Dxo rate the nikon 3300 score as good as 1dxand5dmkiii

Dynamic range and colour depth are better (the latter only very marginally though) on the D3300. The Dxo score doesn't measure resolving power (neither through sensor size nor through pixel resolution) where the full frame would pull ahead, and if I remember correctly the noise performance is weighted according to sensor size - the Canon's are much better in low light (as is pretty much inherent with full frame vs APSC comparisons) but the Canon's are weighted against the mighty Nikon FF sensors while the D3300 is fighting Canon's prehistoric 18MP sensor.

TL;DR: The D3300 has a better APS-C sensor than the Canon's have full frame sensors, but the Canon's still have better sensors if you have to compare them.
 
There is no explicit penalty or benefit given to the FF OR APS-C sensor sizes. The scoring function is the same for all cameras, even compacts.
What does happen is the raw image is down sampled to 8th so sensors with different resolutions can be compared directly. This is equivalent to displaying or printing at the same size, which is what counts.

Canon sensors do poorly mostly because the ADC is quite poor and there is lots of shadow noise. This reduces the dynamic range. Whether DR is important depends on what you shoot, for landscapes it is critical, for portraits you care equally about high ISO (DR is still important, you want to make sure there is detail in the grooms suit while the brides dress is not clipped).

But yeah, there are some things the Dxo score doesn't tell you. Patterns in the noise, luminance vs colour noise, resolution.
 
Thankyou both ,fantastic explanations.
So IQ wise given similar lenses the d3300 leaves the canon 100d we'll behind accordingly then?
Saw a demo of a 3300 and the guy said the kit lens was only a 9MP lens on a 24MP sensor and was pointless buying unless you put a much better lens on.what would be a good lens to get the best out of that sensor,and do higher MP sensors cause some other problems(noise)? if not utilised fully?
Thanks
 
Last edited:
To get the most out of a 24th crop sensor you will need better glass. All depends what you shoot and what your budget is.

There are no direct downsides to having more resolution. Obviously the files use more disk space but that isn't an issue, HD are cheap. I have a new D800 with 36MPs, can't sat that the large files botherror me in any way. Seems just as quick to process as the 12th files I'm used to and since I purchased my 12th camera HD sizes have increased 5-8 times so relatively speaking the files with 38 the resolution are taking up less space percentage wise.


There used to be a slight noise disadvantage but that no longer applies. Look at the Dxo noise/is scores
 
Thanks Dp,what sort of lens would I be looking at to get the best from the sensor,shooting street and nature family,also this would have better IQ than equiv glass on the canon D100?
 
THC_SsSsSnake said:
Thanks Dp,what sort of lens would I be looking at to get the best from the sensor,shooting street and nature family,also this would have better IQ than equiv glass on the canon D100?
Click to expand...

Depends on budget. 16-85mm VR, 17-55m f/2.8, tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.

Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8would be my choice if budget allows and you don't need much telephoto work.
 
I'd take DxO with a pinch of salt. I see pictures from 1DIV/1DX and D3/D4 every day taken in all kinds of situations (flash/no flash, indoor/outdoor, sports and scene shots) and struggle to tell the difference after pp.
 
ok thanks for those suggestions ,so 3300 with decent glass be better idea than more expensive body aka 7000 and lesser glass i take it?
and And :) so Dxo were saying that the 3300 was just 1 point better score than those you mentioned but if you don't see a difference than that proves what they say is correct that this 3300 body versus those expensive really no difference.or were you saying something else.forgive me if I've misunderstood?
thanks
 
I'm saying I see pictures from both manufacturers' flagship DSLR bodies and after post processing I struggle to tell what system was used.

The single point you're talking about is dynamic range but the score is misleading as when you look at the measurements charts once you get past ISO400 the 1DX jumps ahead for the rest of the range. Same for colour sensitivity while tonal range and SNR favour the 1DX.

Like I said, pinch of salt.
 
Just to add, full frame sensors do not generally offer lower noise at the same light levels i.e light hitting the sensor. It's a bit of a myth.

At equivelent settings the sensors will perform in a similar manner.

Take a shot with a FF sensor at ISO200 and compare it to an ASPC sensor at ISO130 (ish) and you'll get similar noise levels.

Now at ISO100 on the FF sensor, the ASP-C sensor would need to drop to ISO60 to allow similar level of light to enter it. Manufacturers don't often provide this setting, so that's where you get the impression that FF sensors are less noisy.

It's a similar situations with DOF too.
 
englishpremier said:
Just to add, full frame sensors do not generally offer lower noise at the same light levels i.e light hitting the sensor. It's a bit of a myth.

At equivelent settings the sensors will perform in a similar manner.

Take a shot with a FF sensor at ISO200 and compare it to an ASPC sensor at ISO130 (ish) and you'll get similar noise levels.

Now at ISO100 on the FF sensor, the ASP-C sensor would need to drop to ISO60 to allow similar level of light to enter it. Manufacturers don't often provide this setting, so that's where you get the impression that FF sensors are less noisy.

It's a similar situations with DOF too.
Click to expand...

There is no myth going around. The full frame sensor is larger thus has more light falling on it, and requires less signal boosting to attain the same exposure index, thus there is less noise. That is pretty common knowledge.

The only relevant fact for a photographer is that he has less noise at the same ISO setting on a full frame compared to a crop.
 
Last edited:
englishpremier said:
With the same amount of light arriving at each sensor, they have similar noise levels.

What you are saying is correct, but so is what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

But what you are saying is a bit confusing because under regular shooting the FF will have more light hitting the sensor.

The only time this stops being true in practice is with long lenses where you quickly hit limits of reach/weight/cost so you tend to have to use a TC which costs a stop, have a smaller aperture long lens, or crop. Then the advantage of FF goes away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom