One area on the DxO measurements where the D850 has a more significant advantage over the D750 is the Color Sensitivity at low ISO's for Print. Everything else seems very close to my eyes. I think Frank mentioned something about the color rendition of the D850 being superior to anything he's seen, and the DxO test on color sensitivity would support that statement.
:)
And to be honest, I am reticent to submit this post as I have only used a D750 and D7100/D5300. I'm just looking at line charts and going from that. But the charts do seem consistent in methodology over time, and that's about the best that can be hoped for in this case. None of these line charts reflect what it must be like to get out and actually shoot with the camera, that's for sure. And how we enjoy a camera is a personal and subjective decision, I try to go for what is comfortable and fun, and well....affordable for me, so I'm grateful for the quality of the sensors across the Nikon FX camera line, very much so.
-
preponderance of evidence may apply in legal matters but it's not compelling in a scientific discussion.
It isn't?
The entire concept of "peer reviewed" findings is predicated on the concept of "a preponderance of evidence," is it not? :)
The more samplings, the more consistent the results, and the more peers who agree, the quicker a hypothesis is accepted as fact.
By contrast, the fewer samplings, the more disparity in results, and the greater number of disagreement among peers, the less likely a hypothesis is going to be accepted as fact ;)
-
It isn't?
The entire concept of "peer reviewed" findings is predicated on the concept of "a preponderance of evidence," is it not? :)
The more samplings, the more consistent the results, and the more peers who agree, the quicker a hypothesis is accepted as fact.
By contrast, the fewer samplings, more disparity in results, and the greater number of disagreement among peers, the less likely the hypothesis is correct ;)
Science is not a democracy. The preponderance of peer opinion doesn't determine fact.
Peer review is important and you might be surprised at how many of my peers have reviewed and agree with my work.
(I actively seek these people out in private.)
Regarding this subject you are not a peer, nor is the Nikon marketing department.
In back channels that I cannot disclose I have no negative feedback from any camera company engineering department regarding my results.
I accept that you think my approach is wrong. Further discussion here will not be fruitful. Respond to my PM if you really want to go further.
-
It isn't?
The entire concept of "peer reviewed" findings is predicated on the concept of "a preponderance of evidence," is it not? :)
The more samplings, the more consistent the results, and the more peers who agree, the quicker a hypothesis is accepted as fact.
By contrast, the fewer samplings, the more disparity in results, and the greater number of disagreement among peers, the less likely a hypothesis is going to be accepted as fact ;)
How many noes do you want? There is much in natural philosophy to which there is no legitimate remedy despite [any] "preponderance of evidence", contra proferentem. For one, I find the Scottish conclusion, verdict "not proven" delightfully refreshing as it is infuriating. Cheers!
-
May I insert my foot into my mouth?
It seems to me that the difference in DR is small and RAW files pliable enough in post processing that differences can be accommodated provided a single channel is not blow out or clipped hard.
I've seen red flowers where the red channel is blown out and obvious on my computer display but not camera LCD and a while back I was shooting bees on lavender and decided I should check the blue channel and yes it was blow out. The blinkies in white don't hint of either problem. This was a D800.
I would be dissatisfied with the control set of a D750 so I'd prefer a D8XXx, any one, to the D750. A slight low ISO advantage cannot change this.
The viewfinder, AF and tilting LCD of the D850 has me foaming at the mouth.
Dave Hartman
-
... that differences can be accommodated provided a single channel is not blow out or clipped hard.
I've seen red flowers where the red channel is blown out and obvious on my computer display but not camera LCD and a while back I was shooting bees on lavender and decided I should check the blue channel and yes it was blow out. The blinkies in white don't hint of either problem. This was a D800.
...
Yeah, Highlights is unreliable which is why I have my Nikons set for RGB histogram.
Flowers (don't forget yellow ) often need negative exposure compensation.
Regards,
-
Yeah, Highlights is unreliable which is why I have my Nikons set for RGB histogram.
Flowers (don't forget yellow ) often need negative exposure compensation.
Regards,
I suggested an overflow counter or a rate counter long ago. Then there is no maxing out, the PDR has no limit. I wanted to patent this ten years ago, but Kodak was faster: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6069377.html
-
May I insert my foot into my mouth?
It seems to me that the difference in DR is small and RAW files pliable enough in post processing that differences can be accommodated provided a single channel is not blow out or clipped hard.
I've seen red flowers where the red channel is blown out and obvious on my computer display but not camera LCD and a while back I was shooting bees on lavender and decided I should check the blue channel and yes it was blow out. The blinkies in white don't hint of either problem. This was a D800.
I would be dissatisfied with the control set of a D750 so I'd prefer a D8XXx, any one, to the D750. A slight low ISO advantage cannot change this.
The viewfinder, AF and tilting LCD of the D850 has me foaming at the mouth.
Dave Hartman
I agree with David. The sensors are all terrific and in my opinion have been since around 2012. The good news as a result of these fabulous sensors is we can rather choose the camera we have the most comfort and fun with and which has the features that cause us to foam at the mouth. And good point regarding the processing of the files since whenever the image rendered by the camera somehow "falls short" of our objective we can most likely square things away on the computer. I'm primarily a JPEG guy (i.e. happy snapper retired hobbyist guy) and for the most part am happy with the rendering of the camera's JPEG files, although I shoot RAW/JPEG just in case I need the pliability that David alludes to, a rare occurrence, but kind of cool to have the RAW file, it's like an insurance policy of sorts. And finally, the histogram doesn't lie, I love that feature.
-
I understand your reasoning and it's a very common misconception ("common man" language versus technical distinction).
The fact is you can measure a signal that is below read noise; so it is distinguishable.
In any case, any non-zero signal will have photon noise in addition to read noise therefore noise at SNR = 1 is greater than read noise.
However, as I said, in practice it is of no consequence.
A nice illustration of this concept, by Jim Kasson, can be seen here:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/detectability-of-visual-signals-below-the-noise-part-2/
Regards,
Richard
-
Science is not a democracy. The preponderance of peer opinion doesn't determine fact.
Very disappointed in the word twisting, Bill (either that, or I wasn't clear):
I never said science was a democracy nor did I say facts were a preponderance of peer 'opinion.'
What I said was, a preponderance of evidence, consistently obtaining, when tested amongst qualified peers, is what determine accepted scientific fact.
Peer review is important and you might be surprised at how many of my peers have reviewed and agree with my work.
(I actively seek these people out in private.)
This is expected and important, and is pretty much what I said.
Essentially, you're agreeing with my point: scientific fact is based on a preponderance of evidence reliably and consistently obtaining, after being independently-measured/confirmed by qualified peers.
By contrast, 'one guy' claiming results, with no disclosure as to method, and with no accepted peer review, does not translate to scientific fact. It begs for controlled scrutiny.
My point was, only after accepted peer review do hypotheses/theories become accepted as fact. In essence you're agreeing with me.
Another difference is, true science offers published results, not 'private, undisclosed affirmations.'
Bill, I know several scientists, and my photos have been used in published 'new species' descriptions.
When that happens, when new species are described, and accepted, it does not occur via 'private discussion/approval,' but through published, publicly-documented, peer-reviewed disclosure.
Regarding this subject you are not a peer, nor is the Nikon marketing department.
True. However, I stated my agnosticism came (not from my own expertise) but from the fact there *are* peers of yours who reach different conclusions (DxO), which produce differing results.
And, while Nikon's marketing department may not be your peers, they likely get their marketing info from Nikon's engineers, who are your peers, and likely quite a bit more, in various important areas.
I looked up your CV; you're a highly-educated software developer, not a sensor developer. My brother is a software developer (financial loan calculations, to be exact.) So I understand "proof of concept," etc.
I also understand that two different software developers can create different solutions to the same problem, and one developer will likely develop a cleaner solution than the other.
(This applies to antivirus software, or whatever.)
This brings us back to the point: differing results among peers.
In back channels that I cannot disclose I have no negative feedback from any camera company engineering department regarding my results.
Fair enough, I have no way to know.
In the end, though, published, affirming feedback is what's important ... not a claimed 'private, lack of negative' feedback.
I accept that you think my approach is wrong.
Another misrepresentation.
I am not qualified to debate your approach. I said that back in the beginning.
What I said was, I am unconvinced of "a finding" ... a single graph result ... not of you (or of your whole approach).
That you are the only entity (of whom I am aware) placing the D750 at 'the DR pinnacle,' is what prompted me to question that single graph result, nothing more.
It's very simple: if Nikon corporation fronted the D750 as its finest DR entry, and if DxO Mark concurred with your findings, lauding the D750 in its #1 DR spot ... then we wouldn't be having this discussion ... as your graph result would be universally-accepted.
However, when Nikon downplays its own D750, offering the D850 as its finest DR entry, and with DxO lauding the D850 as "the first, ever" DSLR to reach a new milestone ... pushing the D750 down to #11 in their ranking ... then I think it is reasonable for me (or anyone) to doubt your 'stand alone' result. I do not have to be your mathematical or software engineering peer to notice this discrepancy. Anymore than I have to be an accident recon specialist to accept, or reject, a potential expert witness as a candidate.
You admitted long ago sampling err is possible and that a re-test would be reasonable.
Your results, in this instance, are not universally-understood or accepted by all your peers.
Further discussion here will not be fruitful. Respond to my PM if you really want to go further.
I agree and I don't.
The issue is ultimately trivial, and my apologies if anything said above was unclear.
-
A nice illustration of this concept, by Jim Kasson, can be seen here:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/detectability-of-visual-signals-below-the-noise-part-2/
Jim does great work and is one of the peers I consult.
He has also replicated my PDR work particularly for Sony cameras.
Regards,
-
@Bill: Very helpful thread for people interested more deeply in these questions. Thank you!
-
What I said was, a preponderance of evidence, consistently obtaining, when tested amongst qualified peers, is what determine accepted scientific fact.
...
And, while Nikon's marketing department may not be your peers, they likely get their marketing info from Nikon's engineers, who are your peers, and likely quite a bit more, in various important areas.
I don't accept your "chain of evidence" in assuming that Nikon marketing correctly conveys information from Nikon engineering.
FWIW, I used to write published articles and I can't tell you how many times editors tried to improve my wording but changed the meaning so I would have to explain to them why they needed to retain the original wording.
With marketing material there are multiple points at which things can get lost in the translation.
I looked up your CV; you're a highly-educated software developer, not a sensor developer...
I never claim to be a sensor developer; but I have been analyzing sensors for over 10 years (longer than DxOMark has existed).
...
I am not qualified to debate your approach. I said that back in the beginning.
What I said was, I am unconvinced of "a finding" ... a single graph result ... not of you (or of your whole approach).
That you are the only entity (of whom I am aware) placing the D750 at 'the DR pinnacle,' is what prompted me to question that single graph result, nothing more.
It's very simple: if Nikon corporation fronted the D750 as its finest DR entry, and if DxO Mark concurred with your findings, lauding the D750 in its #1 DR spot ... then we wouldn't be having this discussion ... as your graph result would be universally-accepted.
...
I take this to be "only" one of two since I don't accept your Nikon marketing "evidence" but only actual measurements as evidence.
You admitted long ago sampling err is possible and that a re-test would be reasonable.
...
The issue is ultimately trivial, and my apologies if anything said above was unclear.
The issue is becoming clearer and the underlying data issue is not trivial.
Regarding the D750 I am collecting additional data.
Initial indications are that the D750 PDR (as currently published) is in fact too high (!)
I see an anomaly in the initial data collection that went undetected.
I'm surprised because normally bad input data produces obviously wrong (usually quite low) results.
If the new results hold up then it will be the first time ever that bad input data produced unnaturally high PDR values.
So, with respect to the initial topic of the thread, your observation may be born out.
However, I stand by my assertion that PDR is a better measure than DxOMark Landscape score.
And I stand by my methodology regardless of any human error that might affect a specific result.
-
Here is the comparison D750 vs D850 when it comes to PDR:
New D750 Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) data has been collected and published which I discuss at length elsewhere (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4214225).
As it turns out the D750 comes up 0.14 stops short of retaining the crown of "low ISO champion".
I'm attaching a new PDR comparison (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D750,Nikon%20D850).
Although no longer the "champ" the D750 still acquits itself quite well; particularly below ISO 400 before dual conversion gain kicks in for the D850.
-
I have been using a d750 this weekend for still and video. Very very good low light performance from this camera is no surprise. In Spain you can get one used for little more than a 1000€ and that is an amazing IQ for the price. 24 mpx it is also a sweet spot for my type of photography. Not the perfect tool but in that light -pun intended- 0.1 steps less at low iso is negligible; and as good if not better in the higher sensitivities. Just to put this thread in some personal perspective.
I do lust for a d850 for speed, focus and silent shutter applications.
-
Very interesting unexpected turn of events.
As concluded before there is only infinitesimal advancement in the field of PDR since the D600/D800/800E appeared.
To remind everyone: there are major advancements in color fidelity and consistency over a wide range of lighting and ISO and in the field of autofocus.
-
New D750 Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) data has been collected and published which I discuss at length elsewhere (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4214225).
As it turns out the D750 comes up 0.14 stops short of retaining the crown of "low ISO champion".
I'm attaching a new PDR comparison (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D750,Nikon%20D850).
Although no longer the "champ" the D750 still acquits itself quite well; particularly below ISO 400 before dual conversion gain kicks in for the D850.
Didn't Wheeler Dealer, "The Man With A Tattoo" predict some of this regarding the D850?
Dave
---
According to Photons to Photos my D800 has better DR at 100 to 320 ISO...
Photons to Photos: D800 v. D810 v. D850 (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D800,Nikon%20D810,Nikon%20D850)
Who wants to *trade? I'll pay the postage both ways!
Dave Hartman
*A New in the box D850 for my D800 with 30,000 clicks. :D
-
Interesting implications with different RAW parameters in the D850
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_D850.htm#Nikon%20D850(12lossy),Nikon%20D850(12RawM),Nikon%20D850(12RawS),Nikon%20D850(14),Nikon%20D850(14es),Nikon%20D850(14lossy)
https://nikonrumors.com/2017/10/16/photonstophotos-published-new-nikon-d850-tests-results-for-different-raw-options.aspx/
-
Now that gets more interesting the longer the thread lasts.
I appreciate Bill's effort very much. Real science means not to stop until you have got the answer or know why the question cannot be answered
-
I don't accept your "chain of evidence" in assuming that Nikon marketing correctly conveys information from Nikon engineering.
FWIW, I used to write published articles and I can't tell you how many times editors tried to improve my wording but changed the meaning so I would have to explain to them why they needed to retain the original wording.
That's fine; we disagree.
My position was Nikon does not produce their sensors 'by accident.' My scrutiny was based on common sense: the fact Nikon knows exactly what they're trying to produce ... and price/position them accordingly.
What I didn't accept was the idea that Nikon 'accidentally' made the D750 sensor superior to the D850. I knew there had to be a mistake in your graph.
Regarding wording, it is easy to digress to a further tangled mess by arguing points (through word manipulation) that were never actually said (or implied) to begin with.
With marketing material there are multiple points at which things can get lost in the translation. I never claim to be a sensor developer; but I have been analyzing sensors for over 10 years (longer than DxOMark has existed).I take this to be "only" one of two since I don't accept your Nikon marketing "evidence" but only actual measurements as evidence.The issue is becoming clearer and the underlying data issue is not trivial.
Regarding the D750 I am collecting additional data.
Again, it's not a matter of 'marketing language,' but of the entire intent of Nikon corporation to develop, position, and price certain cameras based on certain capabilities. It was not 'reasonable' to believe a massive corporate oversight on the part of Nikon 'not knowing' which sensor was their finest; it was more reasonable to believe there was merely a graph anomaly on your website.
Initial indications are that the D750 PDR (as currently published) is in fact too high (!)
I see an anomaly in the initial data collection that went undetected.
I'm surprised because normally bad input data produces obviously wrong (usually quite low) results.
If the new results hold up then it will be the first time ever that bad input data produced unnaturally high PDR values.
As was suspected all along ... the initial result just didn't make sense.
So, with respect to the initial topic of the thread, your observation may be born out.
However, I stand by my assertion that PDR is a better measure than DxOMark Landscape score.
And I stand by my methodology regardless of any human error that might affect a specific result.
Well, I appreciate the integrity to re-evaluate. I had no doubt this would be the outcome.
Again, there was never a slam on you, or your site, or your methods. Just scrutiny over a graph result which was in conflict with everything tested/known by others of merit. Anytime there is a discrepancy like that, scrutiny is called for.
At the end of the day, any- and everyone is subject to human error, regardless of education/position, etc.
If that were not the case, I couldn't be a casualty investigator ... looking into (often catastrophic) losses to determine liability ... if no one made mistakes.
And, yes, to me it is ultimately trivial ... "which sensor has the highest base ISO scores."
Compared to cases where structural engineers miscalculate, which result in fatalities, or massive property loss, I think this issue here can be put into perspective.
If highly-educated, cum laude persons didn't make mistakes, there wouldn't be such things as legal and medical malpractice, ENO (Errors and Omissions) coverage, where high-profile folks get put under the microscope, and found guilty of being in err.
Academic expertise does not preclude oversight/error/bad sampling, etc.
In fact, one of my favorite wry quotes is, "I am never wrong; once I thought I was wrong ... but I was mistaken."
__________________________________________
Very interesting unexpected turn of events.
Actually, it was not 'unexpected' at all ... in point of fact the anomaly was debated 5 pages worth ... until a re-exam bore out the the original call into question.
-
"I am never wrong; once I thought I was wrong ... but I was mistaken." Thank you for posting this quote JKoerner007 ;)
-
John, I wonder how you explain the fact that the D750 is slightly above the D810 in terms of PDR for most ISO values, despite the latter camera being marketed as the more advanced tool? Why was it an issue only in the case of the D850?
-
Didn't Wheeler Dealer, "The Man With A Tattoo" predict some of this regarding the D850?
Dave
---
According to Photons to Photos my D800 has better DR at 100 to 320 ISO...
Photons to Photos: D800 v. D810 v. D850 (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D800,Nikon%20D810,Nikon%20D850)
Who wants to *trade? I'll pay the postage both ways!
Dave Hartman
*A New in the box D850 for my D800 with 30,000 clicks. :D
There are likely many uncontrolled figures that could bear some closer scrutiny ...
-
"I am never wrong; once I thought I was wrong ... but I was mistaken." Thank you for posting this quote JKoerner007 ;)
:D
-
John, I wonder how you explain the fact that the D750 is slightly above the D810 in terms of PDR for most ISO values, despite the latter camera being marketed as the more advanced tool?
A rhetorical question. Why do you expect 'me' to explain something that has nothing to do with me?
Just to play along, my best answer is the D810 was designed for absolute excellence at base ISO ... while the D4/5 were designed for excellence at high ISO.
The D750 was designed not to occupy neither extreme ... but to be a very solid, economical middle ground. I have no problem accepting the D750 is a better value than either.
For this reason, the D750 is very solid across the board ... but not quite 'there' at either extreme. Again, this was not 'by accident,' but by design.
For this reason, if any lone graph showed the D750 DR as ranking higher than the D5 at extreme ISOs ... in defiance of all other reviewers/testers ... as well as Nikon's own price point, literature, and product placement ... I would similarly call that graph result into question. In exactly the same fashion as before, it just wouldn't make sense.
Remember, just because someone 'runs a test' and 'posts a graph' doesn't make the presentation correct.
Why was it an issue only in the case of the D850?
Because I never saw someone claim the D750 was "the low ISO champ" before ... until this thread.
Hope this clarifies.
-
A rhetorical question. Why do you expect 'me' to explain something that has nothing to do with me?
I ask you because you proposed the idea that PDR measurements should be correlated with pricing.
Whom should I ask instead?
Personally I don't believe that the pricing is a good guideline to predict how a given camera should perform in a PDR measurement (when it is correct).
Pricing is likely a function of many things, none of which may be directly related to PDR.
Even if Nikon did measure some metric which is strongly related to PDR and used it to price their cameras, they also likely would have a dozen other variables, like resolution, frame rate, build, number of buttons, viewfinder, etc. to determine pricing.
Since we do not know how they do it, it is impossible to predict how pricing correlates with PDR.
As for other reviewers/testers: you have to closely examine how and what they measure in order to come up with a prediction of whether it ought to correlate with PDR or not. They might measure something irrelevant or they might want to measure something relevant but with a flawed methodology. Many reviewers don't do any precise measurements at all, but only look at images by eye. As such, they are very prone to confirmation bias ('that camera has such a high price point, it has to test superior, so I'm not paying so much attention when it does').
Remember, just because someone 'runs a test' and 'posts a graph' doesn't make the presentation correct.
Correct, the presented data may be erroneous.
It was pure coincidence that the error in data analysis coincided with your pointing out a mismatch between PDR and pricing.
In fact, in any number of other camera comparisons (like the D810 and D750) you may also see a mismatch between PDR and pricing (hence my question above).
Are you suggesting that these measurements all suffer from the same error in data analysis?
-
Coincidence and causality are very hard to distinguish in real life phenomena over time. Not only in this case.
-
Personally I don't believe that the pricing is a good guideline to predict how a given camera should perform in a PDR measurement (when it is correct).
Pricing is likely a function of many things, none of which may be directly related to PDR.
Even if Nikon did measure some metric which is strongly related to PDR and used it to price their cameras, they also likely would have a dozen other variables, like resolution, frame rate, build, number of buttons, viewfinder, etc. to determine pricing.
Since we do not know how they do it, it is impossible to predict how pricing correlates with PDR.
It's not just pricing: it's pricing and intended placement.
When certain cameras which are priced and deliberately positioned and placed by a multi-billion-dollar corporation (at the top of its game/innovation) ... to perform certain functions (one a high-res, extreme base ISO, extreme quality single-image entry ... another an extremely fast-action, very high-ISO, extremely adept/functional entry ... and then a mid-level camera, somewhere inbetween, good, but not as good--and not as expensive--as either one) ... it's only reasonable to expect the performance values to follow.
When you see a company like Nikon price, position, and place a mid-level camera accordingly ... and when every other measurbator rates this mid-level camera where it belongs ... but one rates it as 'numero uno' ... it demands a second look.
Which is what happened here ... and common sense prevailed.
-
It's not just pricing: it's pricing and intended placement.
When certain cameras which are priced and deliberately positioned and placed by a multi-billion-dollar corporation (at the top of its game/innovation) ... to perform certain functions (one a high-res, extreme base ISO, extreme quality single-image entry ... another an extremely fast-action, very high-ISO, extremely adept/functional entry ... and then a mid-level camera, somewhere inbetween, good, but not as good--and not as expensive--as either one) ... it's only reasonable to expect the performance values to follow.
Yes, it might be reasonable to expect it, but as I said there are plenty of cases where the pattern does not hold.
This leads me to believe that it is less reasonable to expect this pattern to reoccur than to think there are many additional factors determining pricing.
You are of course free to think otherwise.
-
Yes, it might be reasonable to expect it, but as I said there are plenty of cases where the pattern does not hold.
Name one single case were a mid-range pro-sumer camera (from the same manufacturer) out-performs a contemporarily-released topnotch action camera at high ISO ... or a contemporary topnotch landscape camera at base ISO.
This leads me to believe that it is less reasonable to expect this pattern to reoccur than to think there are many additional factors determining pricing.
Your denial of reality leads me to believe that you are less than realistic.
You are of course free to think otherwise.
And I surely do.
-
Can it be demonstrated that Nikon or any camera maker purposely makes inferior sensors for a lower model?
I would think as a general rule the better performing sensor cost more to make and that is part of what makes a higher model cost more. Also the newest sensor has a good chance of better performance regardless of which camera it goes in. That is a sensor launched today has a good chance of outperforming one released four years ago.
It seems to me there are a lot of variables here to consider not just retail price.
Just thinking out loud...
Dave Hartman
-
Name one single case were a mid-range pro-sumer camera (from the same manufacturer) out-performs a contemporarily-released topnotch action camera at high ISO ... or a contemporary topnotch landscape camera at base ISO.
That's not what I said.
The pattern is not strong/consistent enough to be believable to me.
For example, the D800/D600, D810/D750, D850/D750, D3/D700 are all pairs of cameras that have virtually identical PDR (I don't regard differences less than half a stop really significant) at base ISO according to the measurements, but are marketed and priced very differently.
On the other hand, there is a steady and significant increase of that measure over time, although this is now coming to a halt as physical limits are approached.
This leads me to believe that PDR at base ISO is a function of current sensor technology primarily.
There are exceptions like the D3s, D4, and D5 where PDR at base ISO is sacrificed for something else, maybe speed or slightly better behavior at high ISOs.
But the D600/D750/D700 were not markedly different in base ISO PDR from what you call the top-notch cameras of their time.*
In order to conform to the correspondence between marketing and PDR, Nikon would have had to intentionally cripple their mid-line cameras.
I'm not sure how well that would have turned out.
Frankly, I'm not seeing the patterns that you see, but as I said: I don't mind you holding a different opinion.
* I'm not sure what the landscape camera of the D3/D700 times was. I think I've seen that term applied for the first time to the D3X, where you could argue that it was indeed marketed to be a landscape camera above all, with a premium price tag, and it did have markedly higher base ISO DR than all other cameras from Nikon. But since then, Nikon has consistently surprised us with more consumer-targeted cameras that in no significant way lagged behind the top-of-the-line models in terms of DR, which suggests that the D3X strategy was not deemed successful enough (but I can't see inside their brains either).
-
Here's a new dimension on top sensor performance. The cropped-MF sensor of the Hasselblad X1D compared against the Nikon D850 and Sony A7R II
https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-d850-sensor-review-first-dslr-hit-100-points-2/ (https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-d850-sensor-review-first-dslr-hit-100-points-2/)
"That said, while its image quality is up there with the best, it’s not significantly better than other super high-resolution full-frame sensors, such as the Nikon D850 DSLR or the Sony A7R II, except in low light."
Although the 'blad sensor possesses the superior edge especially in low light, I am very glad to have stuck with Nikon, and now committed to the D850 (after seriously considering MF for landscapes)
-
Here's a new dimension on top sensor performance. The cropped-MF sensor of the Hasselblad X1D compared against the Nikon D850 and Sony A7R II
https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-d850-sensor-review-first-dslr-hit-100-points-2/ (https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-d850-sensor-review-first-dslr-hit-100-points-2/)
"That said, while its image quality is up there with the best, it’s not significantly better than other super high-resolution full-frame sensors, such as the Nikon D850 DSLR or the Sony A7R II, except in low light."
Although the 'blad sensor possesses the superior edge especially in low light, I am very glad to have stuck with Nikon, and now committed to the D850 (after seriously considering MF for landscapes)
Not news to me at PhotonsToPhotos. See Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Hasselblad%20X1D-50c,Nikon%20D850,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2) ;)
-
[redacted]