D810 DxOMark test score

typical DXOmark slight of hand...look closely, none of those cameras have a carry strap, or a lens mounted. I almost never take a picture without my strap and a lens.

Canon sensors are sad... so so sad.....

Don't forget, the D810's DR measurement is done from its base ISO of 64, vs the base ISO of 100 for the A7r and 5D3.

At an ISO of 100, the DR would be two-thirds of a stop lower, i.e. 14.1.

This is one reason medium-format sensors tend to do so well in DR measurements - a base ISO of 25 gives them a two-stop advantage in dynamic range, even before anything else is considered.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17058356
Don't forget, the D810's DR measurement is done from its base ISO of 64, vs the base ISO of 100 for the A7r and 5D3.

At an ISO of 100, the DR would be two-thirds of a stop lower, i.e. 14.1.

This is one reason medium-format sensors tend to do so well in DR measurements - a base ISO of 25 gives them a two-stop advantage in dynamic range, even before anything else is considered.

I looked at the chart, it's 14.36 at ISO100. Also, compare it to the Canon 6D, not the 5DIII. It's about a quarter stop better. In any case though, up to ISo 800 the D810 is still king and at lower ISo it's stunning.

J_TULLAR wrote in post #17058121
Canon sensors are sad... so so sad.....

I agree.

11.7 vs 14.8 is shameful!

If only it came with an EF mount.

rick_reno wrote in post #17058075
typical DXOmark slight of hand...look closely, none of those cameras have a carry strap, or a lens mounted. I almost never take a picture without my strap and a lens.

LOL. Nailed it.

Those cameras have big white rectangular holes right through them where the sensor should be!

J_TULLAR wrote in post #17058121
Canon sensors are sad... so so sad.....

Because now you can't take good photos with Canon sensors anymore. Sucks.

Numenorean wrote in post #17064092
Because now you can't take good photos with Canon sensors anymore. Sucks.

Some of us are always shooting and printing at the limit of technical capability. The limit for Nikon/Sony is a lot further out than that for Canon.

If you mostly make small prints of portraits or other non-taxing scenes, you'd never see the difference.

It's a bit like printers and gamut. A better printer has a wider gamut and is capable of reproducing a larger number of colours. If you print highly-saturated images with a wide tonal range, you'd get a lot of mileage out of a printer with a better gamut. But if all you print is desaturated, low-contrast images, you'd never see the difference.

Or like the difference between four-wheel drive systems on cars. If you regularly drive off-road, on steep, soft or other treacherous ground, you can see the advantage of a better system straight away. If all you do is drive on the highway, one system is as good as the next.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17064178
Some of us are always shooting and printing at the limit of technical capability. The limit for Nikon/Sony is a lot further out than that for Canon.

If you mostly make small prints of portraits or other non-taxing scenes, you'd never see the difference.

It's a bit like printers and gamut. A better printer has a wider gamut and is capable of reproducing a larger number of colours. If you print highly-saturated images with a wide tonal range, you'd get a lot of mileage out of a printer with a better gamut. But if all you print is desaturated, low-contrast images, you'd never see the difference.

Or like the difference between four-wheel drive systems on cars. If you regularly drive off-road, on steep, soft or other treacherous ground, you can see the advantage of a better system straight away. If all you do is drive on the highway, one system is as good as the next.

If you can't take the shot you need with a Canon it's likely not the cameras fault.

Numenorean wrote in post #17064229
If you can't take the shot you need with a Canon it's likely not the cameras fault.

But better equipment can make capturing that shot easier. From a portrait shooters perspective, I've found the increased dynamic range particularly useful when shooting with natural light. Provided you have soft, flattering natural light to work with (typical golden hour light), its pretty nice to be able to get a nice exposure on my subject, without blowing out the highlights in the background (ie the sky). The alternative would be to lug soft boxes and reflectors around to decrease the contrast between the subject and background. I'm finding that I need to rely on all that much less frequently now that I lean more heavily on my a7r for portrait work. Goes a very long way when shooting weddings, where schedules are tight, and i don't always have time to set a bunch of lighting equipment up.

mystik610 wrote in post #17064262
But better equipment can make capturing that shot easier. From a portrait shooters perspective, I've found the increased dynamic range particularly useful when shooting with natural light. Provided you have soft, flattering natural light to work with (typical golden hour light), its pretty nice to be able to get a nice exposure on my subject, without blowing out the highlights in the background (ie the sky). The alternative would be to lug soft boxes and reflectors around to decrease the contrast between the subject and background. I'm finding that I need to rely on all that much less frequently now that I lean more heavily on my a7r for portrait work. Goes a very long way when shooting weddings, where schedules are tight, and i don't always have time to set a bunch of lighting equipment up.

I just use an assistant with a flash on a monopod. Nothing to really setup and it's quick and easy.