NEW DATA Is the D750 still the low ISO champion???

[bclaff]

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.

[Frank Fremerey]

@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?

[bclaff]

@Bill Claff: We did see now that the D750 is still the low ISO champion in PDR. ...

Braindead ... removed

[Jack Dahlgren]

According to PhotonsToPhotos Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) that would be the Nikon D5 not the Nikon D750:

That chart shows D5 is best at HIGH ISO, not low ISO.

[bclaff]

That chart shows D5 is best at HIGH ISO, not low ISO.

Aha! I misread as low light !!! 

[Frank Fremerey]

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!

[bclaff]

@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.

[JKoerner007]

According to PhotonsToPhotos Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) 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.

[JKoerner007]

Braindead ... removed

Aha! I misread as low light !!! 

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.

[Frank Fremerey]

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?

[bclaff]

"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 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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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?

[JKoerner007]

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 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.

[Frank Fremerey]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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.